4 ms·

So it costs $85k to launch such cubesat. Too expensive for almost all of us. But if the cost comes down to say $5k, I'd probably be interested in this as a hobb

So it costs $85k to launch such cubesat. Too expensive for almost all of us. But if the cost comes down to say $5k, I'd probably be interested in this as a hobby project.

abirch 1y ago
The question is how to deal with all of the space debris. It seems like they should factor in the total cost (retrieving anything that goes up) and not only the cost to launch it.
- treyd 1y ago
  Sattelites in LEO without the ability to boost their orbits back up will fall out of orbit in a few years due to natural atmospheric resistance. Exactly how long it takes depends on the shape and mass of the sattelite. It's of very very low Kessler syndrome risk.
- kulahan 1y ago
  It all falls back down eventually. Anything too small will stay up for some time, but even the half-billion copper needles put in space by the US have almost all come down. Wikipedia says there are <50 clumps of needles left.
- junon 1y ago
  Cubesats in most cases must have documented materials that are burnt up in the atmosphere upon reentry, for this exact reason. They don't stay up there forever.
- mbonnet 1y ago
  FCC (or FAA, can't remember, that's systems engineering's job) mandates that all satellites, including cubesats, be able to deorbit within 5 years of the end of their mission with some confidence rate (90%, iirc). Almost all cubesats are launched at about a 550km x 550km orbit or lower circular orbit. Cubesats (most satellites, in fact) will deorbit naturally within a few years (almost definitely <= 5Y) at that altitude due to orbit decay, mostly from drag. Now, some cubesats will have onboard propulsion, which they'll use to extend their mission by burning back into higher orbits, allowing them to still naturally decay at the end of their mission. Indeed, they can even use remaining propellant to speed their orbit's decay.

4 ms·

So it costs $85k to launch such cubesat. Too expensive for almost all of us. But if the cost comes down to say $5k, I'd probably be interested in this as a hobb

by kadushka 1y ago

So it costs $85k to launch such cubesat. Too expensive for almost all of us. But if the cost comes down to say $5k, I'd probably be interested in this as a hobby project.

abirch 1y ago
The question is how to deal with all of the space debris. It seems like they should factor in the total cost (retrieving anything that goes up) and not only the cost to launch it.
- treyd 1y ago
  Sattelites in LEO without the ability to boost their orbits back up will fall out of orbit in a few years due to natural atmospheric resistance. Exactly how long it takes depends on the shape and mass of the sattelite. It's of very very low Kessler syndrome risk.
- kulahan 1y ago
  It all falls back down eventually. Anything too small will stay up for some time, but even the half-billion copper needles put in space by the US have almost all come down. Wikipedia says there are <50 clumps of needles left.
- junon 1y ago
  Cubesats in most cases must have documented materials that are burnt up in the atmosphere upon reentry, for this exact reason. They don't stay up there forever.
- mbonnet 1y ago
  FCC (or FAA, can't remember, that's systems engineering's job) mandates that all satellites, including cubesats, be able to deorbit within 5 years of the end of their mission with some confidence rate (90%, iirc). Almost all cubesats are launched at about a 550km x 550km orbit or lower circular orbit. Cubesats (most satellites, in fact) will deorbit naturally within a few years (almost definitely <= 5Y) at that altitude due to orbit decay, mostly from drag. Now, some cubesats will have onboard propulsion, which they'll use to extend their mission by burning back into higher orbits, allowing them to still naturally decay at the end of their mission. Indeed, they can even use remaining propellant to speed their orbit's decay.