For a start the telescope isn&#x27;t actually that specialised, while the facility structure will have been designed for MKs typical wind patterns little else is site specific and it could be changed. Metal hasn&#x27;t been cut yet. No survey strategy exists, it&#x27;s too early for that.<p>The problem is not that the telescope wouldn&#x27;t work anywhere else but that it&#x27;s really too late in the day to be making such changes. A change in site will set the telescope back about 5 or more years, they will have to start site selection again because their other location choice is now taken by another telescope. All the other sites surveyed were in Hawaii. There is nowhere else in the US of this quality. A new site will also likely cost much more as few are developed. So the telescope will lose at least 5 years on it&#x27;s competitors and all the cost of starting again and keeping everyone employed 5 more years. It may well miss out on key work in that time, it will probably loose the ability to do joint observations with the James Webb Space Telescope.<p>So even if it moved it will come much later than the larger European telescope and may have to be scaled back in performance after all the cash it will waste in the site swap. It may loose out on some early science or some science cases altogether if downsized. The real problem is it may not survive the change. Some countries currently signed up will decide to withdraw and back other projects which can be delivered on time. It may be that the cost of the change is large and too many people leave to continue the project. That is not some hypothetical, projects like this which lose momentum often fail. More money could be found but that&#x27;s unlikely.<p>If it cannot be built here the whole project is seriously at risk and it will sacrifice science considerably even if it does survive.