Many Other Places in the World Ranked Above Mauna Kea for Sky Watching

I hope the planners and designers of the TMT read this particular blog.

It has been said to me by people that work up on Mauna Kea that the TMT should go atop Mauna Kea because it’s the best place in the world for it to go.

I just read this article which mentions 8 other places that are better for sky watching:

1. McDonald Observatory, United States

2. Stonehenge, Britain

3. Abu Simbel, Egypt

4. Caribbean Islands

5. Pisac, Peru

6. Caldera de Taburiente National Park, Canary Islands

7. Sherbrooke, Canada

8. Slovenia

9. Hawai’i (the Big Island), Hawaii, United States

10. Sark, Britain

4 Responses

  1. Not only are many of those places lousy places for a research telescope, many of them are lousy places for amateur stargazing. Whoever put the list together has no idea what they are talking about.

    Stonehenge? Fascinating place, been there several times. The entire Salisbury Plain is covered with history. Stargazing? Not great.

    Caribbean Islands? Possibly dark, but low elevation sites have real problems. Same for some of the other sites on the list.

  2. I think it is safe to assume that Stonehenge would not be a popular site (among the public or the scientific community) for TMT, haha.

    Damon – Hey the public sure seems to enjoy Stonehenge as it is.

  3. It seems like a list of places that good to view the heavens with a naked eye, not good places to put a telescope. It doesn’t even list the other possible location for the TMT in Chile as good location.

    Damon – Good point… but one would think that if good with the naked eye… it would be even better with high powered instruments.

  4. Sir,
    Your title to this blog entry is misleading. To take an article oriented towards tourists and suggest that it has anything to do with evaluating sites for observatories is absurd. Stonehenge!!! You are not elevating the discourse, you are providing fodder for headline readers to misrepresent this article. I have ignored many misrepresentations and misinterpretations in various blogs but this mischaracterization finally motivated me to respond.
    I find your blog style informative, with the links to articles embedded throughout, please do not debase the value of what you do through a careless
    or feckless choice of words.
    Jim McCully

    Damon – I’ve never stated that I’m a scientist or anything more. If you think I’m debasing the value of what I do because I’ve posted this… then I’m sorry you feel that way.

    To the everyday “Joe” that I am… It would not seem that off base that if a viewing site was good from the naked eye… then it would also be good with a high power telescope.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I do this to keep the spammers away * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.