News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Abandoned in space in 1967, a US satellite has started transmitting again. Parent comment

Re:Abandoned in space in 1967, a US satellite has started tr... by lexicality on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @03:35AM (#12852895)
I very much doubt anyone would consider something that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to build and fire into space "disposable". It's not like you can buy a new one for cheaper 5 years later.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Abandoned in space in 1967, a US satellite has started tr... by anexprogrammer on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @05:35AM (#12853234)
No they wouldn't launch a spy satellite disposable camera that took one roll of film and was then useless after the film was jetisoned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_%28satellite%29

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Abandoned in space in 1967, a US satellite has started tr... by dogma1138 on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @03:48AM (#12852921)
They are considered disposable because the operating costs usually outpace their value once obsolescence sets in.

Which is why many satellites are resold on secondary markets after their primary mission timeframe has passed.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Abandoned in space in 1967, a US satellite has started tr... by gambiting on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @04:31AM (#12853040)
Well, you sort of can. The majority of cost is R&D, once that's done and you have a template for a satellite, you can definitely build more of them cheaper than the first one.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Abandoned in space in 1967, a US satellite has started tr... by hollander on Wednesday November 02, 2016 @04:16AM (#12853000)
How about Rosetta?
[ Parent | on HN ]