Home
Register
Log in
Russia has been producing vacuum rated satellites for a while. This is why the lifespan of their GLONASS and communications
satellites is now over 10 years. The Soviet type pressurized satellites would fail in less than 5 years because the air leaks out
no matter how good your design. But the Soviet type were designed for a high turnover since money was not an issue.
Most western experts used to look down their noses at the short lifespans of Soviet satellites, but I remember one pointed out that having the capacity to renew the satellite fleet quickly was a side effect of this issue and that also electronics date so the more often you replace them the more often you update them and improve their capabilities too.
He claimed that to start with the west had an advantage because their electronics were better... but after a few years the Soviets would replace their satellites which would of course get better while the western satellite remained as it was when launched.
He also pointed out that any potential losses of damaged satellites can be quickly replaced by the Soviets because they have greater launch capacity because they are launching rather more satellites than the west is.
It is a bit peculiar that there would be a vacuum rated electronics problem. I doubt the newer Russian satellites are dependent
on imported electronics to a show-stopper extent.
Wasn't there an article a short while back about Russia selling the rocket motors they sold to the US in return for micro electronic technology... I would think vacuum rated electronics would be high on their list of information to acquire, and the Chinese would certainly benefit from the added rocket power... and lets face it the secret is already out with the US buying so many anyway.
The Chinese could have stolen the plans for the rockets from the US, but instead they traded with Russia... makes you think they might only be the bad guys when they have to be... unlike the US which seems to have the opposite problem.
