Talk:Arecibo Observatory

message: how expensive was that? --Abdull 23:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Random thread

message: "The receiver is located on a 900-ton platform...". Is this correct? It seems a bit excessive to me even for a telescope of this size.  Peter Resch 02:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I quickly Googled this, finding the following page that confirms the statement: http://www.naic.edu/public/the_telescope.htm. btm 03:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Receiver 

message: Several sources state the weight as 90 tons:
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1996/05/major-upgrade-arecibo-observatory-passes-critical-milestone
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/06/some-facts-and-little-history-about-arecibo
https://www.nature.com/articles/42549
...
For the pure looks of the platform, it cannot weight 900 tons, even if made from lead.
Also the supporting structure does not look beefy enough for that kind of weight.
Shallow support rope angle means that the forces on ropes are 3 to 4 times the weight of the platform.
There are nowhere near enough of ropes for this and if there would be, the ropes would add another hundred(s) of tons of weight.
Maybe some one could look into this again.
: According to these sources, 90 tons is the weight of the 'gregorian' dome only, not the entire platform.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avfk (talk • contribs) 20:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Can confirm that the platform weighed ~900 tons. Each of the 18 cables was > 3" bridge strand with nominal strengths > 1000 kilopounds - yes, that's a unit that US structural engineers use. That comes out to about 100 tons of cable (total). MikeyNolan (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2020-11-21 

message: When following the link to the NASA website it credited the 1989 discovery of this asteroid to a Mount Palomar photgraphic plate.  Which is correct, I wonder?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.211.138 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The radar imaging of the asteroid was not its discovery, the asteroid had to first be discovered so Arecibo knew where to point to image it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.247.51 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First radar-imaged asteroid? 

message: Does anyone know whether or not the observatory is actually located in Arecibo?  Looking at the map it looks like it may be in Utuado or possibly even Hatillo instead.  Tomertalk 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their website at  gives the postal address as being in Arecibo: Arecibo Observatory, HC03 Box 53995, Arecibo, Puerto Rico 00612. Iancaddy 08:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The USGS topo maps  show it just on the Arecibo side of the Arecibo / Utuado border. MikeyNolan (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The town of Arecibo is a half hour drive from the telescope.  The telescope is (more or less) by itself in the woods, but it is still within the Arecibo municipality .  You actually drive through several other small neighborhoods between Arecibo (the town) and the telescope.  Betterthanalemur (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of observatory 

message: I have been on wiki now since within a year of it's founding. What I have noticed is there is a recent trend to 'undo' edits--rather than edit them. As far as I can tell, this is contrary to the mission of Wiki. You will see that the  erasures of MichaelBusch have been removed in this context. The first is because the funding section already has used the precedent of describing potential  funding sources, so it is important that the reader know what that full list is. The second is that the phrase on mitigation does not refer to the PS statement directly (and does not ascribe the comment to the document cited), but EXPLAINS what 'mitigation' means in this context. If these are FACTUALLY inaccurate, or do not ENLIGHTEN the reader, then it certainly makes sense to edit/remove. Obviously that is not the case here. If you don't make the case for such then I would like to understand on what basis such erasures are NOT vandalism.
:  You just did exactly what you accused Michael of doing - erase rather than edit.  Why not change the text to indicate what mitigation is, and which statement should be attributed to the Planetary society?  I've done this. LouScheffer (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erase Rather Than Edit? 

message: This has come up several times.  While "antennae" is the correct plural of antenna for biology, in electrical engineering it is "antennas".  For example, see the IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society. LouScheffer (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Two different specialties pluralize it two different ways. Looks to me that how it's pluralized is a matter of convention. Anyone can adopt any convention that suits them. I personally always pluralize it as 'antennae' whatever the context. Never has either a biologist nor an engineer had trouble understanding my usage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree this is pretty minor problem in the grand scheme of things.  That said, writing the plural antennas has two advantages in my mind.  It's the plural used by the specialty involved (electrical engineering) and it's probably easier to figure out for those whose English is not strong (s as a plural is more common, even if 'ae' has an equally good case.)  In any event, Wikipedia:Manual of Style says pick one and leave it, unless there is a good reason to change.   LouScheffer (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antennae vs Antennas 

message: Arecibo joins global network to create 6,000-mile telescope. Nice. : ) --Emesee (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New use... 

message: I Am looking for anyone who might be a scientist, or expert skimming these pages, or even someone who has a bit'o'knowledge on the Arecibo Observatory and the budget cuts. I am doing an article on Wikinews and looking for some insight. Please contact me at Here if you can help. DragonFire1024 (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article regarding budget cuts 

message: Is the observatory south-southeast of Aerocibo rather than south-southwest?
Fred catherwood
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.125.111 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  location of the observatory 

message: Requesting more information about the Ionospheric heater site ate Arecibo?  There doesn't seem to be much about it here. - Alternativity (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: try this. Not much to go on I know, but at least it demonstrates there is one - or at was. All the other stuff I found was conspiracy theory sites. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ionospheric heater? 

message: This article does not reflect recent changes and events at the Arecibo Observatory. In particular, it glosses over the installation of the new
Patriot antenna on a hill at the site, and the recompetition which will be happening soon. Please update the article. Thanks! Poilaaliop (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 2011 Recent Changes

message: When the U.S. Government spends money, that is UNDERSTOOD to be American money. When organizations in the U.S., such as Cornell University, etc., spend money, that is UNDERSTOOD to be American money.
The American dollar is the official unit of currency in Puerto Rico, too, which is a Commonwealth of the United States.
Furthermore, "dollars" are understood to be American dollars by default and w/o explanation for historical reasons. The United States had the dollar at its official unit of currency before any of these other places: Canada, Australia, the Bahamas, New Zealand, Hong Kong, or the West Indies (Yes, there is a West Indian Dollar.)
Furthermore, the American dollar is the official unit of currency in the British Virgin Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Marianas, American Samoa.
The American dollar circulates freely and is accepted as legal money in such places as Canada, Mexico, Panama, the Bahamas, and in several other countries, especially in the Western Hemisphere.
Unless otherwise stated, the "dollar" is understood to be American dollars, just like "pounds sterling" is understood to be British money, "yen" is understood to be Japanese money, "rubles" is understood to be Russian money, and "crowns" (krona) are understood to be Swedish money.
Personally, I also understand "bolivars" to be Venezuelan money.
Dollars are American dollars unless otherwise specified.98.81.12.250 (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money 

message: Is Arecibo currently participating in Active SETI? Kortoso (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active SETI 

message: Hello,
There is a discussion in the Mercury page about the rotation period of Mercury that looks wrong compared to what is written in this page. Is it an error? Thanks.
Antoine1023 (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the contradiction. It says on the Mercury page that Mercury has as 3:2 resonance so its rotation period is 2/3 of its orbital period, rather than the 1:1 resonance where the rotation period would be the same as the orbital period as had previously been thought. It says here that Mercury has a rotation period of 59 days (= 2/3 of the orbital period) rather than 88 days (= the orbital period). Robminchin (talk) 20:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation period of Mercury 

message: The official http://www.naic.edu website is currently offline following Hurricane Maria as internet communications to the Observatory have not yet been restored. It might be better to give an explanation of this rather than marking it as a dead link.
An alternative website has been established at http://www.areciboobservatory.org that is hosting some content, including official statements from Observatory management on the recovery from Maria.
Robminchin (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official website 

message: I thought this was located in Puerto Rico. Why does it say Arecibo, US in the infobox?--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Municipality of Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a US territory. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Have you ever seen a map of the United States? What do you see on maps of the United States? And where do the U.S. senators say it's located?https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/2862 --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consider changing your user ID. WTF? Rowan Forest (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think they are trying to ask whether or should say "Arecibo, Puerto Rico" rather than "Arecibo, US". The advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Standards would appear to indicate it probably should. Robminchin (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: A wikidata editor may be correcting the "location" soon as the infobox on this article is actually using  data (transcluding) from Wikidata. The location is correct on the Arecibo Observatory commons page but not here. See here for discussion: here. Locations in Puerto Rico are not in the United States.  There are 50 states in the US, not 51. Thank you. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As easy as that. The location is explicit in the first line of the article. The location in the Infobox is tailored by a bot. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

text: Well that was a ludicrous thing to do, failure to exactly follow the MOS is not a good reason to go deleting otherwise useful information. I've now fixed the wikidata and reverted your deletion of the infobox. Next time just wait rather than creating more work for other editors. Robminchin (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   We'll see how long that Wikidata correction lasts. I doubt it'll last. I tried it already. Many can't stand to see Puerto Rico and Country on the same line unless it's to say it isn't. (From what I understand, it's not a sovereign state but it's a country.) I personally don't care whether it's a country or not. What I care about is that the Arecibo Observatory article infobox correctly reflect its location: that it is in Puerto Rico not in the United States. And this is not because I dislike the U.S. I love the U.S. but because it is inaccurate to say that something in P.R. is in the U.S. Thanks for your time.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

text: How many Wikipedians does it take to get the location of a place right on an infobox? On this, this team effort on this article is not working.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked Mike Peel if he can fix his hardcoding of the infobox again.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the Observatory located? 

message: Is the Observatory really named after "Gordon"?--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Named after

message: Not a WP:RS, but... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V3VCt24tkE  -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken cable 

message: "The main collecting dish is 305 m"
 "To aim the device, the receiver is moved to intercept signals reflected from different directions by the spherical dish surface of 270 m (870 ft) radius."
200.68.142.175 (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The dish is a 305m diameter section of a sphere with a 265m radius (which somebody has rounded up to 270). Robminchin (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

text: @200:  (Baden K.) nice catch. The statement lacked clarity—I changed terms to 'Spherical cap' and 'radius of curvature'—the focal point of a spherical mirror is, for parallel rays (source at ~infinity) is the one half the distance to the center of the sphere of which the mirror is a section. I imagine the original measurements were in feet considering the 1000 foot diameter is such a nice round number and the 1963 completion date. Neonorange (Phil) 07:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diameter versus radius? 

message: We had a mix of US and SI units as primary, and I started putting SI first, since that seemed to be the predominant order. Also I had assumed this was a "scientific article" which per MOS:UNITS would put SI first. But a recent edit has started reversing them again, with the summary "...feet first because U.S. & and the round number is obviously 1000 feet". So can we get a consensus as to which units should be primary, and re-order them as required? GA-RT-22 (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Arecibo Observatory was proposed, designed, and completed in the early 1960s (completed by 1963.) The 1000 feet round number is dispositive—that is likely the design measurement, so 305 meters is not exact, while 1000 feet likely is. That is historically the measurement units used in the U.S. in 1963—Moon to Earth distance, for example. No matter the MoS, when one unit has rounding errors and the other does not, which would you think better as primary? The units other than the major dimensions can be either. That is why I changed only those two. (quantities in both units are still given) Neonorange (Phil) 09:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: I still don't see anywhere in "Astrophysicist Robert Brown, leader in telescope development, named to head NAIC and its main facility, Arecibo Observatory" that it talks about either the radius of curvature or a karst sinkhole. Can you provide a quote? GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't find it either. Hopefully this source can help a bit, though it doesn't say karst (just "natural sinkhole")  Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for radius of curvature and karst? 

message: Should we mention that in 1980 Arecibo made the first radar detection of a comet (Comet Encke)?
©Geni (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Radar detection of comet

message: Addition of Battlefield 4 in the In Popular Culture Section. JustAGunNut (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:TRIVIA you need a third-party reliable source that says that the map in BF4 is based on Arecibo. I know it may seem obvious, but the problem with these trivia/pop culture sections is that people add without sourcing and becomes something more akin to TV Tropes, which we are not. --Masem (t) 14:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I found 3 references (but I don't have time to add them and haven't fully read through them). The Kotaku one doesn't seem that great, but the other two directly mention it in Battlefield. --Pokechu22 (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Battlefield 4? 

message: At the moment we mix the observatory and telescope together. I think it would be better if we split the content about the telescope to Arecibo Telescope, and kept the general things (like visitor centre, description of other facilities) in this article. Then it would be analogous to Jodrell Bank Observatory vs. Lovell Telescope Any thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably once we know the full decommissioning plans it would make sense for that since the remaining facilities will still be operating. --Masem (t) 18:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've gone ahead with the split, I hope that's OK. It may need some tweaking. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into separate articles about the observatory and telescope? 

message: Apparently it collapsed today, see  - but needs a reliable reference before adding it to the article. Mike Peel (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What more reliable reference do you need than a picture from a well known meteorologist from the island, using her own camera, showing you that the suspended instrumentation is no more? Other media articles at the moment reference that photo. Even the local newspaper is reporting on it using Mrs. Martorell's Tweet. 74.214.62.204 (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The newspaper articles that are now included, which include a bit more verification than a photo on Twitter. There are people out there that might have faked such an image, although sadly that seems to have been the case here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

text: FWIW, if we can find non-press pool images of the post-Nov damage and then of this event, these would be allowable as non-free images. We know they were not allowing people on site so obtaining free images of the damage is impossible. --Masem (t) 17:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is another reference if needed, it has a copy-righted picture right on it. National Geographic: Iconic radio telescope suffers catastrophic collapse. Regards, 2001:56A:F869:7E00:6D56:D099:29D3:F447 (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

text: We have those videos up over on the telescope page already (since NFS released them) --Masem (t) 20:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapse today 

message: I am not familiar with editing Wikipedia but someone way want to change this article and write about how the entire observatory collapsed on December 1st 2020  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeisterPrince (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The *Observatory* did not collapse, the Arecibo Telescope did. And the full account has been made there. --Masem (t) 18:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapse 

message: If any part of this awesome project can be reclaimed it might be the draped aluminum bowl as a movie projection surface as a planetarium or as a smooth bowl ramp for epic skateboard riding.
Electricmic (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skate Park ? 

message: There’s no section on cultural impact, but surely it’s worth noting influences on e.g. the movie Contact and, I think, Goldeneye? X883 (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article specifically on the telescope has those mentioned. Masem (t) 18:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural impact