want some hints on this topic....

astronomical observatory at moon surface vis-a vis low earth orbiting
observatory.....give your ideas....and help...i want it urjently....

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:F_7li.8502$Xa3.3749@attbi_s22...
enigma wrote:
astronomical observatory at moon surface vis-a vis low earth orbiting
observatory.....give your ideas....and help...i want it urjently....


A given telescope is less costly to deploy, operate and maintain
in LEO as opposed to the moon.

Spitzer appears to be doing well. Isn't it about 2 million miles out?

George

"Sam Wormley" wrote

A given telescope is less costly to deploy, operate and maintain
in LEO as opposed to the moon.

I agree. The moon is very difficult to maintain.

;-)

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:54:50 -0700, "Howard Lester"
wrote:

I agree. The moon is very difficult to maintain.

But fortunately, it seems to require very little maintenance. Its
condition doesn't seem to have changed significantly over my life. Wish
my cars held up as well!

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

On Jul 11, 3:13 am, enigma wrote:
astronomical observatory at moon surface vis-a vis low earth orbiting
observatory.....give your ideas....and help...i want it urjently....

On the moon, only half the sky is accessible at a time because the
moon is in the way. It could take weeks for the moon to rotate to
gain access to an important event such as a powerful GRB or supernova.

In low earth orbit, only half the sky is accessible at a time because
the earth is in the way. But the maximum you would have to wait to
gain access would be about 45 minutes, depending on exactly how high
the orbit was.

On the moon, an active tracking mechanism is needed to keep the
telescope on target.

In low earth orbit, an aiming mechanism is needed, but once positioned
and stabilized, the scope will stay on target until acted on by an
outside force.

On the moon, a telescope would either 1) Only be able to operate 50%
of the time (when the scope's solar cells are facing the sun), or 2)
be able to store sufficient operating energy to run for several weeks
without solar power. This would require twice as much solar panel
capacity (along with much bigger batteries) because the solar panels
would have to not only power the telescope, but charge the batteries.

In low earth orbit, the scope could be placed where it got solar power
most or even nearly all the time, with "blackout" periods lasting
minutes instead of weeks. Smaller batteries, smaller solar arrays.

I know of no significant optical advantage to either.

Austin

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:54:50 -0700, "Howard Lester"
wrote:

I agree. The moon is very difficult to maintain.

But fortunately, it seems to require very little maintenance. Its
condition doesn't seem to have changed significantly over my life. Wish
my cars held up as well!

_________________________________________________

There is that dust issue, though.

"John Nichols" wrote

I agree. The moon is very difficult to maintain.

There is that dust issue, though.

Easy: broom, dust pan, garbage can. Or, send my mother up there -- she'll
keep the place dusted.

"Howard Lester" wrote in message
...

"John Nichols" wrote

I agree. The moon is very difficult to maintain.

There is that dust issue, though.

Easy: broom, dust pan, garbage can. Or, send my mother up there -- she'll
keep the place dusted.




What some guys won't do to get away from their mother. ;

"John Nichols" wrote

Easy: broom, dust pan, garbage can. Or, send my mother up there -- she'll
keep the place dusted.




What some guys won't do to get away from their mother. ;

Hey, I tried! My brother told me I should have moved to Alaska instead of
to Arizona.

"John Nichols" wrote in message
...

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 10:54:50 -0700, "Howard Lester"
wrote:

I agree. The moon is very difficult to maintain.

But fortunately, it seems to require very little maintenance. Its
condition doesn't seem to have changed significantly over my life. Wish
my cars held up as well!

_________________________________________________

There is that dust issue, though.

and the footprints.