Gå til innhold

Nå skal Samsung også levere Internett med satelitter


Anbefalte innlegg

Videoannonse
Annonse

 

 

Samsungs foreslåtte «rom-Internett» skal visstnok være i stand til å håndtere en samlet trafikk på én zettabyte med data per måned, som tilsvarer 200 gigabyte per måned for 5 milliarder brukere.

 

Synes ikke dette høres så mye ut, dersom ørten store firmaer spiser opp flere tusen brukerkvoter hver.

Lenke til kommentar

 

 

 Samsungs foreslåtte «rom-Internett» skal visstnok være i stand til å håndtere en samlet trafikk på én zettabyte med data per måned, som tilsvarer 200 gigabyte per måned for 5 milliarder brukere.

 

Synes ikke dette høres så mye ut, dersom ørten store firmaer spiser opp flere tusen brukerkvoter hver.

Hvis det er tilfelle at all data trafikken i 2013 lå på en exabyte, så e det 1000 ganger det globale behovet. Det burde holde en stund.

Lenke til kommentar

 

 

 

 Samsungs foreslåtte «rom-Internett» skal visstnok være i stand til å håndtere en samlet trafikk på én zettabyte med data per måned, som tilsvarer 200 gigabyte per måned for 5 milliarder brukere.

 

Synes ikke dette høres så mye ut, dersom ørten store firmaer spiser opp flere tusen brukerkvoter hver.

Hvis det er tilfelle at all data trafikken i 2013 lå på en exabyte, så e det 1000 ganger det globale behovet. Det burde holde en stund.

 

 

Jeg er tilbøyelig til å forbli uenig med deg. Husk "Bill Gates uttalelser om lagringsbehovet". Han tok grundig feil. Og på samme måte så vil du måtte spise "hatten din" for den uttalelsen. Godt du benyttet "Det burde holde en stund".

 

Det koster penger å skyte opp satelitter, og når man først går til det steg å utføre en oppskyting, så ønsker man at satelittprosjektet skal være fremtidsrettet nok.

 

Hvor lenge holder en satelitt seg i bane. Det er et vesentlig argument her, som jeg ikke vet svaret på. Men i en bedre situasjon, så ville vel en 200 - 300 år være flott. Kan hende komponentene ombord i satelittene blir utslitt leeeeeeeeeeeeenge  før satelitten går ut av bane en gang. Eller at satelitten går ut av bane før komponentene blir utslitt.

 

Så man skal vel ikke se helt vekk i fra at du er innenfor likevel med: "Det burde holde en stund".

 

Allikevel så har man sett eksponentiell utvikling på flere områder før, så at det også kan skje på bredbåndsbehovet skal man ikke se vekk i fra.

 

Får vel google det da:

https://www.google.no/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=how%20long%20does%20a%20satellite%20stay%20in%20orbit

 

Kilde: http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5583/can-an-artificial-satellite-stay-in-orbit-forever

 

 

 

The answer is a solid 'no'. There is no way a satellite could stay in orbit indefinitely. I'm still not sure what you mean by "solar energy," but that will not work forever. Everything fails, in due course. Any mechanisms onboard will eventually break down, and, over time, the satellite will come crashing to Earth. The only way around this would be to give the satellite an orbital boost and/or repair it, but that is (in my opinion) a cheap loophole. The satellite would not be self-sufficient.

To add in what David Hammen and TildalWave were teaching me: The satellite could be thrown out of orbit by perturbations from another body and sent somewhere completely different, then potentially recapture by another celestial body. Then the forces of orbital decay will go at it again, (and as TildalWave would say) ad nauseum.

answered Oct 11 '14 at 16:32
a41Ip.png?s=32&g=1
HDE 226868

1,7081629

 
2  
Satellites won't necessarily come crashing to Earth. I suspect a number of the spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit will eventually get ejected from the Earth-Moon system. –  David Hammen Oct 11 '14 at 17:41
    
@DavidHammen I might try to add that. What processes would cause such an ejection? –  HDE 226868 Oct 11 '14 at 17:43
1  
There are all kinds of things that change satellites' orbits. Perturbations from the Moon, the Sun, and the Earth's non-spherical gravity field. Tidal perturbations. Radiation pressure and its cousin, the Yarkovsky effect. The Kozai mechanism. These can change the shape of the orbit, the orientation of the orbit, and even the size of the orbit. As I said in another comment, once a satellite loses the ability to control its state it becomes a fun toy to play with. That is, until it crashes into the Earth, the Moon, or is ejected. – David Hammen Oct 11 '14 at 19:17
1  
And if it's ejected it'll be in a heliocentric orbit similar to that of the Earth-Moon system and can be later recaptured, ejected again, ad nauseam. Some funny orbits can come out of such dynamics, e.g. horseshoe orbits between L3 to L5 Lagrange points, tadpole orbits between any of these points and the Earth-Moon, around Lagrange points,.. or any other even more bizarre, chaotic, non-resonant orbits. And given an extraordinarily lucky set of circumstances, in orbital mechanics version of the infinite monkey theorem, it might even be ejected out of the Solar system and overtake Voyager 1. :) –  TildalWave Oct 13 '14 at 0:19
    
@TildalWave "ad nauseum"? Love it. But overtake Voyager 1? That would have to involve one heck of a gravitational slingshot. –  HDE 226868 Oct 13 '14 at 0:24
    
@DavidHammen I added in some of what you said. –  HDE 226868 Oct 13 '14 at 0:25
    
@HDE226868 Yes, one helluva final slingshot after many more before it in an aphelion rising ping pong, possibly involving more than just two massive celestials, one of which likely the Sun itself and the satellite on a close shave trajectory past it. Infinitesimally small chances of that ever happening, thus the reference to the infinite monkey theorem, but not exactly impossible. But the satellite's instruments wouldn't survive it. Voyagers couldn't afford such luxury during their Grand Tour mission. –  TildalWave Oct 13 '14 at 0:43
    
@TildalWave I'd love to make a simulation of that one day. –  HDE 226868 Oct 13 '14 at 0:57
    
Follow up question: could a space elevator stay up forever? –  tlehman Oct 14 '14 at 19:45
    
Your first paragraph says over time the sat will come crashing to the earth. Thus reinforcing the questioner's misconception of an inevitable downward spiral. Your more accurate 2nd paragraph contradicts your incorrect first paragraph. –  HopDavid Oct 15 '14 at 4:05
    
@HopDavid Will edit later. I really need to clean up this answer. –  HDE 226868 Oct 15 '14 at 18:12
    
@HDE226868 For one example, here's a GIF animation of the J002E3 object that was initially mistaken for an asteroid, until they did spectral analysis and realized it is covered with a white titanium oxide paint that stages of Saturn V used. It's a S-IVB third stage of Apollo 12. But notice how it was recaptured by Earth-Moon in 2002 as it went past Sun-Earth Lagrange point 1, and then ejected back into heliocentric regime by a lunar swingby in mid 2003. Funny things can happen in orbital / celestial mechanics. ;) –  TildalWave May 26 at 16:13

 

 

 

Endret av G
Lenke til kommentar
  • 3 måneder senere...
  • Hvem er aktive   0 medlemmer

    • Ingen innloggede medlemmer aktive
×
×
  • Opprett ny...