• chaogomu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    2 days ago

    There’s also the very real problem of data transfer.

    On land you just lay down another fiber optic cable and you can double your data transfer rate.

    In space, you have to deal with cross talk and interference on a limited spectrum.

    • Womble@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      Free space laser communications are possible, but even then you are only talking about 10s of GB/s, and you cant add more lasers or receivers on a satellite already in orbit.

        • Womble@piefed.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Doesn’t help, your laser (or RF comms if you are using them) can still only send out a fixed amount of data per second, it doesnt matter if it is being sent to the ground or another satellite, once it is launched there is a hard cap on how much data can flow into/out of it in a given time and there is no way to improve that.

      • chaogomu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not really, because it can’t be solved, just worked around.

        Lasers are still subject to the inverse square law, but with a slightly different multiplier.

        Also, lasers still have the bandwidth issue of not being able to double up the communication lines due to cross talk and other fun physics issues.

        There’s a reason why fiber will never go out of style.

      • M137@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        If it was a solved problem it would be widely used, but it isn’t. Ever looked at the reports of starlink speeds? It’s not reliable at all, everything other than a fully clear sky with cold weather (meaning less moisture and particles in the air) affects the communication. It physically can’t be a good or better alternative to fiber (or anything else that isn’t wireless).

        • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah… Terrestrial 5G towers with a fiber backbone for some proportion of them… are… stupendously more cost effective at getting a decent level of internet to a lot of people.

          Also doesn’t cause Kessler Syndrome, which is, you know, good.

          Now, such a system will still suffer in more abberant atmospheric conditons, but to a far lesser extent.

          Literally the only actual ‘use case’ I can think of where StarLink ‘makes sense’ as a better solution is … you are a boat that is actually moving most of the time.

          If you’re a house boat… terrestrial 5G probably exists near your mooring.

          Either that or you truly, truly live far away from civilization.

          … but we already had satellite internet that did those things.

        • Giloron@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Agreed on the downlink.

          I thought this was about the node to node communications. Blue origin and probably others are also using it for in orbit communication.