4 ms·
> 50 years ago, losing 40 satellites would have been a significant portion made me think "100 years ago, it would have been (40/0)*0.01 = infinity percent", wh
by jjtheblunt 5y ago
> 50 years ago, losing 40 satellites would have been a significant portion
made me think "100 years ago, it would have been (40/0)*0.01 = infinity percent", which probably means i need to lay off the coffee a bit.
- barbazoo 5y agoShould be more than zero though, no? https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/an-early-history-of-satellites-timeline https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/an-early-history-of-sa...
- jjtheblunt 5y agoin the jpg from CalTech, I'm not seeing any satellites in orbit in 1922. is that what you're meaning?
- barbazoo 5y agoRight. I still had 50 years in my head. Maybe I should have had another cup of coffee.
- kortex 5y agoIs it bad that my thought in response was, well if you consider suborbital rockets a fractional satellite, then you can analytically continue the function of satellites over time all the way back to the invention of blackpowder? 1 satellite = ability to orbit at least once = ~150 km apogee. So a 150m launch would be 1 millisatellite... I too probably should lay off the coffee.