<p>Would more preventative maintenance, more regular inspection of the cables have helped?  Robotic/drone inspection systems?  Could the right robotic system have done work to save it in the last few weeks had one been available?</p>
<p><a href="https://www.space.com/arecibo-observatory-radio-telescope-to-be-destroyed" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.space.com/arecibo-observatory-radio-telescope-to-be-destroyed</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-20T22:21:26.023Z
This will be hard to answer without detailed knowledge what damage has been found. Without an expert opinion of somebody who actually surveyed the damage we can probably only speculate. Although I'm sure there are techbros who'll claim they could've fixed it easily from their sofa.
uUnwY
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-21T00:44:02.470Z
There is also a strong political component here.  NSF has, for years, tried to kill off Arecibo, but it's effectively been saved by the review panels they were required to convene to make policy decisions.  The cables snapping gave them an "out" and that could be part of the reason behind the decision to decommission it.
Stuart Robbins
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-22T02:46:17.130Z
Lots of preventive maintenance, and likely a major rebuild at some point. Major infrastructure needs major attention. Why did they build a new Tappen Zee bridge across the Hudson?
Jon Custer
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-22T07:08:44.993Z
Better to knock it down safely than risk lives trying to save it.  A combination of too expensive to keep and not quite good enough to justify it, unique - yes, but not not quite enough.  Maybe something better will be developed in it's place.  It is, at the end of the day, just a piece of equipment and they have limited lifespans.
StephenG - Help Ukraine
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-22T07:39:51.647Z
Yes of course, but whether the "right robotic system" is feasible with current technology in time is not a question for Astronomy SE. Engineering SE would be the perfect place for the question, if you add a bit more information to it.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-22T07:40:53.573Z
I’m voting to close this question because the feasibility of an engineering solution is not about Astronomy (nor Space Exploration). It's a great question for Engineering SE, and with suitable details added this could be a good candidate for migration.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-23T15:15:39.493Z
If the engineering feasibility parts were removed, is there anything that could be added to make it work here?
Lucas Walter
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-23T15:16:49.680Z
Otherwise how to go about the migration to Engineering?  I don't know details and am hoping to get them out of a stack, could it be framed in a way others could add them in?
Lucas Walter
<radio-telescope>
How could the loss of the Arecibo Observatory have been prevented?
Lucas Walter
# How could the loss of the Arecibo Observatory have been prevented?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-11-20)

Would more preventative maintenance, more regular inspection of the cables have helped? Robotic/drone inspection systems? Could the right robotic system have done work to save it in the last few weeks had one been available?

<https://www.space.com/arecibo-observatory-radio-telescope-to-be-destroyed>

**Tags:** radio-telescope
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This will be hard to answer without detailed knowledge what damage has been found. Without an expert opinion of somebody who actually surveyed the damage we can probably only speculate. Although I'm sure there are techbros who'll claim they could've fixed it easily from their sofa.  
> **username_2**: There is also a strong political component here.  NSF has, for years, tried to kill off Arecibo, but it's effectively been saved by the review panels they were required to convene to make policy decisions.  The cables snapping gave them an "out" and that could be part of the reason behind the decision to decommission it.  
> **username_3**: Lots of preventive maintenance, and likely a major rebuild at some point. Major infrastructure needs major attention. Why did they build a new Tappen Zee bridge across the Hudson?  
> **username_4**: Better to knock it down safely than risk lives trying to save it.  A combination of too expensive to keep and not quite good enough to justify it, unique - yes, but not not quite enough.  Maybe something better will be developed in it's place.  It is, at the end of the day, just a piece of equipment and they have limited lifespans.  
> **username_5**: Yes of course, but whether the "right robotic system" is feasible with current technology in time is not a question for Astronomy SE. Engineering SE would be the perfect place for the question, if you add a bit more information to it.  
> **username_5**: I’m voting to close this question because the feasibility of an engineering solution is not about Astronomy (nor Space Exploration). It's a great question for Engineering SE, and with suitable details added this could be a good candidate for migration.  
> **username_0**: If the engineering feasibility parts were removed, is there anything that could be added to make it work here?  
> **username_0**: Otherwise how to go about the migration to Engineering?  I don't know details and am hoping to get them out of a stack, could it be framed in a way others could add them in?  

---

## 0 answers

