Which reminds me ... 'To think, all this could have been saved with the simple application of a coat of Red-Oxide and a good undercoat." Another day goes by without me painting those cable 'cleats'/cable grips, for my antenna, which really must go up.
An Ionospheric Modification Facility for the Magnetic Equator; "This is a conceptual proposal for the deployment of an ionospheric modification facility, also called and HF facility or ionospheric heater, near the geomagnetic equator." "We propose that an equatorial HF facility should consequently be installed close to the Jicamarca Radio Observatory near Lima, Peru. Some initial work toward this end is already being performed." http://www8.nationalacademies.org/SSBSurvey/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=659&parm_type=HDS
There has been an increasing trend, at least in US astronomy, to put the money into facilities outside of the US. This is caused by 3 factors: 1) much of the important astronomy is done with a view of the galactic center, and you have limited views of this from US territory; 2) light and noise pollution in the US; 3) environmental issues have made it very, very difficult to secure US real estate. OTOH, it is a very good question as to whether taxpayer money should be spent on facilities built ONLY in the US. These are ongoing debates with uncertain outcomes.
Needless to say, IMO we should put the infrastructure in the US, and Puerto Rico is very much in the US. It would be infuriating, IMO, if the US subsidized, for example, the FAST in China. Spend the money h-e-r-e. Your opinion may differ.
Indeed. I also wonder if, given how tight-lipped China was about its moon rover, they also don't seem like a likely candidate for the free and open exchange of science and information.
Elsewhere I have suggested a tethered drone for placement at the focal line at AO. I now, after seeing the ray tracing, withdraw that suggestion as being incapable of slewing over an extended spatial cylinder to capture most of the rays off- axis for a reasonable range of off-axis angles. One certainly appreciates the value of the Gregorian system when vetting other alternatives.
My XYL & I had VISITED the Arecibo Complex back in 2018!!! Driving thru the "Jungle" to get to the COMPLEX was a adventure in it's self, but SEEING ALL OF IT WAS A WORTHWHILE EXPERIENCE!!! But since our space-agency isn't planning on FIXING IT, WHAT A WASTE!!! NOW ONLY "CHINA WILL HAVE ONE!!!" Is it now that NASA is putting space-exploration on the "BACK-BURNER?" SAD!!! :-(
Elon Musk is only in to make money, to rebuild Arecibo Telescope will be a multi billion Dollar project. Being Mr Musk has started to ruin the optical night sky with his Starlink internet low orbit satelites, it would be a bit ironic if he would dip his hand in his pocket to help rebuild this once cutting edge telrscope. But it an awful shame to have lost it. Maybe we need a few more Captain Tom's ( Captain Sir Thomas Moore ).
Nope. Top end estimates are about $350M. May be as little as $150M. NOT 'multi-billion'. Making money is cool. For an innovator, such as Musk, he doesn't see any money unless his customers see a benefit. I'd call that a win-win. No benefit, no money. I don't know what Elon Musk has to do with Arecibo. You made this fantasy connection, and then criticised him based on a construction of your own invention. There are oodles of sats up there already 'ruining the night sky'. No reason to pick on Starlink over anything else. I think that Starlink is amazing, as other such options will be in the future. The occasional sat trails are easily edited out of digital images as they are transient in the field of view, as well as deterministic in their ephemerides. Musk has already volunteered to provide said ephemerides, so the avoidance is trivial for professional astronomers..
Just an update: https://www.engadget.com/puerto-rico-approves-8-million-to-rebuild-arecibo-telescope-155454170.html
Ground-based astronomy is a dead-end, especially in the optical spectrum. It was a "better than nothing" situation for a long time because ability to put observatories in space was severely limited due to cost of access to space. Technical limitations based in weight and size also limited the kind of systems that could be put out there. Mr. Musk is rapidly changing this landscape - not only his current rockets are providing 10 times cheaper access to space than other players, but his future rockets that are currently in development will reduce the cost even further while significantly increasing the maximum payload size/weight. All of that will result in unprecedented improvements in astronomical observations, including from distributed observatories built on the similar to Starlink principle. As for optical astronomy, light pollution from human activity on the ground as well as changes in atmosphere's transparency due to climate change and pollution will put an end to it much sooner than a satellite constellation specifically designed for low reflectivity. P.S. there is no evidence that Elon Musk is only in to make money. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.
