 chakeyPremium
join:2004-06-14
Gladstone, NJ | Must be nice to have a small country. I wonder how many of these satellites it would take to cover the USA? |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | One. |
|
|
|
 bear73Metnav... Fly The Unfriendly SkiesPremium
join:2001-06-09
Grand Forks Afb, ND | maybe as many as 3 for throughput, but 1 can "see" the whole country
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE!
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/ |
|
 FiLPremium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | ...and so the "but we have more land" rhetoric is shot down. (pun intended) |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Except for all of the naysayers that believe satellites are not a viable means to provide internet service. |
|
| reply to chakey
said by chakey:to have a small country. I wonder how many of these satellites it would take to cover the USA? One. If you're talking about being able to access the satellite with a dish on the ground, then one satellite would cover the (continental) USA.
If you're talking about how much bandwidth each satellite has, I don't know. Perhaps the article covers this. |
|
| reply to openbox9
Yes, that is true. Satellite (IN IT'S CURRENT FORM), is NOT a viable means to provide internet service. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | In what form would you say that it is a viable means to provide internet service? |
|
