5 ms·

I wonder what the latency is going to be, in particular for intercontinental traffic. Will it be better or worse than with the submarine cables we use today?

corrigible 9y ago
Probably around ~50ms (see https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/spacex-plans-worldwide-satellite-internet-with-low-latency-gigabit-speed/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/space...)
- the_grue 9y ago
  50ms sounds fantastic even for fast-paced multiplayer games.
  - astrodust 9y ago
    That depends if it's average or median or 95th percentile, plus how much variability there is.
    - the_grue 9y ago
      That's also true.
- vasili111 9y ago
  Don't have a link but in one of the ars article, the latency of full operating network would be around 25-35ms.
imglorp 9y ago
Yeah important note, per Ars, is these are very much low orbit, at ~800mi altitude, not geostationary which is ~22,500mi where Hughes is parked for example. So, good latency if you do 2 x 800/c. This is great if you happen to own a rocket company and have tons of low, cheap launches instead of one big expensive launch.
- MertsA 9y ago
  Another thing to consider, HughesNet is up at 22,500mi but also at the equator whereas StarLink is basically going to be much closer to straight up.
mhandley 9y ago
It should be better than submarine fibre for longer distances. The satellites will be in low earth orbit, and the constellation will be dense enough that routing ought to be pretty direct. You only get about 2/3 c in glass, compared to c between satellites in a vacuum. If the satellites are 500km up, so long as the distance is greater than roughly 2000km, you should get lower latency via the satellite path. Of course this assumes you don't lose too much to the MAC, and the satellites manage a routed path not too different in length to the route via the fibre (which often involves a detour to get to where the fibre comes ashore).

corrigible 9y ago

Probably around ~50ms (see https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/spacex-plans-worldwide-satellite-internet-with-low-latency-gigabit-speed/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/11/space...)

the_grue 9y ago
50ms sounds fantastic even for fast-paced multiplayer games.
- astrodust 9y ago
  That depends if it's average or median or 95th percentile, plus how much variability there is.
  - the_grue 9y ago
    That's also true.
vasili111 9y ago
Don't have a link but in one of the ars article, the latency of full operating network would be around 25-35ms.

imglorp 9y ago

Yeah important note, per Ars, is these are very much low orbit, at ~800mi altitude, not geostationary which is ~22,500mi where Hughes is parked for example. So, good latency if you do 2 x 800/c. This is great if you happen to own a rocket company and have tons of low, cheap launches instead of one big expensive launch.

MertsA 9y ago
Another thing to consider, HughesNet is up at 22,500mi but also at the equator whereas StarLink is basically going to be much closer to straight up.

mhandley 9y ago

It should be better than submarine fibre for longer distances. The satellites will be in low earth orbit, and the constellation will be dense enough that routing ought to be pretty direct. You only get about 2/3 c in glass, compared to c between satellites in a vacuum. If the satellites are 500km up, so long as the distance is greater than roughly 2000km, you should get lower latency via the satellite path. Of course this assumes you don't lose too much to the MAC, and the satellites manage a routed path not too different in length to the route via the fibre (which often involves a detour to get to where the fibre comes ashore).