The Quest To Build a Telescope On the Moon (newyorker.com) 22
silverjacket writes: A feature for The New Yorker describes a plan to use robots to mine lunar materials and build a radio telescope on the far side of the moon that will help answer questions about the early universe. An excerpt from the story: he dream of a lunar telescope dates to the nineteen-sixties. The moon has the advantage of being hundreds of thousands of miles away from earthly electronics; on the far side of the moon, in particular, there's virtually no noise from human technology or the Earth's magnetosphere. After the Apollo landings, however, interest in the moon waned. Jack Burns, an astrophysicist who is now at the University of Colorado Boulder, has been advocating for a moon-based telescope since 1984. "I never, never would have guessed that it would take this long," he told me. "I just won't accept no for an answer." Today, Burns is the chief scientist of FarView, as well as the primary investigator of a sort of mini-FarView: FARSIDE, which would have one or two hundred antennas instead of a hundred thousand.
If FarView is built, it would be able to detect some of the oldest light in existence. The universe began 13.8 billion years ago as a dense, fast-expanding soup of matter and energy; around three hundred and eighty thousand years later, it had cooled enough for hydrogen atoms to hold together. After that came the Cosmic Dark Ages: millions of years without stars or galaxies, a period we know very little about. But hydrogen occasionally releases light with a wavelength of twenty-one centimetres -- radio waves. Some of that light is still around.
Because twenty-one-centimetre radiation is stretched by the steady expansion of the universe -- it's now tens to hundreds of metres long -- scientists can figure out how old it is, and how far away. (The longer the wavelength, the older the light and the more distant its source.) This means that if scientists can build a radio telescope on the moon, they will be able to create a three-dimensional picture of the early universe.
If FarView is built, it would be able to detect some of the oldest light in existence. The universe began 13.8 billion years ago as a dense, fast-expanding soup of matter and energy; around three hundred and eighty thousand years later, it had cooled enough for hydrogen atoms to hold together. After that came the Cosmic Dark Ages: millions of years without stars or galaxies, a period we know very little about. But hydrogen occasionally releases light with a wavelength of twenty-one centimetres -- radio waves. Some of that light is still around.
Because twenty-one-centimetre radiation is stretched by the steady expansion of the universe -- it's now tens to hundreds of metres long -- scientists can figure out how old it is, and how far away. (The longer the wavelength, the older the light and the more distant its source.) This means that if scientists can build a radio telescope on the moon, they will be able to create a three-dimensional picture of the early universe.
Why don't we have Moon telescopes? (Score:2)
Why don't we already have telescopes on the dark side of the Moon? Really. Why? We know we can get there. We know even us fleshy useless things can survive there briefly. And we can send automated systems up there all day long. It makes perfect sense from a science perspective, and I can't imagine why the funding supply would dry up at the idea, when we do so many other things with space funding. Like build the SLS, which will be billions in the hole just for a couple launches and a "see, we can too do it"
Re: (Score:1)
Because there is no atmosphere to protect it from debris/dust. The dust on the moon is as bas as asbestos.
At least Hubble doesn't have that specific problem (rather it has micro-meteorite problems, which the moon would also have.)
But if it's on the dark side of the moon, that means it will never be in contact with earth, you would quite literately need to build the telescope on the dark side of the moon AND run fiber/power links from the other side. Which means running hundreds of miles of fiber. How you ar
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He seems to be talking about a radio telescope. I think those would be more resilient to micrometeorites.
FWIW, I'm all in favor of telescopes of multiple varieties on the dark side of the moon...but I think we need a more developed space industry to make them practical.
Re: (Score:1)
No fibres needed.
You put a communication satellite in a so called halo orbit behind the moon around the Earth / Moon L2 point.
If you look at the moon from earth, that Sattelite would look like it would orbit in a ring around the moon. But it is far behind the moon.
The Chinese have one like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why don't we have Moon telescopes? (Score:4, Interesting)
Moon dust is way, way worse than asbestos. It's a lot sharper, and a lot harder, and a lot finer.
Asbestos causes immune systems responses that trigger cancer. Moon dust would just cut your lungs to shreds long before any cancer could get to you.
Re:Why don't we have Moon telescopes? (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no 'dark side of the Moon'. There is a FAR side, which is great as a shield from radio interference from Earth.
A better position for a lunar telescope is in a polar crater, where it can sit in eternal shadow from the Sun and Earth but see plenty of sky, with the option to put solar panels on the crater rim for permanent power.
Call it Farscape (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aw, dammit, you beat me to it! I was picturing robots with beehive hairdos...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think someone is standing on your lawn
Re:Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
found the incel
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It'll take a miracle. (Score:2)
This seems 35 years out.
I do wish them all the luck in getting it done sooner, of course.
A quest? (Score:2)
Didnâ(TM)t we just spend 10B on JWST (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)