The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Space => Topic started by: Elderberry on January 30, 2020, 12:14:38 pm
-
American Military News by Marcus Weisgerber 1/29/2020
One satellite per week. That’s what the Pentagon wants industry to provide under its plans to orbit seven new constellations — each with a different function — by the end of 2020.
The satellites would be smaller (“a few hundred kilogramsâ€), cheaper (about $10 million each), and shorter-lived (about five years) than today’s typical military satellites, which can weigh tons and consume billions of dollars but which are expected to operate for decades.
“We are talking [about] technology that is available to fly within 18 to 24 months,†Derek Tournear, director of the Space Development Agency, said during a Tuesday briefing at the Pentagon.
Dubbed the National Defense Space Architecture, the program is the first big initiative of Tournear’s brand-new agency. It aims to orbit “several dozen satellites†through 2022, and then keep going, launching dozens of additional satellites every two years, he said.
The initial NDSA satellites would improve the military’s ability to detect and strike objects like surface-to-air missile launchers. Others would detect and track hypersonic missiles, and pass the data to earthbound missile interceptors.
More: https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/01/pentagon-wants-to-build-one-satellite-per-week/ (https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/01/pentagon-wants-to-build-one-satellite-per-week/)
-
I am guessing that makes sense. Why spend billions on technology that is outdated before even half of it's useful lifespan is reached? Spend "smaller" money to build smaller satellites that can be replaced more often as technology advances, for less money.
-
So 7 constellations and each constellation has how many $10 million satellites? 10? 100?
Just exactly how are we saving money?
Not buying it...
-
So 7 constellations and each constellation has how many $10 million satellites? 10? 100?
Just exactly how are we saving money?
Not buying it...
@EdinVA
Saving money by building 10 million buck satellites instead of larger 50 million or more satellites. I am guessing a considerable part of the expense is in the launch,and volume and weight is everything when it comes to determining how big the rocket and nose cone is going to be. I am GUESSING smaller sats are going to be even cheaper to boost into space now,given the rockets of today that can go up,deliver a payload,and return to Earth to be used again.
-
@EdinVA
Saving money by building 10 million buck satellites instead of larger 50 million or more satellites. I am guessing a considerable part of the expense is in the launch,and volume and weight is everything when it comes to determining how big the rocket and nose cone is going to be. I am GUESSING smaller sats are going to be even cheaper to boost into space now,given the rockets of today that can go up,deliver a payload,and return to Earth to be used again.
I wonder at what point the world puts so many satellites up there, that they start bumping into each other.
-
I wonder at what point the world puts so many satellites up there, that they start bumping into each other.
@catfish1957
Space is one big-ass place so I haven't wondered about that as much as I have wondered about how many sats we can have orbiting the earth before they start blocking each others signals.
Or maybe even blocking the sun and the moon,because that seems to be where we are heading.