Name an advantage of a telescope on the Earth instead of in orbit? If we follow the reductio ad absurdum path of the almighty superiority of orbital telescopes, then why are we still spending money on terrestrial facilities? By all rights they should be shut down and those cash flows diverted into orbital facilities so that we don't have to waste money on frivolities like adaptive optics.
As I noted elsewhere, it's not a question of being on the Moon vs being in orbit, but rather one of which functions are best suited for each location. Locations on the Moon will be superior to locations on Earth, locations in orbit better than on the Moon. Orbits farther out in the Solar system will be better than orbits near Earth. Trans-heliopause orbital facilities will be better than intra-heliopause facilities. So we should stop all current orbital telescope projects and start on a facility to be parked outside our Solar system to get the mostest superior results.
We already have huge amounts of unprocessed data (go visit the Strasbourg Observatory database sometime). Personally I'd like to see the astronomy community work on a better way of consolidating, correlating and organizing all the data into a massive, useful 3-D galactic map. But that's just me and I'm not an astronomer...
Space/Science » in reply to OK, you have a point there
Well, looked at another way...
The whole thread (40 posts)
- OK! TIt's timne to end this cosmic bogeyman BS about the hazards of lunar dust.
- Agreed! It's time to end this cosmic bogeyman BS about the hazards of lunar dust.
- re: Not sure where you are coming from. Dust on the Moon is an engineering problem yet to be solved.
- This issue was discussed in the Physics Today article.
- re: Are you trying to claim micrometeorites and cosmic rays do not hit the surface of the Moon?
- OK, you have a point there
- This issue was discussed in the Physics Today article.