Talk:Small satellite

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "molesat"?! 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Renaming the article (March 2015) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why not more discussion of CubeSats and ESPA-class satellites? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disambiguation for 'chipsat' 

message: 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. — MaxEnt 15:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather bland