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.'"
Europeans are nothing but pussies.
Of course it takes an "Old Europe" to give new life to "Old Satellites".
_____,-,_-,, = =___Unknown
____{_/_/__\______________________,-_,
___{_`}'-_-/_____=-=-=-=-=-=-=___/__\_\
___{_}/\_o/______The_GONAD-MAN___\o_o`)
_______}__{______=-=-=-=-=-=-=____\0_/
___/_#\__"/_#\___1/2_Man__________}__{___
__/_/###\/###_\__2/3_Horse____/___\"__/__\
_/_/_\##/\##/\_\_=-=-=-=-=-=-/_/_.____._\_\
{_!___}____{__!_}___________/_/\________/\_\
_\_\__}__._{_/_/___________{_!__\______/__!_}
__\_\/______\_/_____________\_\__|_()_|_/__/
___j{########}t______________\_\/__||__\_/
____{__\`##/_}________________j{___||___}t
_____\____\_/_________________/____||____\
______\____Y_________________/____{||}____\
_______`,___\_______________;__/_/(__)\_\__;
________{`___}_____________(___/'______`\___)
________{'__/______________&_//__________\\_&
________;=//______________/_/'____________`\_\
_______;__/______________/\_)______________(_/\
______,__,______________/_.'________________`._\
_____(,_\_____________,y_,'__________________`,_y
_____|\__;___________=='________________________`
I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!I HATE SLASHDOT!
This could be useful, if it were opened up. Anyone have any nice ideas?
...the N-Gage was going to wipe out satellite radio?
The meme police, They live inside of my head
In Soviet Russia ...
:-P
Oh hell, FIRST POST!!
Since when has 'precision position control' been more or less important? Sounds like marketing hype to me. Wouldn't it then be called 'sloppy position control', and thus deemed important once again? trying not to laugh...
It's good that they are looking at reusing some of the old junk that we can't effectively remove from space.
Perhaps NASA could sell off some of their old, unused satellites to get (some of) the funding the need?
Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
how about making the satellites do starband or richochet internet?
I am a little suspicious of motives and lock-in though.
If these are up for a further 15 years, is there any more support after that?
Or would we be locked-in to using a system that by then is even more out of date.
Interesting idea, but care needs to be taken
from: http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/esa_25year s_000602.html
:)
However, ESA's biggest achievement of all, explained Bonacina, lies not in any one particular space project. Rather, it's the fact that 15 European nations have successfully worked together, and in cooperation with other non-European space programs, to reach a common goal.
It's amazing how little a program this wide in scope accomplishes
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.
Dammit. Where'd I put my tinfoil hat.
Most older communications satelites have what are called "transponders"-- they take everything that comes in on a certain band of frequencies and plays it out on another set.
Because usually relatively high-bandwidth analog signals with high quality requirements are sent through these transponders, and the satelites have a relatively small amount of output power, high gain antennas (big satelite dishes) are required to recover the signal, which must be very precisely pointed.
By using digital signals and audio compression technology, suddenly the signals can be narrower bandwidth. Noise is proportional to bandwidth, and since the signal is narrower, signal/noise ratio is improved. This means high-gain antennas may no longer be strictly necessary, and thus the position of the satelite becomes less critical as the orbit decays.
Note that this does not lock us in to a proprietary standard-- if the spectrum is allocated for this purpose, smarter digital transmitters can be put into space for the same purpose later.
Still important is attitude control-- the satelite's antenna must be pointed down and the solar panels pointed in a useful direction. But this often uses gyroscopes, reaction wheels, and magnetic systems-- which do not use propellant.
Finally, battery life is a question. No communications satelite is constantly receiving solar power, so if the satelite is operated while not in view of the sun, batteries on the satelite discharge. Satelites can withstand a limited number of charge cycles before they fail, and this is likely to form the true upper bound on satelite lifetime.
In all, it's a good idea. I imagine we'll see lots of clever ways to emerge on how to use legacy hardware we've put in space, as launch costs remain so expensive.
I thought that with digital broadcasting now that satalite radio was pretty much dead anyways.
It would be quite cool, depending on the frequencies, if they could open the sattelites up to hams. There are a few sattelites here and there available for amateur use, but something launched by the ESA is probably waay cooler.
Of course, this all depends on the ability of them to switch which frequencies the sattelites use--I imagine they weren't originally designed to use Ham frequencies. As for "sloppy" orbits, we hams typically have fairly sophisticated tracking equipment: a 486 pc, running any one the free tracking wares, connected to a dual-axis antenna rotator. Makes it a challenge!!
Recursive (adj.): see 'Recursive'
but you == a fuckin gay faggot
just wondering how long they think they can stop people from hacking the xm network...
broadcasted stuff has almost always been 110% easier to beat (read: harder to find the pirates, arrrrrg!) than conventional cable/wired networks.
As it stands they use the last remaining bit of their fuel to put it into a controlled flight so that they have some sort of control of where it ditches into the earth. You use up the last of this fuel and they land wherever.
"I imagine we'll see lots of clever ways to emerge on how to use legacy hardware we've put in space, as launch costs remain so expensive"
Sound point(s) that enforce the call for less emphasis on romantisized manned missions and more funding and focus on unmanned drones, robot probes and satellites.
I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer. Since I have become an Apple owner, I have been exposed to a whole new world of gay friends. It is really a pleasure to meet and compute with other homos such as myself. I plan on using my new Apple computer as a way to entice and recruit young schoolboys into the homosexual lifestyle; it would be so helpful if you could produce more software which would appeal to young boys. Thanks in advance.
with much gayness,
Father Randy "Pudge" O'Day, S.J.
This article was originally published on The Times Online
/. readers (copyright of The Times, contains some compelling arguments):
You can read it at Common Dreams website
I am copying and pasting the text here for benefit of
Published on Wednesday, January 15, 2003 by the Times/UK
The United States of America Has Gone Mad
by John le Carré
America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.
The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.
The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world's poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.
But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are told. The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer's pocket? At what cost -- because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people -- in Iraqi lives?
How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.
Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I'm dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam's downfall -- just not on Bush's terms and not by his methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy.
The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America's Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.
God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another's, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.
Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God's work.
In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that "somebody" was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr's cry: "That man tried to kill my Daddy." But it's still not personal, this war. It's still necessary. It's still God's work. It's still about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed Iraqi people.
To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won't tell us is the truth about why we're going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil -- but oil, money and people's lives. Saddam's misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn't, won't.
If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart's content. Other leaders do it every day -- think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.
Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if he's still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes' notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America's need to demonstrate its military power to all of us -- to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.
The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair's part in all this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it. He can't. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can't get out.
It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain's opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that's Britain's tragedy, as it is America's: as our Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way. Blair's best chance of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in his holster unfired. But what happens when the world's greatest cowboy rides back into town without a tyrant's head to wave at the boys?
Blair's worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.
There is a middle way, but it's a tough one: Bush dives in without UN approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special relationship.
I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect's sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can't explain is how he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair has to show up at the altar.
"But will we win, Daddy?"
"Of course, child. It will all be over while you're still in bed."
"Why?"
"Because otherwise Mr Bush's voters will get terribly impatient and may decide not to vote for him."
"But will people be killed, Daddy?"
"Nobody you know, darling. Just foreign people."
"Can I watch it on television?"
"Only if Mr Bush says you can."
"And afterwards, will everything be normal again? Nobody will do anything horrid any more?"
"Hush child, and go to sleep."
Last Friday a friend of mine in California drove to his local supermarket with a sticker on his car saying: "Peace is also Patriotic". It was gone by the time he'd finished shopping.
Copyright 2003 Times Newspapers Ltd
Honestly, I really hope so.
I don't think we should completely abandon manned space missions, but the ISS is going to cost $100B over its lifetime-- figuring that the cost of a 4 year university education is $100k, we could create a million more scientists on earth-- and think how much that could do to solve the autonomous control and robotics problems that currently limit unmanned missions.
Right now, basically 2 of the 3 members of the ISS crew are dedicated to doing things to keep the ISS running. Surely with $100B we could get as much real space science done as that one individual who's concentrating on science on the ISS over these next 10 years can, right?
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.
"ESA, BSA, GBA... They're all in the same alphabet soup..." we all know it's just part of the conspiracy to nab George Kaplan...
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
You're talking about satellites in geostationary orbit, 35,000km out. For reference the ISS is at 400km. They're as close to "permanent" as makes no odds. The moon isn't strictly in "permanent" orbit either, but no one gets too worked up about it.
Filthy ape! Go back to africa! Your kind isn't needed here any longer. Seriously, I'll pay to have you shipped back. You just find yourself a box or a cage; whatever you people prefer to travel in. Believe me, you're not headed back in the style you came over in. Christ, when I think about how nice those slave ships were...we wasted so much money making sure you monkeys were happy and taken care of. It seems really silly in retrospect. Anyway, find a box and let me know. We'll get you back in your homeland in no time and then you can go back to climbing trees and eating bananas. Won't that be nice? I'm sure you'll be happier there. Shit, I'll even put some malt liquor in your box with you to make the trip a little bit easier. Just don't vomit in your box - that could be messy
Just the other day i was thinking wouldn't it be a great idea if someone could recycle and reuse the satellites that are in orbit, but aren't used anymore. hoping that no one would catch on to this potential money maker. but i guess it's to late now damn :(
I am a homosexual. I bought an Apple computer because of its well earned reputation for being "the" gay computer.
Hey, whatever floats your boat buddy. I'm not gay, I just use Macs because they're cool.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
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
When you get a group, such as the ESA, doing that, even better.
Kudos to you sir(s).
But according to my education these satellites loose power and can no longer fight earth's gravity after a while, which causes them to fall into the earth's atmosphere and dissentigrate on reentry.
I have a friend that works with satellites for a living.. maybe I should go ask him to be sure...
Shoot Pixels, Not People!
John le Carre is an English novelist born in 1931. After attending the universities of Berne and Oxford, he taught at Eton and spent five years in the British Foreign Service. The Spy Who Came In from the Cold, his third book, secured him a worldwide reputation.
I'll agree. Looking back on history, it just seems like there was no motivation like competition.
David Brin points out America is a peculiar society in that its populace considers its golden age to be in the future. But I wonder if that is really so. We already say "back in the day we were on the Moon".
I'm not saying we are past our peak, but I wonder if something like going to the moon will be where historians put American's peak or if we are going to have the courage to do more.
-------------------
OnRoad: Reporting what happens in America when the police get out of hand.
Believes in trolls.
Believes in Rush.
I sense a disturbing lack of skepticism.
Why are the French and Germans such socialist pussies? I think we'll have to go kick the shit out of those cunts after we get done with Saddam.
Eurobitches are weak and poor. HAHA!
A good university education is much more expensive than that. Tuition is just a token. Schools like MIT and Harvard could support all of their students without charging tuition ever again, but they don't for political reasons. Of course, training scientists does not scale well. Universities 'produce' good scientists because they cull the good students from the population. If you want to train hundreds of thousands more people to be good scientists, the costs will go up as you must relocate more foreigners and search more thoroughly through the public school system. The best use for that money is to complete the public works which were begun but tabled to divert the funds to the campaign contributor of the week. Probably the best way to do that is to get more scientists into cushy government positions. Obviously the best way to accomplish that is to use the influence of the large universities which must be made more effective by raping the minds of more students! Ahem. Federal funding is the kiss of death. Gift culture is the future.
Posting as AC, I sense a disturbing lack of balls and/or accountability.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Non-offensive picture of nude California women at the beach - Photographed on November 12, 2002
Give peace a chance
On the same site - This is Antarctica
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.)
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]
eat my ass for modding me down.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
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.
Are there any regulations regarding dead satellites? Once a bird is placed in a (mostly) stable geosync orbit, it's going to remain in the general neighborhood for quite a while. I would think it wise to require these satellites to bump themselves down into the atmosphere when they've reached the end of their useful lifetime. The more junk that accumulates up there, the greater the chances for impact-related disasters. Last year ~75 civil satellites were launched.. I expect the total is higher.
Chances are that as time goes by, our travels out into space will increase, putting more craft at risk. It'd be a shame for future generations to be stuck dodging a (relatively) thick field of high-speed objects ranging in size from marbles to large houses. Things to keep in mind...
Adam "Fogie" Fogler -- Professional Paid College Student
Because there is a limited amount of ideal space around the Earth, I can't see this idea working for long. Before long, a higher bidder will come along and pay for the removal of the old satellite so that his new one can make use of that space.
Yes! Let's keep them up there FOREVER!! Then in 30 or so years, we cant blame NASA people for not checking the shuttle prior to liftoff. Then we can blame space junk that smashes the shields and leaves people up there FOREVER!! Mwahahahaa... I suppose this is an evil plan by some rich European mafia guy.
In addition to the logistical problem of keeping a really old satellite with little fuel left in a stationary orbit, it's tying up a geostationary slot that could be used for a new satellite with some real profit margin.
And XM is overrated.
I won't go out of my way to get into the IPO.
I'm wondering how close to XM will this be...is it going to come with the monthly service fee? Because that's my biggest beef with XM. I understand that they need to have some way of making money, and if people are willing to shell out their hard-earned cash to get a couble hundred radio stations, that's fine with me, but I'm not willing to pay $10 a month when I have a host of perfectly viable radio stations to listen to with the equipment I have already, for practically nothing. (Except for those public radio donations. That's a good cause.) Maybe if I was a more hardcore radio listener...or if I lived somewhere that didn't have a good radio selection...I dunno. Does anyone who uses XM want to explain why they think it's worth the fee? I'm a bit curious.
That's because the "moon" is a ridiculous liberal myth. Get your story straight!
The funny thing is that there's actually controversy over the moon's orbit - not so much what it's doing but why.
Hey, what do you think this is, everything2?
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
Nobody needs astronauts eitherway, what for?
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
Well the ESA is at least cheaper.
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
I'd rather have privately-built space stuff, but even blowing the $100B on the space station or a really great fireworks show would be better than blowing it on a war. And if we don't buy college educations for a million or two scientists, we can just as well buy college educations for a million or two liberal arts students so we'll get better literature or at least better-written computer manuals and television shows...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
As a fellow gay Apple user, I would love to eat your ass.
www.esa.int? WTF domain is that?! The web site works, so it must be a new one?
I disagree. The problem hasn't been money, it's spending the money on the right thing. Shuttle has been a money pit. If they'd continued with disposible rockets then they'd have had more than enough money.
The ESA and NASA don't float shit aside from their own spacecraft.
The satellites you have attributed to being floated by ESA are actually launched by arianespace (no caps.) The largest chunk of arianespace is owned by EADS, the multinational defense conglomerate. ESA owns a small portion of arianespace. The satellites aren't even lofted from Europe.
And NASA doesn't launch any satellites itself except what goes up on the shuttle. Civilian and military satellites from the US are lofted from Kennedy Space Center (Part of Cape Canaveral), Patrick AFB (next to Cape Canveral), Vandenberg AFB, and Kodiak Island. Civilian satellites usually go up from KSC, while military satellties usually go up from Patrick and Vandenberg. NASA does *not* touch the military satellites.
Lets make a Beowolf cluter of satelites.
Wait... it's already been done! Who took my idea!
I wonder why (comm, spy) sats are not designed to dock with a small propellant containing vehicle that could be launched midway through the sats life to replenish propellant, since this seems to be one of the main limitting factors of sat. usefulness, and launching such a vehicle would probably cost a lot less than a whole new sat.
After all, the Russian's do something very similar with their Progress cargo ships that dock automatically with the ISS and had also done this with Mir before.
Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
The problem hasn't been money, it's spending the money on the right thing.
;)
That's still a money problem; it would fundamentally be solved "simply" by giving NASA an unlimited budget.
These TV sats are perfect for homebrew links.
When you take a low bandwidth signal and spread
it over the entire transponders bandwidth it
won't raise the noise floor enough to be detectable.
(Low bandwidth requires low power and if you spread the signal it raises the noise floor by an undetectable amount). They'll never see a 10kbit/sec signal!
You fucking newbie! Shutup and sit in the corner!
Can I get control of some of these old sats? I want at least two for a business proposition. 1) get control of old sat 2) fill memory with banking data and open first bank without national rules 3) Profit! The Iridium network would have been good, thought about trying to get the banks to take it use it that way when they had control (for a small (=0.1%) of the ownership). But did not have enough contacts in the banking industry. Yeah radiation and data loss is a problem (which is why Iridium would have been good), whioch is why you need at at least two, and maybe a disused oil platform in international water as a ground side backup.
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
Wouldn't this just cause more space junk.... I mean if you move them to where they stay in orbit forever with minimal propulsion needed.... its just more junk up there...
Yeah you fucking newbie! Shutup and sit in the corner!
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.