Slashdot Mirror
SKA Might Be Split Between South Africa and Australia
gbrumfiel writes "The Square Kilometre Array will be the world's most powerful telescope, assuming the nations involved can agree on where to build it. A scientific panel recently backed South Africa over Australia to host the project, but neither side has conceded defeat. Rather than splitting the partners, project leaders are now thinking about splitting the telescope between the two countries. There's little scientific advantage, but the thinking is that a split telescope would be better than no telescope."
None of the official sources has confirmed that the recommendation went to South Africa.
It springs from two Australian newspaper articles which weren't sourced.
This isn't to say South Africa wasn't recommended, but you shouldn't report it as fact.
Sarah Wild
South Africa
There's little scientific advantage
Make it a interferometer? Seems obvious, so there must be something wrong with that idea.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Of politics stepping in where it has no business, and mucking everything up. Going to read TFA now...
...it would be great a great global welfare program.
Not a place I'd want to move my family to or have any long term plans.........and it seems a lot of South Africans feels the same way.........
http://www.sa-austin.com/blog/2011/04/what-were-your-main-reasons-for-leaving-south-africa-263.html
http://digitaljournal.com/article/267776
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Build two.
According to TFA the only disadvantage of splitting is that there has to be a computing centre built on each site, slightly increasing the costs. But I'm sure that the losing one of the two countries would happily foot the bill for that if it meant that they could still get one half.
'OK, OK, you can each have half of the damn telescope, just shut up and give me some peace.'
So, its the Double Half Square Kilometer Array now then?
I live in South Africa so I can give some context...
For a few years around our first democratic elections many people were scared the country is going to go downhill etc. They left in droves to places like the UK, Australia, Canada, NZ. Hundreds of thousands of people emigrated. The best part is that the country didn't go downhill and many of the people who left are having a hard time justifying why they left. We've had the longest period of economic growth in the country's history since the 1994 elections and anyone who attended the 2010 soccer world cup can tell you what a beautiful friendly place South Africa is.
I think the biggest problem we have in terms of our image is that the hundreds of thousands of people who left for other countries feel a constant need to justify why they left and talk about SA is if it were some sort of war zone. People who actually live in South Africa (like me) often are not sure how to respond to Australians and others who we meet. Their perceptions of SA are so badly warped by the nonsense spouted by those who emigrated from SA 10 to 17 years ago. The amusing part is those returning from London to SA in search of better economic and career prospects here. Those of us who stayed here just smile knowingly.
Ask anyone who is a resident or ex resident of S.Africa..
It is simply a matter of time until the place descends into chaos.
And yes, i have lived there.
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
Between Jamaica and England.
Why build one when you can have two for twice the price.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
They are just waiting to see which country loves the telescope enough to cede ownership rather than let it be cut in half, then they will give it to that country because they must be the real, loving mother!
Since they agree that they're split, they should build half in Cape Town and the other half in Perth. That way they can have an 8690-Kilometre Array. Unless they've already printed their SKA stationary and the cost of reprinting it as 8690KA would be prohibitive.
If they do this then the likely outcome is that SKA will never happen. This sort of "compromise" as a way of avoiding having to make an actual decision is almost always the first step in a death spiral for the project. Case in point: the Joint Dark Energy Mission, which crashed and burned due to pointless infighting between erstwhile collaborators on the mission.
Where's King Soloman when you need him.
Apparently the government favors ISP-level censorship, and I'd be worried about our point of contact with an alien civilization being behind a filter that scrubs all evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence because the very existence of aliens is "unpatriotic" or "offensive to certain religions." On the other hand, the do have the ability to use elephants to fight invasive species. Tough call.
SA resident. Country is doing just fine. Stop spouting bullshit please.
Another SA resident. Country def. doing very well!
They built two to achieve coverage of the northern and southern skies.
If the loss of sensitivity is worth it, I'm not sure, but having 100% coverage of the sky is a big advantage, is it not?
err you do know that Australia is a completely different continent than africa right??
in fact on the "bottom half" of the earth you have africa (quarter twist to the east) australia and then (half twist to the easy) south america with the antarctic? continent on the very bottom.
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
This is sounding more and more like a political repeat of the US supercollider project that was eventually awarded to Texas. Once Texas got it there wasn't enough incentive for the other states to support it and well as we all know, Europe now has the project and controls the field of high energy physics.
It makes little scientific sense to attempt to build such a project in both jurisdictions and even less financial sense.
However, has anyone given consideration to splitting the data collecting and the data analyzing aspects of the project between the top two candidates. Say build the array in South Africa as is proposed by the technical panel, but award the bulk of the infrastructure and funding for analysis to the Australians. Surely, there are ways to divide the project along functional lines of this type without jeopardizing the physical design of the system. If they do that, what's the point of spending alll that money? If such a functional splitting of the pie could be arrived at it would seem to be a win win for both and would then set up the second candidate for a larger array in the future, without destroying good will among partners and impeding the original purpose of the array in the first place, namely to do more science?
I don't really have an ax to grind one way or the other as I think both countries are great and do much great science, even though this particular science program has very little to do with preserving and studying biodiversity, which in my opinion is a far more pressing concern than additional spending on astronomy. Not that its not important, but the heavens will still be shining in a few hundred years, pretty much as they are now. The same can not be said for many if not most of the world's species, many of which we know far less about than distant galaxies and stars. In any event, the astronomers of the world need to get their act together and make some tough choices without jeopardizing the original intent and promise of the science.
As the World Cup Soccer Championship that took place in Cape Town and other cities demonstrated, that fear simply isn't rational. Yes, there was violence against foreigners, but it was primarily directed at Zimbawians, who have been displaced by turmoil there. This is a situation not at all dissimilar to the way Mexican and other Latin Americans entering into the US are treated, who resent their presence because they purportedly "steal jobs". The South African government moved quickly to address the problem. Unlike we Americans with our own similar problem, yet no one would claim that the US isn't a fit place to do astronomy or science.
Actually, much of the 3.4% growth comes from agricultural exports, in particular some of the nicest wines in the world. A good "champagne" for only $3 US that is comparable to those in France isn't such a bad thing as even the French will tell you.
It would seem to me that the world scientific community would do well to see this built in South Africa as it would broaden the base for scientific infrastructure and bring yet another government into a stronger appreciation of the role of science and scientific infrastructure to diversifying and improving economies. Sure one can always find one more reason to build one more facility in an already developed country, but will it have as big an impact on the growth of world science? Surely, there is a role for the Australians to play if it turns out that their proposal is not the one with the greatest technical merit. The scientific community does itself a tremendous disservice when it resorts to playing politics with science. It should be precisely the kind of thing that scientists of all stripes everywhere do everything they can to avoid.
I live in Mississippi. Even as a Caucasian, I am thinking of emigrating to South Africa because it would be a step up, especially if Mr. Etch-A-Sketch gets elected. I know it to be a far friendlier place than Mississippi and in many ways far more civilized.
If Australia had been nominated then I dont think South Africa would have been given a second chance. As usual a different set of rules for developing countries.