Talk:Allen Telescope Array

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject California (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Allen Telescope Array is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.


Just learning Wiki stuff. Starting 'improvements" on ATA, for which I led the design effort. --CommonModeNoise 05:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

ATA a failure?[edit]

Clearly there are differences of opinion on the success or failure of the ATA to date. Let's discuss this here. In general I prefer, for example, '1 year behind' to 'far behind'. Whether a 1 year delay is a failure or not is in the eye of the beholder. For example, the Green Bank telescope was several years late, but eventually worked and is not considered a failure.

Likewise I think the budget comparison is legit - ATA is a low cost project, with very thin margins for unexpected problems.

Also, adding 'when and if completed' to a target in the future adds very little. These adjectives always apply to any projected date.

LouScheffer 04:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Do you know of any publically available source for the ATA status that is more recent than July 2006? LouScheffer 16:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

User:CommonModeNoise appears to be officially associated with the array, and has edited the page, when it had much of the same content. Perhaps he/she can pursue getting permission? I will also write the SETI Institute and ask as well. LouScheffer 05:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I wrote the SETI Institute, who replied with their permission, as follows: To Whom It May Concern:

This email is to permit re-use under the GFDL of the article at: which is similar to materials published at the SETI Institute's website at:

Please reply if there is further clarification for this permission is required. Edna DeVore

so it should be OK to put the page back, LouScheffer 18:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to the assertion that the content of this page as having been lifted from, to the contrary, I wrote most of the content for this page in 2005 (note the history of the page, June 2005), using the 2005 NSF proposal as source material with the permission of the research scentist G. Bower at the Radio Astronomy Laboratory at UC Berkeley. The RAL is acting as a sub-contractor to the SETI Inst for the ATA. It was a web editor at the SETI Institute that lifted the content of this page wholesale with no credit to the original wikipedia page (this one). I want this clarified by a change in the copyright notice above. -- Jcolbyk 16:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Copywrite access notice from this page. As stated on 22 Nov 2006, this page was an original work by me and any claim by the web page editor at SETI is in error and it is in fact their responsibility to credit the original wikipedia page, not the other way around. Jcolbyk 23:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Updating summary so that history shows what's happened with the previous edit


By taking advantage of Moore’s Curve, the designers are replacing steel with silicon, resulting in a large cost saving over telescopes of more conventional design.

What does this mean? Are the dishes formed from solid silicon now or what? Is this a figure of speech? Plain speech is not only easier to understand, but also prevents the introduction of bias.

OK, explained figure of speech. LouScheffer 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Status disorganized[edit]

I've added an {{update}} tag to the "Status" section because it was updated with new information without apparent regard to chronological flow or any attempt to update older information (i.e., "mid-year 2007" events that should have taken place by now). Could someone with sourceable data relevant to this section please update it appropriately? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

   Done. ~ Jcolbyk 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


Just dropping this Google news search here in the hopes of sparking some more development on this article. I'll try to get to it when I get the time to start reading up more, but I'm hoping there are others who are interested in jumping in now. The more the merrier! Hiberniantears (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding this article from Adding this article as well. Both to help me or other interested editors get the article updated. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


This article should contain more about the origin and conception of this project. Such as the original plan to use low cost DTH TV satellite dishes [1]. (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Progress Toward Science Goals?[edit]

Has any progress toward the ATA's science goals been reported? I'm guessing not, or the proponents would have added a section.