Hawaii Supreme Court Approves Thirty Meter Telescope On Mauna Kea (hawaiinewsnow.com) 177
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."
"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."
From TFA... (Score:2)
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??
TMT, dynomite (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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
Its a good location but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 ca
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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?
Re: Its a good location but.. (Score:2)
since they want to live without progress
Indigenous Hawaiians have been supplied with a good reason to distrust "progress."
Re: (Score:2)
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.. (Score:2)
Still, there are two sides to native Hawaiian's xenophobia and resentment...
Re: (Score:2)
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, the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Telescopy McTelescopeface
Re: (Score:3)
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 infrastr
Re:TMT, dynomite (Score:5, Funny)
Also.... it's literally just named Thirty Meter Telescope?
That is a translation. The original name in Americanese sounded better: "Hundred Foot Telescope".
Re: (Score:2)
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 cen
Re: (Score:2)
When if ever? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Science 1, Superstition 0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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/Mg24m [goo.gl]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
James Webb was assembled on Earth (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you are a member of #allmicrobelivesmatter. Say no more.
Build a thirty meter telescope in space (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Build a thirty meter telescope in space (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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?... [youtube.com]
The comparison of the features on Neptune between the Keck 10M and the Hubble 2.4M thirteen minutes in makes this abundantly clear.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 f
Re: Build a thirty meter telescope in space (Score:2)
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,
In related news ... (Score:2)
... 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.
alternate link please (Score:2)
Could someone please provide a reasonable link where this ruling originated from, rather than enriching some assholes?
I'm Sure The Hawaiian Volcano Gods Are Listening (Score:4, Funny)
No worries: if the volcano gods have any real objections, I'm sure Mauna Kea is quite capable of looking out for itself :-)
Hypertelescopes (Score:2)
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 opini
Re:Uh oh. (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't call them anti-science so much as anti-progress of any type.
Re: Uh oh. (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org], 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% [nature.com] since the 1980s.
Progress makes life better. That's why we call it progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: Uh oh. (Score:2)
You'll find most of Scotland was clear-cut in the Iron Age, not the Bronze Age.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just NIMBYs. They're everywhere, and all across the political spectrum, and unfortunately they have lawyers.
Re: Uh oh. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Are you arguing that ultra-pure materials can't be made in space? That'll be news to, well, everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you have against my kilt, or how it relates to progress.
Re:Uh oh. (Score:5, Funny)
Are those the anti-vax, anti-GMO, or gluten-free republicans? Oops, wrong anti-science party.
Re:“Green anti-science”? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:“Green anti-science”? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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”? (Score:2)
Re: “Green anti-science”? (Score:2)
Re:“Green anti-science”? (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the smoking gun, their manifesto on TMT:
https://deepgreenresistancegre... [deepgreenr...tbasin.org]
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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?... [youtube.com]
Such folks really should adhere to their own standards and refuse any use of electronic devices.
Re: “Green anti-science”? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Here is the smoking gun, their manifesto on TMT:
https://deepgreenresistancegre... [deepgreenr...tbasin.org]
(checks out link...)
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! The stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!! It burns, it burns!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 o
Re: “Green anti-science”? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
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... [iau.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're sorry, but not in the way you think. Get some help.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: Not surprising (Score:3)
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 turbule
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Why would he enlighten us when his position is that knowledge is not valuable? Embrace your ignorance, fool!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not surprising (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: Good (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, the numbers matter. Physicists and engineers are left-wing, psychologists backed Bush. Seems you got the direction the wrong way.
Re:Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Sigh (Score:2)
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 does
Re: Sigh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 seques