Hi Maurice and CB, I will add my bit of confusion on satellite design, orbital geometry, and rocketry physics. Satellite should ideally be ‘small’ in physical dimension, and mass; and ‘large’ in function, redundancy, reliability, and maneuverability. The ‘smaller’ the satellite is, the ‘easier’ it is to initially launch, and subsequently maneuver on track, with smaller rocket, less fuel, and more manageable tidal stress on the structure. The ‘larger’ the satellite is, the ‘more’ functionality, redundancy, and reliability can be packed, but requiring more fuel in bigger rocket at possibly more cost.
You two were (to an outside observer) talking ‘more or less’ about the same principles but from opposite ends of many meanings of many words. Maurice, being an older engineer down under, has an odd sense of humor, liking to tweak people’s sensibilities. CB, being a lawyer, has a natural preference for exactitude and literal interpretation.
So, here we have a den of odd balls and monsters, bulls and bears, ribs and French fries, boomers, doomers and gloomers. Minus one, we are less than whole.
Chugs, Jay |
