Is it really necessary to have a lander to perform radio-astronomic observations in moon's shadow? Isn't it easier to have an orbiting spacecraft instead and perform observation while it's orbiting behind the moon?
jupitr 4 hours ago [-]
It's not necessary, but is significantly more radio-quiet than a lunar orbit. And secondly, though unfortunately not something we could really exploit this time, the stable temperatures of the lunar night greatly help with calibration for sensitive measurements like the 21cm Dark Ages signal
xattt 4 hours ago [-]
Isn’t the benefit here that you don’t have to deal with things such as significant Doppler shift, or having to maintain a supply of propellant for orbit-keeping?
AngryData 7 hours ago [-]
There is perhaps some extra opportunity in a 10-14 day solid observation window, but I don't see why a satellite version couldn't still work in smaller windows.
Another reason could be testing for building a much large radio antenna on the moon's surface in the future which is mentioned to farther down in the article. The moon itself and it's dust has electromagnetic effects that might effect measurements and learning about them now could help future planning.
aragilar 6 hours ago [-]
You'd build an array (see e.g. VLA mentioned in the article or SKA), and it is much easier to combine the data from an array if everything isn't flying around and so there are varying distances between the antennae.
8bitsrule 14 hours ago [-]
Very readable explanation of why and how useful a dark-side lunar radio telescope would be.
TLDR: As a result of expansion of the universe, over 13B years the wavelength of neutral hydrogen signals has been stretched from 21cm to 'tens of meters'. On Earth, this part of the spectrum is cluttered with noise from Earth and Sun. For 14 days at a time...not a problem on the dark-side.
KineticLensman 6 hours ago [-]
It’s far side, not dark side. The moon doesn’t have a dark side anymore than the earth does
wumms 4 hours ago [-]
NASA uses "dark side" (meaning far side, not night side) when facing the public [0]:
> A series of test images shows the fully illuminated “dark side” of the Moon that is not visible from Earth.
> The far side of the Moon was first observed in 1959
Personally, I don't find the phrase 'fully illuminated “dark side”' to be a convincing alternative to the physically more accurate term 'far side'. Of course NASA has only just emerged from the Earth's dark side as I write this (UK here, mid-morning), so I'm not expecting an immediate response from them.
And yes, I do know that 'side' is itself not entirely accurate because of libration [0] but that's a different hill to die on.
The far side is the darker side, though, at lunar night. Poetic proof: "The Earth shine might illuminate the light side of the Moon a little during the long night" (from Jules Verne, All Around the Moon https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/16457/pg16457-images.ht...)
KineticLensman 1 hours ago [-]
I do like poetry, but if we are looking at a crescent moon, in our night, it means that the bulk of farside is facing toward the sun, and will therefore be brighter than nearside
Rendered at 14:56:13 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Another reason could be testing for building a much large radio antenna on the moon's surface in the future which is mentioned to farther down in the article. The moon itself and it's dust has electromagnetic effects that might effect measurements and learning about them now could help future planning.
TLDR: As a result of expansion of the universe, over 13B years the wavelength of neutral hydrogen signals has been stretched from 21cm to 'tens of meters'. On Earth, this part of the spectrum is cluttered with noise from Earth and Sun. For 14 days at a time...not a problem on the dark-side.
> A series of test images shows the fully illuminated “dark side” of the Moon that is not visible from Earth.
> The far side of the Moon was first observed in 1959
[0] https://science.nasa.gov/earth/earth-observatory/the-dark-si...
Personally, I don't find the phrase 'fully illuminated “dark side”' to be a convincing alternative to the physically more accurate term 'far side'. Of course NASA has only just emerged from the Earth's dark side as I write this (UK here, mid-morning), so I'm not expecting an immediate response from them.
And yes, I do know that 'side' is itself not entirely accurate because of libration [0] but that's a different hill to die on.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration#Lunar_libration
The far side is the darker side, though, at lunar night. Poetic proof: "The Earth shine might illuminate the light side of the Moon a little during the long night" (from Jules Verne, All Around the Moon https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/16457/pg16457-images.ht...)