Canada desperately needs a national strategic internet constellation.

Edit to fix link.

  • Kichae
    link
    fedilink
    English
    297 days ago

    We do not need a constellation. We do not need more space junk.

    We need fibre everywhere.

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Buddy, I’m an aero eng. There are lots of ways to get satellites in polar orbits.

          Why didn’t you look at the actual Lightspeed site from Telesat? Why would you pick a random paper? The Telesat site explains how they get coverage in polar regions.

          https://www.telesat.com/leo-satellites/

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            37 days ago

            There are lots of ways to get satellites in polar orbits.

            Of course there are, but the customers are mostly not at the poles, so any times the satellites spend at the poles is wasted.

            • @[email protected]OP
              link
              fedilink
              27 days ago

              I suggest you look up the solution that Telesat will use. I’m not involved in that project, but a quick glance shows me that the engineers involved have probably done their homework and have considered the customer base and their needs, including the need to service all regions of the country.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        77 days ago

        Similar problems with fibre to all of Australia. It’s just not feasible for small remote communities.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          47 days ago

          Microwave towers? They don’t bridge enormous distances but can bypass areas that it would be inadvisable to lay cable

          • @[email protected]OP
            link
            fedilink
            37 days ago

            Terrestrial solutions for remote areas typically have excessive build out and maintenance costs.

            Engineers will do a tradeoff and select the most suitable solution given the criteria. It’s very easy to underestimate costs, particularly over the entire lifetime of the system.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              And satellite consolations don’t. How are we launching them into space with our friends the Americans, Russia, China or India?

                • Noxy
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  16 days ago

                  I had to look up that name and I’m sure glad there’s another E in there…

      • Kichae
        link
        fedilink
        English
        47 days ago

        There are solutions for the far arctic that aren’t high density mesh networks polluting low earth orbit.

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          27 days ago

          Yes there are such solutions, but for remote regions without infrastructure and with high build out and operating/maintenance costs for terrestrial technology, I suspect that the most cost effective solution that we can achieve in a timely fashion is probably LEO, like Lightspeed or Starlink. Particularly since Canada has half a century of experience building satellite systems.

          Managing LEO debris and congestion is not an insurmountable challenge.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        67 days ago

        Geostationary satellites orbit at a height of 35,000 km. That means there’s a huge lag, making the satellites unsuitable for interactive Internet, and it also means they’re far away, so you need a big directional antenna to send data to them.

        Starlink is awful, but you definitely don’t want geostationary satellites for Internet.

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          27 days ago

          Correctamundo. You can’t speed up light. For low latency you need LEO, and since they don’t sit still for you (8km/s roughly) you need a bunch of them in some kind of formation or constellation, so that you generally have something to connect to at any given moment, or at least a chain that can relay to ground stations.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                26 days ago

                Yea I can see that, we can live comfortably on earth with Kessler syndrome but some carrington event and already struggling populace would probably set us back a century at least and wed be trapped on earth nearly forever, or until we can solve Kessler syndrome

                • @[email protected]OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  15 days ago

                  Assuming your question is not rhetorical…

                  Some combustion products have climatic effects. For you to lean into this, the next step would be to calculate the relative effect of perhaps 80 tons of space junk burning up on reentry per year, versus perhaps 42 billion tons of CO2 emissions per year. You’ll want to estimate the radiative forcing or climatic effects of the space junk combustion products to get there. I’ll save you the effort and tell you that space junk burning up on reentry is likely to be several hundred thousand times less impactful than terrestrial GHG emmissions.

                  Which should not be surprising intuitively, just considering the volume of GHGs we produce globally each year.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          16 days ago

          If you’re so far in the woods that you need a satellite connection for Internet, you don’t need a low ping. It’s not with ruining our sky, radio astronomy and our atmosphere for a few people’s convenience.