Orbiting Radio Telescope


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Orbiting Radio Telescope

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author Message
Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1098934 - Posted: 19 Apr 2011, 14:22:22 UTC - in response to Message 1098885.
Last modified: 19 Apr 2011, 14:23:21 UTC

total weight 5000Kg. This doesnt seem to be that giant of a space telescope. In fact it look like its not doing anything much different than earth based observations except for circling the earth

Again Radiotelescopes aren't helped by being in space. Optical yes
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

C Olival
Send message
Joined: 6 Sep 10
Posts: 209
Credit: 10,675
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1099554 - Posted: 22 Apr 2011, 2:20:36 UTC - in response to Message 1098934.

An orbiting radio telescope sounds like having a pulsar orbiting Earth.
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,258,815
RAC: 1,364
United Kingdom
Message 1102601 - Posted: 1 May 2011, 23:52:14 UTC - in response to Message 1098934.

total weight 5000Kg. This doesnt seem to be that giant of a space telescope. In fact it look like its not doing anything much different than earth based observations except for circling the earth

Again Radiotelescopes aren't helped by being in space. Optical yes

I agree, except that you need to take note of what it is to be used for... This one is to be used for VLBI work. It has a modest sized dish but the orbit gives a good result for VLBI to gain the advantage of a 'very much larger' dish.

An interesting idea if they can make it work well.

See:

Description of the RadioAstron


Keep searchin',
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,258,815
RAC: 1,364
United Kingdom
Message 1113452 - Posted: 5 Jun 2011, 12:22:05 UTC

One advantage for a radio telescope in orbit or on the far side of the moon is that you get away from the radio emission from the earth's atmosphere itself. That level is about the same as for the cosmic microwave background at the frequencies that s@h are listening to, hence you could halve the received noise level...

Or is that significant or not compared to the strength of other galactic signals observed?

Useful or not?

Keep searchin',
Martin


____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

C Olival
Send message
Joined: 6 Sep 10
Posts: 209
Credit: 10,675
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1114156 - Posted: 7 Jun 2011, 3:49:18 UTC - in response to Message 1113452.

Having orbiting radio telescopes around some of the planets in the Solar System; that would make a gigantic redio telescope that could capture ETI, possibly.

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1114299 - Posted: 7 Jun 2011, 15:13:29 UTC - in response to Message 1114156.

lets not forget that you still have to send that additional signal through the very same atmosphere and space that you are attempting to avoid to make a clearer signal. You get that nice crisp clear signal out in space then dump into our noisy atmosphere. Seems you've defeated the purpose.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Lint trap
Send message
Joined: 30 May 03
Posts: 871
Credit: 28,061,734
RAC: 10,444
United States
Message 1114803 - Posted: 8 Jun 2011, 20:52:43 UTC - in response to Message 1114299.

lets not forget that you still have to send that additional signal through the very same atmosphere and space that you are attempting to avoid to make a clearer signal. You get that nice crisp clear signal out in space then dump into our noisy atmosphere. Seems you've defeated the purpose.


Only the data representing the signal would need to be sent to Earth.

Isn't that how SAH works now? Workunits contain a digital representation of a few seconds of the rf picked up at Arecibo.

Keeping a digital stream intact should not be a problem. Transmission could be halted when the Sun got in the way.

Martin

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1114815 - Posted: 8 Jun 2011, 21:31:14 UTC - in response to Message 1114803.

seems we are saying the same thing. Sending a Rocket into space to build a radio telescope which is still going to have to deal with earths atmosphere defeats the initial purpose of sending it there in the first place. unless of course you intend to process all that data in space, then its a great idea
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Jason Safoutin
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 05
Posts: 1386
Credit: 200,389
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1114908 - Posted: 9 Jun 2011, 3:50:25 UTC
Last modified: 9 Jun 2011, 3:50:56 UTC

Kind of late to this thread...but why not build something like Hubble? I mean we can definitely put dishes on those things. Take Voyagers for example. Save the data on a hard drive and then download it from Earth.
____________
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible". Hebrews 11.3

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3868
Credit: 396,375
RAC: 200
Italy
Message 1114980 - Posted: 9 Jun 2011, 9:28:00 UTC - in response to Message 1114908.

The James Webb Space Telescope is beyond schedule and over its planned costs, so it is eating all the money allotted for space telescopes, killing other projects like LISA Gravitational Wave Observer. So a space radiotelescope is not likely to get any funding.
Tullio
____________

Profile Jason Safoutin
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 05
Posts: 1386
Credit: 200,389
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1115147 - Posted: 9 Jun 2011, 18:06:09 UTC - in response to Message 1114980.

The James Webb Space Telescope is beyond schedule and over its planned costs, so it is eating all the money allotted for space telescopes, killing other projects like LISA Gravitational Wave Observer. So a space radiotelescope is not likely to get any funding.
Tullio


If you ask me, I think it would be much cheaper to just keep Hubble and to upgrade it when it's needed. As the saying goes, if it's not broken, don't fix it. Hubble is there, it works, and can be upgraded.
____________
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible". Hebrews 11.3

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3868
Credit: 396,375
RAC: 200
Italy
Message 1115295 - Posted: 10 Jun 2011, 3:44:28 UTC - in response to Message 1115147.

Hubble works in the optical band, the JWST should works in the IR. It is a Big Science project, always late and over budget like other Big Science projects like the ITER fusion experiment, whose cost soared from 5 billion euros to 15 billion euros.They cannot be abandoned for political reasons.
Tullio
____________

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1115299 - Posted: 10 Jun 2011, 3:54:55 UTC - in response to Message 1115295.

lets also not forget that Hubble has smallish solar collectors and has no place to attach a radio dish let alone the additional solar panels needed to do such work. talk about overkill. Thats like putting a huge spoiler on you Honda civics trunk to make it go faster or a Coffee can exhaust to increase Hp.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3868
Credit: 396,375
RAC: 200
Italy
Message 1115319 - Posted: 10 Jun 2011, 6:31:59 UTC

Also, with no shuttle missions available, there is no way to reach Hubble.
Tullio
____________

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3868
Credit: 396,375
RAC: 200
Italy
Message 1115482 - Posted: 10 Jun 2011, 16:27:12 UTC
Last modified: 10 Jun 2011, 16:28:13 UTC

Just as a comparison, the ALMA radiotelescope array being built in the Atacama desert in Chile at a 5000 meters altitude costs about 1.3 billion dollars. It should reach up to 64 antennas and is slated to be inaugurated at the end of 2012. It is managed by an international cooperation including USA, Europe, Japan, Chile and South Africa.
Tullio
____________

Profile Jason Safoutin
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 05
Posts: 1386
Credit: 200,389
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1115581 - Posted: 10 Jun 2011, 20:45:09 UTC - in response to Message 1115319.

Also, with no shuttle missions available, there is no way to reach Hubble.
Tullio


Good thought. Never crossed my mine. Wow NASA seems to have really screwed themselves unless they have something hiding in secret that's to replace the shuttle.
____________
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible". Hebrews 11.3

Profile Jason Safoutin
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 05
Posts: 1386
Credit: 200,389
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1115585 - Posted: 10 Jun 2011, 20:47:22 UTC - in response to Message 1115299.

lets also not forget that Hubble has smallish solar collectors and has no place to attach a radio dish let alone the additional solar panels needed to do such work. talk about overkill. Thats like putting a huge spoiler on you Honda civics trunk to make it go faster or a Coffee can exhaust to increase Hp.


Well lets say the Webb telescope finally does make it to space. Lets say they have something to replace the shuttle already. Why not take Hubble and just rig it with a dish of a sort? I mean with Webb up there, would we necessarily need Hubble for taking pictures anymore? Would it even be possible to put a dish on Hubble in place of its camera? I am just wondering is all. The orbiting radio telescope is intriguing and am just curious as to why they have never even tried it...that we know of.
____________
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible". Hebrews 11.3

Profile Jason Safoutin
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 05
Posts: 1386
Credit: 200,389
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1115595 - Posted: 10 Jun 2011, 20:56:37 UTC

This thread has gotten me thinking a little lately. What if there has been, whether recent or not, communication of some sort with another intelligent species somewhere in space? Now I know it takes decades if not more for signals to travel through space, and they become weakened as they do travel. We have sent various messages across space in hopes of getting a response. The Voyager crafts have the golden records. Is it possible that we already got a reply from one of these messages? if so, is it possible for the replies to be directed precisely toward an instrument that would receive that reply? If the reply were only a few short bursts, and only received by the instrument it was directed at, is it possible for everyone to have missed that signal except for the instrument it was directed at? After the instrument received the signal, it would continue to travel through space, away from Earth. Would we be able to pick up that signal once it passes us even if it were just a few bursts and stopped shortly after whoever received it?
____________
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible". Hebrews 11.3

C Olival
Send message
Joined: 6 Sep 10
Posts: 209
Credit: 10,675
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1116032 - Posted: 11 Jun 2011, 21:14:14 UTC - in response to Message 1115581.

good point, how is NASA now going to deliver payloads to the Space Station,if the shuttle program has bee phased out? Maybe they should try space elavators; Is NASA going to use Saturn rockets to put astronauts in space? That seems higly enifficient, sadly NASA has become victim of the political arena in DC. The creativity that NASA is known for is gonne, projects like antimatter propulsion, fusion propulsion systems will never become reality if NASA keeps going the way it is now. Not with today's NASA that humans will ever leave Earth and colonize other planets. Again, NASA should appropriate funds for fusion propulsion research, antimatter propulsion, ION propultion, things that one day will allow humans to leave this planet, Earth will not be an habitable planet forever; in a billion years, the oceans of the Earth will evaporate to the Sun's heat; life will cease to exist. Everyone that knows a little about science knows that this is true. Hopefully NASA gets on the right path again so it can focus on deep scpace research projects and focus less on local space.

Profile tullioProject donor
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3868
Credit: 396,375
RAC: 200
Italy
Message 1116119 - Posted: 12 Jun 2011, 1:48:07 UTC

NASA has just launched AQUARIUS to monitor the salinity on the oceans, which is a much needed parameter for any climate model such as the one I am crunching now in CPDN. We have only one planet and must guard its evolution, otherwise we shall be in trouble in a few decades, not millions of years.
Tullio
____________

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Orbiting Radio Telescope

Copyright © 2014 University of California