CB -
...I find it hard to believe you don't know why GEO satellites are capable of carrying a larger payload than LEO satellites.
Gravitational pull is affected by mass and distance. The bigger the mass, the greater the gravitational pull. The further the distance between the masses, the less the gravitational pull. For an object of the same mass, the further the distance, the less the pull. The closer the distance, the greater the pull. LEO satellites orbit closer to the earth, so to keep from being pulled out of orbit, they are made smaller. The devices which you describe to pull the satellite back into orbit obviously work better on smaller satellites, because they use a great deal of energy. It's not like waving a magic wand.
No, I am not a rocket scientist, and neither are you. Everything I know about satellites I learned from real rocket scientists. ...
The definition of a stable orbit is that the pull of gravity bends the trajectory of the satellite into a unique closed path that maintains a constant total of kinetic and gravitational potential energy without requiring any propulsion or fuel use at all, independent of orbital height.
Fuel is needed for station keeping, and LEO satellites probably suffer from atmospheric drag, requiring compensation.
The size of a satellite is a matter of economics. The smaller the satellite and the less the combined mass of the satellite and its fuel, the cheaper the launch cost to orbit. No satellite is likely to be designed to be larger than its purpose requires, and for small enough satellites, multiple satellites can be deployed from a single launch vehicle.
Regards, Don
Not a rocket scientist either. |
