3 ms·

Yes, small satellites are simpler and cheaper. Larger systems are complicated and expensive. But the entropy of a large system is low, because it's physically

Yes, small satellites are simpler and cheaper. Larger systems are complicated and expensive. But the entropy of a large system is low, because it's physically attached with the Strong Force of physics. There is a low risk to other neighbouring satellites (space junk collisions). A swarm of small satellites has high entropy, and is loosely-coupled with the Gravity force of physics. At what point do we want to accept the financial tradeoffs involved? Humans and the economy also benefit from the large projects, and the management structures also teach efficiency to more people who can go on to create other exciting new sensors. We could start with a small satellite like Sputnik, and make them grow. Eventually it will reach a point of stability with the neighbouring environment. That could be much larger than we expect. "That's no moon, it's a spaceship!"

pilsetnieks 5y ago
> But the entropy of a large system is low, because it's physically attached with the Strong Force of physics. There is a low risk to other neighbouring satellites (space junk collisions). A swarm of small satellites has high entropy, and is loosely-coupled with the Gravity force of physics. I'm going to go and assume that you used the strong force and gravity as metaphors here.
adhesive_wombat 5y ago
One advantage of L2 is that it's a point of gravitational metastability when entropy inevitably hits, your satellite will slowly fall away from the point, and either depart for a long, initially slow, fall back to something rocky, or spiral out from the Earth-Moon system into interplanetary space. An L2 swarm isn't bound together by gravity, it actually has to maintain active control to stay there, so it's a "self cleaning" area.