• Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem you face with that idea is that the satellites will have to have enough power to retransmit signals.

    While the Mars > L3/L4 > Earth route is not much of an issue as the large receivers on earth can deal with a small power output at Lagrange. A signal moving in the other direction will have to be quite powerful to reach the small receivers on the Mars end.

    • threelonmusketeers
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      L3

      Did you mean L5? L3 is always in line with the sun, so it doesn’t seem like it would be useful for communication.

      A signal moving in the other direction will have to be quite powerful to reach the small receivers on the Mars end.

      Would it be easier to have a separate satellite for each direction, one at the Earth-Sun L4 point, and one at the Mars-Sun L4 point? Could we get a large enough dish to the Earth-Sun L4 point?

      Alternatively, could we use lasers instead of radio? The SpaceX Starlink satellites have laser inter-links, and NASA just sent up the ILLUMA-T payload to the ISS last week.

      • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty much. For it to be effective as a relay it would need some large dishes and a large power supply (large solar array) plus a good amount of propellant for station keeping.

        So it would be a quite expensive option when it is only really required for a few weeks a year.

        Also with the mass it would likely have to be I doubt there was a heavy lift rocket that could do the job in recent times until Falcon Heavy came along.

        • threelonmusketeers
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          plus a good amount of propellant for station keeping

          Aren’t L4 and L5 naturally stable points? A large propellant budget shouldn’t be required for station keeping.

          • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They are much more stable than other locations but are not completely stable, so station keeping is required. In a theoretical two body system Lagrange points would be perfectly stable but that is not the case with the solar system. Eg: The orbit of the moon ever so slightly effects the Sun - Earth Lagrange points.

            The JWST is a good example. The expected observational lifespan of the telescope is based on how long it is able to remain at L2.

            NASA Says Webb’s Excess Fuel Likely to Extend its Lifetime Expectations

            • threelonmusketeers
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The JWST is a good example. The expected observational lifespan of the telescope is based on how long it is able to remain at L2.

              I thought L1, L2, and L3 were unstable but L4 and L5 were stable. Hence why asteroids and other detritus tend to collect at L4/L5.

              Edit: Huh, it looks like the stability of L4 and L5 are dependent on the mass ratio of the two bodies. The ratio works out for the Sun-Earth system, so it should also work for the Sun-Mars system.

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        But is it necessary?

        If Musk ever gets to Mars the lack of communication for two weeks will be the best part of the project.

        • Jay
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          They should try something with magnets.