3 ms·

Why not put radio arrays on the backs of StarLink Satellites and have them act as an orbital array sensor that uses its downlinks to push SigInt directly back t

Why not put radio arrays on the backs of StarLink Satellites and have them act as an orbital array sensor that uses its downlinks to push SigInt directly back to US NSF NRAO A Dyson Sphere of Radio Nodes instead of Star-Plasma-Harvesting Nodes.

ck2 2y ago
Or make all the LEO companies pay into a fund to build radio telescope on the far side of the moon. NASA already has a very clever plan to build one out of a crater with lightweight cable fired out from a probe. https://www.nasa.gov/general/lunar-crater-radio-telescope-lcrt-on-the-far-side-of-the-moon/ https://www.nasa.gov/general/lunar-crater-radio-telescope-lc... It's like selling (licensing) radio spectrum, if all these companies are going to destroy the sky with tens of thousands of devices in LEO, then they need to fund the moon radio telescope. The stupid thing is though, radio telescopes were the one telescope that works well on earth and doesn't care about clouds, etc. But now that is ruined.
- samstave 2y ago
  How many ~~twitters~~ Xs would it cost in real terms (True Q, not being snide - using it as a measure of scale, as most people now understand what 44 Billion bought in Corpo Dimension
ianburrell 2y ago
First, the size of radio telescope matters. It doesn't matter if have lots of receivers if they aren't sensitive enough to receive the signal. Large telescopes are too big to put in space, they need a lot of structure and it is all required to reduce vibrations. Second, interferometry is easier on the ground where the telescope is stable and not moving relatively. Doing with satellites is possible but requires equipment for exact positioning. It isn't something that can be added to Starink satellite. Third, Starlink satellites are bad place to put radio receiver because they are receiving and sending signals that could bleed over. This is reverse of problem in the article. It would be cool to have a network of radio telescopes in orbit but they would have to be planned and launched separately. And they would not replace large ones which would have to go on the Moon.

ck2 2y ago

Or make all the LEO companies pay into a fund to build radio telescope on the far side of the moon. NASA already has a very clever plan to build one out of a crater with lightweight cable fired out from a probe. https://www.nasa.gov/general/lunar-crater-radio-telescope-lcrt-on-the-far-side-of-the-moon/ https://www.nasa.gov/general/lunar-crater-radio-telescope-lc... It's like selling (licensing) radio spectrum, if all these companies are going to destroy the sky with tens of thousands of devices in LEO, then they need to fund the moon radio telescope. The stupid thing is though, radio telescopes were the one telescope that works well on earth and doesn't care about clouds, etc. But now that is ruined.

samstave 2y ago
How many ~~twitters~~ Xs would it cost in real terms (True Q, not being snide - using it as a measure of scale, as most people now understand what 44 Billion bought in Corpo Dimension

ianburrell 2y ago

First, the size of radio telescope matters. It doesn't matter if have lots of receivers if they aren't sensitive enough to receive the signal. Large telescopes are too big to put in space, they need a lot of structure and it is all required to reduce vibrations. Second, interferometry is easier on the ground where the telescope is stable and not moving relatively. Doing with satellites is possible but requires equipment for exact positioning. It isn't something that can be added to Starink satellite. Third, Starlink satellites are bad place to put radio receiver because they are receiving and sending signals that could bleed over. This is reverse of problem in the article. It would be cool to have a network of radio telescopes in orbit but they would have to be planned and launched separately. And they would not replace large ones which would have to go on the Moon.