Recent comments in /f/gadgets

bergsteroj t1_j38egm2 wrote

It was Motorola who was going to crash the satellites rather than keep maintaining them. They spent tons of money develop h the system for the completely wrong market (which was completely taken over by widespread cell phones).

Iridium is the name of the satellite constellation as well as the company that was eventually formed to save the satellites (was a mess getting funding and insurance agreements that Motorola would accept). The system is still highly used for remote wildness communication (such as Garmin InReach), satellite phones by military and other expeditionary groups, and making inroads to take marker share from companies like IMARSAT for cruise ships and airlines.

The satellites are still very much functioning and in use and new ones being launched.

5

doxx_in_the_box t1_j38drfl wrote

I agree - but I’ve always heard Iridium is slower because of the processing time or whatever occurs when linking satellites. I could have misheard

But if you read Iridium’s statement they say: faster than globalstar because we don’t require ground stations. That part makes zero sense.

1

dnick t1_j38c90i wrote

I would assume that the time it takes to broadcast between satellites is negligible in the overall process (milliseconds?). If you could somehow save a second or two in overall connection time (on ground relays, finding a site that could route it more seemlessly, whatever), it wouldn't matter if you had to beam it back and forth between satellites 100 times to get it there, it could still be faster.

​

you could be right that the overall service might be way worse, but doubtful that 'beaming between satellites' vs direct ground retransmission would make any difference except in slight audio quality vs 'speed of emergency services being services being dispatched'.

3