4 ms·
For anyone like me that was initially picturing 88 "large" satellites requiring multiple launch vehicles - this was 88 micro satellites: 10cm x 10cm x 30cm from
by wmblaettler 10y ago
For anyone like me that was initially picturing 88 "large" satellites requiring multiple launch vehicles - this was 88 micro satellites: 10cm x 10cm x 30cm from a single launch vehicle.
On one hand it's fascinating to see the miniaturization of satellite technology, while on the other, one has to think about the amount of "junk" floating around our planet, some of it not much larger than a soda can.
Flock: http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/flock-1.htm http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/flock-1.htm
CubeSat: http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sat/cubesat.htm http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sat/cubesat.htm
- alexnewman 10y agoPlanet is very careful about space junk. One of the founders even did work for NASA, v.v. space junk. All the doves will burn up after use
- alexnewman 10y agoWell burnup or re-enter
- alexnewman 10y agoBut of course re-enterring with these materials is a burn
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 10y agoLow Earth orbit debris isn't a long-term problem. Atmospheric drag is enough to bring things down before too long. At the ~600km altitude these satellites use, they might last a decade or two before deorbiting naturally. Possibly less, since smaller satellites have proportionally more drag. Higher altitudes are a much bigger problem, since debris there can stay up for a very long time.
- chimere 10y agoYou're correct. In addition, it's important to note that conjunction (collision) risk is proportional to spacecraft cross-sectional area. Thus, even with 100 of these small 10cm x 30cm spacecraft, they still pose less debris risk than a single satellite with a few square meters of solar panels (of which there are plenty already in orbit).
- mikeash 10y agoNice, I never considered the impact of cross-sectional area on the actual collision risk.
- 3Pi 10y agoI don't think that's quite right. Say for example a number of small satellites were arranged on the points of a triangular grid pattern, with the points the same distance apart as the diameter of the spacecraft: This would result in a much higher collision chance (for a spacecraft passing through) than if there was a single satellite with the same amount of cross sectional area.
- sumitgt 10y agoActual footage of the 88 being released in orbit from another thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13653040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13653040