Not too long ago, I was discussing all this with a computer guru and think tanker, Troy Laclaire, and he stated; "I think a ground based approach is best, but perhaps have satellite for those areas where ground is not feasible." Okay I understand this comment and I too am a bit worried about the coming solar maximum and the loss of satellite communication in the event of a really big solar flare.
So, I told him - well, NASA almost learned the hard way with their Messenger Project orbiting Mercury during that last solar flare, thank god it missed that planet that time, or that satellite/space craft would have been a Shish Kabob of expensive metal alloy. Troy noted that there is "not much they could have done if it had hit, but you think they could have planned better?"
Indeed, he's right, and really I don't doubt for a minute that NASA engineers had not considered this, and made all the electronics battle hardened with a very thick shell. But at some point there comes a time when you can't make it any stronger, or you lose functionality. Even if the spacecraft would've survived, all the antennas and sensors would have been destroyed. They almost lost the whole thing that time.
Now then, let's get back to the issue of an "all-satellite" ATC system, are you beginning to see my concern here? Troy stated that perhaps even if we went to an all-satellite system, we should also keep the old ground based system, or "at least have a ground based fall back system in place where ever feasible so that if something does occur to the satellite system, you don't lose all abilities."
Hmm, yes, good point. Yes, and too there is a frequency allocation issue whenever there is a back-up redundancy, which is a FAA/FCC constant debate. Plus, if you get a massive solar flare the aircraft's system could go dark, and the fly-by-wire aircraft may crash anyway, which is a good many of these newer airliners, and on top of that what good does it do to have an ATC system which is up if the aircraft they are transmitting to are down and the electronics onboard are fried?
Indeed, Troy noted, that "planes already up in the air, are going to be a problem. However you want some kind of system that could take over for those that are still in flight.
You bet they are, but consider if you will that it any time there are between 2650 to 5000 flights over the United States of America or within our territorial boundaries and any to a given time. Can you imagine 5000 flights declaring an emergency at the same time? Holy heck Batman!
