3 ms·
Assuming the satellites also talk to each other as backhaul then you're not actually going to be adding that much latency. 340km up + 340 km down = 680km / 299
by TheSmiddy 9y ago
Assuming the satellites also talk to each other as backhaul then you're not actually going to be adding that much latency.
340km up + 340 km down = 680km / 299km/ms (c) x2 = 4.5ms added to round trip time. Considering you're doing this instead of running through your local metro loop I wouldn't be surprised of there was actually no additional latency introduced in real world scenarios, most of the latency will likely be introduced by the switching on the actual satellites.
- ac29 9y ago>340km up + 340 km down Wouldnt that be assuming the satellites were always exactly overhead of the receiving terminals? Also, the article claims operational orbits of 1,110km to 1,325km. To be fair, VOIP is pretty usable even with 50-100+ ms of latency and even higher. Intercontinental calls wouldn't be possible otherwise.
- TheSmiddy 9y agosorry I took the number from another comment and not the article. At 1325km it's an extra 18ms so still well within the realms of usability. given that they're aiming for 4425 satellites in total that would give them 66 loops of 66 satellites spaced 730m apart, meaning that when one satellite is overhead the next satellite will only be at most 1512km away line of sight.