Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Sixto, Jul 27, 2008.
Should D12 be entered in the Kentucky Derby, Saturday?
Not necessarily. You can have a supersynchronous orbit no matter what the perigee is, if the apogee is high enough.
Plug the data into Orbitron and that is the prediction.
The current TLE also places E14 at 119 on October 18th.
Neither move would be recommended due to other satellites in the belt.
(Unless of course everyone else moved out of the way. )
If perigee is lower than the Clark belt wouldn't one run the risk of collision the next time the path passes through the belt?
(Unless the only "pass through" predicted will be when it nears the destination.)
Your next question will be, "does supersynchronous mean that it's a really really synchronous orbit?"
And your answer should be, "Yes. Yes, it does."
True, but it depends.
May be small gap, with raised apogee and perigee.
We'll see what path they take, and how quick.
How 'bout, "You can have an orbit with a period greater than 'one day' without raising the perigee, if your apogee is high enough."
The guesstimate Drift TLE from a month ago had perigee/apogee at 35,885/35896 for a 20 day Drift.
Maybe. It depends to a very great deal on the exact orbital parameters: how much the apogee was raised, what the resulting orbital period is, and how fast the drift rate is.
That said, I was just picking nits with P Smith (since he seems so fond of them himself ). The way I expect Boeing's satellite controllers to make the drift is to raise both elements of the orbit by a measurable amount. If not, however (*), I won't be totally surprised.
(*) These people have access to high-end (and sometimes proprietary) tools for spacecraft mission planning that take into account all other known GSO objects and space debris that might intersect the GSO vicinity, and they know how to use them. There's any number of things they could do if they really want to in getting from Point A to Point B.
It would be amazing to see them try (and succeed). Going between orbital slots and other orbital objects would be a major challenge.
Wasn't Boeing the company with the lunar sling shot that could have saved AMC-14 if the owners would have been able to use it (without violating the patent/copyright)? Smart folks.
We (the public at large) will never know the real nitty-gritty details of what they do, so if they do anything fancier than just raise slide up and then back down we'll never see it - it'll be lost in the gaps between TLE releases.
I believe you're correct; there was a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth at the time, if I remember correctly. A lot of people felt that a patent like that was like trying to claim "original works" status on Newton's laws. The alternative position, however, was that it wasn't a patent on physics, just a unique method of applying physics to a class of problems (a procedural patent).
I come down on the side of the nay-sayers myself. I think patents are granted too broadly and that satellite operators ought to be able to do any series of maneuvers they want to.
It is amazing how quickly this thread goes from pudgy mods to "What the hell" math in no time flat.
Who you callin' pudgy? :lol:
It's okay Stuart. He wasn't refering to the "Super" moderators.
(or the super-sized ones :lol
What the hell is a "super" moderator anyway, and what exactly makes them so "super"? :lol:
People should be able to benefit from their work and employers from their employee's work. Boeing put money into developing the technique. But it does seem odd to patent math. I can't remember if the problem was with Boeing refusing to allow their method to be used at any price or the owners not wanting to pay the price Boeing wanted. In any case, a satellite is pretty useless when it isn't in the right place.
We, like you, have capes.
Too late, entries were drawn noon time.
I've been spreading wider since I turned 40 :lol:
oooooo how do i get a cape????