logoalt Hacker News

wcfields • today at 6:34 PM • 3 replies • view on HN

Someone else with more experience could chime in but I would put it at less practical due to latency (sats are very high up), bandwidth (one laser vs a bundle of 1000s of fiber optic cables), cost (to overcome latency you need a closer orbit which requires more sats), single point of failure, lifespan, intercepted communications, solar flares… and that’s just off the top of my head.


Replies

joha4270 • today at 6:41 PM

I don't actually think latency would be that much worse.

Of course, it depends on the altitude of the satellite but speed of light in a fiber optic is only ~2/3rds of speed of light in a vacuum so you can afford some detour

➕ show 2 replies
skippyboxedhero • today at 8:01 PM

latency lower for satellites, trading firms have looked at this already, no idea if anyone has actually done it

bandwidth would indeed be worse

auspiv • today at 6:50 PM

starlink sats are some of the lowest orbiting satellites in space - 330-370km for v3. this helps latency as well as easy deorbit at end of life. the v3 sats have multiple 400 gbps lasers for meshing... I can't decide if your comment is sarcasm or not actually because starlink is fully functional and doesn't have any of those issues