July 8, 2004 6:35 AM   Subscribe

Firefighters defend $120 million telescope. Obviously forest fires and telescopes (qtvr) don't mix.
posted by tomplus2 (7 comments total)
My first thought: Well why would firefighters need to spend $120 million on a telescope?
posted by biffa at 6:39 AM on July 8, 2004

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.
posted by Songdog at 7:16 AM on July 8, 2004

:s/enourmous/enormous/ (no coffee this morning)
posted by Songdog at 7:18 AM on July 8, 2004

biffa: My thoughts exactly

I thought by 'defend' they meant "defent our decision to buy this", not "keep it from burning up."
posted by delmoi at 5:16 PM on July 8, 2004

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.
posted by Witty at 6:45 PM on July 8, 2004

They told them not to build it there.
posted by euphorb at 8:15 PM on July 8, 2004

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.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 9:49 PM on July 8, 2004

« Older Honk! Squeeak!   |   Bull. It's all ass to me Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments