A max. satellite communication distance?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2015, 07:30 PM
RE: A max. satellite communication distance?
(18-08-2015 06:59 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I think you'll need to quadrupole the transmission power each time you double the distance in order to maintain the same bandwidth. You'll hit a barrier as to how much energy you can spend and how much data you want to return to earth eventually.

Rule of thumb for RF transmission loss is 6 dB for each half distance...essentially 1/4th, so quadruple transmission power is approximately correct. The 3 dB loss at half power is actually 3.17 dB, but we just wag it in industry, except when in computation mode. We let the computer do the heavy lifting, then. If a receiver was sensitive enough, and had some sort of algorithm (and the same coding scheme as the transmitter) you might get a little better reception. But that receiver would have to be tuned pretty well, and that transmission scheme would have to be pretty good, because of cosmic background radiation, which is pretty much white noise, especially locally to a receiver. NASA used some serious error-correcting algorithms to clean up the transmissions from their far-flung spacecraft. Remember when Viking sent back a stripe of data at a time, and it took what seemed to be ages to get one scene?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fireball's post
19-08-2015, 02:40 AM
RE: A max. satellite communication distance?
(17-08-2015 12:03 PM)smileXsmileXsmile Wrote:  I say we launch one at the closest habitable planet so people who might exist 1million years from now can get some pictures.

Because of inevitable advancements in propulsion technology, people living 1 million years from now would be looking at pictures from the satellite launched by people living 500,000 years from now. Their satellite would overtake and pass ours up.

We're better off putting money into telescopes rather than sending probes to distant star systems.

Once we solve fusion and learn to make antimatter in usable quantities....then we can start talking about sending things across the galaxy.

We are the baby learning to crawl. Those are my thoughts on the subject.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 05:38 AM
RE: A max. satellite communication distance?
(19-08-2015 02:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Because of inevitable advancements in propulsion technology, people living 1 million years from now would be looking at pictures from the satellite launched by people living 500,000 years from now. Their satellite would overtake and pass ours up.

We're better off putting money into telescopes rather than sending probes to distant star systems.

Once we solve fusion and learn to make antimatter in usable quantities....then we can start talking about sending things across the galaxy.

We are the baby learning to crawl. Those are my thoughts on the subject.

Um.. nope. Go have a gander at Atomic Rockets. Even with anti-matter rockets going places will take LOTS of effort and still LOTS of time.

My thoughts? Get to Mars. Set up the colony. Build 8 Million ton Orions there and then send those as robot probes to the stars.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
19-08-2015, 10:28 AM
RE: A max. satellite communication distance?
Concept art for a sci-fi movie? Nope.

[Image: th?id=JN.8GkP4Gb7luDSlEEd3JrfGA&pid=15.1]


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/techno...ev_prt.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...ality.html

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
20-08-2015, 12:28 PM
RE: A max. satellite communication distance?
(19-08-2015 05:38 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Um.. nope. Go have a gander at Atomic Rockets. Even with anti-matter rockets going places will take LOTS of effort and still LOTS of time.

My thoughts? Get to Mars. Set up the colony. Build 8 Million ton Orions there and then send those as robot probes to the stars.

There is a treaty forbidding the explosions of nuclear material in outer space.....i guess people are worried about releasing criminals from the phantom zone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heywood Jahblome's post
20-08-2015, 09:30 PM
RE: A max. satellite communication distance?
(20-08-2015 12:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  There is a treaty forbidding the explosions of nuclear material in outer space.....

While I have only seen a reference to said treaty scattered about on the internet... Since space is really, really big... then, if say people living on Mars were to say to people living on Earth,

"Hey? You know what? Your treaty on nukes? Yeah, that's great for your orbital reference.. but you know what? We're going to use the things in/on our orbital reference."

And, really, there's not a lot some one on Earth might/could do to stop some one on Mars from doing just that/ (Barring trade goods restrictions that said Martian's might need etc. Tongue )

(20-08-2015 12:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I guess people are worried about releasing criminals from the phantom zone.

Laugh out load

Bowing

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 10:38 PM
RE: A max. satellite communication distance?
Yeah, I hate to "like" one of Heywood's posts, but that's pretty funny. Laugh out load

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2015, 09:01 PM
RE: A max. satellite communication distance?
(20-08-2015 12:28 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 05:38 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Um.. nope. Go have a gander at Atomic Rockets. Even with anti-matter rockets going places will take LOTS of effort and still LOTS of time.

My thoughts? Get to Mars. Set up the colony. Build 8 Million ton Orions there and then send those as robot probes to the stars.

There is a treaty forbidding the explosions of nuclear material in outer space.....i guess people are worried about releasing criminals from the phantom zone.

Superman's adversaries being a Dell Comics construct, I'd be more worried about loss of satellite communications from a nuclear burst. Though I hear that the MILSTAR and AEHF satellites are nuclear-hardened.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2015, 09:03 PM
RE: A max. satellite communication distance?
(25-08-2015 09:01 PM)Fireball Wrote:  Superman's adversaries being a Dell Comics construct, I'd be more worried about loss of satellite communications from a nuclear burst. Though I hear that the MILSTAR and AEHF satellites are nuclear-hardened.

Consider

I thought EMP only propagated through atmosphere?

Also... a human nuke would seem pretty tame compared to what that little ball of fusion called the 'Sun' is putting out... Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2015, 09:46 PM
RE: A max. satellite communication distance?
(25-08-2015 09:03 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(25-08-2015 09:01 PM)Fireball Wrote:  Superman's adversaries being a Dell Comics construct, I'd be more worried about loss of satellite communications from a nuclear burst. Though I hear that the MILSTAR and AEHF satellites are nuclear-hardened.

Consider

I thought EMP only propagated through atmosphere?

Also... a human nuke would seem pretty tame compared to what that little ball of fusion called the 'Sun' is putting out... Consider

It's theoretically trivial to insulate an electrical device from outside interference.
(cf Faraday cage, among other references)

Anthropogenic sources might be orders of magnitude less powerful, but they're also orders of magnitude closer.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: