this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
82 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

87 readers
2 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago
 

Starlink satellites can disturb observation even of those telescopes protected by radio-quiet zones.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (13 children)

Probably going to have to move to radio telescopes on the dark side of the moon or something. I mean, I seriously doubt that terrestrial users are going to let frequency go unused.

For some users, maybe we could switch to lasers, which are more-directional -- like, a hypothetical Laser Starlink would have one or a handful of lasers on a station that physically track a satellite or satellites. Problem is that that doesn't work well with clouds -- visible light is obstructed by them.

Maybe it's possible to use masers, but I assume that if it were technically easy and cheap, it would have been done by now.

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (12 children)

Probably going to have to move to radio telescopes on the dark side of the moon or something.

Have you seen the size of just an average radio telescope?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/CSIRO_ScienceImage_4350_CSIROs_Parkes_Radio_Telescope_with_moon_in_the_background.jpg

That's just one, some are giant arrays of multiple dishes. That's a lot of launches, or some VERY creative payload origami.

[–] tal@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

I mean, the opportunity cost of not being able to use part of the frequency spectrum is also pretty big. And some of the structural elements are there to stand up to terrestrial conditions, like precipitation, wind, and much-stronger gravity. They wouldn't need those on the Moon.

I think a more-fundamental issue is that it imposes constraints on the direction in which one can be pulling data from. No great fix for that.

EDIT: If this NASA project makes it to deployment, then there will be at least one up there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Crater_Radio_Telescope

If completed, the telescope would have a structural diameter of 1.3 km, and the reflector would be 350m in diameter.[3][4][5] Robotic lift wires and an anchoring system would enable origami deployment of the parabolic reflector.[6]

[–] rankshank@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

Don't overlook the changes required for electronics that are able to operate in space. Since there'd be no atmospheric sheilding from radiation, the amount of additional silicon for error correction used per unit of compute is much higher. The capacity for cooling is also much lower on the moon, you'd essentially have to slap huge heatsinks on every component since you basically rely on radiation for heat dissipation. You'll also constantly be fighting with the fact that every electrically conductive trace serves as an antenna, so the trace length vs component density for heat dissipation is going to be a constant battle. Then there is the limited availability of power.

It all adds up to an entirely different class of device being able to be deployed in space. On earth we can just chuck high precision components around, throw swathes of power and cooling at it and call it a day. Rain and weather are a footnote compared to the design challenges space deployments represent.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)