Live data from Hacker News

Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope

staradvertiser.com

41–50 of 82 posts

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope

#41
post #3

The actual legal issues in question are barely touched on in the article: > But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatories on the summit has polluted the mountain, interfering with traditional cultural and religious practices, or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom. The links in the article to the actual decisions are broken (for me at least) The a…

For anyone interested in more information about the history and tensions behind the project, the Offshore podcast (a podcast that examines race and identity relations in Hawaii) produced very good season on the TMT[0]. Mauna Kea is sacred and the promises and ownership disputes over building on the mountain is an issue that should not be overlooked.

[0] http://feeds.civilbeat.org/civilbeatoffshore

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope

#42

I visited the top of Mauna Kea a couple of months ago, as a tourist. It is a fascinating place, already so populated with telescopes that it is tough to imagine how adding another (likely built more carefully than older ones) could cause grave damage, interference with other uses of the area, etc. On the other hand: some of the telescopes have been there many years and are probably somewhat obsolete by today's standa…

>> it is tough to imagine how adding another one could cause grave damage

This issue was brought up on the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast several years when the problem first surfaced.

I think the problem the islanders have is there are so many telescopes on the island already. Adding another one is simply piling on, in their view.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope

#44
post #3

The actual legal issues in question are barely touched on in the article: > But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatories on the summit has polluted the mountain, interfering with traditional cultural and religious practices, or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom. The links in the article to the actual decisions are broken (for me at least) The a…

This is a common problem with Supreme Court cases. They cases often touch on major, substantive issues, but the legal question that the Court decides is a technical detail.

You can interpret this as either: Judges decide how they want the case to go, and can find a loophole for either the appellant or the appellee (as well evidenced by the frequency of 5-4 decisions); or that the public simple misunderstands the meaning of most cases' decisions.

The problem is exacerbated by the Supreme Court's limited time-budget for cases, and its interest in taking on a wide diversity of cases. A case may set precedent for many future similar cases, even if the Court's rationale for the decision isn't relevant to those other cases.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope

#45
post #44
post #3

The actual legal issues in question are barely touched on in the article: > But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatories on the summit has polluted the mountain, interfering with traditional cultural and religious practices, or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom. The links in the article to the actual decisions are broken (for me at least) The a…

This is a common problem with Supreme Court cases. They cases often touch on major, substantive issues, but the legal question that the Court decides is a technical detail. You can interpret this as either: Judges decide how they want the case to go, and can find a loophole for either the appellant or the appellee (as well evidenced by the frequency of 5-4 decisions); or that the public simple misunderstands the mean…

> A case may set precedent for many future similar cases, even if the Court's rationale for the decision isn't relevant to those other cases.

Since the thing that sets precedent is the rationale, not the outcome alone, this isn't really true.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope

#46
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, that phrase, > or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom made no sense to me, given that the Hawaiian Kingdom hasn't been a sovereign entity for 125 years.

Well, yes, that's the issue at hand. Probably legally you're just as correct as that issue recently where a bunch of tourists were stomping all over some hills that were sacred to Australian aborigines, but according to the Australian government were legal hiking paths. The most, legally, the aborigines could do was put up a sign saying "these hills are important to us for religious, please don't walk on them." There…

The point you are nearly reaching is that the idea of "sovereignty rights" is largely fiction. Sovereignty begins and ends at your ability to defend your claims with rhetorical or violent methods of persuasion. Even within a single legal system, like the United States federal vs state power questions, you can see how reality trumps theory.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope

#47
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, that phrase, > or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom made no sense to me, given that the Hawaiian Kingdom hasn't been a sovereign entity for 125 years.

Presumably this is somewhat similar to other native american tribes where there are treaties and legal structures that allow them to make their case under that name / formalized what it means today?

No, not really. The entire Hawaiian archipelago was annexed as US territory. There was no comparable "nation status" as exists on native American reservations today.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope

#48
post #3

The actual legal issues in question are barely touched on in the article: > But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatories on the summit has polluted the mountain, interfering with traditional cultural and religious practices, or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom. The links in the article to the actual decisions are broken (for me at least) The a…

I think the BBC report that I submitted earlier this morning [0] did a better job of discussing the environmentalists' case. In particular, it linked to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs's civil complaint [1] which is probably the best version of the arguments against the telescope. Summary: the complaint alleges that mismanagement of the telescope site, including poor financial planning and procedural issues, has led t…

So it sounds like it's less that the entire enterprise is offensive on the face of it (like building on Uluru in Australia would be), and more that the locals don't trust the management to be respectful of the land and not fuck shit up?

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope

#49

I visited the top of Mauna Kea a couple of months ago, as a tourist. It is a fascinating place, already so populated with telescopes that it is tough to imagine how adding another (likely built more carefully than older ones) could cause grave damage, interference with other uses of the area, etc. On the other hand: some of the telescopes have been there many years and are probably somewhat obsolete by today's standa…

>On the other hand: some of the telescopes have been there many years and are probably somewhat obsolete by today's standards, producing little new science.

I can assure you most of those telescopes are still being used for new science.

There is a serious lack of "big" telescopes, globally. We simply don't have enough instruments to follow up everything we want to look at, and getting time on these "old" instruments is still competitive. A big part of this is location: Mauna Kea has fantastic skies and is good for things like IR astronomy as a result of its elevation.

Telescope optics are fairly simple. They're a bunch of mirrors which focus light in one place - a 2m mirror is a 2m mirror. The main maintenance task is cleaning or re-coating, which happens once in a while. While larger telescopes really need adaptive optics to fulfill their potential, you don't need it unless you need to resolve tiny objects in crowded fields.*

One good use for these smaller telescopes is long observations, or repeat observations. Time domain astronomy is a Big Thing at the moment, and for a lot of objects you don't need a 30 metre mirror (the main benefit of which is seeing extremely faint stuff). Another use is follow-up work, which is rather mundane, but necessary. For example you get a bunch of targets back from a sky survey and you want to observe them all for a period of time. Doing that on something like the TMT or ELT would be a fantastic waste of resources. Usually you would need to prove, using a smaller telescope, that it would be worth pointing a O(10m) mirror at it.

What often changes is the instrumentation: lower noise or higher resolution CCDs, fancier spectrographs, etc. These can all be retrofitted to fit onto older telescopes.

* more specifically, if you want to do diffraction-limited imaging and your telescope can theoretically resolve better than atmospheric seeing.

Re: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Building Thirty Meter Telescope

#50
post #3

The actual legal issues in question are barely touched on in the article: > But some environmentalists and Native Hawaiian groups say the spread of observatories on the summit has polluted the mountain, interfering with traditional cultural and religious practices, or are actually infringing on the sovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdom. The links in the article to the actual decisions are broken (for me at least) The a…

Hawaii is in a unique position because there are still plenty of native Hawaiians around. They arent a native tribe recognized by the U.S. government and some number (most in my mind) dont want to be. Because the overthrow of the last government of the Kingdom of Hawaii was done under shady conditions (basically the sugar barons formed a provisional government and then told the U.S. that they'd like to become a part of the U.S. They did this to join the free trade area that U.S. states enjoy to lower their shipping costs. They had actually tried this once before and then President Grover Cleveland shut them down. He stated that Hawaii had an existing government and seemed to have popular support of the people. But later they tried again and that time the U.S. agreed to annex Hawaii. It was operated essentially as a colony from then on until the 1950's.

So Hawaii is a normal U.S. state. It has state legislation. It obeys federal laws. Except, occasionally native Hawaiians will stand up about some issue. And when that happens, sometimes everyone else will bend toward their perspective. A lot of normal people do so out of respect for native Hawaiians. Politicians do it because it is politically tough to stand in opposition of Hawaiians. As a side note, there are very few republicans in Hawaii. There are none in the state legislature or U.S. representatives. There are a growing number of republicans that grow from the strong military presence.

The thing is, when Hawaiians protest its hard to figure out who or how many they represent. Because there is no official Hawaiian government. (There is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). But dont even get me started. lol) So no one can say "Hawaiians dont want the thirty meter telescope (TMT)". You can only say, "those people protesting over there dont want the TMT".

My instinct is that a large amount of this particular protest springs forth from the students of the University of Hawaii. When people started talking about the telescope students started to organize, hold meetings, and invite speakers. At one point the students built an ahu which is a an altar built out of stones right in the main field when you come upon the university, next to the president's office.

The University is probably too scared to remove it. Months later the students planted trees around it. It'll be there forever. Some say that native Hawaiians came to some professors at the University and asked them to help organize but that the core of the anti-telescope movement are native Hawaiians. Its impossible to say. There has never been any kind of survey or vote of native Hawaiians- which itself would be impossible as there is no real registry of native Hawaiians.

This was a long way to say, the only reason this went court was because of protest that, at least in part, included some native Hawaiians. No matter what the court decides, nothing is certain. It could still be slowed for years or indefinitely. If Hawaiians block the one road up the mountain, and are willing to get arrested on a daily basis, its hard to imagine that any politician would back the continued construction.

Post reply on HN