It costs a lot of energy (and therefore money) to put a massive object into detail. The amount of energy depends directly on the satellite's mass.
Larger moons have enough mass to gravitationally pull themselves into a spherical shape, and smaller ones do not.
Engineers keep the masses of satellites as small as possible to reduce the overall cost of sending them into space, as heavier satellites require more fuel and resources for launches. Additionally, smaller satellites are more maneuverable and flexible in their deployment options in space.
No, it's to small.
Because there could be weapons of mass destruction aboard it + they can use the satellites for surveillance.
Satellite. Satellites can be natural, like the Moon, or artificial like GPS satellites.
Phobos and Diemos. Both are very small, as planetary satellites go, and both are suspected of being captured asteroids.
It can be natural satellites (moons), man-made satellites or small pieces of matter such as ice (rings of the outer planets).
It can be natural satellites (moons), man-made satellites or small pieces of matter such as ice (rings of the outer planets).
There's no reason to expect that the number of a planet's satellites ... natural or artificial ... should have any effecton the planet's mass.Wait ... I take that back. If people on earth launch an artificial satellite having mass of 1,000 kilograms,then as long as that satellite remains in orbit, the mass of the earth is reduced by 1,000 kilograms. Butthe loss is reclaimed as soon as the artificial satellite leaves orbit, even if it's incinerated in the atmosphereupon re-entry.A natural satellite has no effect on a planet's mass, so long as it doesn't fall in on the planet.
It uses 66 small satellites in low earth orbit
because God created it uniquely/uncommon..
The larger satellites have sufficient gravity to pull the matter into a "rounded" shape, whereas smaller ones do not.