 We're back. We're live in the 11 o'clock block on a given Wednesday. I'm Jay Fidel. This is ThinkTech. More specifically, this is ThinkTech Tech Talks. We're talking about technology today, and we're talking about the telescope, TMT. They've been trying to get their permits in order and come and build for 15 years in Hawaii, and they promised that initially I was there at a meeting before the Hawaii Venture Capital Association where they said they were going to dot every I and cross every T, and they've worked hard to do that. However, there is resistance, and that resistance has existed and is growing, and as you know from the newspapers and online, and for that matter the National Press, there's a lot of people who don't want to see this happen, and that seems to be growing. So today to discuss the matter, we have the Interim Director of the Institute for Astronomy at UH, which is directly related and involved in astronomy in Hawaii, and that's Bob McLaren, and we have Holly Lindsey. She's an educator interested in the subject as well. Welcome to the show, Bob and Holly. Thank you. Nice to have you here. Bob, can you give us a snapshot of what it is this telescope and where we are on it? Yes. A 30-meter telescope, as the name suggests, is a much larger telescope than the current generation. Roughly three times larger in diameter, so that means nine times larger in light collecting power. That has two advantages. One, you can look at fader objects, much fader objects, and that means objects that are further away, and also because of the larger size, it can also distinguish more clearly objects that are close together, and that's particularly important when we're looking at planets around other stars, so-called exoplanets. What does this telescope offer to Hawaii, to science in Hawaii, and to the Hawaii community? Well, starting first with the science, it can study things that we simply can't do well with the existing class of telescopes. I think the exoplanet application is the easiest for the viewers to grasp, but one of the main areas of astronomy nowadays is to look at planets around other stars. It's a recently developed field, a 30 years or so ago. We weren't even sure there were planets around other stars. I grew up with only nine, and now there were only eight of those in our own solar system. People always suspected there were, but there wasn't any proof. Now we know about thousands of them. Now the attention is okay, are there any that are like Earth, and how much like Earth, and how many of them, and of course the follow-on question there, what's the likelihood that life could have developed on those planets? Well, in order to do a good job of researching that, you need a bigger telescope than the current generation. For the two reasons that I suggested earlier, the exoplanets are really faint, right? They're small and they're far away, so you need a big telescope to see them at all. You certainly need a big telescope to study their property. The other thing is that these planets are quite close to their parent star. The whole thing is far away. You need to be able to separate a really faint planet from its great big bright star right beside it, and that requires you to be able to separate things that are close together on the sky, and for that you also need a big telescope. So the goal is to, among the other things, with the 30 meter telescope, is to look at exoplanets that we know are there from other techniques that other telescopes found, and then be able to actually get a picture of the planet separate from the star, and then to be able to analyze the light from the planet and see if there's an atmosphere, what gases might be in the atmosphere, and if there are fingerprints that might indicate the presence of life. That's the real sort of holy grail of that area of astronomy, and it's one that the 30 meter telescope is uniquely capable of pursuing. Is it true that the TMT can actually extend to the dark ages of the universe? I mean, past where Hubble went and studied? Well, that's the other end of the distance scale, and the exoplanets are in astronomy terminal. They're nearby. I mean, they're next door neighbors, right? They're still vast distance away, but in the overall scheme of things, they're nearby. At the other end of the distance scale is the things, the most distant objects that we can see in the universe, and of course, when you're looking at those, they're very far away, and you're looking at them as they were way back in time. That's when stars were born in other words. Stars were born, and galaxies were born, and the underlying assumption in astronomy and in cosmology is that the universe is more or less homogeneous, and so when we're looking at the way this distant area was 13 billion years ago, we're also seeing the way we were 13 billion years ago. That's because it's a fundamental assumption that you make that basically the universe is the same everywhere at a given time in its evolution. So when you look back in time, you're seeing the galaxies from stars from the very first generation, and we presume from that that we're also seeing how our universe formed, our local part of the universe formed that long ago. And again, you need those same two characteristics. You're looking way back in time, things are really just very far away. They're faint, so you need a big telescope to collect enough light, and the objects are close together, and you want to be able to see detail. And again, you need the big telescope in order to get what astronomers call angular resolution. The ability to see things close together and to see fine detail. We have some slides, Bob. Let's go through them and help people understand what is contemplated. Okay, so this is an aerial photograph of the summit area of Monacaia, looking from sort of the southwest direction towards the northeast. And you'll see in the middle section, you'll see the current complement of telescopes there. There are about 10 of them actually in operation. The astronomy, I should point out, has been on Monacaia for over 50 years. Okay, so it's not development. And the last, most recent telescopes to be put there was over 25 years ago. So the telescope that's on the left is the proposed TMT. It's not actually there. It's what it would look like after construction. Right. That's been photoshopped in. Right. So the first thing you see is it's not in the summit area. The true summit of Monacaia is in the background beyond all the telescopes. So the cinder cone on the right edge is Pohliahu. And then the 30 meter telescope is in the foreground on the lower left at a location called 13 North. And that's a name that that location was given in the 1960s. Because when the university first got involved in the economy of Monacaia and they were looking for a place to put the original, the initial research telescope there, they surveyed a number of sites. And one of the sites that they surveyed was at North part of the area and also at a 13,000 foot elevation. That's called 13 North. So that the 30 meter telescope is at a site that was tested back in about 1965. It wasn't the site that was ultimately selected for the U8, what eventually became the UH 2.2 meter telescope. But it was an offsite. And you could see the Jeep trail that goes out to it is the original trail. You spent some time up there. You worked at the Canada France Telescope. Yeah, I came to Y in 1982, expecting to be just here one year. It was a sabbatical from the University of Toronto in Canada, whereas on the faculty, I ended up staying at CFHD for eight years doing one thing and another. And then at that time, there were not any permanent positions for astronomers there. UH was on the point of development of the telescope on Monacaia in the 1990s. So I worked with the permitting and the university's arrangements for the second Keck Telescope, Sabaru, Gemini and the sub millimeter array. Luckily, there were no controversies during that period. No, there actually were a few, but not anything like today and not the same issue. Right. The whole astronomy thing started as a result of the Hilo tidal wave. I mean, the tidal wave that hit Hilo in the 1960s, isn't that correct? And they were looking for economic, viable economic alternatives because we were devastated. So, you know, that they never, I think, astronomy to take off as it has and become a global leader in Hawaii. It just happened. And it's the ideal place in the world. Everybody agrees on that. That's one thing we can agree on. Well, Holly, you know, it's very technical. It's engineering and science. It's astronomy. It's the heavens. And I guess you can say that, you know, we have a very distant relationship with the heavens. Oh, well, I think all of this, the question is, the question is, why should we, the people of Hawaii care about astronomy? I'll ask you both that question. Why should we care? Why should be involved? Why should we want to support astronomy and science at the top of Monacaia? Well, my doctorate is an administration planning and social policy very akin to what is taken for the directorship of any of these astronomical observatories or in an educator environment. What I look at is, I've heard people say this is nothing to do with astronomy or science, you know, we have nothing against you, we support it. But I hear others saying this is nothing to do with the cultural significance when you have to weigh it against the science. To me, having dealt with many policy issues, and I'm sure Bob too, we are the melting pot here in Hawaii, we really are a melting pot. So in this pot, all of these issues are important, one person or the other or to all of us, it should be important to all of us, we should understand all sides, its culture, its religion, its art, its practice, it's who we are as a people, and who we want to be in the future. We want science, we want technology, we want our children to have an opportunity to study all these things. They want to study Hawaiian language, yes. If they want to study Hula, yes. If they want to study astronomy or biology or marine science. Yes, why can't we give them these opportunities for everything? Because that's how we will expand and grow. Most of all, that's how we'll discover and explore. We all know the Polynesian history is illustrious in discovery, exploring. If they had stayed back from where they came from, like, yeah, like, you know, it's all about discovery. It's all, we all celebrate. So Bob, what does it mean to IFA? What does it mean to the Institute for Astronomy? What does it mean to the university? What does it mean to, you know, all the astronomers who are at IFA and who are on the mountain now? Well, IFA was developed in sort of a symbiotic relationship with the development of the mountaintop observatories, Haleak Law and Mauna Kea. So a number of people at the Institute have essentially devoted their career to developing a mountain and developing a faculty to make the use. So that's really central to what the IFA has been and what it is today. I think the, assuming that one is supportive of astronomy in general in Hawaii, and not everyone is, and maybe we should talk about that. Because I think it's an important factor in trying to sort out the thinking. But assuming that you are, then you can't just stand still, right? You have to move to the next stage of telescope. And that's what the 30 meter represents. It is the next generation that gives us the capability to move beyond. It's like all science, isn't it? All science is all engineering. It moves and it moves quicker these days than ever. Yes. And you have to follow it or where you can't. This is like cell phones. I hate changing my cell phone, but I know it's necessary. Yeah. If something becomes obsolete, you have to go to the next step. Nothing in technology lasts forever. We're taking a short break. Bob and Holly, we just for a minute, we'll be right back after that. Aloha. I'm Keisha King, host of At the Crossroads, where we have conversations that are real and relevant. We have spoken with community leaders from right here locally in Hawaii, and all around the world. Won't you join us on thinktechhawaii.com or on YouTube on the Think Tech Hawaii channel. Our conversations are real, relevant and lots of fun. I'll see you at the Crossroads. Aloha. Aloha. My name is Wendy Lowe, and I want you to join me as we take our health back. On my show, all we do is talk about things in everyday life in Hawaii or abroad. I have guests on board that will just talk about different aspects of health in every in every way, whether it's medical health, nutritional health, diabetic health, you name it, we'll talk about it, even financial health will even have some of them is Hawaii's on board and all the different topics that I feel will make your health and your lifestyle a lot better. So come join me. I welcome you to take your health back. Mahalo. Okay, we're back with Bob McLaren. He's the interim director of the IFA, Institute for Astronomy at University of Hawaii, Manawak. And we have Holly Lindsay and educators about one of the things you mentioned before the break was that there were some controversies about the telescopes on top of monarchy years ago, but it was different. You know, tell the difference between what happened then and what's happening now. As the issues that were involved and also the intensity. I think before I arrived during the 1980s, there were concerns about the aesthetics and appearance of putting these man made devices on the mountain. There were also environmental concerns, endangered species. And actually, a lot of the worries then act were not related to the summit of the mountain, but actually the mid level facility, which is in the critical habitat of the Lila bird. Later, there was concern developed for a particular insect called the vacu bug, a very seed bug that's adapted to high altitude, and uses the cinder slope of the poo as its habitat. It moves up and down in the cinder to adjust to reach the temperature that it wants to be at at any given time. Fortunately, we understand that now. And we know how to minimize the impact on the vacu bug. For a while, it was being considered for listing as an endangered species. It's now totally off of this thanks to the efforts of the Office of Monarchy Management, which was no longer anywhere near a situation of being an endangered species. And that's because of the good work that the university has done in the last 20 years, a huge amount of attention paid to these issues, which for one reason or another, weren't given the attention that they should have been from the beginning. And that's all changed. Okay, so when I the work I did with the telescopes during the 90s, there was still concern about environmental issues about the aesthetics, but not the spiritual aspect that we're hearing that's primary today. Nothing like that. So it certainly would be wrong to think that the current telescope there were built over the objections, the kind of objections that we're hearing today. That's definitely not true. I'm not sure I can explain why that is. I think back in the 80s, my take on it was that only a very few practitioners could even make it to the summit because it was Papu for the rest of the beyonds. You had to be a chief, or a priest, or Ali, I believe the last Ali was Queen Emma. It took six hours to get up. And I'm sure this is long to come down. It's not a it's not an easy place to get no one you can have pulmonary edema up there. Well, children should not be going to the summit. Not everybody can go up there. No, 13 years and lower, lower forget it, you're going to have a brain aneurysm or whatever you're going to have altitude sickness. And I think they've they've already reported a couple of people just at 8000 foot level have suffered from altitude sickness. If you have heart conditions, respiratory conditions, you're a capuna. If you're over, did you want to add something to Bob's thoughts about why this was important? And why people should care about it both academically and otherwise saying is to be apathetic and not care about either side and say I'm on the fence, I agree with both is okay. But you also need everybody has a brain. If we didn't, we would give up, right? So you have a choice to become an informed person. And that's the only reason why I'm here. You know, I have my beliefs, but I'll keep them to myself. But it's up to us to disseminate true information, the amount of false information just to win or to lose or whatever to make somebody else lose, you know, lose. It's not about winning and losing. We are all going to be both. I think it's going to be lose because we can be way worse. Yes, people understand. Okay, so it's the best you mentioned earlier. It's the best site on earth. I think it's probably arguably the best site anywhere on earth. And so in some respects, it's kind of a resource or a gift the whole world. It's so providing the best site, best window on the universe from the surface of the earth. And people might want to think, you know, whether we have some obligation to make this available to all of the people of the world for this purpose. That's one of the fundamental questions here. Because there are some people who don't want to do that. Well, I'm not sure they don't want to do it. What I would like to talk about is that, let me say I think that ultimately, the use of the mountaintops for astronomy has to be a community decision. You say that, but we had 15 years of litigation. Yeah, I know. And ultimately, the Supreme Court made it clear that this project legally could proceed. So now do we have another political process? And who votes in that process? Is there a vote? Is there a governmental decision making process? When you say a community decision, how do you measure what the community feels? There are a lot of people that are not protesting, but they don't say anything. Yeah. How do you how do you get their views into the mix? Well, there's two issues there. One is how do we get their views expressed? And the other is how do we ensure that everyone who wants to express a view is doing it from an informed point of view? And that's that's the thing I really want to talk about. We can talk, I think, only a few super diehards cling to some kind of belief that that there's illegality here, right? I mean, at least in terms of the of our current, you know, US legal system, it's it's the legality has been established over and over and over again. But if you want to say, okay, notwithstanding all of that, it's still the wrong thing to do because of some higher truth or community relations, then, okay, fair, if you want to talk about that, but let's make sure that that you understand the costs and benefits that you're trading off here, and not taking not started making some kind of knee jerk reaction. Well intention, but ill informed. That's what that's what I would like to above all else here. Okay, if you think that astronomy in general is was a bad idea that they shouldn't have put telescopes on the top. So just was a bad idea. And it's never should have then let's have that conversation. And see what if you've really thought about the cost of the benefits. If you think astronomy is okay, but maybe not TMT, that's a different point of view. And that's a different conversation we have, but need to know where a person is coming from. Before you can have a meaningful dialogue and to know what I think at least should be the things they take into account in forming their opinion. I think your views represent the views of many people, actually. I think there's been, you know, a very articulate advocacy against the TMT. I think there are, you know, a couple days ago, there were 2000 people there, that means something. Now was less 1500 or so. I think every state enforcement agency is involved standing by sometimes making arrests. I think a number of politicians both state and federal, both Hawaii, eccentric and on the mainland who don't know too much about Hawaii have made statements. And most of that actually has been in opposition to the TMT. So, you know, let me let me assume for the rest of our show, we have four minutes left. That just the ghost of Christmas future here is that despite the Supreme Court decisions, despite the law, the rule of law, as it exists, and for this case, you know, that this decision is at great risk right now, because there are so many people who oppose it and they oppose it for religious reasons. And even if those reasons were actually considered in the Supreme Court's action, it doesn't matter because they're they're articulate and they're strong. And they're making their point with the media and with so many politicians. So let's assume for this discussion that it doesn't happen. The TMT is blocked. And the people who would like to see it happen there on the sideline, they don't say anything. So we have a process by which the loudest voice is the one that rules and it rules through the media rather than a political vote of any kind. And we don't have let's assume for this discussion, we don't have TMT. It's the ghost of Christmas future, Charles Dickens. What happens to science? What happens to the economy? What happens to jobs? What happens to the social framework of our state? Anybody want to talk about that? Well, on the science, assuming that that the alternate site is actually available and feasible. And I think that's not 100% certain. Then most of the science gets done on the Canary Island. Okay, that's only 7000 feet. That's why I said most. Yeah, okay. Okay. The main takeaway point I like to make is that the 30 meter telescope offers people of Hawaii a tremendous opportunity to have one of the world's finest, biggest, most impressive, scientific facilities here in Hawaii on a neighbor island, essentially in their backyard. Right. And that brings with it incredible opportunities for the young people in Hawaii who are interested in science and technology fields. Right. That to me is the biggest benefit of the 30 meter telescope to people of Hawaii. And if you after thinking it all over a what? No, we don't want that. We want to tell our young people that there's no future if you're interested in those kind of things. If you want to do those kind of things, you're probably going to have to move somewhere else. And that's to be that is the message that they're sending. And I would ask them, Okay, suppose you win this battle of social media and so on, and you and you chase the telescope away. How are you really any better off? How does that do anything really to advance the cause of the legitimate concerns of native Hawaiians, you get a symbolic victory, you get to cheer for a while. But at the end of the day, if you honestly say that you're that much better off, what are you going to do? How is this actually going to improve the status of native Hawaiians where you have chased away this opportunity, you've chased away the young people that would have been involved in this, your children and grandchildren are going to be on the mainland or somewhere else. That's what I'd like to hear them explain. What do you got to offer in exchange for giving up this opportunity? Well, there was an article, the Cataluna this morning, newspaper and one of the things that was interesting there, she was quoting some of the lawyers involved, I guess, and she quoted the thought that this is actually a proxy argument that the real problem is not about the telescope, about the feelings of the native Hawaiian people in general, how they've been treated since the overthrow. And I think, you know, how can we go back in the past and make preparation? Is this the way when we don't have a future to explore and discover? I always felt I was so proud of being from Hawaii, because we always are known for exploration and discovery. But now I feel like we can't even be pro that anymore, because we looking in the past, we can't make up for what's happened in the past. Nothing can. We can look to the future and learn from the past. Is there something wrong with that? Is there just going to be a schism and we lose, we all are in the schism and we all lose? That's how I feel right now. Bob, we only have a, oh, we're almost out of time. Okay, I want to offer you the opportunity to close on this. What would you like to leave with the people who watch? What message would you like to give? And we, you were talking about, you know, being fully informed, and people should know more and know enough to make an informed decision. What would you stress on informing them? Well, it's simply what I just said that that there are, there's a tremendous opportunity, it's not going to come around again. And so people are going to oppose the, if they're opposed to telescopes in general, on top of mountains, then fine. I mean, that's a position they certainly not want to agree with. But in the case of the 30th, if there are in favor, but against the PMT, then why, why would they want to give up on this opportunity? And what do they offer the young people of Hawaii who can return? Astronomers are, in general, are very supportive of the many legitimate concerns of native Hawaiians. They're not at all. And I also say that most astronomers actually have quite a strong, well, not just astronomers, but everyone that works on the mountain have a strong reverence for the mountain, a spirituality associated with it. Virtuality is an individual thing. But I know virtually everyone that I work with has an attachment to the mountain, not the same as native Hawaiians, I understand it, but it's still a strong emotional and spiritual contact with that mountain. It's a sacred mountain to not only Hawaiians, but to people around the world and to the people who work there. It's a thin place in the Celtic tradition, if you're familiar with that term. I don't want to make a pun, but the stakes are really high. And one of the things that I get from this discussion is that if we don't have TMT, the scientific consortia involved and be reluctant to try this again, I've spent 15 years without a benefit and spent a lot of money trying to get where we are, all legitimate, crossing every, you know, T and dotting every I. Wall Street is not going to invest. The astronomical community is going to have to look elsewhere. Because if you knock off TMT, what happens with the next telescope, there won't be a next telescope. It will change Hawai'i's connection with astronomy. That will be a radioactive issue politically and it will be permanent in our lifetime. Thank you, Bob. You're quite welcome. Bob McLaren and Holly Lindsay. Thank you so much for this discussion.