221–230 of 315 posts
I'm guessing you could do the whole thing for less than $300M.
I remember seeing this thing in the 1997 movie Contact:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Constant painting is also a sign of efficiency. Rather than a large number of people painting it for a small period of time, which requires a startup and close down overhead; they have instead resourced it so that they can keep a small number of people employed permenantly who accumulate expertise and minimise the mobilisations costs.
Now I really want to know what it's like working on the team that repaints the bridge for years or decades on end.
Except you get exercise and fresh air.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Constant painting is also a sign of efficiency. Rather than a large number of people painting it for a small period of time, which requires a startup and close down overhead; they have instead resourced it so that they can keep a small number of people employed permenantly who accumulate expertise and minimise the mobilisations costs.
Now I really want to know what it's like working on the team that repaints the bridge for years or decades on end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But infrastructure ages, and 60 years isn't a bad run. Infrastructure can also be maintained and last longer than this, which is why I'm personally sad. Had Arecibo always had the ~60 year timeline, it would've been a bittersweet retirement, like Voyager. In this case I just feel like it's gone before it should. Arecibo has been receiving reduced funding since the early 2000s [1]. The end of an era, although thankf…
It really depends on the structure. Giant steel objects are much harder to keep intact, to the point where non iconic objects are easier to replace once than maintain for 100+ years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really depends on the structure. Giant steel objects are much harder to keep intact, to the point where non iconic objects are easier to replace once than maintain for 100+ years.
I think the skyscrapers in NYC would beg to differ. But there is regular maintenance on those. Which is why this sounds like more like a failure in due diligence than the natural course of affairs. But if it is obsolete, then that is another matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like the (iconic) Sydney Harbour Bridge which requires continuous repainting. It’s very expensive to maintain. https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/ag-blog/2013/1...
Constant painting is also a sign of efficiency. Rather than a large number of people painting it for a small period of time, which requires a startup and close down overhead; they have instead resourced it so that they can keep a small number of people employed permenantly who accumulate expertise and minimise the mobilisations costs.
Whoever downvoted me, thanks a bunch. Not sure why.
Running a team of painters still costs more than nothing. The cost of painting doesn’t cover the cost of ongoing inspections for metal fatigue etc etc. Engineering reviews, government oversight and so on.
Large bridges, especially with vehicle traffic, vibrate quite a lot and this is causes major ongoing concerns with fatigue, which means extensive monitoring along with the painting. More costs (not saying it’s unjustified).
Keeping a team going is efficient as you say, but more expensive than nothing.
The thing was iconic... even if not everyone watching/playing Goldeneye knew it was a real radio telescope, it was nevertheless one of those science megaprojects that featured prominently in the popular zeitgeist and got more than one young kid excited about what's out there in the stars. But infrastructure ages, and 60 years isn't a bad run. What comes next? Clearly there's going to be a capabilities gap for a while…
Random stupid questions from someone who is not a civil engineer: (a) Why not replace the cables? (b) What would they do if the cables on the Golden Gate bridge also corroded like this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Giant steel objects are much harder to keep intact, to the point where non iconic objects are easier to replace once than maintain for 100+ years. What about the Eiffel Tower? Or Blackpool Tower. That proves it can be done.
Those are both made of iron.
Arecibo played a non-trivial role in my decisions to go to grad school. I visited Arecibo in the early 90s (sophomore year of college). My family was in PR for a family trip, and as I'm not interested in pools or the beach (which is why my mom and sister went), my dad and I drove up into the hills to see it. It was before there was any visitor center or tours. There was a little control room with some instruments and…
If not, what is the coolest thing you've gotten to play with?