Lunar vs. orbital astronomy

From: rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]

"Astronomers push for observatory on the moon" (c.f.,
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/05/lunar.observatory/index.html

It is another article relevant to the thread "Lunar vs. orbital
astronomy" that we were discussing a few weeks back.

Recall that Mike Combs and others argued that orbital astronomy was a
better option than an observatory on the surface of the Moon.

And I can't see that the scientists being quoted in the article had anything
to say on why the moon is considered a better location than HEO. I'm
convinced that even highly intelligent and knowledgeable scientists can fall
into planetary chauvinism. I think they start off by thinking, "In order to
build a radio telescope, we must first find some ground to build it on,"
when this isn't necessarily true. The other idea just never enters into
their thinking process.

Another aspect is that the significant disadvantages of astronomy from the
surface of planetary bodies don't have much mental impact on planners
because that's always the way it's been, and we're used to it. So we're
relatively insensitive to those disadvantages. I believe thinking inside
the box can result in us overlooking a much more advantageous proposal here.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]
"Astronomers push for observatory on the moon" (c.f.,
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/05/lunar.observatory/index.html
It is another article relevant to the thread "Lunar vs. orbital
astronomy" that we were discussing a few weeks back.
Recall that Mike Combs and others argued that orbital astronomy was a
better option than an observatory on the surface of the Moon.

And I can't see that the scientists being quoted in the article had anything to say on why the moon is considered a better location than HEO. I'm convinced that even highly intelligent and knowledgeable scientists can fall into planetary chauvinism. I think they start off by thinking, "In order to build a radio telescope, we must first find some ground to build it on," when this isn't necessarily true. The other idea just never enters into their thinking process.

Another aspect is that the significant disadvantages of astronomy from the surface of planetary bodies don't have much mental impact on planners because that's always the way it's been, and we're used to it. So we're relatively insensitive to those disadvantages. I believe thinking inside the box can result in us overlooking a much more advantageous proposal here.

Regards,
Mike Combs