I recently read the book Contact by Carl Sagan (awesome read). In the book they mentioned that SETI research would be made much easier if we had an orbiting radio telescope in space. It has now been ~25 years since it was published. Have we sent a radio telescope into space during that time? If not, is there discussion of doing so in the future?

I recently read the book Contact by Carl Sagan (awesome read). In the book they mentioned that SETI research would be made much easier if we had an orbiting radio telescope in space. It has now been ~25 years since it was published. Have we sent a radio telescope into space during that time? If not, is there discussion of doing so in the future?

No, because the atmosphere radio window is open. There is a project called the Square Kilometer Array with thousands of antennas to be built in Australia or South Africa. It will be managed by Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope institution in the UK.
Tullio

---

I think there are lots of people who would love to have the funding to put a radio telescope in orbit or on the dark side of the moon. But its unlikely anyone will fund the project. We are Lucky to have telescopes like Hubble, Splitzer and Fermi. Radio telescopes need to be massive, they need a massive collecting area. As Tullio said, its easier to build them on the ground because radio waves are not blocked by the earths atmosphere.

John.

---

As Tullio said, its easier to build them on the ground because radio waves are not blocked by the earths atmosphere.

The atmosphere does transmit most radio frequencies, but it causes some distortion and scattering much as it does with visible light, and there are parts of the microwave band where atmospheric absorption is quite strong.

There are interesting possibilities for interferometry by multiple radio-telescopes in orbit: a baseline thousands of kilometres long could provide unprecedented resolution. (Not so interesting for SETI, perhaps.)

---

There are interesting possibilities for interferometry by multiple radio-telescopes in orbit: a baseline thousands of kilometres long could provide unprecedented resolution. (Not so interesting for SETI, perhaps.)

Something similar has been built already....the ISS. It has taken us lots of years, quite alot of money and a couple of shuttle flight crew members being killed.
Building a baseline thousand of Km long is a good idea but not realistic so far. I guess another 50 years will pass until we see a structure in space with a such size and performance capability.
Much less expensive and quite effective are rovers programms like Spirit. Bigger and more powerful devices are in progress now -being built-
Nevertheless, I am for a manned mission to Mars for the next 25/30 years, as in a best case scenario.
Last input: bringing 1 Kg of mass into orbit (and maintain it) is still too expensive.
Cheers!

---

The joint ESA-NASA LISA project was to launch three laser interferometers like LIGO and VIRGO in space to detect gravitational waves. But NASA is backing out of it and ESA is evaluating a smaller project, because of cost.
Tullio

---

I just found this article which talks about sending cargo into orbit and its price---->welt.de

Ein Start der Heavy Falcon soll zwischen 80 und 125 Millionen US-Dollar kosten.
Das bedeutet etwas weniger als 2000 US-Dollar (rund 1400 Euro) pro Kilogramm Ladung.

A Heavy Falcon rocket launch might cost something betweeen 80 and 125 million US dollar, which gives an average of less than 2K dollar/Kg (some 1.400 Euro)

---

sounds cheap lets send a few million tons of cargo to start that space radio telescope... that should only cost $trillions

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Self replicating spaceships based on nanotechnology machinery, in theory a Galactica size spaceship could be built. Any thoughs on that

Self replicating spaceships based on nanotechnology machinery, in theory a Galactica size spaceship could be built. Any thoughs on that ?

crazy non-sense.

---

Join BOINC United now!

pretty much that. Each of your nanobots would have to have instructions to build the entire ship that seems to be a data heavy idea. Unless you could figure out how to compress data into a very small area a nanobot would be anything but nano.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Self replicating spaceships based on nanotechnology machinery, in theory a Galactica size spaceship could be built. Any thoughs on that ?

crazy non-sense.

Red Dwarf anyone?


More seriously, a message in a bottle or whatever self-perpetuating machinery could be 'everlasting' to eventually explore the entire universe.

Wait a moment... Isn't life such a piece of machinery?...

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Interesting, so when Newton came up with the Newtonian law, or Eistein came up theory or relativity, are those crazy non sense, i think not. Sad when the human mind does not think outside the box.

Interesting, so when Newton came up with the Newtonian law, or Eistein came up theory or relativity, are those crazy non sense, i think not. Sad when the human mind does not think outside the box.

That all depends on what you consider to be your "box"...

There's many impractical dreamers...

And then there are those that make new things work and do things.

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

To reply to the thread title...


Radio waves are largely unaffected by our atmosphere. There are effects from the ionosphere but that is not significant for radio astronomy.

Hence, we can conveniently and cheaply do our radio astronomy from the comfort of Earth-based observatories. The only problems are from local interference and from the ever-present lack of funding.


The only advantages I can envision for a space-based radio observatory is for whether we can take advantage of:

• Remoteness from terrestrial interference;
  
• Remoteness from solar interference;
  
• The vastness of space to deploy a low cost lightly constructed but vastly large collecting area.
  

All the other aspects of using a space-based observatory conspire to cause great cost and/or severe operating restrictions.


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Yes, but.

We will have to base our LIGO efforts in space. Too much vibration here on Earth. Plus we could achieve an enormously long base-line for the interferometer. I am confident that once we do this that we will find gravity "waves" which would be a rolling warpage of space-time.

Lets put orbiting radio telescopes around most planets in the Solar system, thus creatian a gargantuan readio telescope.

In terms of the "nanobots" idea, I think a more realistic concept may be based around a more plausible & achievable self-constructing solution.

Wow that's a lot of big words - where did they come from?...

Borg approach

OK guys!!!!

You asked for a giant radio telescope in space? Well it seems the russians are launching one in May this year!!!!

Its called "RadioAstron".

Watch Russian TV video about it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48O4kgjjKkc

RadioAstron website;
http://www.asc.rssi.ru/radioastron/

Wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RadioAstron

Picture;



John.

---