South Africa Wins Panel's Backing to Host Square Kilometer Array Scope

South Africa wins science panel's backing to host SKA telescope

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A scientific panel has narrowly recommended South Africa over Australia as the best site for the proposed Square Kilometre Array (SKA), an enormous radio telescope (see "Astronomy in South Africa: The long shot"). But the project's member states have yet to make a final decision on where the telescope will go.

The SKA Site Advisory Committee's decision was first reported on March 10 in the Sydney Morning Herald. A source familiar with the site-selection process confirmed to Nature that the panel had indeed made a decision, but added that it was a close call. "This is not an enormous preference for one over the other," he says. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)

The $2.1-billion SKA radio telescope will be made up of some 3,000 dishes, each 15 meters in diameter. The project will try to answer big questions about the early universe: how the first elements heavier than helium formed, for example, and how the first galaxies coalesced. The telescope is so sensitive that it could even pick up television signals from distant worlds—something that might aid in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Since 2006, South Africa has competed against a joint bid from Australia and New Zealand to host the project. The South African site has some compelling advantages: construction costs are lower, and it sits at a higher altitude. But the Australian site would be cheaper to insure, and is less likely to be encroached on by future development. The margin in favour of the winner was extremely narrow, the source says.

Members of the SKA's board will meet on March 19 in Manchester, UK, to discuss the scientific panel's recommendations. The closed meeting will also provide the two bidders with the opportunity to contest any of the panel's recommendations. After the meeting, the SKA's board will write a commentary to accompany the recommendation, which will inform the final decision.

According to Nature's source, because the two sites are so close in merit, both are still in contention. China, Italy, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands—the SKA voting board members—could yet decide either way. It is even possible that the array could be shared between both nations, although this would probably increase the construction costs.

A final site decision could come as soon as April 4, when a meeting of the board is tentatively scheduled in Amsterdam.

This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on March 9, 2012.

First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.

More by Nature magazine

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe