SKA investment a mega mistake

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the particle-smashing accelerator buried beneath France and Switzerland, revealed the Higgs boson, the so-called ‘‘God particle’’ that gives other particles their mass. The ITER project based in France seeks to build a huge nuclear fusion reactor, which could revolutionise clean energy production.

But ITER is often described as ‘‘troubled’’ or ‘‘delayed’’. And the LHC may have reached a stalemate, with billions of dollars needed for a successor and little hint that there are discoveries to be made. These projects don’t always run smoothly.

A mega project closer to home is no different. The Square Kilometre Array (SKA) would see radio dishes and antenna dotted across Australia and Africa, creating the world’s largest and most sensitive radio telescope.

When the SKA was announced in 2008,

New Zealand was eager to get involved. There was the prospect of radio dishes being based here and that Kiwi tech companies would help process the deluge of data coming in.

But things changed. After ugly debate, the telescope was split between South Africa and Australia, with no hosting duties for New Zealand.

The 2008 timeline for SKA predicted it would be capturing data now. But real construction has yet to begin. The international organisation that will run it does not yet exist. Worse, there are now only concrete plans to build Phase 1 of the array – 10 per cent of the total – by 2028.

Last year, the Government opted not to become a full member of SKA, which would have entailed a contribution of about $25 million over 10 years, a decision welcomed by local astronomers.

New Zealand’s community of astronomers is small, and many have little interest in using SKA. While a few companies would benefit from providing computing services, the overall economic impact of greater involvement was deemed marginal by the Government. The delays and cuts haven’t helped.

Now there is a public relations campaign to reverse that decision, led chiefly by a tech company that stands to gain from SKA contracts. But that would be a mistake, in my view. We should be involved in science mega projects. But SKA is not the right one. Its benefits don’t stack up – scientifically or economically.

We should be involved in science mega projects. But SKA’s benefits don’t stack up – scientifically or economically.