[lstodd]

Why not? They are massive only because you are limited by earth surface. In space there are no limits, see Radioastron for example, and that was decades ago.

Right now for the price of that one project one could have a humongous radio telescope in orbit without any interference. If only people could really look forward.

[privong]

> In space there are no limits, see Radioastron for example, and that was decades ago.

Radioastron required cross-correlating the signal with ground-based radio teleacopes in order to do science. The collecting area, dish distributons, etc. would need to be fully replicated in space if one wanted to avoid using ground-based facilities entirely.

[lstodd]

Nope. Ot was one of a kind thing only because you could not launch two at the time. With that a-given, ofc the ground-based "other end of the leg" was essential for it to work.

Now we can launch two. Or two dozen. This completely obviates any need for ground listeners as for resulting angular resolution.

Since ground-based radioastronomy has other uses, will stay there anyway and since crosscheck is always better, future long-base radiointerferometry will use legacy ground-based observatories.

[privong]

We're saying the same thing -- one radioastron satellite isn't enough, you'd need a constellation of them.