Ground-based telescopes -- benefits or boondoggles?

One of the strongest arguments for investment in space flight has been the need to position telescopes in orbit so as to eliminate atmospheric distortion that would limit their usefulness. The BBC, however, reports that European and North American projects would create ground-based telescopes with up to forty times the resolution power of the Hubble orbital telescope.

A new generation of ground-based telescopes could be up to 10 times the size of existing instruments and have vision 40 times as sharp as the Hubble space telescope....

These are called, generically, ELTs [Extra Large Telescopes, ain't that cute?]. As for atmospheric distortion,

ELTs would incorporate adaptive optics, a computer controlled system that deforms the mirror to adjust for the atmospheric turbulence that distorts light waves coming into the telescope.

There are a number of designs under consideration, and all are extremely expensive. What do we get for all that money?

One of the most exciting areas in which ELTs are certain to have a major impact is the search for Earth-like planets and by extension extra-terrestrial life.

Read the whole thing here.

Exciting? Excuse me while I stifle a yawn. SETI has been going on for as long as I can remember and just what kind of payoff have we had? For that matter, what kind of payoff can we imagine?

You'd think that if there were other benefits to be gained from these boondoggles the BBC would mention them... but they don't.

When I was a teenager I read a lot of Science Fiction and could get excited about the grand adventure of space flight. But that was a long time ago. Now I'm not so sure it's all worth the cost and effort.

Times change..., so do people, but the financial demands of the space exploration community never do.

.