|
|
"Truth will ultimately prevail where there are pains to bring it to light."
George Washington |
|
Latest Update July 24, 2020.
Washington State Parks will attempt to re-establish the Goldendale Observatory State Park as an International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) Dark Sky Park, indicating they "intend to complete their application for Dark Sky Park status and to work with the local community to ensure that is accomplished." This is welcome news and this site will post on the status of these efforts.
R.I.P. Dark Sky Park - Abandonment Complete
In stark contrast to the above reference made in early 2019 that a recertification as an International Dark Sky Park would be pursued, Washington State Parks has now stated that they are no longer interested in this status for Goldendale Observatory State Park. No broad public stakeholder notification, pre-decision hearing, or any other form of public process appears to have taken place. Even though advertised as being "famous for its dark skies" - meeting International Dark Sky Park education and conservation advocacy requirements is now considered “not a good fit with WA State Parks operating policy.” This would apparently apply to any State Park in Washington: The International Dark-Sky Association requirements to provide education to the public about conserving the night sky is construed as some sort of inappropriate “activism,” and advocating support for lighting policies that protect the night sky of an International Dark Sky Park is misconstrued as “behaving in a legislative capacity.”
So much for the Washington State Parks Mission, Vision, and Values to care for and provide proud support and stewardship of park assets and natural heritage experiences for future generations, or "involving the public in our policy development and decision making."
There are a number of other equally defective statements made specifically regarding the Goldendale Observatory and local night sky conservation efforts, and it’s difficult to understand how one could achieve a Dark Sky Place status of any type and not meet the IDA requirements to provide public education about night sky conservation or advocate for its protection.
In stark contrast to the above reference made in early 2019 that a recertification as an International Dark Sky Park would be pursued, Washington State Parks has now stated that they are no longer interested in this status for Goldendale Observatory State Park. No broad public stakeholder notification, pre-decision hearing, or any other form of public process appears to have taken place. Even though advertised as being "famous for its dark skies" - meeting International Dark Sky Park education and conservation advocacy requirements is now considered “not a good fit with WA State Parks operating policy.” This would apparently apply to any State Park in Washington: The International Dark-Sky Association requirements to provide education to the public about conserving the night sky is construed as some sort of inappropriate “activism,” and advocating support for lighting policies that protect the night sky of an International Dark Sky Park is misconstrued as “behaving in a legislative capacity.”
So much for the Washington State Parks Mission, Vision, and Values to care for and provide proud support and stewardship of park assets and natural heritage experiences for future generations, or "involving the public in our policy development and decision making."
There are a number of other equally defective statements made specifically regarding the Goldendale Observatory and local night sky conservation efforts, and it’s difficult to understand how one could achieve a Dark Sky Place status of any type and not meet the IDA requirements to provide public education about night sky conservation or advocate for its protection.
Washington State Parks Statement: Goldendale Washington features beautifully dark skies and the city has taken steps to make them even darker with the installation of full-cutoff and dimmable LED street lamps.
Reality: Washington State Parks Goldendale Observatory Administrator Troy Carpenter has promoted this false narrative repeatedly, and unfortunately because of his position it appears many have swallowed this fiction hook, line, and sinker:
|
|
Goldendale’s southern sky June 2014 left, and in July 2018 on the right with new LED street lights dimmed 25%. Markings added for discussion below.
|
|
Carpenter - who prides himself on his Photoshop abilities - submitted the above photograph taken from the Goldendale Observatory to the City of Goldendale in July 2018, purporting to show a comparison of how the conversion from high pressure sodium (HPS) streetlights to white LED streetlights – which were dimmed to 25% for a "test" – allegedly caused the night sky of Goldendale to become “clearly darker.” Carpenter explicitly stated the camera settings for the two photographs were identical. Carpenter then advised the City he desired the LED street lights to be dimmed to this 75% output “during observatory showtimes.” To the untrained eye and a cursory view, the night sky certainly appears darker with the dimmed LED street lights. However, a careful examination will reveal the stars in the constellations of Sagittarius and Scorpius (dark blue arrows) – and the star clouds of the Milky Way (large light blue arrow) and open star cluster (circled) are brighter are more visible in the pre-LED photo on the left.
Looking at the foreground light sources is even more revealing. These sources appear almost uniformly more bright despite being out of focus in the left pre-LED picture. Note the distant wind turbine support towers are easily visible in the left hand image, and almost invisible in the right hand image:
This indicates either one or both of the images could have been manipulated. The photograph on the right showing the 2018 LED dimmed streetlight sky as being “even darker” was underexposed or otherwise altered compared to the 2014 photo on the left with HPS street lights, or the photo on the left was altered to brighten the apparent light-glow.
When the brighter stars were pointed out in the pre-LED picture, Carpenter stated it was because the stars in the left photo are slightly out of focus compared to those on the right. This statement is not true, as anyone who has ever done astrophotography can attest to. If the stars were identically exposed, the identical amount of light would be spread out over a larger area when out-of-focus, and therefore they would appear dimmer, not brighter, and many more stars would be visible in the in-focus star image compared to the out-of-focus star image:
When the brighter stars were pointed out in the pre-LED picture, Carpenter stated it was because the stars in the left photo are slightly out of focus compared to those on the right. This statement is not true, as anyone who has ever done astrophotography can attest to. If the stars were identically exposed, the identical amount of light would be spread out over a larger area when out-of-focus, and therefore they would appear dimmer, not brighter, and many more stars would be visible in the in-focus star image compared to the out-of-focus star image:
When out of focus, stars appear dimmer, not brighter.
|
"Look adjacent to your bright focusing star. It’s usually possible to start seeing some of the dimmer stars on the LCD as you near perfect focus. Dim stars will become very diffuse and will nearly disappear from view if you’re not focused properly so try to find the point of focus where the dimmer stars are most visible." Ian Norman.
|
The fact that Carpenter's left-side pre-LED streetlight image shows the stars are perhaps slightly out of focus, but obviously brighter, strongly indicates the exposures are not identical. Indeed, if they were in focus as on the right, they would have been even brighter than they appear. This therefore would be an invalid comparison and appears to be a deliberate act of deception on Carpenter's part. If the night sky was in reality "darker" due to the reduction of light pollution from the LED streetlight conversion and 25% dimming, the identical stars indicated in both photos should be of equal brightness – if not brighter and more visible due to the removal of interfering skyglow – in the photo on the right. Instead, it is the opposite. The terrestrial foreground lighted areas (most of which are not 3000K LED streetlights) would have been the same brightness, not dimmer.
|
What Carpenter's images above do show is how the center of our Milky Way galaxy and its star clouds have become obscured by light pollution from Goldendale and Klickitat County, as compared to this accurate representation of the view from an unpolluted night sky. A much more rigorous and valid 2018 study of the effects of converting to 3000K LED street lights in Tucson, Arizona – a city which actually attempts to enforce its lighting codes – indicated it took a 63% reduction in 3000K LED streetlight lumens to a achieve a 7% reduction in sky-glow. This real but modest decrease in light pollution would be imperceptible to most people. |
|
Despite being well intentioned and clearly better than the more commonly employed (and potentially unhealthy) 4000K or 5000K color temperature LED streetlights, the 3000K LED streetlights the City of Goldendale installed are unfortunately worse for light pollution than the full cut-off (fully shielded) High Pressure Sodium street lights they replaced. They are only "dark sky friendly" when compared to far worse 4000K + LED streetlights, not the former HPS streetlights.
As indicated below, lumen-for-lumen, 3000K LED streetlights create over twice the night-sky-damaging sky glow than an equivalent HPS street light, due to the large amount of green-blue wavelengths that are efficiently produced and thereafter widely scattered by the atmosphere. The new 3000K LED streetlights would need to be dimmed at least 50% just to maintain the previous level of sky glow that existed with the former fully shielded HPS streetlights. The findings of the 2018 Tucson study cited above overwhelmingly confirm this, and make Carpenter's "25% dimming" comparison photos even more suspect.
|
Green and blue wavelengths from LED street lights are scattered by the atmosphere much more than the amber light from high pressure sodium street lights. Flagstaff Dark Skies Coalition
|
As shown by the streetlight spectrums above right, the 3000K LEDs provide a broad and diffuse light distribution of light rather than narrow line emissions of HPS, and therefore this spectrum is much more difficult to filter out. And you can't be considered a Dark Sky Place only when the streetlights are dimmed during the limited hours which the Observatory is open - Dark Sky Places are an all night seven days a week experience.
|
|
The "light domes" of Yakima and Goldendale. Left - July 2017 an aurora display creates the red-purple glow along the horizon. Right - July 2020 air glow creates the faint green glow along the horizon. Note the Perseus Double Cluster and Andromeda Galaxy appear in both photos. © Michael McKeag
|
|
A TOTAL FAILURE TO PROTECT THE NIGHT SKY
The pictures above were taken prior (July 2017) to and after (July 2020) the September 2017 Goldendale 3000 K LED streetlight conversion. They were taken from close to the same location on Dalles Mountain Road looking north north-east. They do not indicate a decrease in the amount of light pollution from Goldendale. If anything, the relative brightness of the light pollution from Goldendale (enacted but unenforced lighting codes) now exceeds the the light pollution coming over the Simcoe Mountains from Yakima, Washington, (no lighting codes at all). Also note the obvious change in the color temperature of the Goldendale light pollution. These images confirm the fact that 3000 K street lighting - without at least 60% dimming - generally is more damaging to the night sky than previously installed HPS street lighting, and cast further doubt on Carpenter's dubious "even darker" claims and problematic comparison images.
These facts, combined with the widespread lack of public information about or general enforcement of the City and County lighting codes for commercial, non-commercial, municipal, and residential properties (where a large amount of the light pollution from Goldendale and Klickitat County originates) means effectively nothing has been done to make the night sky “even darker.” In addition to significant dimming of LED streetlights, researchers in Tucson have noted their "concern for limiting light pollution is connected to the site protection of astronomical observatories that contribute significantly to its local economy," and therefore "the biggest priority before everything else is making sure lights are shielded and that lighting ordinances are enforced" (emphasis added).
As described further below, the decades-long lack of lighting code enforcement by Goldendale and Klickitat County has resulted in the steady brightening of the Goldendale Observatory's night sky to the south, which left unaddressed could preclude a future designation of the Observatory or the community as an International Dark Sky Place under the most recent IDA criteria, to say nothing about the ongoing deleterious impact on the quality of the Observatory's night sky itself. This decades-long failure to meaningfully address poor lighting and light pollution sources is glaringly obvious:
As described further below, the decades-long lack of lighting code enforcement by Goldendale and Klickitat County has resulted in the steady brightening of the Goldendale Observatory's night sky to the south, which left unaddressed could preclude a future designation of the Observatory or the community as an International Dark Sky Place under the most recent IDA criteria, to say nothing about the ongoing deleterious impact on the quality of the Observatory's night sky itself. This decades-long failure to meaningfully address poor lighting and light pollution sources is glaringly obvious:
Recently installed and non-compliant with the 2017 lighting code: completely unshielded (and ~ 5000K) all night outdoor lighting 1 mile (1.6 km) from the Goldendale Observatory State Park.
|
While the Goldendale and Klickitat County lighting codes have required shielding of outdoor lighting since 1979 to protect the Goldendale Observatory from light pollution, neither the City nor the County publicly disseminate information about or enforce the outdoor lighting codes for existing structures. Furthermore, under pressure from local business and political interests, the City removed color temperature requirements identical to the new 3000K LED street lights in the draft 2017 revised Goldendale outdoor lighting code. In spite of being a well established specification for night sky conservation, Dark Sky Places, and astronomical observatories, Washington State Parks voiced no concerns or objections to removal of this and other widely accepted best practices in order to protect the Washington State taxpayer's investment in a multi-million dollar science facility dedicated to night sky observation and appreciation.
|
Despite being located completely within the city limits of Goldendale and totally dependent on the City of Goldendale and Klickitat County for regulatory policies for protecting the State Park Observatory from light pollution, Washington State Parks Director Don Hock stated “we do not feel it is within our mission to play a lead role in efforts to influence the local regulatory environment surrounding this issue.” *
Apparently Washington State Parks does not consider the "beautifully dark" night sky to be a park asset for the Observatory, or part of the Observatory's or Washington's States natural heritage. Therefore, voicing "proud support" for protecting the taxpayer's multi-million dollar investment in the Goldendale Observatory - and the "beautifully dark" night sky it is dependent on for future generations to enjoy and appreciate - is not considered a "good policy fit" by Washington State Parks.
* State employees are explicitly allowed under RCW 42.52.8022 to provide "informational and educational meetings regarding legislative issues." As detailed below, Washington State Parks management and staff have acted to influence the local regulatory environment on the light pollution issue by publicly stating on multiple occasions the issue is not a priority, and have maligned and attempted to marginalize those who have advocated for improved lighting codes and lighting code compliance.
Apparently Washington State Parks does not consider the "beautifully dark" night sky to be a park asset for the Observatory, or part of the Observatory's or Washington's States natural heritage. Therefore, voicing "proud support" for protecting the taxpayer's multi-million dollar investment in the Goldendale Observatory - and the "beautifully dark" night sky it is dependent on for future generations to enjoy and appreciate - is not considered a "good policy fit" by Washington State Parks.
* State employees are explicitly allowed under RCW 42.52.8022 to provide "informational and educational meetings regarding legislative issues." As detailed below, Washington State Parks management and staff have acted to influence the local regulatory environment on the light pollution issue by publicly stating on multiple occasions the issue is not a priority, and have maligned and attempted to marginalize those who have advocated for improved lighting codes and lighting code compliance.
Washington State Parks Statement: However, the silver-tier status was perceived as potentially too generous and the requirements attached to the status were not a good fit with WA State Parks operating policy; the dark sky status was ultimately rescinded in 2017.
Reality: This statement is pure sophistry and obfuscation. Washington State Parks is attributing the loss of the International Dark Sky Park certification in 2017 to night sky quality and internal policy issues, rather than it having been revoked by the IDA due to Washington State Parks failure to provide previously agreed to night sky conservation education programs and conservation advocacy, or valid sky quality measurements. It is in fact disingenuous spin control and the weaving of "alternative facts."
What "operating policy" is being referred to? Abandoning the public interest and Washington State taxpayer, Washington State Parks “operating policy” seems to be “when in Rome, do as the Romans,” effectively abandoning its Mission and Core Values to “care for” and provide “proud support” and “stewardship of park assets” and “natural heritage experiences for future generations.” These have apparently been exchanged for supporting economic exploitation, political expediency, and bureaucratic self-preservation. Indeed, Carpenter himself stated "economic and commercial gain is our priority - overwhelmingly so. Absolutely." This apparently now requires capitulation to local forces opposing education about the importance of night sky conservation or voicing public support for lighting codes that promise protection of the Observatory’s night sky from light pollution.
Instead, Washington State Parks is deeply enmeshed in a "partnership network" with the anti-regulation Goldendale Chamber of Commerce, which sees the Observatory merely as a tourist attraction. The Chamber refers to the Observatory as an “amusement park” and “marketing tool” to be exploited for "economic and commercial gain," which purpose is to “fill up hotel and restaurant parking spaces.” The City of Goldendale and its business overlords apparently would be just as happy with a casino, and couldn’t care less about the Observatory's purposes, or the rare beauty of a dark night sky. Actions speak louder than words, and little real value is placed on the aesthetic, environmental, and natural heritage values of the Observatory's night sky, or the tremendous importance of a dark night sky for the Observatory's famous telescope.
It is inconsistent - if not completely nonsensical - to state on the one hand that the Goldendale Observatory has "beautifully dark skies" which have become "even darker" - yet go on to state the original 2010 Silver Tier International Dark Sky Park classification was allegedly "potentially too generous" and therefore "rescinded." This is how one might explain covertly sabotaging being an International Dark Sky Park with erroneous poor night sky quality measurements - detailed below - while simultaneously engaging in hyperbole about the night sky being "beautifully dark" and becoming "even darker" in order to help attract tourism to Goldendale.
While the increased brightness of the night sky south of the Goldendale Observatory subsequent to the September 2017 LED street light installation means an International Dark Sky Park designation may now have become more difficult to attain given the most recent (2018) International Dark Sky Park requirements related to the presence of artificial light domes on the horizon - it by no means was “too generous” for a Silver Tier designation at the time of submission of the 2016 revised annual report. Nor were the education program and other requirements "attached to the status" of an International Dark Sky Park any different for the now outdated Gold, Silver, or Bronze Tier classifications than they were originally, or at the time of the resubmitted application. The International Dark Sky Park requirements for education and conservation advocacy were apparently acceptable, approved, and committed to in writing by Washington State Parks in 2010 when the Observatory was originally designated an International Dark Sky Park. They somehow have become "not a good fit" in late 2019.
If being an International Dark Sky Park wasn't a "good fit" with Washington State Parks "operating policy" when the International Dark Sky Parks status was initially suspended in 2016, why did State Parks bother to submit a revised and much more detailed annual report five months later to the IDA that promised to correct the previous deficiencies and provide night sky conservation education and advocacy in hopes of regaining a Dark Sky Park Status?
Apparently a "good fit" then ("preserving the dark sky at the Goldendale Observatory is part of our mission"), what "operating policy" changed between April 2019 when Washington State Parks announced they would pursue re-designation, versus now? What exact Washington State Parks Operating Policy has become not a “good fit”? How does this Policy - which apparently precludes providing education ("activism"), or policy advocacy for conserving the night sky of the Observatory ("acting in a legislative capacity") - fit with the Mission and Values espoused by Washington State Parks which allegedly includes "caring for," providing “proud support” and “stewardship of park assets,” as well as providing “natural heritage experiences for future generations”? What "public involvement" was used in making this significant policy decision? Apparently a dark night sky is no longer considered an "asset" for an expensive astronomical telescope and "heritage site" observatory. It seems a night sky substantially free from light pollution is not considered one of Washington State's "natural heritage experiences," and protecting this natural heritage is no longer considered a worthy mission.
Washington State Parks Statement: New area parks management are working closely with the IDA, local businesses, and community leaders to apply for an IDA status which acknowledges the darkness of the site but does not require parks staff to behave in an activist or legislative capacity.
Reality: Washington State Parks has shown a complete lack of leadership by their unwillingness to include the provision of rather minimal night sky conservation education programs at the Goldendale Observatory. They also have clearly demonstrated a lack of publicly voiced support for night sky conservation policies for the protection of the Goldendale Observatory and its historic telescope. Not surprisingly, these requirements were subsequently built into the revised 2018 criteria for all International Dark Sky Places. Given Goldendale's and Klickitat County's decades-long aversion to actual implementation of their night sky conservation codes to protect the Goldendale Observatory, it is difficult to see how these requirements could now be met without Washington State Parks "proud support." With the above statement that Washington State Parks disapprovingly considers these activities to be inappropriate "activist" and "legislative" behaviors, it seems unlikely that any future International Dark Sky Place designation could occur.
While public interest in the natural heritage of the dark night sky grows larger year after year, it appears that until new vision and direction is established at Washington State Parks, the Washington taxpayer’s recent nearly 6 million dollar investment in upgrading their historic public observatory, and indeed the conservation of our dark sky natural heritage statewide, will be compromised for Washington citizens and the public coming to visit from around the world.
While the increased brightness of the night sky south of the Goldendale Observatory subsequent to the September 2017 LED street light installation means an International Dark Sky Park designation may now have become more difficult to attain given the most recent (2018) International Dark Sky Park requirements related to the presence of artificial light domes on the horizon - it by no means was “too generous” for a Silver Tier designation at the time of submission of the 2016 revised annual report. Nor were the education program and other requirements "attached to the status" of an International Dark Sky Park any different for the now outdated Gold, Silver, or Bronze Tier classifications than they were originally, or at the time of the resubmitted application. The International Dark Sky Park requirements for education and conservation advocacy were apparently acceptable, approved, and committed to in writing by Washington State Parks in 2010 when the Observatory was originally designated an International Dark Sky Park. They somehow have become "not a good fit" in late 2019.
If being an International Dark Sky Park wasn't a "good fit" with Washington State Parks "operating policy" when the International Dark Sky Parks status was initially suspended in 2016, why did State Parks bother to submit a revised and much more detailed annual report five months later to the IDA that promised to correct the previous deficiencies and provide night sky conservation education and advocacy in hopes of regaining a Dark Sky Park Status?
Apparently a "good fit" then ("preserving the dark sky at the Goldendale Observatory is part of our mission"), what "operating policy" changed between April 2019 when Washington State Parks announced they would pursue re-designation, versus now? What exact Washington State Parks Operating Policy has become not a “good fit”? How does this Policy - which apparently precludes providing education ("activism"), or policy advocacy for conserving the night sky of the Observatory ("acting in a legislative capacity") - fit with the Mission and Values espoused by Washington State Parks which allegedly includes "caring for," providing “proud support” and “stewardship of park assets,” as well as providing “natural heritage experiences for future generations”? What "public involvement" was used in making this significant policy decision? Apparently a dark night sky is no longer considered an "asset" for an expensive astronomical telescope and "heritage site" observatory. It seems a night sky substantially free from light pollution is not considered one of Washington State's "natural heritage experiences," and protecting this natural heritage is no longer considered a worthy mission.
Washington State Parks Statement: New area parks management are working closely with the IDA, local businesses, and community leaders to apply for an IDA status which acknowledges the darkness of the site but does not require parks staff to behave in an activist or legislative capacity.
Reality: Washington State Parks has shown a complete lack of leadership by their unwillingness to include the provision of rather minimal night sky conservation education programs at the Goldendale Observatory. They also have clearly demonstrated a lack of publicly voiced support for night sky conservation policies for the protection of the Goldendale Observatory and its historic telescope. Not surprisingly, these requirements were subsequently built into the revised 2018 criteria for all International Dark Sky Places. Given Goldendale's and Klickitat County's decades-long aversion to actual implementation of their night sky conservation codes to protect the Goldendale Observatory, it is difficult to see how these requirements could now be met without Washington State Parks "proud support." With the above statement that Washington State Parks disapprovingly considers these activities to be inappropriate "activist" and "legislative" behaviors, it seems unlikely that any future International Dark Sky Place designation could occur.
While public interest in the natural heritage of the dark night sky grows larger year after year, it appears that until new vision and direction is established at Washington State Parks, the Washington taxpayer’s recent nearly 6 million dollar investment in upgrading their historic public observatory, and indeed the conservation of our dark sky natural heritage statewide, will be compromised for Washington citizens and the public coming to visit from around the world.
Many take the beauty of a star-filled sky for granted, a result perhaps of modern society’s larger disconnect from nature. Designating a dark night sky as a natural treasure – as worthy of protection as a pristine mountain lake or majestic canyon – may therefore seem a bit unusual. A Dark Sky Place typically encompasses a park or community which protects the nighttime environment and offers visitors the opportunity to experience first-hand the beauty and inspiration which can be found in the night sky. They are intended to reconnect people with an aspect of nature that for most of humanity is becoming as remote and endangered as rain forests in the Amazon.
|
|
A star-filled night sky has become a rare experience for most people. For a Dark Sky Place designation, the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) requires “active participation in ongoing efforts to garner robust community support for dark sky protection. Participants serve as a beacon in their community for stewardship and passionate advocacy for the night sky.” This brings ecotourism benefits to surrounding communities, and preserves star-filled night skies for future generations.
|
|
In 2010, thanks to former Goldendale Observatory Interpretive Specialist Steven Stout, Goldendale Observatory State Park in Washington State was awarded the prestigious distinction of being certified as one of the first-in-the-world Dark Sky Parks by the International Dark-Sky Association. It features one of the nation’s larger and more accessible public telescopes. Built in the late 1960’s by amateur astronomers for Clark College in Vancouver, Washington, Goldendale was chosen as the location for the telescope because of less cloudy and much darker night sky, an indispensable requirement for such a large telescope.
Unfortunately, thanks to indifference and opposition from State Park personnel to dark sky education and advocacy for protection, along with historical neglect by the City of Goldendale and Klickitat County in protecting its dark sky natural resource - the Goldendale Observatory State Park achieved a singular distinction:
Goldendale Observatory State Park is the first and only International Dark Sky Place ever to be decertified by the IDA.
- The night sky of Goldendale Observatory has not been protected from the damaging effects of light pollution for over 45 years, despite promises made in order to acquire the telescope, as well as the presence of Goldendale and Klickitat County lighting codes enacted specifically for protection of the Observatory - in place since 1979. These promises to protect the Observatory from light pollution apparently were little more than a bait-and-switch. Additionally, the unenforced and long outdated Klickitat County lighting code, and the more recent City of Goldendale lighting code revision, fail to meet many modern outdoor lighting best practices or IDA requirements. They are significantly substandard compared to other IDA Dark Sky Place lighting codes, most of which are not home to an astronomical observatory.
- An astronomical observatory is an unusual asset for a State Park system. The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission has failed to involve any bona fide expertise for Observatory oversight and management, developed no meaningful regional or statewide stakeholder processes or planning for the Observatory, nor have they taken the Observatory's original purposes seriously. This vacuum has allowed a small group of local political and business interests to set and dominate the agenda for the Observatory's future, which is focused solely on economic exploitation aimed at increasing tourism.
- The requirements for meeting Dark Sky Park certification were subverted by Goldendale Observatory State Park management and staff - who in lock-step with the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce's opposition to meaningful protection - demonstrated little interest in providing education and advocacy for conservation of the Observatory's dark night sky. It was this absence of leadership and "passionate advocacy" which ultimately led to the International Dark Sky Park revocation.
- This revocation came at a time when Washington taxpayers were spending 6 million dollars on facility upgrades for the Observatory, including costly enhancements to a telescope that requires a dark night sky for its superb views of the cosmos. Unfortunately, the celestial grandeur the Observatory is meant to explore will continue to suffer from inadequate protection at the local level. This investment will therefore be wasted as the night sky continues to experience ongoing and inevitable - but easily preventable - degradation.
|
|
By 2020 the IDA had certified 130 various Dark Sky Places distributed around the globe.
The Goldendale Observatory State Park is no longer one of them. |
|
The Details
The Details
With the arrival of Area Manager and Park Ranger Lemuel Pratt in 2013, Washington State Parks failed to provide the leadership needed to advocate for and promote the protection of the Observatory’s unique night sky natural heritage and its privileged status as an International Dark Sky Park. Pratt appeared to have little interest in science, let alone astronomy, and Observatory staff revealed that Pratt voiced his personal beliefs that the universe is only 6000 years old, denied the validity of climate change science, and stated that the International Dark Sky Park designation was part of an “environmentalist agenda” he'd just as soon see "go away." Pratt’s aversion to night sky stewardship and conservation was demonstrated when he failed to ensure that any sign was put up indicating the Observatory had achieved full status as an International Dark Sky Park. Instead, Pratt had a bright blue-white LED flagpole light installed pointing up toward the sky in explicit violation of local lighting codes and in defiance of dark sky protection principles included in the Observatory’s approved Washington State Parks 2010 Lighting Management Plan.
The IDA took notice of State Park staff’s indifference toward protection of the Dark Sky Park after Pratt hired Troy Carpenter. Carpenter apparently hastily left a highly paid position at Gamesa Technology Corporation in New York in April 2013 before moving 3000 miles away and stumbled into the entry level job as a Washington State Park Aide in May 2013. Pratt then promoted Carpenter to Interpretive Specialist for the Observatory in 2014. Carpenter submitted terse and incomplete annual reports to the IDA two years in a row, and then failed to submit one at all. Carpenter claimed he had not received the email reminder notices routinely sent to all Dark Sky Parks, and to which he had responded in the two previous years. This led the IDA to suspend the Observatory’s Dark Sky Park status on November 16, 2016 pending the receipt of a suitable report for further review. With Carpenter’s subsequent late report (SCRIBD article below), he stated his lack of interest in providing Dark Sky Park related activities or required night sky quality measurements. This fundamental lack of interest was previewed years earlier when Carpenter gave away the Sky Quality Meter provided by the IDA in 2010 which was needed to make the required night sky quality measurements. The IDA deemed Carpenter's late report inadequate and kept the suspension in place. Washington State Parks Interpretive Program Manager Ryan Karlson then had to take on the responsibility to rescue the Dark Sky Park status by submitting a more detailed and complete revised annual report.
|
Despite painting stars on sidewalks, the City of Goldendale and the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce have historically made little effort to ensure the Goldendale Observatory’s “international importance as a leading West Coast observatory” (Mayor Mike Canon, 2016) is maintained by ensuring stars remain visible in the sky.
|
|
The absence of a single night sky friendly outdoor lighting fixture at a local hardware store demonstrates the lack of awareness of the lighting codes for protecting the dark night sky of the Goldendale Observatory. |
|
Long-time visitors to the Goldendale Observatory have noticed that light pollution has increased in recent years, and Carpenter himself admitted “there is already too much light pollution from town to get a good view of deep space objects in the southern sky, like the center of our galaxy.” However, just after the IDA’s initial Dark Sky Park suspension, Carpenter told a meeting of Portland, Oregon’s Rose City Astronomers that light pollution was a “low priority” due to being “a politically charged issue and it makes us very unpopular every time we bring it up.” There is no public survey data of any kind to support this bald-faced assertion, but it does reveal Carpenter's obsession with being popular. Even if all 3400 people living in Goldendale made such statements, it would represent less than 10% of the claimed annual visitors to Goldendale Observatory. But nowhere near that many local people visit the Observatory, and the overwhelming numbers of visitors coming from around the world (and probably even Goldendale) likely don’t harbor such sentiments.
So who was Carpenter really referring to? Certainly it was not the vast majority of visitors to the Observatory, or the citizens and taxpayers of Washington State who pay his salary and own the Observatory.
What we do know is the topic of light pollution and its reduction was unpopular with Pratt and his local business and political associates, and of no interest to Carpenter. For example, in late 2014 a newspaper reporter called the author and proposed meeting to do a story concerning the installation of new city lighting at the Klickitat County Courthouse in Goldendale, which clearly violated both city and county lighting codes. The author suggested including Carpenter, the natural choice to represent the Goldendale Observatory International Dark Sky Park.
In a revealing preview of Carpenter's disinterest in night sky conservation and subsequent unethical behaviors, when asked to assist in coordinating a meeting time with the reporter, Carpenter deliberately had the meeting scheduled on a day the author told Carpenter he could not attend. Pursuing his own self-interest and priorities, Carpenter claimed that after a discussion with the reporter, she had decided to make the story about Carpenter and the "more interesting" upcoming building improvements, and that she was no longer as concerned with the city violating its own lighting codes or light pollution. When contacted regarding this alleged change of topic, the reporter flatly denied such a discussion had taken place, and reiterated that the subject of her reporting would indeed be installation of the non-compliant lighting. Thereafter the meeting was rescheduled in order to elevate the courthouse lighting issue to the public’s attention, and soon afterward the lights were commendably retrofitted with shielding to become more compliant with the existing lighting codes.
While Carpenter’s delinquent 2016 annual report to the IDA paradoxically claimed he provided the “low priority - very unpopular” dark sky programs to over 20,000 people the previous year, in reality he lied to the IDA, having failed to provide a single dark sky education program. In fact, Carpenter alleged he was prohibited by Pratt from bringing up any light pollution issues, even when off work on his own time (a violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution and Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution). After the initial Dark Sky Park suspension, and despite the fact that none of Carpenter's three annual reports to the IDA included the required night sky quality measurements or accurate numbers on dark sky education programs (zero), Pratt insisted to the media that the annual reports were complete and accurate, and that light-pollution education was indeed included in the park’s programming.
Shortly thereafter, Karlson's revised annual report to the IDA admitted that no required sky quality measurements had been made after Carpenter took over as Interpretive Specialist, and showed Carpenter's education claims to be deceitful: Karlson stated that Carpenter's dark sky "education" consisted of “once per scheduled program the Silver Tier International Dark Sky Park [designation] was referenced, and questions answered when asked regarding this designation and other dark skies preservation and light pollution related topics.” Emphasis added. Further proof of Carpenter's fraudulent statements to the IDA (and that light pollution topics are not as unpopular as Carpenter would have one believe) is that when he received a request to have a presentation on light pollution, Carpenter stated “We don't normally do presentations specifically on light pollution, but can mention the problem and show some images and time-lapse demonstrating it. This would only be about 5 or 10 minutes worth of material, however, and not something I recommend visiting the observatory at a special time for.”
This so-called dark sky "education" therefore completely failed to meet the IDA's clearly defined and explicit dark sky education program requirements or Washington State Parks previous commitments to the IDA (included in SCRIBD article below). While Carpenter publicly praised the Friends of Goldendale Observatory at the Rose City Astronomers meeting for their "hard work" towards dark sky education and advocacy in lieu of any of his own (and falsely claimed he participated in this education in annual reports to the IDA), he privately condemned these efforts in writing as “wasting money on light pollution”* and “hippie dippy activism.” Although Carpenter grandiosely stated he sees himself as “the next Carl Sagan,” he is apparently unfamiliar with Sagan’s outspoken social and environmental activism.
So who was Carpenter really referring to? Certainly it was not the vast majority of visitors to the Observatory, or the citizens and taxpayers of Washington State who pay his salary and own the Observatory.
What we do know is the topic of light pollution and its reduction was unpopular with Pratt and his local business and political associates, and of no interest to Carpenter. For example, in late 2014 a newspaper reporter called the author and proposed meeting to do a story concerning the installation of new city lighting at the Klickitat County Courthouse in Goldendale, which clearly violated both city and county lighting codes. The author suggested including Carpenter, the natural choice to represent the Goldendale Observatory International Dark Sky Park.
In a revealing preview of Carpenter's disinterest in night sky conservation and subsequent unethical behaviors, when asked to assist in coordinating a meeting time with the reporter, Carpenter deliberately had the meeting scheduled on a day the author told Carpenter he could not attend. Pursuing his own self-interest and priorities, Carpenter claimed that after a discussion with the reporter, she had decided to make the story about Carpenter and the "more interesting" upcoming building improvements, and that she was no longer as concerned with the city violating its own lighting codes or light pollution. When contacted regarding this alleged change of topic, the reporter flatly denied such a discussion had taken place, and reiterated that the subject of her reporting would indeed be installation of the non-compliant lighting. Thereafter the meeting was rescheduled in order to elevate the courthouse lighting issue to the public’s attention, and soon afterward the lights were commendably retrofitted with shielding to become more compliant with the existing lighting codes.
While Carpenter’s delinquent 2016 annual report to the IDA paradoxically claimed he provided the “low priority - very unpopular” dark sky programs to over 20,000 people the previous year, in reality he lied to the IDA, having failed to provide a single dark sky education program. In fact, Carpenter alleged he was prohibited by Pratt from bringing up any light pollution issues, even when off work on his own time (a violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution and Section 5 of the Washington State Constitution). After the initial Dark Sky Park suspension, and despite the fact that none of Carpenter's three annual reports to the IDA included the required night sky quality measurements or accurate numbers on dark sky education programs (zero), Pratt insisted to the media that the annual reports were complete and accurate, and that light-pollution education was indeed included in the park’s programming.
Shortly thereafter, Karlson's revised annual report to the IDA admitted that no required sky quality measurements had been made after Carpenter took over as Interpretive Specialist, and showed Carpenter's education claims to be deceitful: Karlson stated that Carpenter's dark sky "education" consisted of “once per scheduled program the Silver Tier International Dark Sky Park [designation] was referenced, and questions answered when asked regarding this designation and other dark skies preservation and light pollution related topics.” Emphasis added. Further proof of Carpenter's fraudulent statements to the IDA (and that light pollution topics are not as unpopular as Carpenter would have one believe) is that when he received a request to have a presentation on light pollution, Carpenter stated “We don't normally do presentations specifically on light pollution, but can mention the problem and show some images and time-lapse demonstrating it. This would only be about 5 or 10 minutes worth of material, however, and not something I recommend visiting the observatory at a special time for.”
This so-called dark sky "education" therefore completely failed to meet the IDA's clearly defined and explicit dark sky education program requirements or Washington State Parks previous commitments to the IDA (included in SCRIBD article below). While Carpenter publicly praised the Friends of Goldendale Observatory at the Rose City Astronomers meeting for their "hard work" towards dark sky education and advocacy in lieu of any of his own (and falsely claimed he participated in this education in annual reports to the IDA), he privately condemned these efforts in writing as “wasting money on light pollution”* and “hippie dippy activism.” Although Carpenter grandiosely stated he sees himself as “the next Carl Sagan,” he is apparently unfamiliar with Sagan’s outspoken social and environmental activism.
* SPEAKING OF WASTING MONEY
New concrete decking circa 2015.
|
Phase 3 Grounds Renovation Patano Studio Architecture
|
|
(Above left) Washington taxpayers reportedly spent over $50,000 for a few hundred square feet of new concrete deck and a walkway adjoining the Observatory - and then more to remove it: This exceptionally expensive concrete was demolished (area of the yellow arrow above right) to make way for the new building and landscaping construction scheduled to take place only a year or two later. Seen on the left is the "Phase 3" remodel and expansion showing the removed concrete deck and walkway. |
Carpenter states that he is "coordinating facility upgrades and directing Observatory operations." These funds represented an opportunity cost that could have been better expended on additional portable telescopes, new eyepieces and camera equipment, upgraded telescope components, permanent night sky monitoring equipment, much needed dome repairs and temperature control re-painting... or a mobile educational outreach van with a portable planetarium.
Patano Studio Architecture
|
Bechtel Planetarium, Columbia Basin College, Pasco, WA
Speaking of planetariums: An alternative facility design incorporating a twenty-first century multi-purpose & multimedia planetarium/theater/classroom (left above & above) - which can simulate a star-filled sky even during inclement weather - would have been superior to the mundane classroom with "stars" on the ceiling (left bottom) which was chosen for educational use. Based on other similar facilities costs, a planetarium-based theater classroom may have cost up to 2 million dollars, about one third of the close to 6 million dollar budget for the new facility and parking construction. Carpenter dismissed a planetarium as not to his liking, and "too expensive." No financials apparently were performed, nor was any qualified astronomy or science education stakeholder input solicited regarding this decision.
|
|
This highlights the root cause of most if not all of the mismanagement issues with the Goldendale Observatory: Unlike many other public and private astronomy related education organizations, Washington State Parks has not involved a broad spectrum of stakeholders or relevant expertise in operating its public observatory and science education facility.
And speaking of "too expensive," at his November 2016 presentation to the Rose City Astronomers, Carpenter stated that an improved 24-inch telescope mirror made of much more thermally stable fused quartz (recommended by the author years earlier) for the main telescope might cost up to $250,000 - a total fabrication. This preposterous claim was apparently made to his unwitting superiors in order to justify the purchase of an ultra-lightweight cellular mirror costing a "discounted" $25,000, which Carpenter boasted is used by NASA for spacecraft. Carpenter later claimed he desired this cellular mirror because it could be more effectively mounted - a farcical and economically unjustifiable reason used to rationalize his original highly questionable purchase decision to naive supervisors and the public. It is also ironic that while Carpenter never hesitates to state the the 24 inch telescope was not intended to be used for astronomical research, he chose a hugely expensive "research quality NASA mirror" for the telescope upgrade.
Concerned that the Observatory's telescope would not likely ever be put into Earth orbit, combined with the multiple production failures and the large opportunity cost this "NASA mirror" represented, the author "blew the whistle" to the State in December 2016. I advised that optically excellent fused quartz 24-inch telescope mirrors could be obtained for half of what Carpenter was spending on the "NASA" cellular mirror, and that an excellent fused quartz telescope mirror could be produced in Washington State (a procurement requirement when appropriate and available) by a highly regarded telescope mirror maker that I had originally recommended in 2014. A 25-inch fused quartz mirror from this company was subsequently purchased in 2017 and installed - potentially saving Washington State taxpayers over $12,000.
Carpenter's claim that the "NASA" cellular mirror was less expensive than a standard fused quartz mirror should have been a "red flag" for either incompetence or deliberate deception. Unfortunately, due to Carpenter's insistence on the need for the "NASA" mirror - and Washington State Parks lack of familiarity with telescope optics and belief that Carpenter is a "subject matter expert" - the cellular mirror procurement was pursued, and then turned into a fiasco. State Parks made a 50% non-refundable deposit ($12,495) on the "NASA" primary and secondary mirrors, and apparently ended up losing thousands of taxpayer dollars when the order had to be cancelled due to production delays of over two years. According to the cellular mirror provider, the delays resulted from Carpenter failing to first provide and then changing the specifications for the mirror's focal length, and subsequent unforeseen failures in the casting of a complex and essentially experimental large cellular primary mirror design:
Concerned that the Observatory's telescope would not likely ever be put into Earth orbit, combined with the multiple production failures and the large opportunity cost this "NASA mirror" represented, the author "blew the whistle" to the State in December 2016. I advised that optically excellent fused quartz 24-inch telescope mirrors could be obtained for half of what Carpenter was spending on the "NASA" cellular mirror, and that an excellent fused quartz telescope mirror could be produced in Washington State (a procurement requirement when appropriate and available) by a highly regarded telescope mirror maker that I had originally recommended in 2014. A 25-inch fused quartz mirror from this company was subsequently purchased in 2017 and installed - potentially saving Washington State taxpayers over $12,000.
Carpenter's claim that the "NASA" cellular mirror was less expensive than a standard fused quartz mirror should have been a "red flag" for either incompetence or deliberate deception. Unfortunately, due to Carpenter's insistence on the need for the "NASA" mirror - and Washington State Parks lack of familiarity with telescope optics and belief that Carpenter is a "subject matter expert" - the cellular mirror procurement was pursued, and then turned into a fiasco. State Parks made a 50% non-refundable deposit ($12,495) on the "NASA" primary and secondary mirrors, and apparently ended up losing thousands of taxpayer dollars when the order had to be cancelled due to production delays of over two years. According to the cellular mirror provider, the delays resulted from Carpenter failing to first provide and then changing the specifications for the mirror's focal length, and subsequent unforeseen failures in the casting of a complex and essentially experimental large cellular primary mirror design:
An unnecessarily lightweight, complex, and very expensive mirror design for a 0.6 meter terrestrial telescope.
State Parks was informed - in years prior to and after being under time-pressure duress - of telescope mirror reality. With the imminent approach of the end of the funding biennium, and having exposed Carpenter's claims regarding the cost of a fused quartz mirror as being totally false, a modern monolithic thin fused quartz mirror was ordered and fabricated in just two months by one of the most highly regarded telescope mirror makers in the world, at a relatively modest cost of $13,000.
In May of 2019 Carpenter claimed he had "known about this guy since I was a teenager... If he's not one of the world's best mirror makers he's in the top three, who by bizarre coincidence lives in Washington State... I had no idea he lived in Washington. Because of his last name, I thought he lived in Africa or Italy or something." This is a laughable statement for many reasons, not the least of which is that it came from someone claiming to be a "subject matter expert." It is even more concerning in light of the fact that State Parks was sent a detailed email in August 2014 regarding three or four highly regarded USA sources for telescope mirror testing and replacement which included Lockwood Custom Optics and Zambuto Optical Co., which apparently were never looked into.
In reality it appears Carpenter had decided to pursue the much more expensive "NASA" cellular mirror for which there was little significant advantage compared to fused quartz other than its marginally reduced weight. State Parks managers, lacking related expertise and easily bamboozled by technical jargon, apparently never verified any of Carpenter's exaggerated and invented claims. Purchase of the expensive "NASA" cellular mirror seems to have been motivated solely for its ability to garner attention for what Carpenter touted was its uniqueness:
Carpenter claimed the supplier had only done business with NASA and The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which was also a complete fabrication. (See the references to Dream Cellular by Cowan, Lockwood, et.al. made in 2011).
On the other hand - thanks to Carpenter - the Goldendale Observatory telescope is now quite unique in all the world:
|
|
The world’s most ridiculous telescope focuser - before (left) and after (right) the new primary mirror installation. Also note the use of the 1960's era original unmodified Cassegrain secondary mirror support vanes (aka "spider").
|
|
Demonstrating a lack of basic telescope design knowledge and expertise, Carpenter ordered the new telescope primary mirror with the focal length close to if not the same as the original f/5 + Cassegrain telescope design, instead of a more appropriate shorter focal length of an ~ f/4 primary mirror suitable for the Newtonian configuration and ideal for the existing telescope structure dimensions. Significantly, a shorter focal length mirror would have provided better public viewing experiences with even wider fields of view and brighter images at lower magnifications for large nebulas and faint galaxies - the main argument the author made to Carpenter and State Parks for the reconfiguration to a Newtonian telescope in the first place. Combined with a relatively inexpensive coma corrector, this "fast" mirror-coma corrector optical system has been used for almost every large aperture Newtonian telescope design for decades - by both amateurs and professionals:
|
|
Oregon telescope making guru Mel Bartels demonstrating a 25 inch f/3.6 Newtonian telescope using a very low profile focuser with a TeleVue Paracorr coma corrector.
|
|
SPACE SITUATIONAL AWARENESS TELESCOPE DESIGN
|
|
"The telescope features a 24” (0.6-m) F/4 Newtonian truss tube design, where a parabolic primary mirror focuses light onto a flat secondary mirror, which diverts the light to the corrective optics and the camera module. The coma from the F/4 optical system was corrected with a Televue Paracorr Coma Corrector in the focuser." University of Arizona
|
|
The cantilevered focuser base assembly attached to the rotation ring, with a defunct enlarger bellows serving as the base for the focuser itself. Along with the added weight of the finder telescope, this assembly is unstable, and the focuser can be obstructed by the telescope's truss tube structure.
|
The new primary mirror's focal length and positioning was done in order to retain Carpenter's “unique” repurposing of an obsolete photographic enlarger bellows - secured to the telescope by trial and error - which was originally stated as being "temporary" for using the original mirror’s longer focal length while a new mirror (which could be made at any desired focal length) was in the works.
Basic mechanical engineering principles state there is no such thing as a stable two-legged stool, and the cantilevered base plate, two-rod bellows mechanism, and pivoted focuser base support are all inherently unstable. This is especially true for such a critical component as the focuser: The focuser - eyepiece - camera would have a large moment-arm force when placed in a non-vertical position, and most likely has an alignment issue due to the improvised cantilevered bellows mechanism. You are unlikely to find this focuser implementation on any other telescope in the world - for good reason. |
A Beseler 23C surplus enlarger bellows (~ $25 on eBay) - employed as the support base for the heavy Starlight focuser and a wide-field eyepiece. Note the additional potential for instability from the lens stage rotation mechanism, and the relatively small size of an enlarger lens compared to a larger focuser and eyepiece/camera assembly.
|
|
Additionally, the 3.5 inch long-travel drawtube focuser is completely inappropriate and potentially reduces the illumination at the edge of the focal plane for low power visual use and significantly vignettes full-frame large sensor and filter wheel astrophotography use. This defeats the only purpose one could have for using an oversized secondary mirror. A redesigned Newtonian secondary mirror support and revised secondary mirror placement (instead of repurposing the original Cassegrain secondary mirror support) would have also resulted in a smaller secondary mirror and much more stable rotating focuser implementation. The repurposing of the Cassegrain secondary mirror spider placed the Newtonian secondary mirror below the end-rings and within the path of the truss supports, as seen above. |
|
|
The ideal implementation for both visual and large-format imaging purposes would have incorporated interchangeable visual and imaging coma correctors, a larger diameter low profile 1.5 inch travel Newtonian focuser, and a significantly smaller 4.0 to 4.25 inch secondary mirror with an ~ f/4 primary mirror. This could have been accomplished with a repositioned secondary mirror location and a revised secondary mirror support such as the wire system used by Bartels (visible in the picture above). This would have worked well with the existing flange and rotation system, and offered even less diffraction and enhanced contrast performance. Placing the focuser forward of the rotating ring bearing could have also avoided truss tube interference and allowed a more stable focuser mount, as shown to the right, and below.
|
|
|
|
|
Left: An optimized Newtonain telescope achieved by keeping the focal point distance to the secondary mirror as short as possible and using a low profile focuser, resulting in the use of a smaller secondary mirror. Right: Example of a low profile focuser implementation by an experienced telescope maker for a 22 inch telescope.
|
A properly sized and configured secondary mirror and low-profile focuser could have been easily implemented, and far less costly and deleterious, than the telescope's current poorly designed configuration.
|
“Remember, even with the highest quality optics a Newtonian can be rendered nearly useless by tube currents, misaligned components, mirror strain, and a secondary mirror too large for the application of the instrument. An important thing to remember is to keep the distance from the secondary mirror to the focal point to a minimum. This aligns the secondary mirror in a smaller angle within the optical path that is closer to the focal point and results in a smaller [secondary] mirror... Also in keeping the secondary mirror to the focal point to a minimum one must select a low profile focuser...” Emphasis added.
Practical Calculations for Designing a Newtonian Telescope, J. Beish (August 2016)
Practical Calculations for Designing a Newtonian Telescope, J. Beish (August 2016)
Not only could the money and effort expended by Washington State Parks on Carpenter's "novel" Rube Goldberg focuser design and its multiple embodiments be used to provide for a much superior secondary mirror and low-profile focuser implementation, it likely could have purchased the Paracorr visual coma corrector ($490 new, ~ $350-400 used) for use with a shorter focal length primary mirror. The coma correction of an f/4 mirror used with the Paracorr is equivalent to using an f/13 + primary mirror, and far superior to the uncorrected f/5 mirror.
Instead, Carpenter coupled the ~ f/5 mirror design with the extended focal point to secondary mirror distance, to the purchase of an exorbitantly expensive and oversized 6 inch uselessly lightweight cellular secondary diagonal mirror and an even more ridiculously expensive carbon fiber secondary mirror mount ($2975 and $1485 respectively). Like the extravagantly expensive lightweight cellular primary mirror, this oversized secondary mirror was completely unnecessary, and degrades contrast compared to using a more appropriate smaller secondary mirror. This defeats the superb contrast performance that is otherwise possible with the primary mirror, which is one of the main reasons for going with a higher-end mirror from a supplier such as Zambuto, and paying the premium price for such optical performance.
Instead, Carpenter coupled the ~ f/5 mirror design with the extended focal point to secondary mirror distance, to the purchase of an exorbitantly expensive and oversized 6 inch uselessly lightweight cellular secondary diagonal mirror and an even more ridiculously expensive carbon fiber secondary mirror mount ($2975 and $1485 respectively). Like the extravagantly expensive lightweight cellular primary mirror, this oversized secondary mirror was completely unnecessary, and degrades contrast compared to using a more appropriate smaller secondary mirror. This defeats the superb contrast performance that is otherwise possible with the primary mirror, which is one of the main reasons for going with a higher-end mirror from a supplier such as Zambuto, and paying the premium price for such optical performance.
|
|
The detrimental effects on contrast caused by increased central obstruction by the secondary mirror as a percent of aperture.
Ian Morison, Jodrell Bank, University of Manchester.
|
|
The secondary mirrors from a vendor that are manufactured by the supplier recommended by Zambuto Optical would cost $1200 for a similarly oversized 6 inch secondary mirror ($1775 savings), and only $630 for a more appropriate 4.25 inch secondary ($2345 savings).
Either secondary mirror could have been firmly supported by a well regarded and widely used secondary mirror holder ($125 and $62 respectively) and super-duty thin-vane "spider assembly" ($185), which would have saved taxpayers at least a minimum of $1175, and would be quite superior to the existing repurposing of the 1960's era Cassegrain spider (thinner vanes = less diffraction = better contrast). In fact, these are the exact same secondary mirror components that are used in the University of Arizona's 24 inch f/4 Space Situational Awareness Telescope (arrow below).
Either secondary mirror could have been firmly supported by a well regarded and widely used secondary mirror holder ($125 and $62 respectively) and super-duty thin-vane "spider assembly" ($185), which would have saved taxpayers at least a minimum of $1175, and would be quite superior to the existing repurposing of the 1960's era Cassegrain spider (thinner vanes = less diffraction = better contrast). In fact, these are the exact same secondary mirror components that are used in the University of Arizona's 24 inch f/4 Space Situational Awareness Telescope (arrow below).
A research grade telescope utilizing an off-the-shelf secondary mirror support system: ~ $310.
GOSP telescope back plate and "mirror bucket."
|
Another area of concern which indicates a substantial lack of knowledge regarding modern reflector telescope design principles is Carpenter’s deliberate decision to leave the primary mirror enclosed within the existing unmodified “mirror bucket,” which is poorly ventilated at best. Even though a fused quartz mirror has a low coefficient of thermal expansion and will retain a good optical figure through a large range of temperature changes (if properly mounted and supported), it is still a rather large piece of material and has a thermal mass that will radiate heat to the surrounding air. This creates turbulence in the mirror-to-air boundary layer and above as this heated air rises and will affect the visibility of fine detail on any extended objects such as planets and the moon.
|
|
|
|
To reduce this turbulence and the cool-down time of large thin telescope mirrors - no matter what the substrate - the best practice is to have the mirror in the open as much as possible. More importantly, small fans are universally employed to assist in reducing the cool down time, track falling nighttime temperatures, and flush the boundary layer.
Leaving the new mirror almost totally enclosed in the unmodified and poorly-ventilated thick metal mirror bucket only insulates the mirror in a static blanket of surrounding ambient air, and can significantly extend its cool-down time. This could have been easily mitigated by simply ventilating the existing mirror bucket with fans as shown above middle and right. Instead, Carpenter stated his "favorite part of the [mirror] story" is that he - in collaboration with Washington State Park Ranger Andy Kallinen who has no telescope expertise of any kind - decided they "could leave it as it was" and that "no new holes" were needed, and the telescope was "dramatically improved without chopping it up."
Leaving the new mirror almost totally enclosed in the unmodified and poorly-ventilated thick metal mirror bucket only insulates the mirror in a static blanket of surrounding ambient air, and can significantly extend its cool-down time. This could have been easily mitigated by simply ventilating the existing mirror bucket with fans as shown above middle and right. Instead, Carpenter stated his "favorite part of the [mirror] story" is that he - in collaboration with Washington State Park Ranger Andy Kallinen who has no telescope expertise of any kind - decided they "could leave it as it was" and that "no new holes" were needed, and the telescope was "dramatically improved without chopping it up."
24 inch mirror cell with 18 point floatation and whiffletree edge support. University of Arizona.
|
Mirror cell with 18 point floatation, whiffletree lateral support, and boundary layer scrub fans. Starstructure Telescopes.
|
|
While Carpenter alleges he failed to initially consider obtaining one of the "worlds best" primary mirrors from possibly the most well-known telescope mirror maker in the USA apparently because he erroneously assumed it was made in “Africa or Italy or something,” he had no problem getting other critical components abroad. However, given the foregoing issues, there is reason to question the design of the mirror’s supporting cell, described as being a “plate” (singular) made in England, when state-of-the-art primary mirror cell makers are well known and available nearby in the USA, and 18 point multiple-plate floatation mirror support cells are the standard for a 25 inch mirror. This is especially important for a large thin mirror as is now employed in the GOSP telescope, in order that it doesn't deform under its own weight. Carpenter appears to believe that because fused silica is "harder than regular glass" it therefore is immune to flexure, which is absolutely not the case. Next to the primary mirror quality itself, proper support of the primary mirror is the most important consideration - and critical to its optical performance.
Shown at right are two state-of-the art mirror cells made in the USA. Note these employ the same whiffletree multiple-point flotation design used in the University of Arizona's Space Situational Awareness instrument shown above. Such a mirror cell could have been easily afforded (~ $1,600 to $3,000) with the savings from the aborted "NASA" cellular mirror. Unfortunately, Carpenter's choice of an even larger fused quartz mirror (25 inches in diameter versus the original mirror's 24.5 inch aperture) was not only inappropriate (and a waste of money) due the telescope's smaller front truss ring flange inside diameter* (an "aperture stop" that renders the increased aperture worthless) - the larger mirror now makes using such a mirror cell with whiffletree roller lateral support almost if not completely impossible using the existing mirror bucket support structure. There quite likely is simply not enough clearance between the mirror and the bucket wall. Otherwise, given the new mirror is 4 inches less thick than the original mirror, there would likely have been more than enough room in the existing "mirror bucket" for the requisite fans and a best-practices mirror support structure. |
Examples of micro-deformations of telescope mirrors.
25 inch 18 pt flotation whiffletree ALT-AZ implementation.
20 inch 18 pt flotation whiffletree Equatorial implementation
|
|
* Carpenter was aware of this issue, but apparently chose to ignore it. The front secondary support truss ring should be large enough to allow a cone of light that subtends at least +0.5 degree on the optical axis to pass through the entrance of the telescope without obstruction. For a 25 inch f/5 primary mirror, this would be about 26.5 inches. Given the telescope's undersized diameter truss flange ring(s), a 23-24 inch ~ f/4 mirror would have been the most appropriate diameter/focal length mirror for the telescope's existing structure.
|
The proper sizing of a Newtonian primary mirror and secondary support cage (note low-profile focuser). The angle shown has been exaggerated for clarity. D. Kriege & R. Berry.
|
Secondary support spider, low profile focuser, and lathe-turned precisely-centered focuser rotating ring assembly.
Back plate assembly with filter-equipped mirror ventilation fans.
|
The Edward R. Byers Co., with over 60 years of telescope building experience, was strongly recommended to Washington State Parks as a consultant for the Newtonian conversion at the beginning of the telescope upgrade process in 2014 - and then again in 2016 - particularly for the telescope secondary mirror support and rotating focuser implementation. Byers was a legend in the astronomy community, and built an outstanding example of such features for a large Newtonian telescope which can be seen at left.
However, Carpenter - with no previous telescope design or building experience - felt he could MacGyver a solution, proving once again you get what you pay for. What is truly amazing is that Washington State Parks would pay $50,000 or more for a relatively small amount of temporary concrete work, while skimping on the valued heritage telescope asset itself, and end up with the embarrassingly inept results detailed above. August 20, 2014 "It's important to repeat that we already have in storage a secondary mirror assembly that will work in a Newtonian configuration. The only custom work needing to be done is a provision for rotation (Teflon or roller-bearings) and finding a way to affix the new focuser to the side of the assembly. This can be accomplished in many different ways by anyone with metal (or possibly wood-working) skills. In other words, while I appreciate the genius expertise of guys like Ed Byers, it may be a waste of money to secure his services in this particular instance." Troy J Carpenter, Interpretive Specialist Goldendale Observatory State Park Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission |
While Carpenter boasts he’s the “Administrator of the Observatory with America’s best public telescope," this absurdly pretentious claim obviously isn't even close to reality. Unfortunately, these costly and difficult-to-remedy GOSP telescope modification errors were inevitable given Washington State Park’s lack of familiarity with all things astronomical, compounded by a defective hiring process for an individual who appears to believe (and convinced others less knowledgeable) that he is a "subject matter expert" about all things astronomical, without any independent or objective verification of the requisite knowledge and skill sets. This is exacerbated by an unwillingness to seek outside consultation on almost any aspect of specialized observatory operations and equipment for which there is little familiarity, let alone expertise. It clearly demonstrates the lack of organizational and project management competence, and reinforces the need for knowledgeable and qualified independent consultation and oversight when making important decisions regarding the taxpayer's Observatory and its celebrated telescope in order to avoid a similar "waste of money."
Getting back to "wasting money" on "hippy-dippy" dark skies "activism..."
DarkSkies Northwest IDA Chapter leader David Ingram, who attended Carpenter's Rose City Astronomers presentation, noted that while Carpenter spoke at length about the forthcoming building and telescope improvements - and took the opportunity to ridicule his predecessor Stout for his dark sky advocacy efforts - he completely failed to mention that Goldendale Observatory was an International Dark Sky Park. However, on December 30, 2016, Washington State Parks Director Don Hoch assured the IDA that Carpenter’s “low priority” views on light pollution were “not reflective of State Parks position on the issue.” Carpenter apparently didn’t get the memo or chose to ignore it. In April 2017 - while the Dark Sky Park certification remained suspended pending Karlson's revised submission - Carpenter again publicly stated “It's true, dark skies are not a high personal priority for me,” this time citing what he perceives as the more important capital facilities and building improvements. It is difficult to understand why one would be incompatible with the other, as there are minimal budgetary or time allocation issues in meeting the IDA dark sky programming requirements (see SCRIBD document below). Regardless, at this point the IDA likely had little doubt concerning the sincerity with which Carpenter emphasized his lack of interest in dark sky programming or advocating for the protection for one of the more prestigious International Dark Sky Parks in the world.
DarkSkies Northwest IDA Chapter leader David Ingram, who attended Carpenter's Rose City Astronomers presentation, noted that while Carpenter spoke at length about the forthcoming building and telescope improvements - and took the opportunity to ridicule his predecessor Stout for his dark sky advocacy efforts - he completely failed to mention that Goldendale Observatory was an International Dark Sky Park. However, on December 30, 2016, Washington State Parks Director Don Hoch assured the IDA that Carpenter’s “low priority” views on light pollution were “not reflective of State Parks position on the issue.” Carpenter apparently didn’t get the memo or chose to ignore it. In April 2017 - while the Dark Sky Park certification remained suspended pending Karlson's revised submission - Carpenter again publicly stated “It's true, dark skies are not a high personal priority for me,” this time citing what he perceives as the more important capital facilities and building improvements. It is difficult to understand why one would be incompatible with the other, as there are minimal budgetary or time allocation issues in meeting the IDA dark sky programming requirements (see SCRIBD document below). Regardless, at this point the IDA likely had little doubt concerning the sincerity with which Carpenter emphasized his lack of interest in dark sky programming or advocating for the protection for one of the more prestigious International Dark Sky Parks in the world.
|
Carpenter personally stated many times his main objective is to make a name for himself before moving on to greener pastures. This may help to explain his lack of interest in long-term night sky protection for the Observatory, the preoccupation with the capital facilities improvements he hopes to take credit for (which included the aborted "NASA mirror"), emphasis on being "popular," and exaggerating visitor counts. He appears to have issues involving amateur astronomers with the Goldendale Observatory to any significant degree, unlike the National Park Service, which takes dark sky protection, education, and ecotourism seriously.
Despite complaining about "incompetent" ancillary State Park Aides who lack astronomy or telescope familiarity (ironic given the foregoing telescope upgrade issues), when the President of the Rose City Astronomers offered to assist with providing volunteers at the Observatory in exchange for off-hours telescope time, Carpenter condescendingly stated the telescope was “not a toy." When RCA member's participation as docents was discussed, Carpenter stated that he didn’t want the Observatory “to become a club house.” These comments are not befitting of these amateur astronomers, many whose decades-long knowledge and abilities in astronomy and handling of sophisticated telescope equipment far exceeds Carpenter's. The reality is that the telescope was originally and explicitly intended to be available for use by amateur astronomers, and was indeed built by amateurs. However, as will be shown, it's no surprise that Carpenter has convinced his superiors that amateur astronomers are an insignificant visitor constituency, and therefore their concerns, including protecting the Observatory’s night sky, are essentially irrelevant to the Observatory's operation. |
From the Goldendale Observatory's circa 1976 brochure:
|
Sophisticated well-equipped amateur astronomers from Portland, Seattle, and the Tri-Cities could be advantageous as volunteers and docents in helping with Observatory programs and providing additional telescopes and personnel to operate them during peak visitation periods.
|
State Park staff appear uninterested in (or perhaps intimidated by) such collaboration, even though participation of amateur astronomer volunteers was originally an integral part of the Observatory operations, and volunteers figure prominently in the State Parks Strategic Plan in order to "leverage resources and make parks welcoming to visitors."
|
More troubling, Pratt and Carpenter allied with Goldendale Chamber of Commerce Director Dana Peck in their opposition to promoting meaningful dark sky stewardship measures. Peck, who like Pratt has absolutely no knowledge of astronomy, telescopes, or observatories, has actually been invited as an interviewer on the hiring committee at the Observatory by Pratt. Although he champions the Observatory for tourism, Peck outright rejects enforcement of Goldendale and Klickitat County lighting codes intended to protect the Observatory’s night sky. The Chamber’s value for the Goldendale Observatory was summarized by its Vice President Jonathan Lewis, who equated it to an “amusement park," and when asked about his interest in astronomy stated “the Chamber sees the Observatory as key to getting people to stay at the hotels.”
|
The Goldendale Quality Inn Hotel is operated by State Representative Gina Mosbrucker and her family. Mosbrucker is a former VP and Executive Director of the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce. |
|
Even though the Observatory has belonged to the State and all its citizens since 1980, in 2003 amateur astronomers not residing in Goldendale or Klickitat County were apparently disparaged by a few locals as “outsiders” due to their advocacy for implementation of long-ignored city and county lighting codes to protect the Observatory’s night sky, especially by those concerned with building of the Calpine (now Puget Sound Energy) gas turbine power plant. According to the Friends President at the time, Peck (then Director of Klickitat County Economic Development) participated in (and per a local reporter takes credit for organizing) a coup of Goldendale locals that removed these amateur astronomers from the Friends Board of Directors, which thereafter left Peck in place as a the Board President. The Friends group was immediately disbanded by Peck and his allies. Peck’s Machiavellian ends-justify-the-means behavior and unwillingness to be an authentic advocate for night-sky protection is therefore well known in the amateur astronomy community.
|
|
Before being shut down by Peck and his associates, Interpretive Specialist Steven Stout and Friends of Goldendale Observatory members met with Calpine officials to help ensure the use of full cutoff ("fully shielded") lighting fixtures which complied with the Goldendale and Klickitat Co. lighting codes. The result is a dramatic reduction in scattered light and resulting skyglow, as seen above on the right compared to the unshielded and partially shielded out-of-compliance lighting fixtures found throughout Goldendale and Klickitat County. Downtown Goldendale in center, Hwy 97 & Simcoe Road business complex on left.
|
|
Instead of Washington State Parks advocating for lighting code compliance in order to protect the night sky of the Observatory, it seems Pratt and/or Carpenter influenced Washington State Parks Director Hoch to naively inform the IDA that the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce would be part of a "partnership network" to provide advocacy for regulatory compliance with lighting codes. Under Peck's direction, this is equivalent to stating the Klu Klux Klan will be a partner for promotion of enforcement of anti-discrimination laws - a ludicrous proposition at best.
Moreover, the IDA does not allow the re-assignment or contracting out of the responsibilities required for Dark Sky Park Certification, including that “participants serve as a beacon in their community for stewardship and passionate advocacy for the night sky.” Indeed, the IDA requires "cooperation with at least two nearby municipalities that results in adoption of lighting policies that improve sky conditions in the Park" (emphasis added). One would think this would include encouraging support for regulatory compliance with the existing outdoor lighting codes and best practices, which the IDA considers an important tool for protecting the night sky. Indeed, enforcement of lighting codes is critical to limit the adverse "off-site" impacts of outdoor lighting.
Moreover, the IDA does not allow the re-assignment or contracting out of the responsibilities required for Dark Sky Park Certification, including that “participants serve as a beacon in their community for stewardship and passionate advocacy for the night sky.” Indeed, the IDA requires "cooperation with at least two nearby municipalities that results in adoption of lighting policies that improve sky conditions in the Park" (emphasis added). One would think this would include encouraging support for regulatory compliance with the existing outdoor lighting codes and best practices, which the IDA considers an important tool for protecting the night sky. Indeed, enforcement of lighting codes is critical to limit the adverse "off-site" impacts of outdoor lighting.
Given that Washington State Parks under Pratt and Carpenter had abandoned all dark sky advocacy and education required for the Certified International Dark Sky Park, the Friends incorporated this activity into their mission, presentations, and website education. Apparently this was not acceptable to Pratt or Carpenter. Carpenter, who offered to help set up the reconstituted Friends group website and PayPal account, admitted publicly that he, Peck, and Lewis – with Pratt's knowledge and approval – conspired in having the Chamber of Commerce take over the Friends website in April 2017.
Though Carpenter was allegedly prohibited from "any involvement with or ownership" of the Friend's website or financial accounts per Washington State Parks Eastern Region Manager Scott Griffith (who later charged Pratt with the execution of this policy), Carpenter unabashedly stated publicly that from the beginning it was "a policy I had every intention of violating." Carpenter indeed secretly owned both the website domain and URL, and stated that Region Manager Griffith was kept "oblivious to the details of it." Knowing he was prohibited from owning or operating his own Observatory related website (State Parks has its own website for every individual park), Carpenter stated that while he didn't initially want to have an Observatory Friends group, he came to value the idea "because I needed to have someone pay for the darn website."
Additionally, without informing the Friends Board of Directors (including the septuagenarian treasurer responsible for the setting up the Friends PayPal and website accounts with Carpenters "help"), Carpenter made himself the primary contact for the independent 501c3 non-profit organization's PayPal account - and gave himself access to all records and transactions, including the ability to generate invoices and receipts without permission or approval. This was how he knew the Friends were "wasting money" (less than $700) on what he considers "hippy-dippy activism" promoting the conservation of the Observatory's night sky, which of course was not a priority for him, as it made him "very unpopular" with folks like Peck and Pratt. Carpenter rationalized his access and narcissistic entitlement was due to his greatly superior abilities, and the belief that all Friends activities and property should only benefit and belong to the Observatory (and be under his control) anyway.
Carpenter therefore believed this entitled him to take and sell Friends property without asking or informing anyone (and thereafter cast blame on another State Park's employee - after she left the Observatory under curious circumstances and couldn't defend herself). Carpenter subsequently generated a forged Friends invoice with my name on it after the fact, and without my or any other Friends Board member's knowledge or approval. While Carpenter stated in writing he had created multiple FOGO invoices before with the prior treasure's approval, it was revealed through easily procured PayPal records and the statements of the treasurer herself that this had never previously taken place. Carpenter's deceptively numbering the invoice as "no. 4" indicates a deliberate premeditated intent to deceive.
After securing the Friends financial accounts from access by Carpenter as directed by his immediate supervisor, I informed Carpenter in writing any communications issues and misunderstandings would be forgiven, but that future business transactions would need written approval in advance and have Board approval. Carpenter immediately employed the tactics of name calling, a smear campaign, and enlisted others as flying monkeys to support his version of reality. Typical of a smear campaign, Carpenter and his followers went so far as to state I was the problem for voicing my appropriate fiduciary concerns, stated I was mentally ill, and an "enemy of the observatory." Carpenter enlisted several acquaintances, including Lewis, in this effort. One accomplice (revealed to be a former co-worker from Gamesa Technology Corporation living in New York) contributed to the smear campaign in a local newspaper. Carpenter publicly referred to me as a "particularly troubled local" for calling out the Observatory's deliberate failures to meet IDA Dark Sky Park requirements, and his false reports to the IDA. In this he was correct - I'm troubled with people who lie and attempt to manipulate.
After several months of the smear campaign, undermining, and marginalizing, Washington State Parks management was made aware of these and other significant problems - triggered most prominently by Carpenter's dishonest public statements regarding the fused quartz versus "NASA" primary mirror costs made to the Rose City Astronomers and the insult aimed at Stout for his dark-sky advocacy. After a so-called "investigation" which amounted to little more than an airing of the orchestrated smear campaign and a coverup of Carpenter's behaviors, Carpenter claimed he received a slap on the wrist for his unprofessional name-calling behaviors - followed by a pay raise and new title of Observatory Administrator.
arpenter's popularity as a public speaker and generator of Discover Pass sales seems to have led to a textbook example of looking the other way - a normalization of deviance.
With regard to falsifying an invoice, it apparently made little difference to State Parks that Carpenter wasn't a Friends officer, was prohibited from any such involvement, and lied about having been allowed to independently generate invoices for a legally independent entity he was not a part of. When an investigator asked if an inquiry regarding the falsified invoice should be pursued, it appears the only response was to suggest Griffith recommend to the Friends that "if THEY believe there is forgery, they should take it to the prosecutor. Not us." Emphasis original.
Of course, since State Parks knew the previous treasurer had already contradicted Carpenter's assertions about having created multiple invoices, so no such direction was ever made to the Friends by Griffith. I as the complainant was never interviewed or given an opportunity to provide additional pertinent and incriminating information, respond to the colorful accusations made about me, nor was I informed of any findings of fact or potential conclusions of law. And despite the obvious deceptions regarding the primary telescope mirror procurement (resulting in the eventual loss of thousands of taxpayer dollars), Carpenter was reaffirmed as a "subject matter expert" and left to pursue the remainder of the highly questionable telescope modifications detailed above.
Carpenter's response to the legitimate concerns over his unethical behaviors and the telescope upgrade issues was to retaliate by removing the Friends access to "their" website by supposedly allowing it to transfer from himself to Peck and the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce. Peck - now with another overt act demonstrating his ends-justify-the-means Machiavellian lack of ethics - lied to the Friends by falsely stating the website domain had somehow expired and become publicly available, and therefore he had no choice but to "rescue" it for himself and the Chamber of Commerce. Of course the domain was still owned by Carpenter, and never became publicly available - and Carpenter never informed the Friends of his ownership. Peck and Carpenter later admitted publicly that their plan all along was to remove the Friends access to the website they were led to believe they owned - and had paid for well into the future. This ultimately led to the termination of the Cooperative Agreement between the Friends and Washington State Parks. Carpenter and his flying monkeys have since gone on to assert the Friends current website is a "scam" intended to look like his, when the URL for Carpenter's website was actually the Friends website to begin with. Truly a case of "the pot calling the kettle black" if there ever was one.
The Carpenter / Peck / Pratt / Lewis "partnership" eliminated any mention of "controversial" and "unpopular" light pollution or dark sky education and conservation advocacy from the website. Carpenter publicly stated “we certainly don’t want to be directly associated with light pollution mitigation,” and characterized the Friends website's dark sky education as “amateur astronomer pandering.” So while State Parks Director Hock told the IDA that Washington State Parks supported and would be "providing educational experiences that help raise awareness of the impacts of light pollution on this valuable resource - the dark sky experience," Carpenter clearly did not and would not provide this education, either onsite at the Observatory, or online.
Carpenter's self-admitted unethical behavior and public statements regarding light pollution and amateur astronomers are disturbing for a public employee. Moreover, it's hypocritical given that the Observatory wouldn’t exist without the massive 24-inch telescope built by amateur astronomers, who along with the community college that owned and paid for it, sought a location outside of the Portland metropolitan area for the telescope specifically in order to get away from light pollution. Apparently expressing the unspoken belief that the facility still somehow should be beholden only to the City of Goldendale/Chamber of Commerce instead of the Washington State citizens and taxpayers (who employ him), Carpenter then stated "the town is the reason the facility exists."
Nonsense. You don't get a United States taxpayer funded 80% Federal grant to build an observatory without having a telescope to put in it. The additional 20% in matching funds were mostly loans which came from commercial banks, and were paid off by Washington State taxpayers when they rescued the facility from bankruptcy. The City of Goldendale contribution essentially amounted to the 5 acres of public land the Observatory sits on. Therefore the US and Washington State taxpayers are the overwhelming reason the facility exists, which couldn't have happened without the amateur astronomers who built the telescope, and the community college (students and taxpayers) that funded it. Consequently, the Goldendale Observatory was originally intended to equally serve the public, educators and students, and amateur astronomers from across the state and beyond.
While Carpenter’s Chamber of Commerce "sponsored" website no longer "panders" to amateur astronomers - there is not a single word regarding night sky conservation or light pollution issues - it does list and link to the local hotels you should stay at.
Similarly, the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce's own webpage about the Observatory lacks any mention of the need to protect and conserve a dark night sky for the Observatory or its telescopes - perhaps because they only consider it to be an "amusement park" - rather than a venue to experience the majesty of a dark night sky and the wonders of the universe lying therin.
There is no better example of this conflict of interest than the Washington State Parks - Goldendale Chamber of Commerce "entertainment / amusement park partnership" encouraging people to travel to Goldendale to witness a garden-variety partial solar eclipse, versus the Friends (and almost every other legitimate astronomy education organization) encouraging people to experience the incredible rare beauty of the August 21, 2017 Great American Total Solar Eclipse - a once-in-a-lifetime event for people lucky enough to see one, and viewable from a mere 50 miles (80 km) south of Goldendale:
|
|
It’s estimated that 215 million Americans saw the 2017 event, though most only saw a partial solar eclipse—a not-very-interesting sideshow, relatively speaking. Only around 12 million experienced a total solar eclipse from the path of totality.
Viewers must be within the path of totality to see experience the remarkable effects unique to totality; dropping temperatures, gathering darkness, exquisite “diamond rings” around the moon, and a chance to see the tenuous white solar corona—the sun’s outer atmosphere—spilling into space. It's a hypnotically beautiful and addictive experience. Forbes magazine |
|
Carpenter - well-versed in sophistry and raising hyperbole to an art form - called the Friends encouragement to see the total eclipse if possible "monstrous and terribly destructive to the Observatory." Not surprisingly, Carpenter and Peck cited the recommendation to see the total eclipse (less than a one hour drive away) as another reason to have the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce be the instrument to take down the eclipse web-page and take over the Friends website. The Chamber of Commerce was employed as the cover for Carpenter to remove the Friends access to the website Carpenter covertly owned, yet deliberately misled the Friends to believe they owned and had paid for.
For the Carpenter - Washington State Parks - Chamber of Commerce entertainment partnership the ends once again justified the means. They rationalized and publicly stated staying at a local motel and eating at Papa John's or McDonald's - instead of experiencing a "the most awe-inspiring spectacle in all of nature" - was and remains the real bottom line. Peck explicitly stated “my job is to try and fill up hotel rooms and restaurant spaces using the observatory as a marketing tool,” and "economic and commercial gain is our priority." A confidant of Area Manager Pratt, Peck tellingly added "It's State Parks priority." Carpenter immediately interjected "it is our priority – overwhelmingly so. Absolutely." (Emphasis original).
These purely economic exploitation rationales and the resultant near-sighted focus on "amusement park" and "rock star" entertainment experiences - verses "the dark sky experience" - for the Observatory's existence and purpose seem to have led to the Washington State Parks - Goldendale Chamber of Commerce "partnership" to eliminate meaningful consideration of night sky conservation – for an observatory telescope that was deliberately sited in a dark location and meant to literally focus on the natural environment encompassing the entire visible universe. They appear to embody both a conflict of interest and to be out of sync with the stated mission and core values of Washington State Parks, which importantly include providing stewardship for Washington’s cherished natural heritage for future generations.
For the Carpenter - Washington State Parks - Chamber of Commerce entertainment partnership the ends once again justified the means. They rationalized and publicly stated staying at a local motel and eating at Papa John's or McDonald's - instead of experiencing a "the most awe-inspiring spectacle in all of nature" - was and remains the real bottom line. Peck explicitly stated “my job is to try and fill up hotel rooms and restaurant spaces using the observatory as a marketing tool,” and "economic and commercial gain is our priority." A confidant of Area Manager Pratt, Peck tellingly added "It's State Parks priority." Carpenter immediately interjected "it is our priority – overwhelmingly so. Absolutely." (Emphasis original).
These purely economic exploitation rationales and the resultant near-sighted focus on "amusement park" and "rock star" entertainment experiences - verses "the dark sky experience" - for the Observatory's existence and purpose seem to have led to the Washington State Parks - Goldendale Chamber of Commerce "partnership" to eliminate meaningful consideration of night sky conservation – for an observatory telescope that was deliberately sited in a dark location and meant to literally focus on the natural environment encompassing the entire visible universe. They appear to embody both a conflict of interest and to be out of sync with the stated mission and core values of Washington State Parks, which importantly include providing stewardship for Washington’s cherished natural heritage for future generations.
|
More often than not, a clear majority of the public favors protecting the natural environment over economic concerns. Washington State Parks and Goldendale Observatory staff – rather than capitalize on these sentiments and the potential for dark-sky tourism and conservation – have been short-sighted concerning their 'no environmental advocacy' position. Indeed, aligning themselves with and being subservient to the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce, they have inverted these priorities. |
Who better to stress the importance of preserving and protecting the Observatory's - and moreover an International Dark Sky Park's - starry night sky than those directly overseeing it? Yet not only wouldn’t Pratt or Carpenter speak up for protecting the Observatory’s night sky – a formal written commitment made by Washington State Parks to the IDA in 2010 – they self-admittedly are in bed with Peck who opposes its meaningful protection via application of longstanding local lighting codes.
In Goldendale City Council Lighting Task Force meetings, if he attended, Pratt either remained silent (often sitting alongside an equally mute Peck) or disavowed support for proposed lighting code improvements to better protect the night sky of the Goldendale Observatory – all the while stating he was being “neutral.” Notwithstanding Pratt's "neutrality" position, to be an IDA Dark Sky Park requires advocacy for protecting the night sky, not "neutrality." Pratt also stated that he and Carpenter were prohibited from expressing views promoting protection of the Observatory's night sky because they were politically sensitive “policy” issues. This conflicts with Washington State Law, which states “employees of the state…shall have the right to express their opinions on all political subjects...” RCW 41.06.250. Pratt similarly stated he was unable to discuss lighting code issues with elected officials, in contravention of RCW 42.52.8022, which specifically allows for “informational and educational meetings regarding legislative issues.”
Local business interests on the Lighting Task Force noted that “the Observatory has made it clear they’re happy with the way things are, and aren’t concerned with the existing amount of light [pollution].” As a result, the City of Goldendale’s Lighting Task Force removed many essential best-practice provisions – adapted from other successful Dark Sky Communities such as Dripping Springs Texas (population 3100) – which were included in the original revised lighting code draft. These best practices have since become minimum requirements for Dark Sky Community lighting ordinances.
In Goldendale City Council Lighting Task Force meetings, if he attended, Pratt either remained silent (often sitting alongside an equally mute Peck) or disavowed support for proposed lighting code improvements to better protect the night sky of the Goldendale Observatory – all the while stating he was being “neutral.” Notwithstanding Pratt's "neutrality" position, to be an IDA Dark Sky Park requires advocacy for protecting the night sky, not "neutrality." Pratt also stated that he and Carpenter were prohibited from expressing views promoting protection of the Observatory's night sky because they were politically sensitive “policy” issues. This conflicts with Washington State Law, which states “employees of the state…shall have the right to express their opinions on all political subjects...” RCW 41.06.250. Pratt similarly stated he was unable to discuss lighting code issues with elected officials, in contravention of RCW 42.52.8022, which specifically allows for “informational and educational meetings regarding legislative issues.”
Local business interests on the Lighting Task Force noted that “the Observatory has made it clear they’re happy with the way things are, and aren’t concerned with the existing amount of light [pollution].” As a result, the City of Goldendale’s Lighting Task Force removed many essential best-practice provisions – adapted from other successful Dark Sky Communities such as Dripping Springs Texas (population 3100) – which were included in the original revised lighting code draft. These best practices have since become minimum requirements for Dark Sky Community lighting ordinances.
|
The first Dark Sky Community. Flagstaff Arizona is a city of over 70,000 people, but because of their well-regulated lighting, skies are dark enough to see the Milky Way from downtown. Regulation of outdoor lighting practices are essential to protect the night sky of the famous nearby historic Lowell Observatory, and also make the city a more pleasing place to live in and visit. |
“Downtown Flagstaff” Mehmedinovic & Heffernan SKYGLOW
|
While Observatory Administrator Carpenter had given away the IDA-supplied Unihedron Sky Quality Meter and therefore made no sky quality measurements for three years, Karlson's May 31, 2017 Revised 2016 Annual Dark Sky Park Report to the IDA finally contained the required night-sky quality measurements. However, these readings were so poor that when averaged they indicated the Observatory no longer met any Dark Sky Park classification. The report states “Observatory staff” (Carpenter) obtained the measurements, which also required taxpayers to purchase a new $135 Sky Quality Meter to replace the identical one Carpenter had disposed of.
The IDA found that these readings were contradicted by recent satellite data, and subsequent independent measurements showed the Goldendale Observatory still meets the original Silver Tier Dark Sky Park criteria for overhead night-sky quality. The IDA euphemistically attributed the anomalous sky quality data submitted by Carpenter to "pilot error," which would be very surprising for such a simple to use device - point overhead, push button, read number – done.
The IDA found that these readings were contradicted by recent satellite data, and subsequent independent measurements showed the Goldendale Observatory still meets the original Silver Tier Dark Sky Park criteria for overhead night-sky quality. The IDA euphemistically attributed the anomalous sky quality data submitted by Carpenter to "pilot error," which would be very surprising for such a simple to use device - point overhead, push button, read number – done.
While the online Light Pollution Atlas reference indicated the Goldendale Observatory met the Silver Tier Dark Sky Park quality requirements (21.00 - 21.74 mag./arc sec^2) – the sky quality meter readings submitted to the IDA by Carpenter (less than 20.00 mag./arc sec^2) indicated a huge deterioration of the darkness of the overhead night sky that would preclude the Goldendale Observatory State Park from consideration as an International Dark Sky Park:
June 2017 sky quality meter measurements taken at a new moon and after astronomical twilight had ended.
As shown above, subsequent independent Unihedron Sky Quality Meter measurements taken at the Goldendale Observatory shows it still met the Silver Tier International Dark Sky Park criteria.
Washington State Parks
|
In addition to submitting grossly inaccurate data, and misleading or false reports to the International Dark-Sky Association, Carpenter has published manipulated pictures of the night sky at the Goldendale Observatory.
Note the caption "with tungsten white balance,” which refers to a process to correct for “warm” lighting and renders a bluer “daylight” color to photos taken indoors with incandescent (tungsten filament) lighting. Observe how blue the night sky appears in Carpenter’s online published photograph (upper picture). This seems intended to convey to the public the Observatory’s southern sky quality by changing the appearance of the amount and character of light pollution from Goldendale and surrounding Klickitat County. It appears especially intended to minimize the glow from the nearby wind turbines, perhaps in deference to Peck who is now the "proud sponsor" of Carpenter's personal Goldendale Observatory website. Peck was the Klickitat County economic development Director "protecting... our region from regulatory threats" and brought these turbines to fruition. He then secured a lucrative position in the wind power industry before eventually returning to Klickitat County and becoming the Executive Director of the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce. |
Using a similar technique for correcting color balance, a more realistic portrayal of the night sky - and light pollution - can be reestablished for the photo and the appearance of the night sky (bottom). Note the sky is a more neutral grey-black, not bright blue, and the aircraft warning lights on the wind turbines are corrected to being their real orange-red color instead of pink.
Carpenter's self-declared lack of interest in meeting Dark Sky Park certification requirements and publicly voiced antipathy for allegedly "unpopular" and "pandering" dark sky education, combined with Area Manger Pratt's opposition to dark sky conservation advocacy - and who allegedly wished to make the Dark Sky Park designation "go away" - makes deliberate malfeasance a more realistic explanation for the poor sky quality meter readings (likely taken with interfering moonlight, during twilight, near parking lot lights or other artificial light sources). It appears that in word and deed Carpenter was actively and independently engaged to sabotage Karlson's revised annual report to the IDA. In the case of these anomalous sky quality measurements, he appears either incompetent to use the simplest of sky quality measuring devices, or purposely trying to make the Dark Sky Park "go away." Moreover, despite their importance, the fact that these completely erroneous sky quality readings were submitted to the IDA without apparent review or concern again reveals the lack of any responsible managerial or astronomy related expertise overseeing the Observatory.
Demonstrating a 38 year failure to consider, let alone adopt or implement a coherent night sky conservation management strategy for the Washington State taxpayer's substantial investment in a public observatory, Washington State Parks officials also put forth conflicting statements on the importance of preserving the Goldendale Observatory’s essential dark night sky quality asset:
In an April 2017 newspaper interview and his May 31, 2017 Revised Annual Report to the IDA, Interpretive Program Manager Ryan Karlson commendably stated “Preserving the dark sky at the Goldendale Observatory is part of our mission… We will promote the value of preserving our dark skies and support educational outreach to reduce the impacts of light pollution and other threats to this vulnerable natural resource.” (Emphasis added).
Demonstrating a 38 year failure to consider, let alone adopt or implement a coherent night sky conservation management strategy for the Washington State taxpayer's substantial investment in a public observatory, Washington State Parks officials also put forth conflicting statements on the importance of preserving the Goldendale Observatory’s essential dark night sky quality asset:
In an April 2017 newspaper interview and his May 31, 2017 Revised Annual Report to the IDA, Interpretive Program Manager Ryan Karlson commendably stated “Preserving the dark sky at the Goldendale Observatory is part of our mission… We will promote the value of preserving our dark skies and support educational outreach to reduce the impacts of light pollution and other threats to this vulnerable natural resource.” (Emphasis added).
However, months later on August 2, 2017 (and immediately preceding IDA deliberations on the status of the Observatory's Dark Sky Park designation), Partnership & Planning Manager Steve Brand directly contradicted Karlson when he stated “State Parks supports the dark sky concept, but it isn’t our mission.” (Emphasis added). Note the use of the word "concept." Brand (who was copied Karlson's Revised Annual Report) then required the Friends to remove dark sky education outreach activity from their annual Operating Plan, stating “it isn’t part of operating the park.”
Making such a statement for an observatory, let alone a Certified International Dark Sky Park long promoted as "famous for its dark skies" and “a perfect star-gazing spot,” is truly dumbfounding. The IDA was doubtlessly not impressed, especially as Carpenter continued his longstanding failure to provide dark sky education programs during the suspension period. This failure continued despite the commitment of Washington State Parks to provide such education as a condition of Dark Sky Park certification in 2010 and possessing an IDA slide set on the importance of night sky conservation since then, and the outline for a proposed dark sky program having been included in Karlson's Revised Annual Report. And most obviously, you don't have to operate an International Dark Sky Park to support protecting the night sky (especially at an astronomical observatory), you just have to be a conscientious human being.
The decades-long lack of a well developed and clearly articulated position or policy regarding the importance of conserving a dark night sky for the Washington taxpayer's investment in the Heritage telescope and Observatory - and the reason for its existence - transmitted through formal and informal channels to all levels of the organizational hierarchy, has therefore apparently resulted in helter-skelter statements about the subject. Washington State Parks personnel therefore have difficulty determining whether the Observatory's dark night sky is:
1. Some sort of highfalutin, "low priority" "concept," which only interests "hippy dippy activists," and which education and advocacy for conservation amounts to little more than a "waste of money" and "unpopular amateur astronomer pandering."
2. A "vulnerable natural resource" for which education and conservation advocacy takes place as part of the mission to provide stewardship for Washington's cherished natural heritage for future generations.
Public disclosure requests to Washington State Parks reveal that in the end the IDA concluded that State Parks “local management and staff have not shown sufficient commitment to the maintenance of the designation through words or actions.” The IDA observed that Washington State Parks apparently failed to “exert supervision of Park managers or their staff,” and was “unable to change the [organizational] culture at the Park.” The IDA went on to state it “recognizes the interest of WSPRC in maintaining the Dark Sky Park designation for GOSP,” but remained “unconvinced that the desire is reflected locally at the Park or in the community of Goldendale.”
Regardless of the obviously erroneous sky quality measurements supplied by Carpenter, the IDA revoked the Dark Sky Park certification of Goldendale Observatory on September 30, 2017 due to “failing to meet the requirements for Dark Sky Park status," not a loss of dark sky quality, which has been suggested by some State Parks personnel. Based on independent data provided by the Friends of the Goldendale Observatory (also see SCRIBD article below), the facility still met the original Silver tier level of overhead sky quality (and remains relatively pristine to the west, north, and east).
Had Carpenter and Pratt been unsuccessful in their efforts to make the Dark Sky Park "go away" during the interim suspension period, it would have been fully reinstated under the IDA criteria in effect in 2010, and "grandfathered" when subsequent criteria became applicable. However, given the revised 2018 IDA requirements for Dark Sky Parks that "any light domes present are dim, restricted in extent, and close to the horizon," it may be questionable if an International Dark Sky Park designation could now be re-established for the GOSP without a significant reduction in the light pollution coming from Goldendale and surrounding Klickitat County.
Unregulated outdoor lighting significantly deteriorates the southern sky of the Goldendale Observatory State Park.
|
As seen from Observatory Hill in this enhanced all-sky “fish-eye” lens image, light pollution rivaling the brightness of the Milky Way can be detected up to 40 degrees in altitude above the southern horizon, and spans more than 60 degrees along the horizon. Without good outdoor lighting practices and regulation enforcement, this situation will only become worse.
Properly installed shielded lighting and enforcement of the existing outdoor lighting regulations - as was originally intended - could remove 50% of this light pollution. Improving the lighting codes to regulate the color temperature (“spectrum”) and lumens per area (“amount”) could reduce this even further.
|
Did the Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission come to believe that advocating for conservation and protection of the Observatory's night sky isn’t worth the trouble it could cause with a small group of local political and business interests? Would they feel that way if a State Park mountain lake and its pristine yet vulnerable spring waters were being irrevocably degraded and its fish harmed by water pollution from a small nearby town, despite the presence of water pollution regulations specifically intended to protect it? What about providing stewardship for Washington’s cherished natural heritage for future generations?
Light pollution coming from Goldendale less than 1 mile away and Klickitat County beyond reflects off the main dome of the Goldendale Observatory's 24-inch telescope, and completely obscures the center of the Milky Way.
|
Goldendale Observatory State Park
|
One would expect a State agency with a core value of "involving the public in our policy development and decision making," and spending millions of taxpayer dollars on its unique public Observatory, to solicit guidance from a broad community of experts in astronomy as well as a wide variety of stakeholders from across the State when considering appropriate stewardship activities for a State Park “famous for its dark skies.” Instead, acting unilaterally and without any public input, Washington State Parks personnel have shown they will only do what they are familiar with, is convenient for their bureaucracy, and acceptable by local special interests.
Washington State Parks original promises to meet Dark Sky Park requirements and responsibly educate and advocate for conservation of the public's night sky "vulnerable natural resource" outside the boundaries of a State Park, and protect the taxpayers observatory and telescope investment, apparently makes some Washington State Parks personnel squeamish. Instead, they seem to believe that merely installing dark-sky friendly lighting at the Observatory was their only obligation to be considered an International Dark Sky Park -- as if protecting the five acres of night sky immediately above the Observatory could actually accomplish meaningful "stewardship" for the night sky. Demonstrating a complete breakdown of public accountability, instead of providing stewardship advocacy for future generations of Washington's "cherished" and "vulnerable" dark sky natural resource heritage, the Goldendale Observatory management and staff instead are preoccupied with promoting themselves and the economic and commercial gain of a small group of local businesses interests, as Carpenter himself emphasized: "it is our priority – overwhelmingly so. Absolutely."
Washington State Parks original promises to meet Dark Sky Park requirements and responsibly educate and advocate for conservation of the public's night sky "vulnerable natural resource" outside the boundaries of a State Park, and protect the taxpayers observatory and telescope investment, apparently makes some Washington State Parks personnel squeamish. Instead, they seem to believe that merely installing dark-sky friendly lighting at the Observatory was their only obligation to be considered an International Dark Sky Park -- as if protecting the five acres of night sky immediately above the Observatory could actually accomplish meaningful "stewardship" for the night sky. Demonstrating a complete breakdown of public accountability, instead of providing stewardship advocacy for future generations of Washington's "cherished" and "vulnerable" dark sky natural resource heritage, the Goldendale Observatory management and staff instead are preoccupied with promoting themselves and the economic and commercial gain of a small group of local businesses interests, as Carpenter himself emphasized: "it is our priority – overwhelmingly so. Absolutely."
These interests include Goldendale native and Washington State Representative Gina Mosbrucker and her family, which owns a number of Goldendale businesses (Quality Inn Hotel, Chevron gas station, an RV park or two, and Papa John’s Pizza). Mosbrucker is a fifth generation resident of Goldendale, a former VP and Executive Director of the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce, and the CEO and General Manager of the Quality Inn Hotel in Goldendale. Mosbrucker's political mantra includes "government regulations have become out-of-control," and she pledges to “ease onerous and burdensome government regulations” and “fight against increased regulations… on business’" (sic).
It therefore came as no surprise that Mosbrucker met with her sister, Angela (Mosbrucker) Hoffman – an accountant who also oversees the family businesses – regarding much needed proposed lighting code improvements. Hoffman thereafter demanded that a local "Lighting Task Force" be formed. Of course the Mayor (who had succeeded Peck as the Director of Klickitat County Economic Development) hand-picked the Task Force members, the majority of which had little knowledge of astronomy, outdoor lighting best practices, or Dark Sky Park conservation requirements. Hoffman was appointed to the Task Force and argued with zeal and egregious misinformation* against many of the best-practice improvements that had been incorporated to better protect the night sky. Mosbrucker's father, Klickitat County PUD Commissioner Ray Mosbrucker, made a cameo at a Lighting Task Force meeting to confer with his daughter, after which she reminded everyone present that Pratt and the Observatory were not the ones advocating for lighting code changes. This might lead one to ask how Mosbrucker senior knew, and appears to reveal another bit of evidence about Pratt's so-called "neutrality." Several important and much needed improvements (which subsequent to the Goldendale Observatory decertification have now become IDA lighting ordinance requirements) were removed from the final revised Goldendale lighting code.
Chromatic Adaptation - white always looks white.
|
|
* For example, Hoffman stated a 3000 K color temperature requirement ("warm white") would "make it impossible to tell the difference between spilled coffee, oil, or blood" - a blatant misrepresentation, since even incandescent lights (2700 K) make such an argument utter nonsense. Despite presenting scientific facts to the Lighting Task Force about chromatic adaptation, the 3000 K requirement for new outdoor lighting was removed, in spite of it being the standard adopted for Goldendale's new LED street lights. Of course, service station lighting is purposefully designed to be excessive and "sparkly" with more human health and sky-damaging blue wavelengths in order to attract motorists like moths. Coincidentally, Hoffman and her husband own and operate the local Chevron station.
|
|
The night sky is 100% recoverable, and light pollution is one of the easiest environmental problems to fix, which will usually pay for itself in the long run through increased energy efficiency and electricity bill savings, as well as enhancing effectiveness, safety, and visual appeal. Goldendale's 2017 revised lighting code admirably requires use of full cutoff ("fully shielded") fixtures, and the use of motion sensors and timers for non and partially shielded outdoor lighting. However it has not been promoted or enforced, and has an prolonged seven year "grandfathering" clause. Given the 40 years worth of pre-existing non-compliant lighting already present, the ordinance changes are inadequate to restore the night sky to what it could and should be. For example, thanks to business community objections, the Lighting Task Force eliminated well established best-practice provisions that would control excessive illumination via lumen limitations based on use or area, and established standards for illuminated outdoor sign lighting in order to reduce glare, over-lighting, and skyglow.
|
Worse than an unshielded streetlight. The specific exemption for internally-illuminated outdoor signs is a good example of the business community’s unwillingness to be regulated for these sources of light pollution. No serious dark sky ordinance includes such an exemption. The average citizen, if required to comply with good outdoor lighting practices, and observing that businesses are not held to similar standards for their outdoor signs, might question night sky protection requirements due to the double-standard contained within the revised lighting code.
|
While the Goldendale Chamber's business interests provide lip service for supporting the Observatory, it is little wonder that local lighting codes have rarely been applied in practice within Goldendale or Klickitat County. While a Dark Sky Park designation can enhance tourism, local business and political interests apparently can’t be bothered with pesky regulations to actually protect the dark night sky heritage nature has provided, which was a main reason the telescope was sited away from Portland/Vancouver.
Goldendale Puts the Fox In Charge of the Hen House
"Leaders help themselves and others to do the right things. They set direction, build an inspiring vision, and create something new."
Actions continue to speak louder than words. Demonstrating they have abdicated the leadership responsibilities to which they were elected - and remaining beholden to local business interests that see the Goldendale Observatory State Park merely as an "amusement park" "marketing tool" to be exploited for "economic and commercial gain" - the Mayor and City Council of Goldendale contracted with Dana Peck and the "Goldendale Chamber of Commerce to assist the City and State Parks in submitting an application to the IDA in efforts to re-designate the Goldendale Observatory as a Dark Sky Park, or have the City recognized as a Dark Sky Community... and advise on issues such as outdoor lighting."
However, to become a Dark Sky Community requires "exceptional dedication to the preservation of the night sky through the implementation and enforcement of quality lighting policies, dark-sky education, and citizen support of the ideal of dark skies." Additionally, a Dark Sky Park is "specifically protected for its scientific, natural, educational, and/or cultural heritage resources, and/or public enjoyment." DSC & DSP IDA Guidelines - emphasis added.
The City of Goldendale has not given even the pretense of seeking knowledgeable and qualified expertise for "assistance" with DSP and DSC applications or outdoor lighting. Contracting with the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce for DSC and DSP assistance appears tremendously problematic given the Chamber has not demonstrated any desire for the implementation or enforcement of quality night sky outdoor lighting policies. Contracting with the Chamber is especially troublesome given Peck's previous unethical behaviors and outright opposition to enforcement of even the bare-bones City and County lighting codes, and publicly admitted collusion with Observatory Administrator Troy Carpenter to cripple meaningful dark-sky education ("unpopular hippy-dippy money-wasting pandering to amateur astronomers") - executed in order to undermine public support for effective night sky protection. It therefore is no surprise - given there has been absolutely zero advocacy for dark sky conservation by either the Observatory or the Chamber - that citizen support for night sky conservation in Goldendale and Klickitat County remains completely out-of-sight and out-of-mind more than two years following the Goldendale Observatory State Park's unprecedented decertification as an International Dark Sky Park.
In light of the conflicts of interest presented by Peck and the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce, if the City was sincere about achieving a International Dark Sky Community designation, or re-designation of the Goldendale Observatory as an International Dark Sky Park, all the information and assistance needed is readily available from the IDA itself.* Other Dark Sky Parks and Communities would likely be more than willing to lend their real-world experience and advice. All one needs to do is ask. Given Peck's "leadership," contracting with the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce for such "assistance" would be irrational for any community concerned with genuine night sky protection. Indeed, this lack of sincere caring about the night sky is the only thing "exceptional" about Goldendale's (and Klickitat County's) night sky preservation and protection efforts - for over 40 years they have been and remain exceptionally inadequate.
* Assistance in helping to reinstate the GOSP as an International Dark Sky Park, and/or assisting Goldendale to become an International Dark Sky Community, was directly and graciously offered by the IDA to the Mayor on February 9, 2018, but was not responded to. The offer seemed to be open ended for the foreseeable future. So why would the City of Goldendale choose to "contract" Peck and the Chamber of Commerce as opposed to freely consulting with the IDA itself? Why choose demonstrated lack of concern, fervent opposition to lighting policy enforcement, and chicanery, over genuine interest, advocacy, and unquestionable expertise?
"Leaders help themselves and others to do the right things. They set direction, build an inspiring vision, and create something new."
Actions continue to speak louder than words. Demonstrating they have abdicated the leadership responsibilities to which they were elected - and remaining beholden to local business interests that see the Goldendale Observatory State Park merely as an "amusement park" "marketing tool" to be exploited for "economic and commercial gain" - the Mayor and City Council of Goldendale contracted with Dana Peck and the "Goldendale Chamber of Commerce to assist the City and State Parks in submitting an application to the IDA in efforts to re-designate the Goldendale Observatory as a Dark Sky Park, or have the City recognized as a Dark Sky Community... and advise on issues such as outdoor lighting."
However, to become a Dark Sky Community requires "exceptional dedication to the preservation of the night sky through the implementation and enforcement of quality lighting policies, dark-sky education, and citizen support of the ideal of dark skies." Additionally, a Dark Sky Park is "specifically protected for its scientific, natural, educational, and/or cultural heritage resources, and/or public enjoyment." DSC & DSP IDA Guidelines - emphasis added.
The City of Goldendale has not given even the pretense of seeking knowledgeable and qualified expertise for "assistance" with DSP and DSC applications or outdoor lighting. Contracting with the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce for DSC and DSP assistance appears tremendously problematic given the Chamber has not demonstrated any desire for the implementation or enforcement of quality night sky outdoor lighting policies. Contracting with the Chamber is especially troublesome given Peck's previous unethical behaviors and outright opposition to enforcement of even the bare-bones City and County lighting codes, and publicly admitted collusion with Observatory Administrator Troy Carpenter to cripple meaningful dark-sky education ("unpopular hippy-dippy money-wasting pandering to amateur astronomers") - executed in order to undermine public support for effective night sky protection. It therefore is no surprise - given there has been absolutely zero advocacy for dark sky conservation by either the Observatory or the Chamber - that citizen support for night sky conservation in Goldendale and Klickitat County remains completely out-of-sight and out-of-mind more than two years following the Goldendale Observatory State Park's unprecedented decertification as an International Dark Sky Park.
In light of the conflicts of interest presented by Peck and the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce, if the City was sincere about achieving a International Dark Sky Community designation, or re-designation of the Goldendale Observatory as an International Dark Sky Park, all the information and assistance needed is readily available from the IDA itself.* Other Dark Sky Parks and Communities would likely be more than willing to lend their real-world experience and advice. All one needs to do is ask. Given Peck's "leadership," contracting with the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce for such "assistance" would be irrational for any community concerned with genuine night sky protection. Indeed, this lack of sincere caring about the night sky is the only thing "exceptional" about Goldendale's (and Klickitat County's) night sky preservation and protection efforts - for over 40 years they have been and remain exceptionally inadequate.
* Assistance in helping to reinstate the GOSP as an International Dark Sky Park, and/or assisting Goldendale to become an International Dark Sky Community, was directly and graciously offered by the IDA to the Mayor on February 9, 2018, but was not responded to. The offer seemed to be open ended for the foreseeable future. So why would the City of Goldendale choose to "contract" Peck and the Chamber of Commerce as opposed to freely consulting with the IDA itself? Why choose demonstrated lack of concern, fervent opposition to lighting policy enforcement, and chicanery, over genuine interest, advocacy, and unquestionable expertise?
|
The answer seems to be that there is no sincere interest in a legitimate Dark Sky Park/Community status, it's merely a title and facade to pursue soley for tourism dollars. They want the sizzle, not the steak. Chamber Director Peck has a clear history of opposition to real efforts to protect and conserve the night sky, for which the need and importance of lighting codes and their enforcement should have been publicly and widely articulated for decades - regardless of the presence or lack of a Dark Sky Park designation. Local political and business interests regard the Goldendale Observatory only as a "marketing tool" for exploitation in order to "fill up hotel rooms and restaurant spaces," and seem intent to ignore its need for night sky restoration, conservation, and long term sustainability. With Observatory Administrator Carpenter - who as the "rock star" center of attention for the "amusement park," who "overwhelmingly" supports the economic exploitation agenda, publicly minimizing and criticising the importance of dark sky conservation education and advocacy - they have the perfect collaborator. |
Advertisement placed in the Goldendale Sentinel Nov 2019
|
"What can Goldendale businesess (sic): Retail, Lodging, Eateries, and Wineries do to welcome these special tourists, and how can Goldendale businesses make more money doing it?" How about supporting enforcement of the lighting codes promised to protect the reason the Observatory was located in Goldendale in the first place - a dark night sky. |
|
|
“Light pollution from Goldendale, Wash. floods the sky on a cloudy night at the Goldendale Observatory State Park on Tuesday, Dec 9, 2014. The observatory, run by the Washington State Parks, is a dark sky destination for people from around the region, and is the only public observatory in the Northwest.”
Associated Press Photo: Mason Trinca/Yakima Herald-Republic |
|
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission understandably has no familiarity with astronomical facilities, yet has failed to involve any truly knowledgeable and qualified expertise or broad-based guidance for this unique astronomical asset. It therefore has not provided appropriate oversight for the development of best-practice management priorities – such as the need for the conservation of a dark night sky required for such a valuable astronomy resource of "international importance." Consequently no strategic vision or mission appears to have been established for the Observatory, which has led to the failure to properly define and develop goals and objectives that meet priorities on behalf of the public’s interests. In this vacuum, the organizational culture of the State Park has been influenced by the opportunistic self-serving interests of the local staff and political-business community, while the broader interests of the public and taxpayers of Washington have been abandoned.
Your tax dollars down the drain?
|
|
Instead of educating and advocating for meaningful stewardship and conservation of the night sky natural heritage and taxpayer investments in a telescope and observatory benefiting the larger public interest, the local Washington State Parks Observatory Administrator states he "overwhelmingly" and "absolutely" supports the Goldendale Chamber of Commerce's explicitly stated position that the Observatory is a socialized "amusement park" and "marketing tool" for the greater financial gain of a small group of Goldendale hotel, gas station, and restaurant owners - who seemingly couldn’t care less about the Observatory's purpose or the rare beauty of a dark night sky. Washington taxpayers are tragically being left holding the bag with a very costly Observatory, and a telescope with increasingly degraded views of the wonders in the night sky for which it was originally intended:
In 1971 Clark College had the wisdom to seek "the professional advice of astronomers" when it came to how to protect the proposed observatory's night sky from Goldendale's lights - something Washington State Parks seems incapable of or unwilling to do. From this came the recommendation - and subsequent promises by Goldendale and Klickitat County - to protect the telescope's night sky through enactment of lighting ordinances to limit and reduce light pollution. Had these promises not been made, the telescope would not have been sited in - let alone anywhere near - the City of Goldendale.
|
The dedicated amateur astronomers and generous community college who built the Goldendale Observatory’s massive 24-inch telescope have been thoroughly betrayed. Decades of non-enforcement of Goldendale and Klickitat County lighting codes have resulted in the Observatory’s southern sky slowly brightening year after year. Views of many splendid astronomical marvels in the southern part of the sky are muddied, and the full grandeur of the Milky Way is being increasingly veiled by the faint glow of artificial light: 
|
The revocation of Goldendale Observatory State Park's status as an International Dark Sky Park was a self-inflicted black eye for Goldendale, Klickitat County, and Washington State. A Dark Sky Park designation is an ongoing privilege that needs to be continuously earned. There are many cities willing to actively protect their night sky, and communities, and public state and national parks expressing genuine interest in being designated Dark Sky Places and which sincerely want and appear to meet the education and protection requirements for such a designation. The Goldendale Observatory’s lack of interest in promoting the conservation of its “perfect for stargazing” and "famous" night sky, combined with the decades-long lack of protection of the Observatory’s night sky by Goldendale and Klickitat County through lighting code enforcement, unarguably demonstrates the Goldendale Observatory State Park and the local community were no longer deserving of the prestigious privilege of being home to an International Dark Sky Park.
Nonetheless, while acting appropriately to protect the integrity of its Dark Sky Places Program, the IDA graciously left open the possibility for re-designation of the Goldendale Observatory. The IDA has a relatively long association with Goldendale Observatory and appears to wish to encourage positive steps to fulfill Dark Sky Park principles in Washington.
In order to conserve and protect its dark sky natural heritage, Washington State Parks would have to lead by example and reverse their resistance to advocacy for conservation and protection of the Goldendale Observatory’s vulnerable and threatened night sky. Without such "passionate advocacy," the City of Goldendale and Klickitat County appear incapable of doing the right thing by acting to enforce and improve the lighting codes they promised and adopted over 40 years ago to protect the Observatory's "valuable dark sky experience." Such action to conserve and protect the Observatory's night sky needs to be taken - before it becomes too late.
The revocation of Goldendale Observatory State Park's status as an International Dark Sky Park was a self-inflicted black eye for Goldendale, Klickitat County, and Washington State. A Dark Sky Park designation is an ongoing privilege that needs to be continuously earned. There are many cities willing to actively protect their night sky, and communities, and public state and national parks expressing genuine interest in being designated Dark Sky Places and which sincerely want and appear to meet the education and protection requirements for such a designation. The Goldendale Observatory’s lack of interest in promoting the conservation of its “perfect for stargazing” and "famous" night sky, combined with the decades-long lack of protection of the Observatory’s night sky by Goldendale and Klickitat County through lighting code enforcement, unarguably demonstrates the Goldendale Observatory State Park and the local community were no longer deserving of the prestigious privilege of being home to an International Dark Sky Park.
Nonetheless, while acting appropriately to protect the integrity of its Dark Sky Places Program, the IDA graciously left open the possibility for re-designation of the Goldendale Observatory. The IDA has a relatively long association with Goldendale Observatory and appears to wish to encourage positive steps to fulfill Dark Sky Park principles in Washington.
In order to conserve and protect its dark sky natural heritage, Washington State Parks would have to lead by example and reverse their resistance to advocacy for conservation and protection of the Goldendale Observatory’s vulnerable and threatened night sky. Without such "passionate advocacy," the City of Goldendale and Klickitat County appear incapable of doing the right thing by acting to enforce and improve the lighting codes they promised and adopted over 40 years ago to protect the Observatory's "valuable dark sky experience." Such action to conserve and protect the Observatory's night sky needs to be taken - before it becomes too late.
Citizens, taxpayers, and the public concerned with how their State Observatory is being managed and cared for can contact the following:
Washington State Senators and Representatives
Washington State Parks & Recreation Commissioners (360) 902-8502 commission@parks.wa.gov
City of Goldendale
Klickitat County Board of Commissioners
Washington State Senators and Representatives
Washington State Parks & Recreation Commissioners (360) 902-8502 commission@parks.wa.gov
City of Goldendale
Klickitat County Board of Commissioners
Public outreach and science education.
|
Bob Yoesle holds a magna cum laude Bachelor's degree in Business Management and Communication, and an Associate's degree in Natural Sciences. He is a past President of the Friends of Goldendale Observatory, life-long amateur astronomer and telescope maker, and cares passionately about saving the natural beauty and heritage of the night sky. He believes the original purposes of the Goldendale Observatory should be fulfilled, which were predicated on the promise to provide the telescope with a truly dark night sky for future generations.
The opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and may not represent those of the IDA, or their affiliates and members. |
My second home-made Newtonian telescope, completed while a HS freshman after almost 2 years of work (I also made the primary mirror) - 1970.
|
