[guest48150]

What , if at all was found on the dark side of the Moon?? What was so interesting about it or was it just a futile, juvenile exercise??

[alancalverd]

It isn't dark! The Chinese have landed on the outer side of the moon, the bit we never see from earth, but wen the moon is dark from our point of view (the "new moon") it's fully illuminated on the outer side.

Anyway it's quite different from the inner side, as we knew from orbital flights. Much more cratered and with a significantly different surface texture.

More anon!

[Petrochemicals]

How dark the moon can get, at least 50% of the time. Probably a good place for a very large chinese telescope.

[Janus]

How dark the moon can get, at least 50% of the time. Probably a good place for a very large chinese telescope.

But the moon does rotate, albeit very slowly, stationary telescopes on the dark side would eventually turn towards the Earth. Telescopes in lagrange node maybe just as effective.

To reiterate,  The Moon does not have a "dark side".     It does have a side that always faces away from the Earth.  One advantage of putting a radio telescope there would be that it would be in a "radio shadow" as far as the Earth is concerned, being shielded from the electromagnetic noise of our planet.   Whether that would be enough of an improvement to make such a venture worth it is another matter.

[Bored chemist]

But the moon does rotate, albeit very slowly,

Yes it does, at exactly the same rate that it orbits the Earth.
That's why the far side is always on the far side.

stationary telescopes on the dark side would eventually turn towards the Earth

No, they won't.

[Petrochemicals]

How dark the moon can get, at least 50% of the time. Probably a good place for a very large chinese telescope.

But the moon does rotate, albeit very slowly, stationary telescopes on the dark side would eventually turn towards the Earth. Telescopes in lagrange node maybe just as effective.

To reiterate,  The Moon does not have a "dark side".     It does have a side that always faces away from the Earth.  One advantage of putting a radio telescope there would be that it would be in a "radio shadow" as far as the Earth is concerned, being shielded from the electromagnetic noise of our planet.   Whether that would be enough of an improvement to make such a venture worth it is another matter.

I think michael collins would disagree on that.

[Petrochemicals]

How dark the moon can get, at least 50% of the time. Probably a good place for a very large chinese telescope.

But the moon does rotate, albeit very slowly, stationary telescopes on the dark side would eventually turn towards the Earth. Telescopes in lagrange node maybe just as effective.

To reiterate,  The Moon does not have a "dark side".     It does have a side that always faces away from the Earth.  One advantage of putting a radio telescope there would be that it would be in a "radio shadow" as far as the Earth is concerned, being shielded from the electromagnetic noise of our planet.   Whether that would be enough of an improvement to make such a venture worth it is another matter.

near absolute telescopes already reduce the interference you cite.

They cannot really,



There is alot of scattering absorbtion reflection that you would not get in space, plus why not have a base where you can repair the telescope easily, have other types of telescope as outlined in earlier posts, search for the 'fusin 'wata, mine asteroids and the moon, cary out Space Force missions, man this would make Donald look good. If they had done this in the 60s rather than parties of astronauts  going forward and back, we would still be there now. Hubble would not have been the problem it was and said telescope could have been upgraded. Why would we need the ISS ? Cheaper all round !

[guest47899]

How dark the moon can get, at least 50% of the time. Probably a good place for a very large chinese telescope.

But the moon does rotate, albeit very slowly, stationary telescopes on the dark side would eventually turn towards the Earth. Telescopes in lagrange node maybe just as effective.

To reiterate,  The Moon does not have a "dark side".     It does have a side that always faces away from the Earth.  One advantage of putting a radio telescope there would be that it would be in a "radio shadow" as far as the Earth is concerned, being shielded from the electromagnetic noise of our planet.   Whether that would be enough of an improvement to make such a venture worth it is another matter.

near absolute telescopes already reduce the interference you cite.

They cannot really,



There is alot of scattering absorbtion reflection that you would not get in space, plus why not have a base where you can repair the telescope easily, have other types of telescope as outlined in earlier posts, search for the 'fusin 'wata, mine asteroids and the moon, cary out Space Force missions, man this would make Donald look good. If they had done this in the 60s rather than parties of astronauts  going forward and back, we would still be there now. Hubble would not have been the problem it was and said telescope could have been upgraded. Why would we need the ISS ? Cheaper all round !

my bad, I was referring to absolute zero infrared telescopes which are shielded from external heat sources. you are correct, my apology.

[Bored chemist]

I was referring to absolute zero infrared telescopes

You can't get to absolute zero.

But that's not the point. The Earth has loads of radio transmitters (including natural ones like lightning).
And those produce signals which interfere with radio telescope imaging.
A radio telescope on the far side of the moon would be screened from Earth's noise. (and for part of the time it would also be screened from the Sun)

[evan_au]

"near absolute" telescopes already reduce the interference you cite.

By "near absolute" I think you mean "near absolute zero temperature"(?)

It is true that radiotelescopes often have the receivers cryogenically cooled, as this reduces radiation pickup within the detector, allowing easier detection of sources in space.

However, if there is a source of radiation like microwave ovens, broadcast TV satellites, terrestrial 5G mobile base stations, etc, a cryogenically cooled telescope will suffer interference from these manmade sources - in fact, the cryogenically cooled telescopes will be able to detect the manmade sources more easily than a non-cooled telescope!

The goal of radio astronomy is to ensure that the signal they are searching for in space is easily detectable above the hubbub of manmade interference.

That's why the Square Kilometer Array telescope is being built in areas with low manmade interference, like remote Western Australia and South Africa. But it still has to deal with orbiting satellites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Square_Kilometre_Array_Pathfinder

The Moon (currently) has much less manmade interference - but it is also much more expensive to build and maintain high-technology equipment there!

Oops! overlap with others!

As for infra-red telescopes, they must overcome the infrared glow of the sky.
- The NASA SOFIA telescope is flown above most of the atmosphere, in a converted 747 jumbo jet
- And it rapidly switches between the source being observed, and a nearby "blank" patch of sky
- This allows it to pick up infrared sources that are fainter than the sky

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Observatory_for_Infrared_Astronomy
And a first-hand account: http://omegataupodcast.net/touren-tours/sofia/

[Kryptid]

from now on I will call you. "doesn't know the moon rotates" ! lol

I don't know why, given that Bored Chemist agreed that the Moon actually does rotate:

Yes it does, at exactly the same rate that it orbits the Earth.

As he pointed out, the fact that it rotates at exactly the same rate that it orbits the Earth means that it always shows the same face to us. The phenomenon is called tidal locking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

For this reason, at no point would a telescope mounted on the far side of the Moon point towards Earth.

[Kryptid]

The above statement implies otherwise, krypkid.

How?

[Bored chemist]

from now on I will call you. "doesn't know the moon rotates" ! lol

Well, you can call me what you wish, but it's obvious that I do know that the moon rotates- because I said so, earlier in the thread.
I said that it rotates at the same rate that it orbits the Earth.

Yes it does, at exactly the same rate that it orbits the Earth.

So, it would be a bit silly to choose that nickname.

Incidentally, the phrase is "nit pick".

[Bored chemist]

So, it would be a bit silly to choose that nickname.

Incidentally, the phrase is "nit pick".

in your honor, we should change nit pick to something you do well, how about nose pick!

So, you accept you were talking nonsense about the Moon's rotation.
I guess that's a start.

[guest47899]

So, it would be a bit silly to choose that nickname.

Incidentally, the phrase is "nit pick".

in your honor, we should change nit pick to something you do well, how about nose pick!

So, you accept you were talking nonsense about the Moon's rotation.
I guess that's a start.

my mistake,  I have withdrawn most of my posts to this thread. my apology to you and kyptid and to the community on a whole

[Kryptid]

my mistake,  I have withdrawn most of my posts to this thread. my apology to you and kyptid and to the community on a whole

I don't think deleting your posts was necessary as long as you recognized your error. That being said, it's certainly refreshing to see that you were willing to admit to it. That's far better than I can say for some of the population that inhabits the the New Theories board.