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

ATA a failure?

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)[reply]

Sources

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)[reply]

= Copyright violation

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)[reply]