Plotting an orbit

When they show a plot of an eclipse or the orbit of the space shuttle
it always makes a sine wave.
Are there any satellites going around the earth at the poles instead
of the equator?

Does their orbit make a sine wave?

metspitzer wrote:

Does their orbit make a sine wave?

A satellite in an equatorial orbit will always remain over latitute 0
and draw a straight line around the earth.

The ISS is at a 51° inclination. From a "globe" perspective, it draws a
neat straight circle around the earth. But when you map this to a flat
map of the earth, it generates the sine wave:

Imagine the orbit path as a hullahoop. An equatorial orbit has the
hollahoop perfectly horizontal.

But give the hullahoop some inclination, and as you project its path
over the planet, you find that it crosses the equator twice. The first
time, it travels north east, and then as it nears the highest position,
its bearing slowly changes to eventually become south east (without
changing direction). It will cross the equator again, and at the
southern hemisphere, its bearing will again change again towards the
north east (repeating that cycle).

This is what generates those sine waves. But the vehicle itself never
actually changes its direction. It bearing changes because it is
relative to the north pole.

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:54:57 -0500, metspitzer wrote:

When they show a plot of an eclipse or the orbit of the space shuttle
it always makes a sine wave.
Are there any satellites going around the earth at the poles instead
of the equator?

Does their orbit make a sine wave?

There are LOTS of satellites going around the earth at the poles. Many are
close to the pole in what is called a "Sun sync" orbit. Use google on this
term and I am sure you can find what you are looking for.

Danny Deger

On Mar 8, 10:42�am, Danny Deger wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:54:57 -0500, metspitzer wrote:
When they show a plot of an eclipse or the orbit of the space shuttle
it always makes a sine wave.
Are there any satellites going around the earth at the poles instead
of the equator?

Does their orbit make a sine wave?

There are LOTS of satellites going around the earth at the poles. �Many are
close to the pole in what is called a "Sun sync" orbit. �Use google on this
term and I am sure you can find what you are looking for.

Danny Deger

Polar orbits are common for military and spy sats and why vandenberg
exists

Before challenger disaster it was supposed to launch the shuttle on
military missions

SL6 was built, kinda poorly and abandoned for shuttle launches

On Mar 8, 1:20*pm, bob haller wrote:


SL6 was built, kinda poorly and abandoned for shuttle launches

That is a load of bunk. It wasn't poorly constructed

wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:20 pm, bob haller wrote:

SL6 was built, kinda poorly and abandoned for shuttle launches

That is a load of bunk. It wasn't poorly constructed

Incorrect. Several audits found significant quality control issues with
the SLC-6 shuttle launch pad construction. In addition, the water
suppressant system was found to be incapable of preventing major damage
during a shuttle launch and the equipment would not have withstood the
extra weight of a fully loaded shuttle after the 1986-1988 SRB redesign.

On Mar 15, 7:32*pm, Marissa Taylor wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:20 pm, bob haller wrote:

SL6 was built, kinda poorly and abandoned for shuttle launches

That is a load of bunk. *It wasn't poorly constructed

1. Incorrect. *Several audits found significant quality control issues with
the SLC-6 shuttle launch pad construction.

2. *In addition, the water
suppressant system was found to be incapable of preventing major damage
during a shuttle launch and

3. the equipment would not have withstood the
extra weight of a fully loaded shuttle after the 1986-1988 SRB redesign.

All wrong and far way of base

1. This is no different than any other large project. And that is
the point of the audits. The findings were corrected later
2. No, this was the H2 entrapment problem and a fix was found
3. Totally wrong, it had nothing to do with the pad supporting the
vehicle, it was due to loss of payload capacity

wrote in message
...
On Mar 15, 7:32 pm, Marissa Taylor wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:20 pm, bob haller wrote:

SL6 was built, kinda poorly and abandoned for shuttle launches

That is a load of bunk. It wasn't poorly constructed

1. Incorrect. Several audits found significant quality control issues
with
the SLC-6 shuttle launch pad construction.

2. In addition, the water
suppressant system was found to be incapable of preventing major damage
during a shuttle launch and

3. the equipment would not have withstood the
extra weight of a fully loaded shuttle after the 1986-1988 SRB redesign.

All wrong and far way of base

1. This is no different than any other large project. And that is
the point of the audits. The findings were corrected later

-----------------
In other words, "Yes, I was wrong, there were problems, but I'm too arrogant
to admit it.
-----------------

2. No, this was the H2 entrapment problem and a fix was found
----------------
No, the h2 entrapment problem was a separate issue.
----------------

3. Totally wrong, it had nothing to do with the pad supporting the
vehicle, it was due to loss of payload capacity



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

wrote:
On Mar 15, 7:32 pm, Marissa Taylor wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 8, 1:20 pm, bob haller wrote:
SL6 was built, kinda poorly and abandoned for shuttle launches
That is a load of bunk. It wasn't poorly constructed
1. Incorrect. Several audits found significant quality control issues with
the SLC-6 shuttle launch pad construction.

2. In addition, the water
suppressant system was found to be incapable of preventing major damage
during a shuttle launch and

3. the equipment would not have withstood the
extra weight of a fully loaded shuttle after the 1986-1988 SRB redesign.

All wrong and far way of base

1. This is no different than any other large project. And that is
the point of the audits. The findings were corrected later

Negative, the problems were not fixed.

2. No, this was the H2 entrapment problem and a fix was found

H2 was yet another issue with SLC-6.

3. Totally wrong, it had nothing to do with the pad supporting the
vehicle, it was due to loss of payload capacity

Both issues were factors.

No, incorrect
They were fixed. I was in the USAF shuttle program office.
The water suppressant system "issue" was just an urban myth and it had
nothing to do the actual system. It was an unsubstantiated theory
about the sound reflecting of the nearby mountains. Delta IV launches
disproved it

As for the "the equipment would not have withstood the extra weight of
a fully loaded shuttle after the 1986-1988 SRB redesign" is a bunch of
BS.
The redesign did not add a significant amount to the total stack
weight. Just the very thought of this is absurd. The total stack
is 6M lbs and the mods to the SRBs were on the order of a few 10k lbs,
which is less than 1%. The pad was not on the edge of its capability
wrt the total stack weight