Slashdot Mirror


SETI Disrupted By Cell Phones in Airplanes?

Iphtashu Fitz writes "If, as recently mentioned, the FCC does allow wireless access on airplanes, could it effectively mean the end of the search for ET? NewScientist has a new article that explains how radio interference from airborne cellphones could drown out faint radio signals from space. Among other concerns astronomers have is that the second harmonic of many cell phones falls in a frequency band that reveals the molecular signature of newborn and dying stars, which is among the 2% of frequencies in this part of the electromagnetic spectrum reserved for use by radio astronomers. Michael Davis, director of projects at California's SETI Institute, stated that a single cellphone on an airplane 100 miles from a radiotelescope could exceed recommended radio noise levels by 10 times. A potential solution that astronomers have suggested is to install a miniture cell transceiver on each airplane, called a picocell, that would act as a relay using a frequency that wouldn't interfere with their work."

15 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. No cell phones on aircraft! by BWJones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Shoot, this is one more reason not to have cell phones on airplanes during flight. I worry about the public's lack of concern for science especially given the extreme right wing movements going on right now in the USA, but people do not want to be remotely inconvenienced even if it means screwing science. Perhaps if the appeal can be made to them from a personal sanity perspective. I got a brief taste of how bad cell phones on planes can be last month on a flight that I wrote about it here.

    Perhaps if this has to happen the picocell solution might be the way to go, but please let there be phone free zones on aircraft.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by kinzillah · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cell phones only use enough power to make contact with their cell. If the cell is 20 feet away its going to put out a lot less signal than if the cell is 20 miles away.

      --
      Douglas P. Price
    2. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There can be situations when people MUST use their cell on the airplane. Banning them completely isn't a solution.

      WTF? Airplanes were around for 80 years before cell phones were invented, people survived. I have never used a cell phone on an airplane (I don't even own one, for that matter), I'm still here. All airplanes now have their overpriced airphones for emergencies, if you MUST use the phone.

      Pray tell, what are these situations where people MUST use their cell phone on an airplane?

    3. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by RoadChris · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I write this from my doctor's waiting room, and of the 3 people using their phone, I'm the only one doing so silently.

      One old fart is planning a fish fry while complaining about his high blood pressure, while a very large woman text messages with the key beep volume set one click below WMD.

      The problem isn't technology, but rudeness.

    4. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by Eric_Utah · · Score: 4, Funny

      this is one more reason not to have cell phones on airplanes during flight. I worry about the public's lack of concern for science especially given the extreme right wing movements going on

      That's complete and total BS. Cell phone use on aircraft has never been proven to cause uncommanded wing or rudder movements -- on either side of the aircraft.

    5. Re:No cell phones on aircraft! by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would probably change if they'd stop trying to kill all science not based in the bible.

      Seems far-fetched to say, "The conservative head of the FCC is trying to kill SETI and Radio Astronomy by allowing airline cellphone use" but no less so than "The conservative heads of the Executive and Legislative branches of government are trying to kill modern biology by having creationism taught in schools" and these days that doesn't seem implausible.

      Politicians need to get over the idea that the scientific realities of the universe are whimsical matters of opinion.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  2. What am I missing here by jayhawk88 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't it time to investigate satellites for this sort of thing? Pointing out instead of in? I know maybe this isn't ideal since the satellite is moving both relative to the earth and the sky, it would probably make it difficult to lock onto any signal that was found? I got a B's in Physics, someone help me out here.

    Seems like this would solve a lot of interference problems though, and perhaps even give you much better results. Is it just the cost factor that keeps this from happening?

  3. Re:Nothing against SETI by Detritus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Radio astronomers also use those frequencies, so there is more involved than SETI, or some group's software.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  4. Re:Nothing against SETI by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 4, Informative

    SETI is a lot more than just the SETI@home software you're thinking about. And this has implications for all radio astronomy, not just SETI. The solution is clear - don't let consumer-level technology get in the way of truly ground-breaking discoveries.

  5. Re:Unavoidable... by Verteiron · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's just it. It's RF noise. Cell phones create modulated RF signals with harmonics on frequencies that radiotelescopes need to be listening on. Imagine trying to hear someone playing a flute from 30 miles away. Now imagine you're trying to hear that flute, standing 50 yards from a raging waterfall. That's like what radio telescopes do right now; it's tricky, but picking signals out of full-spectrum RF noise is what they are designed to do.

    NOW imagine trying to hear that distant flute while standing 50 yards from a raging waterfall, and a band starts playing Sousa marches right in your ear. Even if the sound of the distant flute is still reaching you, you'll never ever be able to pick out its waveform from the sound of the band AND the white noise of the waterfall. Especially during the picolo solo.

    --
    End of lesson. You may press the button.
  6. Another reason to fund space based radioastronomy by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is not the first time that this argument has been made. ...but the first time was 20-30 years before cell phones were invented.

    Humanity has unleashed a veritable plethora of rf emitting devices. Television broadcast towers, satellites, anything electrical... they all leak rf that's thousands (if not millions) of times more powerful then the signals coming in from distant stars.

    Banning cell phones on planes BECAUSE of this is like using a Sharpie marker to turn a sucking chest wound into a smiley face. You (the pen wielder) might feel better, but it's not going to solve the real problem one iota.

    The real solution is to invest in building radio telescopy infrastructure on the far side of the moon. Either there, or in a heliocentric orbit on the opposite side of the sun at 1 AU. Those are the only two places in the universe that have are always shadowed from Earth based broadcasts.

    Additionally, there are frequencies that are absorbed by the O2 in our atmosphere, so radiotelescopes in space would have better 'bandwidth' to observe.

    Finally, it's unlikely that the cell phone industry will finally be convinced to go to pico-repeaters because of the inconvenience that radio telescopy scientists encounter. It'll be because pico-repeaters will make cell phones work in places they don't currently. Deep garages, underground installations, steel buildings, small valleys... these are economically driven reasons to adopt the technology. Scientists (the normal kind, not the mad kind) are usually poor, so the money just isn't there.

    Pick your battles, and pick a winning strategy to get the tech you want. Radio telescopes... they ain't it.

  7. Regarding the SETI program and the like by SamMichaels · · Score: 4, Insightful

    3 scenarios guys:

    1) Other civilizations are below our technological level....which means we won't see them at all.
    2) They're equal to ours...and since we're unable to do much of anything beyond our little neighborhood, we won't see them at all.
    3) They're far more advanced than us...which means they have the smarts to avoid detection so we won't see them at all.

    Keeping this in mind, explain to me again why we need to change the entire commercial aircraft industry (FCC approval + FAA approval + thousands of aircrafts + world-compatible technology) when there are easier ways to try and avoid our RF interference (satellites, moon, probes, etc). TFA didn't impress me.

    1. Re:Regarding the SETI program and the like by slashjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The FCC said that SETI could use this frequency. They did this before cell phones were invented. This RF pollution scenario is EXACTLY like the problems with BPL. BPL kills amatuer radio, cell phones in planes kill radio astronomy.

      If the FCC was doing it's job, it wouldn't be a problem. However, I'm betting the FCC will look the other way since the cell phone industry has more money than radio astronomers...

  8. What are the odds? by rdurell · · Score: 5, Funny

    ET: "Can you hear me now?"

    SETI Scientist: "Damn cell phone interference."

  9. Re:And I should care because? by brontus3927 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Why would intellifenge life in the Mily Way have to be smarter than us. And if they are, what makes it neccessary that they would care about us and try to make contact, if they are able?

    Sol (our sun) is a 3rd generation star, in what is considered one of the original galaxies in the 13.7 billion year old universe ( http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_age_04 0817.html ) Sol about 5 billion years old and located 2/3 of the way out on the Orion arm which extends some 42,000 light years from the stellar nursury at the center. ( http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/MilkyWay_ SizeandShapeoftheMilkyWay.asp ) IIRC, centripital acceleration slowly pushes stars out from the center towards the edge. The Milky Way is approximately 10,000 lightyears thick at the edge and 30,000 light years think in the centre.

    If we assume that intelligence and time since your sun was born have a positive correlation, this means the smarter aliens would be further from the galactic core, and this space covers approximately 11 billion cubic lightyears of a total 169 billion cubic lightyears, about 6.5% of the space. If we assume that the galaxy's 200 billion stars are evenly distributed over this volume (they aren't, the galaxy is denser towards the center), that gives us 13 billion stars with the possibility of intelligent life smarter than us. If we assume that 1% of them actually do harbor intelligent life (and that figure is probably way too high), that leaves us with 130 million stars, spread out over 11 billion cubic lightyears. Since we have an even distribution of stars, that means intelligent life will happen once every 85 million light years.

    So the nearest intelligent life with an advanced society is 85 million light years away. Unless the alien race has discovered a means to FTL travel, if they left 85 million years ago, they would be arriving right now. Serious SETI research isn't aimed at meeting ET, or having a conversation, but confirming that extraterrestrial intelligence exists.