Re: This is why the #1 space program should be super telescope
- From: "Brad Guth" <bradguth@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 18:41:49 +0000 (UTC)
"gaffo" <gaffo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XMoMg.23931$kO3.8612@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
the Moon would be the ideal base for HUGE reflector telescopes.
Before you blindly leap yourself onto our moon, think again. You folks
have got to be absolutely kidding about utilizing the physically dark
surface of our extremely dusty and highly reactive moon, especially for
much of anything that's optical.
Our moon's surface is highly if not entirely exposed to solar wind
driven electrostatics and otherwise being that of a naked anticathode
environment that's rather solar/cosmic and locally DNA lethal (far worse
off than anything Van Allen belt related), plus continually and
unavoidably running itself into stuff at 30+ km/s, and otherwise gravity
attracting upon all that's nearby, is perhaps good for the sorts of
robust robotics of those tough little SAR image receiving modules, but
otherwise hardly suited for that of anything optical or otherwise
end-user-friendly unless it's going deep underground.
Do any of you folks even realize what absolutely terrific resolution a
focal length of 384,000 km can do on behalf SAR imaging? (I didn't think
so)
Such pure robotics on behalf of accomplishing such extended SAR/VLA
imaging is actually based upon extremely efficient deployments of what
should not represent 10% of a given Apollo mission, and/or perhaps not
even involving 1% the mass per SAR image receiving module, and without
folks ever having to endure the trauma as to what that sort of nasty
lunar surface environment would otherwise be nailing countless strands
of human DNA per second.
Of course the laws of physics and I could be entirely wrong. In which
case, how much DNA trauma and/or physical impact trauma can a human or
that of anything optical withstand?
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
.
- Prev by Date: Re: This is why the #1 space program should be super telescope
- Next by Date: Re: Does a solid-fuel Ares 1 make sense?
- Previous by thread: Re: This is why the #1 space program should be super telescope
- Next by thread: Re: Galactic Drifter SETI
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
