NASA's Plan to Build A Telescope on the Moon

[@stringsofconsciousness4202]

"Supporting a 200 kilogram telescope on the moon is equivalent to holding just about 320 kg on Earth" Am I stupid or does this sentence makes no sense?

[@RealEngineering]

We had an audio fix recorded, looks like it wasn’t added

[@RealEngineering]

Was supposed to be 2000 kg. I just read it wrong without realizing.

[@petterlarsson7257]

@@RealEngineering how can you read 2000 as 320 also 1 minute ago

[@heidirabenau511]

​@@petterlarsson7257Can read 200 as 2000.

[@tozrimondher4250]

@@petterlarsson7257Daddy chill

[@aeroalessandro]

I had the privilege of working on this at JPL with a tiny but dedicated team and you've done an incredible job of summarizing the project! Really glad that super cool proposals like LCRT are getting more attention thanks to your awesome work. We need public support to turn today's crazy ideas into tomorrow's missions!

[@gerryboudreaultboudreault2608]

A monstrous waste of money! Only two good Space endeavors so far: weather satellites, and detecting/deflecting asteroids heading towards Earth. All else is human hubris.

[@ajctrading]

​@@gerryboudreaultboudreault2608 coronal mass ejections, exo planets, exo moons, study of supernovas, gamma ray busters, cosmic microwave background radiation, rogue planets, black holes. All pretty relevent to humanitys potential future extinction or survival..and worthy of study.

[@stageiii1]

No. You didn't.

[@BongoFerno]

What if a single anchor fails to anchor? Will the entire crater been ruined? And what if the power source dies? There is a replacement planned? (like shooting a power cable so a future rover can plug into the cable, and feed energy to the telescope).

[@vigilantcosmicpenguin8721]

Must feel pretty awesome doing something that sounds like science fiction but isn't.

[@Merennulli]

I am amazed at how much CAD has changed. In the late 90s, after Hollywood had rendered graphics like those in The Matrix, I was learning AutoCAD commands and being told that was what the industry used. Now you can throw together a few variables to generate a gear automatically, the click on parts of it to refine it and send it to a printer within minutes.

[@golf398]

Exponential technological growth. Computers being pretty much the first widely applicable technology that can be used directly to improve future iterations of the technology.

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

Printed materials suck tho and they still need to be machined to tolerance after printing. Machined from solid block is more expensive, but still the way to go for precision high stress and wear parts that need to be made out of the thoughest alloys and with the best heat treatment possible. Like gears for example. Unless you talk about printed throw away plastic toys ofc, for those printing gets them from raw material into the trash bin much quicker then regular manufacturing methods :D

[@Merennulli]

@@hernerweisenberg70523D printing is primarily for prototyping, but we are way past the era where 3D prints were inherently trash quality. They literally print working 3D rocket parts now, and one company (Relativity Space) even printed an entire rocket that achieved MaxQ on its first test (not a complete success, but better than a lot of conventionally built rockets have done on their first test launch). Also, a LOT of finished products use plastic gears and have long before 3D printing - notably including 2D printers. You use the material that makes the most sense for your product, and often that's plastic.

[@sr4087]

@@pyropulseIXXIyou wrong

[@Teesquared00]

@@hernerweisenberg7052 Most printers that regular people can afford print okay-ish to pretty good, but industrial 3D printers can hit some pretty tight tolerances and make very good/precise parts. I think its #1 application in industry is probably prototyping but that is changing as there are many final products with 3D printed components these days. Depending on the application its often good enough. I work at a particle physics facility and we have several types of filament that are radiation hardened. Its very useful for making small parts, like brackets or instrument holders, quickly and cheaply. Most plastics turn brittle when exposed to ionizing radiation and metal parts are relatively difficult, time-consuming and expensive to make, so being able to 3D print parts in kapton or PEEK plastic is a game changer. Both types are also suitable for use in vacuum though in practice, its almost impossible to print in such a way that there is no trapped air and we cant set up a printer inside a vacuum chamber (it overheats/a box big enough to hold the printer is impractical). Yes its best to use metal for the applications you mentioned, but so many applications don't need to be machined/CNCd where a 3D printed part is good enough and usually more precise/way cheaper than injection molding plastic parts.

[@booth403]

Currently reading the Expanse and when they were talking about the Moon they mention how a giant telescope was one of the first things built there, crazy to think we're kind of (yet again) following along with good sci-fi. Exciting times

[@bjrn-oskarrnning2740]

Life imitates art. But, to be fair, this concept has been around for a long time, so I assume that's where the author got the idea. Art imitates life.

[@Bbouy1HD]

Yeah realistically sci-fi popularise the ideas but following along with real scientific ideas that are already well known.

[@Z3t487]

I'm still mad the show "The Expanse" didn't cover the last books.

[@booth403]

@@Z3t487 The time skip made it prohibitively expensive, but I've read in a few places that they might come back to it and that the main actors have hinted that they'd be down. We'll have to wait 5-10 years but I think that's fine in the name of accuracy.

[@Z3t487]

@@booth403 It would be awesome! Thanks for your message.

[@nickmudd]

Props to the camera crew that flys out there to the webb and gets all the B roll shots

[@DrunkenUFOPilot]

They are paid a *lot* extra!

[@mk_ultra3729]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@allenlark]

nasa art department is an amazing job

[@liquidpatriot4480]

Cameraman always survives!

[@StormsandSaugeye]

If I ever hear anything about this through the usual channels, I would happily sign on to be on the front end team for the telescope. It'd be a fun upgrade from the VLA where I currently work in the front end group and a fun alternative to the south pole telescope. Also at 6:59 that's rob Long, my boss, and Craig, who retired in 2021 and whose position I took over. Concerning the redshift of hydrogen line emission from the early universe, that's something I'm a part of the low band team on. One of the main authors of a few papers on this search have been studying the redshift values as well as the difficulties of eliminating foreground radiation to determine post ground state emission data. Which, if it does eventually pan out, can reveal the process of collapse and consolidation of the larger regions of hydrogen from the ground state relaxation period to the earliest stars. Finally, I know those videos from the VLA all come from the nrao video about the VLA and is a few years old. But I love the use of that footage and seeing my coworkers on screen lol. Thanks for those little touches. The VLA is getting funded for the NgVLA which will be 246 different antennas stretched out over most of the southwest and I'm really excited to be a part of that.

[@TimothyLipinski]

Great short comment ! Visit the VLA in the rocket friendly state of New Mexico (NM)-call ahead for tour times... Also the First Radio Map of the galaxy was produced from an antenna in Wheaton, Illinois ! Timothy Lipinski

[@StormsandSaugeye]

@TimothyLipinski yeah I work at the VLA lol.

[@Turdfergusen382]

Now we’re talking. This is a badass idea that is actually pretty feasible. Difficult but way more feasible than mars plans.

[@Alphoric]

Both are not feasible at all. Satellite on the moon is a ludicrous idea and the Mars plans are straight up retarded

[@msulemanf]

Yes - or could instrument the moon so that asteroids can be detected earlier and destroyed/diverted.

[@Thisandthat8908]

@@msulemanfyou have a very limited section of the sky with this. This asteroid business can be done much easier. It just needs more funding.

[@brll5733]

You need almost the same delta v for Luna orbit as for Mars orbit. And Mars is for more habitable than Luna. It doesn't have razor sharp dust for one.

[@petterbirgersson4489]

Yes, and once the moon has gotten it's own manufacturing industry, a lot of cool stuff could be constructed.

[@TheLookingOne]

If you're trying to get a handle on LCRT's improvement, based only on size (and not on lunar location), "50 meters greater than Arecibo" means LCRT will have a 135% larger surface than Arecibo (which is probably why RE didn't state this)

[@HowlingWolf518]

And it should remain intact without maintenance for a whole lot longer because Luna has no air and minimal gravity - well played, NASA.

[@fowlerj111]

You can compensate for area with exposure time - 135% of area means the same amount of light collected in 74% of the time, or 135% as many "pictures" per lunar day, or however you want to look at it. A greater motivation for a larger telescope tends to be that the diameter drives its *resolution.* A 135% larger telescope can resolve features (stars, moons, sunspots, continents, dense spots in a hydrogen cloud, etc.) that are spaced 74% as far apart as the closest features that the smaller telescope could resolve. That's assuming all things being equal like the atmosphere or lack of, the receiver, the proper geometry of the reflector, and so on.

[@noahkolodziejski2427]

@@HowlingWolf518it gets bombarded by meteorites at a shocking rate. It has been hit on something like 100% of the surface. So much so that the ground material is pulverized into a uniquely structured material found only in extremely high energy collisions.

[@HowlingWolf518]

@@noahkolodziejski2427 Right, but that 100% was over billions of years. Apparently the chance of actually being hit by a lunar micrometeor is about 1 in 1 million per hour.

[@noahkolodziejski2427]

@@HowlingWolf518 But that’s for a single person, with less than 1 square meter of cross section. What’s the cross sectional area of the telescope? 1 year is 8700 hours, so in the smallest possible area you can pack ~120 humans (5 m x 5 m), a 45,000 mph rock will impact once per year. That’s a LOT. Look at what a 1/2 oz plastic did to aluminum armor at 15000 mph, then multiply the energy by 9.

[@willwright8066]

Is it possible to do a mini series (or just a single video) about composites? The history, manufacturing, different methods, difference from yachts to space craft. Design requirements, resin chemistry etc. I find it all very interesting and I'm sure others would do too. Think you mentioned in your ocean gate video that you did composites for your degree/ masters so I'm sure you'll do great. Thanks!

[@maxk4324]

Great video! For anyone curious, you actually dont want a dish thats a half circle/sphere either (google spherical aberration). The best shape, with minimal to no abberation, would be a hyperbolic curve, if not that then a parabolic curve, and if not that then comes spherical curve. However, some amount and types of aberation can be corrected for by subsequent reflectors in the reciever and/or woth fancy signal processing.

[@Nick-rp2jg]

The animations in this video are amazing

[@remi_gio]

Pronouncing ESA as E.S.A…. also amazing….😅

[@MasayaShida]

from crane and plane origamis to space exploration telescope origamis... humanity has come a long way

[@Litkeen]

We are living in the best time we could possibly be in. A dark past and a grim future, yet we were so lucky to be born in the perfect time.

[@xiaoshen194]

​@@Litkeennope. AI is taking over jobs man. What's the use of living jobless.

[@Litkeen]

@@xiaoshen194 If AI comes to a point where it can take a significant amount of jobs, then the government would block it's spread. Alternatively they will make UBI, so everyone will be entitled to free money for not working.

[@BenitoAndito]

One small fold for man, one giant leap for Origami

[@cesarcaballero7687]

​@@xiaoshen194 also creating new jobs, is the same history of all, of the new inventions

[@EvocativeKitsune]

I'm procrastinating finishing my thesis on mesh antenna force optimisation, and then I see the thumbnail. Love the video and the concept!

[@derrickcox7761]

And there went your thesis?

[@aanchaallllllll]

0:36: 🔭 The James Webb Space Telescope has captured incredible and unprecedented images of the universe, but a massive space radio telescope could allow us to go even further back in time. 3:10: 🌑 The lunar orbiter has been collecting data since 2009 and needs to be on the far side of the Moon to avoid radio interference. A crater with specific dimensions and characteristics is required for the telescope's operation. 6:05: 🌙 To create a better focused beam, the shape of the wire needs to be closer to a half-circle, which can be achieved by strategically suspending weights along its length. 9:20: ! The use of origami in space missions allows for compact packaging of large structures. 12:08: 🌙 NASA and ESA are investing in lunar exploration, with the goal of sending humans to the Moon's south pole. Recap by Tammy AI

[@dalton-at-work]

ok. why

[@alejandrocapell2780]

Maybe there is an obvious reason why this isn't an option, but it seems to me like an Artemis Mission on a Lunar Starship might have an easier time with those tether cables. I didn't catch if he talked about mass estimates but even with a lander with equipment and then a crew with drills might be able to set it up in a week or two. Rather than the complicated launcher spider

[@SecretRaginMan]

No reason why it isn't an option except continuing to pretend HLS Starship doesn't exist. The second Starship test flight could launch within the next month pending FAA approval.

[@drakedbz]

He mentioned that a crewed mission would be a few billion dollars more expensive than a single lander with projectile anchors. Yes, it's higher risk to not send a crew, but when you're having to spend billions more dollars to mitigate the risk, sometimes it's better to try and account for it in other ways.

[@planetsec9]

@@drakedbz He didn't mention crew at all, because the JPL study didn't mention it because they can't even conceive of it. If the Artemis landers especially Starship HLS prove their worth then it makes sense to use them, we will have the landers and the EVA suits and possibly large cargo rovers like Astrolabs which will all have been tried and tested at the South Pole, so the risk would largely be retired, we'd no doubt have some sort of lunar relay by then too, so no reason not to try for both the first ever manned landing on the lunar far side and the first ever large scale construction project on the moon in the same mission/s

[@ashemedai]

Given that the JWST already was hit by a meteoroid, I am more concerned about the challenges of how to protect that telescope from impact of space debris as well as radiation damage to its (electronic) systems.

[@DCTriv]

Hardening electronics from radiation is something we're more than used to by now so it's hardly a concern that can't be accounted for. As for space debris/damage, we're going back to the moon. There will be people stationed there, future repairs are far more feasible for a moon based telescope than for the JWST (which is never going to be visited for a repair).

[@katzen3314]

An estimated 33000 meteoroids hit the moon every year. The dish would have an area of 0.38 km^2 compared to the moon's total 38 million km^2. So a probability of 0.00033 that it would get hit during its first year of operation by something "pingpong ball sized or larger".

[@massimocole9689]

The telescope is a mesh not a solid mirror so most of the time small debris would fly right though it.

[@Robert-Fisher-g6c]

The dish will be a mesh with holes of several meters. There is more empty space than actual structure. The chance of something important getting hit is very small.

[@rudolfgernd8760]

Moondust. It's all about moondust. This stuff is a nightmare for any mechanics or electronics. To my knowledge, we don't yet have a concept for a solution.

[@al-Zughal]

Amazing work as always Can you explain the weight point you make at 7:05 If the Moon's Gravity is 16%, how is 200 kg equivalent to 320kg on earth ?

[@diacoal2433]

He probably meant 2000 kg

[@kinglink2248]

The correct answer would be 32 kg so, it's probably just a decimal error

[@megarcher]

He corrected himself in a comment, he meant 2000kg to 230kg

[@yewo.m]

He meant to say 2000kg, rather than 200kg

[@idjles]

The subtitles had 2000kg

[@matsdy3649]

If we can figure out the mechanics of this telescoop then we can also make solararrays with the same technique. Deploying solararrays automatically from orbit near potential colonies before astronauts arrive would give them power security.

[@Notsogoodguitarguy]

I've a question that I hope the scientists have already answered, but I'll post it anyway - how will they solve 2 crucial problems - lunar dust and meteorites/meteors/whatever they're called? The moon is constantly bombarded. It wouldn't take too much to damage the telescope. And, while the dust wouldn't be a huge problem during operations cause I suppose everything is pretty much stationary, during construction it could be absolutely detrimental.

[@TheDarkYnder]

10:10 : That is not correctly phrased. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is actually very homogenous at first order. Its temperature is 2.7255±0.0006 K on the whole sky! The fluctuations are of the order ot micro-Kelvins. And those very small spatial temperature inhomogeneities (we call them CMB anisotropies) were actually predicted by physicists after the first introduction of the CMB idea. It was never a surprise when we first saw them! The theoretical prediction of the CMB anisotropies are actually exactly why we started to launch more and more precise satellites, starting in 1992, to better observe those anisotropies, and to constraint the cosmological model. That is why we know so much about the universe amount of dark matter, dark energy, the age of the universe, its curvature, its expansion, and so on...

[@D1ndo]

I scrolled for waaay too long to find someone mention this. When I heard that in the video, I immediately thought "What the hell is this guy talking about?". If anything, the CMB observations proved that it's is pretty uniform and the universe is flat.

[@4_real_bruh]

Its fascinating how we went from calling ideas like this outrageous to actually considering them. Absolutely amazing

[@mgallus]

Just shows what happens when your break people's mind with lies. Ridiculous ideas that are fictional are seen as real.

[@derrickcox7761]

Truly, I don't recall that word...outrageous...ever being used. For a century we've been slow and lazy. Should have had a starship by now.

[@100c0c]

​@@derrickcox7761 Should? You watch too many movies.

[@poindextertunes]

@@mgalluslies? such as?

[@mgallus]

@poindextertunes well that there was a live broadcast from the moon dispite with the tech the said they used lacked the power to do so. The film they used would have been destroyed due to the heat and cold of space not to mention the radiation that destroys the film. Buzz Aldren adimted that people watched movie magic and not them on the moon. Shall I go on?

[@jonathanluna7955]

I was already impressed with the idea of building a telescope in a crater on the far side of the moon. But when he said it was going to be done with robots, I was floored. Its already difficult enough trying to accomplish this with astronauts, but creating robots that can intricately and accurately build this telescope from earth is a level above hard mode.

[@waspsandwich6548]

It would be harder with astronauts, which is why they are doing robots.

[@none-ro9dz]

@@waspsandwich6548 No, it would be significantly easier. It takes far more effort to design and build a single-purpose robot that comes close to the ability of a human than to have a human do it. The reason astronauts will not be involved is purely because supporting astronauts for a long-term mission is ridiculously expensive, to the point that it would be completely infeasible with NASA's current budget.

[@waspsandwich6548]

@none-ro9dz that's what I mean by harder. As in, in the broad scale of the entire mission it's harder for astronauts to do it than for robots to

[@volbla]

Wikipedia says the apollo program cost the equivalent of 178 billion of today's US dollars. But that included 6 separate lunar landings, which means it was only 30 B$ per trip! I'm sure you can't count like that since they didn't start each mission from scratch. But on the other hand, this telescope project sounds so complicated that it would surely exceed its suggested 10B$ budget. So... what's the safer bet? Training a few astronauts and get them to the moon and back (something we have already done), or inventing a whole new yet reliable robotics system? Who knows.

[@Someguy6571]

@@none-ro9dz If only we stopped funding pointless wars and diverted those budgets to something actually meaningful. Such as space exploration.

[@emanuelescarsella3124]

This is a really great idea, I really hope NASA go through and fund this 😍

[@Athena_208]

Me too.

[@thomashiggins9320]

Unfortunately, NASA doesn't fund anything. Congress does. 😕

[@Mr2twenty2]

Dream on dreamers

[@meowmeowmaxx]

​@@Mr2twenty2if this ever gets announced I will respond to this with something whitty but for now you're right

[@derrickcox7761]

Good luck Starshine.

[@AlkisGD]

I was about to comment on 7:08, but then I saw it's the most replayed part of the vid and there's also a pinned comment about it. It makes me happy that the audience of the channel is engaged and picks up on stuff like that. Kudos to you all.

[@guillelg4iu]

What about possible object impacts on the telescope? This is something that is not mentioned in the video but can be a massive threat for the project, and makes me question its feasability. There are literal tons of material reaching the Moon daily, and with no relevant atmosphere to dissolve them, even the tiniest marbles could pose a danger for the telescope. The fact that it is planned to be built on the dark side of the moon doesn't help either. It's even more exposed to impacts than the bright side, because it faces outwards from the gravitational pull of both the Moon and the Earth.

[@newkobra]

8:27 There is a big problem with such estimates - they are always wrong. The initial cost for James Webb was $4 bln, but then has grown 2.5 times.

[@XpRnz]

Was looking for this comment.. This whole project explanation is overly positive and sometimes a bit unrealistic. See alot of issues unsolved, so many room for errors as well. Alot more difficult than explained here and definitely not doable within a decade.

[@Denverian]

this will be either a spin off or extension to Artemis mission. If you never think through these possibilities, you never get them come true.

[@newkobra]

@@DenverianI'm not saying that we shouldn't do this. I believe that it's better for the world to invest money into space and medicine instead of weapon and war. Just wanted to note that this estimates are bullshit :)

[@legion7193]

I've been to Arecibo while in operation. Very inspiring place. Gardens below are nice as well. I'd love to see another one on the moon. It would be a learning place.

[@derrickcox7761]

You first. I'll buy you a freeze dried ice cream bar.

[@knasiotis1]

I remember reading of this from a manga named Uchuu Kyoudai (Space Brothers)

[@Andlekin]

I grew up in the Virgin Islands, right next door to Puerto Rico. Watching Arecibo collapse was heart breaking...

[@deinauge7894]

around 6:30 there are some small mistakes... the desired shape is not spherical but parabolical (this is common knowledge, you don't need to make it "easier" than it is). And the weight distribution to achieve that is the opposite of what you showed. it needs to be heavier in the middle, with a distribution of the form 1/sqrt(1+x^2). If they introduce crossings under tesion, like a spider web, than they could counteract that. The tension in the ring structures can even be easier to adjust (compared to weights) if something doesn't work as intended.

[@nerdyPanda7288]

Anyone ever thought about putting, what is essentially a voyager probe, on object 1/2017 U1, and just waiting to see what it picks up, I mean it would take a while, but it would be very interesting, we could also just flying an asteroid, into an interstellar, overall trajectory, and then stick a voyager probe on to that.

[@ErikB605]

The cost comparison is funny given that JWST was originally estimated at little over 3 billion

[@dx-ek4vr]

If we choose to build this, hopefully we can do it without the cost overruns JWST suffered

[@elliotgillum]

​@@dx-ek4vr Good one.

[@nikl.astrophoto]

Please make a video on the Extremely Large Telescope, its nearing completion!

[@skehleben7699]

Yes please!

[@ramabg2]

Building this on Lagrangian poin just is a lot more sense: 1. Sending astronout is plausible 2. Waay less delta v (even less delta v than GEO ) 3. Far enough from earth interference 4. No temperature fluctuations 5. No weigh. You can use reaction wheel and lighter material. 6. Easier communication

[@richard--s]

A great idea! But my fear is, that with more and more moon missions, there come more and more radio interferences to the moon. This applies to optical telescopes on the moon as well, with satellite flares through optical reflection of the sunlight. But I don't have a solution for that. As soon as something is being built, more traffic comes, manned or unmanned traffic. Maybe in 100 years, the best spot for such a telescope would be on Pluto, as our missions go further and further out into space... and then Pluto is accessible for such missions... for a while at least until it gets too crowded there too ;-) (It might be a different location, not Pluto, because Pluto is a well known object, it would be a desirable place to visit for wealthy space tourists. Some things might never change ;-) And I even don't know if that would be good or bad... Good that some day we might reach out routinely really far, but sad that telescopes must move out even further...

[@edgarwalk5637]

As a kid, I always imagined the crater would be coated with a reflective material, but on reflection, this looks more feasible.

[@ebonaparte3853]

How long has this been an idea?

[@RockBrown-w5s]

Always comes up with a video no one expects, Respect !

[@gulfy09]

It's all nonsense

[@seantoomey1514]

What an incredible idea! I would however just like to point out that the JWST originally was estimated to cost not nearly as much as it ended up costing in reality.

[@iivin4233]

I don't know if you can accurately predict how much a unique construction project on a body we don't inhabit will cost. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful with our budget. It does mean that Isaac Arthur was exactly right a few weeks ago when he said (paraphrasing) that if NASA were the sole organization developing space, they'd just build more telescopes.

[@varunprakash6207]

NASA Plan to Build Telescope 🔭 on the Moon The moon creater surface construction 🏗️ on moon design construction with huge expenses The material that made is carbon fibres and concept 👌 Animation semma super

[@cameronscott701]

Hell yeah, onshape! Absolutely my favorite cad program, I’m so happy to find out you use it as well!

[@hamentaschen]

"I'm gonna go get the papers, get the papers."

[@thelonewrangler1008]

Hey Tony two-times, go get your effin shine box!😂

[@new_skyspirit]

Here for this reference 😅

[@mho...]

Best idea NASA had in a loong time actually--- Specially if they combine that with a "permanent" Moonbase, servicing it!

[@derrickcox7761]

with what money and what army?

[@kineticstar]

Besides, line of sight communication, maintenance, transportation, setup, and cost this should be a breeze.

[@crackedemerald4930]

Yeah yeah besides all the things that make it difficult, it should be extremely easy

[@mr_pigman1013]

@@crackedemerald4930fr!

[@elliotgillum]

​@@crackedemerald4930 Naturally.

[@GoldenTV3]

Setting up a telescope to detect alien techno signatures: I sleep Setting up a telescope to look how hydrogen works: Real shit

[@439sparky1]

I can already imagine all the conspiracy theories, “what are THEY building on the DARK side of the moon?!”

[@ColdyCZ]

Imagine this actually gets deployed, everything works fine and than it's destroyed five minutes after by some random cosmic debree.

[@3nertia]

debris*

[@MSP_TechLab]

As he said, the mesh step should be smaller then the wavelength, which 6.5 meters. So, if it is done with, lets say, 6m step, there is a pretty good chance that some random cosmic debree will simply miss.

[@somezsaltz6835]

I’m pretty sure that’s why they wanted to see early on if they can alter the trajectory of rouge asteroids

[@ColdyCZ]

@@MSP_TechLab Yeah, but I'd imagine the center is a big and important target, would'nt be such an improbable target to hit. Especialy since the Moon has no atmosphere to burn down even the smallest debris which traveling at those speeds could cause a lot of damage (not even Flex Tape could fix that).

[@MSP_TechLab]

@@ColdyCZ I think, of course, probability will be higher. But danger of meteorites and space debris is over exaggerated by hollywood movies. So, I assume that much smarter people in NASA calculated such risk and decided that it is appropriate.

[@xyz-xy5ym]

7:04 not certain that math works out

[@mr_pigman1013]

Yeah, I heard it was a mistake and the fix never got added to the Final Cut

[@Appl_Jax]

This would be a feat to see. I hope they go through with this and hopefully, we could see the fruits in our lifetimes.

[@sidoney101]

Like the Mars sky crane system it sounds crazy. I love it.

[@GiulioVonKerman]

I love onshape. No other free cad offers such high quality and freedom

[@edoval1029]

This is an amazing project, and the best part is that it’s actually feasable. Maybe the only problem is the possibility of an asteroid that could hit the wires or one of the anchors.. since it’s all connected it could make all the structure collapse

[@dmurray2978]

Knowing NASA, this will only take 458 years

[@clemente3]

Oh ok ok, you go ahead then

[@superkartoffel7479]

I always thought constructing a crater telescope would be something to do if you already have a large moonbase. But with only one lander it actually sounds plausible.

[@alphagt62]

When he was explaining all the challenges in doing it all on its own, I thought, NASA is sending men to the moon to stay. Let’s just wait until they are there, and have them construct it.

[@chewielewis4002]

The US government is trying to go to war with the Decepticons for the far side of the moon

[@derrickcox7761]

And pointless?

[@fixipszikon6670]

After finishing the project, alien vessel approaching: " - Out target is on the far side of that moon" " - That's no moon. It's a space station"

[@VegasMikeP229]

If it only has to last a year, then use an inflatable "antenna". Land in the crater, inflate the antenna, with a hole in the middle, though which the Lander raises the receiver up to the antenna's focal point. Make the antenna out of a material that the inflating gas can solidify or cure it before it leaks away, and Bob's your Uncle. Don't need a perfect crater this way. Or use inflatable tubes radiating out from the lander that have the support cables and reflector already attached. Either way, no grappling hooks needed. It's not like the evening winds will blow it over. :-)

[@RogerM88]

The faster and more economical way to build a powerful Lunar telescope, would be with multiple telescopes launched in various missions, arranged in a pattern. Or even simpler and viable, assembly a giant telescope at orbit, and then deploy it to a Lagrange Point. No issues with dust, landing, or thermal amplitudes.

[@spacelapsus8835]

Maintaining a formation of satellites at a Lagrange Point is increadibly complicated. Thermal oscillations would still be a problem, since every Lunar Lagrange point is eventually directly in front of the Sun (with the exception of L1 which can't be used anyway because of noise coming from the Earth). Orbiting satellites have a lifespan dictated (among other things) by their propellant availability for orbital maneuvers. Maintaining a formation severily affects the fuel budget of satellites, and, at the moment we have no idea how to refuel a spacecraft. An orbiting formation telescope is not faster nor less expensive to build

[@Golden_SnowFlake]

the best method would be to have a drone that can drive to each point, secure the wires, and send them into the center, to be collected and attached, then used to setup the rest with special cable climbing drones. as this would allow adjustments on the fly, if needed, or to lower them to reduce damage, incase of any weird situations that might need a new cable to be planted.

[@xxii_ix_xix_viii_xiv_xxi3889]

Lunar dust might be a big challenge for this project.

[@looknamman]

no wind on the moon I think it's ok

[@pingpong607]

In the construction phase, probably. But once the telescope is up and running, dust on the Moon shouldn't do much.

[@am_meep]

@@looknamman the moon has no atmosphere so all the space dust is still a problem, especially considering relative velocity

[@plainText384]

I don't know if dust covering the dish would actually have any impact. Is moon dust transparent at those wavelengths?

[@raifsevrence]

This was my first thought. Lunar regolith is an order of magnitude worse than something like terrestrial sand. It's sharp and incredibly abrasive as a result.

[@jayrog868]

11:18 This is the main telescope at Siding Springs observatory in australia. I’ve seen it move while on tour there it’s awesome

[@EnraEnerato]

There is another sollution to getting the dish shape right in adition to weight distribution. Basically that sollution comes from electrified traintracks, or rather the wires that feed power to through the panthograph. You see with traintracks you want the wires as straight as possible, but naturally they sag, no matter what you do, hecen a second wire is strung above and conecting wires are applied. The connecting wires pull the lower wires up, making them straighter, the upper wires get pulled down a bit, but we pretty much don't care about that one, so long as it stays above the lower wire. now I don't think this sollution will be the "go to method" but it could help with the shape when weight distribution alone would be too tricky.

[@cr0ss0ut]

Hear me out, if you make the radio telescope massively large, like 4000km wide, It'll look like the Death Star.

[@linecraftman3907]

Now we only need to find a 4000km wide crater

[@DrunkenUFOPilot]

Moon's only about 2000 km diameter. Need to build it on Venus! There's a lot of sulfuric acid, so don't use any metal. (Surprising, but NASA has not yet put me in charge of any major science programs🤓.)

[@night_aviation]

That is no moon. That is a space station.

[@vivi_75]

It sucks being born at a time when humanity hasnt conquered the stars yet.

[@DiogenesOfCa]

Humanity never will conquer the stars, our civilization has reached its zenith already. Climate change is going to bring us back to the stone age.

[@Alphoric]

Good luck waiting another 10000 years if not longer.

[@BadOompaloompa79]

Sucks that we are much more likely to kill each other as we choke on the fumes of a dying economic system than conquer the stars.

[@vivi_75]

@@Alphoric then maybe we don't deserve to colonize other celestial bodies.

[@Alphoric]

@@vivi_75 we don’t, we also don’t need to. Why move to the Sahara desert when you live in a tropical paradise. I don’t know why you’d want to become alien invaders anyway

[@firefox39693]

Setting cost aside for a just a second, would their be any benefit from having an array of telescopes on the far side of the moon? The Square Kilometer Array has assets in South Africa and Australia, and it pays dividends being set up that way.

[@SKEC212]

My only question is how often does the moon get hit with rocks? I'm just thinking about the damage caused by stuff hitting the moon. The cost of launching new parts up there and installing it perfectly. If it needs repairs all the time it might not be worth it.

[@ThijquintNL]

Real engineering and history of the universe uploading both about hydrogen, thats so neat!

[@gamereditor59ner22]

Interesting topic you presented and keep it up!!

[@h.dejong2531]

To answer a common question I see in the comments: What about meteor strikes? While the moon gets hit a lot more than Earth, meteor strikes are still pretty rare. There's about one meteor strike per km2 per 1000 years, and the majority of those are smaller than 1 cm3.

[@DrunkenUFOPilot]

A good start, but I'd like to see a huge array of thousands of dishes covering the entire Moon, millions of different baselines. Half the dishes on one hemisphere could observe one target while the other hemisphere observes something else. Receivers for all wavelengths we have technology for. A radio astronomer's dream come true!

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

There is a much easier scheme available. Rather than concerning ourselves with a parabolic dish we can lay out sensors directly on any roughly flat area. Then they can act as a phased array for steering. The notable feature of radio antenna are their fault tolerance. They deal with such long wavelengths that their receiving surfaces do not need to be carefully polished as optical mirrors must. The upshot is that the phased array sensors can be laid out without much concern for surface imperfections. Plus or minus a metre makes little difference for multi-metre wavelengths. Much simpler construction, no tension structure needed. Potentially much larger, limited by number and mass of the sensors and connecting wires. Still all the benefits from radio silence.

[@ronaldgarrison8478]

Got mostly through this once, just playing it in the background-but soon decided it needed to be seen again, with full attention. Yes, this is a video of that kind.

[@null090909]

6:10 Not a half-circle. Or it wil only see itself. A parabolic shape would concentrate light coming from far away.

[@daviswing]

Credit to the BYU CMR for making those unfolding origami solar array animations!

[@jonnekjonneksson]

Great idea, the volume and complexity indicates that this could happen after about 20 years from now.

[@karundeepsingh5807]

I loved watching your videos for a very long time. I would like you to accept my humble request and make a video on Quantum Computation Engineering.

[@paulkinzer7661]

I recall reading years ago about a much more ambitious plan to build a radio telescope many kilometers across on the lunar far-side. This is less ambitious, but actual doable fairly soon. We live in a fantastic time for astronomy!

[@joshuafedorchuk1257]

God bless you Real Engineering. What a delight you are.

[@konstruktywnymechanik9925]

People at ESA, even the general directior reads ESA the same way as you read NASA not as typical acronym fasion like JPL. Great video!

[@lewisbamford337]

Haven’t watched it and already liked! Love this channel man!

[@Wile-.E.-Coyote]

This is something that I thought of when the Arecibo went down. feels good to see people who actually know what they're talking about have similar ideas.

[@derrickcox7761]

I counted...it's 13 people. Good luck.

[@RevengeUntamed]

What an incredible vision for the future of space exploration! This video outlines NASA's ambitious plan to build a massive radio telescope on the far side of the moon, opening up unprecedented opportunities to study the early universe and potentially discover new insights into the formation of stars and galaxies. Absolutely mind-blowing!

[@alex79suited]

If its on the moon, it needs to be bigger. Fill an entire crater on the darkside of the moon. And you could upgrade exponentially at will. Build structures for equipment. This is a terrific idea. Ive heard similar before this. Be nice to look further into the vacuum with more precision. This is a great idea people.

[@peterfranklin110]

Great video! Small edit, The best shape for a telescope is a parabola not a semi circle. Semi circles actually lead to something called spherical aberation

[@lucianolizana446]

for years now... i love this channel !

[@Galejro]

Ok but if you place a static telescope on a moon that is tidally locked with Eath it means it will only have a field of view limited to the lunar orbiting plus it's natural wobble. Wouldn't it be worth it to make it into a rotatable structure so we can get a near 360 field of view in all directions? Or perhaps hang tiny weights on rollers on those cables to be able to distort that concavity to be able to rotate?

[@arielmannes2544]

I think that in 8:31 the comparison should be between the estimated cost of JWST and not the actual one (the original estimation was 1 billion dollars if I recall correctly)

[@pluspiping]

"Except I'm not gonna build on the Earth. I'm gonna go higher, I'm building on the MOON. HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT, OBAMA"

[@Biggspeed]

Just think what would happen if we focused this effort on helpful technologies here on earth rather than chasing a pointless endeavour. I have news for you the universe didn’t start from nothing in a big bang.

[@dpatts]

[11:44] Brian McManus: Of course the telescope needs to send data back to Earth Flight of the Conchords: DATA BACK TO EARTH

[@justskip4595]

Estimated Cost of James Webb at start of the project and different times during project were very different to the final cost. Not mentioning that the estimated costs practically never are correct is not good. Also Hubble needed to be serviced after deployment, Webb was "If we do not get this right, all was lost". I do wonder what the options would be with a telescope like this on the moon of something goes wrong. Could the project be salvaged? How? What would it take? How much? It's fine to positive look forward, but I am also interested in what could go wrong.

[@ankitnmnaik229]

Hey , the notes about LCRT that you showed with alot of maths and physics involved...can you give the pdf of that ?? I am really interested in reading that...please.... (If you see this )

[@pandajfry]

If cables are going to be used to support the dish, lacking a better word the cable might be able to be pulled in a way that changes the direction of the dish. While I don't see that idea will allow for the same degree of movement than a land base; however, a few degrees or fractions on a degree will be better than no movement.

[@Aeiroq]

Fascinating topic you covered. Excellent video like always 🎉

[@JayLikesLasers]

An interesting problem with lunar telescopes; how do you get the data back to Earth? You wouldn't want to use radio waves that might interfere with the lunar telescopes. And you want to be able to relay huge amounts of data back to Earth. One solution is to use a network of laser communication relays. The first such demonstration from the moon was around 2014 with the LADEE spacecraft, which sent back loads of data in the blink of an eye using a laser. NASA's LunaNet project, and ESA's Moonlight project are exploring this exact topic.

[@vpr1422]

What about meteor strikes? They're insanely common in the moon

[@batman3698]

I don't think they're more common on the moon than anywhere else. The reason why the moon have so many craters is because they never disappear.

[@vpr1422]

@batman3698 there's also no atmosphere for them to vaporize in, unlike earth for example. Just think about it, every shooting star is a meteor.

[@HaileISela]

a truly beautiful structure. i love how 'space tech' tends to be way more aligned with synergetic principles to create 'sea-worthy' systems, meaning most obviously more focus on triangulation. now if only we applied the same principles and logic here on the ground... just a subtlety, you called those cables the skeleton of the telescope, but as it is a tensegrity system (as our bodies are) a better comparison might be the fascia. our bones don't give us shape, our fascia do. similarly, i would call the spine a chain rather than a column.

[@derrickcox7761]

Get out of that basement! Quick!

[@jacob_90s]

In terms of "steering" the telescope; Arecibo had this same issue, and as I understand it, there solution was to use a spherical dish, and then use a special receiver which could move and finish focusing the signal correctly. Would that same concept not work on the moon? Not saying it would be easy, just whether or not it would work.

[@kylan6631]

Great video. Really exited for the future.

[@wanfuse]

an inflatable loop where the pressure holds it in inner tube shape, where wire hooks are pre attached, if strong enough or if loop is filled with regolith powder means it will possibly hold its shape ( also wont leak) then need just a couple outter anchor points to avoid sliding of the loop. all kind doing a wall blow in insulation process! just a thought! Works for magnetic ring spacecraft too , if dust can be found in close enough proximity without a catch up velocity or gravity issue, or if you can make a platform on moon to take off with a starship load of regolith powder , have to work out the mass issue though, or comet ice /asteroid. Just a thought! comet would only need a tethered nuclear powered lander to suck up the ice powder or liquid nuclear melted water and pump it into the tube, the lander could be attached starship and the inner tube unrolled from starship bay. stupid idea or what? use the loop for many things from magnetic tape loops to space telescope or large ship structures. list is endless.

[@DalniyeZelentsi]

6:35 isn't a parabolic arch more preferable than a half circle to avoid spherical abberation?