Can some real rocket scientists help me with what holds satellites up? Jeff Vayda? Mr Adrenaline? Anyone? Help!! Cobalt Blue claims [she's a bit vulgar, but ignore that]:
Message 16261207
<Mq, I don't want to get into an interminable pissing match about satellites on this thread. I realize that you are capable of beating this horse until it is not only dead but bloodless. Nevertheless, 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.
Sorry I struck a nerve, but pissing on me isn't going to make your money come back.;^)
>
I claim Message 16261285
<CB, I am going to copy your post over to the Globalstar thread [people over there need a good laugh given the financial damages they've suffered].
What you wrote really was funny to geeky technoids.
I'm not intending to flog a dead horse, but when you write stuff which is wrong, I do have the energy [for now] to correct it for you and readers who might misunderstand how things really work.
It's the photovoltaic wings which make the satellites stay up, not the fuel on the satellite being used to push them up. GEOs have bigger photovoltaic wings because the atmosphere is thinner way out there. They also need more light to generate more electricity, [one of nature's happy balances], LEOs have smaller wings because there's more air down low and radio transmission distances are shorter [the power required being the square of the distance]. That's why submarines have really little wings and 747s have bigger ones [water is very dense and air is less dense - submarines are also buoyant even though they are made of steel and sink regularly].
You are not convincing me that you knew why Globalstar went kaput if you don't know what keeps the satellites up. Actually, [seriously], just a couple of weeks ago it occurred to me that a lot of people actually wouldn't have a clue what keeps a satellite up there. I guess I was right.
You are right, I am not a rocket scientist. Everything I know about satellites, I make up for fun. Did a real rocket scientist tell you about what keeps satellites up there? She was wrong, it's the photovoltaic panels.
Scientifically speaking,
Mqurice
PS: Kepler's law is "The bigger the photovoltaic surface, the bigger the satellite and the higher it flies". Ask IT if I am right.
Also, it's okay to discuss Globalstar here as it's directly related to the Great Financial Collapse of 2001, as Jay pointed out. Fractal forms suggest Globalstar as a microcosm of the whole world since the same drives which led to the Globalstar failure apply to everything. Did you know for example that Globalstar's Zenit crash directly caused the Long Term Capital Management crash and the subsequent international financial gyrations which were primed, ready for a butterfly to crash [instead of taking off] in a Russian forest? Jay was percipient to see the connection of Globalstar to the whole. I was very impressed. He makes me very nervous. >
To see the debate, click back up the chain from CB to me in that stream.
CB was explaining to me why Globalstar failed and how dumb I was not to see the obvious that there's not enough demand for satphones.
Mqurice |
