3 ms·
I don't see why the delays would scale linearly with travel time. I would naively expect them to be a constant. So geosynchronous satellites have 240 ms of trav
by twic 6y ago
I don't see why the delays would scale linearly with travel time. I would naively expect them to be a constant. So geosynchronous satellites have 240 ms of travel time and 310 ms of delay, in which case we might expect LEO satellites to have 13 ms of travel time and 310 ms of delay.
Maybe it's not that bad. Maybe you have to use more robust coding with geosynchronous satellites, and that drives up latency. But i can't see a reason why it would scale linearly with distance.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Retric 6y agoIt's not a linear change with distance, it's based on different technologies. Just as your wifi router doesn't add 100ms satellites don't inherently need to have that kind of latency. However, one change that is based on distance is ground stations. With starlink they want a ground station under every satellite to minimize the number of hops required. Satellite internet however has minimal ground stations because they gain little from adding more. Similarly, less physical distance let's them more efficiently manage bandwidth reducing queuing delays. PS: Also, it's a round trip so you subtract latency twice from the total delay. Further, it’s not just altitude GEO is above the equator at a specific point which can be significantly east or west of you. Giving Ohio worse latency than Florida etc.
- Hupriene 6y agoRound trip latency includes two trips to the sattelite and back. So geostationary sattelites have ~480 ms of travel time and ~70ms of delay