Talk:Small satellite

Comment
The original article had 200 kg = 220 lb, I changed it to 100 kg = 220 lb to better match between mini and micro satellites.

Some mention needs to made of the possible military applications as well.12.206.222.20 (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

While the page talks about different satellite categories, there is no indication as to whether the names-mass correspondence is standardized anywhere. I feel it would be better if we could cite an official source for the mass categories. --AJ Mas (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Microsatellites
There is a move request at Talk:Microsatellite_(genetics) that might be of interest to this article. AIR corn (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"molesat"?!
This appears to be a joke:
 * === Molecularsatellite ===
 * Molecularsatellite or "molesat" is usually applied as the name of an artificial satellite with at least one dimension sized from 100 to 10,000 nanometres with a wet mass between 0.001 gram and 10.0 grams. Current designs of this class of nanotech satellite work together in an amplification formation an asterism pattern (sometimes the term "constellation" is applied). Proposed designs require an asterism with a larger "picosat" satellite amongst its formation for amplified communication with ground transponders. Molesats have the capacity to act either as a passive or active satellite:


 * (a) Passive Satellites: Satellites which reflect the incident electromagnetic radiation without any modification or amplification. Passive satellites can't generate power they simply reflect the incident power.


 * (b) Active satellites: Satellites which can transmit power are called active satellite. They can amplify or modify the incident signal for transmission.

I copy it here only in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Yakushima (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Renaming the article (March 2015)

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There was no doubt a time when "miniaturized satellite" may have been the common name for a particular subset of satellite that were "more miniaturized" then the sat technology and sat models that had gone before. It seems however that that time is past, and there are no sources in the article that support general and widespread use of the term today.

Smallsat is however a term for all satellites smaller than 500 kg, is widely used today to describe all classes of sats in that range (minisats, microsats, nanosats, picosats and femtosats), and there is even an annual conference called the "Smallsat conference". Moreover, this term is sourced within the article.

PROPOSAL: that the article be moved to the new title of Small satellite, or Smallsat (redirect?). Rationale: most common English term today, with uses sourced and cited; whereas "miniaturized satellite" is neither common in current usage nor supported by citations.


 * SUPPORT — as nom, with rationale as provided in the proposal statement above. N2e (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

With no additional input, I will go ahead and use the more formal requested moves process, to try to get some other editors to weigh in on this, and see if a consensus might be developed. N2e (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Miniaturized satellite → Smallsat – Smallsat is the term for all satellites smaller than 500 kg, and is widely used today to describe all classes of sats in that range (minisats, microsats, nanosats, picosats and femtosats), and this is sourced in the article. There is no source in the article showing that the term "miniturized satellite" is used today, and it is unclear how much the term may have been used in former decades. N2e (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose 500-100kg is not the same as all smaller satellites. There is a specific range for smallsat, and we should not just mix up both topics. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NEO JustinTime55 (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Opose - It seems 'smallsat' is an informal term with somewhat lose boundaries, and it does not seem to have a well defined "official" format as say, a CubeSat. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * PROPOSAL WITHDRAWN — after one week of discussion, as nominator, I happily withdraw this proposal as one that did not gain consensus. Smallsat is apparently not the best name for a more correctly-named article.  For now, this leaves the problem of the current article name, Miniaturized satellite also not being correct, nor supported by recent and contemporaneous sources, but that is another problem which can be discussed in turn, and perhaps, a new proposal made in due time.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Small satellite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130423000649/http://www.phonesat.org/index.php to http://www.phonesat.org/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Why not more discussion of CubeSats and ESPA-class satellites?
Since CubeSats and ESPA-class satellites are probably the most common sorts of small satellites, why doesn't this article have more than a slight, tangential mention of CubeSats and no mention at all of ESPA-class spacecraft? I also would have expected links to the articles on them. I'm inclined to add something, but I thought I'd ask if there was a reason for not doing so. Fcrary (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to not include more information about these topics. Toss CubeSats under its own section since it's the prevalent standardised design, and probably a paragraph about ESPA would fall under the "Small satellite" classification section. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation for 'chipsat'
Hi all, I was doing research on chipsats (a common name for femtosatellites) and a top google search gives CHIPSat and though it would be good to set up a link from that page to the small sats page in case anyone is looking for femtosatellites instead of the proper noun 'CHIPSat' and was unfamiliar with the terminology of femto-, microsatellites, etc. I also think Chipsats might deserve their own page like Cubesat or Lander (spacecraft) as a type of spacecraft since its gaining lots of study. Thoughts? Jhmadden (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

NanoSat MO Framework edit and self promotion
On June 29, CesarCoelho added text on the NanoSat MO Framework. The reference is behind a paywall and CesarCoelho is actually the first author of the work. That seems like a blatant case of a conflict of interest and of using Wikipedia to advertise his own work. Am I wrong to think this violates multiple guidelines and policies? Fcrary (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:PAYWALL. A paywall is not a reason to delete. Besides which, many editors here have access to IEEE publications. Nor is being the author of something reason to exclude it. WP has a number of cases where an author has written an article about their own book, and yet they've still been kept past AfD. Yes, there is reason to be careful with such edits, but you've given no specific cases.
 * There is an article at NanoSat MO Framework. This question comes down to "Should that article be linked from here?"   Seriously?  You're even asking?  If you want to AfD NanoSat MO Framework, then go for it.  But if that article is judged notable, then I can see no valid reason why it shouldn't be linked from here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Being behind a paywall isn't unacceptable, but it's definitely to be avoided if there is an open source available. Since the reference is behind a paywall, I can not verify the accuracy of the text. Specifically, as written, I get the impression that the framework is something ESA has adopted as a standard, but the abstract (only available part of the reference) just says they've used it once.
 * Yes, people have written about their own work. That's something many people try to get rid of whenever possible, especially if it looks biased. That's because it is a blatant conflict of interest. In this case, the NanoSat MO Framework is not the only way to write software for CubeSat's and we've only got the author's biased opinion that it's a particular good one. Worse, take a look at the NanoSat MO Framework article. It's flag for having "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and for "contain[ing] content that is written like an advertisement." If you look at the talk page, the editor who created the article admits he is the "author of the referenced paper."
 * It might, occasionally, be ok for editor to mention his own work. But it isn't ok to turn Wikipedia into a collection of advertisements. I'd like to be convinced this is not a personal effort by someone to market his own product. Fcrary (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So delete NanoSat MO Framework.  But if we give NanoSat MO Framework  WP's imprimatur, it belongs as a link (we're talking about one referenced para) from small satellite. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe NanoSat MO Framework should be deleted. At the very least, it (and the text here on small satellite) should be rewritten by someone familiar with the subject but not personally involved with the product. Unfortunately, I'm a flight software user, not a flight software developer, so I'm not sure if I'm the right person to do that. In any case, if we're linking to one way to develop small satellite software, shouldn't we link to every article on other ways to do so? I think it has to be all or none, otherwise the link is a product endorsement. Fcrary (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Rather bland
Back in the 1970s, I suffered through more than a few textbooks that helpfully explained everything, and yet at the same time, left no permanent residue.

While all such satellites can be referred to as "small", different classifications are used to categorize them based on mass.

Satellites can be built small to reduce the large economic cost of launch vehicles and the costs associated with construction.

Miniature satellites, especially in large numbers, may be more useful than fewer, larger ones for some purposes – for example, gathering of scientific data and radio relay.

Technical challenges in the construction of small satellites may include the lack of sufficient power storage or of room for a propulsion system.

Okay, let's summarize:
 * small comes in more than one size — who would have guessed?
 * big objects are more expensive to hurtle into space than small objects — who would have guessed?
 * when Goliath steps on the wrong ant hill, sometimes the ants win — who would have guessed?
 * many crotch rockets barely have enough trunk space under the seat to pack a credit card and a pair of bikini briefs — who would have guessed?

Somebody hand me some oxygen, I think I'm blanking out. &mdash; MaxEnt 15:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)