Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

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

eklect t1_jeb7w27 wrote

Well, if they build it like their phones were back in the early 2000s, This should last forever. 🙂

42

tachophile t1_jebg1bc wrote

Sure, but the practical network is going to be a lunar starlink constellation.

2

pauliewotsit t1_jebhrl5 wrote

The moon is gonna have a better reception than I have?

7

Duckdiggitydog t1_jebrpzy wrote

This is good news, I’ve had terrible service up here for a while

23

Paulcaterham t1_jebudv5 wrote

The roaming charges are going to be horrendous though...

30

BobbyHillWantsBlood t1_jebxhts wrote

I’m surprised that Starlink wasn’t on the table. Throw a couple in orbit that beam back to Earth’s constellation

5

HonestCup20 t1_jec92v0 wrote

secret base on the moon is sick of slow ass internet! hook those dudes up!

7

TheCh0rt t1_jec9z49 wrote

The moonbase’s red alert klaxons will be the Nokia ringtone.

15

KeaboUltra t1_jecf25k wrote

Replying to tachophile (#2,498,655)

Maybe it's just the start. They launch a station, that then supports a close orbit like how it is on earth. It'd be cheaper to maintain for Lunar built satellites, cheaper and less risky to launch, and easier to send replacements or expansions.

2

IJourden t1_jecqgcm wrote

I feel like this will make Elon Musk upset that it wasn’t him.

0

justmovingtheground t1_jecy5iu wrote

I’m a network engineer that primarily works with Nokia equipment. Where do I sign up to work on the moon?

7

dh1304 t1_jed8evp wrote

It all makes sense, we need to send Nokia 3310's to the moon for our astronauts. The phone is invincible afterall.

2

Catmunchy t1_jedg9vo wrote

No asteroid will even make a dent on this one. Good choice.

3

Burnertoasty t1_jedjzdm wrote

SpaceX should create a hybrid LPS, starlink and downfacing optical satellites to give real time imaging. It could be part of a solar system network to provide data links to the entire inner solar system.

1

variaati0 t1_jedqq6z wrote

Replying to BobbyHillWantsBlood (#2,502,901)

Because Nokia is among the largest base station and radio gear builders in the world and also one of the biggest R&D people in the area. You want something experimental? Call Nokia, Ericson or so on.

Plus Nokia has connections to USA, since they bought Lucent Technologies aka the old radio hardware side of AT&T. AT&T Bell Labs is these days Nokia Bell labs, since they took ownership as part of the Lucent deal.

In fact the project is headed on Nokia's side by Nokia Bell labs, since it's an experimental R&D project.

They are putting LTE on Moon.... Nokia was one of the companies who invented and developed LTE in the first place. They make LTE base stations. Whole point also kinda is: LTE is industry standard. If they use something like LTE, multitude of companies and players can join in expanding the network. Since it's standard LTE. We do LTE Roaming and so on here on Earth all the time. It is network designed for interoperability, instead of singular proprietary network. Upon which time one is at the mercy of the whims and success of the single proprietary supplier. Plus LTE has the desired needed bandwidth amounts.

NASA could next contract with Ericson and the Ericson base station and Nokia base station know how to talk to each other.

13

Sea_Ask6095 t1_jee4q6n wrote

Replying to HungryLikeTheWolf99 (#2,495,521)

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

Decronym t1_jee5n21 wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |BFR|Big Falcon Rocket (2018 rebiggened edition)| | |Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you're not the first to notice| |SSH|Starship + SuperHeavy (see BFR)|

|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|

^(2 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 14 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8743 for this sub, first seen 31st Mar 2023, 11:08]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

1

hypercomms2001 t1_jee7kg3 wrote

When you arrive on the Moon.. you will probably have to buy a burner phone, with expensive galactic roaming charges ... no doubt the phone company on lunar surface will screw you... with data rates of dial up speeds.... no first arrival moon party videos for home.... not unless you can wait five days for it to upload.......[ a future not too far away.....]!!

2

Winjin t1_jee7sw2 wrote

Replying to bookers555 (#2,505,326)

I used Nokias for years since probably my second phone after Samsung C45, mostly Nokia 2100 and Nokia 6230 and 6230i. Then there were Lumia 820 and 625. I loved these to the Moon and back (pun intended) and still feel like Microsoft Phone was way better than the way it flopped.

It was fast on a budget, their flow keyboard was stellar (and is still available I believe) and quite sturdy. I loved the tiles design for when you only use a couple dozen apps and the rest sit in the list.

It wouldn't work for someone with hundreds of apps though, spread accross six to seven screens they almost never use, except if heavily using folders (that I still have to use though). That's what my current phone looks like, but it's mostly me, hating on the apps situation.

In my Android phone I've decided to just delete links to almost everything and just search for them.

2

Belzebutt t1_jeeadzm wrote

Replying to BobbyHillWantsBlood (#2,502,901)

Completely unworkable. Going back to earth would increase latency by several orders or magnitude, making it useless. Putting a bunch of low orbit of satellites around the moon would be even more orders of magnitude more expensive. A local 4G station gives you wide area access with the right performance at the right price.

2

Belzebutt t1_jeebat3 wrote

For those saying “why not Starlink”. What they can get with 4G is to blanket a very wide area with coverage, and in this area several devices can get fast data access, and importantly the devices can be cheap, very small and very low power (rovers or people). The base station is also relatively cheap and small. Starlink around the moon implies a whole bunch of satellites ($), a ground terminal ($), and devices that use large, not very mobile, expensive phased array ($) dishes that need line of sight.

6

KarmaWSYD t1_jeelsb4 wrote

Replying to Sea_Ask6095 (#2,522,977)

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

WagonBurning t1_jeerfqr wrote

Wait! I can’t service here on earth in the mountains where I live. BUT WE CAN PUT IT ON THE MOON!

3

KarmaWSYD t1_jefghvk wrote

Replying to mouse_puppy (#2,538,116)

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

tachophile t1_jefviph wrote

Replying to KarmaWSYD (#2,527,879)

Because nothing needs to land, less delta V/fuel, and you'd need a lot fewer satellites than stations. Also, there should be little if any new h/w engineering necessary adapting Starlink for lunar operations.

0

Reggie_001 t1_jegah6l wrote

First moon phones the classic Nokia bricks that can't be killed? I think the one I have in a box somewhere still works.

1

KarmaWSYD t1_jegmad3 wrote

Replying to tachophile (#2,547,280)

That's at leastsomething. Still, you'd need user terminals which, to my knowledge, haven't gotten particularly small or light, at least compared to a 4G chip. Probably using quite a bit more energy, too.

1