Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (7724)	8/26/2001 3:33:38 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 74559

<<No satellite is likely to be designed to be larger than its purpose requires>> Unless this satellite is the Moon Oversized for the size of the planet it orbits. Me? Rocket Scientist? No!

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (7724)	8/26/2001 2:44:47 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Thanks, Don. However, there is no such thing as a "stable orbit." The earth is not perfectly round, and the oceans bulge out when pulled by the moon, so the distance between a satellite and the earth is always changing. I doubt very much that Globalstar satellites suffer much atmospheric drag at 1460 km. I agree that the size of a satellite is a matter of economics. However, it is also true that a satellite with smaller mass is subject to less gravitational pull than a satellite with larger mass, at the same altitude. So the amount of power required to maintain the orbit is part of the calculation. You can put a big satellite into a LEO orbit, but it would require more power to maintain its altitude, whether you are talking about hydrazine, photovoltaic cells, or radio-isotopic thermoelectric generators, or whatever plasma propulsion uses.