You need about .64 degrees of accuracy with a little dish so it's not
just stuck up there pointing in a close proximity it's nearly dead on
target. Ones that have multiple lnb's are spaced just so as well so they
are all pointing nearly dead on the sat. You can pick up several sats
but they are pointing to each one specifically just using the same dish.
Monroe
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [AR] Re: Future Exploration Policy (was Re: Re: Congrats SpaceX
From: "John Stoffel" <john@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, February 08, 2018 8:19 pm
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Paul" == Paul Mueller <paul.mueller.iii@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Paul> I was imagining comsat builders salivating over how many
Paul> transponders they could fit on a Battlestar Galactica
Paul> geostationary satellite, but as John Stoffel noted in a
Paul> different thread, GSO slots are an issue. With that kind of mass
Paul> available, you could also put on a lot of stationkeeping
Paul> propellant, proximity radars, etc., and really squeeze those
Paul> suckers up there. I guess there are RF interference issues but
Paul> that's what we have EEs for!
I was really thinking that the limits on slots is more in how tight
you can aim your millions of ground dishes at them, since they're just
bolted onto the sides of various structures and pointed approximately
where they need to be. How good a rejection they have of signals
which are anguarly (sp?) close, but not what you want?
Or when you want to put cutom beams on a bunch of different airliners
all flying in different directions? Put the smarts in orbit where you
have much more control of them. And with a bigger sat, you have more
options for how to address some issues.
Or heck, how big a SAR do you think you could put up on FH? Or
telescope? Or bunches of telescopes? Just think of what you could do
with 10 hubbles in orbit, instead of just one... more command and
control issues... but lots more science time across a range of
subjects. And if one fails, it's not the end of the world.