RIP Arecibo Radio Telescope

[lpetrich]

Deborah Martorell on Twitter: "Amigos es con profundo pesar comunicarles que acaba de colapsar la plataforma del Observatorio de Arecibo. https://t.co/stJScy2Old" / Twitter
Google Translate:
Friends, it is with deep regret to inform you that the Arecibo Observatory platform has just collapsed.

The tweet is dated 3:56 AM · Dec 1, 2020 PST

It shows the observatory from a little outside it. All three support towers are in place, but the center platform is gone.

Iconic Arecibo Observatory radio telescope collapses after cable broke - CBS News

Huge Puerto Rico radio telescope, already damaged, collapses

The telescope’s 900-ton receiver platform fell onto the reflector dish more than 400 feet below.

...
“It sounded like a rumble. I knew exactly what it was,” said Jonathan Friedman, who worked for 26 years as a senior research associate at the observatory and still lives near it. “I was screaming. Personally, I was out of control.... I don’t have words to express it. It’s a very deep, terrible feeling.”

Friedman ran up a small hill near his home and confirmed his suspicions: A cloud of dust hung in the air where the structure once stood, demolishing hopes held by some scientists that the telescope could somehow be repaired.

“It’s a huge loss,” said Carmen Pantoja, an astronomer and professor at the University of Puerto Rico who used the telescope for her doctorate. “It was a chapter of my life.”

 

[Jokodo]

But whether the telescope is 1600 feet in diameter (or approximately so) does not depend on what measure they generally use in China. For that matter, they do not generally speak in English, either, but that has no bearing on whether the telescope is 500 meters in diameter (or approximately so).

The point is: when we talk about China (or things in China, etc.), we do not have an obligation to speak Chinese, or to use the measure system used in China. It is okay to speak English (and it would be okay even if 95% of the world spoke Chinese as their only language), or to use another system (I use the metric system when it's up to me, by the way).

Sure, we don't have such an obligation. However, when writing on a science topic in an international forum, it is prudent to use the terminology science-minded people internationally are most likely to understand - which is the metric system. A mitigating factor would be if the object described is in a hold-out using a non-metric system of measurement.

I would react similarly if a Pakistani described Germany's population as 8 crore, though I might give them a pass if quoting Pakistan's population as 21 crore.

It's not the same in terms of immediate comprehension, as at least nearly everyone on this forum is familiar with feet. However, even in the case of "crore", it would not cause any problems, since looking that up takes seconds.

It wouldn't cause problems, but it entails extra effort on the side of the audience, something cooperative communicators attempt to avoid.

We're not talking about someone posting in another language, but just using one word most people here (unlike "feet") are not familiar with.

By the way, it's not at all clear that the number of readers unfamiliar with feet - if any - exceeds the number of readers unfamiliar with meters - if any. I'd assign middling probability to that one. What's your probabilistic assessment on the matter, and why?

My probabilistic assessment is that over 80% of readers likely to stumble upon this thread will have a good idea of how much 500 meters are without doing any calculations, and 100% of those that don't will know the approximate conversion factor without looking it up - while at most 60-70% have a good idea of how long 1600 ft are (without calculations), and of those that don't, up to 20% may have to look up the conversion factor. This is the "Natural Science" subsection of a forum mostly frequented by people with somewhat of a scientific mindset. As Loren Pechtel has said, in scientific/technical contexts, even in the US the metric system is frequently used.

(an non-scientific thread will a poll might provide anecdotal evidence).

At any rate, which system they use in China is irrelevant.

It isn't particularly relevant, true. Though I can let it pass when someone states the dimensions of a US telescope in feet, as a form of immersing with the natives.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It wouldn't cause problems, but it entails extra effort on the side of the audience, something cooperative communicators attempt to avoid.

It probably does require an extra effort on the part of some readers, whereas using meters instead of feet probably requires an extra effort on the part of some other readers. On the other hand, using meters instead of feet would require an extra effort on the part of the communicator.

Assuming that cooperative communicators attempt to avoid extra effort on the side of the audience, and that that applies regardless of whether that requires extra effort on the part of the communicator (to any extent, or more reasonably at least to the extent to which it is required of a person to convert from feet to meters or vice versa, in ordinary cases), then the conclusion would be that cooperative communicators would use both meters and feet in each case (or, depending on the case, kilometers and miles, etc.). Sure, one could adjust the assessment of uncooperativeness so that it encompassess those using feet only but not those who using meters only on the basis of your assessment of the chances that readers will understand, but I do not see a good reason to do so.

My probabilistic assessment is that over 80% of readers likely to stumble upon this thread will have a good idea of how much 500 meters are without doing any calculations, and 100% of those that don't will know the approximate conversion factor without looking it up - while at most 60-70% have a good idea of how long 1600 ft are (without calculations), and of those that don't, up to 20% may have to look up the conversion factor. This is the "Natural Science" subsection of a forum mostly frequented by people with somewhat of a scientific mindset. As Loren Pechtel has said, in scientific/technical contexts, even in the US the metric system is frequently used.

Okay, so we have different assessments. I didn't come here by looking at the forum, but I just clicked "new threads" and the title seemed interesting. I think this will attract plenty of viewers unfamiliar with meters. Also, my impression is that most likely readers are American.

But leaving that aside, notice that Treedbear said "Since January 2020 there's been a bigger one named FAST in China. 1600 vs 1000 ft. diameter.", which gives anyone an immediate answer to the question of the relative size of the telescopes - it's 1.6 bigger in diameter. Moreover, anyone who read the OP post that was just above Treedbear's post (very probably anyone who read his post, as very few people read the second post in a thread without reading the first post) also read that Arecibo was 305 m, and thus need no unit conversion to immediately tell that FAST is 508 meters, with the expected error due to imprecision either in the OP or in Treedbear's post.

Though I can let it pass when someone states the dimensions of a US telescope in feet, as a form of immersing with the natives.

Hmm...I'm thinking about making a thread asking things like "which units do you use? Which units do you intuitively understand without conversion? Which units you know the conversion factor? ", etc., to get some more anecdotal evidence.

 

[skepticalbip]

Or since the Arecibo telescope is U.S. built why not say its dish has a 1,000 foot diameter and, since the FAST telescope is Chinese built, say its dish has a 1 Li diameter? Those who understand the dimensions will have no problem... those who don't will have to convert to a dimension they do understand. I wouldn't presume to assume what dimensions someone else is comfortable with.

 

[Jokodo]

Or since the Arecibo telescope is U.S. built why not say its dish has a 1,000 foot diameter and, since the FAST telescope is Chinese built, say its dish has a 1 Li diameter? Those who understand the dimensions will have no problem... those who don't will have to convert to a dimension they do understand. I wouldn't presume to assume what dimensions someone else is comfortable with.

As it happens, there exists a global standard for distances that, grudgingly and indirectly, even the US adheres to. The only official definition of the foot is that it is exactly 0.3048 metres.

 

[skepticalbip]

Or since the Arecibo telescope is U.S. built why not say its dish has a 1,000 foot diameter and, since the FAST telescope is Chinese built, say its dish has a 1 Li diameter? Those who understand the dimensions will have no problem... those who don't will have to convert to a dimension they do understand. I wouldn't presume to assume what dimensions someone else is comfortable with.

As it happens, there exists a global standard for distances that, grudgingly and indirectly, even the US adheres to. The only official definition of the foot is that it is exactly 0.3048 metres.

True, but that says nothing about how comfortably some random person can 'intuitively' understand the dimension.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It probably does require an extra effort on the part of some readers, whereas using meters instead of feet probably requires an extra effort on the part of some other readers. On the other hand, using meters instead of feet would require an extra effort on the part of the communicator.

Assuming that cooperative communicators attempt to avoid extra effort on the side of the audience, and that that applies regardless of whether that requires extra effort on the part of the communicator (to any extent, or more reasonably at least to the extent to which it is required of a person to convert from feet to meters or vice versa, in ordinary cases), then the conclusion would be that cooperative communicators would use both meters and feet in each case (or, depending on the case, kilometers and miles, etc.). Sure, one could adjust the assessment of uncooperativeness so that it encompassess those using feet only but not those who using meters only on the basis of your assessment of the chances that readers will understand, but I do not see a good reason to do so.




Okay, so we have different assessments. I didn't come here by looking at the forum, but I just clicked "new threads" and the title seemed interesting. I think this will attract plenty of viewers unfamiliar with meters. Also, my impression is that most likely readers are American.

But leaving that aside, notice that Treedbear said "Since January 2020 there's been a bigger one named FAST in China. 1600 vs 1000 ft. diameter.", which gives anyone an immediate answer to the question of the relative size of the telescopes - it's 1.6 bigger in diameter. Moreover, anyone who read the OP post that was just above Treedbear's post (very probably anyone who read his post, as very few people read the second post in a thread without reading the first post) also read that Arecibo was 305 m, and thus need no unit conversion to immediately tell that FAST is 508 meters, with the expected error due to imprecision either in the OP or in Treedbear's post.

Though I can let it pass when someone states the dimensions of a US telescope in feet, as a form of immersing with the natives.

Hmm...I'm thinking about making a thread asking things like "which units do you use? Which units do you intuitively understand without conversion? Which units you know the conversion factor? ", etc., to get some more anecdotal evidence.

Okay, my bad, it's 488. I black lack of sleep. Or something. (at any rate, knowing the relation between the measures doesn't make errors like that more or less probable, so the point stands).

 

[lpetrich]

Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico Collapses Weeks After Suffering Major Damage | The Weather Channel - Articles from The Weather Channel | weather.com - has a picture of the fallen center platform on the dish.

It looks like it fell a little away from the center of the dish, as if only one tower's set of support cables broke and the platform then swung toward the other two towers.

 

[Rhea]

Sad to see the end of something that did so much. I hope they rebuild and continue the science.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This seriously reduces the capability to track asteroids near Earth, it seems. Realistically it won't be the end of the world, but it might (improbably) be a disaster.

 

[Jokodo]

It probably does require an extra effort on the part of some readers, whereas using meters instead of feet probably requires an extra effort on the part of some other readers.

Not all kinds of extra effort are created equal. Extra effort can be a valuable learning experience, or a pure waste of time, and which it is much depends on context and intended audience.

For example, if you advertise an apartment for sublet in Cambridge, MA, it would be uncooperative to quote the surface area in square meters and the distance to the bus stop in meters - even though some (potentially many) of the people interested in the apartment might be international grad students who are not yet very familiar with imperial units, but they are living in the US for now and familiarizing themselves with those units is a valuable experience as they will be encountering them a lot, while those among the readers who are more familiar with imperial measures might not personally profit from getting more familiar with metric units and wasting their time spent conversing units.

If you post on a science forum though, where the audience is people interested in scientific topics (many of whom outside the US, and not planning to move there anytime soon), the situation is reversed: Those who are familiar with metric units but not imperial ones are wasting their time by doing the conversion, while those familiar with imperial units but not metric ones are learning for life, as given their interest in scientific topics, they are likely to encounter metric units a lot even if they never step out of the US.

It is in this particular context that I'm calling giving imperial units only uncooperative.

 

[thebeave]

Or since the Arecibo telescope is U.S. built why not say its dish has a 1,000 foot diameter and, since the FAST telescope is Chinese built, say its dish has a 1 Li diameter? Those who understand the dimensions will have no problem... those who don't will have to convert to a dimension they do understand. I wouldn't presume to assume what dimensions someone else is comfortable with.

As it happens, there exists a global standard for distances that, grudgingly and indirectly, even the US adheres to. The only official definition of the foot is that it is exactly 0.3048 metres.

True, but that says nothing about how comfortably some random person can 'intuitively' understand the dimension.

Sadly, here in the US its very common for the media to express such distances in terms of how many football fields long it is, when trying to communicate a distance to the average American. As someone with a physics background who cares nothing about football, I've always found this to be rather troubling. I suppose next they will refer to an hour as the length of time of the Keeping Up With The Kardishians TV show.

 

[Jokodo]

True, but that says nothing about how comfortably some random person can 'intuitively' understand the dimension.

Sadly, here in the US its very common for the media to express such distances in terms of how many football fields long it is, when trying to communicate a distance to the average American. As someone with a physics background who cares nothing about football, I've always found this to be rather troubling. I suppose next they will refer to an hour as the length of time of the Keeping Up With The Kardishians TV show.

That's not specific to the US, you see a lot if volumes measured in Olympic swimming pools or surface areas in football fields (not handegg) here too.

 

[Jokodo]

Or since the Arecibo telescope is U.S. built why not say its dish has a 1,000 foot diameter and, since the FAST telescope is Chinese built, say its dish has a 1 Li diameter? Those who understand the dimensions will have no problem... those who don't will have to convert to a dimension they do understand. I wouldn't presume to assume what dimensions someone else is comfortable with.

As it happens, there exists a global standard for distances that, grudgingly and indirectly, even the US adheres to. The only official definition of the foot is that it is exactly 0.3048 metres.

True, but that says nothing about how comfortably some random person can 'intuitively' understand the dimension.

Given this is an international forum with participants from all continents except Antarctica, chances are that you overestimate the probability of a random person comfortably and intuitively understanding feet - by a lot. I find that Americans often have a hard time understanding the world doesn't end at their border.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you post on a science forum though, where the audience is people interested in scientific topics (many of whom outside the US, and not planning to move there anytime soon), the situation is reversed: Those who are familiar with metric units but not imperial ones are wasting their time by doing the conversion, while those familiar with imperial units but not metric ones are learning for life, as given their interest in scientific topics, they are likely to encounter metric units a lot even if they never step out of the US.

They won't be wasting their time by learning the units used in the US. It can come in handy when reading anything from the US. But if you're saying it is more useful to learn metric units from those unfamiliar with them than the reverse, if they are interested in scientific topics, that is probably so on average. However, that would not be about being cooperative or uncooperative, in terms of the extra effort it requires. You said earlier that "It wouldn't cause problems, but it entails extra effort on the side of the audience, something cooperative communicators attempt to avoid." If so, now we're talking about being uncooperative for the sake of teaching the audience about the metric system, which sounds rather patronizing (in reality, though, people are not being uncooperative; they are providing information that otherwise would not have been provided, and it's easy to understand what they are saying).

It is in this particular context that I'm calling giving imperial units only uncooperative.

Giving readers an extra effort in order to teach them something sounds rather patronizing. Maybe it's still justified, but definitely it would be uncooperative - you would be withdrawing cooperation in order to get them to make an effort and learn -, at least if that's the intent.
Of course, in reality, people are not thinking in those terms. They just use the units they are familiar with. By providing the information they give, they are being cooperative. Sure, one can give more information and be more cooperative. But the term "uncooperative" here is used in context in a pejorative sense; in context, you are clearly implying people who post have a moral obligation to use metric units. I do not see why that extent of an effort would be ethically required. They are still providing good information - and as I mentioned, they are giving the immediate relation between the sizes by saying one is 1600 feet and the other 1000 feet. One does not need to bother with the meaning of "feet" to do the math.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

True, but that says nothing about how comfortably some random person can 'intuitively' understand the dimension.

Given this is an international forum with participants from all continents except Antarctica, chances are that you overestimate the probability of a random person comfortably and intuitively understanding feet - by a lot. I find that Americans often have a hard time understanding the world doesn't end at their border.

I'm not American, and I use metric units all the time. I've learned some of the most common imperial units because it's useful to read stuff in American media and (mostly) American forums such as this one.

But I agree with skepticalbip's point (which was not making a probabilistic assessment about readers' intuitive understanding of "feet".

 

[Jokodo]

It is in this particular context that I'm calling giving imperial units only uncooperative.

Giving readers an extra effort in order to teach them something sounds rather patronizing. Maybe it's still justified, but definitely it would be uncooperative - you would be withdrawing cooperation in order to get them to make an effort and learn -, at least if that's the intent.

Agreed, but it is less uncooperative than giving them extra effort in a way that simply wastes their time.

Of course, in reality, people are not thinking in those terms. They just use the units they are familiar with.

Which they are familiar with and/or which they expect their audience to be familiar with. People do adjust their way of speaking to the audience all the time. And some people need an occasional reminder that not everyone in a global audience is using imperial units. They can ignore it, or they can consider it but come to the assessment that enough of the audience still is using them to make them the best option for making oneself understood, or whatever, but there's absolutely no reason to act all offended because someone reminded you of something you may or may not have forgotten.

By providing the information they give, they are being cooperative. Sure, one can give more information and be more cooperative. But the term "uncooperative" here is used in context in a pejorative sense; in context, you are clearly implying people who post have a moral obligation to use metric units.

I'm not proposing a moral framework, I was just giving a quick, maybe slightly snarky, comment. It could have ended there if Treedbear hadn't gotten all offended.

 

[blastula]

Some footage of the collapse, not the best angles though.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/ssHkMWcGat4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Which they are familiar with and/orwhich they expect their audience to be familiar with.

They probably do not expect all of their audience to be familiar with the terms. I certainly do not have that expectation when I use either the metric or the imperial system. I usually try to adjust to the majority or the person I'm speaking to, so I have sometimes used the imperial system in this forum, though I would never do so in meat space.

And some people need an occasional reminder that not everyone in a global audience is using imperial units.

But why? They almost certainly know that, and the reminder will only annoy them , particularly if it indicates wrongful behavior on their part.

Btw, I know that, and yet I have sometimes used imperial units instead of the natural (to me) metric ones, precisely because on this forum (TFT and previous incarnations), I expected that to be easier for my interlocutors and audience.

They can ignore it, or they can consider it but come to the assessment that enough of the audience still is using them to make them the best option for making oneself understood, or whatever, but there's absolutely no reason to act all offended because someone reminded you of something you may or may not have forgotten.

There is a big difference between telling someone "Some people here are not familiar with imperial units" and "I'm pretty sure they don't measure it in feet in China.", more so when one should expect very probably no one in the audience reading from China, and if there is someone, a very tiny minority. The obvious answer was "How many of us are in China?".

The reply "Many of us are not in the US. When it comes to measuring stuff, China is not the weird kid who doesn't with the rest of the class, you are." is also an accusation of wrongful behavior: you are doubling down on the implication that he ought to have used metric units.

You even said

Sure, we don't have such an obligation. However, when writing on a science topic in an international forum, it is prudent to use the terminology science-minded people internationally are most likely to understand - which is the metric system. A mitigating factor would be if the object described is in a hold-out using a non-metric system of measurement.

You implied he failed to be prudent (i.e., he was imprudent) for using the imperial system.

I'm not proposing a moral framework, I was just giving a quick, maybe slightly snarky, comment. It could have ended there if Treedbear hadn't gotten all offended.

Actually, Treedbear's was not the only one defending Treedbear's use of the imperial system. You should have expected him to be offended (I mean, it is obvious, isn't it? You even said you ridiculed him (!) for using the imperial system)

 

[lpetrich]

Gut-wrenching footage documents Arecibo telescope’s collapse

Drone footage of the collapse, released by the NSF two days later, shows cables snapping at the top of one of the three towers from which the instrument platform was suspended. The platform plummets downward and crashes into the side of the dish. The tops of all three towers also snap off.

...
Some nearby buildings, including the control room and the visitor centre, survived the collapse. An educational centre, however, seems to have been substantially damaged by the falling platform and cables.

Questions remain about whether the cables were maintained properly over the years. The cable that failed in November, precipitating the final collapse, dated back to the observatory’s construction in 1963.

Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico collapses as engineers feared - The Verge

This catastrophic scenario is something the NSF feared might happen. On November 19th, the agency announced that the remaining cables at Arecibo ran the risk of failing, which could lead to the platform’s collapse. Knowing this was imminent, NSF said it planned to demolish Arecibo in a controlled manner, concluding that there was no safe way to save the observatory. Managers had evacuated the facility and set up a “safety exclusion zone” to keep people away.

Local officials will make sure the area remains cleared, so that engineers can assess the extent of the damage, according to the NSF. The agency says it is trying to figure out how the fall occurred. Early assessments suggest that the top sections of all three towers holding up the massive platform broke away, causing the structure to fall. The telescope’s support cables also fell when the platform crashed, causing major damage to Arecibo’s nearby learning center. In a press conference in early November, the NSF noted that the main cables each weigh about 15,000 pounds.

Nobody was injured by this fall - the safety exclusion zone evidently worked.