Comment

We’ve had communications satellites for this function for decades without needing starlink and blotting out the sky with garbage

Sort:hotnew top

aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Yeah and they suck with 500kbps links and ping times measured in seconds.

source
shalafi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Geosynchronous sats are just fine! Only 22,236 miles high vs. Starlink’s 342 miles.

Want me to do the math on speed-of-light delay? .119 seconds is hella slower than .002.

source
- echo64@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  oooh nooo i can’t play cod
  
  source
  - shalafi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    So, you’ve never had to rely on satellite internet? That was a rhetorical question.
    
    Had a client not far from here, only option was satellite. Couldn’t even get 3G at the time. 950ms+ ping times.
    
    We were trying to hook up a simple RDP system, PC to PC, and I finally had to tell him it wasn’t possible to do anything but FB and email, and that would be miserable. Hell, almost nothing was possible.
    
    before becoming space junk
    
    So you don’t get speed-of-light delay, and you also don’t get low-altitude orbital decay. You won’t admit it, but you have no idea what you’re talking about it. But you’ll be back to double down on your ignorance! FFS, just stop.
    
    source
LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Yup, that’s why the Antarctic Event Horizon telescope needed to wait 6 months to send its data back…

There is a reason that StarLink is better than the previous options.

source