8 comments

  • Meneth 4 hours ago
    "low-latency links", says the article. I wonder if they consider 500 ms ping to be low, or if they want to replace Geostationary with Low Earth Orbit.
    • fidotron 3 hours ago
      Getting it to work with one end stationary first sounds like a reasonable development plan. LEO adds a lot of complexity, but with huge benefits.

      OTOH the number of engineers that focus on throughput over latency is quite staggering.

      • IrishTechie 3 hours ago
        I guess if your goal is just to stream aircraft telemetry and black box like recordings then latency may not be high on the agenda.
        • connicpu 2 hours ago
          Black box data doesn't need that crazy throughput either though. Traditional RF is much easier to get right, and works even when the aircraft starts losing track of where it is and stops being able to track the satellite with its laser
        • SiempreViernes 3 hours ago
          I think it's the opposite? For small telemetry you want it now, but for the big data products there's no hope of "now" and so you settle for soon.
    • pottertheotter 1 hour ago
      I’ll take 500ms ping for those speeds while temporarily on a plane.
      • oofbey 1 hour ago
        No doubt! I’ve measured literal 5 minute ping times on airplanes. 300,000ms. Where are the buffering the packets!?
        • raddan 12 minutes ago
          My guess is that you're getting retransmissions because of dropped frames, not because there's some huge buffer in the sky.
  • tart-lemonade 2 hours ago
    > These developments entail a future where travellers could enjoy reliable, high‑speed internet while flying, and where people on ships or in vehicles crossing remote regions can stay connected without interruption.

    How reliable/feasible would this be on the ground? From what I understand, shining non-trivial lasers in the sky is a massive liability because of the potential to interfere with aircraft. I don't see anything about the wavelength used, but even if it's outside the visible spectrum, it would still be subject to interference from aircraft when used on the ground or at sea.

  • utopiah 3 hours ago
  • db48x 2 hours ago
    Some miniaturization required.
  • cm2187 4 hours ago
    But that means you need to have a different laser pointed at every single individual aircraft right? Doesn’t really scale.
  • myrmidon 5 hours ago
    I'm really curious how the tracking works in such a system, and how "bad" the beam spread is (my impression is that from the diffraction limit alone the beam has to be spread over at least a ~10m radius after travelling 36000km).

    Some info on the laser itself would also be very interesting (power? wavelength?).

    Really cool project though!

    • amelius 4 hours ago
      > and how "bad" the beam spread is

      The spread makes the tracking easier, I suppose.

      • TimorousBestie 3 hours ago
        Perhaps a little, however. Different paths through the atmosphere will perturb the phase of the signal; depending on conditions not all of that ~10m beam width is going to decode with an acceptable bit error rate.
    • mytailorisrich 2 hours ago
      Tracking and actuation is nothing new or particularly challenging, IMHO. It's the laser/optical part combined with throughput at that distance that is the main area of R&D, I think.
  • xnx 6 hours ago
    Impressive! I believe round trip latency would be 0.5 seconds.
    • 1e1a 5 hours ago
      That's ~162.5 MB in transit at any time
      • kipchak 25 minutes ago
        There's a patent (2017/0280211 A1) for using this as a data storage method, and there was a company called Lyteloop trying to leverage the idea for data storage with estimations for petabytes across constellation.
      • kevincox 4 hours ago
        Excellent for pingfs (https://github.com/yarrick/pingfs)
      • arethuza 1 hour ago
        That could you used like RAM like the delay-line memory used by early computers!
      • htgb 5 hours ago
        Shouldn't it be 1000/16 = 62.5? Impressive nonetheless, of course!
        • 1e1a 3 hours ago
          The article says 2.6 gigabits/second which is 2,600,000,000 bits/second, 2,600,000,000b/s * 0.5s / 8 is 162,500,000 bytes, 162,500,000 / 1,000,000 is 162.5 megabytes
          • htgb 1 hour ago
            Right, thanks
      • zppln 5 hours ago
        Weird.
  • philipwhiuk 1 hour ago
    > Because laser beams spread far less than radio waves, they provide more secure links

    Basing your security on laser diffusion seems sus.

    • Tepix 1 hour ago
      These beams are much harder to detect and eavesdrop upon. You increase the difficulty for a remote attacker. I wouldn't stop encrypting the data, however: The Alphasat TDP‑1 has a telescope with an 135mm aperture. The beam diameter is likely to be at least 700m wide according to the diffraction limit.
    • Schlagbohrer 1 hour ago
      It's worth it as another layer of security. The beam width being so narrow means even intercepting it becomes harder. This is more relevant for down-to-earth links where the spot hitting the earth is so narrow it could be confined withing a geographically controlled area, rather than hitting an entire continent like longer wavelengths do.