I understand what you are saying, but with an antenna attached and running into an ultra low noise front end, much lower than the usual commercial equipment would have, then with the gain having gone way up trying to detect something, will I hear any atmospheric or galactic type noise before I hear internally generated 1/f noise or component heat generated noise?
Yes - the whole idea of using a low-noise front-end is so that the noise seen in the signal received will indeed be that galactic noise, instead of some greater noise coming from the amplifier. If you have a amplifier noise contribution lower than the natural noise coming into the input, then you cannot do better. Any other signal would have come through stronger, to rise above that noise floor, to be useable.
There is no point in investing in super low noise amplifiers and apply them to receive a noise floor that is so noisy that it delivers a random racket at a much higher level than the amplifier would have given anyway. One can rate the noise contribution from a amplifier by the equivalent noise temperature that a (fictitious) resistance would deliver if it were heated so.
Given (say) a physical temperature of 290K, and a amplifier NF = 2dB, the noise temperature of that amplifier would be 290*(10^(NF/10)-1) =
169.2K. At 400MHz, the incoming noise temperature is about
120K (figures from US Naval Laboratory publication). You can see that this NF is not good enough. You would need a NF of better than 1.5dB to be sure you were hearing the noise floor instead of noise generated by molecules knocking around at 290K in the first transistor.
At 1GHz, the galactic noise at 90° (looking straight up) is 23K, and at 10° above horizon, is about 30K, meaning 0.43dB. There are some LNA that do that, but others resort to cooling. Again, there is no point in spending on better than that, because that is the noise floor. A wanted signal just HAS to be above that to be received by any demodulator.
Be aware that at around 500MHz, the noise from lightning, made-made transmissions, interference from heaters, welders, switches, cable networks, takes over from sky noise as the main noise. It is not all fairly called "galactic".
At 30MHz, it is quieter than (say) 14MHz, and justifies a front-end noise figure of maybe 3 or 4 dB. It won't hurt to have less, but might be unneccesarily expensive.
Does atmospheric and galactic noise come through with as much power in the form of random FM or PM noise as it comes through as amplitude variation (AM) noise?
It is random in both phase shifts and amplitude with nothing to favour either.
One way to make communication possible is by reducing the bandwidth, and hence the data rate. The noise floor just drops away, but this is for both the incoming and the front end contributions. Signals must still be above the noise floor.
If the phase of the signal is not is not random relative to the receiver oscillator, as in
coherent CW, there are ways to extract a signal that is even
below the random noise floor. Human pattern recognition allows a type of analog fax called
"Hellscreiber" to be read in the face of noise above the signal. Non-random frequency-hopping and pseudo-random noise signals masking spread-spectrum methods also can appear to have signals below the noise floor and can work a bit like coherent methods. Much can be just appearance. Artificially raising the noise with pseudo-random does not get around it having to be louder, or less random than the incoming galactic.
The thing I'm trying to understand is if I greatly reduce a front end's internal noise sources of FM and PM noise will I be able to detect external FM or PM signals over the atmospheric and galactic sources better than I could detect weak AM or SSB signals?
Generally no. It is unclear how one could greatly reduce the PM and FM features of random noise to give advantage over AM or SSB any more than that modulation method would have had anyway.