3 ms·
The reverse is the case. Longevity of satellites had increased over time. This is due to a variety of reasons ranging from materials and design improvements to
by InclinedPlane 10y ago
The reverse is the case. Longevity of satellites had increased over time. This is due to a variety of reasons ranging from materials and design improvements to more advanced electronics and superior stationkeeping thrusters as well as reduced reliance on consumable components.
Early spy satellites, for example, relied on film that was returned to Earth, once the film ran out the satellite was useless. Other satellites simply became obsolete or lost attitude control and were no longer useful. Telstar had a service life of only about a year, the first half dozen TIROS weather satellites had lifetimes of about a year or less. Today satellites with similar missions are expected to last decades, which they often do.
- mikeash 10y agoAnother reason is that nobody is detonating nuclear bombs in space these days. A major cause of Telstar's short life was intense radiation from high-altitude nuclear tests. I'm not sure how long it would have lasted without that....
- InclinedPlane 10y agoHah, well, that only happened once. And even so the overall lifespan of satellites was not very long back then.
- mikeash 10y agoYeah, I definitely get the impression that Telstar might have lasted two years instead of one if not for the nuclear tests, but not decades.