Comments on: FIRE!

FIRE!

tomplus2 — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 06:35:02 -0800

Firefighters defend $120 million telescope. Obviously forest fires and telescopes (qtvr) don't mix.

By: biffa

biffa — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 06:39:34 -0800

My first thought: Well why would firefighters need to spend $120 million on a telescope?

By: Songdog

Songdog — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 07:16:27 -0800

A couple of days ago it sounded like the situation was under control. It would be an enourmous loss (or at least an enourmous setback) to lose the Large Binocular Telescope, but I suppose the loss of an observatory should feel like less of a tragedy than the loss of people's homes.

By: Songdog

Songdog — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 07:18:03 -0800

:s/enourmous/enormous/ (no coffee this morning)

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:16:03 -0800

biffa: My thoughts exactly I thought by 'defend' they meant "defent our decision to buy this", not "keep it from burning up."

By: Witty

Witty — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 18:45:13 -0800

I've seen plenty of footage and read several accounts of firefighters doing everything they could to defend a family's home. When they can, they will. I wouldn't be surprised if every 120 million dollar "whatever" on a burning hillside wasn't defended in this same way.

By: euphorb

euphorb — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 20:15:28 -0800

They told them not to build it there.

By: uncanny hengeman

uncanny hengeman — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 21:49:08 -0800

The devastating fires last year in Australia's capital city destroyed a big telescope. Historic Australian observatory gutted Link includes a picture of large, burnt telescope.