Latest news with #Benner
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Are we reading Machiavelli wrong?
There are very few philosophers who become part of popular culture, and often, if their ideas become influential, people don't know where they came from. Niccolò Machiavelli, the great 16th-century diplomat and writer, is an exception. I don't know how many people have actually read Machiavelli, but almost everyone knows the name, and almost everyone thinks they know what the word 'Machiavellian' means. It's someone who's cunning and shrewd and manipulative. Or as one famous philosopher called him, 'the teacher of evil.' But is this fair to Machiavelli, or has he been misunderstood? And if he has been, what are we missing in his work? Erica Benner is a political philosopher and the author of numerous books about Machiavelli including my favorite, Be Like the Fox, which offers a different interpretation of Machiavelli's most famous work, The Prince. For centuries, The Prince has been popularly viewed as a how-to manual for tyrants. But Benner disagrees. She says it's actually a veiled, almost satirical critique of authoritarian power. And she argues that Machiavelli is more timely than you might imagine. He wrote about why democracies get sick and die, about the dangers of inequality and partisanship, and even about why appearance and perception matter far more than truth and facts. In another of his seminal works, Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli is also distinctly not authoritarian. In fact, he espouses a deep belief in republicanism (the lowercase-r kind, which affirms representative government). I invited Benner onto The Gray Area to talk about what Machiavelli was up to and why he's very much a philosopher for our times. As always, there's much more in the full podcast, so listen and follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you find podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. The popular view of Machiavelli is that he wanted to draw this neat line between morality and politics and that he celebrated ruthless pragmatism. What's incomplete or wrong about that view? What is true is that he often criticizes the hyper-Christian morality that puts moral judgments into the hands of priests and popes and some abstract kind of God that he may or may not believe in, but in any case doesn't think is something we can access as humans. If we want to think about morality both on a personal level and in politics, we've got to go back to basics. What is the behavior of human beings? What is human nature? What are the drives that propel human beings to do the stuff that we call good or bad? He wants to say that we should see human beings not as fundamentally good or evil. We shouldn't think that human beings can ever be angels, and we shouldn't see them as devils when they behave badly. But the basic point is if you want to develop a human morality, you study yourself, you study other humans, you don't put yourself above other humans because you're one, too. And then you ask, What kind of politics is going to make such people coexist? I take it you think his most famous book, , is not well understood? I used to have to teach Machiavelli and I would just say, It's a handbook for tyrants. But he wrote the Discourses, which is a very, very republican book. So that's the first thing that sets people off and makes you think, How could he have switched so quickly from writing The Prince to being a super-republican writing the Discourses? So that's a warning sign. When I started seeing some of the earliest readers of Machiavelli and the earliest comments you get from republican authors, they all see Machiavelli as an ally and they say it. They say he's a moral writer. Rousseau says, 'He has only had superficial and corrupt readers until now.' If you ever pick up The Prince and you read the first four chapters, and most people don't read them that carefully because they're kind of boring, the exciting ones are the ones in the middle about morality and immorality and then you come to chapter five, which is about freedom. And up to chapter four, it sounds like a pretty cruel, cold analysis of what you should do. Then you get to chapter five and it's like, Wow! It's about how republics fight back, and the whole tone changes. Suddenly republics are fighting back and the prince has to be on his toes because he's probably not going to survive the wrath of these fiery republics that do not give up. So who is he talking to in the book? Is he counseling future princes or warning future citizens? It's complicated. You have to remember that he was kicked out of his job and had a big family to support. He had a lot of kids. And he loved his job and was passionate about the republic. He was tortured. He doesn't know what's going to happen next. He's absolutely gutted that Florence's republican experiment has failed and he can't speak freely. So what does a guy with a history of writing dramas and satire do to make himself feel better? It's taking the piss out of the people who have made you and a lot of your friends very miserable, in a low-key way because you can't be too brutally satirical about it. But I think he's really writing to expose the ways of tyrants. Would you say that Machiavelli has something like an ideology or is he just a clear-eyed pragmatist? He's a republican. And again, this is something that, if you just read The Prince, you're not going to get. But if you read the Discourses, which was written around the same time as The Prince, it's very, very similar in almost every way except that it praises republics and criticizes tyrants very openly. Whereas The Prince never once uses the words 'tyrant' or 'tyranny.' So if there's a guiding political view, whether you call it 'ideology' or not, it's republicanism. And that's an ideology of shared power. It's all the people in a city, all the male people in this case. Machiavelli was quite egalitarian. He clearly wanted as broad of a section of the male population to be citizens as possible. He says very clearly, The key to stabilizing your power is to change the constitution and to give everyone their share. Everyone has to have their share. You might want to speak a little bit more for yourself and the rich guys, but in the end, everyone's got to have a share. Should we treat Machiavelli like a democratic theorist? Do you think of him as someone who would defend what we call democracy today? If you think the main principle of democracy is that power should be shared equally, which is how I understand democracy, then yes. He'd totally agree with that. What kind of institutions would he say a democracy has to have? He's pretty clear in the Discourses. He says you don't want a long-term executive. You need to always check power. I realize we exist in a very different world than Machiavelli, but is he a useful guide to understanding contemporary politics, particularly American politics? This is a really Machiavellian moment. If you read The Prince and look not just for those provocative quotes but for the criticisms, and sometimes they're very subtle, you start to see that he's exposing a lot of the stuff that we're seeing today. Chapter nine of The Prince is where he talks about how you can rise to be the ruler of a republic and how much resistance you might face, and he says that people might be quite passive at first and not do very much. But at some point, when they see you start to attack the courts and the magistrates, that's when you're going to clash. And he says, That's when you as a leader — and he's playing like he's on the leader's side — that's when you've got to decide if you're going to get really, really tough, or are you going to have to find other ways to soften things up a bit? What would he make of Trump? He would put Trump in two categories. He's got different classifications of princes. He's got the prince of fortune, somebody who relies on wealth and money and big impressions to get ahead. He would say that Trump has a lot of those qualities, but he'd also call him this word 'astutia' — astuteness, which doesn't really translate in English because we think of that as a good quality, but he means calculating shrewdness. Somebody whose great talent is being able to shrewdly manipulate and find little holes where he can exploit people's weaknesses and dissatisfactions. This is what he thought the Medici were good at. And his analysis of that is that it can cover you for a long time. People will see the good appearances and hope that you can deliver, but in the long run, people who do that don't know how to build a solid state. That's what he would say on a domestic front. I think there's an unsophisticated way to look at Trump as Machiavellian. There are these lines in about knowing how to deploy cruelty and knowing when to be ruthless. But to your deeper point, I don't think Machiavelli ever endorses cruelty for cruelty's sake, and with Trump — and this is my personal opinion — cruelty is often the point, and that's not really Machiavellian. Exactly. I wouldn't say Trump is Machiavellian. Quite honestly, since the beginning of the Trump administration, I've often felt like he's getting advice from people who haven't really read Machiavelli or put Machiavelli into ChatGPT and got all the wrong pointers, because the ones that they're picking out are just so crude. But they sound Machiavellian. You're absolutely right, though. Machiavelli is very, very clear in The Prince that cruelty is not going to get you anywhere in the long term. You're going to get pure hate. So if you think it's ever instrumentally useful to be super cruel, think again. This obviously isn't an endorsement of Trump, but I will say that something I hear often from people is that the system is so broken that we need someone to smash it up in order to save it. We need political dynamite. I bring that up because Machiavelli says repeatedly that politics requires flexibility and maybe even a little practical ruthlessness in order to preserve the republic. Do you think he would say that there's real danger in clinging to procedural purity if you reach a point where the system seems to have failed? This is a great question. And again, this is one he does address in the Discourses quite a lot. He talks about how the Romans, when their republic started slipping, had 'great men' coming up and saying, 'I'll save you,' and there were a lot before Julius Caesar finally 'saved' them and then it all went to hell. And Machiavelli says that there are procedures that have to sometimes be wiped out — you have to reform institutions and add new ones. The Romans added new ones, they subtracted some, they changed the terms. He was very, very keen on shortening the terms of various excessively long offices. He also wanted to create emergency institutions where, if you really faced an emergency, that institution gives somebody more power to take executive action to solve the problem. But that institution, the dictatorship as it was called in Rome, it wasn't as though a random person could come along and do whatever he wanted. The idea was that this dictator would have special executive powers, but he is under strict oversight, very strict oversight, by the Senate and the plebians, so that if he takes one wrong step, there would be serious punishment. So he was very adamant about punishing leaders who took these responsibilities and then abused them. Listen to the rest of the conversation and be sure to follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
Vox
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Vox
Are we reading Machiavelli wrong?
There are very few philosophers who become part of popular culture, and often, if their ideas become influential, people don't know where they came from. Niccolò Machiavelli, the great 16th-century diplomat and writer, is an exception. I don't know how many people have actually read Machiavelli, but almost everyone knows the name, and almost everyone thinks they know what the word 'Machiavellian' means. It's someone who's cunning and shrewd and manipulative. Or as one famous philosopher called him, 'the teacher of evil.' But is this fair to Machiavelli, or has he been misunderstood? And if he has been, what are we missing in his work? Erica Benner is a political philosopher and the author of numerous books about Machiavelli including my favorite, Be Like The Fox, which offers a different interpretation of Machiavelli's most famous work, The Prince. For centuries, The Prince has been popularly viewed as a how-to manual for tyrants. But Benner disagrees. She says it's actually a veiled, almost satirical critique of authoritarian power. And she argues that Machiavelli is more timely than you might imagine. He wrote about why democracies get sick and die, about the dangers of inequality and partisanship, and even about why appearance and perception matter far more than truth and facts. In another of his seminal works, Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli is also distinctly not authoritarian. In fact, he espouses a deep belief in republicanism (the lowercase-r kind, which affirms representative government). I invited Benner onto The Gray Area to talk about what Machiavelli was up to and why he's very much a philosopher for our times. As always, there's much more in the full podcast, so listen and follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you find podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. The popular view of Machiavelli is that he wanted to draw this neat line between morality and politics and that he celebrated ruthless pragmatism. What's incomplete or wrong about that view? What is true is that he often criticizes the hyper-Christian morality that puts moral judgements into the hands of priests and popes and some abstract kind of God that he may or may not believe in, but in any case doesn't think is something we can access as humans. If we want to think about morality both on a personal level and in politics, we've got to go back to basics. What is the behavior of human beings? What is human nature? What are the drives that propel human beings to do the stuff that we call good or bad? He wants to say that we should see human beings not as fundamentally good or evil. We shouldn't think that human beings can ever be angels, and we shouldn't see them as devils when they behave badly. But the basic point is if you want to develop a human morality, you study yourself, you study other humans, you don't put yourself above other humans because you're one, too. And then you ask, What kind of politics is going to make such people coexist? I take it you think his most famous book, The Prince, is not well understood? I used to have to teach Machiavelli and I would just say, It's a handbook for tyrants. But he wrote the Discourses, which is a very, very republican book. So that's the first thing that sets people off and makes you think, How could he have switched so quickly from writing The Prince to being a super-republican writing the Discourses? So that's a warning sign. When I started seeing some of the earliest readers of Machiavelli and the earliest comments you get from republican authors, they all see Machiavelli as an ally and they say it. They say he's a moral writer. Rousseau says, 'He has only had superficial and corrupt readers until now.' If you ever pick up The Prince and you read the first four chapters, and most people don't read them that carefully because they're kind of boring, the exciting ones are the ones in the middle about morality and immorality and then you come to chapter five, which is about freedom. And up to chapter four, it sounds like a pretty cruel, cold analysis of what you should do. Then you get to chapter five and it's like, Wow! It's about how republics fight back, and the whole tone changes. Suddenly republics are fighting back and the prince has to be on his toes because he's probably not going to survive the wrath of these fiery republics that do not give up. So who is he talking to in the book? Is he counseling future princes or warning future citizens? It's complicated. You have to remember that he was kicked out of his job and had a big family to support. He had a lot of kids. And he loved his job and was passionate about the republic. He was tortured. He doesn't know what's going to happen next. He's absolutely gutted that Florence's republican experiment has failed and he can't speak freely. So what does a guy with a history of writing dramas and satire do to make himself feel better? It's taking the piss out of the people who have made you and a lot of your friends very miserable, in a low-key way because you can't be too brutally satirical about it. But I think he's really writing to expose the ways of tyrants. Would you say that Machiavelli has something like an ideology or is he just a clear-eyed pragmatist? He's a republican. And again, this is something that, if you just read The Prince, you're not going to get. But if you read the Discourses, which was written around the same time as The Prince, it's very, very similar in almost every way except that it praises republics and criticizes tyrants very openly. Whereas The Prince never once uses the words 'tyrant' or 'tyranny.' So if there's a guiding political view, whether you call it 'ideology' or not, it's republicanism. And that's an ideology of shared power. It's all the people in a city, all the male people in this case. Machiavelli was quite egalitarian. He clearly wanted as broad of a section of the male population to be citizens as possible. He says very clearly, The key to stabilizing your power is to change the constitution and to give everyone their share. Everyone has to have their share. You might want to speak a little bit more for yourself and the rich guys, but in the end, everyone's got to have a share. Should we treat Machiavelli like a democratic theorist? Do you think of him as someone who would defend what we call democracy today? If you think the main principle of democracy is that power should be shared equally, which is how I understand democracy, then yes. He'd totally agree with that. What kind of institutions would he say a democracy has to have? He's pretty clear in the Discourses. He says you don't want a long-term executive. You need to always check power. I realize we exist in a very different world than Machiavelli, but is he a useful guide to understanding contemporary politics, particularly American politics? This is a really Machiavellian moment. If you read The Prince and look not just for those provocative quotes but for the criticisms, and sometimes they're very subtle, you start to see that he's exposing a lot of the stuff that we're seeing today. Chapter nine of The Prince is where he talks about how you can rise to be the ruler of a republic and how much resistance you might face, and he says that people might be quite passive at first and not do very much. But at some point, when they see you start to attack the courts and the magistrates, that's when you're going to clash. And he says, That's when you as a leader — and he's playing like he's on the leader's side — that's when you've got to decide if you're going to get really, really tough, or are you going to have to find other ways to soften things up a bit? What would he make of Trump? He would put Trump in two categories. He's got different classifications of princes. He's got the prince of fortune, somebody who relies on wealth and money and big impressions to get ahead. He would say that Trump has a lot of those qualities, but he'd also call him this word astutia — astuteness, which doesn't really translate in English because we think of that as a good quality, but he means calculating shrewdness. Somebody whose great talent is being able to shrewdly manipulate and find little holes where he can exploit people's weaknesses and dissatisfactions. This is what he thought the Medici were good at. And his analysis of that is that it can cover you for a long time. People will see the good appearances and hope that you can deliver, but in the long run, people who do that don't know how to build a solid state. That's what he would say on a domestic front. I think there's an unsophisticated way to look at Trump as Machiavellian. There are these lines in The Prince about knowing how to deploy cruelty and knowing when to be ruthless. But to your deeper point, I don't think Machiavelli ever endorses cruelty for cruelty's sake, and with Trump — and this is my personal opinion — cruelty is often the point, and that's not really Machiavellian. Exactly. I wouldn't say Trump is Machiavellian. Quite honestly, since the beginning of the Trump administration, I've often felt like he's getting advice from people who haven't really read Machiavelli or put Machiavelli into ChatGPT and got all the wrong pointers, because the ones that they're picking out are just so crude. But they sound Machiavellian. You're absolutely right, though. Machiavelli is very, very clear in The Prince that cruelty is not going to get you anywhere in the long term. You're going to get pure hate. So if you think it's ever instrumentally useful to be super cruel, think again. This obviously isn't an endorsement of Trump, but I will say that something I hear often from people is that the system is so broken that we need someone to smash it up in order to save it. We need political dynamite. I bring that up because Machiavelli says repeatedly that politics requires flexibility and maybe even a little practical ruthlessness in order to preserve the republic. Do you think he would say that there's real danger in clinging to procedural purity if you reach a point where the system seems to have failed? This is a great question. And again, this is one he does address in the Discourses quite a lot. He talks about how the Romans, when their republic started slipping, had 'great men' coming up and saying, 'I'll save you,' and there were a lot before Julius Caesar finally 'saved' them and then it all went to hell. And Machiavelli says that there are procedures that have to sometimes be wiped out — you have to reform institutions and add new ones. The Romans added new ones, they subtracted some, they changed the terms. He was very, very keen on shortening the terms of various excessively long offices. He also wanted to create emergency institutions where, if you really faced an emergency, that institution gives somebody more power to take executive action to solve the problem. But that institution, the dictatorship as it was called in Rome, it wasn't as though a random person could come along and do whatever he wanted. The idea was that this dictator would have special executive powers, but he is under strict oversight, very strict oversight, by the Senate and the plebians, so that if he takes one wrong step, there would be serious punishment. So he was very adamant about punishing leaders who took these responsibilities and then abused them.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Largest German union drops four-day week demands amid economic slump
Germany's largest trade union is dropping demands for a four-day week due to the country's economic struggles. "A four-day week with full wages is not currently on the union's list of demands," said Christiane Benner, chairwoman of IG Metall, on Tuesday. Benner told the Bild tabloid that the policy remains sensible. However, due to Germany's languishing economy, workers are currently facing a reduction in working hours due to employers' cost-cutting measures, she argued. Many German businesses oppose proposals to introduce a four-day week with full pay. In a March survey by the pro-business German Economic Institute, 94% of 823 companies survey said the move would hurt value creation. In addition, almost 70% said they believed that work would go undone and that Germany would be left behind compared to international competitors. IG Metall has emphasized that German companies must take responsibility to ensure their business models are viable in the future, to invest and to secure jobs. "We recognize the seriousness of the situation. But we also see that many companies lack strategies for the future and are not making the necessary investments," Benner said. Germany's economy - Europe's largest - has been in recession for two consecutive years, and experts expect the struggles to continue in 2025.
Fashion United
23-05-2025
- Business
- Fashion United
The Platform Group confirms annual forecast: strong growth in first quarter
The Platform Group AG (TPG) achieved revenue growth in the first quarter of the 2025 financial year. The e-commerce group, which also includes luxury online retailer Fashionette, attributed this primarily to the growth of its affiliated partners and the expansion of its platform and software solutions across 26 sectors. TPG announced on Friday that in the first three months of the current financial year, the group generated revenues of 160.8 million euros. This represents a growth of 49 percent compared to the previous year. Gross merchandise volume (GMV) increased by 86.9 percent to 356.3 million euros. The earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA), adjusted for special items, also improved by 87.1 percent to 15.9 million euros, exceeding the executive board's expectations. The reported net profit was 18.2 million, an increase of 41.1 percent. Executive board confirms forecast 'Our investments in new sectors and good investments are paying off. The first quarter of 2025 was significantly above our conservative expectations,' said TPG chief executive officer Dominik Benner. 'We were particularly pleased that the unfortunate development of rising freight and logistics costs has now been stopped by internal measures. The four acquisitions made in 2025 were a good start to the financial year.' Following this successful first quarter, the executive board confirmed the forecast for the full year 2025, which had already been raised at the end of April. According to this, gross merchandise volume (GMV) is expected to rise to 1.3 billion euros in the 2025 financial year. Net revenue is expected to increase to between 680 million and 700 million euros, while the forecast for adjusted EBITDA is between 47 million and 50 million euros, due to positive earnings development and the effect of the implemented cost and efficiency programme. 'TPG is only at the beginning of a long-term growth strategy into new revenue and earnings dimensions,' said Benner. 'Many capital market participants are not yet aware of this, and TPG is not yet a household name for many. We are making an effort to slowly change this now.' This article was translated to English using an AI tool. FashionUnited uses AI language tools to speed up translating (news) articles and proofread the translations to improve the end result. This saves our human journalists time they can spend doing research and writing original articles. Articles translated with the help of AI are checked and edited by a human desk editor prior to going online. If you have questions or comments about this process email us at info@
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
After the Arecibo collapse in 2020, a lone NASA radar dish in the Mojave desert stepped up as a leading asteroid hunter
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Rising out of the remote Mojave Desert, NASA's Goldstone Solar System Radar is a solitary satellite dish that communicates with spacecraft. In its downtime, the facility's antennas can track objects in space as they pass by Earth, improving measurements of their orbits that help scientists calculate if a particular target has a chance of colliding with our planet. By the end of 2024, Goldstone had detected 55 Near-Earth Asteroids, setting a new annual record for the facility. In 1968, scientists used Goldstone to make the first radar asteroid observations. In the decades that followed, researchers leaned more heavily on the Arecibo Observatory, a larger dish in Puerto Rico that could make more detailed studies. "While Arecibo was in operation, about 2.5 times as many binary system satellites had been found there relative to Goldstone," asteroid hunter and planetary scientist Lance Benner, of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, told by email. But the unexpected 2020 collapse of Arecibo left Goldstone as the new heavy hitter. According to Benner, the number of binaries identified by Goldstone is comparable to those found at Arecibo. Benner, who uses Goldstone to observe known asteroids, updated the planetary science community on the status of steroid radar observations made to Goldstone in March, at the 56th annual Lunar and Planetary Sciences Conference in Houston, Texas. Asteroids are leftover bits from the dawn of the solar system, and have the potential to reveal information about those formative years. Of the 37,255 known near-Earth asteroids, only 1127 have been observed by radar, and 512 of those were observed by Goldstone. Since the fall of Arecibo, 199 NEAs have been detected at Goldstone; 154 of them were detected for the first time by radar. Of those, 112 were classified as potentially hazardous asteroids. While asteroids are more easily discovered with optical telescopes, radar images shine when it comes to details. Radar can help astronomers study the physical properties of the asteroids, including their shapes, sizes, rotation states, surface features like roughness, and radar reflectivity. "Some images obtained with radar […] rival the resolutions of spacecraft flyby missions," Benner said. All of this can help scientists better understand the structure and composition of the asteroids as they buzz by Earth. Radar can also help to refine the asteroid's path through space, which can help researchers determine how likely it is to collide with Earth in the future. And radar shines when it comes to companions. Because it provides the equivalent of an up-close look at the space rocks, it can determine when asteroids are in binary pairs or even triple systems. Of the 75 binary and triple asteroid systems observed by radar since 2000, 70% were discovered using radar. From 2021 to 2024, Goldstone's DSS-14 radar antenna observed 19 binary systems, identifying 14 of these for the first time. Goldstone even helped revise some of Arecibo's findings; the system 1998 ST27 was formerly classified as a binary from previous observations, but has now been reclassified as a triple thanks to Goldstone. Observations of these NEAs are generally scheduled well in advance, though there are occasionally opportunities to study a newfound asteroid on short notice. In some months, Benner said, there might be observations anywhere from 10 to 15 days, while in other months hunting asteroids is regulated to only a handful of days. The process has become more flexible in recent years. In the past, would-be-observers had to obtain permission from more then 20 government agencies or military units who control restricted airspace surrounding the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex. "Obtaining approval could take several days, and in some cases, the asteroids had moved too far from Earth by the time we got approval to take full advantage of the observing opportunities," Benner said. That requirement is no longer necessary. Observers no longer need to get approval to transmit toward specific parts of the sky and at specific times. "This gives us the ability to change targets on the fly," Benner said. That, in turn, allows for a rising number of asteroids to be studied. "There are now so many asteroids known — and being discovered, sometimes more than 200 per month — that there are usually multiple asteroids within our range of detection every day, so flexibility with observing is really important," Benner said. The greater flexibility has led to an increase in asteroid observations from the Mojave. The 55 NEAs detected at Goldstone in 2024 represents a 1.5x increase relative to the average from 2012 to 2018, and a five-fold increase compared to 15 years ago. "Overall, there has been a significant uptick in time allocated at Goldstone for radar observations," as priority for radar observations is now considered comparable to space missions, Benner said. RELATED STORIES: — 2 asteroids just zipped by Earth, and NASA caught footage of the action — NASA radar images show stadium-size asteroid tumbling by Earth during flyby (photos) — Radar could help scientists find potentially threatening asteroids. Here's how Goldstone saw first light in December 1958, immediately after NASA was created and just in time to support the agency's Pioneer 3 mission to the moon. The Pioneer Station, an 85-foot (26-meter) polar mounted antenna, was the first to be constructed at Goldstone, and went on to support multiple spacecraft as well as the Apollo missions. It was officially shut down in 1981, and in 1985 was declared a National Historic Monument due to its role as the first deep space antenna in the Deep Space Network. The first observation of an asteroid using a radar telescope was made of asteroid (1566) Icarus in 1968 at Goldstone and later the then-functioning Haystack Observatory. At the time, Icarus was a subject of extreme interest as it made its closest approach to Earth. Goldstone antennas have also been used to study other objects in the solar system, such as the moon. Goldstone was the first of three instruments that today make up NASA's Deep Space Network. Along with dishes in Canberra, Australia and Madrid, Spain, the network communicates with ongoing missions, including continuing to keep in contact with the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft, the most distant human-made objects in the solar system. More than 40 missions have depended on the network, and it is expected to support twice that number in the coming years.
