holy **** could apple have bought a Mobile Satellite System ???

Wow.. it's amazing how many different rumors we have this year. This show had better be good!

The satelite idea is interesting, but I'm convinced.

Then steve announces that Airport 3 will allow you to link direct......he he he.... I like it.

cheers
adam

You'd need some serious bandwidth to have millions of users using this sattelite based system. Can the infrastructure support this?

I don't think it will happen but it would be the best thing I could get with a new computer. I'm leaving in about an hour for a cabin in the mountains. I can barely get a cell phone call through with an external antenna on a bag phone much less an internet connection within 10 miles.

Also, would be interesting selling access to pc users at a higher rate (I would assume there is a charge) using the earthlink ties they have. It would give earthlink a huge boost over AOL.

A satellite system is the worst idea Apple could come up with. Apple is not going to try something they could easily lose billions in. There is no company that has made money in it thus yet not to mention that it is incredibly capital intensive. They'll have better luck launching a PDA than that.

[quote]They'll have better luck launching a PDA than that. <hr></blockquote>

Of course. If Mac users will spend $400 on an Mp3 player, they'll definitely buy a new Apple PDA.

Just passing on this link I saw in a couple other threads, in case you haven't seen it, it is quite interesting.

<a href="http://www.apple.com/scitech/stories/skycorp/" target="_blank">Click Here.</a>

[quote]Originally posted by killboy:
<strong>Mobile Satellite System Globalstar (similar to Iridium) just declard bankruptsy in November.

satellites are "future hardware" right?</strong><hr></blockquote>

have none of you YET read about the SkyCorp deal?

<a href="http://www.apple.com/scitech/stories/skycorp/" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/scitech/stories/skycorp/</a>

it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is what apple is going to announce. I mean, come on, how much more "To boldy go where no PC has gone before" can you get?!?!

This just ssooooo has to be related to MWSF considering todays tagline.

I saw this a couple of weeks ago and passed it over!!!!!!!. Shit I could have made millions

G-I-G-A-W-I-R-E

"Telecommunication services; cellular telephone communication; Communication by
computer terminals, communication by telephone, facsimile transmission; providing of
electronic mail (E-Mail); computer aided transmission of messages and images; communication
between computer peripherals and devices; information about telecommunication."

"To boldly go where no PC has gone before".
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

Okay enough of this. Time for The Sane to set things straight

The SkyCorp project is a very interesting one. I even volunteered (if you can call trying out something as cool as this voluteering) myself half a year ago. But what they are planning is not 554 routers in space routing packages from one place of the earth to another on a constant basis. They are meant as webservers delivering information stored on them when asked for. And they don´t plan on doing that cheaply. Esp. not if you want to update the info often. Look at this price table:

I´ll try finding a link where the project is described more thorougly
__________________



[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>

[quote] Six months to a year after that, SkyCorp plans to fill the sky with Power Mac G4 Web servers. With 544 Power Mac G4s circling the globe, there will be no place on Earth without wireless Internet access. For people living and working in remote areas, its an idea thats out of this world.
<hr></blockquote>

Very interesting stuff! From <a href="http://www.apple.com/scitech/stories/skycorp/index2.html" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/scitech/stories/skycorp/index2.html</a>

I think Apple may talk a little about this on Monday but I don't think it'll be ready yet (if it all goes ahead) unless they're far ahead of schedule.

What if apple.com's tag line tomorrow reads:
its an idea thats out of this world.

NASA and Skycorp have (if they've stuck to their schedule) had their G4 + satellite parts aboard the International Space Station since October. They've had three months to work on this.

Gotta check one more thing. Back soon.

Aries 1B

Went to see if I could quickly find where the ISS will be at Keynote time. Couldn't do it.

Would it be cool if Steve spoke with the Astronauts aboard the ISS about the Skycorp Net?

I think it would be cool.

Aries 1B

[quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:
<strong>Latency, latency. latency. Just watch CNN coverage in Afghanistan for a rock solid civilian demonstration of two way satellite communications latency. Now inmagine adding that latency to EVERY net packet you send/receive on top of all other routing delays. Avoiding a geosyncronous satellite will help a little but then you need constellations of at least 24-30 satellites just to get reasonable continuous coverage, then add spares. Fine for e-mail, but maddening to impossible for anything else.

SkyCorp is a great proof of concept, but there are a lot of issues before it could be commercially viable.</strong><hr></blockquote>

To be honest, latency is a non-issue for standard web surfing and downloading. Once the connection is made, then the stream is continuous.

The latency is from trying to send a signal from the ground up, and then down to the ground again. All of that distance and switching takes time. &lt;I'm making this up&gt;You wouldn't necessarily be sending individual packets to the satellite. That would be done later.&lt;/I'm making this up&gt;

The issue is if someone's trying to frag someone. By the time you click your mouse, you're pushing daisies in a cyberpatty somewhere.

Like Garden said latency really does not matter when you ate surfing using e-mail, or watching a stream. Gaming would be very limited, but for getting off my 56k, I would willingly make that sacrifice.

Why is there such latency, dont radiowaves travel at 186,000 miles per second. Is not a low flying satellite about 50miles up?

Why is people ignoring my post :confused:

Let me tell you something about latency. According to the article I read about this thing if you sent a email at 9 am it would take some time before the sattelite is above your head and until then your mail is waiting in your computer. So maybe at 9.10 the message is sent to the cube in space. Then it has to find a base station where it can unload its information (remember its very close to the earth and can´t just route it right away to a base station hundreds of miles away). That could take another five minutes. A moment after it is recieved. The same with requesting a webpage. First the request was recieved by one sattelite (the first one over your house). It then would unload your request to a base station. The page would then be sent to the next sattelite that will go over your place and you recieve it. All this would certaintly take some time.

As I said before: This is more like servers than routers in space.

The only online game that would make sense would be Chess

__________________



[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by MarcUK:
<strong>Why is there such latency, dont radiowaves travel at 186,000 miles per second. Is not a low flying satellite about 50miles up?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, about 200 miles or above, and that is when it is directly overhead, it can still be in line of sight several thousand miles away.

Main point, however, is that the low earth orbit satellites that are (going) up, are not broadband, and the Mac powered ones are not routers. The reason Iridium went bankrupt, essentially, is that they are telephone connections,(about 8Kb/s), so once mobile become widely adopted using terrestrial transmitters, they could'nt diversify. The Mac powered satellites are web servers, not routers, no use for ISPs. And don't mention the power requirements for the uplink, definitely not suitable for a permanent conection. Won't fly, people.

Michael

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: mmicist ]</p>

starband has satellite for Wintel Boxes (M$ owns a part) Uplink power requirements are low because sent signal is GHz frequency (been in use a long time). Latency is time for signal to travel to satellite and bac (on the order of 1 second or less). Web pages and stuff with multiple links in one page need to be sent as one packet (like starband has been trying to do with its Mission Critcal software and proxy servers formats). 24 satellites are required for complete earth coverage (like GPS satellites). Main problem is slow upload speed &lt;30 kps. Downloads ?20 to 60 kps on a good day with not many users.

[quote]Originally posted by Bigc:
<strong>starband has satellite for Wintel Boxes (M$ owns a part) Uplink power requirements are low because sent signal is GHz frequency (been in use a long time). Latency is time for signal to travel to satellite and bac (on the order of 1 second or less). Web pages and stuff with multiple links in one page need to be sent as one packet (like starband has been trying to do with its Mission Critcal software and proxy servers formats). 24 satellites are required for complete earth coverage (like GPS satellites). Main problem is slow upload speed &lt;30 kps. Downloads ?20 to 60 kps on a good day with not many users.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You know this but not to confuse this for other users:

There is a HUGE difference between geo-stationary (hope it is the right word in english)
sattelites like GPS and "standart" communication sattelites and then the SkyCorp project.

For those who can´t get ADSL here in Denmark the sattelite internet access is, if not normal then not an unknown solution. The most used is one way (up via phone and down via sattelite).

Compared to "normal" sattelite systems SkyCorps cons are: Can´t function as a router, can´t use sattelites up there already and likely to be more expensive. Pros: Under optimal conditions you only need an Airport card not a sattlite dish.

__________________



[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Bigc:
<strong>starband has satellite for Wintel Boxes (M$ owns a part) Uplink power requirements are low because sent signal is GHz frequency (been in use a long time). Latency is time for signal to travel to satellite and bac (on the order of 1 second or less). Web pages and stuff with multiple links in one page need to be sent as one packet (like starband has been trying to do with its Mission Critcal software and proxy servers formats). 24 satellites are required for complete earth coverage (like GPS satellites). Main problem is slow upload speed &lt;30 kps. Downloads ?20 to 60 kps on a good day with not many users.</strong><hr></blockquote>

As Anders says, You can't compare low earth orbit and geostationary systems. Geostationary satellites can use dishes, to give you a highly directional beam, as you know exactly where they are at all times, and so need a lot less power. The low earth orbit satellites move very fast across the sky, so you need to use a much less directional antenna (you could use a motorised dish and driver, but the cost would be excessive, and it would'nt be portable), and consequently more power. The difference in the antennae is at least as great at the other end, as well. There are also problems in reception from a moving target at high bandwidth because of changing delay causing phase distortion etc. etc. etc.

Michael

It barely works w/geostationary let alone trying to phase moving satelites, but technology constantly changes....

Oops. When thinking about it I don´t think GPS is fixed sattelites. But communication sattelites are so you can point your dish directly at them.

__________________



[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>

What about broadcast/webcast? <a href="http://www.enfocast.com" target="_blank">www.enfocast.com (go to technical section)</a>

Hey,

I found this via dejanews (google) and while some of the references are old (see Iridum) the explaination of the different types of orbit are very good... Pros and Cons are quite clear in the different types of orbit. It was written around Feb 2000.

Hope it helps...

[quote]When a satellite is launched, it may go into orbit at any height above the earth. There are generally 3 different classifications for satellite orbit heights, described below.

GEOS (Geosynchronous Earth Orbiting Satellite) - This type of orbit, also referred to as geostationary orbit, is when a satellite is launched to an altitude of precisely 22,300 miles above the Earth. At this altitude, the satellite orbits the Earth every 24 hours. Thus, to an observer stationed on the Earth, the satellite appears to be stationary. This is a tremendous advantage, as it allows complete 24 hour communication within its huge footprint (covering approximately 1/4 of the Earth). However, geosyncronous satellites are not ideal for voice circuit transmission. Due to their height above the it takes radio signals approximately .25 seconds to be transmitted to the satellite and reflected back down to Earth, depending on whether the signal is passed among satellites before it is transmitted back down to Earth. This delay is quite noticeable, and you may notice it when talking on international calls.

MEOS (Medium Earth Orbiting Satellite) - This type of orbit is within 6,000 - 12,000 miles above Earth. Approximately a dozen medium Earth orbiting satellites are necessary to provide continuous global coverage 24 hours a day. Several MEOS systems are now in development, most notably Bill Gates and Craig McCaw's Teledesic project, which will ultimately attempt to provide Internet access to all corners of the globe (all under Microsoft software, of course ).

LEOS (Low Earth Orbiting Satellite) - This type of orbit is generally within the 500 - 5,000 mile altitude range. Although the satellite footprint is greatly reduced, global coverage can be accomplished through a network of satellites, in which if an uplink is required to be transmitted to a location outside of the footprint, the transmission is passed from satellite to satellite until it reaches the satellite which has the location within its footprint. As there is no noticeable delay for signal transmission, low Earth orbiting satellites are becoming the preferable method of voice transmission, with numerous companies currently attempting to establish LEO satellite networks, most notably Motorola's Iridium project (see <a href="http://www.iridium.com)" target="_blank">www.iridium.com)</a>
<hr></blockquote>

The person who wrote it sure seems to know his/her stuff..

Dave

Now after reading the text above...

I don't see how the heck Airport technology (802.11-insert your favorite letter) could ever be used with any form of satellite based internet service.

Even in a LEOS orbit you are talking 500 MILES above the earth... Ever read any 'hack' to 802.11 that hits even one tenth that range? And the reason it can't is FCC rules and regs as well as the size of the frequency band...

Now is Apple re-using the word Airport to explain some other technology I dunno but Airport as in the "Apple AIrport Card" couldn't talk to even a LEOS.

Oh and even **IF** it could then why use the satellite at all... Just stick a super long range airport hub at IPS spaced every thousand miles or so apart all across the US... It would be a heck of a lot cheaper and easier than waiting on NASA to launch 500ish G4 Cubes into space.

In this case I'm sure that Apple is using the word Airport because it's easy and they don't have to get into a lot of techno speak trying to explain all this stuff.

Airport as we know it will NEVER transmit/recieve at a distance of 500 miles... Not in our lifetime. If they did you could kiss the land based cell based phone companies of the world goodbye not to mention the ISP and a ton of ther companies...

If you think that someone developing FREE ENERGY would have a huge impact on the world and cause millions and millions to loose their jobs then so would this...

The big difference is I have a feeling in this case it COULD be doable but the FCC and the other owners of the frequency bands would never let it happen...

Dave

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>