OTU Only: Satellites sometimes obsolete in the OTU?

[shield]

With Traveller TLs, satellite costs and launch costs would come right down. Launching is now putting the sat in the back of a shuttle and placing it in orbit. Maint and recovery is just the same. Now that access and weight are not an issue, you don't have to build such redundant but lightweight equipment. Sat price drops considerably

as for lower tech worlds. General products and other corps probably manufacture basic comms, GPS and earth observation sats at low prices and include a deployment / maint contract.

Paying for some mass producted sat system with a low cost maint contract is much cheaper than a low tech world trying to do landbased surveys, lay deep sea telephone cables etc. Okay they can't maintain it but that's what the maint contract is for.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Perhaps if things had been different and without the lowered cost due to piggybacking on the military/government satellites, rockets, research, and technology advances, communications and possibly even navigation might have advanced in these areas instead:
– ground-wave propagation, travels along the surface of the earth, even over hills.
– Sky-wave propagation (skip), refracted back from the ionosphere.

Some Traveller planets may be better suited for such.

Also, why is it that we use and are adding additional transatlantic cables if satellites are supposedly the best solution for everything? Is it just speed?

 

[Vladika]

Satellites are probably not "best for everything". What they do, they do far better than anything else.

I can't navigate by the Atlantic Cable. I can send a message that way with far less chance for interception. Clarity is also better.

Why are we arguing this anyway? If you don't want satellites in YTU it's up to you. They will be in mine. Difference of opinion and practice. Its all good.

BTW there are no urinals in Traveller either. Nobody has taken a leek since 1977? I know, we have freshers...

Still, if everything that isn't specifically in the books, or seen in the movies, isn't there, then there is a lot that isn't there.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Why are we arguing this anyway? If you don't want satellites in YTU it's up to you. They will be in mine. Difference of opinion and practice. Its all good.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that they don't exist at all in their TU.

It's more a discussion regarding a TL or other factors where some systems would have alternatives?

Personally I have had certain planets where players comms won't work due to lack of a compatible worldwide system.

Talking about past tech is perhaps straying a little off the OP of obsolete satellites. Perhaps it's easier to talk about what was and would could be than guess about what might be.

Stations spread throughout a system for monitoring all the planets and threats might supply some of the functions of satellites. Would delays in transmitting the data be too high for most functionality?

 

[LiamKerrington]

Hello everyone,

this really is a very interesting discussion; but I feel sorry that I cannot add a lot about the technical scope, since I am neither an enginee nor involved in any engineering- or technic-sciences ...

I'd rather focus on the economy of OUT/ YTU - first by quoting two forum-members:

With our very limited space going capability it seams for whatever reason, satellites are the way to go. ... I guess cheaper to just build another and send it up than to equip it with propulsion to maintain orbit or to pay for someone to grab it and pull it back into position (is that possible any more without the shuttles?).

I'd think once space traffic is more common that it would be much more cost effective.

Just get whatever ship is passing through to put a couple in it's airlock and push it out? Wouldn't even count as cargo cost.

This.

With Traveller TLs, satellite costs and launch costs would come right down. Launching is now putting the sat in the back of a shuttle and placing it in orbit. Maint and recovery is just the same. Now that access and weight are not an issue, you don't have to build such redundant but lightweight equipment. Sat price drops considerably

as for lower tech worlds. General products and other corps probably manufacture basic comms, GPS and earth observation sats at low prices and include a deployment / maint contract.

Paying for some mass producted sat system with a low cost maint contract is much cheaper than a low tech world trying to do landbased surveys, lay deep sea telephone cables etc. Okay they can't maintain it but that's what the maint contract is for.

Ex-ac-tly. And it took 61 postings until something like this came up. That's sweet. Thank you! Thank you so much. If you had not written this, I would have come up with something similar ...

Just imagine the size of any of the traveller-verses and consider the size of any economical system in each universe. You have several levels of the econmy - from the overall universe down to what might be available in each stellar-system or even down to continents or local regions on planets. TL does not play a role as soon as there is space-travel along; TL might only play a role when things start to circle around the value of things, because high grade TL stuff will most likely pretty expensive ...

It is true: Satellites are barely mentioned - neither in Traveller nor in most other SF settings I have recognized so far. That does not necessarily mean they don't exist. Imagining the above-mentioned I would consider satellites kind of a "throw-away" product. Compared with the prices for any space-travelling vessel or space-stations things like satellites don't cost a lot of credits. And if there are companies that have specialized in the production of sats they probably would have centralized the production and would produce satellites of all kinds in all numbers; and then things simply get transported to their destinations, which would be the various stellar-systems and planets. With the thousands of planets or planet-sized moons I guess there should be enough demand to produce satellites in so large numbers that each item-cost should be very small - at least in comparison.

Somehow I feel inclined to make an analogy with cell-phones: Imagine how scarce and expensive these items were 15 years ago, and visualize how much these items have become 'consumers' throw-away products; you buy a thing today, tomorrow it is outdated in in something like 1.5 to 2 years you consider buying a new one, if not earlier, while you throw away your old bone. I think something similar could be imagined with satellites in almost any Traveller-verse.

In my humble opinion there really is no need to develop ever new systems or technologies or solutions for each planet or stellar system just in order to pay tribute to the special conditions of each location.

Just my 2c ...

All the best!
Liam

 

[Fritz_Brown]

That computer is still going to need data points to work from. You have to see a celestial body, in any weather, to navigate by. You don't have to see a GPS Satellite.

I'd be most happy to have such a computer, weatherproofed and easily rechargeable!

I used a navigational computer all the time - it was called an INS (Inertial Navigation System). It requires a good initial position and updates on occasion. As to celestial navigation, it's actually pretty danged accurate. Accurate enough to determine an aircraft position at 450mph.

As to airships - they can stay up a very long time, and above most atmospheric disturbances, using air and solar generated power, not to mention isotope reactors for power. (see also, U.S. military and OTH early warning systems.)

Being above atmospheric disturbances actually puts an airship up in that realm where something like a grav platform works better, imho. I think they're useful - for some things at some times.

Not good enough to navigate from.

What are your expectations on navigation? 1m accuracy? That's really very unnecessary except in a few things (like weapons deployment). It is something we desire for our particular wants, but might not apply to a lot of OTU or ATU situations. (Ground-based navigational references are much more accurate, btw.)

I'm talking about a blimp, antigrav platform or anything else using the towers to determine it's position and thus it can be used to provide navigation to those that are not in an optimal position to use a tower.

That's a good idea. It also brings to mind that even GPS satellites are dependent on external values to determine their own position.

For Traveller, other inhabited planets don't have to reinvent satellite technology nor navigation so the thousands of years and untold financial and scientific resources expended do not have to be duplicated.

Yes, this is why satellites are much easier in the OTU. As someone else mentioned, you can just seed them from a single Free Trader.

I like them too, but I wonder how the cost and maintenance of a large number of airships would compare to the cost of satellites.

Absolutely right - if you're going to have loads of them, and don't need the few advantages of an airship, towers would be cheaper and easier. (And, satellites might be cheaper yet, depending on the factors.)

This is interesting. Let's work out the hard limits to this. The big one is being able to see identifiable celestial bodies, which may be obscured by weather or sunlight.

Actually, a lot of 'cel' navigation uses the sun for its reference point. Or the moon. You only need a few points to be accurate.

Didn't the Exxon Valdez run aground on a clear day in site of land? Leaving a well traveled harbor that was a regular port of call?

That wasn't purely a navigational issue. There was some Romulan Ale involved, too.

If airships and towers would actually work, and be cheaper, why are satellites the system in use?

Come on - "actually work" does not mean it is the best choice.

Why are we arguing this anyway? If you don't want satellites in YTU it's up to you.

Actually, some people came up with some possible alternatives. Then a few people began arguing *against* those ideas.

Sorry for the extremely long post, but it's been a while since I could read through everything.

 

[Vladika]

Come on - "actually work" does not mean it is the best choice.

That has been my point all along. Satellites do much more for less worldwide.

 

[aramis]

Satellites for nav are easily used. The current system is actually no less expensive than would be land-based nav systems, merely higher accuracy. TacAN, LoRAN & VOR have much more redundancy, and much easier maintenance than GPS. Lower accuracy, but also much lower tech base. TACAN and VOR stations really don't need to be anywhere near the size they are with current tech, and the buildings are the majority of the cost (in no small part due to their remote locations).

Gravitics will make it much cheaper to put them up, but that will probably not result in higher redundancy; Gravitics makes them more vulnerable, as well...

 

[G. Kashkanun Anderson]

For the record, fellas, there's no reason at all to really concern ourselves with the cost of launching a satellite into orbit in the OTU, or just about any TU, for that matter. Any world technical enough to build its own satellites is very likely going to have a solid orbital presence already -- including manufacturing, fabrication and R&D facilities. And any world that doesn't have the capability but still wants one is going to order off-world, and what's the point of bringing it dirtside if all you're going to do is pop it right back up, anyway?

Either way, getting a satellite into orbit in either situation is pretty much as simple as finding your spot and pushing your toy out the airlock of whatever it was built in or shipped by. More or less.

 

[BytePro]

Any technology has pros and cons and direct momentary cost is but one of a host of driving factors.

Some planets may simply not allow satellites.

Societies for historical (ala satellite accidents), religious, scientific, or other reasons. Repressive governments simply because sat signals are receivable by anyone under the transmission footprint.

With naive economics, land based telephone networks and cell towers are ridiculous compared to satellite phones*. What are you using? What is the world mostly using?

(*Which I was looking forward to with Iridium and the promise of an established market of LEO satellite constellations for their low latency, higher bandwidth. In those days I managed VSAT nodes leased for $50,000 U.S. monthly - and thousands of land lines that I would have happily ditched.)

Space based radio positioning is great. But it is not in any way a unique solution to commercially driven problems of navigation and surveying and it cost billions and decades to setup to replace other technologies that had a lot lower upfront cost. It was driven almost exclusively by military benefits and without KAL 007 it is quite possible that it would still be a restricted technology.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I'm not debating alternatives to satellites as in a solution that would work better. I'm brainstorming alternatives to satellites for the Traveller systems that don't have them for whatever reason; population, wealth, tech level, % water, and so on.

Welcome to the current day internet balloon. http://www.wired.com/business/2013/06/google_internet_balloons/

 

[Vladika]

Pretty good idea. I wonder what percent coverage and availability they will be able to sustain?

Project Loon sails through the stratosphere, where there are different wind layers. Using wind data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the balloons are maneuvered by identifying the wind layer with the desired speed and direction and then adjusting altitude to float in that layer.

Weather balloons used to tell the communications balloons where to go...Slick!

Winds being winds I expect not 100% very often. I'm looking forward to following this! Thanks.

 

[simonh]

Also, why is it that we use and are adding additional transatlantic cables if satellites are supposedly the best solution for everything? Is it just speed?

It's a combination of low latency and bandwidth.

The shortest path between say London and New York is actually through the crust of the Earth, but since we don't have meson communicators, a cable along the surface is the shortest path we can get. Bouncing the signal off a satellite greatly increases the path distance, and radio and fiber optic signals both travel at the speed of light (modulo C varying slightly by medium).

You can also pack a huge amount more data into a great big bundle of fiber optic cables than you can a radio beam. You could pack in more data if you used high frequency lasers to talk to the satellites, but then you get more vulnerable to weather and the power requirements on the satellite go up a lot. The nice thing about fiber is you don't need to worry about beam spread and mutual interference between beams because they're separated in a way you can't approach using unconstrained beams.

I don't know for sure, but the practical benefits of fiber may well make it a useful technology for quite a few Tech Levels to come.

Simon Hibbs