Slashdot Mirror


ESA to Give New Life to Old Satellites

JPNews writes "The European Space Agency is designing a program (www.esa.int) to re-configure dying television transmission satellites to be used as a XM Radio-like satellite radio network. 'Once in position, 35,000 km away in space, TV satellites will remain in orbit forever, but their useful life amounts to 15 years or less... further life can be squeezed from a low-propellant TV satellite switched over to mobile digital radio broadcasting where precision position control is less important.'"

6 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Precisely the kind of ideas aerospace needs now... by coupland · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With NASA giving the one-fingered salute to the unfairly maligned "faster-better-cheaper" programme it's nice to see the ESA taking a more pragmatic approach to things. I have a great deal of respect for NASA but I also want to see Europe, China, India and others up the ante, and this seems like a perfect example.

  2. Great! by megaduck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This kind of thinking is exactly what we need right now. Our space program has kind of a "chicken and egg" problem right now. NASA doesn't really have the budget to do the research we need. Space won't become cheaper until commercial interests get involved, and commercial interests won't touch space as long as it's so expensive.

    By eliminating or reducing launch costs, we get more people interested in joining the party. More companies == more research dollars == better space programs for everybody.

    --
    This .sig for rent.
  3. Re:launch once...(re) use many (semi-OT) by Planesdragon · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Let's learn what we can now cheaply, and regroup in 10-25 years and go to Mars, or form a colony on the moon, or do something else really radical that broadens the future for mankind.


    The problem is not now, nor has it ever been, a lack of technology or science.

    The problem has been, since the days of Skylab, one of money. (Trivia question: what was the first scheduled shuttle mission? A _BOOSTER_ for skylab. Had the shuttle + booster been built in time, we'd have had a space station in orbit for quite possibly just as long as the Russians.)

  4. Re:launch once...(re) use many (semi-OT) by anubi · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What amazes me is that after society has invested so much money in us, they tell us that we no longer have a job after we pass 40 or so.

    I used to work in the Aerospace industry. Analog design. Power. RF/Microwave. Robotics. Loved it. But things changed. Layoffs.

    So, I have been freelancing for ten years.

    I consider myself extremely educated in the physics of why things work, but dumber than shit on "people skills". I easily get tripped up if someone asks me to do something I have good reason to believe won't work, and tell the truth, even though it costs me the job.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  5. Re:Precisely the kind of ideas aerospace needs now by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You do know that ESA puts more commercial satellites in space than NASA? Of cause if you count military satellites NASA wins. ESA isn't allowed to launch military satellites.

    The biggest problem is that ESA need NASA or Russia to ship its astronauts.

  6. Re:A Primer on the ESA by Warren_Canuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree, we need another space race to get the US to give NASA more funding and a kick in the pants. After all, competition is better than a monopoly for consumers.