Judging from the popular news articles ... the only thing that will be missed by most people will be it's use as a movie prop. I guess the next time a James Bond needs to dangle dramatically over a radio astronomy dish, they'll have to go to China.
Ron, There is no substitute for aperture. For many apps full, large apertures are still the cheapest. However-- Given the world we live in , with an emphasis on anti-telescope sentiment, super-restrictive environmental dogma, and so on, you have to have a self sufficient aperture with no need of support structures , cables, and so on. That means a self powered array with a small duty cycle of wireless data dump to a distant central station for processing. It needs to be modular. It needs to be portable. It needs to be scalable to many,many acres. It needs to be able to be broken down for 'leave no trace'. That is what is divulged by my 'aperture engine', including the patents. It is called an 'aperture engine' because it converts solar radiance into power of other forms--based on the use of the aperture itself. The cost of this is aperture efficiency and integration time. Probably such apertures are 10-20% less efficient than a classical aperture of the same area and integration time. OTOH, in places where you COULD put this, like BLM or Rez land for example, you have zero worries about increasing the size of the aperture engine, as no infrastructure goes with its installation and removal (when desired). BTW, I did site surveys a few years back and found Baja California the best place. In the US, Navajo Reservations were also ideal, IMO. My thoughts on this date back well over 20 years, and I got a LOT of flack from radio astronomers about it. Now you will see some versions undoubtedly be presented like they are 'new' and 'hot'. And pretending I don't exist. Well, good luck. Not their ideas, not their patents. 'Free' licensing goes with a proper approach and collaborative attitude in this case, IMO. AO needs to be re-built. No aperture engine at AO.
I might suggest that perhaps you should consider not taking popular news articles as any representation of the science and technical achievements done with a large facility. More reading will reveal a different story.
Phil, It will be a huge mistake to emphasize the past , historical achievements (which are almost all basic science and not applied --technical--science) in asking for a re-build. First, the Harwit paradigm will be invoked to assume that 'new' science can already be done with better instruments (in RA that would be FAST, for example). And yes: I understand WHY this is a bogus argument, as FAST is not able to illuminate more aperture than AO, for example. Next, from a 'planetary radar' standpoint, the limited declination coverage means this is not the best way to build a NEW radar system. Nor hunt for earth crunching NEO asteroids. I am not as informed on ionospheric heating other than to point out the absence of general interest when HAARP was decommissioned.:-( IF AO is to be rebuilt, its REVISED sensitivity, spectral coverage, ERP(planetary radar), sky coverage, and so on will be the compelling factors. Speculations on 'new' breakthroughs will not win the day, as the astronomical community--for example--has not given AO a funding priority weighting in many years, and has seen those argument posed before. That will be heavily inveighed in that process. Private funding will be very difficult, as radio astronomers have a poor track record with SKA and the Allen telescope in recent years. And radar astronomy does not have the public interest. Furthermore, the time to come back online is probably 7-10 years, with the government involved. That is a huge turn off. Rich people are old people and don't trust their legacies to unfinished projects with long timescales to turn on. If th people of Puerto Rico use AO as the stepping stone to showcase a future of new science and technology, rather than a mere 'inspiration', that will get the government to act,IMO. 73 Chip W1YW
Possibly from the visitors center. This will go down as a super-sad historical minute in time, akin to the collapse of the Hinderburg, explosion of Challenger, etc.. Watching it had me holding back my tears...:-(
I got it. You are correct. Obviously it doesn't mean its not scientifically important, but you know that too
National Science Foundation Award Abstract #1618691 RUI: Exploiting Innovative Radio Techniques for the Study of Plasma Turbulence and Structure "Areas of technological application include imaging techniques, antenna technologies, over-the-horizon radar, long-range communications, and space-based communication and navigation." "The work proposed here promotes the development of shortwave radio technologies. Shortwave communications, which do not depend on space systems, and of shortwave radar, against which stealth technologies are largely ineffective, are important and strategic technologies." https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1618691
Shortwave radar is ineffective against cloaking. Prior stealth technologies are poor at RF absorption or specular deflection at HF, that much is true. Arecibo research has not given us a countermeasure against stealth. Let's not forget that the Duga was a failure.
