5 ms·
Are we, really? If you can put a satellite into space for 8k, why not put a thousand satellites into space, accept that some of them will fail, and have that m
by lsb 16y ago
Are we, really? If you can put a satellite into space for 8k, why not put a thousand satellites into space, accept that some of them will fail, and have that much more of a network for the money?
- ericd 16y agoI'm assuming there are some minimum equipment and power generation requirements to communicate with cell phones on earth that go above and beyond what a single $8k satellite can offer. But it's possible that it's just so new that noone has started using them like that.
- bombs 16y agoThe $8,000 satellites are put into low-earth orbit (160–1,200 km), where as these would require a geosynchronous orbit (35,786 km). The increased mass and orbit requires a lot more lift, i.e. fuel, i.e. money.
- someone_here 16y agoBut if you had a swarm of them...
- chc 16y agoIf you had a swarm of them, they would still not be viable telecom satellites.
- someone_here 16y agoWhy not?
- chc 16y agoWell, because they'll die in a matter of weeks, for one. Sending up a swarm of them just makes the loss costlier and thus strengthens the case for sending up a proper satellite.
- zitterbewegung 16y agoNot only that a swarm would function like space junk. Imagine NORAD trying to track 100 satellites eventually one will probably hit something important.