Mixing
Can we detect the cell phone, satellite phone, or walkie talkie of someone walking on Mars from Earth?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
We certainly cannot see a person walking on Mars from Earth.
But what if the person is trying to use a cell phone, walkie talkie, or satellite phone? Although he won't have much luck using any of those devices, can we detect the signal from Earth (including Earth orbit), even when the antenna on Mars is omni-directional / not actively directed at Earth?
mars communication
asked Sep 6 at 8:26
gerrit
6,0382767
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
We certainly cannot see a person walking on Mars from Earth.
But what if the person is trying to use a cell phone, walkie talkie, or satellite phone? Although he won't have much luck using any of those devices, can we detect the signal from Earth (including Earth orbit), even when the antenna on Mars is omni-directional / not actively directed at Earth?
mars communication
asked Sep 6 at 8:26
gerrit
6,0382767
2
Interesting. Sounds like a good question for xkcd what if!
– IanF1
Sep 6 at 17:04
2
For cellphones, there's a tech question here too -- I don't know that they will transmit at all if there's "no signal". Cellphones are constantly receiving information from the towers around them so they know who to talk to and how. If there are no towers around to chat with, I'm not sure the cellphone will transmit at all. If you were writing a story about trying to detect someone who found themselves stranded on mars, a walkie talkie might work better. (Walkie talkies mostly use more power than cellphones too, which would make them easier to detect.)
– JamieB
Sep 6 at 18:04
@JamieB Good point about cell phones. I suppose satellite phones are more like cell phones here, so it'd have to be a walkie talkie.
– gerrit
Sep 6 at 18:07
Is the observer terrestrial, or orbiting?
– can-ned_food
Sep 7 at 3:56
@can-ned_food Either.
– gerrit
Sep 7 at 9:21
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
up vote
17
down vote
favorite
We certainly cannot see a person walking on Mars from Earth.
But what if the person is trying to use a cell phone, walkie talkie, or satellite phone? Although he won't have much luck using any of those devices, can we detect the signal from Earth (including Earth orbit), even when the antenna on Mars is omni-directional / not actively directed at Earth?
mars communication
asked Sep 6 at 8:26
gerrit
6,0382767
We certainly cannot see a person walking on Mars from Earth.
But what if the person is trying to use a cell phone, walkie talkie, or satellite phone? Although he won't have much luck using any of those devices, can we detect the signal from Earth (including Earth orbit), even when the antenna on Mars is omni-directional / not actively directed at Earth?
mars communication
asked Sep 6 at 8:26
gerrit
6,0382767
edited Sep 7 at 9:25
asked Sep 6 at 8:26
gerrit
6,0382767
asked Sep 6 at 8:26
gerrit
6,0382767
asked Sep 6 at 8:26
gerrit
6,0382767
6,0382767
2
Interesting. Sounds like a good question for xkcd what if!
– IanF1
Sep 6 at 17:04
2
For cellphones, there's a tech question here too -- I don't know that they will transmit at all if there's "no signal". Cellphones are constantly receiving information from the towers around them so they know who to talk to and how. If there are no towers around to chat with, I'm not sure the cellphone will transmit at all. If you were writing a story about trying to detect someone who found themselves stranded on mars, a walkie talkie might work better. (Walkie talkies mostly use more power than cellphones too, which would make them easier to detect.)
– JamieB
Sep 6 at 18:04
@JamieB Good point about cell phones. I suppose satellite phones are more like cell phones here, so it'd have to be a walkie talkie.
– gerrit
Sep 6 at 18:07
Is the observer terrestrial, or orbiting?
– can-ned_food
Sep 7 at 3:56
@can-ned_food Either.
– gerrit
Sep 7 at 9:21
 |Â
show 4 more comments
2
Interesting. Sounds like a good question for xkcd what if!
– IanF1
Sep 6 at 17:04
2
For cellphones, there's a tech question here too -- I don't know that they will transmit at all if there's "no signal". Cellphones are constantly receiving information from the towers around them so they know who to talk to and how. If there are no towers around to chat with, I'm not sure the cellphone will transmit at all. If you were writing a story about trying to detect someone who found themselves stranded on mars, a walkie talkie might work better. (Walkie talkies mostly use more power than cellphones too, which would make them easier to detect.)
– JamieB
Sep 6 at 18:04
@JamieB Good point about cell phones. I suppose satellite phones are more like cell phones here, so it'd have to be a walkie talkie.
– gerrit
Sep 6 at 18:07
Is the observer terrestrial, or orbiting?
– can-ned_food
Sep 7 at 3:56
@can-ned_food Either.
– gerrit
Sep 7 at 9:21
2
2
Interesting. Sounds like a good question for xkcd what if!
– IanF1
Sep 6 at 17:04
Interesting. Sounds like a good question for xkcd what if!
– IanF1
Sep 6 at 17:04
2
2
For cellphones, there's a tech question here too -- I don't know that they will transmit at all if there's "no signal". Cellphones are constantly receiving information from the towers around them so they know who to talk to and how. If there are no towers around to chat with, I'm not sure the cellphone will transmit at all. If you were writing a story about trying to detect someone who found themselves stranded on mars, a walkie talkie might work better. (Walkie talkies mostly use more power than cellphones too, which would make them easier to detect.)
– JamieB
Sep 6 at 18:04
For cellphones, there's a tech question here too -- I don't know that they will transmit at all if there's "no signal". Cellphones are constantly receiving information from the towers around them so they know who to talk to and how. If there are no towers around to chat with, I'm not sure the cellphone will transmit at all. If you were writing a story about trying to detect someone who found themselves stranded on mars, a walkie talkie might work better. (Walkie talkies mostly use more power than cellphones too, which would make them easier to detect.)
– JamieB
Sep 6 at 18:04
@JamieB Good point about cell phones. I suppose satellite phones are more like cell phones here, so it'd have to be a walkie talkie.
– gerrit
Sep 6 at 18:07
@JamieB Good point about cell phones. I suppose satellite phones are more like cell phones here, so it'd have to be a walkie talkie.
– gerrit
Sep 6 at 18:07
Is the observer terrestrial, or orbiting?
– can-ned_food
Sep 7 at 3:56
Is the observer terrestrial, or orbiting?
– can-ned_food
Sep 7 at 3:56
@can-ned_food Either.
– gerrit
Sep 7 at 9:21
@can-ned_food Either.
– gerrit
Sep 7 at 9:21
 |Â
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
21
down vote
Maybe.
Let's start with a known system that can communicate with Earth directly from Mars' surface: Curiosity's low gain antenna. This is driven by a 17 W transmitter and has 6 dB antenna gain (so 48 dBm), which is enough to communicate at low speeds (10-50 bps) with a 34 m DSN antenna on Earth.
Compare this to a cell phone: this has a 3 dB antenna gain and up to 1W transmitter power, giving 33 dBm.
Then we need to know the link margin Curiosity's LGA has. I have no number for this, but it seems to be pretty low (page 120 of the PDF), with communication only possible when Earth is near zenith as seen from Curiosity.
My conclusion: you might be able to detect that a transmission is going on using a 70 m DSN antenna, but the achievable data rate is much too low to support communication (much lower than the phone can function at, it needs a few kbit/s to support a phone call).
I've ignored a few effects (satphones and old analog cellphones may use a stronger transmitter, transmission frequencies other than the 8 GHz used by Curiosity).
answered Sep 6 at 10:58
Hobbes
76.3k2209350
So what you are saying - maybe not hear what Mars person is talking about, but probably detect that Mars person is transmitting?
– Prof. Falken
Sep 6 at 14:59
3
Yes, that's correct.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 15:15
5
@Hobbes but phones don't simply use a carrier – you'd be trying to detect a frequency hopping (GSM), spread-spectrum (UMTS) or OFDM (LTE) (OFDM looks like an elevated white noise floor within bandwidths) signal under heavy doppler shift. I don't think this would work out...
– Marcus Müller
Sep 6 at 17:09
1
I only am capable of transmitting slow Morse (sadly)...
– Jon Custer
Sep 6 at 23:22
1
Analog cell phones definitely did use a stronger transmitter. My dad's old Motorola brick used to work on Boy Scout hiking trips as long as they were on top of a tall enough mountain to have something vaguely approaching line-of-sight. (with the whip antenna at least. The one-inch stubby he used in town wasn't worth much.) I remember the manual saying something like 8 watts, but I'm not sure. Earlier portable phones were more like 20, but they were car-mounted.
– Perkins
Sep 7 at 6:27
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
12
down vote
To know if a signal can be received, you need to check your link budget.
Here we have:
- send power: at most 1W (30 dBm)
- $+$ transmit antenna gain: 2 to 3 dB.
- $-$ free space loss:
$$20 log_10left(frac4pi dfcright)$$
The distance between Earth and Mars varies between 54 and 401 million km. Mobile phone frequencies vary from 800 MHz to 2.1 GHz, so loss is somewhere between 245 and 270 dB. - $+$ receive antenna gain:
$$10log_10left(frac4pi^2r^2eta f^2c^2right)$$
Let's consider a 70m antenna (that's already a biiiiig antenna), the gain is between 54 and 63 dB depending on the frequency
The end result is received power at -149 dBm in the best case, -183 dBm in the worst case. If you controlled the sending device and could send a signal with a bandwidth of a few Hz, and your receiver bathes in liquid nitrogen, then it could be possible. But with cell phones using bandwidth on the order of MHz, that seems quite unlikely.
answered Sep 6 at 17:32
jcaron
22316
New contributor
jcaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It may be possible to find the sensitivity of the DSN antennas.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 17:41
Some of this answer or maybe this answer or the links therein may be helpful.
– uhoh
Sep 7 at 15:01
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Cell phones using timeslots for different users should not transmit on their own. They have to search for towers around and establish a connection to the nearest one. When a call is established, the tower assigns atime slot to the phone. The phone may transmit only within the assigned timeslot. If the phone would transmit at any time outside the the assigned time slot, it would disturb the data exchange with other cell phones within the same tower's area.
But on Mars there are no towers for cell phones. A cell phone would search for towers around but will not find any. It would display "no net found" and not transmit anything. Therefore no transmitter signal could be detected from Earth, even with a very sensisitive receiver.
But even if there would be a cell phone tower there on Mars, the signals transmitted by the cell phones are to weak to be received on Earth. The modulated data rate of the signal is much too fast for so huge distances. With a very slow data rate of some bits per second or even several seconds per each bit, receiption of such a weak signal might be possible. Detection of a signal weaker than the noise from space is not that easy.
answered Sep 6 at 19:28
Uwe
6,92422231
The ionosphere would interfere too, wouldn't it? I mean, it wasn't the primary reason that the certain range was assigned to cellular telephone signals, but off the top of my head, I seem to remember that they'd be reflected rather than pass through.
– can-ned_food
Sep 7 at 3:53
My phone never tells me "no net found" and stop transmitting. It keeps trying until it empties its battery.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
Sep 7 at 11:14
2
@DmitryGrigoryev it continues to search, but it's not transmitting either, it's only scanning various frequency bands.
– jcaron
Sep 7 at 15:35
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
21
down vote
Maybe.
Let's start with a known system that can communicate with Earth directly from Mars' surface: Curiosity's low gain antenna. This is driven by a 17 W transmitter and has 6 dB antenna gain (so 48 dBm), which is enough to communicate at low speeds (10-50 bps) with a 34 m DSN antenna on Earth.
Compare this to a cell phone: this has a 3 dB antenna gain and up to 1W transmitter power, giving 33 dBm.
Then we need to know the link margin Curiosity's LGA has. I have no number for this, but it seems to be pretty low (page 120 of the PDF), with communication only possible when Earth is near zenith as seen from Curiosity.
My conclusion: you might be able to detect that a transmission is going on using a 70 m DSN antenna, but the achievable data rate is much too low to support communication (much lower than the phone can function at, it needs a few kbit/s to support a phone call).
I've ignored a few effects (satphones and old analog cellphones may use a stronger transmitter, transmission frequencies other than the 8 GHz used by Curiosity).
answered Sep 6 at 10:58
Hobbes
76.3k2209350
So what you are saying - maybe not hear what Mars person is talking about, but probably detect that Mars person is transmitting?
– Prof. Falken
Sep 6 at 14:59
3
Yes, that's correct.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 15:15
5
@Hobbes but phones don't simply use a carrier – you'd be trying to detect a frequency hopping (GSM), spread-spectrum (UMTS) or OFDM (LTE) (OFDM looks like an elevated white noise floor within bandwidths) signal under heavy doppler shift. I don't think this would work out...
– Marcus Müller
Sep 6 at 17:09
1
I only am capable of transmitting slow Morse (sadly)...
– Jon Custer
Sep 6 at 23:22
1
Analog cell phones definitely did use a stronger transmitter. My dad's old Motorola brick used to work on Boy Scout hiking trips as long as they were on top of a tall enough mountain to have something vaguely approaching line-of-sight. (with the whip antenna at least. The one-inch stubby he used in town wasn't worth much.) I remember the manual saying something like 8 watts, but I'm not sure. Earlier portable phones were more like 20, but they were car-mounted.
– Perkins
Sep 7 at 6:27
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
21
down vote
Maybe.
Let's start with a known system that can communicate with Earth directly from Mars' surface: Curiosity's low gain antenna. This is driven by a 17 W transmitter and has 6 dB antenna gain (so 48 dBm), which is enough to communicate at low speeds (10-50 bps) with a 34 m DSN antenna on Earth.
Compare this to a cell phone: this has a 3 dB antenna gain and up to 1W transmitter power, giving 33 dBm.
Then we need to know the link margin Curiosity's LGA has. I have no number for this, but it seems to be pretty low (page 120 of the PDF), with communication only possible when Earth is near zenith as seen from Curiosity.
My conclusion: you might be able to detect that a transmission is going on using a 70 m DSN antenna, but the achievable data rate is much too low to support communication (much lower than the phone can function at, it needs a few kbit/s to support a phone call).
I've ignored a few effects (satphones and old analog cellphones may use a stronger transmitter, transmission frequencies other than the 8 GHz used by Curiosity).
answered Sep 6 at 10:58
Hobbes
76.3k2209350
So what you are saying - maybe not hear what Mars person is talking about, but probably detect that Mars person is transmitting?
– Prof. Falken
Sep 6 at 14:59
3
Yes, that's correct.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 15:15
5
@Hobbes but phones don't simply use a carrier – you'd be trying to detect a frequency hopping (GSM), spread-spectrum (UMTS) or OFDM (LTE) (OFDM looks like an elevated white noise floor within bandwidths) signal under heavy doppler shift. I don't think this would work out...
– Marcus Müller
Sep 6 at 17:09
1
I only am capable of transmitting slow Morse (sadly)...
– Jon Custer
Sep 6 at 23:22
1
Analog cell phones definitely did use a stronger transmitter. My dad's old Motorola brick used to work on Boy Scout hiking trips as long as they were on top of a tall enough mountain to have something vaguely approaching line-of-sight. (with the whip antenna at least. The one-inch stubby he used in town wasn't worth much.) I remember the manual saying something like 8 watts, but I'm not sure. Earlier portable phones were more like 20, but they were car-mounted.
– Perkins
Sep 7 at 6:27
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
21
down vote
up vote
21
down vote
Maybe.
Let's start with a known system that can communicate with Earth directly from Mars' surface: Curiosity's low gain antenna. This is driven by a 17 W transmitter and has 6 dB antenna gain (so 48 dBm), which is enough to communicate at low speeds (10-50 bps) with a 34 m DSN antenna on Earth.
Compare this to a cell phone: this has a 3 dB antenna gain and up to 1W transmitter power, giving 33 dBm.
Then we need to know the link margin Curiosity's LGA has. I have no number for this, but it seems to be pretty low (page 120 of the PDF), with communication only possible when Earth is near zenith as seen from Curiosity.
My conclusion: you might be able to detect that a transmission is going on using a 70 m DSN antenna, but the achievable data rate is much too low to support communication (much lower than the phone can function at, it needs a few kbit/s to support a phone call).
I've ignored a few effects (satphones and old analog cellphones may use a stronger transmitter, transmission frequencies other than the 8 GHz used by Curiosity).
answered Sep 6 at 10:58
Hobbes
76.3k2209350
Maybe.
Let's start with a known system that can communicate with Earth directly from Mars' surface: Curiosity's low gain antenna. This is driven by a 17 W transmitter and has 6 dB antenna gain (so 48 dBm), which is enough to communicate at low speeds (10-50 bps) with a 34 m DSN antenna on Earth.
Compare this to a cell phone: this has a 3 dB antenna gain and up to 1W transmitter power, giving 33 dBm.
Then we need to know the link margin Curiosity's LGA has. I have no number for this, but it seems to be pretty low (page 120 of the PDF), with communication only possible when Earth is near zenith as seen from Curiosity.
My conclusion: you might be able to detect that a transmission is going on using a 70 m DSN antenna, but the achievable data rate is much too low to support communication (much lower than the phone can function at, it needs a few kbit/s to support a phone call).
I've ignored a few effects (satphones and old analog cellphones may use a stronger transmitter, transmission frequencies other than the 8 GHz used by Curiosity).
answered Sep 6 at 10:58
Hobbes
76.3k2209350
answered Sep 6 at 10:58
Hobbes
76.3k2209350
answered Sep 6 at 10:58
Hobbes
76.3k2209350
answered Sep 6 at 10:58
Hobbes
76.3k2209350
76.3k2209350
So what you are saying - maybe not hear what Mars person is talking about, but probably detect that Mars person is transmitting?
– Prof. Falken
Sep 6 at 14:59
3
Yes, that's correct.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 15:15
5
@Hobbes but phones don't simply use a carrier – you'd be trying to detect a frequency hopping (GSM), spread-spectrum (UMTS) or OFDM (LTE) (OFDM looks like an elevated white noise floor within bandwidths) signal under heavy doppler shift. I don't think this would work out...
– Marcus Müller
Sep 6 at 17:09
1
I only am capable of transmitting slow Morse (sadly)...
– Jon Custer
Sep 6 at 23:22
1
Analog cell phones definitely did use a stronger transmitter. My dad's old Motorola brick used to work on Boy Scout hiking trips as long as they were on top of a tall enough mountain to have something vaguely approaching line-of-sight. (with the whip antenna at least. The one-inch stubby he used in town wasn't worth much.) I remember the manual saying something like 8 watts, but I'm not sure. Earlier portable phones were more like 20, but they were car-mounted.
– Perkins
Sep 7 at 6:27
 |Â
show 6 more comments
So what you are saying - maybe not hear what Mars person is talking about, but probably detect that Mars person is transmitting?
– Prof. Falken
Sep 6 at 14:59
3
Yes, that's correct.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 15:15
5
@Hobbes but phones don't simply use a carrier – you'd be trying to detect a frequency hopping (GSM), spread-spectrum (UMTS) or OFDM (LTE) (OFDM looks like an elevated white noise floor within bandwidths) signal under heavy doppler shift. I don't think this would work out...
– Marcus Müller
Sep 6 at 17:09
1
I only am capable of transmitting slow Morse (sadly)...
– Jon Custer
Sep 6 at 23:22
1
Analog cell phones definitely did use a stronger transmitter. My dad's old Motorola brick used to work on Boy Scout hiking trips as long as they were on top of a tall enough mountain to have something vaguely approaching line-of-sight. (with the whip antenna at least. The one-inch stubby he used in town wasn't worth much.) I remember the manual saying something like 8 watts, but I'm not sure. Earlier portable phones were more like 20, but they were car-mounted.
– Perkins
Sep 7 at 6:27
So what you are saying - maybe not hear what Mars person is talking about, but probably detect that Mars person is transmitting?
– Prof. Falken
Sep 6 at 14:59
So what you are saying - maybe not hear what Mars person is talking about, but probably detect that Mars person is transmitting?
– Prof. Falken
Sep 6 at 14:59
3
3
Yes, that's correct.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 15:15
Yes, that's correct.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 15:15
5
5
@Hobbes but phones don't simply use a carrier – you'd be trying to detect a frequency hopping (GSM), spread-spectrum (UMTS) or OFDM (LTE) (OFDM looks like an elevated white noise floor within bandwidths) signal under heavy doppler shift. I don't think this would work out...
– Marcus Müller
Sep 6 at 17:09
@Hobbes but phones don't simply use a carrier – you'd be trying to detect a frequency hopping (GSM), spread-spectrum (UMTS) or OFDM (LTE) (OFDM looks like an elevated white noise floor within bandwidths) signal under heavy doppler shift. I don't think this would work out...
– Marcus Müller
Sep 6 at 17:09
1
1
I only am capable of transmitting slow Morse (sadly)...
– Jon Custer
Sep 6 at 23:22
I only am capable of transmitting slow Morse (sadly)...
– Jon Custer
Sep 6 at 23:22
1
1
Analog cell phones definitely did use a stronger transmitter. My dad's old Motorola brick used to work on Boy Scout hiking trips as long as they were on top of a tall enough mountain to have something vaguely approaching line-of-sight. (with the whip antenna at least. The one-inch stubby he used in town wasn't worth much.) I remember the manual saying something like 8 watts, but I'm not sure. Earlier portable phones were more like 20, but they were car-mounted.
– Perkins
Sep 7 at 6:27
Analog cell phones definitely did use a stronger transmitter. My dad's old Motorola brick used to work on Boy Scout hiking trips as long as they were on top of a tall enough mountain to have something vaguely approaching line-of-sight. (with the whip antenna at least. The one-inch stubby he used in town wasn't worth much.) I remember the manual saying something like 8 watts, but I'm not sure. Earlier portable phones were more like 20, but they were car-mounted.
– Perkins
Sep 7 at 6:27
 |Â
show 6 more comments
up vote
12
down vote
To know if a signal can be received, you need to check your link budget.
Here we have:
- send power: at most 1W (30 dBm)
- $+$ transmit antenna gain: 2 to 3 dB.
- $-$ free space loss:
$$20 log_10left(frac4pi dfcright)$$
The distance between Earth and Mars varies between 54 and 401 million km. Mobile phone frequencies vary from 800 MHz to 2.1 GHz, so loss is somewhere between 245 and 270 dB. - $+$ receive antenna gain:
$$10log_10left(frac4pi^2r^2eta f^2c^2right)$$
Let's consider a 70m antenna (that's already a biiiiig antenna), the gain is between 54 and 63 dB depending on the frequency
The end result is received power at -149 dBm in the best case, -183 dBm in the worst case. If you controlled the sending device and could send a signal with a bandwidth of a few Hz, and your receiver bathes in liquid nitrogen, then it could be possible. But with cell phones using bandwidth on the order of MHz, that seems quite unlikely.
answered Sep 6 at 17:32
jcaron
22316
New contributor
jcaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It may be possible to find the sensitivity of the DSN antennas.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 17:41
Some of this answer or maybe this answer or the links therein may be helpful.
– uhoh
Sep 7 at 15:01
add a comment |Â
up vote
12
down vote
To know if a signal can be received, you need to check your link budget.
Here we have:
- send power: at most 1W (30 dBm)
- $+$ transmit antenna gain: 2 to 3 dB.
- $-$ free space loss:
$$20 log_10left(frac4pi dfcright)$$
The distance between Earth and Mars varies between 54 and 401 million km. Mobile phone frequencies vary from 800 MHz to 2.1 GHz, so loss is somewhere between 245 and 270 dB. - $+$ receive antenna gain:
$$10log_10left(frac4pi^2r^2eta f^2c^2right)$$
Let's consider a 70m antenna (that's already a biiiiig antenna), the gain is between 54 and 63 dB depending on the frequency
The end result is received power at -149 dBm in the best case, -183 dBm in the worst case. If you controlled the sending device and could send a signal with a bandwidth of a few Hz, and your receiver bathes in liquid nitrogen, then it could be possible. But with cell phones using bandwidth on the order of MHz, that seems quite unlikely.
answered Sep 6 at 17:32
jcaron
22316
New contributor
jcaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It may be possible to find the sensitivity of the DSN antennas.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 17:41
Some of this answer or maybe this answer or the links therein may be helpful.
– uhoh
Sep 7 at 15:01
add a comment |Â
up vote
12
down vote
up vote
12
down vote
To know if a signal can be received, you need to check your link budget.
Here we have:
- send power: at most 1W (30 dBm)
- $+$ transmit antenna gain: 2 to 3 dB.
- $-$ free space loss:
$$20 log_10left(frac4pi dfcright)$$
The distance between Earth and Mars varies between 54 and 401 million km. Mobile phone frequencies vary from 800 MHz to 2.1 GHz, so loss is somewhere between 245 and 270 dB. - $+$ receive antenna gain:
$$10log_10left(frac4pi^2r^2eta f^2c^2right)$$
Let's consider a 70m antenna (that's already a biiiiig antenna), the gain is between 54 and 63 dB depending on the frequency
The end result is received power at -149 dBm in the best case, -183 dBm in the worst case. If you controlled the sending device and could send a signal with a bandwidth of a few Hz, and your receiver bathes in liquid nitrogen, then it could be possible. But with cell phones using bandwidth on the order of MHz, that seems quite unlikely.
answered Sep 6 at 17:32
jcaron
22316
New contributor
jcaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
To know if a signal can be received, you need to check your link budget.
Here we have:
- send power: at most 1W (30 dBm)
- $+$ transmit antenna gain: 2 to 3 dB.
- $-$ free space loss:
$$20 log_10left(frac4pi dfcright)$$
The distance between Earth and Mars varies between 54 and 401 million km. Mobile phone frequencies vary from 800 MHz to 2.1 GHz, so loss is somewhere between 245 and 270 dB. - $+$ receive antenna gain:
$$10log_10left(frac4pi^2r^2eta f^2c^2right)$$
Let's consider a 70m antenna (that's already a biiiiig antenna), the gain is between 54 and 63 dB depending on the frequency
The end result is received power at -149 dBm in the best case, -183 dBm in the worst case. If you controlled the sending device and could send a signal with a bandwidth of a few Hz, and your receiver bathes in liquid nitrogen, then it could be possible. But with cell phones using bandwidth on the order of MHz, that seems quite unlikely.
answered Sep 6 at 17:32
jcaron
22316
New contributor
jcaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Sep 6 at 17:32
jcaron
22316
New contributor
jcaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Sep 6 at 17:32
jcaron
22316
answered Sep 6 at 17:32
jcaron
22316
22316
New contributor
jcaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
jcaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
jcaron is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It may be possible to find the sensitivity of the DSN antennas.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 17:41
Some of this answer or maybe this answer or the links therein may be helpful.
– uhoh
Sep 7 at 15:01
add a comment |Â
It may be possible to find the sensitivity of the DSN antennas.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 17:41
Some of this answer or maybe this answer or the links therein may be helpful.
– uhoh
Sep 7 at 15:01
It may be possible to find the sensitivity of the DSN antennas.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 17:41
It may be possible to find the sensitivity of the DSN antennas.
– Hobbes
Sep 6 at 17:41
Some of this answer or maybe this answer or the links therein may be helpful.
– uhoh
Sep 7 at 15:01
Some of this answer or maybe this answer or the links therein may be helpful.
– uhoh
Sep 7 at 15:01
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Cell phones using timeslots for different users should not transmit on their own. They have to search for towers around and establish a connection to the nearest one. When a call is established, the tower assigns atime slot to the phone. The phone may transmit only within the assigned timeslot. If the phone would transmit at any time outside the the assigned time slot, it would disturb the data exchange with other cell phones within the same tower's area.
But on Mars there are no towers for cell phones. A cell phone would search for towers around but will not find any. It would display "no net found" and not transmit anything. Therefore no transmitter signal could be detected from Earth, even with a very sensisitive receiver.
But even if there would be a cell phone tower there on Mars, the signals transmitted by the cell phones are to weak to be received on Earth. The modulated data rate of the signal is much too fast for so huge distances. With a very slow data rate of some bits per second or even several seconds per each bit, receiption of such a weak signal might be possible. Detection of a signal weaker than the noise from space is not that easy.
answered Sep 6 at 19:28
Uwe
6,92422231
The ionosphere would interfere too, wouldn't it? I mean, it wasn't the primary reason that the certain range was assigned to cellular telephone signals, but off the top of my head, I seem to remember that they'd be reflected rather than pass through.
– can-ned_food
Sep 7 at 3:53
My phone never tells me "no net found" and stop transmitting. It keeps trying until it empties its battery.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
Sep 7 at 11:14
2
@DmitryGrigoryev it continues to search, but it's not transmitting either, it's only scanning various frequency bands.
– jcaron
Sep 7 at 15:35
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
Cell phones using timeslots for different users should not transmit on their own. They have to search for towers around and establish a connection to the nearest one. When a call is established, the tower assigns atime slot to the phone. The phone may transmit only within the assigned timeslot. If the phone would transmit at any time outside the the assigned time slot, it would disturb the data exchange with other cell phones within the same tower's area.
But on Mars there are no towers for cell phones. A cell phone would search for towers around but will not find any. It would display "no net found" and not transmit anything. Therefore no transmitter signal could be detected from Earth, even with a very sensisitive receiver.
But even if there would be a cell phone tower there on Mars, the signals transmitted by the cell phones are to weak to be received on Earth. The modulated data rate of the signal is much too fast for so huge distances. With a very slow data rate of some bits per second or even several seconds per each bit, receiption of such a weak signal might be possible. Detection of a signal weaker than the noise from space is not that easy.
answered Sep 6 at 19:28
Uwe
6,92422231
The ionosphere would interfere too, wouldn't it? I mean, it wasn't the primary reason that the certain range was assigned to cellular telephone signals, but off the top of my head, I seem to remember that they'd be reflected rather than pass through.
– can-ned_food
Sep 7 at 3:53
My phone never tells me "no net found" and stop transmitting. It keeps trying until it empties its battery.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
Sep 7 at 11:14
2
@DmitryGrigoryev it continues to search, but it's not transmitting either, it's only scanning various frequency bands.
– jcaron
Sep 7 at 15:35
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Cell phones using timeslots for different users should not transmit on their own. They have to search for towers around and establish a connection to the nearest one. When a call is established, the tower assigns atime slot to the phone. The phone may transmit only within the assigned timeslot. If the phone would transmit at any time outside the the assigned time slot, it would disturb the data exchange with other cell phones within the same tower's area.
But on Mars there are no towers for cell phones. A cell phone would search for towers around but will not find any. It would display "no net found" and not transmit anything. Therefore no transmitter signal could be detected from Earth, even with a very sensisitive receiver.
But even if there would be a cell phone tower there on Mars, the signals transmitted by the cell phones are to weak to be received on Earth. The modulated data rate of the signal is much too fast for so huge distances. With a very slow data rate of some bits per second or even several seconds per each bit, receiption of such a weak signal might be possible. Detection of a signal weaker than the noise from space is not that easy.
answered Sep 6 at 19:28
Uwe
6,92422231
Cell phones using timeslots for different users should not transmit on their own. They have to search for towers around and establish a connection to the nearest one. When a call is established, the tower assigns atime slot to the phone. The phone may transmit only within the assigned timeslot. If the phone would transmit at any time outside the the assigned time slot, it would disturb the data exchange with other cell phones within the same tower's area.
But on Mars there are no towers for cell phones. A cell phone would search for towers around but will not find any. It would display "no net found" and not transmit anything. Therefore no transmitter signal could be detected from Earth, even with a very sensisitive receiver.
But even if there would be a cell phone tower there on Mars, the signals transmitted by the cell phones are to weak to be received on Earth. The modulated data rate of the signal is much too fast for so huge distances. With a very slow data rate of some bits per second or even several seconds per each bit, receiption of such a weak signal might be possible. Detection of a signal weaker than the noise from space is not that easy.
answered Sep 6 at 19:28
Uwe
6,92422231
answered Sep 6 at 19:28
Uwe
6,92422231
answered Sep 6 at 19:28
Uwe
6,92422231
answered Sep 6 at 19:28
Uwe
6,92422231
6,92422231
The ionosphere would interfere too, wouldn't it? I mean, it wasn't the primary reason that the certain range was assigned to cellular telephone signals, but off the top of my head, I seem to remember that they'd be reflected rather than pass through.
– can-ned_food
Sep 7 at 3:53
My phone never tells me "no net found" and stop transmitting. It keeps trying until it empties its battery.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
Sep 7 at 11:14
2
@DmitryGrigoryev it continues to search, but it's not transmitting either, it's only scanning various frequency bands.
– jcaron
Sep 7 at 15:35
add a comment |Â
The ionosphere would interfere too, wouldn't it? I mean, it wasn't the primary reason that the certain range was assigned to cellular telephone signals, but off the top of my head, I seem to remember that they'd be reflected rather than pass through.
– can-ned_food
Sep 7 at 3:53
My phone never tells me "no net found" and stop transmitting. It keeps trying until it empties its battery.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
Sep 7 at 11:14
2
@DmitryGrigoryev it continues to search, but it's not transmitting either, it's only scanning various frequency bands.
– jcaron
Sep 7 at 15:35
The ionosphere would interfere too, wouldn't it? I mean, it wasn't the primary reason that the certain range was assigned to cellular telephone signals, but off the top of my head, I seem to remember that they'd be reflected rather than pass through.
– can-ned_food
Sep 7 at 3:53
The ionosphere would interfere too, wouldn't it? I mean, it wasn't the primary reason that the certain range was assigned to cellular telephone signals, but off the top of my head, I seem to remember that they'd be reflected rather than pass through.
– can-ned_food
Sep 7 at 3:53
My phone never tells me "no net found" and stop transmitting. It keeps trying until it empties its battery.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
Sep 7 at 11:14
My phone never tells me "no net found" and stop transmitting. It keeps trying until it empties its battery.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
Sep 7 at 11:14
2
2
@DmitryGrigoryev it continues to search, but it's not transmitting either, it's only scanning various frequency bands.
– jcaron
Sep 7 at 15:35
@DmitryGrigoryev it continues to search, but it's not transmitting either, it's only scanning various frequency bands.
– jcaron
Sep 7 at 15:35
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f30493%2fcan-we-detect-the-cell-phone-satellite-phone-or-walkie-talkie-of-someone-walki%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
Interesting. Sounds like a good question for xkcd what if!
– IanF1
Sep 6 at 17:04
2
For cellphones, there's a tech question here too -- I don't know that they will transmit at all if there's "no signal". Cellphones are constantly receiving information from the towers around them so they know who to talk to and how. If there are no towers around to chat with, I'm not sure the cellphone will transmit at all. If you were writing a story about trying to detect someone who found themselves stranded on mars, a walkie talkie might work better. (Walkie talkies mostly use more power than cellphones too, which would make them easier to detect.)
– JamieB
Sep 6 at 18:04
@JamieB Good point about cell phones. I suppose satellite phones are more like cell phones here, so it'd have to be a walkie talkie.
– gerrit
Sep 6 at 18:07
Is the observer terrestrial, or orbiting?
– can-ned_food
Sep 7 at 3:56
@can-ned_food Either.
– gerrit
Sep 7 at 9:21