> No wonder, then, that many leading astronomers in the 1980s and early > 1990s had written off Nelson’s scheme. A 1993 Los Angeles Times > profile of Nelson,

> No wonder, then, that many leading astronomers in the 1980s and early > 1990s had written off Nelson’s scheme. A 1993 Los Angeles Times > profile of Nelson, for instance, quotes an anonymous source it > describes as “one of the nation’s top telescope designers.” The > anonymous source rated Nelson an “arrogant fool” and predicted that > the W.M. Keck Observatory’s $200 million price tag would ultimately > just be money down the drain. > Yet when in 1992 the Keck telescope—followed by its cousin Keck II in > 1996—instead delivered on its designers’ promise of ushering in a new > era of 10-meter class astronomy, other observatories around the world > were caught by surprise. I think it should also be noted that Keck was "competing" with a similar-sized telescope which ended up being known as the Large Binocular Telescope (LBT). LBT had a huge number of issues, both with engineering and funding, that lead to almost 20 years of delay. Part of the problem was that LBT is more technically challenging than Keck, since it has two large mirrors on a common mount (like a pair of binoculars). But like Keck, LBT also had difficulties with protesters, but the objections were more environmental than cultural (Mt. Graham is the home to an endangered species of squirrel). All of this is to say that it wasn't unreasonable for the astronomical community to be skeptical of Keck since a project similar in scale ended up far behind schedule and over budget.