Posted on 11/21/2016 2:45:10 AM PST by LibWhacker
What orifice do those numbers come from?
At 700 miles I get (700/186,000) = 0.00376 seconds, one way. Or, 3.76 ms.
Now for satellite you need 4 one way trips to get a response, (Query up to satellite, down to Earth, response up and response down.) This is 15 ms inherent latency. If the satellite is always above 40 degrees, the max inherent latency is (1/cos 40)=1.3 times this. Still under 20 ms.
That is assuming enough ground stations that you only have to up and then down from the satellite. As a practical matter, this would be one ground station every few hundred miles. Perfectly doable over almost all land masses.
Of course you still have ground based latency, but you have that anyway.
I can tell you right now that my rural DSL had latency in the 150-200 ms range and that was a big issue. I am in the 30-50 range with microwave internet and that seems pretty fast.
The real issue is going to be bandwidth, not latency.
* * * * * * *
As far as the naysayers go, the US would own the system. That is an enormous advantage.
Sure people in remote areas don't have phones and internet now, but I bet that in 20 years they would use and, most importantly, pay for phones and internet. Do you want the US or some other country to reap the financial rewards of supplying that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.