4 ms·
Is the same money (replacement cost) better spent on a space-based solution?
by beamatronic 6y ago
Is the same money (replacement cost) better spent on a space-based solution?
- topbanana 6y agoit wouldn't be the same money
- Metacelsus 6y agoI don't think atmospheric absorption/scattering is as much of an issue for radio telescopes as it is for other kinds.
- jcims 6y agoIonosphere eats/reflects mostly everything below 10Mhz
- geuis 6y agoNot really in this case. It’s much cheaper to build a larger and more capable installation on the ground.
- sp332 6y agoA space-based solution won't get you such a large dish. And that means you can't get effective 20 terawatts of output power for active radar across the solar system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_Observatory#General_information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_Observatory#General_in...
- PopePompus 6y agoNothing remotely similar to this has ever been built in space. This telescope is one of the very few which transmits radio waves as well as receiving them. The transmitters are used for radar mapping of solar system objects, as well as ionospheric research. Reproducing this instrument in space would probably cost as much as the ISS. It would be a Large Hadron Collider class investment.
- kitd 6y agoThe transmitters are also used for near-Earth asteroid detection. One would hope that capability isn't being abandoned.
- Sharlin 6y agoThis sort of a telescope structure fundamentally depends on gravity to naturally pull it into the required paraboloid shape. There's absolutely no way you could do anything remotely similar in space with current or near-future technology. And even if you could, that money would buy you dozens or hundreds of Earthbound Arecibos.
- Rebelgecko 6y agoThe same money they spent to build it would barely cover the cost of a launch, let alone an actual instrument