Interview with Thomas A. Tombrello - Caltech Oral Histories
Interview with Thomas A. Tombrello - Caltech Oral Histories
Interview with Thomas A. Tombrello - Caltech Oral Histories
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Tombrello</strong>–211<br />
Wendy, until well into 2007. Richard Ellis and I worked very hard to put Humpty Dumpty back<br />
together.<br />
ASPATURIAN: What was the proposal?<br />
TOMBRELLO: Basically, to figure out a way among ourselves to go forward <strong>with</strong> either one<br />
telescope or two telescopes, but <strong>with</strong> a coherent plan. Personalities get to be a controlling<br />
interest in these kinds of things. Some of the difficulties were relics of the old <strong>Caltech</strong>–Carnegie<br />
divorce in optical astronomy, which I mentioned in an earlier interview [Session 4]. Part of it<br />
was the history <strong>with</strong> Gus and the failed attempt at being part of TMT. Gus thought he could do it<br />
<strong>with</strong>out putting up any money, and <strong>Caltech</strong> was putting up a substantial amount of money. The<br />
University of California, particularly Santa Cruz, was putting up money. It just wouldn’t have<br />
worked to let somebody in for old times’ sake, when there weren’t any old times that were very<br />
positive. It was a lost opportunity, and now we’re left <strong>with</strong> a competition between two major<br />
telescopes. I think TMT will win. I like the design better personally. I don’t like the design of<br />
Carnegie’s GMT [Giant Magellan Telescope]. But I do think there are some advantages,<br />
because they have a site. Carnegie actually bought the land in Chile in the days when they set up<br />
Las Campanas. It’s a reasonably good site. There are some better. But still, it’s an attractive<br />
offer to have all that land and a place to put this telescope. If Gus had said any of that and<br />
thrown that in as a way of getting this thing started, it might have flown.<br />
ASPATURIAN: I have a question for you. If I recall the Decadal Survey, the NSF has been urged<br />
to make some kind of decision regarding TMT and GMT. I assume they will to some extent be<br />
guided by Congress, which surely would be influenced by the fact that the plan is to put the TMT<br />
in Hawaii, which will keep jobs in the United States. Do you see that as a potential asset?<br />
TOMBRELLO: I believe I agree <strong>with</strong> what you said. The NSF will find it easier to pick a U.S.<br />
site. I think there’s a lot of sentiment for putting it in Hawaii. Even before we had any serious<br />
money for TMT, we started the site survey, because we knew that was going to be the longest<br />
item in there. We did probably more stuff on site selection in Chile, and we looked at all sorts of<br />
other places, but not in detail. We studied prospective sites from satellite photographs and things<br />
like that, trying to get an idea of cloud cover and other things. How many good nights do you<br />
http://resolver.caltech.edu/<strong>Caltech</strong>OH:OH_<strong>Tombrello</strong>_T