>>150372
>Just have a small frame buffer that samples the area directly ahead of
Impossible.
Difficult, meaning. It has yet to be made. The point of a astronomical telescope is that its anus open to the breeze to ANY photon packet. Those photon packets are collected over a relatively long duration to create images that are even slightly recognizable. It's not like a video, it can't be manipulated in real time past throwing a blind over it or other very external influences.
Although, you can account for the vibrations in the atmosphere by vibrating the collection mirror at the right frequency (That's how we managed to take a time-lapse of a star orbiting a black hole in the middle of our galaxy.), its not quite the same thing as using a computer to current-process a extremely sensitive dataset that's being collected though.
In a nutshell, to have a frame buffer, you need the image in the first place, and the image in some cases is only collected after two/three minutes of waiting. A camera that fast will also simultaneously miss the light needed to 'correct' in the first place. Its just that dim.
>artifacts just be brushed out
Again, the telescope collects very dense data. A .fits file is very much not a jpg/png, that is by design, and what makes it useful, and can't really be manipulated like a jpg/png until you convert it to such and (naturally) lose valuable data in the process. (I separated this because post-process isn't necessarily a good solution to streaks either.)
>orbits and distances and can get a real-time reading on their apparent luminosity
Actually, that's the tricky part. Orbits, knowable, distances, lot less. Mainly because the object is moving as you are, and your relative positions can be highly variable. Cerro Tololo's observatory might have coordinates well known, but is the relationship between it and tiny satellite #3548 easily accessible on day/time/inclination xyz? No, that's why tools like Astrosat are useful. We also get interference from aircraft as well, the lights on the bottom of them frequently fuck shit up and leave streaks as well. (Though, positional data is much easier for those, robotic telescopes still don't account for them either.
>>150375
This is also somewhat true, though a secondary camera may not be that significantly off, and itself could technically be handled post-post process.
>>150377
It's more of complete documentation of how you got there and the potential mistakes machine/AI tampering could have on datasets. If there is a anomaly to be seen, we want to see that anomaly damn it. Failures (of both data collection or our understanding) are extremely important, as boring as they may be.
Bottom line, science of any kind should be reproducible, because that science will eventually become regular form to generate more complex experiments/observations based off of it.
>>150367
Halloween is very interesting, yeah. I haven't dressed up as a astrological wizard though, but that sounds like a great idea.
Since you're all
presumably white, except for that Brazilian monkey and that nigger commie, I expect you to at least read the descriptions of the photos, anons.
(source)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.10541.pdf
Basically a team generated images of our galaxy from radiowaves in a study.