Best way to remove junk from low Earth orbit

Eric Chomko wrote:

: Are you an ignorant, or just another idiot?

Why can't he be both? Your question leaves it as an either/or, where I am
sugesting it is more of an both/and.

Yes, Eric, you're certainly an existence proof for the proposition.

Andrew Nowicki ) wrote:
[...]
: Polar orbits cover the entire surface of the Earth.
: They do not cover the equatorial area well, but
: few satellite users live near the equator. This
: is not a big problem because the geostationary
: satellites cover the equtorial area pretty well.

: By the way, I used the term "longitude" instead
: of the "right ascension," because there are space
: cadets here who do not understand the latter term.

Doesn't longitude refer to the north/south degree on the earth, whereas
right ascension refers to hour coordinates in space?

WRT a satellite, it is a matter of where you are looking at on the earth
(longitude) or where it is in space (right ascension). Either way that is
only half of it, as what is missing is latitude and declination,
respectively.

Further, the latter (RA) sort of doesn't make sense because an
earth-observing satellite is pretty much defined, location-wise, by where
it is viewing. Its attitude, relative to some frame of reference might be
of some use, but that doesn't require RA.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Andrew Nowicki wrote:

: Well... I overreacted, but you are not known
: for good manners, and your claim does not
: make sense. When you disagree with someone,
: provide data instead of outrageous one-liners.
:
: Webster's Dictionary definition of the word useless:
: of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose;
: unavailing or futile.

: For most uses of satellites, pure polar orbits serve little or no
: purpose. You might ask yourself why so few (perhaps none) are currently
: positioned there. To explain why would require a course in satellite
: mission systems design, and cannot accomplished in a Usenet post of any
: reasonable length, and I don't provide that kind of course without
: compensation.

Huh, and all the EOS satellies are in polar orbit. Rand, the poster was
accurate in stating the when mapping the earth a polar orbit is best
because it provides the best coverage.


: Polar orbits cover the entire surface of the Earth.
: They do not cover the equatorial area well, but
: few satellite users live near the equator. This
: is not a big problem because the geostationary
: satellites cover the equtorial area pretty well.
:
: By the way, I used the term "longitude" instead
: of the "right ascension," because there are space
: cadets here who do not understand the latter term.

: Too bad, since they are entirely different things.

Depends on if he means geocentric longitude vs. terrestial meridians.

Eric

: Rand Simberg wrote:
:
:
: I should add that you also misspelled "needlessly
: costly and difficult to get to."
:
:
: This is just another outrageous one-liner.

: It's an accurate one liner.

: In light of you post to Henry in which you express befuddlement as to
: why the "sinus" of an angle (whatever that is) would have any
: relationship to the delta-v for a plane change, I find questioning of me
: as "ignorant" quite amusing.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Andrew Nowicki wrote:

: Well... I overreacted, but you are not known
: for good manners

: I should add that my manners are just fine, when not dealing with people
: who post authoritative nonsense.

Ironic for you to state that. You make a claim that few satellites are in
polar orbit when in fact many are for the purpose of observing the earth.

Eric

Eric Chomko wrote:

: For most uses of satellites, pure polar orbits serve little or no
: purpose. You might ask yourself why so few (perhaps none) are currently
: positioned there. To explain why would require a course in satellite
: mission systems design, and cannot accomplished in a Usenet post of any
: reasonable length, and I don't provide that kind of course without
: compensation.

Huh, and all the EOS satellies are in polar orbit.

No, they're not. They are sun synchronous for the most part.

Eric Chomko wrote:

: I should add that my manners are just fine, when not dealing with people
: who post authoritative nonsense.

Ironic for you to state that. You make a claim that few satellites are in
polar orbit

A claim that is true.

Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) ) wrote:

: "Andrew Nowicki" wrote in message
: ...
: "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
:
: ...tell me, exactly what good would a polar orbiter
: do for say a Com sat that's normally at geosynch?
:
: Read my post again. I am talking about
: *low* Earth orbit satellites.
: ^^^^^

: You're right, I missed that, but even then, you're making your satellites
: fairly useless. Why would I want a st to be over the poles for a good
: portion of its flight?


It isn't so much about spending time over the poles but more at mapping
the spinning earth as you are going pole to pole. That, as the poster
stated, is the best way to map the earth. Not good for comm sats to be
sure.

Eric

:
: Junk in the geostationary orbit needs just a little
: nudge to be corralled into one lump, but junk in the
: unpredictable, low Earth orbits is much more difficult
: to remove.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: : Are you an ignorant, or just another idiot?
:
: Why can't he be both? Your question leaves it as an either/or, where I am
: sugesting it is more of an both/and.

: Yes, Eric, you're certainly an existence proof for the proposition.

Nice try, but we both know that the poster was speaking about you.

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: : For most uses of satellites, pure polar orbits serve little or no
: : purpose. You might ask yourself why so few (perhaps none) are currently
: : positioned there. To explain why would require a course in satellite
: : mission systems design, and cannot accomplished in a Usenet post of any
: : reasonable length, and I don't provide that kind of course without
: : compensation.
:
: Huh, and all the EOS satellies are in polar orbit.

: No, they're not. They are sun synchronous for the most part.

Okay, which ones? Are you claiming that most never view the night side of
the earth?

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: : I should add that my manners are just fine, when not dealing with people
: : who post authoritative nonsense.
:
: Ironic for you to state that. You make a claim that few satellites are in
: polar orbit

: A claim that is true.

Actually, false.

He http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Polar%20orbit

Further this line:

Polar orbits are OFTEN (my emphasis) used for earth-mapping-, earth
observation- Earth observation satellites are satellites specifically
designed to observe Earth from orbit, similar to spy satellites but
intended for non-military uses such as environmental monitoring,
meteorology, map making etc.

Satellites or satellite series include:

* Landsat
* ERS
* SPOT
* EOS
* Terra (EOS AM-1)
* Envisat
* RADARSAT-1
* CBERS
* Munin
* IKONOS
* QuickBird

The list is missing AURA and ICEsat as well.

What were you saying about few?

Maybe you should go back to being a cheerleader for commercial spaceflight
and leave the real stuff for the rest of us?

Eric