4 ms·
A couple things stuck out to me about the numbers: 700 satellites weighing 250 pounds and costing $1M each. 1. Is this being considered because it is the best
by cmsmith 12y ago
A couple things stuck out to me about the numbers: 700 satellites weighing 250 pounds and costing $1M each.
1. Is this being considered because it is the best way to make use of the excess capacity on paid Falcon launches? If you have, say, 50 CRS launches to the ISS planned, can you tack on one internet satellite to each and get a constellation, or would they all end up redundantly in the same orbit?
2. $1M / 250lbs is $250/ounce. That number seems high to me which just goes to show how optimized these things are - very little structural material is needed to hold together a pile of electrical components in space.
- dogma1138 12y agoAtmospheric drag is actually quite an issue for satellites in low orbits. Space is not empty there are tons of dust and ice particles out there especially in the intended orbit. An exaggerated analogy will be dragging it in the sand but it's not that far off. But most importantly satellites are not built to survive in space they are built to survive launch (and into-orbit maneuvering) which is by far the most violent maneuvering any man made objects go through especially when you don't have a human cargo to care about. 250$ an ounce for a satellite with sufficiently enough advanced equipment to serve as a high bandwidth internet relay is actually extremely cheap to the point of being almost a fraud unless they cut out the R&D costs from the calculation and spread the buy-in and manufacturing costs across 1000's of units over several decades.