/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10715108
There are actually plans to place one on the dark side of the moon as they'll be shielded from interference from earth.

>>10715108
>Would they have to be as large as Earth-based telescopes due to lack of atmosphere?
Radio doesn't get blocked by the atmosphere, but it does pick up local noise, which is why big arrays are in the middle of fucking nowhere.
Also, the bigger your collector, the bigger the radio waves it can receive. You can also daisy chain multiple telescopes into an array for an effective area of the widest points of the array.
If I had infinity money I'd build multiple linked arrays of multi spectrum telescopes. Radio and multiple visual bandwidths.

>>10715179
Oops, wrong picture.

>>10715183
So like, you could build fuckoff huge dishes/arrays on the moon to pick up shit we can't see from Earth? Anything worth looking for in the 10m+ range?

>>10715186
You could. Less gravity means you could build bigger structures. But as was mentioned before, if you're on the far side of the moon you're in the shadow of all the radio noise from earth.

>>10715108
If you're going to put telescopes on the moon should go with optical ones not radio shit.

Spin that beautiful mercury pool!

>>10715108
I'd rather Starlinks feature small cameras/telescope on top of each of their satellites for the scientific community to utilize. Imagine the amount of data gathered from space on scale of thousands.

>but low res cameras dont do good
Don't matter because when you combine the output of 1000s of cheap low res cameras, you can match the highest quality cameras that easily.

>>10715179
>daisy chain multiple telescopes into an array for an effective area of the widest points of the array
That's how they took that picture of a black hole, by creating a virtual telescope the size of Earth!

>>10715108
If you are listening for Aliens, give it up.

>>10715399
I still can't believe that one girl did that by herself

>>10715399
Interferometry is pretty cool.

>>10715108
Ideally, it'd really be better to have them somewhere near the edge of the solar system.

>>10715108
No interference from earth because the moon blocks interference. It might be the only way to do radioastronomy with megaconstellations. Because satellites aren't at 3 K, they emit microwaves, with assloads of them they will turn into a huge problem for radioastronomy. They have to be big because radiowaves are big. Bigger apertures are better. You can detect weaker signals and make out smaller details. Look up the diffraction limit for more on why this is.
>>10715219
There is not much benefit to doing so. Building a fuck huge spinning pool of mercury on the moon is probably just as hard as building a fuck huge mirror in space. However, the fuck huge mirror in space can point at shit. The far side of the moon is beneficial for doing radio astronomy at long wavelengths. It is not beneficial to put a fuck huge antenna in orbit because we get lots of interference from the ground. On the moon we get basically none. Radio astronomy can detect stuff optical can't.

>>10715633
You better believe or you'll be sent to re-education camp

>>10715633
>>10717252
Get the fuck >>>/out/ nobody here believes that and never did. It was a simple misunderstanding that only affects brainlet medialites.

>>10715108
If you are worried about some local microwave oven or tv station or some military transmissions, it would be much easier to use a space based telescope. Just put your telescope far enough from Earth. L2 would be the easiest place.

>>10715633

>>10717274
How about you just let some stem off, not everything is so serious business :D

>>10715193
And how would you protect that shit from meteorites you dumbfuck?