231
In the first decade of this century, with its large optical–infrared telescope
on the point of entering into service, Spain had become an astronomical
power, and ESO was keen that our country should not remain outside the
fold. Without Spain ESO would be incomplete. Apart from reasons to do
with image and other considerations, there were economic factors too: in
terms of ESO’s budget Spain was very important because its contributions
would be based on its gross domestic product. There were also important
complementary reasons regarding ESO’s plans for the extremely large telescope, such as knowing at first hand the technological advances incorporated
into the GTC. Moreover, many European astronomers lacked access to modern telescopes in the northern hemisphere and were keen to access those in the
Canaries. With all these aces in our hand the negotiations should have been
to our advantage. It might seem incredible that the Spanish negotiators even
managed to lose us the E-ELT, but it was by order of the Ministry of Science
and Innovation that those with the most clearly demonstrated experience in
these kinds of international negotiations were expressly forbidden to join the
negotiating team, on the fatuous grounds that they were from the IAC and
could not therefore be deemed independent.
I need to return to the last century in order to explain something that
turned out to be quite important in our relations with ESO. Since the signing
in May 1979 of the treaty that opened the IAC Observatories to the international community, the summits of the Canaries have served as a natural
European enclave for ground-based observing in the northern hemisphere.
These Observatories, as far back as the eighties, had sound legal bases and the
means to be offered as an ideal multipurpose observing platform for the most
advanced telescopes. Furthermore, astronomers from many countries, after
many years of working together in the Canaries, had built very stable synergies and habits of pan-European cooperation. We began to speak of and promote a European Northern Observatory (ENO), a name that did not at all sit
well with the people from ESO.
ENO was conceived as a ‘European facility’ of the European Space Area
(ERA), a flexible association model with ‘variable geometry’, an idea that the
European Union was promoting at the time, as the Commissioner himself,
Mr Busquin, explained to us on his visit to the Canaries. We even managed to
have explicit references to ENO made in the VI Framework Programme of
the European Commission. This raised yet more hackles at ESO.
ENO had historical antecedents. In 1967, Hermann Brück, Astronomer
Royal for Scotland, had already proposed the construction of a ‘Northern
Hemisphere Observatory’ in the Canaries, based around a British 150-inch
(3.81-m) telescope. Exactly two years later, a committee chaired by Fred
22 The European Extremely Large Telescope…
In the first decade of this century, with its large optical–infrared telescope
on the point of entering into service, Spain had become an astronomical
power, and ESO was keen that our country should not remain outside the
fold. Without Spain ESO would be incomplete. Apart from reasons to do
with image and other considerations, there were economic factors too: in
terms of ESO’s budget Spain was very important because its contributions
would be based on its gross domestic product. There were also important
complementary reasons regarding ESO’s plans for the extremely large telescope, such as knowing at first hand the technological advances incorporated
into the GTC. Moreover, many European astronomers lacked access to modern telescopes in the northern hemisphere and were keen to access those in the
Canaries. With all these aces in our hand the negotiations should have been
to our advantage. It might seem incredible that the Spanish negotiators even
managed to lose us the E-ELT, but it was by order of the Ministry of Science
and Innovation that those with the most clearly demonstrated experience in
these kinds of international negotiations were expressly forbidden to join the
negotiating team, on the fatuous grounds that they were from the IAC and
could not therefore be deemed independent.
I need to return to the last century in order to explain something that
turned out to be quite important in our relations with ESO. Since the signing
in May 1979 of the treaty that opened the IAC Observatories to the international community, the summits of the Canaries have served as a natural
European enclave for ground-based observing in the northern hemisphere.
These Observatories, as far back as the eighties, had sound legal bases and the
means to be offered as an ideal multipurpose observing platform for the most
advanced telescopes. Furthermore, astronomers from many countries, after
many years of working together in the Canaries, had built very stable synergies and habits of pan-European cooperation. We began to speak of and promote a European Northern Observatory (ENO), a name that did not at all sit
well with the people from ESO.
ENO was conceived as a ‘European facility’ of the European Space Area
(ERA), a flexible association model with ‘variable geometry’, an idea that the
European Union was promoting at the time, as the Commissioner himself,
Mr Busquin, explained to us on his visit to the Canaries. We even managed to
have explicit references to ENO made in the VI Framework Programme of
the European Commission. This raised yet more hackles at ESO.
ENO had historical antecedents. In 1967, Hermann Brück, Astronomer
Royal for Scotland, had already proposed the construction of a ‘Northern
Hemisphere Observatory’ in the Canaries, based around a British 150-inch
(3.81-m) telescope. Exactly two years later, a committee chaired by Fred
22 The European Extremely Large Telescope…