Tiny satellites ushering in a new space revolution (opens in new tab)

Another way to track animal and eventually bird migrations when resolution is high enough. Better coverage of large scale disasters, think earthquake and your mentioned hurricanes, but also fires in remote areas and possibly detection of avalanches. Perhaps even revealing ancient civilizations that haven't been identified yet? There is a lot of area on this planet not of interest and not extensively photographed to where its generally available.

Global surveillance networks.

I'm not sure if this includes the Skylabs-TerraBella launches?

Skylabs had seven high-res SkySat satellites that Planet got via acquiring Skylabs/TerraBella complementing its existing fleet of medium res satellites.

Planet’s existing network could only get three to five meter resolution, while Skybox’s satellites could manage “sub-meter" accuracy.

80 million in funding seems low. The price of the Skybox/TerraBella acquisition from Google alone had to be in the hundreds of millions.

feet?

The other comments that are replying to you have it fairly accurate. It's not widely known but it isn't a secret either: the point of the doves is to be deployed en masse and with more capability with every subsequent build. A quick refresh in the constellation means there is fresh hardware in space every so often.

This means the intention is indeed for re-entry into the atmosphere after the operational lifespan of the dove has lapsed. (They physically stay in space only a few years depending on altitude, orbit, exposed atmospheric drag and a couple of other things)

The last two flocks alone have put close to 130 sats in space so the debris issue is something that is taken quite seriously at the company.

Source: I work at planet. I generally lurk on HN but I created an account just now to reply to this :)

EDIT: Relevant blog post from a couple years ago - https://www.planet.com/pulse/keeping-space-clean-responsible...

This is simply ignorant of the plans. Firstly, there are levels of functionality, being able to provide service being the highest one. Out of service satellites are still most likely to be able to execute a controlled re-entry. Secondly, these satellites will be in low Earth orbit. If they become completely inoperable they have an orbital lifetime of only a few years before they re-enter. Only with routine station keeping maneuvers can they stay in orbit for even their sub-decade planned lifetimes. So there's very little risk of a Kessler syndrome type situation developing. At any given time the number of derelict satellites in orbit would be quite small if not zero.

You don't have to worry too much about the low Earth orbit (LEO) sateillites as they will deorbit soon enough. My understanding is that there is also ongoing research into methods to deorbit them at end of life.

Maybe this is a good time to bring up the European Space Agency film about space debris [1].

[1]. http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/content/view/embedjw/484820

There's a lot more to do in remote sensing, but I think your comment that there's an API for looking at the world is perhaps the more accurate way to describe the power of this moment in technology history. It is a great feat Planet has accomplished.

Materials Science. Tinkering with off the shelf hardware (even start with RaspberryPis). Systems Integration (legit systems integration, not the shitty title Accenture/Deloitte/Generic Consulting Company gives you for working at an Enterprise client). FPGAs. Electrical Engineering. Thermal Engineering is huge. or the usual: Software Engineering. (because satellites need software too)

Any of the above to name a few

Engineering degree; willingness to work in Defense (to cut your teeth)

Not really. Once something is in orbit, it's just going to naturally stay in orbit unless acted on by an outside force. That's just basic inertia.

There is some amount of atmospheric drag in low earth orbit which will eventually cause satellites at that altitude to lose speed and fall back to earth, but that drag is small enough that the satellites should be able to remain in orbit for years without needing any additional thrust.

The way it works is that the satellite has very high velocity tangent to the earth- so they are constantly falling to earth, but they are moving tangent at the same rate that they are falling- because the earth is a sphere, the ground "falls away" from underneath them. They're constantly "missing" the Earth.

The moon doesn’t need any propulsion to stay in orbit around the Earth. A satellite is just a very small and very close moon. The fact that it’s closer than the moon just means that it will orbit faster than the moon does.

Yes, a tl;dr would be very much appreciated if anyone were to have the time and inclination.