15 ms·
'We've bought the wrong satellites': UK tech gamble baffles experts
- h2odragon 6y agoSo the "trick" to location satellite systems is super accurate and stable atomic clocks. Each satellite basically pings a timestamp out and you derive your location from the difference in when you receive which ping from several satellites. So the issue would be "how much more expensive is it going to be to equip these satellites with those clocks?" There might well be enough other uses for accurate clocks on these to make upgrading whatever they do have worth it. They might not be that expensive anymore. Apologies for any misunderstandings im suffering here.
- rjsw 6y agoHow do you add an atomic clock to a satellite that is already in orbit ?
- Junk_Collector 6y agoThese satellites are likely too small to support a proper positioning system. They would need the radio transmitters, power system, and clocks all redesigned at which point you have an entirely new satellite.
- Dylan16807 6y ago> power system I see different size estimates for these satellites but none of them suggest it would be hard for them to spend 10 watts on an atomic clock and 50 watts on a constant transmission. Am I forgetting something? > radio transmitter You can't just slap on a significantly simpler antenna? > clocks I have no idea here.
- econcon 6y agoIsn't this what Google's Spanner does?
- Havoc 6y ago>the very talented lobbyists at OneWeb have convinced the government that we can completely redesign some of the satellites to piggyback a navigation payload on it. I mean it's hard not to laugh. All the major GNSS are herculean focused efforts over decades and the UK leadership reckons a ducktape solution will do. They would be better off just negotiating (paying) access to military encryption on GPS and Galileo and calling it a day. Redundant encrypted is probably miles better than improvised something anyway
- londons_explore 6y agoI disagree. GNSS systems used to be very complex and hard to design. Times have changed though, and nearly all the components are off-the-shelf now. If you already have the capability to launch a satellite, adding GNSS capabilities is a small extra step of adding an atomic clock and an antenna. All the signal generation can be software defined. All the complexity can live in models on the ground. Sure, some of the 'high power anti-jam directional antenna' bits require more hardware, but the basics do not.
- Havoc 6y ago>small extra step of adding [...] an antenna That's where the ducktape comes in I guess? (Just kidding) I mean yeah GPS is ancient tech. But actually getting the required 24 or whatever satellites into orbit (or retrofitting) and getting the receiver tech into enough hands to get any kind of traction is still a sizable challenge.
- rorykoehler 6y agoCouldn't they pay SpaceX or a similar company to do it for them?
- toomuchtodo 6y agoWhat would the difficulty level be of incorporating GNSS into SpaceX’s StarLink satellites?
- jonplackett 6y agoThe article also fails to mention that OneWeb will probably go bankrupt within a few years anyway when SpaceX put 100X more satellites in orbit than they could ever dream of paying for.