Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HungryLikeTheWolf99 t1_jeb334f wrote

I started to wonder why 4g rather than 5g, which just has more available frequencies, but then realized that network congestion isn't exactly the concern on, literally, the moon.

108

Sea_Ask6095 t1_jee4q6n wrote

Most likely well tested systems that have operated for years and bugs/flaws are more likely to have been found.

5G requires CPUs/hardware built from smaller circuits, usually 7nm. The smaller the logic gates the more senstive they are to radiation. 4G probably works better in a highly radioactive environment.

25

KarmaWSYD t1_jeelsb4 wrote

Even beyond 4G being much more reliable (and cheaper) 5G simply has a much lower range which'd either mean much less coverage or considerably more stations (i.e. launch weight and setup) for the same coverage.

8

mouse_puppy t1_jefegfb wrote

In part lower range because of atmosphere. I wonder how 80Ghz would do on the moon

2

KarmaWSYD t1_jefghvk wrote

Yeah, the atmosphere is definitely a factor in range but buildings and the like also serve to stop signals. I'd expect that to be a particular effect when any buildings likely need more shielding from radiation due to, well, being on the moon. Of course, there's a chance that they don't actually need that network capability inside buildings but if they do 4G would most likely be the better option.

2

3xnope t1_jeelu5s wrote

Range. 5G is fast but has ridiculously short range.

7

HungryLikeTheWolf99 t1_jefbpb1 wrote

I thought that the 5g standard includes new frequencies below the 750/700 mhz allocations of 4g (not just the high ghz freqs)?

2