A nice use of blockchain indeed. I’d add some machine learning to round it up.
For collecting weather data, tiny satellites measure up to expensive cousins
11–20 of 21 posts
Re: For collecting weather data, tiny satellites measure up to expensive cousins
#12A nice use of blockchain indeed. I’d add some machine learning to round it up.
Does this count?
Re: For collecting weather data, tiny satellites measure up to expensive cousins
#13As a software developer, the thing I love about the cubesat concept is the presumably reduced iteration time. The idea of waiting for years only to find out something went wrong once the satellite is in orbit seems absurd (sorry, GOES-17). That said, isn't the whole concept of cubesats tied to the idea that they're not in a geostationary orbit? There's something to be said for the simplicity of "point at this spot in…
If you're curious about this, check out Planet Lab's. http://planet.com/
They have a fleet of almost 200 cubesats now, in addition to higher resolution satellites from TerraBella. There's an api that you should be able to experiment with.
Re: For collecting weather data, tiny satellites measure up to expensive cousins
#14As a software developer, the thing I love about the cubesat concept is the presumably reduced iteration time. The idea of waiting for years only to find out something went wrong once the satellite is in orbit seems absurd (sorry, GOES-17). That said, isn't the whole concept of cubesats tied to the idea that they're not in a geostationary orbit? There's something to be said for the simplicity of "point at this spot in…
If you're curious about this, check out Planet Lab's. http://planet.com/ They have a fleet of almost 200 cubesats now, in addition to higher resolution satellites from TerraBella. There's an api that you should be able to experiment with.
Sadly, their time resolution (at least at the free tier) is awful.
Would be quite an interesting challenge to interpolate a large fleet of cubesat's imagery into decent time resolution (the goes satellites regularly do 30 sec time resolution ) over a large geographic area.
edit: The cube sats in the study are only microwave as well, which are compared to the noaa-20 series which arent the correct comparison really.These cubesats would fit in better with the GPM constellation for which global coverage is pretty good, but more coverage would be good. The biggest problem as mentioned is calibration. Accuracy of the dataset over long periods of time is Paramount.
Re: For collecting weather data, tiny satellites measure up to expensive cousins
#15As a software developer, the thing I love about the cubesat concept is the presumably reduced iteration time. The idea of waiting for years only to find out something went wrong once the satellite is in orbit seems absurd (sorry, GOES-17). That said, isn't the whole concept of cubesats tied to the idea that they're not in a geostationary orbit? There's something to be said for the simplicity of "point at this spot in…
Re: For collecting weather data, tiny satellites measure up to expensive cousins
#16My big concern is that we still don't have a solution for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome . Lots and lots of small satellites brings us closer to that potential catastrophe. My big hope is that SpaceX's BFR can potentially launch and maneuver cheaply enough to take dead satellites out of orbit in a cost effective manner. Hopefully they manage to launch, and someone is willing to pay to make it happen..…
For small satellites and low orbits, drag brings them down.
There is lots of potential for low mass deorbit devices for other satellites. These projects just need funding to iterate them to work.
Re: For collecting weather data, tiny satellites measure up to expensive cousins
#17As a software developer, the thing I love about the cubesat concept is the presumably reduced iteration time. The idea of waiting for years only to find out something went wrong once the satellite is in orbit seems absurd (sorry, GOES-17). That said, isn't the whole concept of cubesats tied to the idea that they're not in a geostationary orbit? There's something to be said for the simplicity of "point at this spot in…
"The bottom line is that this tiny satellite collected data that is as good as the data from a billion-dollar government satellite." -- It is strange that this doesn't trigger anyone else's alarm bells. Did anyone even care to show the exact difference in data between these two sources? Where is the evidence there is a significant figure accuracy difference?
Re: For collecting weather data, tiny satellites measure up to expensive cousins
#18My big concern is that we still don't have a solution for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome . Lots and lots of small satellites brings us closer to that potential catastrophe. My big hope is that SpaceX's BFR can potentially launch and maneuver cheaply enough to take dead satellites out of orbit in a cost effective manner. Hopefully they manage to launch, and someone is willing to pay to make it happen..…
Cubesats at their typical altitudes have deorbit times ranging from 6 months to 20 years, with regulation (in the USA at least) mandating a deorbit within 25 years to receive a license. The fear of Kessler syndrome is much more relevant to launching large geostationary satellites that may break apart than for cubesats.
That is good to know. Thanks.
Re: For collecting weather data, tiny satellites measure up to expensive cousins
#19Re: For collecting weather data, tiny satellites measure up to expensive cousins
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
In LEO, that deorbit mechanism is called drag.
Any ideas how long it takes to deorbit?
It depends on the altitude/orbital height. Some are made to come down after only 5 years, I think most are restricted to no more than 25 years and head for a 20 year target. Of course just a small amount of on-board propellant could extend the time further boosting it a bit after a few years of drag.