ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Miscellaneous Tech News

    News
    83
    7.4k
    2.6m
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller @CloudKnight
      last edited by

      @stuartjordan said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

      @scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

      0_1521181987231_B0068F09-0BE0-446D-9719-6DB511BD756F.png

      Probably have extreme latency though like other Satellite internet products?

      No it specifically doesn’t. Low orbit.

      JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • JaredBuschJ
        JaredBusch @NerdyDad
        last edited by

        @nerdydad said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

        The current satellites are in geostationary orbit, which puts them at a higher orbit. These satellites will be at a lower orbit and will work as a mesh network with each other, but they will not be in geostationary orbit. Therefore, you will be changing POP ever so often. Less latency.

        Less latency is strictly a matter of the altitude of the orbit.

        WTF are you trying to imply with this changing POP statement? Because you will be tracking to a new satellite every minute or so. the entire thing is designed as a huge mesh network. The biggest challenge will be the seamless switching between satellites.

        NerdyDadN scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • JaredBuschJ
          JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
          last edited by

          @scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

          @stuartjordan said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

          @scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

          0_1521181987231_B0068F09-0BE0-446D-9719-6DB511BD756F.png

          Probably have extreme latency though like other Satellite internet products?

          No it specifically doesn’t. Low orbit.

          Very low orbit more precisely. If my memory serves correctly 1100km to 1500km for the initial 800 satellite network. While the two test satellites are even lower at 500km.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • NerdyDadN
            NerdyDad @JaredBusch
            last edited by

            @jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

            Less latency is strictly a matter of the altitude of the orbit.

            Agree

            @jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

            WTF are you trying to imply with this changing POP statement? Because you will be tracking to a new satellite every minute or so. the entire thing is designed as a huge mesh network. The biggest challenge will be the seamless switching between satellites.

            Again, I agree. That is what I meant about changing POP. You're going from one satellite to another every so often.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • scottalanmillerS
              scottalanmiller @NerdyDad
              last edited by

              @nerdydad said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

              @scottalanmiller Do you have a link to that particular page?

              No, I got that from a third party.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • NerdyDadN
                NerdyDad
                last edited by

                Each won't cover very much ground, but if there is a little bit of overlap between a couple of satellites, the switching between satellites should almost be seamless.

                JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
                  last edited by

                  @jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                  @nerdydad said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                  The current satellites are in geostationary orbit, which puts them at a higher orbit. These satellites will be at a lower orbit and will work as a mesh network with each other, but they will not be in geostationary orbit. Therefore, you will be changing POP ever so often. Less latency.

                  Less latency is strictly a matter of the altitude of the orbit.

                  Not entirely, also that it is a sky-based mesh. Normal satellites are very high and so there is lots of time to get the signal up, and back down. But also they tend to go back down to a very specific point on the ground, typically this adds a lot of latency, too. Like if your satellite only talks to Chicago. Then a sat user in Mexico City and a sat user in London both need to have the high latency of the satellite itself, but also the ground communications through Chicago. But the low orbit mesh can talk from satellite to satellite in a low distance, low latency mesh in the sky.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • JaredBuschJ
                    JaredBusch @NerdyDad
                    last edited by

                    @nerdydad said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                    Each won't cover very much ground, but if there is a little bit of overlap between a couple of satellites, the switching between satellites should almost be seamless.

                    1000km radius circle moving fast.
                    https://cnet1.cbsistatic.com/img/dWfu0_TRhMUFahSmT4E4BUYpciI=/2018/02/20/edda983e-e105-4d5c-92e3-7110a1fe3e2f/starlink.jpg

                    NerdyDadN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • mlnewsM
                      mlnews
                      last edited by

                      WordPress plugin that checks if you read an article before you get to comment.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
                      • mlnewsM
                        mlnews
                        last edited by

                        Cinnamon to get faster app launching.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • NerdyDadN
                          NerdyDad @JaredBusch
                          last edited by

                          @jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                          @nerdydad said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                          Each won't cover very much ground, but if there is a little bit of overlap between a couple of satellites, the switching between satellites should almost be seamless.

                          1000km radius circle moving fast.
                          https://cnet1.cbsistatic.com/img/dWfu0_TRhMUFahSmT4E4BUYpciI=/2018/02/20/edda983e-e105-4d5c-92e3-7110a1fe3e2f/starlink.jpg

                          Question just occurred to me. Current TV satellite fairs pretty well except for intense t-storms. Current Internet satellite, doesn't fair as well. How would SpaceX ISP fair with Intense T-Storms?

                          JaredBuschJ momurdaM 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • scottalanmillerS
                            scottalanmiller
                            last edited by

                            We won't really know for a while, you have to test it in real world to know. But Ku-band is traditional television satellite band, and low orbit means easier to see. So might do pretty well.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • mlnewsM
                              mlnews
                              last edited by

                              https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/ars-visits-ibms-quantum-computing-lab-but-finds-no-cats-trapped-in-boxes/

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • JaredBuschJ
                                JaredBusch @NerdyDad
                                last edited by

                                @nerdydad said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                @jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                @nerdydad said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                Each won't cover very much ground, but if there is a little bit of overlap between a couple of satellites, the switching between satellites should almost be seamless.

                                1000km radius circle moving fast.
                                https://cnet1.cbsistatic.com/img/dWfu0_TRhMUFahSmT4E4BUYpciI=/2018/02/20/edda983e-e105-4d5c-92e3-7110a1fe3e2f/starlink.jpg

                                Question just occurred to me. Current TV satellite fairs pretty well except for intense t-storms. Current Internet satellite, doesn't fair as well. How would SpaceX ISP fair with Intense T-Storms?

                                Totally different technologies and distances involved.

                                You have to stop comparing.

                                NerdyDadN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • NerdyDadN
                                  NerdyDad @JaredBusch
                                  last edited by

                                  @jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                  @nerdydad said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                  @jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                  @nerdydad said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                  Each won't cover very much ground, but if there is a little bit of overlap between a couple of satellites, the switching between satellites should almost be seamless.

                                  1000km radius circle moving fast.
                                  https://cnet1.cbsistatic.com/img/dWfu0_TRhMUFahSmT4E4BUYpciI=/2018/02/20/edda983e-e105-4d5c-92e3-7110a1fe3e2f/starlink.jpg

                                  Question just occurred to me. Current TV satellite fairs pretty well except for intense t-storms. Current Internet satellite, doesn't fair as well. How would SpaceX ISP fair with Intense T-Storms?

                                  Totally different technologies and distances involved.

                                  You have to stop comparing.

                                  Well then, like Scott said, lets just wait and see how they perform on their own, with no comparison.

                                  JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • JaredBuschJ
                                    JaredBusch @NerdyDad
                                    last edited by JaredBusch

                                    @nerdydad said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                    @jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                    @nerdydad said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                    @jaredbusch said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                    @nerdydad said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                    Each won't cover very much ground, but if there is a little bit of overlap between a couple of satellites, the switching between satellites should almost be seamless.

                                    1000km radius circle moving fast.
                                    https://cnet1.cbsistatic.com/img/dWfu0_TRhMUFahSmT4E4BUYpciI=/2018/02/20/edda983e-e105-4d5c-92e3-7110a1fe3e2f/starlink.jpg

                                    Question just occurred to me. Current TV satellite fairs pretty well except for intense t-storms. Current Internet satellite, doesn't fair as well. How would SpaceX ISP fair with Intense T-Storms?

                                    Totally different technologies and distances involved.

                                    You have to stop comparing.

                                    Well then, like Scott said, lets just wait and see how they perform on their own, with no comparison.

                                    You could possibly compare to Iridium (generation 2 not the current system). Those are in the same general LEO range as SpaceX.
                                    But they were only planning to offer up to 8mbps with K band.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • momurdaM
                                      momurda @NerdyDad
                                      last edited by

                                      @nerdydad Current Satellite ISPs are operating at distances of tens of thousadns KM from Earth, these SpaceX sats are only a fraction of that distance away and should provide better latency at least.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • scottalanmillerS
                                        scottalanmiller
                                        last edited by

                                        "SpaceX has said it will offer speeds of up to a gigabit per second, with latencies between 25ms and 35ms. Those latencies would make SpaceX's service comparable to cable and fiber. Today's satellite broadband services use satellites in much higher orbits and thus have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements."

                                        https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/02/spacexs-satellite-broadband-nears-fcc-approval-and-first-test-launch/

                                        travisdh1T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • travisdh1T
                                          travisdh1 @scottalanmiller
                                          last edited by

                                          @scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                          "SpaceX has said it will offer speeds of up to a gigabit per second, with latencies between 25ms and 35ms. Those latencies would make SpaceX's service comparable to cable and fiber. Today's satellite broadband services use satellites in much higher orbits and thus have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements."

                                          https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/02/spacexs-satellite-broadband-nears-fcc-approval-and-first-test-launch/

                                          I was seeing 3000ms response time on HughesNet back in 2007-2009. Thankfully DSL became available, even at 512k/384k it was so much faster!

                                          scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • scottalanmillerS
                                            scottalanmiller @travisdh1
                                            last edited by

                                            @travisdh1 said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                            @scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:

                                            "SpaceX has said it will offer speeds of up to a gigabit per second, with latencies between 25ms and 35ms. Those latencies would make SpaceX's service comparable to cable and fiber. Today's satellite broadband services use satellites in much higher orbits and thus have latencies of 600ms or more, according to FCC measurements."

                                            https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/02/spacexs-satellite-broadband-nears-fcc-approval-and-first-test-launch/

                                            I was seeing 3000ms response time on HughesNet back in 2007-2009. Thankfully DSL became available, even at 512k/384k it was so much faster!

                                            That's not far off from what we saw in the Congo on Hughes a year or two later.

                                            NerdyDadN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 21
                                            • 22
                                            • 23
                                            • 24
                                            • 25
                                            • 372
                                            • 373
                                            • 23 / 373
                                            • First post
                                              Last post