3 ms·
I interpreted him to mean physical collision risk. As for interference: They're planning on beaming signal to a wide swath of every plane for full-Earth covera
by mapt 11y ago
I interpreted him to mean physical collision risk.
As for interference:
They're planning on beaming signal to a wide swath of every plane for full-Earth coverage, not just at a narrow stretch near nadir. That means you'll have users acquiring a fix from a wide swath of sky; Let's say 45 degrees from zenith in various directions. That would make every user below 45 degrees latitude encounter fixes with OneWeb proximate to the geosynchronous belt on a regular basis.
If spectral separation alone was insufficient to prevent interference, it's not something that would affect communications when a satellite is near the equator at all, it's something that would affect all the satellites nearly all the time. A 1200km orbit is 30x closer to Earth than the geosynchronous belt.
- maxerickson 11y agoThe link I posted has some context that makes it clear that the statement is about radio interference. Various press statements about the system say that the satellites will turn, for example, search "Progressive Pitch" here: http://spacenews.com/virgin-qualcomm-invest-in-global-satellite-internet-plan/ http://spacenews.com/virgin-qualcomm-invest-in-global-satell... (or on my earlier link or Wikipedia) But it must not be thruster based.