The most import feature would be the fact that sorts of earthly EM racket is blocked out by the mass of the Moon. Couple that with a geologically dead platform that allows long duration observations and it’s a very promising idea.
Where the hell did my “all” go? :smack:
The Moon is in synchronous rotation with the Earth (plus or minus a few degrees for its slight eccentricity), so it is possible to set up a telescope on the proverbial dark side of the moon and not have to worry about the light reflected from Earth in addition to direct light from the sun.
Aaah, I wasn’t sure if the “dark” side just applied to Earth views, what with crescent moons and the like. Thanks.
M-O-O-N. That spells nice thread title.
Technically, the “dark side” is differentiated from the “far side” of the moon in that the far side is only completely dark during a full Moon as viewed from Earth, and is fully illuminated during a new Moon…
yeah, it looks cool. But I’m a little skeptical…
This reminds me of the over-excited hype about the space station. It was going to do everything: be a jumping off point for future expeditions,a training site to teach us how to survive in space for long periods of time, a manufacting site for new products that would revolutionize life on earth (super-pure drugs, perfectly shaped crystals,stronger steel). Now, after 20 years, we have basically nothing to show for all the investment.
Wouldn’t a moon colony just be another space station?What research would it do that can’t be done now?
The Moon may be geologically inert, but that doesn’t make it a “dead” platform. The Moon suffers regular geological disturbances from tidal and thermal impulses, and while it doesn’t have an atmosphere to refract and absorb incoming light, it does have rotation and nutation wobble. Mounting it on the Moon also limits an observation program to what is above the horizon at any given time. An orbital telescope would be more generally effective and probably cheaper to boot.
Stranger
Won’t a constellation of orbiting telescopes needs to maintain formation and be refueled to maintain station keeping? Are the tidal forces on the moon greater or less than formation flying telescopes?
In my view the telescope is a nice addition to an outpost, not a reason for one.
It could, uh, you know, study the moon.
But seriously, though, even though the ISS allows us to study the long term effects of microgravity, we still know nothing about the LTE of “minigravity”, that is, gravity fields between 1G and 0G. Maybe lunar gravity is good enough to ward off bone deterioration. The only way to find out is to go there for long periods.
Except this time the Chinese have said they’re going to do it and they seem pretty serious.
Politics aside, Cost of War has the cost of Iraq currently at almost $350 billion. No one asked me as a tax payer if I wanted to spend that and listening to space critics I’d assume coming up with that kind of cash is impossible. But apparently it isn’t. If the government is going to spend $350 billion on something and most likely eventually $1 trillion on something and if they’re not going to ask my permission first could they at least give me a choice? $1 trillion on Iraq or $1 trillion on a really kick-ass moon base? We’re gonna spend it anyway.
I’d have voted kick-ass moon base.
No, like Hubble and the upcoming James Webb telescopes, it would be in free orbit. You would need some minimal propellent to maintain the orbit slight degredation over time, but orientation could be done (as it is on those previously listed) by electromechanical flywheels. Tidal forces are an effect of the differential in acceleration on a large body in orbit. Because a satellite is so small, and sufficiently far away from the Earth or Moon, the tidal forces are virtually negligible–enough to require an occasional correction to orientation, but not enough to disturb or damage instrumentation. An orbiting telescope has another advantage as well; assuming you can assemble it in orbit, you can make it arbitrarily large, and in fact, your “telescope” could be made as an array of satellites hundreds or thousands of kilometers, giving you a very large effective aperture.
Aside from it’s lack of atmosphere, the Moon is really not a very good place to put a telescope. Assuming you can live in space anyway, you might as well just put your satellite in orbit.
Stranger