4 ms·

I like how the article glazes over the fact that this is drone swarm delivery tech. You are naive to think otherwise.

mechagodzilla 2y ago
Why would I want a drone swarm in VLEO? That seems like a really hard place to effectively use drones from compared to pretty much any alternative.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Quick deployment into a battlefield or disaster zone anywhere on earth is one idea. Connection, remote sensing, and mesh networking are useful.
  - ianburrell 2y ago
    There is no difference between these and higher satellites. It still super expensive to get them down because have to stop orbital speed. If anything, VLEO is worse cause they are going faster. Not to mention the cost of getting into space in first place. Plus, need lots of satellites to support dropping things anywhere on world. Also, it is rare to have anything that needs 30 min response time. Most things can be handled by local resources or wait for an airplane. Good example is that the US is working on hypersonic missiles and deploying them around the world.
    - tomrod 2y ago
      CubeSats are certainly useful, but Starlink, Planet, and Maxer are expensive to position just right. VLEO has its uses.
- uSoldering 2y ago
  You are missing the forest for the trees. This is an aerospace vehicle capable of flying in the air indefinitely. How many drones can you fit on a vehicle? How many vehicles can you fly at once? 60 miles is already reachable by the cheapest and most deadly weapon class of short-range drones. And now all they need to do is fall down. At freefall that is 140 seconds until it reaches the ground.
  - brookst 2y ago
    You come across as fairly confrontational. But I don’t understand the point. Satellites already fly indefinitely and can drop payloads of kinetic energy weapons. Why all the complexity of VLEO and drones? What could you that’s impossible with other, simpler, already-extant weapons systems?
    - uSoldering 2y ago
      I am voicing my opinion in which I believe in strongly, nothing more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM
      - BalloonsInVLEO 2y ago
        We already have fully autonomous space drone swarms armed with nuclear warheads, we just keep them underground/underwater because...humans are weird.
      - rsynnott 2y ago
        I mean... okay, but no matter how much you believe in it, it doesn't make any sense. This would offer no advantage over conventional satellites for this application (ie it would be similarly terrible for it). Are you thinking of something like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#2003_United_States_Air_Force_proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#2003_Unite... Again, you probably wouldn't bother with VLEO for that, too much extra complexity with no obvious advantage vs VLEO.
    - zardo 2y ago
      > Why all the complexity of VLEO and drones? What could you that’s impossible with other, simpler, already-extant weapons systems? Assuming the tech works, you can move the sat to any orbital plane, making it significantly harder for an adversary to track all of your vleo assets.
  - ianburrell 2y ago
    The drones would burn up. The satellites are in space and moving at space speeds. If the satellite drops anything, it stays in orbit and slowly decays. Dropping anything requires a large rocket to get out of orbit. The payload would still be going fast and deal with re-entry. Also, the article doesn't say that they are at 60mi, just that VLEO goes down to 60mi. The satellites are likely to be higher because there is less drag.
throwup238 2y ago
What kind of drones are you thinking, other than just good ol' missiles? Anything even remotely drone shaped would have to be covered in so many aerogel reentry tiles and thermal insulation I'm not sure there would be any usable weight left for a payload.
rsynnott 2y ago
It doesn't seem terribly practical as one? The 'drones' would still have to re-enter, at, well, impressive speed. So you're not talking about terribly practical drones; more something like an ICBM warhead. Even if this were practical, why use weird expensive highly-visible VLEO satellites rather than conventional LEO satellites? I can't see what advantage the VLEO stuff would give you here.
flanked-evergl 2y ago
Based.
- literalAardvark 2y ago
  As long as "based" is taken to mean "confidently wrong", yeah. Based af

Why would I want a drone swarm in VLEO? That seems like a really hard place to effectively use drones from compared to pretty much any alternative.

tomrod 2y ago
Quick deployment into a battlefield or disaster zone anywhere on earth is one idea. Connection, remote sensing, and mesh networking are useful.
- ianburrell 2y ago
  There is no difference between these and higher satellites. It still super expensive to get them down because have to stop orbital speed. If anything, VLEO is worse cause they are going faster. Not to mention the cost of getting into space in first place. Plus, need lots of satellites to support dropping things anywhere on world. Also, it is rare to have anything that needs 30 min response time. Most things can be handled by local resources or wait for an airplane. Good example is that the US is working on hypersonic missiles and deploying them around the world.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    CubeSats are certainly useful, but Starlink, Planet, and Maxer are expensive to position just right. VLEO has its uses.
uSoldering 2y ago
You are missing the forest for the trees. This is an aerospace vehicle capable of flying in the air indefinitely. How many drones can you fit on a vehicle? How many vehicles can you fly at once? 60 miles is already reachable by the cheapest and most deadly weapon class of short-range drones. And now all they need to do is fall down. At freefall that is 140 seconds until it reaches the ground.
- brookst 2y ago
  You come across as fairly confrontational. But I don’t understand the point. Satellites already fly indefinitely and can drop payloads of kinetic energy weapons. Why all the complexity of VLEO and drones? What could you that’s impossible with other, simpler, already-extant weapons systems?
  - uSoldering 2y ago
    I am voicing my opinion in which I believe in strongly, nothing more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM
    - BalloonsInVLEO 2y ago
      We already have fully autonomous space drone swarms armed with nuclear warheads, we just keep them underground/underwater because...humans are weird.
    - rsynnott 2y ago
      I mean... okay, but no matter how much you believe in it, it doesn't make any sense. This would offer no advantage over conventional satellites for this application (ie it would be similarly terrible for it). Are you thinking of something like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#2003_United_States_Air_Force_proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#2003_Unite... Again, you probably wouldn't bother with VLEO for that, too much extra complexity with no obvious advantage vs VLEO.
  - zardo 2y ago
    > Why all the complexity of VLEO and drones? What could you that’s impossible with other, simpler, already-extant weapons systems? Assuming the tech works, you can move the sat to any orbital plane, making it significantly harder for an adversary to track all of your vleo assets.
- ianburrell 2y ago
  The drones would burn up. The satellites are in space and moving at space speeds. If the satellite drops anything, it stays in orbit and slowly decays. Dropping anything requires a large rocket to get out of orbit. The payload would still be going fast and deal with re-entry. Also, the article doesn't say that they are at 60mi, just that VLEO goes down to 60mi. The satellites are likely to be higher because there is less drag.

throwup238 2y ago

What kind of drones are you thinking, other than just good ol' missiles? Anything even remotely drone shaped would have to be covered in so many aerogel reentry tiles and thermal insulation I'm not sure there would be any usable weight left for a payload.

rsynnott 2y ago

It doesn't seem terribly practical as one? The 'drones' would still have to re-enter, at, well, impressive speed. So you're not talking about terribly practical drones; more something like an ICBM warhead. Even if this were practical, why use weird expensive highly-visible VLEO satellites rather than conventional LEO satellites? I can't see what advantage the VLEO stuff would give you here.

flanked-evergl 2y ago

Based.

literalAardvark 2y ago
As long as "based" is taken to mean "confidently wrong", yeah. Based af