This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Spaceflight Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

While the page talks about different satellite categories, there is no indication as to whether the names-mass correspondence is standardized anywhere. I feel it would be better if we could cite an official source for the mass categories. --AJ Mas (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:^{[citation needed]}

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On June 29, CesarCoelho added text on the NanoSat MO Framework. The reference is behind a paywall and CesarCoelho is actually the first author of the work. That seems like a blatant case of a conflict of interest and of using Wikipedia to advertise his own work. Am I wrong to think this violates multiple guidelines and policies? Fcrary (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:PAYWALL. A paywall is not a reason to delete. Besides which, many editors here have access to IEEE publications. Nor is being the author of something reason to exclude it. WP has a number of cases where an author has written an article about their own book, and yet they've still been kept past AfD. Yes, there is reason to be careful with such edits, but you've given no specific cases.

There is an article at NanoSat MO Framework. This question comes down to "Should that article be linked from here?" Seriously? You're even asking? If you want to AfD NanoSat MO Framework, then go for it. But if that article is judged notable, then I can see no valid reason why it shouldn't be linked from here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being behind a paywall isn't unacceptable, but it's definitely to be avoided if there is an open source available. Since the reference is behind a paywall, I can not verify the accuracy of the text. Specifically, as written, I get the impression that the framework is something ESA has adopted as a standard, but the abstract (only available part of the reference) just says they've used it once.

Yes, people have written about their own work. That's something many people try to get rid of whenever possible, especially if it looks biased. That's because it is a blatant conflict of interest. In this case, the NanoSat MO Framework is not the only way to write software for CubeSat's and we've only got the author's biased opinion that it's a particular good one. Worse, take a look at the NanoSat MO Framework article. It's flag for having "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and for "contain[ing] content that is written like an advertisement." If you look at the talk page, the editor who created the article admits he is the "author of the referenced paper."

It might, occasionally, be ok for editor to mention his own work. But it isn't ok to turn Wikipedia into a collection of advertisements. I'd like to be convinced this is not a personal effort by someone to market his own product. Fcrary (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So delete NanoSat MO Framework. But if we give NanoSat MO Framework WP's imprimatur, it belongs as a link (we're talking about one referenced para) from small satellite. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe NanoSat MO Framework should be deleted. At the very least, it (and the text here on small satellite) should be rewritten by someone familiar with the subject but not personally involved with the product. Unfortunately, I'm a flight software user, not a flight software developer, so I'm not sure if I'm the right person to do that. In any case, if we're linking to one way to develop small satellite software, shouldn't we link to every article on other ways to do so? I think it has to be all or none, otherwise the link is a product endorsement. Fcrary (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]