As described in this article, the SpaceX constellation would be in a much lower orbit. The advantage is a much faster ping time (say, around 10 ms). The disadvantage is you need a large number of satellites to provide continuous coverage for the entire earth...but that's less of a disadvantage if your company also launches rockets.
I am wondering because I maintain some linux servers for some of my projects, and any time I need to do something serious, I have to drive to a coffee shop and borrow their connection. SSH over 800ms latency is frustrating, to say the least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_error_correction#Interl...
To be specific, angular velocity.
I'm curious the reason for such slow data too. Looks like the design was optimized to maximize the number of voice connections for a minimal number of satellites. Combined with the age of the design (first launched in '97) gives pretty poor data connections.
Hubble is a pretty low orbit. Geostationary orbits are @ 36,000km
The speed of light is faster in space than it is in optical fibre.
Could you elaborate? Thanks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
The same is true for light traveling through water, air, and so forth.
Speed of light in vacuum > speed of light in optical fiber. Same reason high frequency traders are using microwave between Chicago and New York instead of a fiber connection.
So much for it being constant huh?
But then I did the math:
Speed of light = 186 miles per millisecond. Satellites orbit at about 380 miles above earth (Source: Hubble). So it only takes ~4 ms for a round trip to a satellite directly above?
I did not know that. Weird, wild stuff.
If someone knows specifics about why satellite communication is currently so slow (both internet and video), I'd be interested in the EL5 version.