dslreports logo
 story category
Space Lag
Will Ka band keep satellite alive?
The word "latency" is mentioned just one time in this EETimes article dissecting satellite's efforts to stay relevant in the broadband business. While providers have created new acceleration techniques to help the use of satellite VPN's, the ever-present latency monster will always hinder the technology's advancement until the technology changes. The shift to Ka band technology could double or triple the bandwidth available via satellite (Hughes is promising up to 10Gbps via their oft-delayed Spaceway project), but it too will be hindered by latency.
view:
topics flat nest 

SuperJudge
Raiden Wins
Premium Member
join:2002-11-14
Atlanta, GA

SuperJudge

Premium Member

Almost packet loss.

It's like, you'll have a 200Mb packet, and it'll take a week to get there, but it'll be a bigun.

ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana

ronpin

Member

Re: Almost packet loss.

It's that darn speed of light problem again. Eienstien where are you?
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Wakefield, MA

BosstonesOwn

Member

Re: Almost packet loss.

said by ronpin:
It's that darn speed of light problem again. Eienstien where are you?

not to be a wise ass or anything but is it speed of light or speed of sound. I thought that a satellite was actually a frequency (i honestly don't know). If so wouldn't they just have to speed the frequency used ? ie.. different band ??

SuperJudge
Raiden Wins
Premium Member
join:2002-11-14
Atlanta, GA

SuperJudge

Premium Member

Re: Almost packet loss.

You are correct.
rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

rahvin112 to BosstonesOwn

Member

to BosstonesOwn
EM waves regardless of frequency do not travel any speed other than C. Distance divided by velocity = time. Geostationary orbit = 35790km, speed of light (c) = 299,792,458 m/s:

35790000/299792458m/s = 120ms MINIMUM That is simply the time it takes the signal to get there, add another 120ms for the signal to come back about 50ms more for switching and transmission time and you you are going to end up around 3-400ms with total travel time around the net. The only change that would effect it is to alter the laws of physics or to move the satellite closer to the earth (and not geostationary).

SuperJudge
Raiden Wins
Premium Member
join:2002-11-14
Atlanta, GA

SuperJudge

Premium Member

Re: Almost packet loss.

said by rahvin112:
EM waves regardless of frequency do not travel any speed other than C. Distance divided by velocity = time. Geostationary orbit = 35790km, speed of light (c) = 299,792,458 m/s:

35790000/299792458m/s = 120ms MINIMUM That is simply the time it takes the signal to get there, add another 120ms for the signal to come back about 50ms more for switching and transmission time and you you are going to end up around 3-400ms with total travel time around the net. The only change that would effect it is to alter the laws of physics or to move the satellite closer to the earth (and not geostationary).

Refraction slows EM waves down.

»www.mogami-wire.co.jp/e/ ··· -14.html
»math.ucr.edu/home/baez/p ··· ght.html

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: Almost packet loss.

Nice Googling, but he said MINIMUM. Anything that reduces the propagation velocity to below the theoretical maximum is going to increase the latency. What is your point?

SuperJudge
Raiden Wins
Premium Member
join:2002-11-14
Atlanta, GA

SuperJudge

Premium Member

Re: Almost packet loss.

My bad, it was OT, actually. His point was the latency.

dbirdman
MVM
join:2003-07-07
usa

dbirdman to rahvin112

MVM

to rahvin112
said by rahvin112:
35790000/299792458m/s = 120ms MINIMUM That is simply the time it takes the signal to get there, add another 120ms for the signal to come back about 50ms more for switching and transmission time and you you are going to end up around 3-400ms with total travel time around the net.

You, and whoever quoted the 46,600 mile round trip, missed two legs. You have to go up, down, up and down again for a round trip. That is 480ms without any switching, and it applies only to a dish sitting on the equator under the bird pointing straight up. For the rest of us, the trip is longer, and when you include switching you wind up with a minimum value in the 550-650ms range.

superdog
I Need A Drink
MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA

superdog to BosstonesOwn

MVM

to BosstonesOwn
said by BosstonesOwn:
I thought that a satellite was actually a frequency (i honestly don't know).
It is a frequency and all radio waves travel at the speed of light.:)

herdfan
Premium Member
join:2003-01-25
Hurricane, WV

herdfan to BosstonesOwn

Premium Member

to BosstonesOwn
Its the speed of light. Radio frequencies travel near the speed of light, the difference in frequencies are related to the size of the wave, not the speed in which it travels.

So unless they can find a way to make light make the 46,600 mile round trip faster, the latency will always be there.

TemporalFlux
Premium Member
join:2003-08-07
Ottawa, ON

1 edit

TemporalFlux to BosstonesOwn

Premium Member

to BosstonesOwn
It is not sound.

Light is a very short electromagnetic wave. Satellite electromagnetic waves are short too but they are longer than light and you can't see them because they are out of range to our eyes.

Light (that you can see) is about 0.00005 CM and a satellite sized wave (Microwave) is about 1 CM in size (possibly less).

If it was sound it would be like trying to talk to the rovers on Mars (Slow). (Assuming there was something to carry the vibrations, like air.)
spurious
join:2001-06-09
Florence, OR

spurious to BosstonesOwn

Member

to BosstonesOwn
Sound waves do not travel in a vacuum (space). Satellites are in space. They use radio waves, which are electro-magnetic waves, similar to light, and these DO travel at the speed of light.

Ed
Zidewinder
join:2003-10-27
Sarasota, FL

Zidewinder to SuperJudge

Member

to SuperJudge
said by SuperJudge:
It's like, you'll have a 200Mb packet, and it'll take a week to get there, but it'll be a bigun.

ROFLMAO! Sorry, I know this post is pointless, but that struck me so funny, I just had to reply lol.

SuperJudge
Raiden Wins
Premium Member
join:2002-11-14
Atlanta, GA

SuperJudge

Premium Member

Re: Almost packet loss.

I'm glad somebody caught it, nobody has a sense of humor anymore. I exaggerate 1 billion times a day.

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

What is needed...

...is a subspace communication system. This will vastly improve the latency versus current speed-of-light technology.

SuperJudge
Raiden Wins
Premium Member
join:2002-11-14
Atlanta, GA

SuperJudge

Premium Member

Re: What is needed...

Speed of sound. It doesn't matter, though, because 'speed of bad news' and 'speed of porn' are still faster.

ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana

ronpin to n2jtx

Member

to n2jtx
said by n2jtx:
...is a subspace communication system. This will vastly improve the latency versus current speed-of-light technology.

Uh yeah -- I have one -- for sale -- cheap!. I'm gonna let you in on the ground floor -- just email me with your VISA number (heh-heh).

PL11x15eq165
join:2002-07-05
Ladera Ranch, CA

PL11x15eq165 to n2jtx

Member

to n2jtx
tachyons

dilettante
join:2002-01-01
Haslett, MI

dilettante

Member

You have entered....

The Twilight Zone
dilettante

dilettante

Member

Re: You have entered....

This thread is almost making me believe all the claims about how poor our educational system is.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. They let these people operate heavy machinery!

teknikk7
Wi-Co, Inc.
Premium Member
join:2003-01-22
Los Angeles, CA

teknikk7

Premium Member

Question

would it be possible to speed this up using lasers? or light signals?

Rexter
Libertas, Aequitas, Veritas
join:2002-11-17
cloud 9

Rexter

Member

Re: Question

A lazer is just focused light. It does not move any faster.

tiger72
SexaT duorP
Premium Member
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO

tiger72

Premium Member

File Transfers

This would be great for people who transfer large files, and need the speed and dont care about the latency.

misiek
Premium Member
join:2000-12-25
Round Lake, IL

misiek

Premium Member

Re: File Transfers

said by tiger72:
This would be great for people who transfer large files, and need the speed and dont care about the latency.

Some P2P users are gonna be happy, LOL

griminal
Finally.
join:2001-06-25
Bangor, MI

griminal

Member

Re: File Transfers

170 MB FAP!

koolman2
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK

koolman2

Premium Member

Re: File Transfers

You'd use that up in seconds.