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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Adrenaline who wrote (4005)	4/20/1999 10:47:00 PM
From: Valueman	Respond to of 29987

......and G* sums it all up with "Four more satellites were successfully launched today." Thanks Mr. A! I'm no rocket scientist, but 398 more posts like that and I could play one on TV!

To: Mr. Adrenaline who wrote (4005)	4/20/1999 11:46:00 PM
From: CommSatMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29987

Mr A. I only disagree with you on one point. When you compare station keeping consumption to orbit raising and lowering, the number is small. With a nominal 3-axis stabilized satellite, you will only use about 5 Kg of fuel in 10 years for station keeping. The rest is for altitude changes. Fuel is not an issue for either G* or Iridium. Iridium deorbits its satellites by lowering the orbit and allowing drag to cause burn-in in the atmosphere. G* moves its satellites out of the constellation by raising the orbit to a higher orbit. Since we both agree that the delta V to raise and lower orbits takes significantly more fuel than station keeping, the fuel margins are quite high and if either G* or Iridium had a satellite working well and wanted to keep it beyond its normal life, there would be plenty of station keeping fuel, there just would not be as much deorbit fuel margin and in Iridium's case, they would not lower the satellite so far and in G*, they would not raise it so much. I agree you balance the fuel and you design to a specific point. However, those points on these two systems are sufficient that the only problem you may have is when you reach end of life and can't deorbit as originally intended. I absolutely agree with you that should one decide to make a plane change, then you would have a problem with fuel. If you wanted to change planes, you would do it right after launch and depending on how much fuel you wanted to expend, it would take from 8 to 14 months to accomplish the feat. Not a real good approach. CSM