10

For the purpose of this post, full spectrum means a non-trivial number of frequencies within a non-trivial band. So human eyes aren't full spectrum within the visual range (each cone is wide band, they overlap and there are only three) but ten or twenty relatively narrow non-overlapping channels covering the full width would. I'm defining it up-front so that it's clear what I'm discussing.

I know that you can link radio telescopes over thousands of miles with a collecting area of a square kilometre. It's called SKA and it's currently being built.

Likewise, I know that you can build optical interferometers, but currently, none are capable of resolving a visual image.

Max Tegmark built a huge interferometer (either microwave or infrared, I'm unsure), the Omniscope, for looking at the cosmic background radiation.

But here you run into the first problem. The average distance to the asteroid belt from the sun is 3.2 AU, so we can treat our disk of radio telescopes as having a diameter of 6.4 AU and a circumference of 32.2 AU. Even if you processed the data on Earth, half that disk isn't visible, so you've got to transmit the data over unreliable, non-deterministic, low-bandwidth, high-latency links for 34.2 AU (distance to a common transmitter since there's only one deep space network plus distance to Earth). The non-determinism is the potential killer as you have no means of determining how to overlay the data.

The second problem is that even optical interferometry is limited. For full-spectrum, you've got to get it through UV and into X-Ray, and telescopes have to look over much narrower bands. I don't know if such telescopes are possible.

Given that a greater range of telescopes complicates data delivery (you've got more complicated paths to get the data from A to B because telescopes want to transmit their own data, bandwidth is constrained because you're using radio telescopes and interferometry still has to patch the data together), it's reasonable to theorize that you have a minimum number of relay stations elsewhere in the belt for the number of telescopes.

But you've now added the number of places that can collide with other objects, that can fail due to hard radiation in space, and that move unpredictably (N-body problem) relative to the telescopes they're relaying.

So we can say that there should be an upper limit, a bound beyond which either the telescopes can't be linked as an interferometer due to communications problems, where there's just no added value (an interferometer of half the size and twice the time base will see more), or where the probability of failure from any cause exceeds the value of the data obtained in the mean time between failures. The exact cause of the limit is irrelevant, although if there is published science on this, it would be good to see.

We can also say that there is an upper frequency beyond which interferometry is impossible with any known science. The reason doesn't matter, just the bound, although, again, the science would be good to see if published.

Because the asteroids move relative to each other, the change in the relative position of each obviously impacts the timebase (unless you create yet another mechanism for tracking position, with the unreliability that creates). The tools used in synthetic aperture receivers might be useful since you can in principle treat the motion as simply receiving on different spots on your fixed virtual dish.

If there is a function tying maximum size to maximum frequency, that would be wonderful, as then you can plot the full range of possibilities.

Otherwise, how large of a telescope over how large of a range of frequencies over how many bands could you have? Would you need to create an original ringworld (disconnected platforms in a ring) to build this, or can you utilize the asteroid belt with minimal impact?

(To clarify, this last bit is the question of interest.)

Olga
  • 4,543
  • 1
  • 10
  • 37
Imipak
  • 533
  • 2
  • 7
  • 5
    @Mołot Well; interferometer principles, theory and design looks to me like something there would exist real-world citable scientific works on. I'll absolutely grant that scientific papers on asteroid-belt-scale interferometers are unlikely to exist, but that doesn't necessarily imply that relevant citable material doesn't exist. This looks to me like it might be answerable to a hard-science standard, and if not, I'd personally rather see the question being relaxed from hard-science to maybe science-based, than start out science-based and only later be changed to hard-science. – user Dec 06 '17 at 19:36
  • 2
    I'm not an expert but I'm actually reading up on this so I do have some limited understanding of the topic. Here are some thoughts: 1. Currently the largest optical array has 6 telescopes here on Earth. Having an array of hundreds of thousands of telescopes out in the asteroid belt is a couple of levels of magnitude more difficult. 2. The rotation of the belt will actually give you different baselines and having many different baselines results in better quality image. 3. Since your telescopes are in space you won't get any atmospheric interference. – ventsyv Dec 06 '17 at 21:22
  • You'll need to track the position of the telescopes, but I don't see a fundamental problem with that. 5. You actually don't need that many telescopes to produce useful images but more (or bigger) telescopes means you need to spend less time looking at a target. Finally NASA and ESA have studied the problem in the early to mid 2000s but both missions were canceled. Obviously they weren't planning to put the telescopes on asteroids, instead they studied using a handful of satellites flying in formation to do the same thing.
  • – ventsyv Dec 06 '17 at 21:29
  • Interferometers aren't used to resolve images so I don't see how this question even makes sense. – A. C. A. C. Dec 06 '17 at 22:29
  • 2
    You may want to read about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOCAL_(spacecraft) That's a project that would use Sun gravitational lens for building giant telescope and that is possible(borderline) with existing technology. – Vashu Dec 06 '17 at 23:12
  • 4
    I don't see why the need of using asteroids. They could place the telescopes over a regular, empty orbit, and it will be easier and cheaper - landing on an asteroid is tricky. – Rekesoft Dec 07 '17 at 11:34
  • @A C A C - one very standard use of interferometers is to superimpose images because the signal will be additive and the noise subtractive. VLBAs are often used to create a virtual reflector. This is how SKA will be used. The angular resolution goes up accordingly. That's why SKA will have only four times the collecting power of the Chinese dish but 4,000 times the angular resolution. It's why the MERLIN array in Europe, of which Jodrell Bank is a part, gets some amazing images. Yes, images. They may be radio images, but they're still images. What did you think we did with them? – Imipak Dec 07 '17 at 20:49
  • @Rekesoft - Asteroids are relatively easy to track, so it makes your data link a bit more reliable. The interior is also wonderfully shielded, so your electronics can have a bit more oomph to them. The fuel needed for gas jets or ion drive would be quickly depleted, a motor is likely to do better. That requires significant energy as the mass doesn't change. On the electronics, you're using store and forward. That means you need storage space for your own data and incoming plus a means of folding data sets from the same time of the same target to reduce I/O. – Imipak Dec 07 '17 at 21:05
  • ventsyv - More telescopes mean more targets, agreed, but it also means more sensitivity. The ESA have mapped the position in 3D space of two billion nearby stars. At a guess, this could give you far greater precision on those two billion and extend it to much of the galaxy and some of Andromeda. It also means more detail, so we could track Pluto-sized or (maybe smaller) objects a hundred light years away or more. That could be some terrific data. – Imipak Dec 07 '17 at 21:11
  • ventsyv - did not know about ESA's or NASA's work (bad me, I should know more about the places I work). I'll need to look at that. From the dates, I'm guessing budget. NASA's Delay Tolerant Network software was running into problems, too, and that's the only way to handle indeterminate network paths in clusters. If there were other factors, those would obviously impact this. – Imipak Dec 07 '17 at 21:16
  • Michael Kjörling - as per request, softened the tags to promote discussion and debate. Will switch back if folks agree enough of any answer can be backed by cites to justify this. Based on answers so far, I have every confidence in people being able to produce answers serious journals would be willing to carry. – Imipak Dec 07 '17 at 21:22
  • @Imipak you don't have to soften tags. Opinion of one person can be wrong (even if it's me ;) ). On the other hand, asking hard science question as a follow up might help you get some answers fast and detailed answer later, when you decide about general how to. – Mołot Dec 07 '17 at 21:55
  • @Imipak My opinion is that you should leave it hard science and be patient. Getting the citation evidence won't happen in a day or two, but there are enough users who will build up evidence over time to get you an answer. Be prepared to wait for a few months though. It has a 'favorite' from me, so it might be me coming back to give this one a stab on a less busy weekend. – kingledion Dec 07 '17 at 22:00
  • 2
    kingledion - A few months is fine, look how long NASA has waited! :) Ok, leaving it hard science. – Imipak Dec 07 '17 at 22:12
  • The data packet needs to have a timestamp associated with it. you won't get "live feeds". RFC 4838 should solve any communications problems. https://www.nasa.gov/content/dtn – Michael Kutz Dec 08 '17 at 15:19
  • @MichaelKutz - I've looked at that, though their implementation was not very good. Also looked at the CCSDS software for satellite communication - https://public.ccsds.org/Publications/SIS.aspx and https://public.ccsds.org/implementations/software.aspx - and timing - http://doc.ntp.org/4.1.1/pps.htm - but not sure how to handle varying relativistic effects on time. – Imipak Dec 08 '17 at 21:23
  • I voted to close this question as too broad due to the second question in the last paragraph. The question could also be closed as off-topic as it's a real-world physics question, not a worldbuilding question, due to the first question in the last paragraph. Finally, due to the hard-science tag, this question will never be answered (just keeping the asteroids from rotating for a controlled focus removes the idea from any practical consideration). – JBH Dec 10 '17 at 15:46
  • 1
    some clarifying questions:
    1. What are you looking to measure with this interferometry? Gravitational waves?
    2. Why does it need to be full spectrum?
    3. What is the level of technology for your world?
    – A. Brass Dec 15 '17 at 06:03
  • 1
    I don't know enough about large scale interferometers to provide an in-depth answer. However, it seems to me that by using principles from compressed sensing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_sensing , for the skeptics: single-pixel camera http://news.mit.edu/2017/faster-single-pixel-camera-lensless-imaging-0330) you should be able to both handle the scale of the project, and address some of the inherent uncertainties, which you have mentioned (compress sensing and interferometry, e.g. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/873f/55b6e1ee95fbc6e17838b88f2bd5c7ff0650.pdf ). – NofP Dec 15 '17 at 09:04