NASA and Nokia To Install 4G on Lunar Surface (theguardian.com) 65
With competition among Earth's telecoms providers as fierce as ever, equipment maker Nokia has announced its expansion into a new market, winning a deal to install the first cellular network on the moon. From a report: The Finnish equipment manufacturer said it was selected by NASA to deploy an "ultra-compact, low-power, space-hardened" wireless 4G network on the lunar surface, as part of the US space agency's plan to establish a long-term human presence on the moon by 2030. The $14.1m contract, awarded to Nokia's US subsidiary, is part of Nasa's Artemis programme which aims to send the first woman, and next man, to the moon by 2024. The astronauts will begin carrying out detailed experiments and explorations which the agency hopes will help it develop its first human mission to Mars. Nokia's network equipment will be installed remotely on the moon's surface using a lunar hopper built by Intuitive Machines in late 2022, Nokia said. "The network will self-configure upon deployment," the firm said in a statement, adding that the wireless technology will allow for "vital command and control functions, remote control of lunar rovers, real-time navigation and streaming of high definition video."
Again? (Score:2)
Re:Again? (Score:5, Funny)
The deal from a few days ago was with Nokia. This new one is with Nokia.
Re: (Score:3)
Just imagine the astronauts phone bills.. (Score:2)
... when they get home. "Yes, I know it was a *really* long distance call, but THAT much? Seriously??"
$500 per MB data voice $100 per min (Score:2)
$500 per MB data voice $100 per min
Re: (Score:3)
So... comparable to Comcast's terrestrial rates?
Next step... (Score:2)
How to use your phone to place a call without removing your helmet.
Re: (Score:3)
How to use your phone to place a call without removing your helmet.
Blue Tooth Ear buds...
Now we know why they've been removing the headphone jacks on cell phones...
Re: (Score:2)
Bluetooth connection and voice command:
Hey Siri! Call Angelo!
Hey Google, call Siri!
And most likely that will be mostly used for IP applications and not "calls".
Re: (Score:2)
With the fact Siri and Google still need to call home to do anything useful, I can imagine 30 seconds delay in anything that happens. Can't wait until they remove that requirement and make the voice processing purely on the phone.
Re: (Score:1)
Siri uses local, on-device processing. It only sends back to iCloud if you allow for improvement and obviously if you ask it to look up stuff, although "directions from the moon to home" will be a routing problem for some time to come.
Re: Next step... (Score:2)
Re: Next step... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How to use your phone to place a call without removing your helmet.
Found myself chuckling over the imagery of a guy standing on the moon, SCREAMING into his phone through a helmet...
"I SAAAAID....HEEY SIRREE..."
Re: Next step... (Score:2)
A helmet transducer is theorticaly very easy to make, with parts from your favorite hobby electronics supplier. But I have no idea if NASA has tried it.
These dupes are getting REALLY annoying (Score:4, Informative)
https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
This is like, the third duplicate this week. JFC.
In space, no one can hear you butt dial (Score:2)
I couldn't help but imagine an astronaut pulling out her or his phone and putting up against the helmet. You might have signal, but no audio, except the conduction through the helmet and glove if you hold it tight enough. But at least you can play a game on the phone.
What is the point, seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
Until there is any kind of permanent human settlement there, why bother?
One or more expressions involving bicycles and fish come to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Until there is any kind of permanent human settlement there, why bother?
One or more expressions involving bicycles and fish come to mind.
I'm not giving away the source for this as it provides me with a unique edge:
Nokia said. "The network will self-configure upon deployment," the firm said in a statement, adding that the wireless technology will allow for "vital command and control functions, remote control of lunar rovers, real-time navigation and streaming of high definition video."
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
The moon is still over a full light second away from Earth. Adding wireless relay stations on the lunar surface is not going to change that.
It's my understanding that you need tenth of a second or faster response times on a system before you can actually call it "real time".
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
The moon is still over a full light second away from Earth. Adding wireless relay stations on the lunar surface is not going to change that.
It's my understanding that you need tenth of a second or faster response times on a system before you can actually call it "real time".
If you know that they intend to relay the signal from/to earth for that usage you know something I don't as it isn't implied in my secret source..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Live" is far more generous on timing than "real time". You can have quite a few seconds or perhaps even an entire minute or two of latency and still be considered "live".
But "real time" has a particular meaning in technology, and it invariably means that it is virtually immediate as far as human perception is concerned.
Google it.
An entire second or more of latency isn't real time. By definition.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing that is further than a tenth of a light-second away can be real time, correct.
But things that are closer together than that certainly can be.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit.
The moon is still over a full light second away from Earth. Adding wireless relay stations on the lunar surface is not going to change that.
It's my understanding that you need tenth of a second or faster response times on a system before you can actually call it "real time".
Maybe the real-time navigation will be done by people ON THE MOON. Doing this means the astronauts won't need to suit-up and get exposed to radiation; just get a remote-controlled robot to do the work. And even from Earth... I've played games with 1-second latency, and it is still possible. You just have to anticipate more, and it is slower going. Not real-time, but possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but again, lacking any sort of permanent lunar settlement at this time, talking about this right now is seems the very epitome of putting the cart before the horse.
At over 50 now, I don't even know if I will be alive by the time we have a permanent lunar settlement, although I suspect my grandkids might.
Re: (Score:2)
That is unfortunately a wrong understanding.
You have an event X - and based on a calculation you have Z seconds time to decide what to do, Y1 or Y1 or nothing.
A long as your calculation finishes in that Z timeframe: it is realtime.
Does not matter if Z is a millisecond, 3 seconds, or in case of a Supertanker which needs to decide on basis of two radio beacons during the next two minutes if it is time to adjust heading 30 degrees port or not.
The question if something is real times, aka the implementation of a
Re: (Score:2)
In technology, "real time" has a specific meaning, and that is a response time measured on the order of no more than a hundred or so milliseconds, and often much less.
Response times on the order of seconds or sometimes even minutes might very well be adequate to cope with the demands of a particular problem, but that doesn't make them real time, that just makes them "interactive".
Re: (Score:2)
I explained the specific meaning.
It means what I said: as long a you can process the incoming data in less time than it is needed to react on the result of that processing: it is called "real time".
And the edge cases are indeed hour or days.
And if you had studied at an university and had taken the "real time systems course", you would know that this is one of the first quest in an an exam :P
Real time has absolutely noting to do with the real quickness of an operation.
Example:
You car has an anti blocking sys
Re: What is the point, seriously? (Score:1)
To give some more examples, a single system might have multiple real-time systems operating at different frequencies.
For example, a fly-by-wire aircraft might have short-period primary flight controls and engine control running at say 100Hz (full loop for sensors. actuators, processing, human input). The same vehicle might have secondary flight controls such as trim operating at 10Hz, fuel control (sensors, pumps) at 1Hz, air conditioning at 0.1Hz (10 sec) and so on.
Control respon
Re: (Score:2)
In technology, it absolutely does. Look it up. Response times in real-time systems are measured in milliseconds.
Remote real-time systems are physically impossible when a device is more than a tenth of a light-second away from the controller.
Re: (Score:2)
In technology, it absolutely does. Look it up. Response times in real-time systems are measured in milliseconds.
No it does not. I explained it to you and gave you three examples. Grasp it or don't - up to you.
If you have a process that requires an "interaction" once a second, and your computer/software is able to interpret all signals and send out all control operations in a time that this requirement is fulfilled: it is real time. That is the definition of real time. Does not matter if the timespan is a mi
Re: What is the point, seriously? (Score:1)
The control feedback system of a supertanker might be fine operating at 1Hz or slower, given that (I assume) the engine, rudder and other systems are relatively large and slow to operate.
For academic computer graphics, 10Hz might be considered real-time. For a responsive video game in âoetwitchyâ genre (shooter, driving) 60Hz or higher might be minimum
Re: (Score:2)
Still none of that is currently on the moon. Also why 4G not 5G or something different and faster.
Re: (Score:2)
Still none of that is currently on the moon. Also why 4G not 5G or something different and faster.
4G has stood the test of time. 5G has stood the test of "It works! No... wait a minute... it just fell back to 4G. Never mind."
I'm sure they'll upgrade to 5G a while after it moves beyond the no-man's land between vapourware and reliable infrastructure - provided that it moves forward and not backward.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Also why 4G not 5G or something different and faster.
It was too expensive to modify the space suits to protect the astronauts from 5G radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Still none of that is currently on the moon. Also why 4G not 5G or something different and faster.
My source hints at the possibility of bringing it to the moon and says:
The 4G equipment can be updated to a super-fast 5G network in the future, Nokia said
Re: (Score:2)
Until there is any kind of permanent human settlement there, why bother?
Why bother putting a permanent human settlement on the Moon!?!?!? There's nothing commercially exploitable there, there's not enough H2O or O2 to economically sustain human life there. If human civilization goes down in a meteor strike, those Moon residents are soon dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother putting a permanent human settlement on the Moon!?!?!?
I'm not giving away the source for this as it provides me with a unique edge:
The astronauts will begin carrying out detailed experiments and explorations which the agency hopes will help it develop its first human mission to Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Oxygen represents about 45% of the mass of the moon. There is plenty of oxygen for a permanent settlement.
Water is admittedly rare, but not so rare that permanent settlements are impossible... only really rare enough to impose some pretty stringent limits on a maximum sustainable population.
I'd prefer a 4K camera (Score:2)
That we could watch to catch the man in the moon or the monolith builders.
That makes me wonder ... (Score:3)
... what country code will the Moon have?
Re: (Score:2)
So we don't go to Mars in this century... (Score:2, Insightful)
...because we're too busy pissing away money putting humans on the moon with nothing productive to do except texting each other on 4G.
4G and the real reason (Score:2)
We cannot let the other planets have newer tech, so they will have to contend with twin blade razors to shave their wookie hair, and vintage 4G TV ads showing coverage on the lunar network
Lag/latency will be horrible (Score:2)
Air Duct Cleaning Services (Score:1)
Beware roaming charges (Score:2)
OK I'll buy (Score:2)
Earth First! (Score:2)
Long term presence by 2030? (Score:2)
They have 9 years now. They still have to get back to the moon, and construct some kind of habitation. Do we even have the technology for that? Radiation shielding? What about the lack of gravity? There will have to be regular supply runs too, unless they have the means to grow food and generate water somehow. I suppose we've had some practice with the ISS.
I don't follow NASA's plans much, so this seems overly ambitious if not completely infeasible. Would love to be wrong, though.
Re: Long term presence by 2030? (Score:2)
Or do they just mean some kind of station orbiting the moon? I was under the impression that we're not close to being able to construct and maintain habitation on another celestial body.
Re: (Score:2)
Or do they just mean some kind of station orbiting the moon?
They arent anywhere close to that either, unless you play quite fast and loose with the definition of "station."
Re: (Score:2)
We are able since decades. The problem is not and never was technology, it is: money.
Great..... (Score:3)
Looks like the moon is going to get 4G service before I can get 4G at home. 8^(
8^)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the moon is going to get 4G service before I can get 4G at home
What do I have to do to get cell phone coverage, be an astrophysicist? No, but you can be an astronaut.
Well that's super useful (Score:3)
Great (Score:1)
So now I can get those calls about my car's extended warranty on the moon.