On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 20:09:30 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

John wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2020 07:05:41 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Friday, November 27, 2020 at 2:59:18 PM UTC-5, Wayne B wrote:
Signatures needed on petition to evaluate and stabilize the Arecibo
radio telescope: "We urge emergency action to have the Army Corps of
Engineers or another agency evaluate the telescope structure and
search for a safe way to stabilize it," reads the petition to the
White House, which had more than 28,000 signatures as of Friday.
Space.com notes if the petition gets 100,000 signees by Dec. 21, the
White House has to respond within two months. Jenniffer Gonzalez,
Puerto Rico's resident commissioner, is also taking action, sending a
letter to Congress last week to request funds to make repairs. The NSF
maintains the structure is beyond safe renovation. "We understand the
risk of going there and trying to fix it," Wilbert Ruperto-Hernandez,
one of the organizers of the "Save the Arecibo Observatory" campaign,
tells Space.com. "But not many people think that it should be an
excuse to just demolish it."

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/petition-emergency-action-evaluate-and-stabilize-arecibo-radio-telescope

And just like that, now it's gone...

"SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico?A huge, already damaged radio telescope in Puerto
Rico that has played a key role in astronomical discoveries for more
than half a century completely collapsed on Tuesday.

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

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/huge-loss-huge-puerto-rico-radio-telescope-arecibo-collapses-following-n1249515

I reckon that solves that problem. Glad no one was hurt.
--

Freedom Isn't Free!


With the lack of maintenance, I hope whomever was in charge does not get
another management position.

===

I agree but it's possible there was a funding issue. NSF facilities
are constantly struggling for budget dollars. There are newer radio
telescopes that have come online since Arecibo was built and they
might have had a higher funding priority.