that about 1/1000 of your phones RF power output, and the distance is 384400km
from einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works to science_memes@mander.xyz on 13 Mar 08:00
https://sh.itjust.works/post/34341414

#science_memes

threaded - newest

Yorick@sh.itjust.works on 13 Mar 08:26 next collapse

The magic of a clear line of sight and vacuum for a good ~384’300km!

So should we do low power communications by using the moon as reflector dish?

PhobosAnomaly@feddit.uk on 13 Mar 08:41 next collapse

Two thirds of a million kilometres under good conditions and at a precise angle to get a picture of goatse moontooth’d to my phone

Welcome to 2025!

slazer2au@lemmy.world on 13 Mar 08:44 next collapse

Also, directional vs omnidirectional antennas.

facepainter@lemm.ee on 13 Mar 08:57 collapse

This is the most important part.

deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz on 13 Mar 09:00 collapse

And not encoding any data. Well a laser pulse is kind of datum.

meyotch@slrpnk.net on 13 Mar 10:19 collapse

One bit! That’s all you get!

mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 13 Mar 09:15 next collapse

I am worried about 2000ms ping

Rhaedas@fedia.io on 13 Mar 13:13 collapse

That's what the anti-tachyon modulation circuit is for, to change the time phase and remove most of that lag. Once they're in sync, it's literally real time!

Hugin@lemmy.world on 13 Mar 10:37 collapse

There was a NSA program that listened to soviet messages by collecting the transmissions that bounced off the moon.

DaveyRocket@lemmy.world on 14 Mar 13:24 collapse

I gotta say, the moon’s really starting to sound like a fucking snitch.

lnxtx@feddit.nl on 13 Mar 09:13 next collapse

My Bluetooth buds often get interference - technically 100 mW, distance from my head to a pocket.

moody@lemmings.world on 13 Mar 12:50 collapse

technically 100 mW

Technically a maximum of 100 mW, but realistically much lower than that.

zaphod@sopuli.xyz on 13 Mar 08:51 next collapse

It’s easy, you just need a big antenna, low noise receiver (just cool it) for low bandwidth (keeps noise power low) and no interferers in the same frequency band.

wander1236@sh.itjust.works on 13 Mar 09:41 next collapse

Shrimple as that

WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world on 13 Mar 11:04 collapse

It’s almost too easy

Zwiebel@feddit.org on 13 Mar 10:47 next collapse

*directional antenna

zaphod@sopuli.xyz on 13 Mar 14:22 collapse

Show me a non-directional antenna.

ChairmanMeow@programming.dev on 14 Mar 12:15 next collapse

enterprisecontrol.co.uk/…/non-directional-antenna…

zaphod@sopuli.xyz on 14 Mar 12:37 collapse

Just because you call it non-directional doesn’t mean it is. They all have gain compared to a theoretical isotropic antenna.

Zwiebel@feddit.org on 24 Mar 20:38 collapse

And how is that relevant? Everybody knows they mean low gain antennas

Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world on 14 Mar 13:07 collapse

Omni-directional antennas?

feddylemmy@lemmy.world on 14 Mar 22:07 collapse

Omnidirectional antennas attempt to radiate equally horizontally. An isotropic antenna radiates equally in all directions but is only theoretical. All antennas have some gain.

That being said, there are some antennas that attempt to minimize that gain and be as non-directional as possible while other antennas attempt to maximize that gain and become as directional as possible.

Trollception@sh.itjust.works on 14 Mar 11:49 next collapse

Perfect. Now put those on cell phones and make it fit in your pocket.

frezik@midwest.social on 14 Mar 14:45 collapse

Technology always gets better with no regard to physical limits.

(People who argue this unironically are a pet peeve of mine. Yes, there are limitations on what’s possible.)

[deleted] on 14 Mar 19:24 collapse

.

JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org on 14 Mar 21:49 collapse

That’s fair, though I think we also should thank the use of Travelling Wave Tubes (TWTs or ‘twits’). These little tubes of witchcraft amplify the transmission signal to make sure we can still hear, say, the Voyager 1 that’s currently over 15-billion miles away.

yesman@lemmy.world on 13 Mar 10:52 next collapse

To be fair, that’s an insignificant distance for light to travel.

7eter@feddit.org on 13 Mar 12:28 collapse

Still takes at least 2 seconds for the round trip.

yesman@lemmy.world on 13 Mar 12:42 collapse

Well, according to my ex, even 30 or 90 seconds is an interval unworthy of consideration.

RubberElectrons@lemmy.world on 13 Mar 14:35 collapse
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 13 Mar 11:54 next collapse

the distance is 384400km

That’s almost the distance between my bed and the kitchen before my first cup of coffee!

neatobuilds@lemmy.today on 13 Mar 12:30 next collapse

I use about 800mW for my fpv drone and if you get a little bit away from yourself and go behind a tree or something you could lose video pretty easily

recklessengagement@lemmy.world on 13 Mar 13:37 collapse

Wonder what the latency would be like trying to fly my 3.5" on the moon from earth

Although I suppose the lack of atmosphere would be the bigger issue…

Morphit@feddit.uk on 13 Mar 14:39 next collapse

Think of the speeds you could fly at with no drag! I’m so bummed that the Grace Hopper drone didn’t get to fly after Intuitive Machines fluffed their second landing. That would have been awesome outreach from NASA.

We want drones on the moon!

easily3667@lemmus.org on 14 Mar 19:24 collapse

Well duh is space, you gotta put flames on the side for it to go fast

Bwaz@lemmy.world on 14 Mar 20:13 collapse

I bet the receiver that had noise figure low enough to detect that signal consumed more than 3nW while doing it.