Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Construction of World's Largest Optical Telescope Approved

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the all-the-better-to-see-you-with dept.

Space 77

The University of Hawaii at Hilo has been granted a permit by the Hawaii Board of Land and Natural Resources to begin construction of the $1.3 billion Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT). From the article: "The TMT has been in development for over a decade, but the large amount of land needed for its construction raised concerns over the environmental and cultural impact of such a project. Now, however, the land board has rendered a final decision, saying that the university had satisfied the eight criteria necessary under Hawaiian state law to allow the venture to go forward. The giant TMT will be an optical and infrared telescope with enough coverage area and sharpness to observe light from 13 billion years ago, track extrasolar planets, and observe planets and stars in their early formative years."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43450955)

World's largest optical telescope is $1.3 billion! You could buy half a stealth bomber for that.

Re:Cost (3, Informative)

donscarletti (569232) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451079)

Actually, strictly speaking you could almost buy two. The average cost per unit of $2.1 billion is mostly born by one time, already sunk development costs, the flyaway cost is a "mere" $0.7 billion.

The reason they're so damn expensive is that the Cold War ended when they were almost finished and most of the money had been spent, meaning instead of building hundreds of the things, they only built 21. A weapon like the B2 is only needed against a well armed and geographically huge opponent, such as the Russia, China or the United States itself, none of which America has the pressing need to bomb in the near future. So they just built a few, made them public as some sort of national prestige stunt for scaring "rogue states" with the threat that a heavy bomber could be flying over their territory without anyone knowing, rather than building en masse to become a credible attack force towards large powers as they were intended.

In contrast fhe F-22 project cost 66 Billion compared to the B-2's 44 Billion, the difference is, they built hundreds of those, so the cost looks lower.

The First Rule of Government Spending (1)

amanaplanacanalpanam (685672) | about a year and a half ago | (#43454979)

Why buy one, when you can have two for twice the price?

Re:Cost (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451213)

World's largest optical telescope is $1.3 billion! You could buy half a stealth bomber for that.

Could you see a stealth bomber with the telescope?

Re: Cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43452137)

You could see the blackest of small black painted spy satellites with that thing. That's a problem which has already been solved for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, which, with all sky coverage, a cadence of a few days and a completely open database was expected to reveal the positions of all the spy satellites in its field of view (all, from every nation) to everyone during its first fortnight of operation.

Funny abbreviations (3, Insightful)

codeButcher (223668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43450975)

I know it's in the summary, but why use an abbreviation if it's not immediately clear what the abbreviation stands for?

TMT = Twenty Meter Telescope, Thirty Meter Telescope, Two Mile Telescope (etc.)?

Because "30mT" is not as sezzy?

(Cue flamebait about lazy USians needing TLA's for everything).

(TLA = Three Letter Acronym. Of course)

Re:Funny abbreviations (1)

JeffSh (71237) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451001)

I agree

Re:Funny abbreviations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43451031)

They ripped off the abbreviation for my Tenth/Meter Telescope. :o(

Re:Funny abbreviations (1)

game kid (805301) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451105)

Quick! You can still lash two of your telescopes together with a belt, call it the Dual Decimeter Telescope, and buy ad time on WWE (who'll probably appreciate the TLA and give you a 1% discount).

Make your friends see stars--give them a DDT(tm).

Re:Funny abbreviations (4, Funny)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451043)

Cue flamebait about lazy USians needing TLA's for everything

Shouldn't the be USAians?

Re:Funny abbreviations (1)

OlRickDawson (648236) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451107)

Exactly. I was wondering what Teenage Mutant (ninja) Turtles had to do with telescopes.

Re:Funny abbreviations (1)

hamburger lady (218108) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451181)

Because "30mT" is not as sezzy?

a 30 milliTesla telescope? if you're trying to impress me, you've failed.

Re:Funny abbreviations (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year and a half ago | (#43452689)

Hey, that's more Teslas than the other telescopes are bringing to the table!

Re:Funny abbreviations (1)

BlacKSacrificE (1089327) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451357)

I'm just disappointed they didn't call it the Thirty Meter Newtonian Telescope. Everyone could have agreed on that.

Re:Funny abbreviations (1)

arielCo (995647) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451413)

It is written:

Three shall be the number of the letters thou shalt use, and the number of the letters shall be three.
Four letters shalt be not used, neither useth thou two, excepting that thou then addeth one more to make three. Five is right out.

Just be glad it's not the Thirty Meter National Telescope.

Re:Funny abbreviations (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43451501)

TMT, it's dynamite!
TMT, it'll catch the light!
TMT it's a power load
TMT watching novas explode!

(Apologies to AC/DC)

Re:Funny abbreviations (1)

BlackPignouf (1017012) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451925)

1. Get $1.3 billion for TMT
2. Deliver Two Meter Telescope
3. Profit!

Re:Funny abbreviations (1)

radarskiy (2874255) | about a year and a half ago | (#43452177)

"(Cue flamebait about lazy USians needing TLA's for everything). "

How is a bigoted comment about Mexicans relevant?

TMNT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43452265)

I would prefer it be named the Thirty Meter Ninja Telescope!

Re:Funny abbreviations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43453035)

It would have a better abbreviation if the name were "Twenty Meter New Telescope". Everyone will remember TMNT!!!!!! :)

Re:Funny abbreviations (1)

Shag (3737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43453393)

I know it's in the summary, but why use an abbreviation if it's not immediately clear what the abbreviation stands for?

TMT = Twenty Meter Telescope, Thirty Meter Telescope, Two Mile Telescope (etc.)?

This is actually the second TMT that U.Cal and CalTech have been involved in. Before they got the money from the Keck Foundation, what we now know as Keck was the Ten Meter Telescope. ...but they designed new stationery anyway. ;)

Where can I request time on it? (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a year and a half ago | (#43450989)

Slots will fill up fast, how to I reserve time? Why wait until it is actually built.

Re:Where can I request time on it? (-1, Offtopic)

lvhermesuk (2897333) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451095)

Pls go to the address www.lvhermesuk.com [lvhermesuk.com]

Amazing (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451003)

I had no idea there were plans for a thirty-meter telescope. Hell, I had no idea such a thing was feasible. Thirty. Meters. I would be very interested to know how the mirror is constructed because it must be an engineering marvel. Hopefully there will be a lot more press about this once construction gets underway.

Given that the largest optical telescope [wikipedia.org] today has an effective aperture a little over 10 meters, this instrument will be a giant leap forward. The best part about it is that, like the Hubble Space telescope, we have an idea what it can show us but there will also be lots of findings we *didn't* expect.

Re:Amazing (4, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451051)

I would be very interested to know how the mirror is constructed because it must be an engineering marvel.

Acording to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

This mirror will be segmented and consist of 492 smaller (1.4 m), individual hexagonal mirrors. The shape of each segment, as well as its position relative to neighboring segments, will be controlled actively.

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43451111)

This mirror will be segmented and consist of 492 smaller (1.4 m), individual hexagonal mirrors.

Wholesome mirrors or Muzzie mirrors?

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43451053)

Why are we building this below an atmosphere that has clouds? Wouldn't it be more effective at a Lagrangian point?

Re:Amazing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43451065)

Only if you volunteer to get it up.

Re:Amazing (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451237)

Only if you volunteer to get it up.

Even for /. that's an odd way to phrase it.

Careful what you ask for. Lots of people will volunteer, but will the OP pick up the tab?

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43454011)

Only if you volunteer to get it up.

There is only one 30 meter thing I plan on getting up.

Re:Amazing (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451207)

It would be:
1. More expensive (any way you slice it: it would be terribly heavy and thus terribly expensive to get there)
2. Not more detailed [wikipedia.org]
3. Extremely expensive to correct mistakes (anyone remember that blasted piece of tape that f&(^(ked up the polishing of the HST?)

So, no it wouldn't be more effective at a Langrangian point.

Re:Amazing (1)

jabuzz (182671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451611)

Better places than a Lagrangian point are Antarctica and the moon.

Re:Amazing (3, Informative)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451249)

NASA has that covered: the James Web Space Telescope [wikipedia.org] will be at the Earth-Sun L2 point. It is much smaller than 30 meters though: its mirror is 6.5 meters.

You'll also notice that the Webb telescope costs a lot more than the 30-meter telescope, which is another part of the answer to your question. There is enough going on in astronomy today that we need more than one really good telescope. It makes sense to build the multiple telescopes with different properties so they're specialized for different science.

Re:Amazing (1)

delt0r (999393) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451563)

Because the moving parts alone weights 2000 Tons. And with adaptive optics its already diffraction limited or close to it. The resolution is 10x better than Hubble.

Re:Amazing (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451073)

Search engines are your friend: TMT [tmt.org] .

Amazing technology.

Re:Amazing (0)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451959)

I'm a little surprised they picked Hawaii for this. I'd have thought Hawaii wasn't talk enough. A scope of this size is going to magnify atmospheric & temp distortion greatly unless it's high enough to miss that shit.

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43454391)

At 4205 m it's above all that shit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Kea_Observatories

Re:Amazing (1)

somegeekynick (1011759) | about a year and a half ago | (#43453495)

How could this be the largest telescope given that the 40m E-ELT [eso.org] was approved last year?

Re:Amazing (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43454093)

The best part about it is that, like the Hubble Space telescope, we have an idea what it can show us but there will also be lots of findings we *didn't* expect.

I wonder if it will finally be capable of getting a decent picture of Pluto.

Neat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43451015)

I wonder how much will the corrector lens cost.

Re:Neat (1, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451059)

Please, corrective lenses are so passe. It's all about the laser correction these days.

Re:Neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43451069)

More to the point, is there a point?

I'm all for more telescopes, but wouldn't putting a better (relative to the ones in orbit) telescope in orbit be superior?

I doubt they'd be able to negate the atmosphere by simply making them bigger. I suppose they are easier to repair, but that is a design problem not a performance problem.

Re:Neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43452171)

I'm all for more telescopes, but wouldn't putting a better (relative to the ones in orbit) telescope in orbit be superior?

How are you going to build a thirty meter telescope in space? That's just HUGE. We have adaptive optics now that adjust for atmospheric lensing.

Re:Neat (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451255)

I wonder how much will the corrector lens cost.

Corrector lenses are cheap - it's the service call that ups the bill.

Re:Neat (1)

turkeyfeathers (843622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451347)

Not an issue, since Photoshop can automatically fix the aberrations for you.

Re:Neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43452153)

Yeah, except the best anti-aberration and fixing plugins are only legally allowed to be sold to CSI departments. The rest of us peasants can only wonder what is between the pixels in images.

Land needed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43451103)

"he large amount of land needed for its construction"

900m^2 isn't that much, is it?

Re:Land needed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43451319)

You'll need the parking space too, so add another 100m^2 for an even thousand.

Re:Land needed? (2)

Inda (580031) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451853)

All large construction sites have things like:

* site offices (both project offices and contruction offices)
* laydown areas (these are not for people laying down to have a rest, they are for parts and machinery)
* staff facilities (toilets, changing rooms, catering)
* on site manufacturing (such as making concrete on site)

On the last construction project I worked on, the lay down areas were twice as large as the actual construction.

Public Access (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43451257)

IMHO, it should be a condition that the public are given access to the scope site etc.
The last time I was on Big Island, the road that would take you to the base of the volcano where this is to be situated was prohibited to rental vehicles (4WD included). It was full of pot holes but passable with care. I've driven rentals over worse roads of of Hwy 50 in NV.

Get the state to fix this and there would be a source of income to the observatory from Tourists.

Hardly rocket science now is it?

Re:Public Access (2)

frinkster (149158) | about a year and a half ago | (#43452377)

IMHO, it should be a condition that the public are given access to the scope site etc.
The last time I was on Big Island, the road that would take you to the base of the volcano where this is to be situated was prohibited to rental vehicles (4WD included). It was full of pot holes but passable with care. I've driven rentals over worse roads of of Hwy 50 in NV.

Get the state to fix this and there would be a source of income to the observatory from Tourists.

Hardly rocket science now is it?

It is a public road, and it's a bad road on purpose. In fact, once you reach a certain elevation, the road is a wonderfully smooth ribbon of concrete - they don't want dust to interfere with the telescopes. They also don't want ridiculous traffic jams beyond what they already have. So the first few miles beyond the visitor center is a terrible gravel road. Most people turn around.

The rental vehicle prohibition is between you and your rental car company. It has nothing to do with the State of Hawaii. If you feel like taking your rental car to the top, go right ahead. You will find that you are probably only one of a dozen FWD sedans on the top of the mountain. But... earlier this year some idiot tourists took their rental sedan up the mountain and forgot to put it in park when they got out. It slowly drove itself off the road and flipped over. It took the state more than a month to be able to get machinery in place to retrieve the wrecked car and take it down the mountain. Guess what - those tourists had to pay for the car AND the removal. You want to take that risk? Go ahead. Just remember that there aren't very many parking spaces up at the top of a mountain.

I highly recommend finding a way to get up there though - perhaps one of the many tour companies that do it? In fact, I think you'll find it to be a better experience. Most of those tours will get you up there so you can walk around a bit and watch the sun set. Then they take you down the mountain a bit to a secluded enough spot and give you an hour or more for stargazing - along with a very knowledgeable guide and a $10,000 telescope. The temperature will be well below freezing, so they also bring warm weather clothes for you - something you probably didn't bring on your trip to Hawaii.

Re:Public Access (1)

Shag (3737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43453317)

But... earlier this year some idiot tourists took their rental sedan up the mountain and forgot to put it in park when they got out. It slowly drove itself off the road and flipped over. It took the state more than a month to be able to get machinery in place to retrieve the wrecked car and take it down the mountain. Guess what - those tourists had to pay for the car AND the removal.

In the interim, it snowed, and the local snowboarders made good use of the car as a jump. There are photos. :)

Re:Public Access (1)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | about a year and a half ago | (#43453973)

In the interim, it snowed, and the local snowboarders made good use of the car as a jump. There are photos. :)

Well? WELL?

Damn you, I want to see those. All I managed to find with quite a bit
of googleing are those [darkerview.com] , entirely devoid of both snow and boards.

still limited (0)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451259)

No matter how big and awesome it is, it still has to view everything through the atmosphere so it's very limited in what it can do compared to one in orbit.

Re:still limited (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43451329)

Parent has a history of posting idiotic posts in an attempt to karma whore. Feel free to review for yourself.

Everyone who follows this stuff understands that the atmosphere is a limiting factor. However, lasers and computers that can do complex calculations modeling the effects of the atmosphere in real time have mitigated this limitation. Read up on adaptive optics for more information. Really cool stuff.

And earth bound telescopes can be much much larger than what can practically be put into space today. Size matters. While there are some jobs that cannot be done from Earth (Kepler comes to mind), there are many that can be just as easily done on Earth for less than 1% of the cost of trying to do it from space.

So, OP, I am not sure what your original point was except to try to make yourself sound smart.

Re:still limited (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43452239)

Parent has a history of posting idiotic posts in an attempt to karma whore. Feel free to review for yourself. [...] So, OP, I am not sure what your original point was except to try to make yourself sound smart.

Perhaps it's a bid to provoke someone into "slashing his dots," presumably a euphemism for sharp-force mechanical castration/scrotal degloving injury.

Re:still limited (2)

delt0r (999393) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451571)

Adaptive optics. They work. Google it. It is expected to have 10x the resolution of Hubble.

Re:still limited (1)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#43454511)

Dude, how much clearer than "diffraction limited adaptive optics design" should it get for you to get it past your thick skull that this design is NOT atmospheric lensing limited. End of story right there. Shut up.

Re:still limited (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43455409)

Don't you dare tell me to shut up. I am smarter than you and better looking than you. I am tired of all these anonymous trolls stalking me. Now STFU!

World's Largest? (2)

sidyan (110067) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451285)

Maybe there is another, larger one [eso.org] that got approved [eso.org] a few months ago?

Why is TMT needed, when a 39 meter starts soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43451389)

What advantage will there be in having an extra, less powerful telescope? I want the 30 meter telescope canceled, and to put up the money for a larger successor to the E-ELT. Maybe a 60 or 100 meter telescope successor. That could get a lot of science done per dollar for decades.

Re:Why is TMT needed, when a 39 meter starts soon? (2)

jabuzz (182671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451491)

Note the E-ELT is in the southern hemisphere, where Hawaii is in the northern hemisphere. Consequently each will be able to see things the other cannot. Hence we need both.

Another Hubble? (1)

RocketChild (1397411) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451299)

Why not just build another Hubble style device at that cost. Yeah, it would likely be more because we are talking about putting it in space too, but while we are still dealing with atmosphere issues and increasing air quality problems from Asia, maybe it would be better to just build a 20meter one in space? Especially if it is very modular and you could just continue to add on parts over the years predicting that we are likely to just send robots into space to do the operations instead of humans.

Feeding the Troll (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43451449)

Because it will have a lot more optical clarity than Hubble. There's a distinct limit to the aperature acheivable with space launch. Hubble's beyond it; the shuttle is retired. While space is great for optical bands that are absorbed by the atmosphere, it's worse for *EVERYTHING* else. It costs more, it's slower to design, it's harder to fix, it has hard aperature and focal length limitations, it has bandwidth caps, it has vibration problems, it has thermal stability problems, it has power limitations, it has pointing challenges, it has shit flying into it at speeds that would be hypersonic in the atmosphere, it has radiation problems, and it has "science fair project" political problems.

Re:Another Hubble? (2)

Rich0 (548339) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451619)

Building even a 10 meter one in space costs WAY more than this one will.

For a given amount of money you'll always get a much larger mirror if you put it on the top of a mountain vs putting it up in space. Either solution is a compromise. There is really room for having both, as I imagine particular problems can be solved by one vs the other. If you're going to build a telescope on Earth it is probably best to either build it really big, or really cheap (both are things which you can't do in space).

I wouldn't count out the really cheap aspect either. I've read in astronomy forums that there is a lot of real science that can be done with fairly cheap telescopes (tens of thousands of dollars, not millions), but there aren't really enough of them. They would need first-class services around them (good siting, automation, calibration, etc), but would be great for things that require more eyes on the sky but don't require that those eyes be the fanciest ones available. Many things like asteroids/comets/etc are still spotted by amateur astronomers with binoculars and even cheaper telescopes simply because the big ones are are busy staring at some vanishingly small region of the sky 75% of the way across the universe. I'd think that if you wanted to study asteroids and such that you'd do far better with hundreds of cheap automated small telescopes that can monitor much larger regions of the sky (the bigger telescopes have VERY narrow fields of view).

...can you? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451835)

Very cool!

> raised concerns over the environmental and cultural impact of such a project

I see no reason to modify my parsimonious theory that it's all about throwing money at people until they go away.

What about these EELT at 39m and (1)

mknewman (557587) | about a year and a half ago | (#43451945)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Extremely_Large_Telescope [wikipedia.org] at 39m http://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/vlt.html [eso.org] at 4 x 8.2m and my favorite mainly because of it's sheer size http://www.gmto.org/ [gmto.org] at 6 x 8.4m

Re:What about these EELT at 39m and (1)

Shag (3737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43453311)

VLT is already built, and consists of four scopes which can be linked for interferometry in the IR, but don't always function that way. Even when they do, their light-collecting area is smaller than TMT.
EELT is approved but not built, and when built, will be bigger than TMT.
GMT will have an effective aperture and light-collecting area smaller than TMT.

Basically, the TMT folks now have to try to build it before EELT. If they do, it will unquestionably be the largest optical scope in the world for some period of time. And EELT and TMT, if both are built, will unquestionably be the largest optical scopes on their respective sides of the Equator.

It seems the biggest obstacle... (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about a year and a half ago | (#43452109)

to a thirty meter telescope these days, is not the size, but getting the necessary environmental and cultural licensing. For a freaking telescope. We're done doing great things, i think.

But a new resort on the beach is OK? (1)

Squidlips (1206004) | about a year and a half ago | (#43452309)

I cannot understand how there would be any "environmental and cultural impact" of such a telescope compared the monstrosities on beaches of Hawaii....

Re:But a new resort on the beach is OK? (2)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year and a half ago | (#43454103)

they're called midwesterners

error in headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43452799)

'one of the largest' not 'the largest'

Boy, will UH-Hilo be surprised! (2)

Shag (3737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43453291)

Living in Hilo, and working on Mauna Kea, I think the administration of UH-Hilo would have heart attacks if they were ever approved to do anything involving the word "billion." They're constantly struggling to get funding for things like a permanent building for their pharmacy Ph.D program (which would help quite a bit with continuing accreditation). No, the TMT isn't a UH-Hilo project, at all.

It's actually University of California and CalTech (the main partners in Keck), plus ACURA (the Association of Canadian Universities for Research in Astronomy, not Honda's sporty brand, sorry), Japan, China, India, the NSF, and maybe whoever else wants to jump in at this point now that things are approved. A mere $3.57 million might be enough to get yourself a 1-night-a-year slice of the pie. ;)

Re:Boy, will UH-Hilo be surprised! (1)

sackbut (1922510) | about a year and a half ago | (#43456749)

It does need to get built, then serviced, etc. There will be some spin-off in construction and maintenance jobs locally. Surely it can't be all built on the mainland then shipped and put together? The Keck's building is decent in Waimea. Any ideas of where the control building will be for this?

Re:Boy, will UH-Hilo be surprised! (1)

Shag (3737) | about a year and a half ago | (#43524431)

Oh, there'll definitely be jobs. Some UH-Hilo physics, astronomy or natural science majors will almost certainly wind up there. They'll probably be outnumbered by the Hawaii Community College grads, first in construction trades, then in electronic tech, admin, et cetera.

The control building will be at the summit. If you mean the base facility/office, I've heard it'll be on the corner of Nowelo and A'ohoku, next to Gemini, below CalTech, and across A'ohoku from 'Imiloa.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?