Hawaii Supreme Court Approves Thirty Meter Telescope On Mauna Kea (hawaiinewsnow.com)

Applehu Akbar shares a report from Hawaii News Now: After years of legal wrangling and protests, the Thirty Meter Telescope got a green light Tuesday from the state Supreme Court. In a 4-to-1 decision, the state's highest court ruled in favor of the telescope's construction atop Mauna Kea, effectively ending all legal avenues for contesting the controversial project unless the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the case. In a statement, TMT International Observatory Board of Governors Chairman Henry Yang said the body is "grateful" for the ruling and "committed to being good stewards on the mountain." Slashdot reader Applehu Akbar adds: "Green anti-science organizations, such as Deep Green Resistance and Sierra Club, have been trying to stop TMT construction for years, in an expanded version of an earlier campaign to halt the construction of large research telescopes in southeastern Arizona. As in Arizona, their excuse was at first endangered species on the construction site, and subsequently native rights.

"TMT is an advanced world-class telescope designed to investigate and answer some of the most fundamental questions regarding our universe, including the formation of stars and galaxies after the Big Bang and how the universe evolved to its present form. Native Hawaiians will also be included in other direct benefits from the TMT," the court wrote. "Thus, use of the land by TMT is consistent with conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the state."

Comments

Uh oh.

[Type44Q]

Uh oh, hell hath no fury like a methed-out moke... until somebody shows up with a twelve-pack.

Re:Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shaddap anti-science republican faggot

Re:Uh oh.

[NicknameUnavailable]

Shaddap anti-science republican faggot

You've clearly never visited Hawaii OR obtained even a cursory understanding of the issue here. The anti-science ones in this issue are the green party and native Hawaiians.

Re: Uh oh.

[c6gunner]

I wouldn't call them anti-science so much as anti-progress of any type.

Re:Uh oh.

[dcw3]

Are those the anti-vax, anti-GMO, or gluten-free republicans? Oops, wrong anti-science party.

Re: Uh oh.

[msmash (TechXpert)]

Like Donald TRUMP who make coal power ``The Ultimate Power'' of USA.

When TRUMP legacy reveals in ten years and sea level rise 30m this be only thing left not under water on Mauna Kea, and who have the last laugh of course!

Re: Uh oh.

[NicknameUnavailable]

You mean the Trump who wants to make a Space Force to proactively protect the Earth from asteroids - vs the green party who want to halt all progress and the left in general who want to defend the "rights" of native Hawaiians who don't even live/work anywhere near the peak of this volcano while telling the rest of the world "doesn't matter if it's the best place in literally the whole planet to build a telescope, because some politically correct garbage."

Re: Uh oh.

[lgw]

I wouldn't call them anti-science so much as anti-progress of any type.

Indeed: they are anti-science because they are anti-progress.

It blows my mind that such people can thing of themselves as "green". Bronze-age farmers clear-cut forests for farmland everywhere they lived. E.g., the Scottish highlands used to be heavily forested, but were almost entirely clear-cut. Meanwhile, thanks to progress, US forested area increased dramatically in the last hundred years. Even though it's a mix worldwide (third world nations are still clear-cutting in some places), worldwide forest corverage has increased more than 7% since the 1980s.

Progress makes life better. That's why we call it progress.

Re: Uh oh.

[jd]

Of course, your views assume that it's someone else who is affected. Soon as it's you, you get your friends to storm the nearest wildlife sanctuary in order to teach the Feds a lesson, like those Texans did.

Do you know where the Hawiians live or work? I don't and I've followed the story. I can be absolutely certain you know even less.

The best place to build a telescope is in space. But you won't spend the money. Spoils your view, against your religion, etc.

You know, if it's an FU for the Hawaiians, it should be an FU for you too. Build in space a telescope of equal size. The government should take what it damn well pleases from you to build the telescope there. After all, you don't live or work there and it's the best place. Hey, your arguments. Not my problem.

Re: Uh oh.

[NicknameUnavailable]

Of course, your views assume that it's someone else who is affected. Soon as it's you, you get your friends to storm the nearest wildlife sanctuary in order to teach the Feds a lesson, like those Texans did.

So you're comparing a scientific endevour the whole species benefits from and a few people are pissed off about because they're racist as fuck and hate outsiders (but it's OK, they get a pass because they aren't white,) to a situation where hundreds of people worked land over generations and still actively use it but were being sold out by a corrupt politician who wanted to sell land to Chinese investors? Those two things are in no way shape or form related, and it really goes to show your bias that you even believe they could be.

Do you know where the Hawiians live or work? I don't and I've followed the story. I can be absolutely certain you know even less.

Lived there for years, actually. Native Hawaiians are easily the most racist and xenophobic demographic in the US, by a very wide margin.

The best place to build a telescope is in space. But you won't spend the money. Spoils your view, against your religion, etc.

Good luck getting a 30m telescope into space with modern technology.

You know, if it's an FU for the Hawaiians, it should be an FU for you too. Build in space a telescope of equal size. The government should take what it damn well pleases from you to build the telescope there. After all, you don't live or work there and it's the best place. Hey, your arguments. Not my problem.

The government isn't taking shit from them: they don't use it. It is literally the single best place on Earth to build a telescope, they don't get squatters rights on such a precious resource they don't even have any intention of using.

Re: Uh oh.

[110010001000]

You don't need a 30m telescope if it is space based. Building ground based telescopes at this point is stupid.

Re: Uh oh.

[NicknameUnavailable]

A telescope can only view so much at a time, and a ground-based telescope is a LOT easier to maintain than a space based one. Ideally, we should be building telescopes everywhere we can, if for no reason other than as an early warning system for asteroids. The other major reason we should be coating the Earth is telescopes is that modern data processing techniques allow us to combine images for higher resolution when taken from different locations to emulate a larger aperture - we could conceivably have a virtual Earth-sized aperture telescope capable of actually spotting Earth-sized planets in other systems AND determining atmospheric concentration therein if we had enough Earth-based telescopes. The next major breakthrough in space telescopes is the James Webb telescope - which really pushes the bounds of what we can successfully deploy in space at only a few meters in size, and the major gain there isn't the aperture but the wavelength (we don't have any good infrared telescopes right now, those simply don't work on Earth because of the atmospheric effects, but visible light and radio telescopes are much better to place on Earth.) Maintenance costs really can't be disregarded, at least until our society reaches a post-scarcity state.

Re: Uh oh.

[110010001000]

There is no point in an early warning system for asteroids. If one is going to hit Earth, it is going to happen. Save your pennies and build telescopes in space.

Re: Uh oh.

[jd]

Very easy to get a 30 metre space telescope.

Take the glass into space, then melt it. In space, you can get the purity higher and the defect density lower, so creating the mirror on Earth is stupid and limiting. You can get the crude shape easily enough by any number of means.

You can then grind and polish by machine, and machines work better when they're not competing with vibrations from mini quakes. You can use a mathematical model for the template.

You now have a mirror. You can have a mirror factory in space pump out mirrors at whatever rate you like. Have it as a module on the ISS, if you want. Then you just send up the parts for the rest of the telescope and have an engineering crew do the assembly work.

Once ISS is abandoned for science, why not?

There's nothing hard here. Expensive, as it would require three rockets per telescope to get everything up, but SpaceX has made it affordable.

Re: Uh oh.

[drinkypoo]

Do you know where the Hawiians live or work? I don't and I've followed the story. I can be absolutely certain you know even less.

They don't live or work where the telescope is being built. And since it's basically bare ground already, it's not going to have any notable ecological impact.

You know, if it's an FU for the Hawaiians, it should be an FU for you too. Build in space a telescope of equal size.

You do it. We're building it on the planet because it's easier and cheaper.

Re: Uh oh.

[NicknameUnavailable]

That's just not true. If we catch them far enough in advance we can divert them with modern tech. The issue there is we need to be looking all over pretty constantly.

Re: Uh oh.

[liquid_schwartz]

I wouldn't call them anti-science so much as anti-progress of any type.

When progress is defined as more illegal aliens who can't even speak the language and men in dresses yeah, I'm against progress too

Re: Uh oh.

[jythie]

I wouldn't even call them anti-progress, just anti-building-on-that-specific-site. The whole case pretty much came down to 'so who gets to decide how the land is used?', with a particular group having been given the authority and other interested parties feeling the authority was being misused. That isn't really anti progress, just an authority issue.

Re: Uh oh.

[jythie]

Well, progress tends to make some life better and other life worse. This was a NIMY issue, they were not against progress itself, but did not want it done on a site that would take something away from them. They see it as their sacred site, thus their decision regarding what it can and can not be used for, while other parties want it for their use instead. And that is the classic problem when someone feels they can make better use of a resource than the people who are currently using it... often from a macro perspective we give them a pass since it 'contributes to society', but it still involves taking something that other people were using and destroying their use. The land the telescope is built on and the land around it will no longer be usable for their purposes, and that is what they were upset about. The utility of the telescope is irrelevant for people who are being asked to pay a price so others can profit.

Re: Uh oh.

[c6gunner]

I'm not sure what you have against my kilt, or how it relates to progress.

Re: Uh oh.

[lgw]

Sure, there were some people protesting because of what you said, but there were also "green" organizations involved who like to block progress on general principles.

Re: Uh oh.

[jd]

You don't need one, agreed, but labs used to make 30m mirrors simulate space and making glass in space leads to higher quality glass.

Since the antagonist has offered to pay for a 30m space telescope, I'd take them up on the offer.

Re: Uh oh.

[Applehu Akbar]

You’ve never visited the mountain, I’m thinking. I have, back when the very first telescopes were being built in the astronomy reserve area.

NIMBY doesn’t come into play at all her because nobody lives on Mauna Kea. The mountain is a desolate expanse of red cinder where no one lives. No one even lived there in pre-American times either, because the ali’i, the one-percenters of the Bronze Age world, reserved it for their rituals. Commoner Kanaka were punished by death for so much as visiting the place.

Today the upper part of the mountain is a specially designated natural preserve where every identified heiau (altar) of the ali’i are protected, as is every natural species that has been identified there, down to the humble wekiu bug. All of the telescopes occupy the small reserve within this area that has been approved since 1960 as non-infringing on culture or nature.

Re: Uh oh.

[jd]

You'll find most of Scotland was clear-cut in the Iron Age, not the Bronze Age.

Re: Uh oh.

[NicknameUnavailable]

Very easy to get a 30 metre space telescope.

Take the glass into space, then melt it. In space, you can get the purity higher and the defect density lower, so creating the mirror on Earth is stupid and limiting. You can get the crude shape easily enough by any number of means.

I'm going to disregard this as a troll, as it would make me uncomfortable to know anyone who believes something so naively stupid is confident enough in themselves to speak.

Re: Uh oh.

[Huge_UID]

Lived there for years, actually. Native Hawaiians are easily the most racist and xenophobic demographic in the US, by a very wide margin.

Don't disagree. Don't blame them either considering the history. Hell, look at how racist white folks on the mainland can be when a few more brown folks show up. What happened to the Hawaiians is far beyond that.

Re: Uh oh.

[lgw]

Both, I think. I'll admit my my knowledge prehistoric Scotland is pretty limited, but the forests took a real hit when bronze age people arrived ~2000 BC. Apparently, about half of the forests has been cleared when the Romans arrived.

In any case it's only been in the past century or so that it's gone the other direction, and of course modern groups are working hard to restore the forest there.

Re:Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are those the anti-vax, anti-GMO, or gluten-free republicans? Oops, wrong anti-science party.

Devide and concour, over and over and over.

Re: Uh oh.

[NicknameUnavailable]

I don't blame anyone for being xenophobic, tribalism is Human nature across the board. It doesn't mean it should be allowed to slow research. Everyone has had ancestors who ate shit and got fucked sideways, without exception, the only difference is how long ago it happened. We have a lot of evolutionary selection which took place to make us despise foreigners if not at least distrust them, it's not an excuse from anyone.

Re: Uh oh.

[jd]

Are you arguing that ultra-pure materials can't be made in space? That'll be news to, well, everyone.

Re: Uh oh.

[Gavagai80]

Just NIMBYs. They're everywhere, and all across the political spectrum, and unfortunately they have lawyers.

Re: Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but I'd appreciate having as much "pencils down, smoke 'em if you got 'em" time as science can give us.

Re: Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

jythie observed:

Well, progress tends to make some life better and other life worse. This was a NIMY issue, they were not against progress itself, but did not want it done on a site that would take something away from them. They see it as their sacred site, thus their decision regarding what it can and can not be used for, while other parties want it for their use instead. And that is the classic problem when someone feels they can make better use of a resource than the people who are currently using it... often from a macro perspective we give them a pass since it 'contributes to society', but it still involves taking something that other people were using and destroying their use. The land the telescope is built on and the land around it will no longer be usable for their purposes, and that is what they were upset about. The utility of the telescope is irrelevant for people who are being asked to pay a price so others can profit.

I'm disagreeing only with your statement:

The land the telescope is built on and the land around it will no longer be usable for their purposes, and that is what they were upset about.

The fact is that the native Hawaiians never used it for any purpose. It is, according to their religious belief, sacred ground; the home of the goddess Pele, which no human may visit uninvited by her. Building a telescope there is ipso facto sacrilege to them.

However, in all fairness to the good people of the TMT International Observatory, it's very much still the case that the native religious practitioners are free to shun Moana Kea's summit in obedience to Pele's will. Nonetheless, it's all but guaranteed that faithful Kanaka will assemble there to attempt to block construction of the TMT, whenever that commences.

By now, you'd think the contortions the religious mind can put itself through in order to justify its actions wouldn't surprise me in the slightest way - but the phenomenon continues baffle me, every time I learn of a new variant. In this case, I see as ludicrous the fact that the Kanaka have somehow talked themselves into believing that them voluntarily commiting sacrilege to protect their goddess's home from unbelievers commiting a different variety of sacrilege as something of which Pele would approve ...

(Posting as AC only so as not to undo prior upmods in this thread.)

--

Check out my novel ...

Re: Uh oh.

[SpaceDave]

There is no point in an early warning system for asteroids. If one is going to hit Earth, it is going to happen.

Absolutely untrue. We already have the technology to divert an asteroid if we get enough early warning. The whole point is that the earlier the warning, the easier it is to divert the asteroid.

Re: Uh oh.

[reboot246]

"This was a NIMY issue, they were not against progress itself, but did not want it done on a site that would take something away from them. They see it as their sacred site"

If it were a site sacred to Christians or Jews, you'd be all in favor of trashing it. Don't deny it. We've seen it happen before.

Re: Uh oh.

[NicknameUnavailable]

Are you arguing that ultra-pure materials can't be made in space? That'll be news to, well, everyone.

Using modern technology? En mass and engineered+machined in very precise ways? Yes, I am absolutely arguing that. We don't have anywhere near the tech to do that now.

Re: Uh oh.

[drinkypoo]

You mean the Trump who wants to make a Space Force to proactively protect the Earth from asteroids

Who's that? I only know of the Trump who wants to make a Space Force to proactively protect wealthy people from becoming less wealthy through pork projects.

Re: Uh oh.

[NicknameUnavailable]

Because asteroids can only hurt the wealthy, right?

Re: Uh oh.

[drinkypoo]

Because asteroids can only hurt the wealthy, right?

Trump probably thinks an asteroid is a hemorrhoid that's shaped like a star. He doesn't give one shit about asteroid defense. Further, we don't need a new branch of the military for that. It can easily fall under the purview of the Air Force, like it does already. A new branch of the armed forces is created when there is a logistic need, not just for funsies.

Re: Uh oh.

[NicknameUnavailable]

Further, we don't need a new branch of the military for that.

We do if we want to be prepared to defend our planet from foreign threats. The army does civil service when there's no foreign threat to fight or when there's a disaster. Asteroids are that for Space Force. If we never have aliens trying to invade and Musk's Martian slave labor camp doesn't start constructing mass drivers en mass then that may be all they ever do, and hopefully it will be. Better to be prepared than not, especially with billionaires going gung-ho to conquer space - I for one am not anticipating they will change course and stop being sociopathic control freaks who will stop at nothing for more power and control over others just because they build a massive asteroid mining business.

Re: Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

We already are looking constantly with systems dedicated to the purpose. Telescopes like the TMT are never used to do sky surveys to find asteroids.

Re: Uh oh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? Making large telescope mirrors requires gravity to give them their rough parabolic shape. What orifice are you speaking out of?

From TFA...

[Type44Q]

The construction permit comes with dozens of conditions that have to be met â" including cultural training for staff

Go away, Haole!

Who can blame them??

Re:From TFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shaddap anti-science republican faggot.

desert wandering unchosens protest

[Anonymous Coward]

unanomously declining the grand manage hotel/casino/tentfarm hostagery placement mandate.. the unchosens relate that the wandering in the desert life can be harsh, sometimes cruel, but still beats the heck out of slaving at the casino, to end up owing them.. more to come in the flyer; life as an unchosen wanderer a.k.a. the grit hits the clan...

TMT, dynomite

[Daralantan]

Hawaiians will also be included in other direct benefits from the TMT

What benefits will they gain from a big telescope being nearby?

Also.... it's literally just named Thirty Meter Telescope?

Re:TMT, dynomite

[NicknameUnavailable]

What benefits will they gain from a big telescope being nearby?

It's basically the best location on Earth for a ground-based telescope due to local climate and air conditions.

Also.... it's literally just named Thirty Meter Telescope?

It was named by scientists, be glad it wasn't some absurd string of latin words translating roughly to "the glowy ring things from sonic the hedgehog."

Re:TMT, dynomite

[RenderSeven]

Also.... it's literally just named Thirty Meter Telescope?

You can get more when you auction off the naming rights after you get the permit.

Re:TMT, dynomite

[RenderSeven]

be glad it wasn't some absurd string of latin words translating roughly to "the glowy ring things from sonic the hedgehog."

I dont know ... "Splendida anulum de sonic ericius" has a certain ring to it

Re:TMT, dynomite

[Anonymous Coward]

It was named by scientists, be glad it wasn't some absurd string of latin words translating roughly to "the glowy ring things from sonic the hedgehog."

It should be translated as "stargate". Seriously, who reads those old translation books any more?

Re:TMT, dynomite

[webinstinct]

Telescopy McTelescopeface

Re:TMT, dynomite

[Ol Olsoc]

Hawaiians will also be included in other direct benefits from the TMT

What benefits will they gain from a big telescope being nearby?

Perhaps a more interesting question is what problems will they have?

Oh yeah - none. Meanwhile, they should consider collaborating with the KKK. They are racist brothers at heart.

Re:TMT, dynomite

[Applehu Akbar]

What benefits will they gain from a big telescope being nearby?

Telescopes are tended by a small crew of highly paid nerds. These are the kind of high-quality jobs that benefit every economy because they occupy the top of an economic pyramid. Each of those nerds needs a place to live, needs his/her lawn mowed, dog groomed, car washed, child care and education. Each of those techie jobs nourishes an expanding set of more humble jobs below it.

The users of TMT will be scientists, most of whom do not live in the area. They will make use of the same travel and hotel infrastructure as tourists, but will contribute a lot more to the economy than a week at the beach. Science enriches us all.

Re:TMT, dynomite

[quenda]

Also.... it's literally just named Thirty Meter Telescope?

That is a translation. The original name in Americanese sounded better: "Hundred Foot Telescope".

Re:TMT, dynomite

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont know ... "Splendida anulum de sonic ericius" has a certain ring to it

LOL, found one of the few remaining people with a Classical education, apparently. :-P

Re:TMT, dynomite

[jythie]

In theory, better roads and economic development. In practice they are trading concrete access to a sacred site for the abstract 'all society benefits when we benefit'. So yeah, they are not getting jack squat and giving up something major.

Re:TMT, dynomite

[Anonymous Coward]

They were going to call it the Thirty Meter Nightsky Telescope, until they got an angry letter from Mirage Studios over improper use of their TMNT trademark.

Re:TMT, dynomite

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a translation. The original name in Americanese sounded better: "Hundred Foot Telescope".

You totally missed a chance to make fun of people who use too many significant digits. How about "The 96 foot 5 and 3/32 inch Telescope".

Re:TMT, dynomite

[sexconker]

That is a translation. The original name in Americanese sounded better: "Hundred Foot Telescope".

You totally missed a chance to make fun of people who use too many significant digits. How about "The 96 foot 5 and 3/32 inch Telescope".

Significant figures don't come into play when you're doing a conversion! Conversions are to be done exactly, you fools! An inch is defined as EXACTLY 2.54 centimeters.

If you're properly applying significant figures the recommended, "scientific" way, during a conversion to feet and inches you get this:
30 meters
100 centimeters per meter
2.54 centimeters per inch (the definition)
12 inches per foot

The lowest precision there is 1 significant figure (30 and 100), so you need to do:

(3 * 10^1 meters) * (1 * 10^2 centimeters per meter) / (3 * 10^0 centimeters per inch) / (1 * 10^1 inches per feet) = 1 * 10^2 feet.

Note that we ended up with a round number and no need for inches. What happens if we want to convert to just feet instead of feet and inches?

30 meters .3048 meters per foot (the definition)

The lowest precision there is 1 significant figure (30), so you need to do:

(3 * 10^1 meters) / (3 * 10^-1 meters per foot) = 1 * 10^2 feet again!

Clearly, 30 meters is 100 feet, and after thinking about significant figures, we know the measurement is somewhere in the range of [50, 150) feet!

The CORRECT way to do a conversion is to do conversion calculations at exact precision, whenever possible.

30 meters .3048 meters per foot (the definition)

The lowest precision there is 1 significant figure (30), but we're doing things correctly here, and we keep the precision for the terms involving conversion:

(3 * 10^1 meters) / (3.048 * 10^-1 meters per foot) = 98.42519685039370078740157480315 feet.
Round that out to whatever you want. If you care about being remotely correct, use at least as many figures as the highest-precision conversion step, plus one. For this, that means 5 figures, for 98.425 feet.

Why? If you're assuming 30 meters means something in the range of [29.5, 30.5) meters as following "significant figures" tells you, then the value in feet is in the range [96.78477690288713910761154855643, 100.06561679790026246719160104987). Calling it 100 feet is extreme bias (and in many cases you can end up outside the bounds of the actual range). And when someone else touches that using "significant figures" (or you do so yourself later), you end up actually treating that 100 feet as a value in the range of [50,150) feet. These errors can cascade and throw you wildly off course!

The bottom line is that significant figures are to be applied only to MEASUREMENTS to account for the lack of accuracy/precision in an instrument. Using them for anything else is just wild rounding and estimation.

Re:TMT, dynomite

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't we need to add -us to Sonic's name?

splendida anulum de sonicus ericius

Re:TMT, dynomite

[tonique]

Maybe something like PORTA STELLÅRIS.

Re:TMT, dynomite

[Anonymous Coward]

By my MEASUREMENTS, the telescope's width is 5 * 10^2 pixels ± cheeto.

Re:TMT, dynomite

[Anonymous Coward]

Klaatu barada nikto... yea yea I got it

Re:TMT, dynomite

[Anonymous Coward]

"What benefits will they gain from a big telescope being nearby?"

Having neighbors that have doctorates in astrophysics instead of being fat lazy mokes?

Re:TMT, dynomite

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists can be pretty literal when naming things:
https://public.nrao.edu/visit/very-large-array/

“Green anti-science”?

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems a bit unfair, or at least misleading. More like “Green stop stealing our protected native lands for giant construction projects”. The intended scientific purpose for this project is not relevant for their side of the debate. They would equally (actually, more strongly) oppose a shopping mall being put atop Mauna Kea.

Re: “Green anti-science”?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or " anti-constructuin"

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Go fucking look at the island. It's obvious that science and education are much less important to them than shopping malls and resorts. This was just a fucking shakedown on an easy mark.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[phayes]

Strawman. Nobody is asking for a shopping mall on top of Moana Kea.

Moana Kea is uniquely adapted for the TMT. That some groups who claim to be "green" have tried to block the TMT using every excuse they could thus clearly and fairly defines these groups as "Green anti-science".

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[LostMyAccount]

You'd think that "greens" would actually be pro-science, what with environmental issues mostly being understandable by actual science.

But think of all the so-called "greens" who are into essential oils, crystals, supplements and all the other esoteric unscientific nonsense. They want to align with Native Americans because they think it gives credibility to their new age bullshit to associate it with actual pagan religious practices, which while culturally legitimate are no less fantasy than new agers or Catholics for that matter.

And actual organized native opposition to something like a scientific observatory is really nothing more than a political shakedown for concessions somewhere else.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[Applehu Akbar]

Here is the smoking gun, their manifesto on TMT:
https://deepgreenresistancegre...

The author of this piece, Will Falk, has been one of the earliest organizers of the protest movement in Hawaii, whipping up a native uprising against "Western science." Until the Greens got involved, Hawaiians had a long and peaceful relationship with research science, astronomy in particular. Their ancestors constructed star maps to navigate the Pacific, and King Kamehameha himself was an astronomy buff.

The whole summit of mauna Kea is a 114,000 - acre nature preserve administered by University of Hawaii. Within that preserve, a 52-acre patch near the summit was set aside for astronomy in 1960. The TMT would be the latest of about 13 telescopes that have been built in this area. It is the first one to become controversial.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[110010001000]

I guess 13 telescopes aren't enough. Better build some more.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could look up the TMT and why it's different before making such a stupid comment.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[cascadingstylesheet]

The whole summit of mauna Kea is a 114,000 - acre nature preserve administered by University of Hawaii. Within that preserve, a 52-acre patch near the summit was set aside for astronomy in 1960. The TMT would be the latest of about 13 telescopes that have been built in this area. It is the first one to become controversial.

Ah well. I guess unthinking "resist" stuff isn't as easy to control as you might think.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Catholics are unscientific? The big bang theory was from a Catholic priest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the smoking gun, their manifesto on TMT:
https://deepgreenresistancegre...

Wow. I have seldom read such tortured logic.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[Anonymous Coward]

Catholic here. We regularly get confused with fundamental christians. It's a bit tiresome, but to a lot of people, there is no difference between the various christian sects. People like the GP would probably shit themselves if they knew how many mormons worked in engineering.

The absolute worst ones though are the converts later in life. My sister in law was born in a strict pro-science atheist family, she converted to non-denominational christianity later in life. On a trip with her once she insisted on visiting the creation museum and really does believe that the world is only 6000 years old. I personally find it embarrassing to be around her when she gets going. And there really is no discussion on the matter, it's best to just ignore her, correct things with her kids and carry on with your life.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[alvinrod]

The OP is saying that Catholicism (or any religion for that matter) itself is unscientific (which doesn't prohibit the people who follow it from being scientific) since it purports a belief in something that is at present (and likely will always be) unfalsifiable. Realistically though, that statement was only added so some nitwit didn't try to troll by complaining than western religions aren't any better than the so-called pagan religions. It seems as though you found a way anyhow though.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[gotan]

Will Falk seems to fit right in with "fallists" that demand "de-colonization" of science (i.e. regarding voodoo and science to be on an equal footing).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Such folks really should adhere to their own standards and refuse any use of electronic devices.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[alvinrod]

It appears that the site has been slashdotted (when's the last time that's happened?) so here's a link to the page on archive.org for anyone who wanted to read it: https://web.archive.org/web/20160823082609/https://deepgreenresistancegreatbasin.org/civilization/colonialism/science-vs-the-real-world-on-mauna-kea/

Re: “Green anti-science”?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I'm sure it is different from the other 12 built within the same mile

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[alvinrod]

It's actually pretty funny in a way. It's like someone took every single ultra-progressive whack-job trope or talking point and rammed it into one piece, and I haven't even gotten through the first third of it yet.

This guy should perform in clubs.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[110010001000]

Oh let me guess: it is different. It is 30 metre instead of 10 metre like the one next to it. This will allow us to peer further into the origins of the universe and "first light". It is the same story given every time a telescope is proposed. It will be great, but then we will need a 40 meter one at some point. Ground based telescopes are stupid.

Re: “Green anti-science”?

[Type44Q]

I skimmed through the mental masturbation until I arrived at the following gem:

Personally, I am against the construction of telescopes anywhere

This agitated goon needs to put down the letters and numbers, even the tools and clothes, and head the fuck back into the woods; his appropriation of culture is annoying me.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a Penn and Teller episode waiting to happen...

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[Applehu Akbar]

Sorry about that. I have posted this manifesto link a time or two before in comments attached to other articles about the TMT, but those attracted little attention at the time. I’m glad that there still are enough Slashdotters to occasionally slashdot sites.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strawman. Nobody is asking for a shopping mall on top of Moana Kea.

Moana Kea is uniquely adapted for the TMT.

It is also uniquely adapted for a resort. 360 ocean Views, with a rotating glass walled rooftop pool.

Re: “Green anti-science”?

[jd]

Telescope science advances.

And if you're building an interferometer - which they could and possibly have - then no, thirteen "isn't enough" because however many you have, you essentially only have one. One that has the collecting area of all the mirrors combined and the mirror size the maximum distance between any two mirror edges. A telescope more powerful than you could imagine.

The real objection is that the mountain simply isn't big enough to do a good enough job and you still have atmospheric effects.

What you want is something like this using optical telescopes in space. Collecting area one square kilometre, virtual mirror 3000 kilometres across.

With that, you could map every asteroid larger than a thimble in a matter of months, discover the atmospheric chemistry and weather patterns of every planet in a hundred light years and plot the exact 3D location of every star in the Andromeda galaxy.

Ok, it would cost a bit more, but as the consensus amongst the right is that taking from others in the name of science is fine for Kea, I must assume they've no problems with the Feds taking everything past the first five million from the rich. It's just religion after that and we're all agreed that religion has no value. What's wrong with taking nothing?

Re: “Green anti-science”?

[110010001000]

Exactly. You can build 100 ground based telescopes and it won't be enough. Build them in space.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[jfdavis668]

If only. The mountain is very broad and the slope shallow. The view is of the rock fields around you and the clouds far below. On a perfect day it may be nice, but ocean air hitting mountains tends to make clouds.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[drinkypoo]

Catholic here. We regularly get confused with fundamental christians. It's a bit tiresome, but to a lot of people, there is no difference between the various christian sects.

There is no meaningful difference. You all think you're better than everyone else and you all believe in a magic man in the sky who will send you to burn in hell forever if you don't accept his love. Talk about the ultimate stockholm syndrome fantasy.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[liquid_schwartz]

There is no meaningful difference. You all think you're better than everyone else ...

There is so much irony in telling someone that they think they're better with such a smug 'I'm better than you' tone.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[mangastudent]

But think of all the so-called "greens" who are into essential oils, crystals

They're strip mining the Ozarks for crystals, you know....

Or at least so I've heard, in at least a couple of locations, and confirmed one in Arkansas just now with a simple search.

Re: “Green anti-science”?

[habig]

as the consensus amongst the right is that taking from others in the name of science is fine for Kea, I must assume they've no problems with the Feds taking everything past the first five million from the rich. It's just religion after that and we're all agreed that religion has no value. What's wrong with taking nothing?

wait, what?

Why does everything have to be reduced to a right/left dung throwing fest? I'd be shocked if the astronomical community designing/building/using the scope voted much differently than 1/3 R and 2/3 D. But, hey, you've got to have only two boxes to cram any policy decision into, so go ahead.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[Applehu Akbar]

Here in Arizona, the same gang of thugs who are whipping up the Hawaiians against astronomy tried to prevent the Catholics specifically from building a telescope. Their research arm, Speccolo Vatticana, which has been doing astronomy for centuries near Rome, moved its operation here after Arcetri became smogged in.

Fortunately, we’re a bunch of armed Republicans fully aware of the importance of science to our state. We ran the Greens off, and the Large Binocular Tesescope was built.

Re: “Green anti-science”?

[Type44Q]

This being text, there is no tone. Whatever "tone" you were "hearing" came from you.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[nazrhyn]

"Moana Kea" is pretty funny.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[micahraleigh]

Protestant here.

Clear difference. The world will never care.

You might get a convert (to Catholicism or Christianity) on a case-by-case, but society will always hate you because it hates Jesus and were the real ones who put him to death.

Having "advanced" sounding views on science is not going to move the public or society in any meaningful way.

Meanwhile, the neanderthal evidence has been discredited by secular scientists and there are huge gaps between species in the fossil record and some scientists maintain the mutations were guided by aliens from space to prop up the decaying views of Charles Darwin.

Re: “Green anti-science”?

[Type44Q]

See??

Re: “Green anti-science”?

[jd]

Worse, because the "correction" is itself a non-random error, it's liable to experience constructive interference in the ground. That means you'll get artefacts. A hundred telescopes in an interferometer on the ground will not reliably distinguish actual observation from artefact.

The same number of telescopes in space won't have such artefacts to contend with because the signal isn't being "cleaned".

In fact, I'm not even sure you CAN clean a signal from a single interferometer in an array. The whole point of such a system is that you're using constructive interference to identify real signals. Atmospherics will constitute noise thousands of times larger. Anything that smoothes out atmospherics must surely eliminate the very signals an interferometer is designed to detect.

If adaptive optics are out, then optical SVLBI is really the only option.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[LostMyAccount]

Exactly. It wasn't meant to beat up on Natives for whatever hocus-pocus they want to believe in, it's that all the religions are based on hocus-pocus.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lack of O2 at 4300m elevation might put a dent in the tourist trade, also.

Re:“Green anti-science”?

[Mike Van Pelt]

Here is the smoking gun, their manifesto on TMT:
https://deepgreenresistancegre...

(checks out link...)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! The stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!! It burns, it burns!!!!!

Re: “Green anti-science”?

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth hurts bruh. I know you HATE being told daily, hourly even, that you FUCKED UP and that you need to stop voting for shithead republicans, but you keep doing it anyway. TRUMP WON GET OVER IT!

When if ever?

[AndyKron]

Is that it, or are the 25,346 other approvals left to go?

Re:When if ever?

[ceoyoyo]

They already had all the approvals necessary. This is about a court case challenging the already issued permits. So since it's been struck down, the project should be free to proceed.

Not surprising

[Sqreater]

The scientific-industrial complex sweeps all before it. This is just more visual pollution of the environment in order to collect data that has absolutely no value to humanity, but which satisfies the peculiarly accented motivation arrays of this type of scientist.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of credulist nonsense

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Good one.
I thought you were serious till I got to the "motivation arrays" bit.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Save your enthusiasm for much more worthy causes. There's a whole lot more endangered species and visual pollution where that came from.

Re:Not surprising

[dcw3]

Right, because the "scientific-industrial complex" just wants to spend ~$1B in a remote location to fuck up the view. This is on grounds that were set aside long ago for astronomy, which according to you has no value to humanity. Obviously, we don't need things like GPS, or cell phones. In fact, just go read this to find out what astronomy has done for humanity, then come back and apologize for your ignorance. Otherwise, we'll just know it was stupidity, which can't be fixed.

https://www.iau.org/public/the...

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I ask why you're here? Seriously, this is a board that caters towards nerds, and on this forum, in a discussion between "keeping a place safe for god" and moving science forward, you've chosen god. Now, I'm not saying everyone on this forum will agree on all things, one would hardly call this place an echo chamber, or even that siding with the protesters is wrong, but it does seem like an opinion that's a bit out of character for the demographic this site caters to.

Re:Not surprising

[Applehu Akbar]

The scientific-industrial complex sweeps all before it. This is just more visual pollution of the environment in order to collect data that has absolutely no value to humanity, but which satisfies the peculiarly accented motivation arrays of this type of scientist.

Being able to spot an Earth-impacting asteroid when it’s still far enough away for us to do something it could literally save human civilization.

Unfortunately, this would also include your sorry ass.

Re:Not surprising

[Ol Olsoc]

The scientific-industrial complex sweeps all before it. This is just more visual pollution of the environment in order to collect data that has absolutely no value to humanity, but which satisfies the peculiarly accented motivation arrays of this type of scientist.

Whoo-Hooo, we gots ourselves a live one here, with their first shot across the bow! Please don't be a Poe, please don't be a Poe.

Tell us oh wise one, how knowledge not valuable. Engage us and enlighten us.

Re: Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe we don't care for an ugly structure built to gather information that is of no practical use whatsoever? Or maybe we think the money would be better spent elsewhere? Tell me, how good is some data about stars you will never ever visit, and that nobody cares for, when you're sick and have no health care? #stopmadness #humanityfirst #peoplenotplanets

Re: Not surprising

[jd]

Then build in space. You'll see asteroids a lot clearer from there, as Arthur C Clarke pointed out more than once. You'll also be able to see them from more directions, since a telescope in Hawaii loses the benefits of a thin atmosphere when trying to look near the horizon.

Re: Not surprising

[jd]

It has enormous value for humanity, and science is the enemy of most of the industrial complex, which is why the right hate science and the left distrust industry.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you believe the world is flat... or we live inside the blue eye of a giant named Macumber. People against astronomical research should be deprived of all science has given man kind: no electricity, no modern medicine. Go back to your pre-Aristotelian way of thinking. Or, be a mench and read "The Demon Haunted Universe" and stop adding to the problem and encouraging others to follow you into the abyss of superstition.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan 1995 Random House

Good book.

Re:Not surprising

[ceoyoyo]

Why would he enlighten us when his position is that knowledge is not valuable? Embrace your ignorance, fool!

Re: Not surprising

[Applehu Akbar]

When the same set of Green groups tried to stop telescope construction here in Arizona during the Nineties, one of their arguments at the time, and I swear I’m not making this up, was “Why not build on Mauna Kea? Hawaii has no cloudy monsoon season, and is astronomy-friendly because of the specifically-designated telescope reserve on the mountain.”

I’m sure that eventually we will be able to build a thirty-meter scope in space. While we wait out those decades, TMT will see better than the 72-inch Hubble because its multiple mirrors will wiggle in real time to offset the blurring of atmospheric cells. And it will do so at a tiny fraction of the cost. In fact, TMT will cost less than the much-delayed JWST space telescope, which is much smaller.

Re: Not surprising

[jd]

We could build a three hundred metre telescope in space today. Gentlemen, we can build it. We have the technology. We have the capability to make the world's first optical interferometer.

In all seriousness, it's child's play in terms of the science and technology. Ship some glass into space, melt it, cool it in roughly the right shape, we know microgravity forms purer crystalline structures so we've fewer defects than we could ever achieve on Earth, we can then use machines not impeded by either air turbulence or ground vibration to actually grind and polish.

That last bit is simulated on Earth. It's how large mirrors are made. They simulate space. So we already have all that experience and hardware.

Because you're not transporting a mirror to space, you've no problems with size restrictions or damage caused by launch.

The rest is assembly. There's probably not much more dust in space than in a clean room, so once the parts are packed up and shipped, the difference is that you're not competing with gravity over where the parts go.

The ISS has limited lifespan for science and America wants out anyway. Converting the American wing to a space telescope manufacturing facility requires a couple of modules for mirror manufacture and not much more.

That could all be set up within Trump's first term in office.

Less time than it would take to get the politics sorted out in Hawaii.

Re: Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Not for you to decide, shitboi.

Re: Not surprising

[Muros]

Or maybe we don't care for an ugly structure built to gather information that is of no practical use whatsoever?

The usefulness of information cannot be ascertained until it has been gathered.

Re:Not surprising

[Sqreater]

I'm sorry your mind has been so badly co-opted by the complex. There is nothing to be said. When so much emotion is generated, one knows they are dealing with a fanatic, or someone who has a vested interest.

Re:Not surprising

[Sqreater]

Thank you for your emotional response.

Re:Not surprising

[Sqreater]

Sarcasm is not thought.

Re:Not surprising

[dcw3]

You're sorry, but not in the way you think. Get some help.

Its a good location but..

[thesupraman]

Actually its the best location on US soil, but hey, if thats what you consider earth...

The Antarctic has some pretty major advantages (and challenges), however has a somewhat restricted view..
Tibet has a few locations that are outstanding..
The Atacama Desert and Equador have some pretty good (better than Hawaii) locations.

However this is a good location, and the people blocking it should be denied medical science, since they want to live without progress..
(Of course thats rarely the locals, they just get caught up in it, its a bunch of nothing-better-to-do whackjobs who travel around trying to block science 'because' )

Re:Its a good location but..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hawaii is ``best'' location not just due to height and accessibility. e.g. they could just build it on Pike's Peak in Colorado... higher, and way more accessible. What sets hawaii apart is that it's in the middle of the ocean, which minimizes atmospheric interference.

Re:Its a good location but..

[Ol Olsoc]

Actually its the best location on US soil, but hey, if thats what you consider earth...

The Antarctic has some pretty major advantages (and challenges), however has a somewhat restricted view.. Tibet has a few locations that are outstanding.. The Atacama Desert and Equador have some pretty good (better than Hawaii) locations.

However this is a good location, and the people blocking it should be denied medical science, since they want to live without progress.. (Of course thats rarely the locals, they just get caught up in it, its a bunch of nothing-better-to-do whackjobs who travel around trying to block science 'because' )

Note your better locations are all in the southern hemisphere which although not technically the best, is pretty critical.

Otherwise, you are spot on. Reminds me of some of the local kooks who are against wind power, solar power, nuc power, hydropower, coal power. While using it every day. And cowtowing to them merely causes new demands to come out.

Re: Its a good location but..

[Type44Q]

since they want to live without progress

Indigenous Hawaiians have been supplied with a good reason to distrust "progress."

Re: Its a good location but..

[drinkypoo]

Indigenous Hawaiians have been supplied with a good reason to distrust "progress."

So were the people who were there when they got there, especially since they likely ate them.

Re: Its a good location but..

[Type44Q]

"Spam - it tastes just like your enemies!"

Still, there are two sides to native Hawaiian's xenophobia and resentment...

Re:Its a good location but..

[Anonymous Coward]

However this is a good location, and the people blocking it should be denied medical science, since they want to live without progress..

I'm not necessarily against the telescope, but "our culture is superior to yours" has been used to justify a whole bunch of bad things.

If people want to live with their "inferior" culture, let them. Taking people's land because you have a "better" use for it--even if it may benefit them--generally isn't cool.

Re:Its a good location but..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fucking kowtowing. Maybe it was just a typo, or maybe you didn't know. Now you do.

Re:Its a good location but..

[drinkypoo]

If people want to live with their "inferior" culture, let them. Taking people's land because you have a "better" use for it--even if it may benefit them--generally isn't cool.

"Their" land was already taken away from them, just as they took it away from the people that were there before them. You could say the same thing about the USA, Canada, and most of the Americas in general — the people we think of as indigenes found someone else there when they got there, and one way or another, they displaced them with greater numbers and/or superior technology.

This is essentially a law of nature, as sure as physics. If you've got stuff, and there's a bunch of others who want it, they're going to come and get it if you can't or won't stop them.

The disposition of the land is essentially settled, this was just a delay in the process. We ought to be glad we're arguing over a scientific installation as opposed to a military base. This actually is progress. What was actually done with that rock previously was nothing. If you want to argue about appropriation, argue about the rest of the land, not the barren top of a mountain.

Re:Its a good location but..

[Ol Olsoc]

It's fucking kowtowing. Maybe it was just a typo, or maybe you didn't know. Now you do.

Won't anyone think of the cows we need to tow?

Science 1, Superstition 0

[OneHundredAndTen]

A small, but important, triumph.

Re: Science 1, Superstition 0

[jd]

For whom?

Astronomers? They would prefer a thirty meter telescope in space, where there's less atmospheric distortion. A square kilometre optical interferometer in space would be heavenly.

For Hawaii? Degrades the environment and biodiversity. Expect unintended consequences.

For the inhabitants? I doubt you'd want a 200' skyscraper obscuring your primary view, either.

For the lawyers? Yes, they're a lot richer and happier now, thank you.

Re: Science 1, Superstition 0

[ceoyoyo]

For whom?

Astronomers? They would prefer a thirty meter telescope in space, where there's less atmospheric distortion. A square kilometre optical interferometer in space would be heavenly.

Yeah, good luck with that. James Webb is pretty revolutionary with its unfolding mirror, and that's turning out to be way more of a challenge than anyone expected. And it's 6.5 m.

For Hawaii? Degrades the environment and biodiversity. Expect unintended consequences.

Bull. The TMT is being built on top of a volcano. It's a mostly frozen desert up there, and looks a bit like Mars. It's also right next to a bunch of other telescopes, on land that was set aside for that purpose sixty years ago. It's also one building, with very, very few people coming and going. Pic: https://goo.gl/images/Mg24mh

For the inhabitants? I doubt you'd want a 200' skyscraper obscuring your primary view, either.

For the lawyers? Yes, they're a lot richer and happier now, thank you.

There aren't any inhabitants up there. Even the telescopes are mostly robotic. Where there are inhabitants, you can't see the top of Mauna Kea.

Re: Science 1, Superstition 0

[drinkypoo]

For Hawaii? Degrades the environment and biodiversity. Expect unintended consequences.

Bull. The TMT is being built on top of a volcano.

Not just that, but you could build a dozen telescopes and probably not approach what pigs are doing to Hawaii in a month, let alone a year.

Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally some rationality. The left needs to keep losing.

Re: Good

[jd]

How is this rational? You know as well as I do, almost all scientists are deeply left-wing. You've just created a huge base of operations for the left.

Re: Good

[colinwb]

"You know as well as I do, almost all scientists are deeply left-wing." - Citation needed.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

There are huge differences in polarity per field. The more important it is, in the field, that your numbers have to add up and match reality, the more the field tends to swing right. There's quite a range between Pyschology and Engineering.

Re: Good

[jd]

Agreed, the numbers matter. Physicists and engineers are left-wing, psychologists backed Bush. Seems you got the direction the wrong way.

Re: Good

[Applehu Akbar]

How is this rational? You know as well as I do, almost all scientists are deeply left-wing. You've just created a huge base of operations for the left.

When scientists count themselves as being on the left, they mean on issues like gender rights and single-payer health care. The left that opposes scientific research instruments is a movement that hates humanity itself and would literally welcome us all dying of a plague or whatever clamity they can envision. That's why the same people love to be hysterical about carbon warming at the same time as they automatically oppose any engineering technique for fixing the problem.

Sigh

[Raven268]

This is a major structure, nearly 200 feet high, and it's an ecologically unique site which probably ought to be left alone to preserve biodiversity – this apart from the respect for the people to whom it is sacred.

In 100 years, likely we will regret the loss, at least if there is a human civilization left to do the regretting.

Re:Sigh

[kbonin]

Biodiversity at the peak of Mauna Kea? Have you been there? I have, its beautiful. Its far above the tree line, freezing cold, and nearly barren. Ahinahina grows there occasionally in the more sheltered spots, but it grows elsewhere and the cultivation / reintroduction is going well. Unless you kill all the wildlife that jumps the fences to eat the remaining naturally occurring species then this interesting adaptation of California Tarweed might be sort of lost. There isn't really anything else of interest up there except volcanic tundra, ancient quarry sites, and a few shrines. And people who claim you shouldn't do astronomy there out of respect for people to whom its sacred either have no idea who its sacred to, or want to forget their own history. If Kamehameha was alive he'd probably have loved TMT. (google Kaneakanoowaha)

Re: Sigh

[Type44Q]

The location may be ecologically unique (it's going to have a certain "sky island" quality to it but it's hardly ecologically rich; have you been to the top of Maui? It looks like Mars; a few extremophiles should survive the earth-moving and the laying of concrete...

Re: Sigh

[jd]

There's an abundance of species of lichen in the mountains of Antarctica.

Unless David Attenborough has personally affirmed no life is present, it's safe to conclude it is.

The problem with chaotic systems is that you never know which variables were important. Note "were". You cannot know what the variables are in advance, nor their affect on the biosphere as a whole. You can only know after you make a change that there was zero or non-zero impact.

That doesn't mean do nothing. The precautionary principle doesn't advocate sterile minds or zero progress. It does advocate a little more understanding than is possible, so you modify it.

Considering ignorance to be a harm in its own right and harm to be only meaningful in the long term, always choose the best path of lowest probable aggregate harm.

I don't see the big, bad awful problem with that. A lack of science is a harm, so you cannot ever choose a path of little or no science. At the same time, you actually stop, observe and think about all the other variables. There aren't many, it's a bloody mountain. You perform a minimizing function to get the options of least harm, then a maximizing function on that set to get the option of greatest benefit.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than two sides spending decades screaming at each other.

Build a thirty meter telescope in space

[jd]

Then nobody's land is disturbed, there's even less atmospheric distortion and you can move the telescope to point in any direction you like from any point in space you like.

Yes, it's more expensive, but the chief argument on this site for the ground telescope is that science should be done even when the ignorant object or when it affects their religious quality of life or involves taking things those people consider theirs.

I've no problems with that. Most rich people are ignorant, they consider money theirs, and money gives them a religious quality of life rather than a practical one.

Bet you ten boxes of doughnuts that right wingers will suddenly discover reasons why government would be bad for taking away their property, or for applying any of their other reasoning to them.

Mind you, I don't think that should matter. I think they should build a series of 30' telescopes in space, with interferometry. Not just in the optical range, but in other parts of the spectrum from microwave to UV.

A ten by ten interferometer would have the sensitivity to observe the surface of Proxima b. That's far more useful than a third swimming pool in a desert or a dozen McMansions nobody lives in. Give me the science.

Re:Build a thirty meter telescope in space

[Anonymous Coward]

maintenance and upgrades are a bitch... the 10 meter Keck upgraded already outpaces the Hubble.

But if you can convince congress, I'm all for 20 billion for a new space telescope. Just don't stop the TMT in order to do so. Ground based will have it place for a long time to come.

Re:Build a thirty meter telescope in space

[coastwalker]

A technical heads up. Not only are ground based telescopes many magnitudes cheaper than space based ones (and offer the ability to combine to synthesize larger aperture) they have actually overtaken Hubble in their individual resolution. Agreed the atmosphere prevents wide band infra red capability which is why the next space telescope the James Webb is an infrared telescope. The technical advance which has led to the giant leap in ground based telescope capability is adaptive optics. This uses a laser pointing star and a deformable mirror to eliminate atmospheric turbulence on the largest and best located ground telescopes. See this great lecture from yesterday for example on the state of the art from The Silicon Valley Astronomy Lecture Series by Dr. Claire Max (University of California Observatories)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The comparison of the features on Neptune between the Keck 10M and the Hubble 2.4M thirteen minutes in makes this abundantly clear.

Re:Build a thirty meter telescope in space

[SvnLyrBrto]

There's no quality of life at issue here. The location for the TMT is at the summit of a volcano. There's nothing there except the already-existing observatory to which this would just be an addition. No one lives there, unless staff or scientists are pulling "all nighters" (Or, would it be "all dayers" considering that astronomers need to be nocturnal to take direct observations?). It's above the tree-line, so any ecosystem disruptions would be negligible; and all but certainly already accounted for in the EIR. There's literally zero quantifiable negative impact to *ANYONE* from having the telescopes there, and a very real *positive* impact from the science done there. The "opposition" to the TMT is basically just a shake-down, nothing more.

Re:Build a thirty meter telescope in space

[Anonymous Coward]

Building a similar telescope in space is far, far more expensive. Advances in adaptive optics mitigate some of the advantages of space-based optical-wavelength telescopes. On a Weekly Space Hangout podcast the other day they said the ratio of requests for telescope time to actual available time for Hubble is 10 to 1 (even before the recent temporary shutdown). Thus it can be argued that for astronomers it may be preferable to have multiple massive ground-based telescopes for the price of one space-based telescope. The one advantage space-based will always retain is for certain wavelengths of light that are absorbed by the atmosphere (gamma rays, xrays, UV, much of the infrared range).

The resulting images are nearly as crisp as if the telescope were in space, and given that the VLT telescopes are more than three times the size of Hubble, the space pictures are even more fantastic. The new adaptive optics technology was used to image Neptune, as well as star clusters and other objects.

Re: Build a thirty meter telescope in space

[jd]

The idea I'm putting forward, and suggested on a discussion site elsewhere, is that you have a mirror manufacturing location. You ship raw materials and parts to it, it builds a mirror and assembles a telescope around it.

This joins a constellation of interferometers, so you can always add one. It's not a fixed system.

If the manufacturing improves, replace the modules for that part of manufacture. If a telescope fails, it doesn't take out the constellation, it only degrades the collecting area.

In principle, since assembly is in space, you could modify in space. Might be useful for fuel, but you're probably better off just adding a new telescope since you can then use them together or in different directions.

The consensus was that this was fully scaleable. You could keep adding telescopes and keep upgrading the design ad infinitum. There was no restriction on such a method and minimal restriction on each telescope.

My only concern with Manua Kea is the attitude I'm seeing from some - advocacy of things they believe will hurt others and which they would normally despise if it weren't for this belief in it causing harm.

Re:Build a thirty meter telescope in space

[jd]

You can't use adaptive optics or computed images in interferometry. You're eliminating the information needed. That's a big reason you don't see optical VLBI arrays. In fact, you don't see optical interferometry at all past a very small number of telescopes (usually two) or a few of the multiple mirror telescopes.

That gives you an upper limit of really not much more than already exists.

The upper limit for a space-based VLBI? There isn't one. You could build telescopes on every asteroid and put one on every moon of Saturn and Jupiter and link them up into one gigantic array and still not be close to the limits of the approach.

You couldn't build an Optical SKA telescope on Earth, or build any telescope of equal resolving power to such a telescope in space.

Terrestrial telescopes can be refined, but you're in serious diminishing returns territory.

You've assumed that single telescopes and arrays work in similar ways, and that you can scale one to be as good as the other. Not a good assumption.

You're also assuming Hubble was any good. It was as good as you could get with a single defective mirror that was launched from the ground. It was not SVLSI and you simply cannot use Hubble as some kind of indicator of what SVLSI would do.

And further, you're assuming that space tech hasn't progressed since Hubble was first designed, never mind launched, even though you've admitted astronomical tech has.

Re:Build a thirty meter telescope in space

[dlevitan]

A technical heads up. Not only are ground based telescopes many magnitudes cheaper than space based ones (and offer the ability to combine to synthesize larger aperture) they have actually overtaken Hubble in their individual resolution.

This is not a completely correct statement. In certain wavelengths ground based adaptive optics can in fact beat Hubble for resolution. But AO does not work for visible (or shorter) wavelengths. It's also not as good without a real guide star, which is not always available close enough to every interesting object. Laser guide stars don't allow for quite the same amount of correction. Lastly, space telescopes don't have to deal with weather, clouds, or other ground-based issues.

True, AO is an enormous help for many interesting objects and future advancements may let it overtake space telescopes for most uses, but it's not perfect and can never completely replace space-based telescoeps.

In related news ...

[PPH]

... the Sierra Club was shut down yesterday following the discovery of an endangered species of cockroach, the Sierra Club cockroach, found living in its headquarters. Although related to other species, this cockroach is unique in that it is defined as being resident within the Sierra Club headquarters building.

Deep Green Resistance is a Russian front

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously

Re:Deep Green Resistance is a Russian front

[RightwingNutjob]

No shit. Probably more than half of the the environmental movement is a Russian front. Especially the more than half that's about stopping fracking and oil and gas pipelines (but not so much LNG terminals), for the better to need to import Russian oil and gas with.

Re:Deep Green Resistance is a Russian front

[drinkypoo]

No shit. Probably more than half of the the environmental movement is a Russian front. Especially the more than half that's about stopping fracking and oil and gas pipelines

All that shit is unnecessary. We don't need fracking unless we continue to increase dependence on fossil fuels, which is stupid on multiple levels from strategic to ecological. We don't need oil and gas pipelines if we do what is sensible, which is to stop burning fossil fuels and to develop more bioplastics — which can be a means of fixing atmospheric carbon while producing everyday consumer goods. The current state of the biosphere, which supports humanity, is dependent upon that carbon being sequestered.

Re:Deep Green Resistance is a Russian front

[RightwingNutjob]

If it weren't necessary than the oil and gas companies wouldn't be spending their own money to build it. And come to think of it they wouldn't be asking for government subsidies to build it either. 'Cuz ya know...no point in wasting money on operating an empty pipeline.

Re:Deep Green Resistance is a Russian front

[drinkypoo]

If it weren't necessary than the oil and gas companies wouldn't be spending their own money to build it.

Corporations respond to profitability, not necessity.

And come to think of it they wouldn't be asking for government subsidies to build it either.

It's only 0903 PST and I don't expect to hear anything dumber than that today.

'Cuz ya know...no point in wasting money on operating an empty pipeline.

The point is that they are in charge of the oil resources, but they're not in charge of the sun and the rain. They can profit from the former, not from the latter. It's the same as how surgeons suggest surgery for everything, whether it's the best treatment option or not.

Re:Deep Green Resistance is a Russian front

[RightwingNutjob]

Bottom line: the pipelines wouldn't be built if there were no profit to be made in selling oil and gas to whoever's at the end of the pipeline. If they didn't need oil and gas, they wouldn't be buying it at a rate that makes profit for the guy pumping it. Capitalism 101.

alternate link please

[supernova87a]

Why are we linking to Scribd the shitty service which scrapes content off of others and charges you membership to read or download it?

Could someone please provide a reasonable link where this ruling originated from, rather than enriching some assholes?

James Webb was assembled on Earth

[jd]

Bad place to assemble a space telescope. Letting politicians fondle the critical components was stupid. Many of the difficulties were political, not technological. Those aren't optical mirrors, materials and wavelength matter.

You're much better off making the mirrors in space. It's not hard, as virtually all the technology being used to make large mirrors try to simulate the conditions of space.

There is life even in deep Antarctica. Unless you can show David Attenborough conclusively showing no life there, there's life there.

Her singing is NOT robotic, thank you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:James Webb was assembled on Earth

[ceoyoyo]

Ah, you are a member of #allmicrobelivesmatter. Say no more.

What is Winter Sunlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.

Sister, what is Winter Sunlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is Energeian Planes?

above every so-called God or object of worship

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me the science.

For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie, in order that judgment will come upon all who have disbelieved the truth and delighted in wickedness.

Energeian Planes.

I'm Sure The Hawaiian Volcano Gods Are Listening

[Toad-san]

No worries: if the volcano gods have any real objections, I'm sure Mauna Kea is quite capable of looking out for itself :-)

Wait for the sequel

[Anonymous Coward]

TMT episode II
Pele Strikes Back

When there are unknowns, do nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

> There's an abundance of species of lichen in the mountains of Antarctica.

I don't understand what you're writing here. Are you saying that this telescope on a desolate mountain in Hawai'i is going to somehow harm lichens in Antarctica? Or that we don't know that Mauna Kea is utterly desolate?

Because that actually makes more sense than most of the arguments against the telescope. It's silly & wrong, but it's not the same kind of wrong as saying that we're disturbing the volcano gods. That said, for all the talk of unknowns, the fact is that they're quite small unknowns (and they'll help us reduce other unknowns).

Hypertelescopes

[Voice of satan]

One thing that has not been mentioned yet with ground based telescopes is by being larger, they have a better light collection surface and can spot fainter objects with shorter exposure times. Which in turn helps the AO when it has to mitigate the effect of atmospheric turbulence.

That said i would be very happy if we finally decided to launch a giant optical interferometer in space. The apertures and light collecting surfaces could be absolutely colossal.

The problem is it would cost so much the public opinion would not accept it. There were projects to send space missions with a small number of telescopes flying in formation to test the concept but even those were cancelled. Too bad for us and for Antoine Labeyrie, the first who theorised the notion as far as i know. I would like him to see his project realized before he dies.

So, for now we will have giant ground based telescopes. The EELT for the Southern hemisphere, the TMT for the Northern.