• carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    9 months ago

    So I was under the impression that high orbit internet satellites weren’t desirable because of latency- satellite net isn’t a new thing, but low latency, high throughput is new and it’s because of low orbit mesh. Am I mistaken here? I don’t know much about it, but the speed of light is the speed of light- something traveling an extra 40,000 miles is gonna take a lot more time.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m sure you’re right. But you’re talking about a company run by the guy who came up with the Cybertruck.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      So I was under the impression that high orbit internet satellites weren’t desirable because of latency- satellite net isn’t a new thing, but low latency, high throughput is new and it’s because of low orbit mesh. Am I mistaken here?

      Yes and No.

      Yes you’re right in the desire for Starlink orbits (an its real satellite compeditors) all want LEO or Low Earth Orbit altitudes, which is essentially anything below 1200 miles-ish up vs GEO which is 20,000 or so miles up.

      However there’s lots of different spaces in that “up to 1200 miles up” space. Musk DID want Starlink higher than they are, at about 750 miles up if I remember correctly. It would still mean really low latency compared to GEO but mean quite a bit fewer satellites needed. Fewer needed because each satellite can “see” more of the Earth from higher up. Except OneWeb got that slot first.