How to launch satellites in orbit

[JohnnyDoe]

Ofc, not one LEO or GEO is enough and not only because of the regional coverage or lack of it - it's about redundancy and resilience.

But, why GEO? And, what is the purpose? It's okay for Inmarsat, but nothing else

One GEO is enough as it can be accessed from half of the planet. I don’t want to send a constellation of satellites into LEO. Redundancy can be achieved within the same satellite.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Just to be extra safe, the satellite will contain a data destruction device Patent for secure erasing of data (which of course also works in space and can be activated from Earth)

 

[mraleph]

One GEO is enough as it can be accessed from half of the planet. I don’t want to send a constellation of satellites into LEO. Redundancy can be achieved within the same satellite.

Several dozen of LEO satellites will cost as one GEO. The price difference is due to launch vehicle.

Just to be extra safe, the satellite will contain a data destruction device Patent for secure erasing of data (which of course also works in space and can be activated from Earth)

CA or HA setup may be configured, but it's prudent to have location redundancy, not only component one.

 

[void]

CA or HA setup may be configured, but it's prudent to have location redundancy, not only component one.

I have no idea what this is about, nor aspire for it ... however this clearly depends on the purpose, doesn't it?

 

[mraleph]

CA/HA or Mr JohnnyDoe's project?

Whatever his purpose may be, redundancy should never be only component wise.

 

[brianK]

Yes, what’s the problem? Plenty of people do that already, I’m not talking of exploring Uranus.

Okay, and what should be the benefit of doing so? I try to understand it

 

[JohnnyDoe]

Okay, and what should be the benefit of doing so? I try to understand it

For example, you could store data in space.

 

[cckuhqilfownnfctux]

For example, you could store data in space.

what are the benefits of storing data in space compared to storing data in the IPFS or any blockchain?

 

[void]

what are the benefits of storing data in space compared to storing data in the IPFS or any blockchain?

additional physical barrier?

 

[cckuhqilfownnfctux]

additional physical barrier?

that's not a benefit but an obstacle (not only for the 3-letter guys but also for you as a user).
just compare the ease and speed of downloading data from IPFS/blockchains to downloading data from the orbit.

 

[JohnnyDoe]

what are the benefits of storing data in space compared to storing data in the IPFS or any blockchain?

The storage device becomes physically unreachable (with the current technology it is impossible to physically access a satellite).

 

[void]

that's not a benefit but an obstacle (not only for the 3-letter guys but also for you as a user).
just compare the ease and speed of downloading data from IPFS/blockchains to downloading data from the orbit.

impossible to discuss without use case

 

[JohnnyDoe]

just compare the ease and speed of downloading data from IPFS/blockchains to downloading data from the orbit.

The difference is less than 300ms.

 

[cckuhqilfownnfctux]

The storage device becomes physically unreachable (with the current technology it is impossible to physically access a satellite).

the data in the IPFS/blockchain is unreachable too, unless the "bad guys" would raid every single node which is theoretically possible but practically unachievable.

 

[mraleph]

For example, you could store data in space.

There are use cases when satellites have integrated storage function. But, that's related to sqlite database with relatively low capacity - orbital trajectory, busters' management, remote login authentication. Those parts are protected from solar radiation and heat generated by busters.

You would be able to mount storage server within a satellite, but it should be with all components redundancy. Consider that server CPU is not intended to have redundancy, so when one fails, portion of RAM and other components would be inaccessible. So, a blade server network may be optimal for your case.

GEO orbital trajectory wouldn't degrade like LEO and MEO. But, other detrimental forces will impact operational readiness. Beside that, you would need to legally structure the whole project and maintain a ground control for orbital trajectory management, whatever orbit you potentially select.

But, without redundant satellite, you would became a history first space gambler There is no Zurich insurance in space - what if a meteor hits your one and only satellite

The storage device becomes physically unreachable (with the current technology it is impossible to physically access a satellite).

Well, not quite. To access, maybe. To render it inoperable, yes. Both Russian Federation and People's Republic of China have anti-satellite weapons

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blo...ould-require-a-firm-us-response-not-hysteria/

The difference is less than 300ms.

Nominal latency for GEO is 700ms and for LEO 50ms - excluding atmospheric and ionospheric influence.

 

[Clank]

It would be very expensive as it’s very difficult to remove the heat.