Comments on: Clarke and Rudd discuss important things

By: Brett

Brett — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:02:15 +0000

Martin B, admittedly my astronomy is pretty rusty, but the SKA is a radio telescope, not an optical one. As such, height above sea level would not be a big concern; somewhere with relatively little radio interference is a far greater concern. (Here in Australia, we put our big optical telescopes up on mountains, mainly at Siding Spring in the Warrumbungles, but the radio telescopes are mostly down on the plains, like Parkes or Narrabri.) Similarly, the timezone argument wouldn’t be a huge deal, at least for observing, since SKA would be operating 24 hours a day (although it would still be annoying when dealing with administrative matters and non-duty staff). The social benefit argument is an interesting one, though.

And yes, it’s very nice to have a government that’s actually interested in science! It’s been a long time … actually, have we ever had one?

By: Ambigulous

Ambigulous — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:07:40 +0000

DeeCee

You’re right of course. I was trying to be modest on the nation’s behalf. I don’t like the ‘Lympic tub-thumping of late. Bloody clever and innovative our radio astronomers (and allied professionals: instrument designers, astrophysicists, etc)

sincerely, Hirsurte

By: Martin B

Martin B — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:50:48 +0000

we may well be the favourites given that the South African bid requires spreading the telescope over a number of different countries of varying levels of economic development and stability

OTOH SA can site telescopes at a higher altitude, which is an advantage.

There are also factors that are not supposed to be important but may well be – SA is at a more convenient timezone for European astronomers, and I am led to believe that many of the European players feel that a major project such as this would be of greater social benefit in countries poorer than Australia.

BTW Kevin Rudd was also lobbying GWB about the SKA when they met earlier this year, so it is indeed nice to see that the government has a committment to science. I’ve certainly heard people say that Comrade Carr’s support seems genuine and enthusiastic.

By: Martin B

Martin B — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:43:00 +0000

we may well be the favourites given that the South African bid requires spreading the telescope over a number of different countries of varying levels of economic development and stability

On the other hand, SA can site telescopes at higher altitiude, which is a technical advantage.

Issues that are not supposed to be considered but which may also be in SAs favour are that southern Africa is a more convenient time zone for European astronomers, and I understand that the Europeans also have a feeling that a major project would be of greater social benefit in poorer countries than Australia.

By: steve h

steve h — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:10:04 +0000

Good post Robert – and great to see the SKA being treated with a high priority! About time we got back into the big-league with this field (no pun intended). Be interesting to see if they go for a purely phased array or a dish setup. Given the pointing accuracies acheivable these days the latter might actually be slightly better from a noise perspective.
Feral Sparrowhawk – only problem with usng the South Pacific islands is the radio noise will be higher unless you confiscate every two-way on the island! Due to the location these tend also to be used as waypoints by travelling yachties and cruises so random interference could be quite a problem. Not to mention the odd cyclone or other storms will be more likely to cause problems than the WA site. A pity as it would be a monetary booster and a bit cleaner than the “tests” that used to take place in that part of the world!

By: feral sparrowhawk

feral sparrowhawk — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:25:43 +0000

Further away is better as long as locations are still close enough to be able to look at the same objects at the same time – so no point putting some of the far-flung scopes in North America.

Still, I would have thought a fair number of south pacific countries would qualify, and for some of the smaller ones having even one telescope based there might be significant for their economy, at least during the building phase.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:04:52 +0000

Pity winning the Nobel prize or Maths Olympiad don’t rate the stamps, the public parades etc.

Yes, it will be interesting to see if Rudd does anything on this front to promote the recognition of scientists rather than Howard’s push of sporting heroes all the time. In some areas of software development we have major world leaders, but I doubt most of the population knows this.

By: Down and Out of Sài Gòn

Down and Out of Sài Gòn — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:55:33 +0000

Waitaminute… if Helen Clarke is talking about the SKA this at the Pacific Island Forum, shouldn’t the other countries involved be invited to participate? If “further away is better”, and the array already includes WA and NZ, what about getting places like the Marshall Islands and Kiribati into the project? Lots of places for small radio receivers across the Pacific.

By: DeeCee

DeeCee — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:22:35 +0000

We more than “made a difference”, Hirsute, we bloody-well led the world – and mighty proud of it we ought to be. I’m a damned site prouder of those Aussie astronomers that than I am of any Olympic medalist.

It’s truly infuriating to consider what we might achieve as a nation (that’s sponsors, MSM, as well as taxpayers) if our spending on elite maths/science achievers came even within cooee of what we spend on elite sports achievers. Breakthroughs of mathematicians and scientists (if they stay in Australia with its pathetic support of any scientists much less world-beaters)return much more to the nation and taxpayers.

Pity winning the Nobel prize or Maths Olympiad don’t rate the stamps, the public parades etc. We might be world leaders in more than pioneering radio-astronomy, transplant surgery, immunology, cancer treatment cure & prevention, genetics, alternative (esp solar) power … and the list goes on. And those mathematicians & scientists don’t go on to million-dollar sponsorship contracts, magazine contracts and so on.

BTW Why wonder where Nelson & the Libs are? Brendan said he was opposed to our “leading the world”. We should wait to see what China & India does. And we know how Libs & their journo mates hate “elites”, unless they’re sporting elites offering zillions of pollie photo ops. Not many votes in new generation radio telescopes, are there!

OK Mr Merkel, you got me stirred up “good & proper” on this one. I’ll get off the soapbox now.

By: Kim

Kim — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:53:29 +0000

speaking of gutters, where’s Brendan?

Gone truckin’…