Astronomy in Hawaii under threat?

[kalakoa]

what's all that money stuck to the top of a mountain really worth

Because you can drive there to maintain/upgrade the equipment?

thanking the Hawaiians for helping them see the error of their ways

Remember that sentiment when there's no more Hawaii economy.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

what's all that money stuck to the top of a mountain really worth when compared to the likes of the James Webb?

TMT will cost $2 billion and can be repaired, serviced, and upgraded, so is sustainable over a long period of time.
James Webb cost $10 billion, and is one million miles away, 4 times the distance to the moon.  In a location humans have never ventured, so it can't be repaired if necessary.  It would become a giant piece of unusable space garbage.


thanking the Hawaiians for helping them see the error of their ways..

Hawaiians who used the latest technology with smart phones and Facebook for their protests, as well as giant pickup trucks, plastic tarps, port-o-potties, etc, and virtually no native pre-contact tools in their demonstrations and blockade against technology, specifically a telescope, a device which was utilized by the monarchy.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

A little background on the James Webb telescope.  The technology it uses would not be possible if not for the Univeristy of Hawaii and scientists on Mauna Kea:

Technology developed and tested at the University of Hawaiʻi Institute for Astronomy (IfA) and on Maunakea are behind JWST’s ability to gaze deeper into space than ever before. 

NASA selected IfA’s HAWAII-2RG sensors for use on the highly anticipated “next generation” space telescope after decades of testing and perfecting. These detectors not only met all design requirements, they also offered  bonus features that made it easier for NASA to build JWST's three NIR instruments, which have very demanding environmental needs in deep space. An integral part of the testing process was the ability to mount the sensors on the IfA-operated UH 88-inch telescope on Maunakea, allowing for rapid and efficient evaluation of the detectors and testing over long periods of time to ensure no surprises on the upcoming mission.  

https://www.hawaii.edu/news/article.php?aId=11698


And now for the first photo from the James Webb space telescope, thanks to observatories located in the cold, demanding climate on Mauna Kea:
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/godda...iverse-yet

[Space Karen]

There is one thing that stands out about video shot of the moon landing. There are no visible stars in the sky. The sky is pitch black.

This is one observation which led some to believe the moon landing was filmed inside a warehouse.

There is another angle to it where atmospheric lensing could help to harness and direct star light from space to make it more visible. Gases in the atmosphere can function as a giant lense to amplify and clarify light as it reaches earth from space.

This could explain why stars are visible from ground level on earth. And difficult to see on the moon which lacks atmosphere and the lensing effect it can create.

This atmospheric lensing could give telescopes on the ground an advantage over ones in space.

But TBH I don't know enough about astronomy to say what is what lol. Agencies like NASA also do not do a good job breaking down the pros versus cons.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Space Karen,
We don’t all (myself included) always observe the general rule that our comments relate to the subject posted at the start of a thread.  But it is preferred.  This thread for example, is broadly about Astronomy in Hawaii, and specifically whether it’s future is under threat.

[Space Karen]

Space Karen,
We don’t all (myself included) always observe the general rule that our comments relate to the subject posted at the start of a thread.  But it is preferred.  This thread for example, is broadly about Astronomy in Hawaii, and specifically whether it’s future is under threat.

Did I say something that offended someone?

Which part of what I said was offensive?

[kalianna]

HOTPE's post was very gentle and quite succinct:

"...our comments relate to the subject posted at the start of a thread"

The thread is about the future of astronomy on Mauna Kea. You posted about growing cherries and collecting maple syrup. Does that make it clearer for you?

[Space Karen]

HOTPE's post was very gentle and quite succinct:

"...our comments relate to the subject posted at the start of a thread"

The thread is about the future of astronomy on Mauna Kea.  You posted about growing cherries and collecting maple syrup.  Does that make it clearer for you?

If the main complaint against TMT was lack of stewardship and care of the mountain.

They could take initiatives towards development being more friendly to the local communities needs.

This could entail planting acres of maple syrup or cherry trees at high elevation to provide additional food security to the needy.

Planting additional trees at high elevation could also absorb (the fancy schmancy term is sequester) carbon and greenhouse gases resulting in a cleaner and clearer atmosphere at high altitude. Creating better conditions for astronomy.

What I said actually might tie into the future of astronomy on mauna kea. If you think about it in that way.

The big island has both tropical and far northern growing conditions thanks to high elevation. Which is rare for a tropical island to have. 

I don't care what people decide on this topic. Would only like to point out that people have options if they choose to pursue them.

[TomK]

Space Karen wrote:

"Planting additional trees at high elevation could also absorb (the fancy schmancy term is sequester) carbon and greenhouse gases resulting in a cleaner and clearer atmosphere at high altitude. Creating better conditions for astronomy."

Look, I get it that you care, but please understand what people are telling you. Planting cherry or maple trees above the tree line on Mauna Kea isn't going to work, nor will planting any other kind of tree; they won't grow. It's a dead zone for trees; there is not enough water or nutrients in the soil to support tree growth. And how on earth are you going to convince anyone that trying to grow non-native trees on Mauna Kea's summit area is a good idea? Even the so-called protectors of the mountain brought invasive species there.

There are so many other things you've said in this thread that is so silly it beggars belief. No, the atmosphere doesn't act as a lens, gases in the atmosphere do the absolue opposite of "function as a giant lense to amplify and clarify light as it reaches earth from space.".

Finally:

"There is one thing that stands out about video shot of the moon landing. There are no visible stars in the sky. The sky is pitch black"

I can't believe I have to explain this yet again. The reason you don't see stars in the photos from the moon landings is that they were on the surface of the moon in bright sunlight. In order to take photos of the mission, they had to use short exposures, just like you would on a bright sunny day on earth. Those short exposures weren't long enough to capture light from other stars. Try it yourself - get a camera that you can set the exposure time and take a photo of the sky at night using something like a 1/250-sec exposure. You won't see stars either.

---

But no matter.. now that ground based astronomy is about to become passé I suspect the TMT guys will be reassessing their options. I would. I mean, what's all that money stuck to the top of a mountain really worth when compared to the likes of the James Webb? Nah, my bet is on the TMT guys realizing they could get a whole lot more bang for their buck and realigning their priorities.. and thanking the Hawaiians for helping them see the error of their ways..

And when the JWST runs out of fuel in 10 to 20 years and the ground-based extremely large telescopes are in operation, at a significantly lower cost and carrying out observations the JWST can't do today, with lifespans of five or more decades, what happens then?

[Space Karen]

Look, I get it that you care, but please understand what people are telling you. Planting cherry or maple trees above the tree line on Mauna Kea isn't going to work, nor will planting any other kind of tree; they won't grow. It's a dead zone for trees; there is not enough water or nutrients in the soil to support tree growth. And how on earth are you going to convince anyone that trying to grow non-native trees on Mauna Kea's summit area is a good idea? Even the so-called protectors of the mountain brought invasive species there.

There are so many other things you've said in this thread that is so silly it beggars belief. No, the atmosphere doesn't act as a lens, gases in the atmosphere do the absolue opposite of "function as a giant lense to amplify and clarify light as it reaches earth from space.".

Finally:

"There is one thing that stands out about video shot of the moon landing. There are no visible stars in the sky. The sky is pitch black"

I can't believe I have to explain this yet again. The reason you don't see stars in the photos from the moon landings is that they were on the surface of the moon in bright sunlight. In order to take photos of the mission, they had to use short exposures, just like you would on a bright sunny day on earth. Those short exposures weren't long enough to capture light from other stars. Try it yourself - get a camera that you can set the exposure time and take a photo of the sky at night using something like a 1/250-sec exposure. You won't see stars either.

If people of hawaii like kona coffee and macadamia nuts. Maple syrup and cherries on mauna kea could be the same. Integrated farming and agriculture could be ways to preserve the land and avoid urbanization. 

Have you ever wondered why the sky is blue during the day? Gases in the atmosphere bend sunlight the way a prism or lense would to produce different colors. The color of the sky at different times of the day is a prime example of atmospheric lensing.

If what you say is true, photographs taken on the dark side of the moon would have visible stars. While photos snapped on the light side would have none. 

People throughout history used bifocals, contact lenses and eyeglasses to make images sharper and more distinct.

Little did most people know lensing effects from atmospheres did something similar for amplifying and sharpening starlight.