Here is an interesting self-assessment: scroll down through Figure 1 and 2. Form a mental image of how big you think the satellite is. Then scroll down through 3 and 4 and see how far off you are. I was imagining a much larger satellite than one shown in figure 4.

Yes, I did read "nanosatellite", but I was still thinking it would be bigger.

Anyone interested in the data can decode it with a cheap receiver and some pretty simple software: http://www.rtl-sdr.com/ads-b-decoder-gomx-3-satellite-ads-b-...

It also seems that FlightRadar24 is using GOMX-3 data to track flights: https://blog.flightradar24.com/blog/tracking-flights-with-sa...

This satellite is an excellent example of what the rapid decrease in cost and mass on computing and sensors has done to the satellite industry.

Which will ultimately open up satellite based communications for us mere mortals. I've been wanting to launch a short lived satellite for so long but costs are too high.

Communications missions require power. Power is directly relate to solar surface area and the mass required to dissipate heat. That all leads to a larger satellite. Once you get to a certain size/mass, it's best to just park it in a GEO slot, since the dwell time is 24/7 (as opposed to 6 to 9 minutes of contact time in LEO).

I hope it doesn't, unless we have a way of avoiding or recovering from a Kessler Syndrome event that denies us access to LEO.

This seems like it would be easy to avoid by not launching too high. I think there are already rules about disposing of satellites after they are no longer being used, so there's no reason those rules couldn't be applied to tiny personal satellites as well.

These sorts of low density satellites don't stick around long enough in low earth orbit to be much of a concern.

Which in turns makes them a ridiculous waste of precious resources. We're literally letting expensive materials burn up in the atmosphere, and I don't like the idea of scaling this process up significantly.

I think the future may not lie in satellites - most of the tasks could be done by fleets of solar-powered high-altitude drones. With the added benefits of a) being hugely cheaper to launch, and b) much easier to fix and relaunch. I wonder what's the state of tech in that area?

Expensive materials? It's mostly aluminum and silicon...

Sure, there are trace amounts of precious metals in the circuitry and batteries, but hardly enough to worry about.

Drones sound far more expensive and complicated. Not only does it need all the complexity of this satellite, it also needs to be a high endurance autonomous drone...

> Drones sound far more expensive and complicated. Not only does it need all the complexity of this satellite, it also needs to be a high endurance autonomous drone...

Drones per se, yes, but a satellite also needs to reach orbital velocity to be anything more than an expensive metal brick. We do that using huge amounts of rocket fuel. So I think if you add in the costs of rocket, solar-powered UAVs would have a great price advantage. The complexity isn't that of a problem - satellites have to be simple because if something breaks in orbit, you'll need another rocket to get someone up there to fix it.

RE endurance requirements, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't upper atmosphere quite calm?

Sure, but the advantage of cubesats is that they 'piggyback' on other launches that were happening anyway (in this case, an ISS resupply mission).

it's far from where the money is right now, which is telcom in GSO, though. it's fantastic as a proof of concept and a tech demo, but it still is ways to go.