4 ms·
I don't always want to be the party pooper and this tech does have a lot of benefits when trying to transmit large items. However, you ain't ging to be video co
by sschueller 4y ago
I don't always want to be the party pooper and this tech does have a lot of benefits when trying to transmit large items. However, you ain't ging to be video conferring to the moon or Mars with it. Not a single word about latency in the article.
- nix23 4y agoHumans wil adapt. If you want to call mars an ai will support you what the question/following sentence will be so you can answer the predicted question in one swoop. Problem solved.
- fortyseven 4y agoThey did that recently on the TV show Avenue 5.
- shadowofneptune 4y agoOr you could write an email? I don't see how that works at all, you'd still be sitting in silence for minutes while the response loops around.
- jtsiskin 4y agoThat’s the speed of light, an aspect we can’t improve. The article is about bandwidth, an area we are able to affect.
- 7952 4y agoYou can send the data through a different medium to improve latency which satellite optical links could help with.
- Zigurd 4y agoIn space, latency will be dominated by distance. In low orbits, lasers will have low latency, good enough for interactive applications. Geosynchronous, Moon, and farther can't be helped.
- HideousKojima 4y agoSpeed of light is still a limit, fastest possible roundtrip time between the Earth and moon is 2.5 seconds. Round trip between the Earth and Mars would be over 6 minutes when Mars is at its very closest to Earth.
- emkoemko 4y agoin space its the distance, light has a speed limit
- bhaney 4y agoThis is already sending data via lasers traveling through free space (and air, which has nearly the same speed of light as free space). You're not going to get a medium with a faster speed of light than free space unless you get into space-warping theoretical stuff. Even if you managed to run a fiber optic cable between a satellite and the earth, it would be around a third slower than lasers through space.
- delta_p_delta_x 4y ago> latency Well, the Moon's semi-major axis is about 380000 km, which means latency is lower-bounded to about 1 s. Similarly, Mars' closest approach is 54.6 million km. That means a latency lower bound of 3 minutes.
- Kye 4y agoThe satellite is only 300 miles up. The processing power on the satellite itself probably matters more for latency. At 200Gbps max (2x100), it's probably no slouch.
- packetlost 4y agoLaser link (not RF) implies a whole bunch of things: 1. speed of light through atmosphere, so basically c 2. line-of-sight is required, likely stationary base stations. Probably also subject to atmospheric and weather conditions
- BenjiWiebe 4y agoJust to clarify, item 1 is exactly the same for RF.
- jamesmunns 4y agoFor those curious, I went and looked it up, and the one way (not round trip!) light travel time to the moon is about 1.3 seconds, and one way light travel time to mars is 3-22 minutes or so, depending on how far they are at the time. So maaaaaybe you could have a really painful conversation with someone the moon, but not Mars. edit: This is WITHOUT any latency introduced by the link/protocol, or if you have to then route the message from one side of the earth to the other, just time-of-flight distance calculations, so the absolute minimum possible latency.
- KptMarchewa 4y ago1.3 seconds delay for conversation is mildly inconvenient, not painful.
- Firmwarrior 4y agoJust another bad day on Cisco Webex™
- BenjiWiebe 4y agoReally? I'd be driven crazy by a 1.3 second delay. 300ms is bad enough. You'd be continually talking over the other person.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- OkayPhysicist 4y agoThe moon is only a second away. That's awkward for conversation, but perfectly possible for a structured meeting setting.