Spaceflight

959 readers

36 users here now

Your one-stop shop for spaceflight news and discussion.

All serious posts related to spaceflight are welcome! JAXA, ISRO, CNSA, Roscosmos, ULA, RocketLab, Firefly, Relativity, Blue Origin, etc. (Arca and Pythom, if you must).

Other related space communities:

Related meme community:

[email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

threelonmusketeers

[email protected]

[Eric Berger] Firm wins Space Force funding to provide an “aircraft carrier” in orbit (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 month ago by threelonmusketeers to c/spaceflight

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Probably should work on renaming that to spacecraft carrier since it's cooler and more accurate or if they are caring ships that reenter Earth's atmosphere(IDK didn't actually read it) a Drop Ship for the above reasons.

[–] threelonmusketeers 1 points 1 month ago

IDK didn’t actually read it

Username checks out? :)

But yeah, spacecraft carrier is a cooler name. It's more of a storage compartment to keep satellites in top condition until they are needed on short notice.

But in general, the idea is to provide an unpressurized module in which one or more satellites can be pre-positioned in orbit.

Such a module would isolate the satellites from the space environment, sparing their batteries and sensitive electronics from harsh thermal cycles every 90 minutes, and provide some shielding from radiation. In addition, the orbital carrier would obfuscate the satellites inside from observation by other nations or hostile actors in space. Then, when a satellite is needed, it can be deployed into multiple orbits by the carrier.

I'm not clear on how a single carrier would deploy satellites into multiple orbits. Wouldn't all the satellites be in the same orbit as the carrier?