|
|
|
|
|
by throwaway_yy2Di
4380 days ago
|
|
"Distances to satellites in orbit are very long." That's not a fundamental limit. Existing satellites have high latency, because they're sited at insanely high altitude -- ~36,000 km (6 earth radii; 120 light-milliseconds (-> 240 ms minimum round trip)). This is for engineering and economic reasons which aren't solid: one, because geostationary [0] orbits allow dumb dishes that can't track moving objects; and two, because it allows small satellite networks -- i.e. one satellite covering a whole continent -- commensurate with the small size of the market. If instead you had a network of satellites at say 500-1,000 km (unjustified guess), the latencies could be no worse than a direct optical fiber. edit: Here's a sophisticated diagram, https://i.imgur.com/t1SOVpZ.png [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit#Geostatio... |
|
There were plans for similar services, such as Teledesic, which went nowhere. I guess that enough land-based internet covers the majority of the target market, so there isn't enough market left over to justify the cost of a high speed satellite data provider. Remember, in LEO orbit, the satellites have to be replaced after about 5 years or so (atmospheric drag, and they run out of booster fuel).
Lower cost to launch via Space-x reusable rockets may change the cost equations though.