Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Korean Artist's Intentionally Useless Satellite To Launch This December

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the hey-it-beats-working dept.

Communications 151

An anonymous reader quotes the introduction to Inhabit's article on the upcoming launch of an art project cum satellite intended to be as different as possible from conventional space hardware: "South Korean artist Song Hojun has created his own DIY satellite from scratch – and he's planning to launch it into space this coming December. Song created the satellite from assorted junk he found in back-alley electronics stores in his home town of Seoul, and over the course of six years he has finally managed to complete his space-bound project. Song's satellite cost just over $400 to make, however the cost of launching it to space is going to be a lot, lot more – over $100,000."

cancel ×

151 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (5, Insightful)

BMOC (2478408) | about 2 years ago | (#40986353)

Seriously, we don't need more space junk. This "artist" is a griefer.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (4, Insightful)

yourexhalekiss (833943) | about 2 years ago | (#40986593)

Oh come on. I can't imagine that this $400 "satellite" has a propulsion system of any kind. It will deorbit in months if not weeks, and burn up on reentry in to the atmosphere. This satellite isn't going to be space junk.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (4, Informative)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 2 years ago | (#40987191)

Oh come on. I can't imagine that this $400 "satellite" has a propulsion system of any kind. It will deorbit in months if not weeks, and burn up on reentry in to the atmosphere.

It doesn't need a propulsion system to avoid deorbiting in weeks or months - it just needs to be put in a high enough orbit that atmospheric drag is minimized. Out beyond a couple of hundred miles, you're into a lifetime of years if not decades. Out a couple of thousand and you start getting into the centuries if not millenia range.
 
Not to mention, there's a huge range between a few hundred miles and geosynchronous that's all-but-empty because the orbits aren't all that useful.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (2, Funny)

Talderas (1212466) | about 2 years ago | (#40987971)

What's the difference between a lifetime of years and a lifetime of decades?

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (2)

camperdave (969942) | about 2 years ago | (#40988097)

What's the difference between a lifetime of years and a lifetime of decades?

Dozens of years.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#40987723)

I can't imagine that this $400 "satellite" has a propulsion system of any kind. It will deorbit in months if not weeks

If you need a propulsion system to stay in orbit, you're not really in orbit.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#40987769)

No space junk has a propulsion system. That's exactly what makes it space junk: You cannot control its orbit.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 2 years ago | (#40987801)

I should have written: No space junk has a working propulsion system, of course.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#40987977)

Oh come on. I can't imagine that this $400 "satellite" has a propulsion system of any kind. It will deorbit in months if not weeks, and burn up on reentry in to the atmosphere. This satellite isn't going to be space junk.

Assuming it stays in 1 piece (not a safe assumption). All it takes is some collisions with other space junk to start ripping parts off which can take longer to deorbit and contribute to the ever growing pile of junk circling the planet.

The few months it's up there are a few months of it ablating away and sending pieces orbiting to hit other things up there (everything gets hit).

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (4, Insightful)

kav2k (1545689) | about 2 years ago | (#40986607)

Target and do what? Blast into thousands of less trackable but no less dangerous fragments?

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986625)

Use it to test out a laser broom [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#40986881)

You got $900,000,000.00 to pay for it? That article you linked said it was 500m in 1990. It's a good idea, until you get to the paying for it part.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 2 years ago | (#40987525)

Yah but thats a government estimate. The people who would happily spend $10 million to build the same $400 satelite this artist built. I bet you if they took 1/10th of that money and made it a prize pool for whoever builds one first.... the prize will be a tidy profit to whoever does.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (2)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#40987603)

They could make it much cheaper if it was in orbit and didn't have to burn though the atmosphere to reach it's target.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986609)

Hopefully its on a relatively short-lived orbit. Either way, it's still a pretty fucking stupid idea.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (2)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#40986685)

I always assumed that CubeSats and TubeSats would just fall and burn up since they don't have propulsion to keep them up and moving.

IOS says cubesats will fall and burn up after several weeks. http://interorbital.com/CubeSat_1.htm [interorbital.com]

Though I suppose they could be ejected at greater distances.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (-1, Troll)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#40986739)

Seriously, we don't need more space junk. This "artist" is a griefer.

I hope it comes down in North Korea. In scrap value it might double the GDP of the country.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (-1, Offtopic)

omnichad (1198475) | about 2 years ago | (#40987805)

Wow, making fun of North Korea is a troll?

nice thought but pointless (2)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 2 years ago | (#40987167)

Unfortunately, we don't have any weapons that would make it simply not exist, only ones that would break it into lots of small, harder to deal with pieces. Better to target the "artist".

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#40987639)

Art for the sake of Art, is an other way to say, I get paid to make crap (sometime literacy).
Art to be visually appealing sure,
Art to express an idea or view point that is good too.

But art that isn't appealing when asked what does it mean, you get some vague answer like what do you think it means or it is art for art. That is just being lame.

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 years ago | (#40988073)

Building temples, digging holes and filling them in again, manufacturing piles of boots and then burning them ...

Re:Can the U.S. military target it immediately? (0)

Nrrqshrr (1879148) | about 2 years ago | (#40987973)

I was expecting more enthusiasm from the denizens of slashdot.
I mean, this is exactly the kind of mindset we want people to have. Taking random stuff and putting it together to create fancy objects. Tinkering for the sake of tinkering. This guy is so much better than those artists who create some successful album then spend all their earnings on cars, girls and coke.
If I was the guy launching it I would probably have thought a little more of the on-orbit-then-what part. But this is still very good news, and more people should be encouraged to do this.

First Intentionally Useless Post (-1, Offtopic)

linux_tom (2699093) | about 2 years ago | (#40986357)

First post

Re:First Intentionally Useless Post (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986661)

I will pay you $100,000,000 for the copyright to your post, linux_tom.

As a collector, I've identified it as one of the first examples of an intentionally useless post on an internet forum.

Indeed, I find it to be a contemporary reponse to sensualise a holistic signifier without making light of the transforming images seen only as musical moods of the abstract expressionists. The viewer is allowed to morph an intuitive presence which can logically only lead to a deeper venerating psuedo-sculptures usually seen as output of the sequence. This work attempts to encapsulate a collaborative void without ever quite fully transforming interventions often seen as musical moods of the neo-con dadaists. Indeed, it must be an exploration to de-objectify a respective signifier whilst not exaggerating concentrations often seen as excrement of the fluxus movement.

$100 million is a small price to pay for such a sui generis work.

Re:First Intentionally Useless Post (0)

Sentrion (964745) | about 2 years ago | (#40987117)

Too bad this thread is off-topic. I wish I could mod you +5 funny.

Art? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986383)

Isn't this the equivalent of putting together a non-running car out of scrap and then pushing it into the middle of the interstate and calling it 'art'?

Re:Art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986455)

That's pretty much exactly what it is. Here's to hoping some of the space capable nations blow it out of the sky before it gets there.

Re:Art? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986463)

Stop giving the artists ideas.

Re:Art? (4, Insightful)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about 2 years ago | (#40986663)

No, its the equivalent of building a RUNNING car from scrap, driving it on the interstate, and letting anyone control the lights from the internet. Sounds lame until you replace "driving it on the interstate" with "launching into earth orbit".

Re:Art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40987027)

No, its the equivalent of building a RUNNING car from scrap, driving it on the interstate, and letting anyone control the lights from the internet. Sounds lame until you replace "driving it on the interstate" with "launching into earth orbit".

Hm... no, no, I just tried replacing those, and it still sounds lame.

Re:Art? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40986709)

Or taking ten cars and burying them nose first in the desert & calling it "art". Hey I'm going to take my collection of VCRs and lay them in the front yard. Buried sideways! Come see my new art project.

Re:Art? (1)

triffid_98 (899609) | about 2 years ago | (#40986779)

Apparently you haven't been to Nebraska lately. Taking ten cars and burying them nose first in the desert & calling it "art" [carhenge.com]

Re:Art? (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | about 2 years ago | (#40986857)

Hey! I have a pallet of old macs in my backyard. Is that art?

Re:Art? (1)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#40988103)

If you are a recognised artist and it is art, if not, it is stupid and valueless. Art field, in my opinion, has become a popularity contest since the invention of photography. (Look up Picasso's philosophy of the role of artists after the photography invention).

Re:Art? (1)

Yaa 101 (664725) | about 2 years ago | (#40986783)

And then people say that we in the west are decadent...

Re:Art? (1)

JoeMerchant (803320) | about 2 years ago | (#40986863)

Except, the widest interstates are only a couple of hundred feet wide (say 200 meters) and traveled by thousands of vehicles per hour.

This satellite is going into three dimensional space above 500 million square kilometers, on a budget launch that will likely de-orbit faster than Sputnik, and even with "all the junk up there," there are less than 100 launches per year.

If you want to complain about something relevant, complain about idiots that fire pistols into the air on New Year's Day, sure, a falling bullet only kills one person (we've got billions), but those collisions actually happen.

Litterbug (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986387)

Littering near earth orbit as a side effect of doing something useful is problematic. Littering near earth orbit intentionally and for no purpose is pretty antisocial.

This guy is ahead of his time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986409)

He made the satellite from bent tin cans, scrap metal and vacumm cleaners found in metal boxes using a workbench.

Also, nice journalistic neutrality slashdot.

Re:This guy is ahead of his time (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986581)

He made a CubeSat.

He's not building a state of the art spy satellite, it's solar cells and LEDs, not exactly rocket science :)

You can even buy "blank" template kits and the company will launch them for you.

http://www.cubesatkit.com/

The littering fine should be even steeper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986411)

What the hell is he thinking? At least make it do *something*.

CUM satellite ?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986417)

What's a cum satellite? It sounds disgusting.

Re:CUM satellite ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986515)

Well, they really do love bukkake over there....

Re:CUM satellite ?? (1)

doubleplusungodly (1929514) | about 2 years ago | (#40986679)

Well, they really do love bukkake over there....

Wrong country.

Re:CUM satellite ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986527)

Did Peter Northrop-Grumman consult on it? LOL - I saw that too. Cum satellite?

Re:CUM satellite ?? (1)

fa2k (881632) | about 2 years ago | (#40987757)

I just launched a cum satellite into your mother yesterday

Re:CUM satellite ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40987899)

Unfortunately due to your tiny launch missile it only dribbled onto her stomach.

Re:CUM satellite ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40987939)

For non-native English speakers (like me), it's actually a correct ejaculation, meaning "with" or "combined with" ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cum?s=t [reference.com] )

Bill O. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986461)

OMG!!!! LIBURUL!!1!1!!

what it does (5, Informative)

PTBarnum (233319) | about 2 years ago | (#40986483)

Apparently people will be able to upload messages to be flashed in Morse code by LEDs on the satellite. So it actually does do something. I'm skeptical about how easy it will be to see the LEDs from Earth, though.

Re:what it does (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986543)

maybe one of you guys will hack it to propose to your geek girlfriend via morse code.

Re:what it does (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986729)

They better hope their right hand isn't tired with a headache that night.

Re:what it does (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986563)

Yeahhh but how many seconds will this LED flashing thing work before the electronics are destroyed by the sun's devastating radiation? I doubt he has the kind of shielding NASA uses if it cost him just $400 to build.

Re:what it does (1)

SoupGuru (723634) | about 2 years ago | (#40986573)

Yeah, the wording of the summary needs help and TFA doesn't bring it up until the last paragraph.

It's "scientifically" useless but still a pretty neat idea

Re:what it does (1)

hackertourist (2202674) | about 2 years ago | (#40987349)

Oh, it'll be visible all right. He's using scavenged consumer electronics. There's bound to be some sears-your-eyeballs blue LEDs in there.

Re:what it does (1)

TheSync (5291) | about 2 years ago | (#40988161)

Here are some "typical" luminously intense LEDs, 45 candela [superbrightleds.com] requiring 3.4W. Typical LEO is 200km. lux=candela/(distance^2) = 1.125e-9. Magnitude = -2.5 * log(lux) - 14.2 = 8.17

Generally stars with magnitude > 7 are not considered visible.

Compare with Sirius, at m = -1.6, gives 9.2e-6 lux.

If you gang together a bunch of those 45 candela LEDs, you might have something. Magnitude 7 is reached at three of them. 10 of them would get you magnitude 5.6, around the magnitude of the spiral galaxy M33 (used as a test for naked eye seeing under dark skies).

OK so I found a ~2000cd LED [luminus.com] (6000 lumens over 115 degrees), it would need 60W @ 3.15A to do this. That gives you Magnitude 4.

Of the seven brightest stars in Ursa Minor, the dimest three are magnitude 4 to 5.

So as they say on MythBusters, "Plausible".

Not sure if you can blow 60W for long on a small satellite though...

A little excessive (1)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | about 2 years ago | (#40986511)

Most artists, when something as dull as that, just dissasemble it/store it in the basement.

No need to use a space rocket to dispose of it.

good use of a limited resource (2)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 2 years ago | (#40986547)

It is certainly important to let and fund anyone who wants to call their self an "artist" to put junk into orbit. And far better to let this jerk, I mean artist, use the funds and the launch space to feel good about himself than to actually put micro-sats or other useful technology into space. After all, they are only designed and built by mere scientists, not artists.

Re:good use of a limited resource (2, Insightful)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about 2 years ago | (#40986743)

Yeah someone should tell this guy that space is only for the defense industry, telecoms, and maybe tiny bit o' NASA. If more people start doing crap like this its just going to lead to expanded launch capacities and a whole new range of non-techie types getting interested in space. Only a jerk would try to put a satellite in orbit that conceivably anyone can use. /(sarcasm and assuming decaying orbit or other space junk mitigation)

Re:good use of a limited resource (1)

knigitz (714500) | about 2 years ago | (#40986913)

Maybe we can start sending all our junk into space and right towards the sun. Clean the planet.

Why the fuck do you care? (1)

pavon (30274) | about 2 years ago | (#40987321)

It is certainly important to let and fund anyone who wants to call their self an "artist" to put junk into orbit. And far better to let this jerk, I mean artist, use the funds and the launch space to feel good about himself than to actually put micro-sats or other useful technology into space.

He didn't use your money, or any government funding, or force anyone to donate who didn't want to. Who are you to dictate how others choose to spend their resources?

Re:Why the fuck do you care? (1)

PPalmgren (1009823) | about 2 years ago | (#40987589)

Because space junk in lower orbits is a real problem. You get too much useless debris in space flying around the earth at thousands of miles an hour without known locations, you can't launch and get off this rock because launching a shuttle is like crossing the jersey turnpike during rush hour.

Re:Why the fuck do you care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40987819)

I'm the goddamn Batman!

And I don't approve of so called "art" that seems to be the space-equivalent of making a huge raft out of trash, birth control pills, heavy metals and anything that's dangerous to baby seals, and then floating it out into the middle of the ocean... where it can float for a long time letting geeks blink messages on leds from it.

Seriously, we have a trash-problem in orbit at several levels. Already. It's getting pretty crowded in some places. I don't mind giving scientists their room up there, hell, I encourage it.. but artists? They can stay the fuck in their galleries, or in places where they can actually clean up after themselves.

Of course if he's planning to go up there with a trashbag and bring it back down for recycling, or track it's decaying orbit and pick up any waste it leaves as it hits if he launches it incompetently, then I'm fine with it.

Re:Why the fuck do you care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40987919)

Who are you to dictate how others choose to spend their resources?

Exactly! If someone wants to buy $100,000 worth of thumbtacks to spread out on the nearby freeways or pink plastic to cover an entire island and everything alive on it, who am I to complain?

Bah, postmodern art (2)

chebucto (992517) | about 2 years ago | (#40986565)

Why not take an empty canvas and put it on the wall? Or drive around for half a day collecting random crap, then toss it all in a public square - call it a sculpture and a 'statement'.

Funny [theonion.com]

In all seriousness, there really should be a different word for these pomo conceptual people. Art has to have _some_ beauty in it, doesn't it? It _has_ to require talent beyond the everyday, doesn't it?

We should be able to expand art beyond renaissance-era landscapes and portraits using oil-on-canvas without debasing the term 'art' to cover everything. It make the term useless, just like some people are doing to hacking: ever since everything requiring the smallest modicum of... time? became hacking, every douchebag with time on his hands has felt welcome at HOPE, but at the same time a unique group has been diluted to nothing: something has been lost.

Re:Bah, postmodern art (0)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about 2 years ago | (#40986799)

It _has_ to require talent beyond the everyday, doesn't it?

How many transceivers have YOU built from spare parts that are capable of receiving a message in orbit? Sure these days its probably not that difficult for a EE but its still not something you see everyday.

Re:Bah, postmodern art (1)

chebucto (992517) | about 2 years ago | (#40986921)

That's find for this guy, but what about the vast swath of conceptual artists that produce technically dead-simple works - hanging sheets in odd ways, scrap metal randomly arranged, etc.

Re:Bah, postmodern art (1)

CaptainLard (1902452) | about 2 years ago | (#40987269)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, friend. I'd imagine that those scrap metalers have some idea what they are trying to do and some people might think the design is cool or even feel emotions other than apathy. It takes quite a bit of work to see a vision through to completion, even if it is just covering a huge canvas in blue paint and putting a dot in the middle. But they can't all be winners. Plus, you get the last laugh because "starving artist" is a term based on reality.

Mod parent down. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40987337)

You're a moron, broski.

Re:Bah, postmodern art (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 2 years ago | (#40987311)

I can't tell where the satire and seriousness of your post is.

The onion cartoons are parodies of cartoons, you can tell because art grants are not budget crippling.

Re:Bah, postmodern art (1)

chebucto (992517) | about 2 years ago | (#40987419)

The satire is in the link labeled 'Funny'. And in the (hopefully clearly) ridiculous suggestion just above it.

The serious part comes after the words "In all seriousness".

HTH.

Re:Bah, postmodern art (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 2 years ago | (#40987557)

Thanks,

My reading of the cartoon is that the modern art is valid artistic expression though, seemingly contrary to your suggestion, thus the confusion.

Re:Bah, postmodern art (1)

chebucto (992517) | about 2 years ago | (#40987791)

I linked to the cartoon because it gave a comically exaggerated vision of the non-artist artist. I agree with your reading of it, and indeed agree with the cartoon - art should be funded, it doesn't cost much, and not all non-traditional artists are 'sickos' that use odd materials to create their works.

Honestly, I'm confused about the subject as well - it's impossible to draw a clear line between what is and isn't 'art'. It really is true that some things take time to be accepted and understood by the general population; some of the out-there stuff of today will be loved tomorrow. But I still think there is a disconnect between pomo/conceptual art and beauty, and I think that is a problem. If you want to make a statement, take out a pad of paper and write. If you want to make art, make art. A can of artists' feces or a ripped canvas aren't beautiful, and may be useful as a prop in the ongoing debate about what art is, but are not themselves art.

Re:Bah, postmodern art (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#40987869)

It _has_ to require talent beyond the everyday, doesn't it?

Says who? Jackson Pollock was regularly derided for doing abstract work that people claimed their children could do better. Pollock's works sell in the millions when they sell.

Any Warhol painted soup cans.

Art is in the eye of the beholder, and is almost entirely subjective. People who try to define what constitutes are are mostly missing the point -- you don't have to like it, get it, appreciate it, or respect it. There is no uniform definition of it.

At the end of the day, what you and I think constitutes "art" is irrelevant. People have sold cans of shit [wikipedia.org] before -- and the last time that sold, it was over 100,000 pounds.

"cum satellite"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986575)

do not want.

It made me laugh (1)

rbanzai (596355) | about 2 years ago | (#40986589)

I don't know much about art but the idea of someone launching random street junk into space as a "satellite" made me laugh, and I think a big part of art is about provoking a reaction.

proof we need to stop copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986599)

proof we need to take money away from idiots

Engrish title? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40986637)

Shouldn't it be Korean Artist [to Launch]Intentionally Useless Satellite

Re:Engrish title? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986727)

Maybe, maybe not. But the original title was perfectly cromulent English.

ATTN NERDS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986641)

Quit hating. You do worse daily.

Bummer (1)

chihowa (366380) | about 2 years ago | (#40986651)

Too bad we can't put an actual functional amateur satellite up with that launch fee. It's weird that he even made it look like a real satellite. Why not actually put a real satellite up or at least some crazy fantasy design (that's no ping pong ball!).

Re:Bummer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40987807)

amateur radio people have been putting satellites in space for years.

this slashdot article is extremely misleading. even worse than usual.

the satellite is functional, it does something. not very much, but it's not just space junk.

in 2012, Slashdot FUDs YOU.

More interesting than the payload (1)

Stirling Newberry (848268) | about 2 years ago | (#40986677)

is getting it into orbit for that little.

Please DOn't Launch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986693)

I love the concept and I love the satellite. It is beautiful. What I don't love is actually burning the rocket fuel to launch it into orbit where it will never be seen again. Please skip the last part; it detracts much more from the project than it adds. Keep the project in a perpetual state of acquiring massive amounts of funding to launch it into space, but never do it. Spend the money on top ramen for the homeless instead.

If this satellite is launched, I might try to do one too. However, mine will contain something that I won't tell anyone about before launch: It'll open up and unfurl unto a net with as large a profile as possible.

Re:Please DOn't Launch (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#40988017)

Please skip the last part; it detracts much more from the project than it adds.

Without a launch the project is even more pointless.

Harold Crick must die.

cum satellite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986711)

"the upcoming launch of an art project cum satellite" WTF?

Re:cum satellite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40987851)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum An English linking word, derived from the Latin word for 'with.' It is used in many place names in England as well as in everyday English - e.g. Prestwich-cum-Oldham

was that so hard? does your generation really think you're so smart for omitting printed literature?

Don't You Wish.. (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#40986721)

You had parents who would lay out $100K just so you can do an attention-getting stunt?

Useless satellite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40986761)

So they are going to orbit a kardashian?

Some kids in the future... (1)

gshegosh (1587463) | about 2 years ago | (#40986899)

...will smile when Debris Section burns this piece of garbage in the atmosphere.

20 years ago... (1)

ionymous (1216224) | about 2 years ago | (#40986989)

when I was in school, one day in English class we were handed a sheet of paper to write or draw anything we wanted to be sent up to orbit in a space time capsule. I thought it seemed like a bad idea to put things in orbit that don't need to be there, so I drew a picture of Earth with a bunch of garbage cans, garbage bags, and debris floating around it. I wish I could see that picture I drew. Google helped me determine the program was called SpaceArc and the messages were carried to orbit on tape in the DirecTV 2 satellite in 1994. But I wish the contents of the tape were available for viewing online.

A good deal (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 2 years ago | (#40987297)

This is a bargain as far as useless satellites go.

At only $100,400, it's about six orders of magnitude cheaper than the International Space Station.

No wifi module? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40987313)

Gee, if he bought a wifi module, and a video cam - he could transmit the satellite moving through space
at least it would have done something

Not that different from ardusat (1)

PhamNguyen (2695929) | about 2 years ago | (#40987431)

This isn't that different from Ardusat, just different branding. Neither is actually useful, but one is branded as "art" while the other is branded as "educational".

Re:Not that different from ardusat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40987925)

it used to be that smart people liked art.

perhaps that was because they knew how to interpret it.

nowadays many smart people treat art like dumb people do, as if it were a dumb thing that they can't get anything out of.

their loss, i guess

I get it! It's waste of space AND it's space junk! (4, Interesting)

denzacar (181829) | about 2 years ago | (#40987613)

I am really, really trying to find some kind of justification for this "art" project and I'm coming up with bupkis.
OK... It does nothing scientific. But it does nothing artistic either.
It's about as artistic as painting a rock and dumping in the Marianas Trench.
For something to be considered art, it has to be able to communicate to other humans a message beyond just its own physical existence.

This satellite is supposed to send messages transmitted to it by blinking its LEDs and "People will be able to see the blinking lights with the naked eye or through a telescope".
Visible from the Earth's surface. With naked eye. LEDs. A 10x10x10 cm cube. Hanging in low Earth orbit. 600-2000 km from the surface. Right.

I can't really be bothered to look it up, but something tells me that you can't really see a 10 cm cube, 600-2000 km away, with an amateur telescope.
Besides, shouldn't Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) [esa.int] "ground" this project?

Also, WTF is "Science is Fantasy" supposed to mean?
That science is unattainable and/or imaginary? Not real? With no real function or application?
Just dumping that "is" and it would make SOME sense. Or reversing the order of words in the sentence.
This... this is just half-thought through crap.

All I see here is rich, privileged parents, buying their rich, privileged, spoiled kid his 15 minutes of fame since he can't get there with his own effort and talent.

Irony (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | about 2 years ago | (#40987633)

Link at the bottom of TFA: http://inhabitat.com/nasa-solar-powered-micro-satellite-will-clean-space-debris/ [inhabitat.com]

Also, I initially was thinking how it was kind of cool that he was able to build a satellite that he actually intends to launch, even if it's not especially useful. C'mon, how many of us started coding with "Hello World" programs? IMHO, this is kind of like that.

Then I RTFA'd (don't revoke my /. membership card!). Maybe it's just the author's tone and Song really is a cool guy, but in the article, he just came off...kinda pretentious, y'know? <shrug> Whatever. As others have noted, it will probably deorbit soon enough, and if he can drum up $100K to launch the thing, more power to him, I guess.

Crunchy space junk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40987647)

Just what we need, launching useless junk to make Earth orbit more dangerous.

What about performance art? (2)

Sentrion (964745) | about 2 years ago | (#40987797)

I have an even better art project. Find some POS art project that is a total waste of time and money, steal it, and smash it to pieces as performance art before it gets off the ground. Then I'll post the footage on youtube and let viewers try to decide what message I was trying to convey in my performance.

Seriously, this kind of crap is why I have much disdain for avant-garde, modern, and 'contemporary' art. In general, most of these types of artists tend to be on the far left of the political spectrum (which is ok, but...), they denounce poverty, pollution, and destruction of our environment. But how much destruction is from paint chemicals leaking into ground water? How many starving or improvrished people could be rescued from the grants paid to these "inspiring" artists? How many HFH homes could have been built with the labor and talent of our academic and intellectual leaders of the art world? I don't want to deny them their fun, and I don't know the political views of this artist, but I think we have all seen what I have described.

As non-artists, non-academics, and non-elites we have been conditioned to believe that we just don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the significance and importance of their great work. All told, most of the "new" art movements from the past 150 years have been a byproduct of delusional, paranoid schizophrenia or other mental illnesses. When crazy people connect with other crazy people, finding someone with the same delusions reinforces their belief that they do not have a mental illness but some profound insight into the nature of the Universe. So we have today an oligarchy of mentally ill cultural elites to whom the rest of the masses aim to aspire to in their aesthetic endeavors, not much unlike the inbred aristocracy that was convinced that they were owed special status in life due to their pedigree. Fortunately a few revolutions (France, America) eventually forced the aristocrats to take a back seat to productive citizens who now set their own destiny, banishing royal life to the back pages of gossip tabloids, somewhere behind part-cow/part-alien boy and the ghost of Michael Jackson. It would be nice one day to see mainstream non-art academics, financiers and art endowments wake up to a revolution of their own to refer these jokers to a different "institution".

Space junk (2)

Bert64 (520050) | about 2 years ago | (#40987923)

Great, just what we need, another piece of junk orbiting the planet and causing a hazard to other space missions.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>