NASA Plans Lunar Mobile Phone Network 164
If NASA and the British National Space Centre succeed in their 'MoonLite mission' you won't be able to say, "In space no one can hear your ringtone." They plan on building a satellite system/phone network that would provide full four-bar signal coverage for colonists living in the base NASA wants to build at the south pole of the moon after 2020.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Roaming Charges (Score:2)
three words (Score:2)
Any takers for a bet that this won't even be in the (serious) planning stage in 2020?
Re: (Score:2)
They found oil on Titan, you know...
All I want to know is ... (Score:2)
IP Addresses in Space (Score:2, Interesting)
Obsolencense is f(time, money) (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it amusing that just this morning I read that the Air Force is in an uproar about needing $100B dollars over the next five years [omaha.com], just to prevent it's fleet from becoming anything less than cutting-edge.
Yet, NASA receives a mere $16.2B per year [nasa.gov] - and even with planned increases will not exceed the amount the Air Force is asking for in addition to what it already gets.
In short; I find it ridiculous that you can call anything "obsolete" that is barely funded, but has a much more sophisticated task to do. When NASA is as well funded as the Air Force, and can still not perform to par, then you can complain about it being obsolete.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
... Yet, NASA receives a mere $16.2B per year ...
That's an apples to orange groves comparison if I ever heard one. NASA isn't building a fleet of 100s of space shuttles and operating them in war zones. I'm not even sure you can say that what NASA is doing is "more sophisticated". Fighter jets have many design considerations that NASA's rockets don't - like avoiding enemy bullets and missiles. I'm not arguing that the air force isn't inefficient, I'm just saying the NASA's relatively small budget is not proof of that inefficiency. The organization
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I used the airforce in part because I saw an article regarding it, but in part because it's job - a government aeronautic agency - is probably as similar to NASA as any other government program. You are correct; they are not identical. But note that my goal was to examine the scope of what we're dealing with; you can't say that NASA isn't doing it's job when it gets, in the grand scheme of things, a pittance to do what it needs to do. There are other government agencies, though, whom we barely question when
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It is like comparing a NASCAR race crew to a city fire departmet. Yes the
Objectives are Choices, Too (Score:2)
There is a huge difference in size, yes. That is exactly the point. NASA is not amongst the most greatly funded US agencies - asking it to pull miracles out of a hat is a ridiculous proposition. You would expect the Air Force to be able to do fairly sophisticated tasks without a hitch, quickly, because it is so well funded. NASA is not so well funded - asking it to do such tasks is far more difficult. And that is assuming that their base difficulty were remotely similar - it's not. Operating within the terr
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem to make more sense if you could get a satellite network around the Moon. Then the cost of rover exploring would be reduced as you wouldn't need the expense of an orbiter relay-station as well as the rover unit themselves. Maybe you could
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What are the data rates (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What are the data rates (Score:5, Funny)
You seem to be having a problem with your keyboard.
Anyway, I corrected the text for you.
Re:What are the data rates (Score:5, Funny)
You seem to be having a problem with your keyboard.
Anyway, I corrected the text for you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
o/~ Proud cascade keep on rollin'... o/~
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I could see it as something of a quarky attraction "talk to the moon: call 2-XXX...) to help fund research. But really what colonist is going to want to be in the middle of digging up dirt only to stop and answer a phone with some silly questions like "what's the weather like up there?"
Re: (Score:2)
One thing is for sure: the ~2.51 second round trip latency (surface to surface) would be make speakerphone use impractical since you normally have to stop talking when somebody else is talking because they can't hear you anyway. That much latency would get old fast.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seeing the commercials....
Can you hear me now? Wait, what's that hissing sound? Can you hea...[gurgling noise]....
Re: (Score:2)
you think you're joking... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Figures... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Figures... (Score:4, Funny)
In space (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
4 bars? (Score:5, Funny)
It had better be a small colony, then. Or they'd better be really big bars, hopefully without annoyingly trendy kitsch, and hopefully with some really good whiskey.
FIrst things first. (Score:2)
Unless you want to sell AnyTime Lunar Minutes to other countries that would already be there.
Which standard? (Score:2)
(I had to ask)
Lagggg (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to learn to listen until the other person has finished saying what they were saying before replying. It's actually good for conversing because you are forced to really listening to the other
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless Obama wins (Score:5, Informative)
As opposed to? (Score:2)
He'll delay Constellation for five years
Has any candidate committed to funding it? I haven't heard anyone talking up NASA lately. McCain said we may have a military presence in Iraq for another 100 years, which would tie up a fair amount of money - and don't forget he just made a Bush41-style "no new taxes" pledge this week.
layoffs for all the people we'd need to get to the moon, and then we'll have to go try to re-hire them
I don't know who else is hiring these people right now - after all there is hardly anyone currently working who can claim experience with lunar missions. While I wouldn't want to see them lose their jobs any more th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Increase the funding to where it should be (and be attacked for spending too much)
Kill it completely where it stands (and be attacked for being anti-child)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is "kill it completely where it stands (and be hailed for saving children from that horrific fucking monstrosity)" not an option?
An excellent question.
One only has to refer to the impact of the right-wing noise machine to see the answer. After all, it was the conservatives that created this monster, and they control the loudest of the media outlets. If one were to kill off "no child left behind", the right-wing media would jump all over it and label the people behind its killing as being "anti-child", "anti-education", "anti-progress", "anti-jesus", and of course "anti-america" and hence "anti-patriotic".
Hell, just look
Re: (Score:2)
Claims that teachers are neglecting other areas and "teaching to the test" are bandied about, failing to consider (or deliberately glossing over) that the problem the testing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unless Obama wins (Score:4, Insightful)
He also argues that a Moon base is a poor use of resources, since "science can be done for far less money by robotic missions--which also don't put human lives at risk."[5] The Los Angeles Times seconded that in an editorial, saying "Manned moon flight may appeal to baby boomers, but it makes little scientific sense for most space missions these days. Robots can now perform, or be developed to perform, most of the tasks people would do at a moon station." [6]
Columnist Gregg Easterbrook has criticized the plans as a poor use of resources. He writes that
Although, of course, the base could yield a great discovery, its scientific value is likely to be small while its price is extremely high. Worse, moon-base nonsense may for decades divert NASA resources from the agency's legitimate missions, draining funding from real needs in order to construct human history's silliest white elephant. [7]
According to Easterbrook, the billions of dollars that a lunar colony might cost should instead be devoted to exploring the solar system with space probes; space observatories; and protecting the Earth from Near-Earth asteroids.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_outpost_(NASA) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Btw: why is NASA solving this at all? Shouldn't it be whomever would be the cell provider for the moon, and then we can let the free market figure it out?
Re:Unless Obama wins (Score:4, Insightful)
Many of us don't think the gee-whizz eye-candy coolness factor of watching someone bounce round the moon on TV is actually worth the enormous opportunity cost of what could have been done with that money if it wasn't wasted on manned missions. The Shuttle's landing tomorrow morning after a ten day mission that cost $1.3 billion. Consider that the incredibly successful Mars Exploration Rovers cost less than half that over the entire four years and counting mission, and have made fantastic breakthrough scientific discoveries as well as producing some amazing [flickr.com] eye-candy [usyd.edu.au].
(And incidentally those are all "amateur" images produced from the raw data stream, thanks to JPL/Cornell/Steve Squyres' wonderful policy to release it as it arrives [exploratorium.edu].)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, no matter what we (as people) do, there are going to be problems with whatever. I know some people cannot accept "problems". The fact is, Problems exist, because we don't live in a perfect world. Trying to create a Problem Free Society is HUGELY expensive and impossible to boot. There will always be "problems" and pouring money into "solutions" will NEVER fix them all.
There will always be people who fail
Re: (Score:2)
This only seems to be a paradox, until one reminds people that failure isn't unnecessarily failure.
Re: (Score:2)
"1,000 men did not live. I have successfully discovered 1,000 ways to NOT make the electric chair" Thomas A Edison
Re: (Score:2)
Edison figured if he could convince the government that AC power was so dangerous that it could be used for *executions* that they woul
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that if you were on the other side of that debate then the quote would be "I have not failed 1,000 times. I have successfully discovered 1,000 underlings who have failed me for the last time."
Re: (Score:2)
but will you have to go outside to use it? (Score:2)
Let's see who trumps this one by offering a 5 bar service for Mars.
Re:but will you have to go outside to use it? (Score:4, Funny)
Exactly what I was thinking. This is precisely why NASA is going down the drain. They can't even get full cellphone signal, let alone get their units right.
verizon (Score:2)
NASA, you have just brought us at least another two months of pain.
Re: (Score:2)
You thought AT&T locked you in (Score:2)
But, we do offer the Android. Not the google one, a real one
Re: (Score:2)
No, wait, I think I screwed that up.
Can you hear me now? (Score:4, Funny)
AT&T Marketing Department Rejoices! (Score:2)
But at least I can look up the size of Texas and the volume of the LoC, and I can even take a guess as to the length of a Fortnight. "Bar" is an utterly meaningless and arbitrary measurement. Heck, m
Satellite satellites? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the heck with it. (Score:4, Funny)
"In space no one can hear your ringtone." (Score:3, Informative)
This is actually a very clever plan (Score:4, Funny)
As soon as there's any hint of a mobile phone mast getting installed all the NIMBY's start moaning, writing to their MP's, holding protests and petitioning the phone company.
If there is life on other planets, all we have to do to find it is to announce that someone will errect a mobile mast - then just wait for the protests from the aliens. No protests means we are truly alone, afterall.
Actually, this is good for UK (Score:2)
That's no moon. (Score:4, Funny)
Well there goes my incentive ... (Score:2)
Ooh! ATT?? iPhone? (Score:2)
HELLO! I'M ON THE MOON! (Score:4, Funny)
NO, ITS SHIT!
Sorry, had to be done.
Oh yeah? (Score:3, Funny)
4 bars on the moon (Score:3, Funny)
When are we going to stop talking about phones? (Score:2, Insightful)
A little.... Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see it working that well due to the lag, and the costs are incredible.
Are we really trying to put bandwidth (that is what is essentially being done) on the Moon?
Isn't the whole reason why we are having problems with bandwidth/transfer caps in the US due to a lack of bandwidth? Maybe we should be investing in our infrastructures at home and solving the problems we have here with our current bandwidth before trying to place some incredibly expensive bandwidth on the moon for possible colonists.
Now I understand this might be done for national pride, just like the space race in the 60's. Are we really going to have that much pride that we were the first to offer cellphone service on the Moon?
brilliant (Score:5, Funny)
Mobile phones, then domains? (Score:2)
Wow (Score:4, Funny)
You're a /.er, so (Score:2)
In space no one can hear your ringtone (Score:2)
Bummer (Score:5, Funny)
foobar (Score:2)
As everybody knows foobar is the UNIVERSAL unwritten standard.
Still waiting for it to get canned (Score:2)
Barrak wrote:
> the next president needs to have "a practical sense of what
> investments deliver the most scientific and technological
> spinoffs -- and not just assume that human space
> exploration, actually sending bodies into space, is always
> the best investment.
Cell Towers (Score:2)
Re:lag time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:lag time (Score:5, Funny)
Nope, the article says any lag time would fall either below 20 or above 20,000 Hz. If you were trying to talk to fido, he might notice a delay, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeesh, with the Interesting and Insightful tags I was starting to think I had unlearned all those years of fine-tuning my sarcastic wit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
DANGER! Do Not Touch! 100,000,000 Ohms!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you say that? Setting up cell service on the moon will be much easier and faster than setting up even a single habitation module. On top of that, having easy communications between the people working on the moon and in near space will make it much faster, easier, and safer to work there. Just giving everyone walkie-talkies isn't gonna do much good if there are more than about four people trying to communicate there, aside form the much lower s
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you're really understanding the cart/horse relationship? It's not really about ease or speed of deployment...