
The Billion-Dollar Telescope Race - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/11/light/the-billion_dollar-telescope-race
======
antognini
> No wonder, then, that many leading astronomers in the 1980s and early >
> 1990s had written off Nelson’s scheme. A 1993 Los Angeles Times > profile of
> Nelson, for instance, quotes an anonymous source it > describes as “one of
> the nation’s top telescope designers.” The > anonymous source rated Nelson
> an “arrogant fool” and predicted that > the W.M. Keck Observatory’s $200
> million price tag would ultimately > just be money down the drain.

> Yet when in 1992 the Keck telescope—followed by its cousin Keck II in >
> 1996—instead delivered on its designers’ promise of ushering in a new > era
> of 10-meter class astronomy, other observatories around the world > were
> caught by surprise.

I think it should also be noted that Keck was "competing" with a similar-sized
telescope which ended up being known as the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT).
LBT had a huge number of issues, both with engineering and funding, that lead
to almost 20 years of delay. Part of the problem was that LBT is more
technically challenging than Keck, since it has two large mirrors on a common
mount (like a pair of binoculars). But like Keck, LBT also had difficulties
with protesters, but the objections were more environmental than cultural (Mt.
Graham is the home to an endangered species of squirrel). All of this is to
say that it wasn't unreasonable for the astronomical community to be skeptical
of Keck since a project similar in scale ended up far behind schedule and over
budget.

------
mturmon
The TMT, the only telescope of the three that is trying to go into Hawaii, got
a major setback days ago when its building permit for its site atop Mauna Kea
was denied by the Hawaii State Supreme Court
([http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8a57f575c6ed41958de678ade72bc...](http://bigstory.ap.org/article/8a57f575c6ed41958de678ade72bc77a/hawaii-
supreme-court-denies-telescope-construction))

~~~
antognini
When astronomers decide to build a telescope they do an extensive site
selection study to figure out where the best place to build the telescope is.
The most important factors are things you would expect: how cloudy the site
is, the elevation of the site, latitude, light pollution, etc. But they also
consider the political feasibility of building the telescope. [1] Although
Mauna Kea is a better site on purely scientific grounds than the Chile site
where GMT is going to be built, Mauna Kea has always been dinged in these site
selection reviews for the political problems of getting the telescope built.
TMT decided to risk the political difficulties for the better site. It seems
that the political objections to the TMT were stronger than they anticipated.

There are actually some excellent sites in various parts of the world that
don't yet have telescopes on them because the infrastructure isn't there yet
to support them. If my memory serves right, there is a site in Nairobi that is
one of the best in the world scientifically, but it's unfeasible economically
and politically to build a large telescope there. There was also a site in
Morocco that made the short list as a site for the E-ELT. As economies
improve, though, these sites will eventually be developed. In the past 15
years the infrastructure in India has gotten to the point that it was possible
to build the Indian Astronomical Observatory on a very good site in the
Himalayas. I think China is now building (or at least considering) another
observatory somewhere in the Himalayas as well.

[1]: For a list of some of the factors considered, see this paper, especially
Table 1:
[http://authors.library.caltech.edu/19568/1/Schoeck2007p8596W...](http://authors.library.caltech.edu/19568/1/Schoeck2007p8596Workshop_On_Astronomical_Site_Evaluation.pdf)

~~~
mturmon
Yes, the astronomers I know have been fearing this shoe would drop for several
years now as the protests have gained strength. Chile is looking pretty good.

------
ant6n
Whatever happened to putting liquid rotating mirror telescopes on the moon?
Here's an article explaining the idea: [http://science.nasa.gov/science-
news/science-at-nasa/2008/09...](http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-
at-nasa/2008/09oct_liquidmirror/)

------
sandworm101
I'd say that a billion dollars seems like far too much money considering all
the problems that money could solve here on earth. It could be spent on
general science education, which imho would probably result in greater
discoveries over the long term. But LeBron James just inked a deal that could
see him earn that much for bouncing a ball.

~~~
InclinedPlane
We spend trillions of dollars a year on solving problems "here on Earth", that
does not obviate the ability nor the need to spend money on pure scientific
research.

Consider how much the advancement of science has contributed to the wealth and
health of mankind. Hundreds of billions of person-years in healthy life.
_Quadrillions_. Literally _quadrillions_ of dollars of value and economic
activity added due to the understanding of gas laws, thermodynamics, material
science, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, etc. Can you think of anything
with such a tremendous return on investment?

~~~
sandworm101
Nobody is calling for an end to astronomy spending, let alone ending blue sky
research. But there are always efficients that must be debated. Spending a
billion on one telescope (or one LHC) must be weighed against spending
100-million on each of ten. There are certainly discoveries that do need the
bigger microscope, but there are a great many areas of science that are
underfunded. Seeing a billion go to one device should be a red flag warranting
serious debate.

There is also a Freudian aspect to any "worlds biggest" project. They are a
magnet for waste and competition totally outside the arena of science.

