Arecibo

[edauer]

A postscript to my previous post -- the SETI discussion titled "Radio
Astronomy: The End of Big Dishes? " is still available online at
https://www.seti.org/event/seti-talks-radio-astronomy-end-big-dishes.  

Another SETI event, which may even be this week or next, is a discussion of
the science and the background of the Parkes (Australia) dish, including a
showing of the movie "The Dish" about the Parkes' facility's role in the
Apollo 11 landing.

Ted, KN1CBR

Edward A. Dauer
[hidden email]

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 2:15 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: RE: Elecraft Digest, Vol 200, Issue 3

Just before the cable failures a few weeks ago SETI did a webinar on the
very subject.  What I took away from it was that the future of radio
astronomy lies in VLBI arrays rather than wide-diameter dishes, and that for
economic as well as electronic reasons the direction is toward more numerous
much smaller antennas and lots of enhancements in data processing.  In
response to a question I put during the Q&A, the presenters' answer was yes,
that direction in radio astronomy's evolution will increase the potential
for amateurs to contribute to the kind of research large dishes have been
doing.

I too regret the catastrophe at Arecibo.  In fact, I took the occasion to
rewatch "Contact," in which Ellie Arroway as a young girl, signing W9GFO and
frustrated at her inability to reach her father on (I assume HF) SSB said
wistfully, "I need a bigger antenna."  The next scene was the more mature
Ellie standing at the edge of Arecibo.  

But despite the loss of a legendary facility, if what I heard at the SETI
event was correct, there will not likely be any serious effort to rebuild
it.

Ted, KN1CBR

________________________________
From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> on
behalf of Grant Youngman <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 11:47 AM
To: Elecraft Refl <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Arecibo antenna collapses

I suppose the question is why not rebuild it if the capability (or an
upgraded capability) remains of consequential value to the scientific
community and there is no existing capability that can be cobbled together
elsewhere to match it.  I don?t know what it would cost, but consider that
one Virginia-class submarine costs well over $3B.  We build those, even if
it is in small numbers.  It?s a matter of priorities ? and pretty small $$
in the big picture.

Grant NQ5T

>


______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
Message delivered to [hidden email]