[HN Gopher] World-first gigabit laser link between aircraft and ...
___________________________________________________________________
World-first gigabit laser link between aircraft and geostationary
satellite
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 158 points
Date : 2026-03-01 16:49 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.esa.int)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.esa.int)
| xnx wrote:
| Impressive! I believe round trip latency would be 0.5 seconds.
| 1e1a wrote:
| That's ~162.5 MB in transit at any time
| zppln wrote:
| Weird.
| htgb wrote:
| Shouldn't it be 1000/16 = 62.5? Impressive nonetheless, of
| course!
| 1e1a wrote:
| The article says 2.6 gigabits/second which is 2,600,000,000
| bits/second, 2,600,000,000b/s * 0.5s / 8 is 162,500,000
| bytes, 162,500,000 / 1,000,000 is 162.5 megabytes
| htgb wrote:
| Right, thanks
| kevincox wrote:
| Excellent for pingfs (https://github.com/yarrick/pingfs)
| arethuza wrote:
| That could you used like RAM like the delay-line memory used
| by early computers!
| kipchak wrote:
| There's a patent (2017/0280211 A1) for using this as a data
| storage method, and there was a company called Lyteloop
| trying to leverage the idea for data storage with estimations
| for petabytes across constellation.
| myrmidon wrote:
| I'm really curious how the tracking works in such a system, and
| how "bad" the beam spread is (my impression is that from the
| diffraction limit alone the beam has to be spread over at least a
| ~10m radius after travelling 36000km).
|
| Some info on the laser itself would also be very interesting
| (power? wavelength?).
|
| Really cool project though!
| amelius wrote:
| > and how "bad" the beam spread is
|
| The spread makes the tracking easier, I suppose.
| TimorousBestie wrote:
| Perhaps a little, however. Different paths through the
| atmosphere will perturb the phase of the signal; depending on
| conditions not all of that ~10m beam width is going to decode
| with an acceptable bit error rate.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Tracking and actuation is nothing new or particularly
| challenging, IMHO. It's the laser/optical part combined with
| throughput at that distance that is the main area of R&D, I
| think.
| cm2187 wrote:
| But that means you need to have a different laser pointed at
| every single individual aircraft right? Doesn't really scale.
| amelius wrote:
| I suppose you can do time-sharing. And use mems-mirrors to
| quickly move the beam between different targets.
| esseph wrote:
| Laser TDMA! :-)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-division_multiple_access
| voidUpdate wrote:
| If starlink satellites get laser downlink, it might work :P
| cm2187 wrote:
| laser downlink to one point, isn't it? Not to 300 moving
| aircrafts at once.
| eqvinox wrote:
| You can probably do phased arrays. (It might already be a
| phased array.)
| mohaine wrote:
| Pretty sure phased array LASERs are not yet a thing.
| eqvinox wrote:
| Yeah but this is research, if they're to come up somewhere,
| where else would it be?
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Lasers are coherent emitters; you can definitely make
| interference patterns with them, so I don't see why LASER
| MIMO wouldn't be possible, in theory.
| buildbot wrote:
| I was not sure, but they are!
|
| https://cga.anu.edu.au/research/activities/laser-beam-
| steeri...
|
| https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/excalibur
|
| I guess in some ways even the fancy multi diode fiber
| lasers are phased arrays, just with the single goal of
| higher output power.
| axus wrote:
| Looks like these are in early development and nowhere
| near ready like this test was.
| Meneth wrote:
| "low-latency links", says the article. I wonder if they consider
| 500 ms ping to be low, or if they want to replace Geostationary
| with Low Earth Orbit.
| fidotron wrote:
| Getting it to work with one end stationary first sounds like a
| reasonable development plan. LEO adds a lot of complexity, but
| with huge benefits.
|
| OTOH the number of engineers that focus on throughput over
| latency is quite staggering.
| IrishTechie wrote:
| I guess if your goal is just to stream aircraft telemetry and
| black box like recordings then latency may not be high on the
| agenda.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| I think it's the opposite? For small telemetry you want it
| _now_ , but for the big data products there's no hope of
| "now" and so you settle for _soon_.
| connicpu wrote:
| Black box data doesn't need that crazy throughput either
| though. Traditional RF is much easier to get right, and
| works even when the aircraft starts losing track of where
| it is and stops being able to track the satellite with its
| laser
| amarant wrote:
| Leo seems easier to me. Geostationary is really far away. Leo
| is much, much closer. It's easier to hit a buck thats running
| right past you than to hit a stationary target across the
| Atlantic.
|
| Especially if you yourself are on a moving platform
| pottertheotter wrote:
| I'll take 500ms ping for those speeds while temporarily on a
| plane.
| oofbey wrote:
| No doubt! I've measured literal 5 minute ping times on
| airplanes. 300,000ms. Where are the buffering the packets!?
| raddan wrote:
| My guess is that you're getting retransmissions because of
| dropped frames, not because there's some huge buffer in the
| sky.
| reactordev wrote:
| Indicated airspeed 280kts, ground speed 470kts, FL410,
| the packets are trying to catch up...
| JackFr wrote:
| I like "huge buffer in the sky".
|
| That's where I imagine all my deleted data goes.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| we're all just riding the ring buffer of samsara, maaan
| BobbyTables2 wrote:
| There's one huge buffer in the sky!
|
| The huge buffers are at the two endpoints (:->
| adev_ wrote:
| > "low-latency links", says the article. I wonder if they
| consider 500 ms ping to be low, or if they want to replace
| Geostationary with Low Earth Orbit.
|
| Directional laser beams are orders of magnitude to jam compared
| to radio wave. That alone makes it of big interest for military
| applications, even with 500 ms latency.
|
| There is several known cases where jamming caused the loss of
| costly military drones.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...
|
| Laser comms could prevent that entirely.
| shagie wrote:
| > Directional laser beams are orders of magnitude to jam
| compared to radio wave. That alone makes it of big interest
| for military applications, even with 500 ms latency.
|
| I am reminded of RFC 1217 - Memo from the Consortium for Slow
| Commotion Research (CSCR) https://www.rfc-
| editor.org/rfc/rfc1217 2. Jam-Resistant
| Land Mobile Communications This system uses a
| highly redundant optical communication technique
| to achieve ultra-low, ultra-robust transmission. The basic
| unit is the M1A1 tank. Each tank is labelled with
| the number 0 or 1 painted four feet high on the
| tank turret in yellow, day-glo luminescent paint.
| Several detection methods are under consideration:
| Spoom wrote:
| I love that this was ostensibly written by Vint Cerf.
| shagie wrote:
| It's listed in his computer science bibliography
| https://dblp.org/pid/c/VintonGCerf.html and
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vint_Cerf#Author
|
| Though the edit for that authorship to the RFC came much
| later. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc1217/history/
| SlightlyLeftPad wrote:
| Could these not be jammed by blasting the same wavelength
| laser at said geostationary satellite?
| tiagod wrote:
| Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess if you aim well
| enough, there could be a very long, narrow, non-reflective
| cylinder in front of the receiver that would block all
| light that is not coming exactly from the direction of the
| target satellite.
| Onavo wrote:
| You will probably need to increase the gain (better lens,
| photomultipliers) on the receiver photodiode too.
| scottLobster wrote:
| "If you aim well enough" is doing a ton of work there.
| Precise real-time optical tracking of a satellite from a
| moving platform is an extremely difficult problem. Even
| if the satellite itself is geostationary, it would also
| have to rotate to keep the "cylinder" pointed in the
| right direction to maintain signal.
|
| I suppose you could make a "cylinder" or "cone" broad
| enough that, if the threat was static, could blot-out
| attempted jamming from only certain regions while staying
| open facing toward friendly zones.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Geostationary is easier to hit than a LEO constellation like
| Starlink. With an LEO target you need to switch at least every
| 2-4 minutes, Starlink ground stations can switch multiple times
| per minute but that's for obstacle avoidance in the air you'd
| only have to switch when the current target moves out of LOS
| entirely.
| utopiah wrote:
| Nice, if you want a bit more details on the TNO side
| https://www.tno.nl/en/newsroom/2026/02/airbus-tno-demonstrat...
| relying on
| https://connectivity.esa.int/archives/projects/ultraair
| db48x wrote:
| Some miniaturization required.
| tart-lemonade wrote:
| > These developments entail a future where travellers could enjoy
| reliable, high-speed internet while flying, and where people on
| ships or in vehicles crossing remote regions can stay connected
| without interruption.
|
| How reliable/feasible would this be on the ground? From what I
| understand, shining non-trivial lasers in the sky is a massive
| liability because of the potential to interfere with aircraft. I
| don't see anything about the wavelength used, but even if it's
| outside the visible spectrum, it would still be subject to
| interference from aircraft when used on the ground or at sea.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| Optical links are being developed for use from fixed ground
| stations.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46709548 - Discussion from
| a month ago with several links for a recent example.
| joezydeco wrote:
| It's being implemented. I thought I saw that Amazon Leo (nee
| Kuiper) was going to lean on it pretty heavily.
|
| https://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/47300-u...
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| That talks about inter-satellite links (which Starlink uses
| already). Parent comment asked about ground <-> sat
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| > Because laser beams spread far less than radio waves, they
| provide more secure links
|
| Basing your security on laser diffusion seems sus.
| Schlagbohrer wrote:
| It's worth it as another layer of security. The beam width
| being so narrow means even intercepting it becomes harder. This
| is more relevant for down-to-earth links where the spot hitting
| the earth is so narrow it could be confined withing a
| geographically controlled area, rather than hitting an entire
| continent like longer wavelengths do.
| Tepix wrote:
| These beams are much harder to detect and eavesdrop upon. You
| increase the difficulty for a remote attacker. I wouldn't stop
| encrypting the data, however: The Alphasat TDP-1 has a
| telescope with an 135mm aperture. The beam diameter is likely
| to be at least 700m wide according to the diffraction limit.
| kube-system wrote:
| All security is based on a combination of individually flimsy
| ideas
| nashashmi wrote:
| How does Air force one accomplish their data connection?
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Air Force One (and all of the other US flying command posts)
| are basically giant collections of various antennas.
|
| Here's an article from 2017 about (then) recent installation of
| what were almost certainly satellite communication antenna.
|
| https://www.twz.com/10470/air-force-one-jet-reemerges-with-u...
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Here's a paper (from July 2025) on previous steps in this
| program, getting up the initial testing in flight. Maximum uplink
| laser power of 20W, though they got good performance all the way
| down to 2W. The sat has a laser pointing down that was used to
| help lock on, but it's not clear if it has any meaningful
| downlink capability, all discussions are about uplink capability.
| Lots a nerdy details here.
|
| https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of...
|
| In addition, here's a random paper on the testing performed on
| the space borne laser terminals -
| https://icsos2012.nict.go.jp/pdf/1569586689.pdf
|
| This tells us that the laser terminals have a FOV of +/-2.5mrad
| in acquisition mode (so before lock on), and +/-0.5mrad in
| communication/tracking mode. This corresponds ~100km and ~20km
| radius FOV from GEO to surface.
| burnt-resistor wrote:
| I marvel at the ability to track a target in _both directions_
| ~40k+ km away _while moving quickly (kinematic)_ considering
| atmospheric and relativistic effects.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-05 23:00 UTC)