Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SKA Telescope Site Debate Not Over Yet

Posted by timothy on from the where's-that-stupid-fat-lady dept.

angry tapir writes "Although earlier reports claimed that a scientific panel recommended South Africa over Australia as the best site for the proposed Square Kilometre Array, the SKA board of directors is still debating which country will host the enormous US$2.1-billion radio telescope. The scientific panel only recommended South Africa by a narrow margin earlier this month."

12 of 78 comments (clear)

  1. A matter of safety by TWX · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess it comes down the safety and political stability for the long term.

    In South Africa there have been problems with rural people being murdered, and while their political change appears to have by-and-large completed, no guarantee.

    In Australia, their government appears stable, but they've had some issues with censorship and excessive searching of people at their ports, plus one runs the risk of running afoul of biker gangs, and having to be avenged by a lone cop driving the last of the V8 interceptors. Then there's the problem of who runs Barter Town and breaking deals and facing wheels...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:A matter of safety by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Informative

      woosh... you live in Australia but you've never seen Mad Max? You're not an Australian then.

    2. Re:A matter of safety by MiG82au · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As an Australian, you embarrass me.

  2. It's a 50-year research program by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whatever decision they made will have a lasting effect for the next 50 years

    They should not make the decision based on any other criteria but for the best of this program itself

    Political correctness has no place in Science research

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:It's a 50-year research program by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Political correctness has no place in Science research

      What makes you think that political correctness has anything to do with the decision? Apparently the scientific board didn't have an "enormous preference for one over the other". According to a article linked in TFA:

      Since 2006, South Africa has competed against a joint bid from Australia and New Zealand to host the project. The South African site has some compelling advantages: construction costs are lower, and it sits at a higher altitude. But the Australian site would be cheaper to insure, and is less likely to be encroached on by future development. The margin in favour of the winner was extremely narrow, the source says.

      It looks like they were making the decision on very practical concerns. They are weighing the cheaper initial costs verses the running costs and practicalities over time. I can see no reason to complain about the process. The idea that political correctness had a part merely because South Africa is the favourite is in itself a form a political correctness.

    2. Re:It's a 50-year research program by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I sort of agree, but have this to add - From the article, the scientific panel had "no enormous preference for one over the other". To me, it means that both sites are good, fit the needs of the SKA and would work well. While I haven't read the recommendations in all their lengthy glory, I sort of get the feeling that both locations are well suited to the needs.

      Given that, it is actually political correctness that comes down to the final choice being made. You are absolutely right in the fact that this is a 50 year project. If both geographic locations fit the needs, then the final choice will rely on what political aspects of the locations can cause problems somewhere in the next fifty years. Will both countries be politically stable for the next half century? Will there be religious stability, will there be stability in infrastructure, are political relations with all the SKA members likely to stay on friendly terms?

      Given the large financial investment in the SKA, you really need to ensure the place you build it will be the best overall location, not just the one that has a fraction better INSERT SOMETHING that makes the scientics go "Ooohhhh" just that little touch longer. They need to be able to use the facilities for the entire length of the project in the best possible means. Having a location that is 0.12% better in terms of measurable 3 doesn't mean that much if the folks running the show have to be evacuated due to a political influence, or they run out of electricity, or some other potentially foreseeable event occurs.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:It's a 50-year research program by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apparently Australia already proved they can provide a lower noise-floor and it is technically the best option. It just costs a bit more and noone can get the "feel good" factor they get from giving money to African nations.

    4. Re:It's a 50-year research program by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nevertheless, I'm sticking to my original statement - Whatever decision they want to make, make it according to one criteria, and ONE CRITERIA ONLY -

      What is best for the program, which will last for the next 50 years

      Fair enough, but I shall stick to my assertion that this is exactly what the SKA board is doing.

      You say that we all have eyes, but I cannot see any evidence of political correctness going on here. You say that political correctness has influenced the psyche of the Europeans, and yet I don't know of any multi-billion dollar project that has been unduly influenced by such things. And even if they had, the SKA member countries include Australia, Canada, India, China, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA which should be a diverse enough group to rise above the PC level.

      While it does *NOT* mean that the so-called "Panel" made their decision based on PC alone - the suspicion is unfortunately, unavoidable.

      It is only unavoidable if you base your opinion on your pre-conceived prejudices rather than looking at the facts. And what is with calling the SKA panel a so-called "Panel"? Is there something about the make-up of the Square Kilometre Array organisation that you are not telling us? Perhaps you have more "unavoidable suspicions" ready to rock the world of astronomy!

    5. Re:It's a 50-year research program by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It just costs a bit more and noone can get the "feel good" factor they get from giving money to African nations.

      I cited my quote about the pros and cons considered by the SKA board for each country. Perhaps you can cite your quote about this "feel good" factor to which you refer. Otherwise I shall just have to assume that you are filling in the blanks with your own biases like Taco Cowboy did.

    6. Re:It's a 50-year research program by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Aus/NZ has a technically better (lower noise, larger area etc) proposal, what other factors should be taken into account by the scientific panel?

    7. Re:It's a 50-year research program by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Aus/NZ has a technically better (lower noise, larger area etc) proposal, what other factors should be taken into account by the scientific panel?

      Did you even read the part that I quoted? It lists some of the factors that were considered. Yes, there are some non-scientific things on the list, but scientists are not so insular from the realities of the world that they cannot consider cost, access etc. Do you really believe that a scientific panel would not consider things like the cost to build the site, but would actually be more guided by what you described as the "feel good" factor they get from giving money to African nations?

      I notice that you forgot to include any citation for your "feel good" factor claim too. You probably should try backing up your claim that the Australian site is "apparently" technically better too, and preferably neither citation should be from the Australian camp either.

      As the anonymous coward (dom) pointed out, and as was also stated in my quote, the South African site "sits at a higher altitude" than the Australian site. There is not a huge advantage of one site over the other. We know that this is true, because it is exactly what the panel said! I think that I will take their word for this over your "apparently it is technically better" remark.

  3. Re:Fascinitating by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A scientific project in South Africa?
    South Africa has mining experts, heavy engineering, defence experts, past nuclear experts, good computing and maths backgrounds.
    They built their own nuclear reactors, nuclear weapons, bio/chem weapons and did well with very complex aerospace upgrades.
    Australia has a research reactor, a few universities with hand me down computers and still needs direct guidance from UK and US intelligence/contractors for complex projects.
    Staff would always be an issue in Australia - getting the right people out of the cities is really, really expensive.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"