Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > General Interest > Small Media at Large
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-December-2001, 06:47 AM
douglips douglips is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1
Default

Just saw this movie a week or so ago, and when the shuttle sneaks up on IKON, Donald Sutherland says "That thing must be fifty tons! No wonder the orbit is decaying!"

But, the mass of the satellite would not contribute to decay, just to launch/attitude control cost.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-December-2001, 03:42 AM
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Planet P
Posts: 871
Default

To be honest I didn't really pay attention to all that after they said they "left the Earth's gravitational field" and that they had to get halfway to the moon and what would happen if they jumped on a trampoline in space then I went nuts and watched some more lion reproduction movie at my local IMAX theater. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 02-December-2001, 09:13 PM
Ben Benoy Ben Benoy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 79
Default

Quote:
On 2001-12-01 01:47, douglips wrote:
But, the mass of the satellite would not contribute to decay, just to launch/attitude control cost.
Unless everybody had been running it as if it were smaller. But then, there would have been plentiful notice that it was too heavy. Like when they tried to do their first correction and basically nothing happened...

ben
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 03-December-2001, 04:09 PM
ToSeek's Avatar
ToSeek ToSeek is online now
Vulcan Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greenbelt, MD
Posts: 26,042
Default

Quote:
On 2001-12-01 01:47, douglips wrote:

But, the mass of the satellite would not contribute to decay, just to launch/attitude control cost.
If anything, I think it would be just the opposite: the more massive the satellite (relative to its surface), the longer it would take its orbit to decay.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 03-December-2001, 07:27 PM
Donnie B.'s Avatar
Donnie B. Donnie B. is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 5,692
Default

I think you're right, for simple shapes. A higher density would reduce the effect of drag from the thin atmosphere at orbital altitudes.

Of course, real satellites are not such simple shapes, and such things as the size and orientation of the solar panels would probably overwhelm the effect of the density of the "chassis".

This brings to mind the original Star Trek series, in which the Enterprise kept losing its engines and getting into trouble with decaying orbits. Okay, it was just a plot device... but I always felt that Starfleet should have told its navigators to park their ships somewhat higher -- and give themselves a century or two to make repairs.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2001-12-03 14:28 ]</font>
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 04-December-2001, 12:15 AM
James James is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 166
Send a message via MSN to James
Default

Quote:
On 2001-12-03 14:27, Donnie B. wrote:

This brings to mind the original Star Trek series, in which the Enterprise kept losing its engines and getting into trouble with decaying orbits. Okay, it was just a plot device... but I always felt that Starfleet should have told its navigators to park their ships somewhat higher -- and give themselves a century or two to make repairs.
But then where would the drama and adventure be then? It'd end up being boring. Instead of TOS lasting for three years, it never would have lasted a half a season. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

_________________
Ah, yes. Chaos, panic, & disorder - my work here is done.

[<beep> spelling errors]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: James on 2001-12-03 19:17 ]</font>
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today