Arecibo Observatory Loses Funding 185
An anonymous reader noted that "The Arecibo Observatory funding was slashed. Cut to $8 million from $10.5 million, which will decrease the amount of time that the telescope is operational. "A quarter of its staff was laid off last year," and Arecibo, which is located in Puerto Rico, could possibly be completely closed in four years, according to the "National Science Foundation (NSF), which pays for the operation of the telescope." This comes after "a review panel for the foundation's astronomy division two years ago" suggested cutting Arecibo's financing by 25 percent as a way to pay for new facilities. There has been "[a]n outcry" in response to the "decision, particularly from planetary scientists" who argued that the panel "overlooked Arecibo's role in cataloging potential dangers from asteroids." The Times notes that in Arecibo's favor is the fact that it "may be much cheaper to keep...open" than dismantle, which "could cost hundreds of millions of dollars."" I've been considering a vacation to PR for a few years, and seeing this thing is on my list of awesome things to try to see. Guess I should hurry ;)
No es bueno (Score:2, Funny)
Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:4, Informative)
I love this practice. I see it going on where I work. Pick on the weak department, which can't easily defend its funding and feather your own nest. Well, what goes around comes around.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
I've been to Arecibo. It was cool to look at, but at that point about the only thing they had for the public was a couple of posters. I hear that since then they've made a small visitor center. I think it is about an hour off of any main road through twisting, turning roads.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
I went to the Observatory nearly two years ago, and they had a smallish visitors centre at the base of one of the three support towers. The centre has a balcony right at the edge of the dish, which possibly causes vertigo to a few people. Access is much better now too, just a few minutes west of PR-10 (a four-lane arterial). Even with that and the little souvenir shop however, I don't think that they could ever make up for the loss in funding.
Seeing that I'm in Puerto Rico now, maybe I should visit the big dish again.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to correct your being off by over an order of magnitude... 90 minutes of Iraq war would pay for the whole budget [usatoday.com] and 20 minutes would pay for how much was just cut from it.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:3, Insightful)
Whatever it is, it's extremely expensive, and we have better things to do. When we leave, it will take about six months for Iraq to return to the same condition it was in when we found it (ruled by a dictator) or worse (all-out civil war).
Knowledge gained at Arecibo and similar facilities lasts forever.
So what's a better investment?
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:4, Insightful)
The war destabilized oil prices, and until we get out of there, they won't remain stable for any long periods.
I agree though, the chances of the earth being hit by a significant asteroid are ridiculously low and to say we should fund Arecibo for that purpose, is just noise. There are plenty of good reasons to keep funding sites like this, but using fear of uncertain doom is childish.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
For more information: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/ [nasa.gov]
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
The rise in oil prices has multiple causes, but the main one is the fact that oil is priced in US dollars and this currency has devalued very rapidly while the intrinsic value of oil stayed more or less the same. Admittedly, the devaluation of the US dollar is linked to the Iraq war though, so there is definitely a link between oil prices and the war. It's just not mainly a geopolitical stability issue.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
The war is ruining the economy and devaluing the dollar. Notice anything peculiar lately, how the US dollar trades lower than canadian $ and pound sterling?
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, to make this on-topic: don't discount the thousands who have died in the Iraq war, versus the potential of saving all life on earth, now and in the future, due to the discovery of an earth-bound asteroid.
Risk evaluation (and mitigation) is all about measuring probably times cost. Think about that, the next time the common pretext of "weapons of mass destruction" comes up.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you probably meant probability. Governments (all governments) are notorious for making poor judgments when it comes to cost-benefit analysis. Well, that's not entirely true
I can state, with some certainty, that 315,360,000 people (roughly the entire population of the United States) were not raped and murdered last year. I know this, because I'm one of those people and I think I'd remember it. Yet government agencies and filmmakers and everyone else with an agenda can bandy such arrant nonsense about because they know they can get away with it. Far too many people can't handle simple arithmetic, much less basic statistics, and will simply accept well-presented, scientific-sounding lies because they don't know any better. If your goal is the manipulation of public opinion for fun and profit, this is a remarkably convenient state of affairs. Makes you wonder if the present drain-bamaged condition of the American school system was entirely accidental.
What's worse, people that I know could see right through these untruths if they simply applied their brains can't be bothered. These are the same individuals that wonder what happened to America. "Where did we go wrong?!" they cry. "You went wrong," I tell them.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2, Funny)
Well, duh. That's because vast portions of Iraq are extremely unpopulated. The population centers of Iraq are extremely concentrated, 98% of Iraqis live adjacent to a large river or greater tributaries, where they are large enough to support a significant population. No people, no conflict.
I'm sick and tired of people, even those that support operations in Iraq, calling it a "war".
Our soldiers are getting killed by bullets and bombs (and at an increasing rate), and we continue to drop bombs, shoot missiles and artillery at people. If you don't think it's a war, you're a raging fucktard. As such, yours is an opinion of little consequence. It's not a riot, it's not a "conflict", it's not a "police action", it's a god damned motherfucking war, you ignoramus!
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
I wish the war in Iraq only cost that much...
We could make up the entire 2.5 million shortfall by putting the war in Iraq on hold for a mere five minutes. Yes, five minutes - It costs us $500k per minute we spend pissing around in the sandbox. We could pay the entire Aricebo budget simply by giving our soldiers an extra smoke-break tomorrow (yes, I know it doesn't work that simply, but you get the idea).
But hey, what do we care about mere extinction when those dirty arabs still pollute the holy land by their mere presence?
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
Spending for the war in the sandboxes is done outside the budget so if we weren't doing that, we wouldn't be spending the money anyways. What you think could happen really stands no chance in reality of happening, the situation and what ever makes it applicable today would exist without regard to any war in a sandbox. In other words, you would have the same problems.
But hey, what do we care about mere extinction when those dirty arabs still pollute the holy land by their mere presence? This is the entire reason I bother waisting my time with you in the first place. Do you actually believe this? I'm curious because it has no basis in reality. And the options you gave, extinction verses killing Arabs seems pointless in a comparative example.
Extinction implies we are all going to die. There is nothing we can do about it and there is nothing Hollywood can do to make their fantasies a reality in the amount of time necessary to do something before the extinction. So if we cannot do anything, they why worry? Why not worry about the now and something you can do something about?
And this idea of a holy land and dirty Arabs is totally unfounded. Maybe you should get back to reality and stop looking like a nutball. I'm starting to think you want funding for this to continue so you will get advances notice of hailbob's return and so you can prepare the heavens gate.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
And I always felt bad for Gore for the whole "flip-flop" thing - Yes, I see different sides of the same issues depending on exactly what you ask. I consider that a strength, not a weakness, but take it as you will.
Spending for the war in the sandboxes is done outside the budget so if we weren't doing that, we wouldn't be spending the money anyways.
I did say that I realize it doesn't work that simply. Still, don't pretend that "war" spending magically doesn't eventually hit us as taxes. It may fall outside regular budgetary allocations, but we pay for it one way or another.
Do you actually believe this?
To tell the truth, I have no clue why we've decided to play in Iraq. We already know the whole "WMD" excuse forms one of the thinnest cover-stories in history. "Oil" just doesn't make sense as an answer, considering what a low percentage (a mere 2%, before the war all but halted oil production there) of our actual oil we get from there (while we mostly ignore the turmoil in Venezuela). "Security" doesn't hold water, considering that we daily make more enemies than we remove... (And, we threaten Iran while ignoring N. Korea and Pakistan, and let's not even go to Saudi Arabia and 15/19 hijackers). Personal (or at least, friends and relatives) profit doesn't quite work considering the level of 3rd party oversight that has failed to turn up more than the vague former connection between Cheney and Halliburton. And religion? Well, Bush may count as a bit of a relidiot, but I don't actually consider him that screwed up (or scholarly) to actually go through the precursors to bring about his religion's Armageddon.
What does that leave? Not much. Every rational (even "tin-foil" rational) explanation makes no sense. Yet, we remain in Iraq.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
Hitting us as taxes and being available to be used for other projects are separate things. That was the intent I was trying to convey. We are going to pay for it overall but not spending the money doesn't mean we would spend it otherwise.
You seems to miss the entire point of going there because of several factors. They aren't necessarily you fault either. First, we have/had foreign countries like France that was undermining our efforts in Iraq so they could get cheap oil in secrete deals behind the UN sanctions. Iraq was getting funding somehow outside the scope that was allowed by the terms of the cease fire agreement that ended the first war. The second thing is the WMDs, While they didn't end up with an active program, they were taking steps at concealing existing munitions that are listed as WMDs and Saddam was taking steps to make it appear as if they still had them. For instance, He dressed trucks up to look like mobile Biological weapons labs and drove them around claiming it to be true in an effort to show the neighboring countries that they could still pack a punch. We have evidence of them but no evidence that they were used for anything.
Probably the most important part of the puzzle was the fact that George Bush was relatively unqualified for an international stage. So he surrounded himself with some of the most brilliant cold war era minds and the problem is that the cold war is over and the world has changed significantly since then. Invading Iraq made sense years ago, back when the first Bush and clinton was in office. But things have changed and now you cannot see the importance of them so your unable to connect the dots. Another failure of the cold war thinking ws that it would be over in a short time. It didn't cross their minds because to accomplish something noticeable back then, it took years, not weeks. But now that we have scrambled some eggs, the choice are to either let it be, fermenting and cultivating salmonella and giving it the opportunity to makes a bunch of people sick and possible kill them. Or we can make an omelet and end up with the best we can from the situation. OF course that was figuratively speaking but the fact is that we need to deal with it sooner or later. The questions really are, how bad will it be later and is or would it be worse then now? I think the answer to those are really bad and worse.
This is a little misleading. Recently, we have captured quite a few of the foreign insurgents and they claim that unemployment is the reason they started fighting against America. Someone was paying around 1300 a month, our enemies were/are basically mercenaries attempting to put food on the plates of their families. This idea has been floated around before too but we are just now starting to hear the insurgents (enemies we are making) admit to it. And, no, I am not saying that they otherwise love us or anything of the sort. They may still dislike us but not to the point of picking up a gun. So the amount of real enemies created, the ones that would fight for free, seems to be low compared to the organized structure that existed when the war started.
We have always claimed that we would leave when the Iraqis could defend themselves. Bush even said in an interview that we would leave if Iraq asked us to. For the time being, it is in our interest to attempt to see the government and Iraq succeed. Rarely do we have a commitment to leave a country we are involved
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
The problem is, we don't have rockets that can or will meet an object that is also set up to carry and detonate a nuclear explosion in the scale that would be needed. Sure we have ICBMs, but they don't go into deep space and most likely couldn't be converted in time to do something meaningful. So while the ideas are there, it is sort of like making a nuclear bomb and the concept behind it is a lot easier then the practice of implementing it. This isn't even touching on the problem that nothing has ever been proved to be effective so it there is a chance that if something was coming, our response would be ineffective.
Like I said before, There is nothing Hollywood could do to make it possible to do anything about one. I know you have a wikipedia article claiming otherwise but without going into the reliability of Wikki, or the fact that the author could be a tenured professor of his mom's basement in Kentucky, I think this article is more wishful thinking then anything else. It is a lot like the how light sabers work article on howstuffworks.com . Of course we cannot make a real light saber but Hollywood had some convinced that we could. I have talked with people who where sincerely believing that we could make a light saber that worked like in the movies. Take it with a grain of salt.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
Now I understand the lucky-not lucky scenario. The problem is, It will always resort back to luck because we won't build anything until it is too late to do something. And then if we did build something, we won't continue to work on it so if it fails, there is no backup or anything.
With the decades and decades of warning, you also have to look at the current geopolitical environment. It took over twelve years from the doom and gloom alarm over global warming before we even convened a pannel that created the Kyoto protocol. And from within the reactions to that, how many countries have done anything outside outside expressing a commitment to make something happen. And then outside of those, how many have the ability to make a rocket that can go beyond earth orbit into deep space, hit a target and cause an explosion. Now, out of those countries, how many will be convinced to start working on the solution while there is enough time left to do anything. Once you figure all that in, you would likey see that we are relying on luck. You might be just a well off waiting until it is too late to do anything, showing everyone in the world at the exact same time what is happening and then hoping the extra 5 pounds wieght and momentum moving 2 or 3 feet at once from everyone shitting themselves caused the earth to momentarily speed up it's orbit of the sun and move out of the way. I think we should try each and every one of them. But we won't because it will be seen a waist of money by people wanting to build bridges to nowhere and Woodstock museums. You will have to budget it in the military spending because of the relationship to a nuclear bomb and when you try it, you will have all the loving and caring citizens coming up with creative bumper stickers like the ones suggesting the air force hold a bake sale to buy their F16s.
And that is just the local rejections. just wait until other countries think we are building a monster nuke and either demand to be in on it (so they can get nuke capabilities) or threaten us in some way. Of course there is alway crafty ways of dealing with the threats like the one from Russia when they said if we go forward with the missile defense system in Europe, Russia would reactivate the targets in western Europe on their nukes. Bush handles that prety smoothly by simply saying, So, Russia is our ally, we won't do anything to make them use them and they won't use them without a reason.
Now I'm rambling on about nonsense. But the moral is that we won't be able to get around a lot of the hurdles/ We have known the threat is there but haven't done anything about it as of yet. It isn't likely that anyone will do something until it is too late. I might have drank too much holiday cheer, but it should take away from the practical reality of the situations.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
For a week of deployment, you could even build a second one, including building the volcano and digging a crater to go under the dish.
And yes. While the NSF may have huge funds available, this war is, perhaps, the most stupid war ever fought. And keep in mind wars are usually a very stupid thing to do.
The US could as well invade Mexico, as they are every bit as guilty of building WMDs and of harboring terrorists as Iraq was and, all the more convenient, they are a lot closer. I bet they would not even resist much.
Right now, leaving Iraq would be even more irresponsible than invading it was - they would plunge (even more) into chaos and civil war and a theocracy that builds WMDs, harbors terrorists and has a very understandable grudge against the US would certainly emerge.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
Funding Arecibo means zero profits to halliburton.
This is the Bush administration logic
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2)
I hate to say it, but I have to: ONE day of deployment in Iraq would pay for this thing.
Costs of Iraq [usatoday.com] are much higher than that. 12M a year for Arecibo would mean one day in Iraq could fund them for 14.75 years. This war costs far too much. And we all underestimate how much this is costing in other ways too.
Re:Rob Peter to pay Paul (Score:2, Interesting)
Iraq Counter [nationalpriorities.org]
I don't even know what to say; this is fucking insane
Re:Don't blame Iraq (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooo - if you're short 2 million dollars, don't look to an place where the budget is bleeding billions?
You know, a billion here and a billion there, pretty soon you're talking some real money. NASA was also just recently cutting back. Obviously we (the USA) have LOTS of cash to burn as long as it fits the correct agenda. 6 BILLION seems a lot - ever seen what the DOD gets? 440 Billion. That's a pretty large investment, I think. I would suggest that perhaps cutting them back a few billion could maybe MAYBE do some good in other sectors.
Oh, sorry. I'm spreading humainst FUD. My bad. Ignore the troubles - watch out for terrorists!
Iraq spending should cut deficit, not fund pork (Score:2)
War time spending is a special circumstance, not regular funding, it is adding to the deficit. When this spending stops it should *not* be spent elsewhere, it should just stop, period. It is not a pool of new money to start dumping into various pork projects. Not that mapping asteroids is pork, but if former Iraq spending becomes permanent and diverted there other former Iraq spending will surely go to pork. It is inevitable *if* Iraq spending gets redirected to things that should be part of the regular budget.
Re:Iraq spending should cut deficit, not fund pork (Score:2)
Of course, cutting 440 billion of budgeted DOD spending by a few billion would be a great way to address it
Re:Iraq spending should cut deficit, not fund pork (Score:2)
Defense/War on Terror (NOT including Iraq): $626B
Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Unemployment/Welfare: $1.547 Trillion
Where did you want to get that money from?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008 [wikipedia.org]
I know its ANTI-/. and going to get me another (Score:4, Insightful)
But can ANY OF YOU honestly say that if Iraq wasn't occurring (which btw I think has gone far too long) that the budget issue faced here wouldn't still be present?
Face it, the government budget process is all about buying votes and paying off political donors through whatever method that they can do it.
This project is probably not getting funding because
a. Its not in a voting member's domain
b. Its not flashy
c. Its not in the news enough to interest people
It certainly isn't being sidelined because of Iraq. In fact the NSF keeps getting bigger budgets year after year!
Why not ask, what EARMARK can be converted to real science instead of building memorials to living Congressmen!
What is so sad is the damn partisan hate on places like
If you want science like this continue don't raise Iraq with your Congressmen, instead raise the issue of America falling behind in science. Write your Congressmen today (I wrote both of my Senators and provided the link to the article). If you do not know your Congressmen then use WIKIPEDIA to find them!
Look, we aren't going to save valid science expenditures by going on about Iraq, fact is most of Congress doesn't really care anymore about Iraq and will write you off as just a whiner. Instead PROMOTE it on its own merits. That is how we can advance the cause of science. Get your friends to write. Congressmen react to many people showing concern over what may be an item they never heard of. The amount of money needed that most can slip it in on any old bill.
I am sure there are many science friendly Congressmen, it needs to be brought to their attention as well.
Yes Iraq sucks and its eating billions, but to blame it for every little project that is favored here and elsewhere is to ignore the way Congress works. They are buying votes with your tax dollars, Iraq offends many of them because it deprives them of billions to spend - not just because its wrong. Show Congress that this is a concern! Otherwise you will be left with taking out your hatred for others on message boards and getting nothing done
Re:I know its ANTI-/. and going to get me another (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok - I agree with you that bitching about Iraq doesn't get the science field funding. I *totally* disagree that we should stop bitching about it. I think it is important to keep pressure on our reps and our media with our viewpoints... whatever they may be.
I also agree that even in the best of times Arecibo would probably still get budget cuts. That's life. Convincing an increasingly anti-science country to fund more science is a long fight, and one that's being lost.
I personally chose against a path in science after college (wasting all that math education) because I was dismayed to learn that the US economy really had no science jobs that paid decently. Scientists in the US... hell, SCIENCE in the US, is a joke. We are one of the richest countries in the world, we do lots of good science, but rather than do *great* science we would rather waste money on every little thing but.
Our military prides themselves on their tech. Our government largely funds development of this tech. Good, but we need more tech research than simply ways to kill and avoid death. Most medical research money goes to 'political' causes. Cure the popular diseases, let the rest figure it out. Astronomy has little to do with the government's plans, so there isn't a lot of focus on it. The same goes for every science with no short-term glamour. I do my part - I contribute to science foundations, teach science to my kids and their classmates, and do what I can to encourage science.
So no - I don't think that we would ever see a drastic over-spending effort on science in the US.
But I sure as hell won't stop trying to get one
Re:Don't blame Iraq (Score:2)
Re:Don't blame Iraq (Score:5, Insightful)
C) Porkbarrel projects that benefit the special interest groups
Re:Don't blame Iraq (Score:2)
Re:Don't blame Iraq (Score:2)
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Re:Don't blame Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the key right there. We should be trying to promote general welfare, not give general welfare.
Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think our (and your) priorities are a bit off.
Re:Uh... (Score:3, Informative)
What kind of screwy world do we live in where advocacy of turning our money from bullets & choppers toward scientific research qualifies one as hating?
Re:Uh... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean seriously, the nationalists are the biggest threat to America's well being, joining them isn't going to solve the problems that ignorance of science and international politics brings.
I'm not trolling here, I am genuinely curious as to how further weakening our reputation in the international community is going to lead to the international community loving us.
Re:Uh... (Score:3, Insightful)
You're just recycling John Kerry's "rebuild our alliances" argument. Its just as flawed now as it was then.
We've refused to abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, and rather than pushing Europe over the edge, those aging-leftists that were in office have been kicked out. Germany? Elected pro-alliance Angela Merkel. Britain? The new PM says America is "their most important ally". France? The French elected a man that's unabashedly pro-US. Canada? US-friendly Stephen Harper was just put into office.
Meanwhile, the countries that were pro-US all along....Italy, Japan, Poland, the list goes on....are still pro-US.
And our policies have stayed the same.
So, just what alliances were we supposed to "rebuild"?
Russia? China? Venezuela?
The "international community" is never going to love us. But most are never going to truly hate us either. Because nations don't have friends, they have interests. Its in Western Europe's interest to be our ally. Its in Russia's interest to undermine us. None of it is done out of love, or hate. Politics is, and always has been, cold calculation.
Re:Don't blame Iraq (Score:5, Insightful)
NSF funds programs in biology, math, CS, engineering, geosciences, physics and astronomy, education, and sociology. So, that's probably less than ONE BILLION dollars per subject. So, we spend the same amount of money for one day in Iraq than a year's worth of physics research.
It's commonly accepted that general research pushes technological boundaries back which can drive research in the economy. So, if we are an "idea based economy", we had better invest in infrastructure.
Re:Don't blame Iraq (Score:3)
I do think that security in Iraq could have been improved had that money been sent to scientific researchers, even ones that don't work for DARPA, than allowing the money to possibly end up in the hands of terrorists.
Robbing Arecibo to pay for ALMA (Score:5, Informative)
Arecibo was a loser in the Senior Review; something has to give to pay for ALMA operations!
007 (Score:4, Funny)
Arecibo photo (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Arecibo photo (Score:2)
Message from the NWO conspiracy (Score:1, Funny)
There are no aliens, and if there were, they would hate your freedom. You are helping the terrorists by looking for aliens. The aliens like Hitler and Mussolini, and they drive slowly on toll roads. You do not want to look for the nonexistent aliens.
We will slash your funding until you stop looking for aliens. After that, we will tie you down with rules that drive you to suicide through boredom. So stop looking for aliens.
There is no NWO conspiracy, by the way. It's all an illusion created by the Aliens, who hate our freedom.
Worth it (Score:4, Informative)
I was actually there in early 2006, and I have to say it was really well worth it. It's hard to put into words how HUGE it is. The attached Museum is also quite nice- it even includes a small sliver of the moon [googlepages.com], which was a bonus for me.
unless there is some other technology that comes along and blows this telescope out of the water, it really is in our best interests to keep it running.
Not really...Re:Worth it (Score:1)
It was a big yawhn for me...not worth the trip to the mountain or the ride up. It was basically dead -- no museum, very little information, no exhibit of the discoveries, just a tiny exhibit with some old radio equipment. These people really need to learn how to show off their work to their visitors.
They should definitely keep the observatory open if it is useful to the scientists using it, but as a visitor there are definitely a thousand things I can do in Puerto Rico that are more fun than looking at a big huge dish.
Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)
You can hand in your geek card on the way out the door.
Re:Obligatory (Score:2)
ignorant knowledge leads to misinformation (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to say your comment is very ignorant, specially because you are form the island, you should know how some things are just tourist traps. But there is a lot of things to do at the radar if you know how to look at it. For example, there is this nature tourist group called Aventuras Tierra Adentro (Adventures in the Motherland), that will take you around, and under the radar, not only seeing the technological wonder the Observatory is, but how it was constructed, why they chose the Arecibo Valley to place its location and more importantly how has the vegetation and fauna of the area has been affected by its presence.
More importantly why is the observatory so important to Science, and how powerful the observatory really is compared to other radio telescopes.
Further more, I don't know where you went, but the museum on the top of the hill inside the observatory has the basic information for the radar. There is a movie theater where they run a documentary of the radar, its location and how it was constructed. Also the discoveries they have made using the Radar are displayed in the museum. The old radio equipment they are exhibiting there goes to show what they were using back in the day to do what the radar does now. Aside from that, the radar received an overhaul recently. Its actual transmiting time of information towards outerspace is of minutes and the retrieval of data is also in minutes compared to the observatory in New Mexico which takes 12 hours to receive or send any kind of data to outerspace.
Granted the observatory is not a place to take 30 family members with noisy children. Its a hike, and if you are not in shape, granted you will need a breather when you get on top. But it is not a bad experience or one that makes you feel you wasted your time going to. It is located in a beautiful valley, lots of nice restaurants around, great view, the trip is not so bad and if you finish early, you can always head out for the West Coast and have some Mojitos and seafood in Rincon.
I can tell you all this because I recently (from oct 16 to oct 31 2007) went to Puerto Rico and took my fiancee with me. She is North American and she was fascinated with the radar and how impressive it is. She is not as big of a Nerd/Geek like I am, but she was able to appreciate the wonder it is.
You should be proud this technological wonder is sitting in the mountains of the country you love so much. To me its always been one of those things that should be considered a Wonder of the World, because its simply humbles you as a human being to look at one of the modern marvels we have constructed in our time.
Or you are not as much of a Science Nut as you think you are...
Eleanor Arroway (Score:1)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/ [imdb.com]
Call Paul Allen (Score:1)
I'm sure Paul Allen could use a giant radio telescope to supplement his array [slashdot.org]. Just use a little e-VBLI [wikipedia.org], and you got a pretty nice addition. And if you don't want it full time, I bet many a hobbyist/small research institution would having the option to get radio telescope time instead of the typical optical rent-a-internet-telescope business.
Man this one broke my heart to hear (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this a parting shot for Bush who'd like to (Score:2)
Seeing as how the man's such a scientific ignoramous, maybe we could tell him that its actually necessary for a continental anti-terrorist defense that's based off-shore but would still be under our control.
And just to seal the deal, triple the operational budget.
Re:Man this one broke my heart to hear (Score:2)
Okay, how's this for a security angle: If the USA doesn't keep up it's research, the terrorist countries are going to buy the WTC next time. Your country needs to sort out its priorities.
If this causes a decrease in alarmism ... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:If this causes a decrease in alarmism ... (Score:2)
Well, if an asteroid is going to hit the earth ... (Score:2)
... I'd prefer NOT to know about it than to know about it.
So I'm happy.
Re:Well, if an asteroid is going to hit the earth (Score:2)
Re:Well, if an asteroid is going to hit the earth (Score:2)
buy the mother in law a surprise vacation.
Re:Well, if an asteroid is going to hit the earth (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I'd like to know what day is not a good one to visit the beach... And any place that isn't 10 meters about sea level.
Secondly, if I'm going to die why not tell me at least 6 weeks before hand so I won't feel stupid about not quitting my job sooner.
Vacation (Score:2)
I'll bet many of the scientists who pulled that gig considered it a vacation too!
Re:Vacation (Score:2)
Funny thing is I've lived here all my life and never been to the Arecibo observatory.
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
# The first planets outside the solar system were discovered around Pulsar B1257+12, a rapidly rotating pulsar with three Earth-like planets in orbit. ( early 1990s )
# One of its first accomplishments: Establishing the rotating rate of Mercury, which turned out to be 59 days rather than the previously estimated 88 days ( 1965 ).
# Detailed maps of the distribution of galaxies in the universe ( late 1980s ).
# The first pulsar in a binary system was discovered ( 1974 ), leading to important confirmation of Einstein's theory of general relativity and a Nobel Prize for astronomers Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor ( 1993 ).
# Investigations of ice craters at the polar regions of the planet Mercury with the radar system ( 1990s ) and similar investigation of the lunar poles for evidence of ice ( 1997 ).
# Provided much of our pre-Magellan mission knowledge of the surface of Venus via 1.5 km resolution imagery of the surface through the planet's cloud cover using the radar system.
# The observatory has made major contributions to our understanding of the chemistry and dynamics of the Earth's upper atmosphere and ionosphere.
# Discovery of two classes of pulsars: millisecond pulsars, which rotate several hundred times per second, and slower-rotating pulsars, which rotate about once per second. The slow-rotating pulsars speed through space, while millisecond pulsars move slowly through space.
Closing down Arecibo would be like closing down the Fermi Lab particle accelerator to Particle Physics. Its A MASSIVE asset to the Radio Astronomy field, and this short sidedness to get a few measly million (when compared to the countless millions allocated to other projects) is Absurd
Re:WTF (Score:3, Informative)
Unless they decide to build the ILA at Fermilab, it will probably be shut down in the not too distant future. I think they now have some Neutrino experiments scheduled out to 2011, but past that nothing.
Re:WTF (Score:2)
Its A MASSIVE asset to the Radio Astronomy field,
In what way, other than the literal one that refers to its size?
Can you point me to one single astronomer who, when given the choice between an hour time at Arecibo, an hour at the VLA, or an hour at Atacama would choose Arecibo? One single astronomer?
Pointing at things it has done decades ago is not an answer to the question "what are we getting out of this thing RIGHT NOW that we can't get somewhere else better, cheaper?"
As one of my professors used to say: Anything that can be discovered by measuring Volts, meters, kilograms and Kelvins has been discovered. If you want to find something new, you're going to have to look at microvolts, nanokelvins, picometers. Or otherwise at gigavolts and terakelvins and such things where all our nice meso-scale simplifications break down.
The next generation of discoveries are going to be made with the next generation of equipment. And creating that next generation is a lot more important than keeping some outmoded stuff alive for sheer nostalgia. I love old grandfather clocks, but if my budget is so tight that I have to choose between one of these and an atomic clock, I know which of them is actually doing the actual work RIGHT NOW. In terms of telescopes it's really more like keeping three different generations of grandfather-clock around together with two generations of atomic clocks and then deciding to *scale down* the mechanical clock department by 25% to have the money available to make the NEXT generation of atomic clock.
Why is that wrong? I'd say it is exactly what any self-respecting geek would want to do.
Re:WTF (Score:2)
and this short sidedness to get a few measly million
Perhaps the money is needed to fund the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for a couple of more hours...surely victory is just around the corner so it is worth trashing a scientifically valuable working telescope to make the world safe for democracy and freedom...yeah.
It seems that ever since the time when barbarians sacked Alexandria and used the scrolls of the Great Library to fuel the fires of the baths, science has gotten short shrift at the expense of wars and the people who fight them.
Re:WTF (Score:2)
Did it find proof of Iran's nucelar arsenal and take photos of the same?
Did it find the location of Osama BL? (no, scratch that out. That is not a priority).
If it didn't any of these things, then it is useless.
And who the heck was Fermi? Was he a terrorist?
Skate park (Score:3, Funny)
Charity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Charity? (Score:2)
Re:Charity? (Score:2)
There are any number of neo-gazillionaires that should be able to support that... how about it?
It would be a shame.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It would be a shame.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It would be a shame.... (Score:2)
Re:It would be a shame.... (Score:2)
There are very few real billionaire philanthropists like Bill gates (all ye go ahead and flame me).
Maybe if The telescope should change itself to detecting intelligent life on Earth before it tries to do in stars.
Or just say to Bush that Yellow cakes seemingly were found on Mars / Ceti Alpha V and that they saw a couple of bearded mullahs negotiating...
That ought to get funding real quick.
It is one of the greatest technological wonders... (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the most interesting things I admire about it, is that Puerto Rico has the worst hurricane season's ever, and that thing has hold several Cat 5 hurricanes without having a glitch damaged.
Cmdr Taco should defenitely go see it before its shutdown and abandoned... In fact he should organize a slashdot tour and while the tour guide is explaining mumbo jumbo, someone should connect a linux terminal somewhere and use it to transmit some slashdot to outerspace...
Jokes aside, I am really sad they are loosing funding. US Government should end their investment in the stupid war and drop some money in science for a change... I bet a whatever 1 month costs Congress the war, would put the observatory running for another 5 years or more.
PS. There is a village about 5 miles behind the observartory where they make the meanest Skirt Steak you can eat and one of the meanest moonshines you could drink...
Re:It is one of the greatest technological wonders (Score:2)
Re:It is one of the greatest technological wonders (Score:2)
Re: the first link to military expenditures... You cannot remotely call the entire $73.2 Billion dollar military research budget a science budget. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Next, the NASA budget is relatively small, but is mostly directed at applied science at the expense of basic science and all of the budget increases have been targeted towards sending men to Mars. Finally the UN budget is only a small portion of what we should be giving and it should be noted that we are grossly overdue in our payments.
To put things in perspective, the NIH which generates most of the funded biomedical research in this country has a budget of $29.8 Billion or 5.6% of the total military budget and even the military "research" budget outpaces the NIH budget by over 2Xs. So, where do you think we are putting our priorities?
Strategery.. (Score:2)
Out of that $8million in funding, spend $1million lobbying to Bush/Hillary/Guilliani Co. to get asteroids labeled as 'trrrrerist threats.' Then, declare that you plan to eavsdrop on all asteroid activity under a contract with Haliburton. Now, contact Haliburton and tell them you will do trrrrerist hunting for $50million/year. Haliburton will ask for $100million/year from the US gov't. Boom.. the Fed will print more money!
If that doesn't work..
Spend another $1million lobbying the other Republicrats.. and declare that by spending $50million to paint the observatory green, it will save like $4 in energy costs per year.
or do both..
Going Away? I don't think so (Score:2)
Re:Going Away? I don't think so (Score:2)
stop whining (Score:2)
The section of the NSF report (Score:5, Informative)
Note that there is a report due in December on the cost of decommissioning the telescope and that Cornell is working with the Puerto Rican government to find ways to fill in the funding gap.
* National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (NAIC)/Arecibo - Cornell acted quickly to implement the first of the Senior Review's recommendations to reduce the base operating budget to $8M over the next three years, by modifying the operating mode for astronomy observations, increasing the fraction of time for survey work, and limiting the number of receivers supported and the number of hours for astronomy observations. They also eliminated 30 FTEs, or 25% of their staff. Not all of these savings are realizable immediately, since personnel termination costs must be covered and the observatory requires basic maintenance to ensure safety of operations. By FY 2010, the full $2.5 million savings identified by the Senior Review will be recovered into the AST base budget and available for other uses.
Cornell has said that it will cease operations of the planetary radar in October 2007 to meet these budget reductions. We have recently learned that, in fact, they are maintaining the capability to operate the planetary radar, although on a less frequent schedule. In conversations with NASA management, it has been made clear that NASA has no intention of resuming support of the planetary radar, which they terminated in FY 2006.
With NSF's encouragement and support, Cornell and Arecibo staff are actively pursuing partnerships with the Puerto Rican government, local businesses, and academic institutions to provide additional operations support by 2011. We recently visited Puerto Rico, held a town hall for the Arecibo community, and met with commonwealth officials, business leaders, representatives from the universities and concerned citizens. We clarified the Senior Review recommendations and NSF's role in supporting the observatory and helped foster discussions among the many parties interested in maintaining the observatory as a viable operating facility for scientific research, education, and public outreach. The meetings were very positive with many expressions of a desire to work together to identify creative solutions to obtaining additional support. Many challenges face Cornell in preparing a plan for sustained long-term support from non-AST sources. I am optimistic that such a plan can be put together. NSF has informed Cornell that a concrete plan for operations in 2011 and beyond must be in place by spring of 2009. It is at that point that NSF must set the FY 2011 budget and so make a decision about the long-term future of Arecibo.
Nonetheless, in order to plan responsibly, and weigh the various options, we have to understand the cost of closure to be weighed against other options. As recommended by the Senior Review, NSF is also engaging an engineering firm to carry out a study of the cost of decommissioning the observatory facility. The study will explore a variety of possible endpoints, ranging from complete deconstruction and restoration of the site to its natural state to securely 'mothballing' the facility. The results of this study will be available in December 2007 and will serve as critical input to our planning for the long-term future of the observatory. This is part of responsible lifecycle costing, and should not be regarded as indicating that any final decisions have been made.
FUDdy duddy? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a lot of events in scientific funding that are a damn shame but this one really isn't that horrible. There really is no need to FUD this one up.
Re:FUDdy duddy? (Score:5, Funny)
Applekid, a long time Slashdot poster, plummeted to earth earlier today. He was last heard from criticizing the Slashdot editors(**). An anonymous poster who was apparently a witness to the scene describe is as "horrific. These guys in black suits came up and pushed him to the ground. I think I saw blood on his knee!"
The incident is being investigated by the Slashdot Lynch Mob in an effort to find those responsible.
(*) For certain values of "fatal"
(**) For certain values of "edit".
Re:FUDdy duddy? (Score:2)
CowboyNeal Loses Weight. No, it was cut about 25%. If he lost weight, he would have zero weight, and be able to fly... Either that, or your argument doesn't quite work.
Re:FUDdy duddy? (Score:2)
So, if you were to go to your bank tomorrow to find one quarter of your savings had gone, you wouldn't say you had 'lost money', because if you had lost money you would have had zero money? The word you're looking for is 'all', as in 'loses all funding' - notice how it isn't there?
The Arecibo Observatory funding was slashed - No, it was cut about 25%, it's still at $8 million. I suppose next time I trip and fall I can describe it as me "plummeting towards the ground."
So, if a samurai were to come up to you tomorrow and cut off one quarter of your body mass, you wouldn't describe yourself as having been 'slashed'?
Re:FUDdy duddy? (Score:2)
That's not to say that the story isn't FUDly--it does have a flavor of that.
Astronomers don't consider Arecibo top priority (Score:5, Insightful)
There are more cost-effective solutions, such as very long baselines and antenna arrays. Those have advantages like being able to resolve smaller angles.
The radio astronomers might have been playing a Washington-monument game. (The legend is that Congress threatened to cut the Parks budget, so the NPS threatened to close the Washington Monument.) That is, they hoped that the public outcry that has, in fact, occurred on
Good science requires ruthlessness. The idea that any particular icon or business is too big or too famous to fail has been very bad for the economy and would hurt the US scientifically.
National Astronomy AND Ionosphere Center (Score:4, Informative)
Cutting funding for Arecibo would be quite a blow to ionospheric & magnetospheric physics research, as well as to astronomy.
Richard Link, Ph.D.
How NSF works (Score:2)
silver lining to every nebula (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Underfunded? Help! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Underfunded? Help! (Score:2)
Brillant!
Under your proposal:
Funding from the public: basic science 0.001% of budget, ways to develop new more toxic and disposable plastic garbage %9.999, new fancier versions of viagra an dick extension procedures 90%.
Funding from the governments: ways to wage war on everybody and everything while enriching one's cronies, 100% of the "science" budget.
Funding from the religious wackos: ways to prove science does not work and if it does, the Universe is 600 year old and the Earth is flat, 100% of the budget.
I can't wait for your proposal to be adopted.
Not.
Re:Underfunded? Help! (Score:2)
Thanks for the idea. I'm going to go look right now to see if there is a fund set up for donations to keep Arecibo open, and if there is, I'll check my bank balance to see if a donation is in the budget.
Meanwhile, you just keep whining about "the scientists" and how awful it is that a fraction of a percent of your tax money is used to fund research.
Of course, this means that if there ever is an asteroid headed our way, and we have a spaceship ready to evacuate us, you don't get a seat. You can just sit there with your slightly lower taxes and wait to become a crater.
Re:Underfunded? Help! (Score:2)
Instead of funding the telescope, how about we fund the scientists that are doing things we want done, and THEY use their funding to rent the 'scope, funding it via projects that people find worthwhile."
That Is kind of how it is done. But you can not fund a facility 100% off the programs that use it. There are certain fixed costs and if they can know with certainty a budget they can actually lower those fixed costs. As a very mundain example if you run a university and you know you will be needed 6,000 rolls of toilet paper per year and you know you can pay for it you can order at great discount. But with only project to project rentals you end up buying toilet paper at 4X the cost one package at a time at the local market. This is just a silly example but in general, long term funding allows you to plan things like maintainance in a way that is cost effective.
Most facities like this get some longer term funding to pay for "infrastructure" and them on top of this the users do pay for time. But what is being cut here is the "infrastructure".