
Tiny satellites ushering in a new space revolution - binoyxj
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-06-29/the-tiny-satellites-ushering-in-the-new-space-revolution
======
kumarvvr
That is a pretty cool engineering feet. Never knew a shoe box sized telescope
can give such detailed pictures.

They have sent about 200 satellites, cost "six figures" each, so an estimate
of 200,000 a piece, they have spent about 40 million dollars, excluding the
price of launches.

The data collected is definitely worth the price IMO. Imagine the ability to
monitor storms and hurricanes, analyze their data and update our climate
models.

They have about 80 million in funding alone, which is incredible.

I wonder what else is possible with so many eyes in the sky.

~~~
westmeal
Global surveillance networks.

~~~
659087
"Google/Facebook: Please step outside and look up for 10 seconds to verify
your identity"

------
patall
That sounds very scary to me. If they don't care whether a single satellite is
working or not, they are basically asking Kessler syndrom to start within
years. Multiple start-ups (etc.) and the article covers not even have a tiny
bit about what happens at the end of life of the satellites, what could go
wrong ...

~~~
currydove
The other comments that are replying to you have it fairly accurate. It's not
widely known but it isn't a secret either: the point of the doves is to be
deployed en masse and with more capability with every subsequent build. A
quick refresh in the constellation means there is fresh hardware in space
every so often.

This means the intention is indeed for re-entry into the atmosphere after the
operational lifespan of the dove has lapsed. (They physically stay in space
only a few years depending on altitude, orbit, exposed atmospheric drag and a
couple of other things)

The last two flocks alone have put close to 130 sats in space so the debris
issue is something that is taken quite seriously at the company.

Source: I work at planet. I generally lurk on HN but I created an account just
now to reply to this :)

EDIT: Relevant blog post from a couple years ago -
[https://www.planet.com/pulse/keeping-space-clean-
responsible...](https://www.planet.com/pulse/keeping-space-clean-responsible-
satellite-fleet-operations/)

~~~
a_d
Unrelated and probably a stupid question -- but I am curious. What would these
satellites see if they looked the other way - i.e. Outwards towards space.
Would they see just darkness? Some stars? Lots of stars? Would you know?

~~~
teh_klev
I'd hazard a guess at probably not a lot. The onboard telescopes and cameras
are likely calibrated to look at and focus on specific sized patches (say 15km
by 15km) of the earth between certain altitudes (say LEO distance + -450m to
9000m).

Turning them to look outwards might just capture something if it happened to
be inside the size of patch and whatever the telescope/camera combo can focus
on (which would be the LEO distance plus or minute a bit). But space is big,
even at 500km above the earth, so the likelihood of finding something in your
field of view such as another satellite is probably quite low. Stars and other
astronomical objects might be too dim/out of focus.

[Disclaimer: not a rocket scientist]

------
PaulMest
I took a tour of their SF office last year. It's a pretty impressive
operation. The satellites are indeed quite small; I always compare them to a
loaf of bread with some wings. The people that work there are pretty sharp and
seem to be very excited about what they do.

I was one of the first people to consume their v0 and v1 APIs to get their
analytic imagery dataset. It was more challenging than it should have been to
transfer ~100TB into our compute cluster. I haven't touched their API in about
7 or 8 months, but from my last meeting with them they said they have
eliminated my top pain point. Looking forward to seeing more great things from
them.

~~~
terravion
There's a lot more to do in remote sensing, but I think your comment that
there's an API for looking at the world is perhaps the more accurate way to
describe the power of this moment in technology history. It is a great feat
Planet has accomplished.

~~~
rmason
Agree a lot more is possible with remote sensing. I worked with it in ag in
80's and 90's, the biggest problems were:

1\. Price was to high for the value we could offer

2\. 40% chance we wouldn't get a usable image of the field due to cloud cover

3\. Its one data point, you can see a problem but can't always figure out
what's wrong.

I'm really hopeful for drones that can operate below the cloud cover and AI
that can take bare soil images, tile maps, soil tests and provide a more
intelligent answer for fixing the problems.

What the farmer wants is a prescription with a shot at a decent ROI.

------
digikata
This is a good Embedded.fm podcast episode interviewing one of the professors
that was key in starting the trend of small satellites.

[http://embedded.fm/episodes/195](http://embedded.fm/episodes/195)

------
aphextron
What's the best way for someone to get involved in space hardware?

~~~
currydove
Materials Science. Tinkering with off the shelf hardware (even start with
RaspberryPis). Systems Integration (legit systems integration, not the shitty
title Accenture/Deloitte/Generic Consulting Company gives you for working at
an Enterprise client). FPGAs. Electrical Engineering. Thermal Engineering is
huge. or the usual: Software Engineering. (because satellites need software
too)

Any of the above to name a few

------
nwrk
[https://spaceknow.com/](https://spaceknow.com/)

------
hi41
Kindly can someone tell me how these snall satellites are able to remain in
orbit. Don't we need jet propulsion to have them stay in orbit and not fall
into earth? I don't much about satellites.

~~~
Ajedi32
Not really. Once something is in orbit, it's just going to naturally stay in
orbit unless acted on by an outside force. That's just basic inertia.

There is some amount of atmospheric drag in low earth orbit which will
eventually cause satellites at that altitude to lose speed and fall back to
earth, but that drag is small enough that the satellites should be able to
remain in orbit for years without needing any additional thrust.

------
jessriedel
This article is in desperate need of a r/spacex-style bullet point summary.

~~~
sjcsjc
Yes, a tl;dr would be very much appreciated if anyone were to have the time
and inclination.

