Milestone-Proposal talk:University of Hawai'i 2.2 meter (88 inch) Observatory

Advocates’ Checklist

1. Is proposal for an achievement rather than for a person?
2. Was proposed achievement a significant advance rather than an incremental improvement to an existing technology?
3. Were there prior or contemporary achievements of a similar nature?
4. Has the achievement truly led to a functioning, useful, or marketable technology?
5. Is proposal adequately supported by significant references (minimum of five) such as patents, contemporary newspaper articles, journal articles, or citations to pages in scholarly books? At least one of the references from a peer-reviewed scholarly book or journal article. The full text of the material, not just the references, shall be present. If the supporting texts are copyright-encumbered and cannot be posted on the ETHW for intellectual property reasons, the proposers shall email a copy to the History Center so that it can be forwarded to the advocate. If the advocate does not consider the supporting references sufficient, the advocate may ask the proposer(s) for additional ones.
6. Are the scholarly references sufficiently recent?
7. Is proposed citation readable and understandable by the general public?
8. Does the proposed plaque site fulfill the requirements?
9. Is the proposal quality comparable to that of IEEE publications?
10. Scientific and technical units correct? (e.g. km, mm, hertz, etc.) Are acronyms correct and properly upperercased or lowercased?
11. Date formats correct as specified in Section 6 of Milestones Program Guidelines? https://ieeemilestones.ethw.org/Helpful_Hints_on_Citations,_Plaque_Locations

Reviewers’ Checklist

1. Is suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?
2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation?
3. Does proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?
4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed?

In answering the questions above, the History Committee asks that reviewers apply a similar level of rigor to that used to peer-review an article, or evaluate a research proposal. Some elaboration is desirable. Of course the Committee would welcome any additional observations that you may have regarding this proposal.

Submission and Approval Log

Submitted date: 23 May 2024
Advocate approval date:
History Committee approval date:
Board of Directors approval date:

Original Citation Title and Text -- Administrator4 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Mauna Kea Observatory University of Hawai'i 2.2 meter (88 inch) Telescope, 1970

The 2.2 meter (88 inch) telescope was the first advanced research telescope to be built near the summit of Mauna Kea, to take advantage of unequaled observing conditions found at high elevation on Hawaii. The site is above 40% of Earth's atmosphere and nearly 90% of water vapor. Located near the equator, it enables observation of almost of all the sky.

Updates to Citation and Key Sections -- Bberg (talk) 03:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Please correct the technical societies field to read "Aerospace and Electronic Systems Society (AESS) and Geophysics and Remote Sensors Society (GRSS)"

Please break up the 3 main sections into more easily readable paragraphs.

Please consider this 69-word citation:
Dedicated on June 26, 1970, the University of Hawaii’s 2.2 meter (88 inch) computer-controlled astronomical telescope atop Mauna Kea was the world’s highest at 13,796 feet. Being located near the equator, and above 40% of the Earth's atmosphere and nearly 90% of its water vapor, its location enabled unequaled observing conditions of almost of all the sky, resulting in the most advanced and powerful Earth-based observations of heavenly bodies.

Re: Updates to Citation and Key Sections -- Bberg (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making these changes.

You need an "and" between the names of the 2 technical societies.

Within the entire proposal, I note that the only place where you include an apostrophe in "Hawai'i" is in the title. I also note that "Hawaii's" in the citation might read awkwardly as "Hawai'i's" were you to add an apostrophe. However you decide to handle this, it should be consistent throughout the proposal.

I suggest you break up the numerous cited stories in the "What features set this work apart from similar achievements?" section with bullets for better reading, or at least add periods after each cited entry.

Letter to Reviewer Barry C. Tilton, Questions (June 11) -- Sergei Prokhorov (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Dear Barry C. Tilton In your critique of the proposal, the Committee would like you to assess three particular aspects of the proposal: 1) Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? 2) Is the evidence presented in the proposal sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Citation? 3) Does the proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement? In answering these questions, the History Committee asks that you apply a similar level of rigor to that used to peer-review an article, or evaluate a research proposal. Some elaboration is desirable. Of course, the Committee would welcome any additional observations that you may have regarding this proposal.

Answers by Barry C. Tilton -- Sergei Prokhorov (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The information is factually correct, and the sources are consistent. There is no question that between the early advances in understanding of stellar phenomena and the critical role played in supporting Apollo are deserving of permanent IEEE recognition. Is the suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? YES Is the evidence presented in the proposal sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Citation? YES Does the proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement? MULTIPLE YES

Answers by Barry C. Tilton -- Sergei Prokhorov (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I will comment on 4 [Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed? - Sergei Prokhorov] and await further requested detail before re-evaluating my response. As to the uniqueness of the nominee, there are only 5-6 other real major milestone locations in astronomical collection since Galileo… Palomar (CA Lowell (AZ) The Maui Scopes Aricebo Hubble (Space Telescope I) Keck (Space Telescope II) A great majority of the astronomical discoveries that define our cosmological understanding happened at these sites. In this context, there is no doubt that the big island site is deserving of IEEE recognition in our program. As a side note, the logistic difficulties in building the site are also (as noted in the submission) some of the more significant in the development of a scientific research location (not quite Antarctica, but very noteworthy).

I can address a few of your thought points which are actually technical in detail.

Light gathering systems are defined by a physical limiting function that has three parameters. (1) wavelength (2) distance to target (3) aperture diameter. The relevant equation defines a direct relation between the diameter and the resolution (clarity) one can achieve with a system. Several smaller telescopes can only add up to one if they are fully coordinated down to the nanometer level, which was impossible in the 70’s and is still exquisitely expensive/difficult even today (this is called phasing). As to the choice of location, being above the clouds is as significant as is described in the dialog, but in addition being above atmosphere in general reduces the impact of the air mass thermal instability on resolving power (how much can be clearly viewed). The air creates a scintillation affect on the image gathered which blurs content. Ultimately, the decision was (I believe correctly) made to endure the difficulties of logistics and cost to achieve what is (pun intended) a stellar result. While I mentioned in my previous note that there are other telescopes/collection systems that merit their own recognition, each is unique, and not in competition for justifiable laud.

Reviewer's Puneet Kumar Mishra letter -- Sergei Prokhorov (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Is suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate? Yes. However it can be made more readable as per following 60 words suggested text: "2.2 meter computer controlled astronomical telescope located at 13796 Feet height of Mauna Kea Peak was the world's highest. Its location which was above 40% of earth's atmosphere, ~90% of of its water vapor and also near the equator enabled observing conditions of almost all of the sky resulting in the most advanced and powerful Earth-based observations of heavenly bodies."

Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation? Yes

Does proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement? Yes

Were there similar or competing achievements? Yes If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed? No. It will be good to include: The Kodaikanal Observatory details which is older than Hawaii's and how this is different https://www.iiap.res.in/centers/kso/