NationStates

Seems the Arecibo RT went the way of the tourist attraction "Puerta Ventana" of the town of Guayanilla PR. and never to return.

Photo of the PV before and after the 5.8 Quake - https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnew ... =510%2C290

I know this thread has been inactive a bit but i thought i would share this: Giant Arecibo radio telescope collapses in Puerto Rico

Its gone

The Huskar Social Union wrote:I know this thread has been inactive a bit but i thought i would share this: Giant Arecibo radio telescope collapses in Puerto Rico

Its gone

What a terrible loss to astronomy.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:I know this thread has been inactive a bit but i thought i would share this: Giant Arecibo radio telescope collapses in Puerto Rico

Its gone

Holy shit...

Tweet from Deborah Martorell, astronomer meteorologist whose tweet is sourced on the CBS report:

(Translation mine) "Friends, it is with a heavy heart that I must report the Arecibo Observatory's platform has just collapsed."

An image is attached. It's just not there anymore. This massive machine just failed entirely...

Rest in pieces, literally.

Truly a sad day.

RIP to a real one

Stellar Colonies wrote:(Image)
Rest in pieces, literally.

Truly a sad day.

That's what happens when main suspension cables fail.

Stellar Colonies wrote:(Image)
Rest in pieces, literally.

Truly a sad day.

o7

You know what gets me the most about this? I visited the Observatory with family relatively recently (before María), and while there, I picked up a hat at the visitor center. It reads "Arecibo Observatory" and has the logo on it. And today, out of sheer coincidence, I was wearing that hat when I found out about the news today. I don't often wear hats (unless outside), so the fact that, out of all the things I wore today, that hat was one of them, it's weird.

Aside from that, (and while I don't have a source on this yet, if one exists), I've been told they've cordoned off the section of jungle surrounding the observatory because workers didn't have an opportunity to collect potentially toxic substances inside the platform's machinery before it collapsed.

La Paz de Los Ricos wrote:Aside from that, (and while I don't have a source on this yet, if one exists), I've been told they've cordoned off the section of jungle surrounding the observatory because workers didn't have an opportunity to collect potentially toxic substances inside the platform's machinery before it collapsed.

And who told you that?

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

La Paz de Los Ricos wrote:Aside from that, (and while I don't have a source on this yet, if one exists), I've been told they've cordoned off the section of jungle surrounding the observatory because workers didn't have an opportunity to collect potentially toxic substances inside the platform's machinery before it collapsed.

And who told you that?

I mentioned I don't have a source, so you're right to assume it false. It's just something I heard and I've been searching for any credible backup for it, but I don't have faith that it's actually taken place since nothing has come up so far beyond the many, many reports covering the event of the collapse itself.

In memory of the telescope please enjoy James Bond fighting the antagonist of GoldenEye on it.

La Paz de Los Ricos wrote:

Northwest Slobovia wrote: And who told you that?

I mentioned I don't have a source, so you're right to assume it false. It's just something I heard and I've been searching for any credible backup for it, but I don't have faith that it's actually taken place since nothing has come up so far beyond the many, many reports covering the event of the collapse itself.

Given the age of the telescope, it's not outside the realm of possibility that some of the equipment contains PCBs.

Cordel One wrote:In memory of the telescope please enjoy James Bond fighting the antagonist of GoldenEye on it.

If only the real telescope had taken out a Bond villain when she fell!

The Two Jerseys wrote:

La Paz de Los Ricos wrote:
I mentioned I don't have a source, so you're right to assume it false. It's just something I heard and I've been searching for any credible backup for it, but I don't have faith that it's actually taken place since nothing has come up so far beyond the many, many reports covering the event of the collapse itself.

Given the age of the telescope, it's not outside the realm of possibility that some of the equipment contains PCBs.

Interesting. I heard one of the substances was mentioned to be mercury, and the area was closed as a precaution and not because any environmental contamination was known of, but again, no source, don't trust.

La Paz de Los Ricos wrote:

Cordel One wrote:In memory of the telescope please enjoy James Bond fighting the antagonist of GoldenEye on it.

If only the real telescope had taken out a Bond villain when she fell!

The Two Jerseys wrote:Given the age of the telescope, it's not outside the realm of possibility that some of the equipment contains PCBs.

Interesting. I heard one of the substances was mentioned to be mercury, and the area was closed as a precaution and not because any environmental contamination was known of, but again, no source, don't trust.

Also a possibility, they could have been using mercury arc rectifiers.

La Paz de Los Ricos wrote:

Cordel One wrote:In memory of the telescope please enjoy James Bond fighting the antagonist of GoldenEye on it.

If only the real telescope had taken out a Bond villain when she fell!

The Two Jerseys wrote:Given the age of the telescope, it's not outside the realm of possibility that some of the equipment contains PCBs.

Interesting. I heard one of the substances was mentioned to be mercury, and the area was closed as a precaution and not because any environmental contamination was known of, but again, no source, don't trust.

O think the issue is mostly not about poisonous substances being present or found, but rather that they don’t want people going in to steal stuff from the site.

Rest in pieces.

I wonder if theres a video of the actual collapse.

Nakena wrote:Rest in pieces.

I wonder if theres a video of the actual collapse.

I was shown a video of it. Unfortunately, I can't find it anywhere at this time. I'm sure it will become available everywhere in the next few days.

Allowing Arecibo to collapse while continuing to lavish funds on pipe dreams like manned missions to Mars and boondoggles like the ISS is a crime against science.

Postauthoritarian America wrote:Allowing Arecibo to collapse while continuing to lavish funds on pipe dreams like manned missions to Mars and boondoggles like the ISS is a crime against science.

Nice catch. But NASA isn't spending any money on manned Mars shots, only Musk is. And in any case, the relationship between US space policy and science is tenuous at best.

Postauthoritarian America wrote:Allowing Arecibo to collapse while continuing to lavish funds on pipe dreams like manned missions to Mars and boondoggles like the ISS is a crime against science.

The real crime is taking a step back while private companies go into space.

Cordel One wrote:

Postauthoritarian America wrote:Allowing Arecibo to collapse while continuing to lavish funds on pipe dreams like manned missions to Mars and boondoggles like the ISS is a crime against science.

The real crime is taking a step back while private companies go into space.

I don't agree. NASA does science, private companies build boosters (which NASA pays to use). It's certainly better than the other way around.

Anyway, the amount of money private companies put into space back when NASA flew the shuttle, was pretty huge. Beyond satellites, private companies don't look like commercializing space any time soon. Asteroid mining and stuff ... not really profitable.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Cordel One wrote:The real crime is taking a step back while private companies go into space.

I don't agree. NASA does science, private companies build boosters (which NASA pays to use). It's certainly better than the other way around.

Anyway, the amount of money private companies put into space back when NASA flew the shuttle, was pretty huge. Beyond satellites, private companies don't look like commercializing space any time soon. Asteroid mining and stuff ... not really profitable.

NASA used to be the one going into space, though.

Cordel One wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
I don't agree. NASA does science, private companies build boosters (which NASA pays to use). It's certainly better than the other way around.

Anyway, the amount of money private companies put into space back when NASA flew the shuttle, was pretty huge. Beyond satellites, private companies don't look like commercializing space any time soon. Asteroid mining and stuff ... not really profitable.

NASA used to be the one going into space, though.

NASA was never much more than a conduit for funding for Lockheed, Martin Marietta and the rest of the military-industrial complex that benefitted from the wasteful manned space program. Go visit Canaveral some time, that's who's manning what amounts to the manned space program trade show booths. Which would be acceptible if they were doing science instead of blowing soap bubbles and lighting farts in space for shits and giggles.

Cordel One wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
I don't agree. NASA does science, private companies build boosters (which NASA pays to use). It's certainly better than the other way around.

Anyway, the amount of money private companies put into space back when NASA flew the shuttle, was pretty huge. Beyond satellites, private companies don't look like commercializing space any time soon. Asteroid mining and stuff ... not really profitable.

NASA used to be the one going into space, though.

I'd rather that as much as possible of NASA's budget be spent on science. While launches should be as cheap as possible.

Yeah, NASA used to operate the Space Shuttle. Do you seriously think that was money well spent? The design was good in most ways, except that "reusable" was assumed to be more than 3 or so times, and the escalating maintenance cost was unaccounted. They were way too expensive to build, because they tried to perform all possible roles, and that forced NASA to operate them even after they'd become unsafe.

Science missions launch once, they often involve a series of complicated steps (the "unfolding" of the James Web Space Telescope is frankly terrifying), but basically just have to work for a while to return useful science. Often they're still working well enough to perform an Extended Mission as well. NASA does science brilliantly.

If the US is going to have national booster program, at least put it under some other program besides NASA. Boosters aren't rocket science! They're large-scale engineering with long-term costs, like operating a utility or a public transport system -- things government provably CAN do well if it's not trying to serve two masters -- so a booster program should be funded separately and have a separate staff up to it's own Director. With a mandate to provide reliability (both in launch times and success to orbit), price at least somewhat competitive with foreign services, and don't damage the environment too much.

And private competition. If your public booster program can't compete with private programs under the same regulation, then your public program is simply unnecessary. Banning private space would be like banning new smart phones because any day now the government will make something better ...