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: Snowshoe who wrote (7797)	8/27/2001 3:28:25 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

If Wildstar is correct that "once the object reaches orbital velocity, no fuel is needed to keep the object in orbit", then why do satellites have thrusters, whether powered by hydrazine, plasma, nitrogen, or whatever? And why are satellites' effective life over when their thrusters run out of fuel? F'ing amateurs.-ng-

To: Snowshoe who wrote (7797)	8/27/2001 3:35:26 AM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

'It ain't the meat, it's the motion' .... Maria Muldaur, Rockin Scientist, ca 1968 Maurice was joking around a little back there a ways as well, and CB took it serious ... levity vs gravity sans benefit of amity = calamity [edit] - CB, in re - #reply-16263308 - this was answered well a few posts back, it's because they need slight but continuing and frequent adjustment to tidal forces, the moon mainly but there are many others ... this is not to keep them in orbit, but more to keep them pointed in the desired direction .... i'll bet even light has an effect, small but photons push a measurable amount, i think i read that somewhere, could have been in a Scrooge McDuck comic -g- ..... lighten up, eh .... cheers