4 ms·
Your second paragraph answers the first question, I think! As you probably know, more antennas spread further apart dramatically increases the effective antenna
by idealmedtech 5y ago
Your second paragraph answers the first question, I think! As you probably know, more antennas spread further apart dramatically increases the effective antenna size when phased correctly.
- ben_w 5y agoWhile that does increase the angular resolution, it does nothing for weak signals — only area can boost that.
- thro1 5y agoBut can we boost that signals - focusing not on observation, but on detection of objects in the solar system moving toward Earth? With such great resolution, what power, scanning frequency etc. of an active radar would be needed? Considering the area we can't use focused beams (but impulses would be nice) - right?, could the solar radio emission be used instead or the light is better? Or maybe there is some background radiation on frequency that we can detect when is covered ?
- suifbwish 5y agoWouldn’t the area of the combined sensor be the sum of the areas of each sensor?
- ben_w 5y agoYes, if that’s what you’re asking (which is not what I thought this was about). Thought as someone else said, even combined it’s still less than Arecibo.
- Dylan16807 5y ago> it’s still less than Arecibo Which is a huge baseline and getting anywhere near it with so much better resolution could be really impressive.
- ben_w 5y agoWe’ve basically already got one twice the size of Arecibo, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Kilometre_Array https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_Kilometre_Array
- Dylan16807 5y agoAlso cool. But the same applies: If an orbital system could get anywhere near SKA with so much better resolution it could be really impressive. If it's a third to half the dish area of Arecibo, and Arecibo is half of SKA, then it qualifies as "anywhere near". And SKA goes up to 14GHz so this theoretical system is completely incomparable on resolution.