<font color="yellow">Well, the upside to this, is that we have smaller, cheaper and far more sensitive radio telescopes today</font><br /><br />With a caveat, I might add. Arecibo has unrivaled sensitivity and resolution in the higher frequency ranges.<br /><br />The 100m Robert C, Byrd Telescope at Green Bank, West Virginia for example is better at some things than Arecibo.<br /><br />But as an overall tool, Arecibo serves as a more effective "jack of all trades" instrument.<br /><br />As an analogy, in a world where laser surgery and Gamma Knives have an important role in specific cases, the good old scalpel is still the instrument of choice in general surgical procedures.<br /><br />Arecibo is far more valuable "outside" SETI compared to any 10 smaller comparable instruments.<br /><br />However, "radio interferometry" would seem to be an adequate substitute given that we had multiple instruments that operated at all optimal frequencies that make Arecibo a superior instrument.<br /><br />The main problem relies in resolution versus focus. That's the underlying principle behind the Allen Array. It doesn't have the overall resolution capabilities of Arecibo, but has better "focus" on smaller areas of space at its designed operating parameters if I understand this all correctly.<br /><br />It's really a case of apples and oranges, I think. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>