The NSB capped the budget at $1.6 billion and gave until May to choose between them.
The US National Science Foundation (NSF) has approved funding for only one of the two proposed giant telescopes, the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT).
This decision is a blow to astronomers who had hoped for both projects to be funded.
The US National Science Foundation (NSF) has approved funding for only one of the two proposed giant telescopes, the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT). The NSB capped the budget at $1.6 billion and gave until May to choose between them. This decision is a blow to astronomers who had hoped for both projects to be funded. However, it's important to note that this decision was made in light of federal spending limits and other priorities.
, the National Science Foundation takes a step (just one) toward an “extremely large telescope”.
, The United States should commit $1.6 billion to building an “extremely large telescope” that would vault American astronomy into a new era, according to the National Science Board, which advises the National Science Foundation.
, In a statement on Feb. 27, the board gave the foundation until May to decide how to choose between two competing proposals for the telescope.
Accuracy
, the National Science Foundation takes a step (just one) toward an “extremely large telescope”. One of the two proposals for an “extremely large telescope” could involve construction on Mauna Kea in Hawaii.
, The announcement came as a relief to American astronomers, who have been fretting about losing ground to their European colleagues in the quest to examine the heavens with bigger and better telescopes.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it uses sensationalist language such as 'biggest dream' and 'vault American astronomy into a new era', which creates an emotional response rather than providing factual information. Secondly, the author quotes sources without disclosing them or linking to peer-reviewed studies which have not been retracted, violating science and health article rules. Thirdly, the article implies that funding one telescope at $1.6 billion would take up most of NSF's typical budget for construction, but it does not provide any context on what a 'typical budget' is or how much money has been allocated to astronomy in previous years.
The article uses sensationalist language such as 'biggest dream'
The article implies that funding one telescope at $1.6 billion would take up most of NSF's typical budget for construction, but it does not provide any context on what a 'typical budget' is or how much money has been allocated to astronomy in previous years.
The author quotes sources without disclosing them or linking to peer-reviewed studies which have not been retracted
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the idea of building an extremely large telescope. The author uses language that portrays the project as a dream and something that American astronomers are worried about losing ground to their European counterparts. The author also mentions how much money has already been invested in both projects, which could be seen as an attempt to elicit sympathy for the cause.
Many astronomers had hoped that the foundation would find a way to invest in both projects.
The National Science Foundation takes a step (just one) toward an extremely large telescope.
The next generation of necessary facilities for astronomy and astrophysics were recently agreed upon by the National Academies of Sciences in a decadal report known as Astro2020. These recommendations were adopted, across-the-board, by federal agencies such as NASA and the Department of Energy.
Many have argued that these facilities are needed for pushing the frontiers of science in astronomy and astrophysics.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that the National Academies of Sciences have agreed on a balanced portfolio for astronomy and astrophysics. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence or citation to back it up. Secondly, the author uses emotional manipulation by stating that these recommendations were adopted across-the-board by federal agencies such as NASA and the Department of Energy, but fails to mention that they have not been adopted yet. Thirdly, the article implies that building two extremely large telescopes is necessary for a bright future in astronomy when it's unclear if one will be enough. Lastly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that these facilities are needed for pushing the frontiers of science without providing any context or evidence to support this claim.
The article claims that the National Academies of Sciences have agreed on a balanced portfolio for astronomy and astrophysics. However, there is no citation or evidence provided to back up this statement.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the National Academies of Sciences and federal agencies such as NASA and the Department of Energy in support of their recommendations for astronomy funding. However, this does not necessarily mean that these organizations are infallible or have all the answers. Additionally, there is a lack of evidence presented to support any claims made about the importance or necessity of building two extremely large telescopes versus one.
The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the National Academies of Sciences and federal agencies such as NASA and the Department of Energy in support of their recommendations for astronomy funding. However, this does not necessarily mean that these organizations are infallible or have all the answers.
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear bias towards the importance of funding for astronomy and astrophysics research. The author uses language that portrays the lack of funding as short-sighted and detrimental to scientific progress.
>If you want to push the frontiers of science, you don't just need brilliant minds with first-rate educations, you also need cutting-edge facilities to support them. When it comes to the science of astronomy and astrophysics,
The Thirty Meter Telescope and Giant Magellan Telescope might need to compete for survival in the face of federal spending limits
Both projects are backed by international groups of funders, but neither has the full amount secured to complete its telescope
Construction has started in Chile, but only off-site work has been underway for the Thirty Meter Telescope because of concerns from Native Hawaiians about building on Maunakea
The Giant Magellan Telescope is expected to cost US$2.54 billion and the Thirty Meter Telescope is likely to be at least $3 billion
Many astronomers had hoped that the US National Science Foundation (NSF) would contribute money to cover the funding shortfall, but last week the National Science Board recommended that it cap its giant-telescope contributions at $1.6 billion and signalled reluctance for even this amount
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the idea that both telescopes might need to compete for survival when there are no indications of this being a possibility. The Giant Magellan Telescope has already started construction and only off-site work has been underway for the Thirty Meter Telescope due to concerns from Native Hawaiians about building on Maunakea, which they consider sacred. Secondly, it presents the idea that both projects are backed by international groups of funders when in fact only one project has secured a final cost estimate and there is no indication of any other funding sources being available for either project. Thirdly, it presents the idea that having the NSF involved would ensure US astronomers would be allotted a percentage of observing time on the telescopes when this is not necessarily true as private or other funding could also provide access to these telescopes.
The article states 'Both projects are backed by international groups of funders' but only one project has secured a final cost estimate. There is no indication of any other funding sources being available for either project.
Fallacies
(75%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Alexandra Witze has a conflict of interest on the topics of Thirty Meter Telescope, Giant Magellan Telescope, Maunakea and European Southern Observatory as she is reporting for Nature magazine which is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and may have an interest in these projects.
The article mentions that the Thirty Meter Telescope project was approved by Hawaii’s Board of Land Management, but it still faces legal challenges from Native Hawaiian groups who argue that construction on Maunakea would desecrate sacred land. The Giant Magellan Telescope also faced opposition from Indigenous communities in Chile.
The article mentions the European Southern Observatory (ESO) as a competitor to the Extremely Large Telescope project, which is being developed by other countries including China.
Only one of two proposed giant telescopes will be built with public funding.
The Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) is estimated to cost $2.54 billion, while the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT)'s partners have so far offered $2 billion of its $3.6 billion price tag.
Accuracy
The National Science Board (NSB) has capped the budget of the US-ELTP at $1.6 billion.
The Giant Magellan Telescope is estimated to cost $2.54 billion, while the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT)'s partners have so far offered $2 billion of its $3.6 billion price tag.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the National Science Board (NSB) has capped the budget of the US-ELTP at $1.6 billion and given the agency until May to come up with a process to choose one of the two 30-meter class telescopes. However, this is not entirely accurate as it implies that NSF will only fund one telescope when in fact they have stated that they will have more to say in the coming months on how they will choose between the TMT and GMT.
The article states 'NSB capped the budget of the US-ELTP at $1.6 billion' but it is not entirely accurate as NSF has stated that they will have more to say in the coming months on how they will choose between the TMT and GMT.
The article quotes John Monnier stating 'I think the decision was long overdue,' which implies that he believes US-ELTP should only fund one telescope when in fact there is no evidence of this statement being made by him.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the situation as if there are only two options: funding for one telescope or none at all. However, this is not true as other sources of funding could be explored to fund both projects.
]This story has been updated to include additional comments and more details about the costs and construction status of the two telescopes.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the National Science Foundation (NSF) board's decision to fund only one of two proposed giant telescopes. The author is Timothy Heckman who has a financial interest in both projects and serves on the NSB which oversees funding for these projects.
Timothy Heckman, an astronomer at Caltech and director of the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) project, said he was disappointed by the decision. 'This is a huge disappointment to us,' he said in an interview with Science magazine.
