The discussion centers on the implications of building the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope, set to become operational in three years. Critics argue that the pursuit of detecting alien signals may expand the "radio silence" of the Universe, questioning the value of such investments in basic science. Proponents highlight the advancements in data processing and the potential for groundbreaking discoveries, emphasizing that past scientific endeavors have led to significant technological benefits. Ultimately, the debate reflects a broader tension between funding scientific research and its perceived immediate societal impact.
PREREQUISITESAstronomers, science policy makers, educators, and anyone interested in the intersection of scientific research and societal impact.
Yes, that would be another logical step. But you seemed to be skeptical that radio astronomy would continue to advance--but now you're saying it will. Which is it?Line_112 said:I read that there are ideas to build a radio telescope on the far side of the Moon. There will be no anthropogenic noise there.
Someone should have informed the Chinese before they built the world's largest radio telescope and spent half a billion dollars on relocations and construction. And I bet it is as overbooked as any telescope we have.PeterDonis said:Yes, that would be another logical step. But you seemed to be skeptical that radio astronomy would continue to advance--but now you're saying it will. Which is it?
Rather, to increasing the power of telescopes than to change their location. On Earth, is greatly hampered by terrestrial interference, and it is always very unpleasant when a suspicious signal is first reported, and then official scientists refute it. A telescope on the far side of the Moon would reduce the number of such tricky cases, and the probability that the caught suspicious signal is connected precisely with an alien civilization would be much higher. As well as the probability of detecting such signals (the less noise, the lower the risk of missing or misinterpret). So there really are reasons for such a format of searches.PeterDonis said:Yes, that would be another logical step. But you seemed to be skeptical that radio astronomy would continue to advance--but now you're saying it will. Which is it?
Source: ALMAPreliminary results after closing the Cycle 10 Call for Proposals (CfP) shows continued strong demand for ALMA time. The community submitted 1680 proposals. Although this is a slight decrease from the most recent cycles, the amount of time requested on the 12-m array increased to over 29,000 hours, which is the most time ever requested in a single cycle. This implies an overall oversubscription rate of 6.9 on the 12-meter array. The amount of time requested on the 7-m and Total Power arrays also remains very robust, with approximately 15,000 hours requested on each array.
Yes, but it is still worrying that more and more people responsible for this type of decisions think the same nowadays.Baluncore said:I think it is lucky for RA that it is not your call.
Line_112 said:They do not affect our salaries and pensions in any way, and since they are considered natural objects, there is even less sense in studying them.
Yes, those official scientists always try to refute everything.Line_112 said:it is always very unpleasant when a suspicious signal is first reported, and then official scientists refute it.
There's no such thing as an official scientist.Jaime Rudas said:Yes, those official scientists always try to refute everything.
Yes, maybe I didn't clarify that this was a sarcastic response.Herman Trivilino said:There's no such thing as an official scientist.
Oh ... sorry about that.Jaime Rudas said:Yes, maybe I didn't clarify that this was a sarcastic response.
I don't understand. Changing location--to space or on the Moon--does increase the resolving power available. You've explained why yourself. So I don't understand why you're separating the two.Line_112 said:Rather, to increasing the power of telescopes than to change their location
I still don't understand. You're describing ways in which the accuracy of detection could be improved. That would involve continuing this line of research. But you've said you don't think it should be continued. Which is it?Line_112 said:I focused on another aspect.
I am not against continuing the research of extraterrestrial signals. I am against using increasingly powerful telescopes for this. That is, so that the detection radius does not increase.PeterDonis said:I still don't understand. You're describing ways in which the accuracy of detection could be improved. That would involve continuing this line of research. But you've said you don't think it should be continued. Which is it?
Then it probably wasn't a good idea for you to describe explicitly in this thread how to do that. (Not that I think the radio astronomy community needs to be told--but as has already been pointed out, that community has far bigger fish to fry than searching for alien signals, and improvements in detection will be aimed at those other things, and any improvement in detection of possible alien signals will be a small side effect.)Line_112 said:I am not against continuing the research of extraterrestrial signals. I am against using increasingly powerful telescopes for this