3 ms·
Cue the ultimate low orbit satellite > It is undesirable to have a definition that will change with improving technology, so one might argue that the correct w
by the8472 9mo ago
Cue the ultimate low orbit satellite
> It is undesirable to have a definition that will change with improving technology, so one might argue
that the correct way to define space is to pick the lowest altitude at which any satellite can remain in orbit,
and thus the lowest ballistic coefficent possible should be adopted - a ten-meter-diameter solid sphere of
pure osmium, perhaps, which would have B of 8×10^−6 m^2/kg and an effective Karman line of z(-4) at the
tropopause
from https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.07894 https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.07894
- fc417fc802 9mo agoAssuming I did the math right such a satellite would only run $265 million USD for the materials (launch costs for an object of ~9k kg left as an exercise for the reader). That's far more affordable than I had expected. Amusing thought.
- jacquesm 9mo agoThat would make a hell of a bang when it eventually deorbits.