Perhaps "Lack of interest" is not the appropriate phrase. More appropriate might be "Don't think it's practical." I was one of the first to support the idea but eventually had a change of heart, mostly over security issues (next time you are in the wild, notice all of the bullet holes in everything unprotected). And let's not forget money. SPOC 2, which is relatively close in, cost a whole lot more than I thought it would. A bullet proof building is probably going to be made of concrete. I'd hate to think what it would cost to run concrete trucks to the middle of no where. And then there's the fact that the club can never seem to agree on where to do private star parties. How in the world could there ever be consensus on where to put such a facility? Personally, I like having an observatory built on the back of my house. Sure, the skies are not perfect but I can still see M-13, M-31 and the milky way naked eye. And the fact that when I'm home I'm never more than a couple of minutes away from the start of another observing session makes such sessions happen a lot more frequently than if I had to drive somewhere. Patrick Chuck Hards wrote:
Reading Siegfried Jachmann's letter in the latest on-line NOVA, I was a bit surprised to learn that interest in a permanent dark-sky site is currently insufficient to pursue such a venture.