zlacker

>>alden5+(OP)
My understanding of the state of the art of inter-satellite optical links is that they have only been used between satellites that are basically in the same orbital plane and in more or less the same orbit. That is, the angle from one satellite to the other changes very very slowly, so that the optics don't have to do much tracking -- and consequently satellites can only form an optical link with other satellites that are ahead or behind themselves in ~ the same orbit.

Cross-plane optical links would have a trickier tracking problem.

While there's no explicit mention of same-plane vs cross-plane optical links, I assume that the first time people have a public cross-plane optical link, they will make a big deal out of it. :)

The article also mentions that SpaceX would need to do further study before using laser links between satellites and ground stations-- this kind of optical link would require both more angular tracking and probably atmospheric correction as well.

>>ble+c55
Take a look at the slides from the presentation, I think the geometry clearly shows cross-plane links in the mesh. Having worked on these types of systems, I've had more difficulty with the lookahead angles (rx from where the target was, tx to where it will be due to speed of light) than the tracking -- fine tracking performance was required for all modes, and it largely became a GNC and acquisition time issue (since they're ephemeral) for the cross-plane links.

>>sepham+Nq5
GNC?