High-Tech Microsatellite

aebrain writes "The recent launch of the FedSat microsatellite will have significant long-term consequences for Ka-band comms in remote areas (ie cheap 2GB broadband anywhere) and Re-Configurable Hardware in space -- which could lead to cheaper, more reliable deep space missions. The latest news (including pix of telemetry) is here, with some details on the hardware and software here. Also available, a Rogue's Gallery of the Australian team that put it together."

Comments

Kangaroo powered?

[acehole]

Why of course, we Australians are always finding new inventive ways of using one of our country's icons in power production.

We eat them, we wear them, they fuel our cars and micro satellites. What more could we use them for? If there are more uses by gosh we'll find 'em.

Eh?

[The J Kid]

[..] (ie cheap 2GB broadband anywhere) [..]

Eh? Who's that? the article just states that the sats are re-configurable, so they can be, uhm, upgraded. Ok.

But how does that work out to having cheap 2GB broadband anywhere?

'Anywhere' doesn't imply that it'll have world coverage, right?

I'm confused, please un-confuse me!

I don't get it

[watzinaneihm]

How can a single satellite in Low earth orbit of period 100 minutes, that too a Polar orbit (So i gather from the pictures of its tracks) , provide internet?
it would bew sweeping the earth north south every 100 minutes and earth is rotating every 24 hrs , how long is your connection going to be up? Why not put up one of these in Geo-stat orbits (or is it too high up) ?
I would assume you would have to have a bunch of these sweeping hte earth and talking to each other all the time to get any sort of permanent link.
Or maybe I don't know enough?

Oooh, High-Tech

[SEWilco]

"High-Tech Microsatellite"

I sure am glad that all the microsatellites based on vacuum-tube technology will soon be retired.

(PS: let's ignore the TWTs)

How "cheap" is "cheap"?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Building, launching and maintaining a telecoms satellite is not something that you can be done on a shoestring budget; these things cost money.

According to the second link given, the satellite project has a budget of AUS $20million over seven years. And given that the majority of Australia's population lives in urban centres, there are going to be relatively few people using this satellite as their broadband service provider.

High costs and low potential usage doesn't exactly suggest that this will be a cheap solution - quite the opposite in fact.

Quoting from the linked page:

Its purposes are: to establish Australian capability in microsatellite technologies; to develop expertise necessary for sustaining those industries and profiting from them; to test and develop Australian-developed intellectual property; and to provide a research platform for Australian space-science, communication and GPS studies.

Note, it's described as a research platform, not a commercial development. (Perhaps this is where the cheap comes from, perhaps the broadband service is subsidised in some way.)

Bottom line: I don't see this benefiting all but a few and even then it's a platform that's just getting off the ground (if you'll pardon the pun)and likely to be problematic rather than one that delivers rock-solid reliability.

Of course, IANAA (I am not an Australian), so would any of our more leaned, koala-loving friends care to give their perspective?

Re:How "cheap" is "cheap"?

[WIAKywbfatw]

Duh. I am aware of Australia's geographical size and the cost of laying cable but I was hoping someone (Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?) would know just how much of a dent this would put into a potential subscriber's pocket and how much less of a dent it puts than the existing alternatives.

The good thing about cable is that, once it's been laid, it's relatively inexpensive to maintain and quite reliable. I'm not sure that's the case here but, nevertheless, it'd be interesting to see the numbers.

Re:How "cheap" is "cheap"?

[Bruce Perens]

Building, launching and maintaining a telecoms satellite is not something that you can be done on a shoestring budget

Unless you count these guys, and microsatellites are old hat to them.

Bruce

Re:How "cheap" is "cheap"?

[aebrain]

Average amount of cable required per remote rural subscriber in Australia is about 30 km. That's the average. Many people in the Outback have their nearest neighbour over 100 miles away. 97% of the population lives in 13% of the area (source). So we're talking about 600,000 people - at most 200,000 subscribers - in an area equivalent to the USA, less Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.
Existing LEOSats, such as Iridium and Globalstar can't even do 56kbps. But the Ka-band - if it works - may be enough to do 2 Gbps. That's what the experimental communications payload is for, amongst other things, to see how well or how badly Ka-band works over rural Australia (and also in built-up areas for other applications)

Land lines

[Shymon]

it would seem that good old land lines with fiber optics and such would be an easier solution then satilites, but maybe in austraila it's not so easy to lay connected cable around for some reason? anyone care to enlighten me?

Signal dispersion in wet weather?

[cygnusx]

We know that Ku band satellites suffer from 'rain fade' during heavy downpours, making them unsuitable for many tropical areas (i.e. anywhere with monsoon-like rains). Any signals geeks willing to comment on how Ka-band does? Are these going to perform worse than Ku-band in bad weather?

damnit

[SHEENmaster]

Now I'm gonna need a high-tech tinfoil hat, and one for my new wifi network as well.