A Question Regarding The Dark Side Of The Moon.
- Thread starter Dryson
- Start date
There is no dark side of the Moon. It's like talking about "the dark side of the Earth". It's a temporary condition. The Moon gets equal exposure just like we do.
Actually a valid question, even if stated incorrectly. There are a few places at the moon's poles that are in perpetual darkness (we've looked for ice there), but that's actually irrelevant. You can have a telescope anywhere on the surface of the moon, as long as you block the aperture from direct sunlight (and light reflected from Earth). Because there's practically no atmosphere on the moon, it would be just as effective as any space-based telescope because there's no atmosphere scattering the light.
So then your only question would be WHY you'd want to put one on the moon. It would have to give you some advantage over a space-based one. I've heard some proposals wanting to put radio telescopes on the far side of the moon to shield it from Earthly transmissions, but that doesn't need any blocking from the sun.
So then your only question would be WHY you'd want to put one on the moon. It would have to give you some advantage over a space-based one. I've heard some proposals wanting to put radio telescopes on the far side of the moon to shield it from Earthly transmissions, but that doesn't need any blocking from the sun.
Run, rabbit, run.
There's someone in my head but it's not me.
There is no dark side in the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark.
I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us are. It's very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad.
Perhaps Dryson was thinking of Shackleton crater at the Lunar south pole that never experiences direct sunlight in its interior but almost perpetual sunlight at its rim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shackleton_(crater)
There might well be water ice there suitable for a lunar colony, which could also extract energy by exploiting both the sunlight and the temperature gradient.
Perhaps Dryson was thinking of Shackleton crater at the Lunar south pole that never experiences direct sunlight in its interior but almost perpetual sunlight at its rim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shackleton_(crater)
There might well be water ice there suitable for a lunar colony, which could also extract energy by exploiting both the sunlight and the temperature gradient.
Last edited:
How does one power a telescope that never gets sunlight?
The way Hubble works is probably the best approach: orbit the Earth, use sunlight to collect energy, then take pictures while in the Earth's shadow (and away from sunlight).
One could do this on the Moon, but why? Seems like it would cost more money for nothing.
The way Hubble works is probably the best approach: orbit the Earth, use sunlight to collect energy, then take pictures while in the Earth's shadow (and away from sunlight).
One could do this on the Moon, but why? Seems like it would cost more money for nothing.
The far side of the moon would be good for radio telescopes searching below 100 megahertz. As B.J. mentioned above, the moon would be a shield for radio signals from Earth. Regarding shielding from visible light, however, I agree with you.
The telescope would obviously be attached to our new habitable moon base. Duh.
From the pic they took, the dark side of the moon doesn't look so dark.
http://www.techinsider.io/what-does-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-look-like-2015-8
http://www.techinsider.io/what-does-the-dark-side-of-the-moon-look-like-2015-8
I hear they have good music there.
I asked the same question on a NASA related site and the response was that the Moon even though dark goes through phases.
Powering the telescope would be rather easy as the same batteries used aboard Curiosity would be used.
When needed to be recharged the battery rover unit would detach from the telescope where a secondary battery rover unit would then attach to the telescope to continue to power of the telescope for uninterrupted use of the telescope while the first rover moved into the sunlight to recharge.
Not only would the telescope provide a clearer picture of the Universe, the recharger rover would be able to map the dark side of the Moon.
Why rovers?
Rovers would be used to keep the telescope in constant state of darkness so that the optics would never experience full sunlight that would cause damage to the special optics.
I didn't say anything about powering the telescopes. I am pretty sure that problem could be handled. I was merely pointing out that the advantage to putting it on the far side of the moon would be for radio telescopes. This is something NASA has said themselves more than once.
So you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again.
Racing around to come up behind you again.
