Slashdot Mirror


Korean Artist's Intentionally Useless Satellite To Launch This December

An anonymous reader quotes the introduction to Inhabit's article on the upcoming launch of an art project cum satellite intended to be as different as possible from conventional space hardware: "South Korean artist Song Hojun has created his own DIY satellite from scratch – and he's planning to launch it into space this coming December. Song created the satellite from assorted junk he found in back-alley electronics stores in his home town of Seoul, and over the course of six years he has finally managed to complete his space-bound project. Song's satellite cost just over $400 to make, however the cost of launching it to space is going to be a lot, lot more – over $100,000."

25 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Can the U.S. military target it immediately? by BMOC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, we don't need more space junk. This "artist" is a griefer.

    --
    I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
    1. Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? by yourexhalekiss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh come on. I can't imagine that this $400 "satellite" has a propulsion system of any kind. It will deorbit in months if not weeks, and burn up on reentry in to the atmosphere. This satellite isn't going to be space junk.

    2. Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? by kav2k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Target and do what? Blast into thousands of less trackable but no less dangerous fragments?

    3. Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? by SomePgmr · · Score: 2

      I always assumed that CubeSats and TubeSats would just fall and burn up since they don't have propulsion to keep them up and moving.

      IOS says cubesats will fall and burn up after several weeks. http://interorbital.com/CubeSat_1.htm

      Though I suppose they could be ejected at greater distances.

    4. Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh come on. I can't imagine that this $400 "satellite" has a propulsion system of any kind. It will deorbit in months if not weeks, and burn up on reentry in to the atmosphere.

      It doesn't need a propulsion system to avoid deorbiting in weeks or months - it just needs to be put in a high enough orbit that atmospheric drag is minimized. Out beyond a couple of hundred miles, you're into a lifetime of years if not decades. Out a couple of thousand and you start getting into the centuries if not millenia range.
       
      Not to mention, there's a huge range between a few hundred miles and geosynchronous that's all-but-empty because the orbits aren't all that useful.

    5. Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? by Jeng · · Score: 2

      They could make it much cheaper if it was in orbit and didn't have to burn though the atmosphere to reach it's target.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    6. Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't imagine that this $400 "satellite" has a propulsion system of any kind. It will deorbit in months if not weeks

      If you need a propulsion system to stay in orbit, you're not really in orbit.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      No space junk has a propulsion system. That's exactly what makes it space junk: You cannot control its orbit.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    8. Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      I should have written: No space junk has a working propulsion system, of course.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    9. Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? by Talderas · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's the difference between a lifetime of years and a lifetime of decades?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    10. Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? by camperdave · · Score: 2

      What's the difference between a lifetime of years and a lifetime of decades?

      Dozens of years.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Yes, exactly. Is there a problem with this definition?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  2. Art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't this the equivalent of putting together a non-running car out of scrap and then pushing it into the middle of the interstate and calling it 'art'?

    1. Re:Art? by CaptainLard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, its the equivalent of building a RUNNING car from scrap, driving it on the interstate, and letting anyone control the lights from the internet. Sounds lame until you replace "driving it on the interstate" with "launching into earth orbit".

  3. Litterbug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Littering near earth orbit as a side effect of doing something useful is problematic. Littering near earth orbit intentionally and for no purpose is pretty antisocial.

  4. what it does by PTBarnum · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apparently people will be able to upload messages to be flashed in Morse code by LEDs on the satellite. So it actually does do something. I'm skeptical about how easy it will be to see the LEDs from Earth, though.

  5. good use of a limited resource by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    It is certainly important to let and fund anyone who wants to call their self an "artist" to put junk into orbit. And far better to let this jerk, I mean artist, use the funds and the launch space to feel good about himself than to actually put micro-sats or other useful technology into space. After all, they are only designed and built by mere scientists, not artists.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:good use of a limited resource by CaptainLard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah someone should tell this guy that space is only for the defense industry, telecoms, and maybe tiny bit o' NASA. If more people start doing crap like this its just going to lead to expanded launch capacities and a whole new range of non-techie types getting interested in space. Only a jerk would try to put a satellite in orbit that conceivably anyone can use. /(sarcasm and assuming decaying orbit or other space junk mitigation)

  6. Bah, postmodern art by chebucto · · Score: 2

    Why not take an empty canvas and put it on the wall? Or drive around for half a day collecting random crap, then toss it all in a public square - call it a sculpture and a 'statement'.

    Funny

    In all seriousness, there really should be a different word for these pomo conceptual people. Art has to have _some_ beauty in it, doesn't it? It _has_ to require talent beyond the everyday, doesn't it?

    We should be able to expand art beyond renaissance-era landscapes and portraits using oil-on-canvas without debasing the term 'art' to cover everything. It make the term useless, just like some people are doing to hacking: ever since everything requiring the smallest modicum of... time? became hacking, every douchebag with time on his hands has felt welcome at HOPE, but at the same time a unique group has been diluted to nothing: something has been lost.

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    1. Re:Bah, postmodern art by chebucto · · Score: 2

      If what you and I - and everyone else - thinks constitutes 'art' is irrelevant, then 'art' has no meaning.

      Going by your examples, 'art' is something that (a) is called art, and (b) sells.

      My feeling is that Pollock, Warhol, and the merda d'artista will all fairly soon lose all pretense of being art. If you dropped any of them in front of someone from 1,000 years ago or 1,000 years from now - someone who didn't know the context - they would think it was a random mess, a simple reproduction, or disgusting. Compare that with a work of one of the masters: although they were done hundreds of years ago, they are still beautiful, and moreover there is an intrinsic beauty that is understandable without knowing the context.

      --
      The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    2. Re:Bah, postmodern art by chebucto · · Score: 2

      Some art is very bad: merda d'artista, or the dadist urinal, for example. Blank canvases of a sort do exist. They are a trope because they exemplify negative aspects of conceptual art.

      It is one thing if you think 'art' should be defined broadly, as "act of creativity" or something similar: but you must accept, with that broad definition, a dilution of esteem, and jokes at your expense. Cans of shit? We are expected to keep a straight face? Correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of the works like medra wer made to challenge the definition of art: didn't the creator therefore leave open the possibility that merda and its ilk are _not_ art?

      If engineers took that approach, and defined engineering as "the application of science" with no conditions regarding safety, practicality, economics, or usefulness, you would end up with half-built bridges and crumbling roadways, with a satisfied-looking fellow at the end saying "I am an engineer. Admire my work or do not, but at least accord me some respect". It is the restrictions that the discipline puts on itself that helps it create such wonderful works. The same can be true about art: define it narrowly, or at least give it some bounds, and you will get better quality.

      --
      The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
  7. nice thought but pointless by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    Unfortunately, we don't have any weapons that would make it simply not exist, only ones that would break it into lots of small, harder to deal with pieces. Better to target the "artist".

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  8. I get it! It's waste of space AND it's space junk! by denzacar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am really, really trying to find some kind of justification for this "art" project and I'm coming up with bupkis.
    OK... It does nothing scientific. But it does nothing artistic either.
    It's about as artistic as painting a rock and dumping in the Marianas Trench.
    For something to be considered art, it has to be able to communicate to other humans a message beyond just its own physical existence.

    This satellite is supposed to send messages transmitted to it by blinking its LEDs and "People will be able to see the blinking lights with the naked eye or through a telescope".
    Visible from the Earth's surface. With naked eye. LEDs. A 10x10x10 cm cube. Hanging in low Earth orbit. 600-2000 km from the surface. Right.

    I can't really be bothered to look it up, but something tells me that you can't really see a 10 cm cube, 600-2000 km away, with an amateur telescope.
    Besides, shouldn't Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) "ground" this project?

    Also, WTF is "Science is Fantasy" supposed to mean?
    That science is unattainable and/or imaginary? Not real? With no real function or application?
    Just dumping that "is" and it would make SOME sense. Or reversing the order of words in the sentence.
    This... this is just half-thought through crap.

    All I see here is rich, privileged parents, buying their rich, privileged, spoiled kid his 15 minutes of fame since he can't get there with his own effort and talent.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  9. What about performance art? by Sentrion · · Score: 2

    I have an even better art project. Find some POS art project that is a total waste of time and money, steal it, and smash it to pieces as performance art before it gets off the ground. Then I'll post the footage on youtube and let viewers try to decide what message I was trying to convey in my performance.

    Seriously, this kind of crap is why I have much disdain for avant-garde, modern, and 'contemporary' art. In general, most of these types of artists tend to be on the far left of the political spectrum (which is ok, but...), they denounce poverty, pollution, and destruction of our environment. But how much destruction is from paint chemicals leaking into ground water? How many starving or improvrished people could be rescued from the grants paid to these "inspiring" artists? How many HFH homes could have been built with the labor and talent of our academic and intellectual leaders of the art world? I don't want to deny them their fun, and I don't know the political views of this artist, but I think we have all seen what I have described.

    As non-artists, non-academics, and non-elites we have been conditioned to believe that we just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the significance and importance of their great work. All told, most of the "new" art movements from the past 150 years have been a byproduct of delusional, paranoid schizophrenia or other mental illnesses. When crazy people connect with other crazy people, finding someone with the same delusions reinforces their belief that they do not have a mental illness but some profound insight into the nature of the Universe. So we have today an oligarchy of mentally ill cultural elites to whom the rest of the masses aim to aspire to in their aesthetic endeavors, not much unlike the inbred aristocracy that was convinced that they were owed special status in life due to their pedigree. Fortunately a few revolutions (France, America) eventually forced the aristocrats to take a back seat to productive citizens who now set their own destiny, banishing royal life to the back pages of gossip tabloids, somewhere behind part-cow/part-alien boy and the ghost of Michael Jackson. It would be nice one day to see mainstream non-art academics, financiers and art endowments wake up to a revolution of their own to refer these jokers to a different "institution".

  10. Space junk by Bert64 · · Score: 2

    Great, just what we need, another piece of junk orbiting the planet and causing a hazard to other space missions.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!