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: Ilaine who wrote (7737)	8/26/2001 3:31:30 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

CB - ...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. ... You're simply mistaken about the requirement to overcome gravity to maintain an orbit. Ignoring any non-ideal secondary effects, an established orbit will persist without any additional input of energy by any means. If you look carefully at the reference you posted, you will see that every use of propulsion and thrust is to change the orbit, not maintain it. Regards, Don