• lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Yeah, Eriksson too. Both pretty much abandoned their consumer phone business. They have pivoted to afaik mostly telecommunications infrastructure. But both companies do a bunch of other stuff.

      Nokia and Eriksson were really happy when Huawei started being kicked out of 5G infrastructure.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s not a bad bet. Clearly telecommunications infrastructure is not going away and even radio towers are never going away until physics finds an alternative.

        I do kinda miss Nokia’s creativity tho

  • Zacryon@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    We believe delivering Nokia’s 4G/LTE system to the lunar surface is a transformative moment in the commercialization of space and the maturity of the lunar economy.

    … I fucking hate capitalism.

  • Lantern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 days ago

    We believe delivering Nokia’s 4G/LTE system to the lunar surface is a transformative moment in the commercialization of space

    Absolutely love the lack of regulation for space. Going to love seeing the Google tm Moon in 50 years.

  • funkajunk@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 days ago

    I know it kind of sounds silly, but this is some of the very first infrastructure on The Moon, and that’s pretty cool.

    The Moon will likely be our main port for travel within our solar system - if we made a lunar space elevator we would use it as our launch point without having to expend so much fuel launching from Earth like we do with traditional rockets.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      The moon rotates too slowly (about once every 30 days), you don’t want a space elevator for the moon, the tether would have to be ridiculously long.

      But there’s no atmosphere, so you have another good option: a linear accelerator, or mass driver. Basically you make a very long, very straight rail and use magnetism to accelerate a craft right up to orbital velocity. The only complicated part is constructing 50 km of rail, but I mean, it’s more time consuming than complicated. This is actually way more feasible than a space elevator.

      • Nighed@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        You still need to fire an engine on the far side of your orbit though which makes it more difficult as it still needs to be able to propel itself (while surviving the acceleration)

      • unemployedclaquer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Wut? Impracticality aside, could they build such a “ridiculously long tether”? What’s they make it of? Musk farts? Can’t wait for him to bankrupt the u.s. and build a space elevator that breaks and shatters, ruining astronomy and prospects of drone explorations of Mars

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Uh, well truth be told, you could probably use steel cable or carbon fiber for a lunar space elevator cable, but you would need some really insane quantities… Like I said, I wouldn’t recommend it, just go the mass driver route instead.

          But why are you even bringing up Musk? Nobody is suggesting involving him…

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        As the saying goes, “orbit is halfway to anywhere.”

        Getting into and out of gravity wells takes far more fuel than moving between planetary bodies. A space elevator that can take cargo from lunar orbit to the surface and back removes one difficulty, while being slightly less sci-fi-ish than a terrestrial elevator.

      • SkyeStarfall
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        We build the thing on the moon itself

        Sure, it’s mostly barren rock, but it still got useful stuff there, like for example water (hydrogen and oxygen, rocket fuel), carbon and oxygen in the rocks (methane, also rocket fuel), metals (building rockets), and various other elements

        From what I’ve read we know, it’s relatively poor in nitrogen and carbon, so the moon is not as useful as it could have been, but water is really all you need. If you can produce fuel and rocket parts on the moon, it’s about as useful as it can be for space exploration and development

        Since, remember, the alternative is getting those resources either from the surface of the earth (expensive in terms of fuel, and requires powerful rockets, aka bigger ships, also expensive), or from some place further out like the asteroid belt (time consuming). Gravity on the moon is much much smaller, so even if we don’t have a space elevator, it would be far cheaper to use the moon as a starting point, or at least as a refueling point

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_resources?wprov=sfla1