/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8982324
>>8982348
I figure 100m would be what is needed to resolve objects on the moon. I don't see that really happening anytime soon. Hubble really isn't a very good telescope as far as telescopes go. It just happens to be in a good place (off Earth).

>tfw there will never be a 100m optical telescope in space

>>8802799
>>8802805
There's a lot to choose from that can be cancelled and probably already is cancelled.

People with money tend to want to keep their money it seems and don't give a shit about science for the most part.

But, you know, we could help out with science. You know all those old 1980s satellite dishes and all the newer tiny satellite dishes? You just need to buy up a bunch, set them up, and start your own radio telescope array.

>Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers
http://radio-astronomy.org/

>>8797846
Imagine if science had a larger budget to do cool things.

>that tiny cucked JWST in the corner

Remember JWST isn't all that large and won't really revolutionize anything. It, like Hubble, will be in space and will be able to stare at something for a long long time to get better results than even larger scopes on Earth. That is the only reason stuff like this is any good.

Now imagine if we had the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope in space instead.

>>8268670
>>8268678
>1119-meters in diameter
>150 kilometer hypertelescope
>Angular Resolution - To see 1-meter sized features at 550 lightyears

That's not how optical astronomical interferometers work. Once you get so large, you start getting shitty problems with the angular resolving power. That starts somewhere around 110-150 meters.

How big is big enough? Shouldn't we built something like the "Overwhelmingly Large Telescope" in space?

Also, what is the max angular resolving power of interferometric telescopes? I mean how large can they be before they are hindered by their size?

Anyone here make their own Astronomical Interferometer?