7 Oct
2004
7 Oct
'04
10 a.m.
From: "Vintage Computer Festival"
<vcf(a)siconic.com>
---snip---
There was also a discussion about bouncing signals off
the moon to create
a delay-line memory of sort.
What if we were to preserve software by encoding it as audio and bouncing
it off the moon? I figure we could probably save a few old programs that
way :)
Hi
You'd need a few different frequencies. The round trip to
the moon and back is only 2.6 seconds. It would be much more
reliable if there was a repeater on the moon otherwise the
signal would be weak.
Dwight
7 Oct
7 Oct
10:14 a.m.
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Dwight K. Elvey wrote:
You'd need a way to overcome the severe phase-rotation and libration
fading artifacts that make Earth-Moon-Earth reflection-mode communications
a peculiar (and rather frustrating) hobby for us Hams.
Folks use large, high-gain (10 meter > up) dishes, and legal-limit
output powers (1500Watts at 450 MHtz) and specialized communication
algorithms, like phase-coherent Morse Code, in order to actually send
'intelligence' - even using a keyed unmodulated carier, the throughput is
byte-per-minutes.
Have to use a whole lotta wait-states for the EME buffer...
Cheers
John
From:
"Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com>
---snip---
There was also a discussion about bouncing
signals off the moon to create
a delay-line memory of sort.
What if we were to preserve software by encoding it as audio and bouncing
it off the moon? I figure we could probably save a few old programs that
way :)
Hi
You'd need a few different frequencies. The round trip to
the moon and back is only 2.6 seconds. It would be much more
reliable if there was a repeater on the moon otherwise the
signal would be weak.
Dwight 
10:20 a.m.
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Dwight K. Elvey wrote:
You'd need a few different frequencies. The round
trip to
the moon and back is only 2.6 seconds. It would be much more
reliable if there was a repeater on the moon otherwise the
signal would be weak.
Fill the intervening space with a gas or liquid and do it
accoustically, you'd get a lot more bits in there. I will
hand-wave the accoustic energy loss problems as obvious.
10:37 a.m.
>>
>> > You'd need a few different frequencies. The round trip
>> > to the moon
>> > and back is only 2.6 seconds. It would be much more
>> > reliable if there
>> > was a repeater on the moon otherwise the signal would be weak.
>>
>> Fill the intervening space with a gas or liquid and do it
>> accoustically, you'd get a lot more bits in there. I will
>> hand-wave the accoustic energy loss problems as obvious.
Are you offering do supply the materials and containment???
10:32 a.m.
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, David V. Corbin wrote:
Oh no, I of course leave that to the engineers. BTW, it's
due Wednesday.
>> Fill
the intervening space with a gas or liquid and do it
>> accoustically, you'd get a lot more bits in there. I will
>> hand-wave the accoustic energy loss problems as obvious.
Are you offering do supply the materials and containment???
10:46 a.m.
>>
>> > >>> Fill the intervening space with a gas or liquid and do it
>> > >>> accoustically, you'd get a lot more bits in there. I will
>> > >>> hand-wave the accoustic energy loss problems as obvious.
>> >
>> > Are you offering do supply the materials and containment???
>>
>> Oh no, I of course leave that to the engineers. BTW, it's
>> due Wednesday.
The hardware guys will never make it...I guess the Software team will have
to come to the rescue and Simulate it...AGAIN!!
7261
days inactive
7261
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
dvcorbin＠optonline.net -
dwight.elvey＠amd.com -
jpl15＠panix.com -
tomj＠wps.com