4 ms·
Interesting. That does make me feel a bit more secure about the whole thing, but it does raise the question of how much they will need to invest in orbital upke
by Rooster61 8y ago
Interesting. That does make me feel a bit more secure about the whole thing, but it does raise the question of how much they will need to invest in orbital upkeep/replacement of decayed spacecraft. I can see this getting expensive quick.
- dr_orpheus 8y agoDefinitely expensive, but it is likely still much less expensive than putting all of the satellites in to the higher orbit. It takes a lot more fuel to get the satellites in to the higher orbit, as well as still having enough fuel to get it back down to de-orbit the satellite. Plus, in the ~1100 km orbit you are getting in to the lower Van Allen belt where the radiation will degrade electronics much more quickly. This can be mitigated with radiation-resistant parts and more shielding, but it adds a lot more cost.
- stcredzero 8y agoThere are new technologies like air breathing ion engines and electrodynamic tethers, which have the potential to sustain low orbit satellites for years.