|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 11, 2006 13:31:51 GMT -4
An orbital plane must contain the primary's center of gravity point. That is a fundamental requirement of all orbits.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 11, 2006 13:38:59 GMT -4
Well, I suppose that when they hear "polar orbit", that is what pops into their brain. Wow, a Molnyia orbit would make their head explode! (Those things are so neat!)
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 11, 2006 14:03:06 GMT -4
Well, I suppose that when they hear "polar orbit", that is what pops into their brain. Wow, a Molnyia orbit would make their head explode! (Those things are so neat!) The Wikipedia article is certainly not good for my headache.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 11, 2006 14:31:26 GMT -4
I also noticed that the Orbital Mechanics page of the Rocket and Space Technology site run by our very own Bob B is referenced by Wikipedia.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 11, 2006 14:38:11 GMT -4
Orbital mechanics are really interesting...unfortunately, everything about them is counterintuitive from a "terran" POV... I only wish these folks would bother to get the slightest smarts on the subject before "going off". In their little universes, they're "king of the world" I suppose. Almost embarrasing to watch...oh well.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 11, 2006 14:59:09 GMT -4
I dropped in on the 9/11 area there a while ago...
...be afraid...be very afraid...(insert Twilght Zone theme music here...)
I thought the Internet was here to make us smarter..."I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore...check my website/blog at www...."
Sheesh
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 11, 2006 15:01:09 GMT -4
An orbital plane must contain the primary's center of gravity point. That is a fundamental requirement of all orbits. I guess that is why Saturn is wearing "rings" and not a "beret"... Makes absolute, perfect sense.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 11, 2006 16:47:16 GMT -4
Orbital mechanics are really interesting...unfortunately, everything about them is counterintuitive from a "terran" POV...
I think I can visualize the orbit from the diagram. It is something like a comet orbit. It spends most of its time on one side of the earth. When it its furthest away and moving relatively slowly, even orbiting less slowly than geosynchronous. The very far northern slant gives it some “hang time” over the northern latitudes before falling back down to the closer faster pass south of the equator.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 11, 2006 18:09:57 GMT -4
I may have used the term geosynchronus wrong with respect to the orbit but I knew that it wouldn't be a geostationary orbit but still need to be one with a 24 hour period to stay on the day side.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 11, 2006 18:23:35 GMT -4
Geosynchronous means synchronized (in some way) with the Earth's rotation, which can include harmonic periods, etc. Geostationary is a subset of geosynchronous that results in the satellite remaining in the same position in the sky as seen from Earth.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 11, 2006 18:28:07 GMT -4
The Russians/USSR have a unique situation due to the latitude of their launch sites. The energy required to get to the equatorial orbits from their launch sites is enormous! The Molnyia was a functional "alternative". Heck. I find it interesting using the Orbiter sim to try to put the Apollo CSM into a GeoSync orbit. It takes about the same energy as getting into orbit around the Moon.
Folks really take their DirectTV for granted, not understanding what went into providing it.....
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 11, 2006 18:41:30 GMT -4
I may have used the term geosynchronus wrong with respect to the orbit but I knew that it wouldn't be a geostationary orbit but still need to be one with a 24 hour period to stay on the day side. Geosynchonous/geostationary orbits still rotate with the planet, and thusly pass from day to night with their ground referenced position. They don't stay on the day (or night) side of the planet. It's an orbit designed to stay over an Earth longitude, with various degrees of latitude depending on the inclination of the orbit.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 11, 2006 21:17:38 GMT -4
Geosynchronous should be the right term as the orbit I'm thinking of would need it to stay on the day side but as it would need to orbit the opposite direction as a geostationary orbit to stay on the day side, would a retrograde geosynchronous orbit be the most correct term?
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Jul 11, 2006 21:36:41 GMT -4
Geosynchronous should be the right term as the orbit I'm thinking of would need it to stay on the day side but as it would need to orbit the opposite direction as a geostationary orbit to stay on the day side, would a retrograde geosynchronous orbit be the most correct term? Its not possible for an orbit around Earth to stay on the day side of the planet. A "retrograde geostationary" orbit would still circle the planet every 24 hours, it would just do it in the oposite direction to Earth's rotation. The only way to get an object to stay on the day side is for it to be in orbit around the sun or in the inner Lagrange point.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jul 12, 2006 1:05:16 GMT -4
I need to read up on them, but wouldn't a variation of the "sun synchronous" orbit fill a 24/7 sunshine situation? IIRC, it's a slightly retrograde polar orbit that is designed to pass over the surface in identical lighting conditions orbit after orbit. Were this aligned with the Earth's terminator, it would possibly be a "sunshine" orbit.(?)
|
|