Serious Question, I want Serious Answers...

[IcyNeko]

i wanted to hear other people's legitimate opinions on it...

Expecting the internets, and especially a scifi forum to know topics enough to have "legitimate opinions" is bound to end in tears. Most people wouldn't know what it is enough to have meaningful discourse.

That's like using Wikipedia as your only resource for your Master's thesis.....

[Gate-builder]

Even if you were to refuel you're rocket once it was on the moon or in orbit, it would be very difficult. Rockets are extremly complex machines, its not just like filling up you're car. The fact that this would have to be accomplished by people wearing bulky spacesuits would make it all the more difficult.

[Jarnin]

or you can not be a dick... i'm perfectly capable of doing research, but i'd rather discuss it...

Seriously...

You want to remain ignorant about a subject, but you want to discuss it. It means that those in the know will spend time explaining things to you that you could already understand if you'd simply take the time to read a little. In other words, you want us to do all the heavy lifting for you.

But I'm the dick because I spent 5 minutes posting links to information that would allow you not to look like an ignorant fool.

I guess I'm sorry for being helpful..?

damn, i hit the wrong reputation button...

I don't know if you noticed or not, but I've got my rep turned off. It's a pointless feature. When there are dozens of "I'll give you green if you give me green" threads in off-topic chatter, rep means squat.

[Esquin]

I can't believe you've all missed the point so many times. He's talking about a moon orbitting satelite to observe the rest of the universe. Not a moon survey satalite, or an earth realted one.

On surface yes it would seem that you would get better readings from radio waves from the universe from the moon. As yous aid, less abckground interferance. But the moon also screws with things a fair bit on its own. Just look at how bright it is in the night sky.

[jds1982]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about building your ship and everything from scratch on the moon. Now this is making some sense. A refueling station would be sensible.

I still don't think you could build it from materials on the moon, though.

Why not? The moon has resources which could be used to build things, although I think it has significantly less iron than Earth, but I don't imagine that would be much of a problem. If we ever want permanent settlements on the moon there's gonna have to be some valid economic reason for them to exist, as much as I like the idea of pure science it'll only get you so far.

I can't believe you've all missed the point so many times. He's talking about a moon orbitting satelite to observe the rest of the universe. Not a moon survey satalite, or an earth realted one.

On surface yes it would seem that you would get better readings from radio waves from the universe from the moon. As yous aid, less abckground interferance. But the moon also screws with things a fair bit on its own. Just look at how bright it is in the night sky.

I don't think anyone missed his point, he asked about the benefits of a moon orbiting satellite, and we responded with some benefits which included closer moon observation, and communications relays for any surface astronauts. I will admit I'm not an expert on the subject but I don't think the moon is so far away that it would significantly cut down on electromagnetic "noise" from Earth. Even if it was just a space telescope I don't think there would be that many benefits, because a) I'm not sure if there would even be a problem like too much light from Earth ruining pictures, which if were the case I'm sure technology could correct the images, and b) you'd only get the benefit of low light when it was on the dark side of the moon, at which point you may as well just put an observatory on the surface.

[IrishPisano]

good points, esquin and jds

i think we'd get some phenomenal telemetry from the far side of the moon when it is on the opposite side of the earth from the sun... not necessarily in a lunar solar eclipse (where the earth eclipses the sun), just when the moon is on the "dark side" of the earth


S----E----M---Satellite

[Splitsecond]

Its not SG related, but it does deal with space...

1. What would the benefits be to a Moon-orbiting satellite?
2. If the benefits outweigh the cost, why have we (USA) not launched a Moon-orbiting satellite?

Sure, in the grand scheme of things, it is not any closer to the rest of the cosmos than Earth, but surely there would be less EM and light interference out there...

Light interference is not relivant for satellites orbiting Earth, there's you won't see human made light pollution and the light from the Sun is the only natural source that affects us. The Sun's corona is the only problem in that respect and there's not much you can do about that except wait until we're on the other side of the Sun. As for the Earth's magnet field and Earth-based EM they're not much of a problem, we can filter them out quite easily by directing a sensor towards the Earth and using that signal to filter the Earth-based EM out. Besides the Moon is so close it gets the same amount of Earth-based EM as Earth.

[IrishPisano]

Light interference is not relivant for satellites orbiting Earth, there's you won't see human made light pollution and the light from the Sun is the only natural source that affects us. The Sun's corona is the only problem in that respect and there's not much you can do about that except wait until we're on the other side of the Sun. As for the Earth's magnet field and Earth-based EM they're not much of a problem, we can filter them out quite easily by directing a sensor towards the Earth and using that signal to filter the Earth-based EM out. Besides the Moon is so close it gets the same amount of Earth-based EM as Earth.

given that the moon is approx. one quarter of a million miles from E, wouldn't the EM interference be less just due to the distance? yes, M is within E's EM field, and that much is obvious because E's gravity hold M in orbit, but isn't the EM field weaker that far out?

[jds1982]

Pretty sure even if it is, it's not enough to matter.