[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous/Geostationary satellites

Neil,

Thank you for the detailed explanation of geostationary orbit
implementation. You must have been, or are, a teacher, for your patience and
clarity are evident.

I now have an answer for those who say rocket launches are towards the east,
to take advantage of the Earth's rotation.

No such thing. The rocket is first launched vertically to save fuel by
minimizing air friction, as you say.....
then, a small correction to your scenario...

The rocket heads east downrange, because to balance its weight against the
Machian rotation of the firmament(E to W) requires an opposing W to E
direction.  Once at an altitude where the attracting gravitational
acceleration of the earth matches the expanding inertial acceleration of the
universe, a geostatic orbit will be achieved.

Inserting this minor change in your letter, you can now answer "YES!" to
Gary's last question.

Pax Christi,

Robert






> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Neil Robertson
> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 12:03 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous/Geostationary satellites
>
>
> Gary,
>
> > Neil,
> >
> > Thank you very much for this remarkably clear explanation of
> the satellite
> > situation.  It helped greatly.  I was under the misconception that these
> > satellites' orbits would be parallel with the equator, not at
> an angle to
> > it.   I have two questions.
>
> Glad I could help out. You have however misunderstood my
> explanation to some
> degree.
> To have a satellite appear stationary it must orbit above and
> parrallel to
> the equator but that is the ideal situation and some variations occur. My
> explanation tried to cover all the aspects of satellite orbits that would
> effect the perceived path of the satellite and to give you a clear
> explanation of  where ToSeeks figure of eight comment was coming from.
>
> > According to ToSeek, all geosynchronous satellites performed figure
> > eights.
> > If that is true, then do all these geosynchronous satellites
> have an orbit
> > so inclined to the equator?  Are there none that orbit parallel with the
> > equator?
>
> They try to place the satellite in an orbit parallel to the equator, in a
> circular orbit and at zero inclination. The point is that this
> orbit is not
> 100% stable due to variations in the earths gravity  (caused by density
> variations in the earth) which has a tendancy to push the orbit
> elliptical,
> and the force applied by the moons gravity which tends to increase the
> orbital inclination towards that of the Moon about the earth. The
> end result
> of this is that figure of eight path that has been mentioned
> before. Bear in
> mind this drift is gradual and slight but accumulates over time.To ensure
> that the satellite is still directing its communication equipment in the
> footprint on earth required, the satellite controllers fire small
> attitude
> adjusting jets periodically to correct the drift.
>
> There is only so much fuel on board the satellite to correct the
> drift and
> when this runs out the satellite is useless and they have to
> launch another.
> The usual course of action by the controllers, when the fuel on
> the craft is
> nearly expended, is to fire the jets and place the satellite in a
> graveyard
> orbit some 500-1000 km above its operational orbit so the
> eventual drift of
> the satellite will not interfer with other satellites in Geostationary
> orbits. Its awful crowded up there.
>
> > Second question.  What powers these satellites?  Why are some
> elliptical,
> > others circular?  What force determines this aspect?  If we
> always compare
> > these satellites to the moon, and Kepler is any authority, why is there
> > variance here?
>
> The satellites are equiped with solar cells for power and batteries as
> backup. This is to power the electronics of the satellite only.
> The satelite
> requires no power to complete its orbit and will orbit
> indefinately unless
> some external force is applied to it. The satellite does as I
> have mentioned
> previously have small correcting jets to adjust for drift in its
> orbit but
> that is all.
>
>  I have seen you ask this question before and it appears that you do not
> understand the logistics of getting the satellite into orbit and
> what this
> actually means so I will give you a brief explanation.
>
> The ideal situation would be to launch the satelite from the
> equator as that
> would give it the greatest boost from the earths rotation and you
> would not
> have to worry about any inclination with respect to the equator.
> Unfortunately I don't think there are any launch sites on the equator and
> most satellites are launched from the northern hemisphere.
>
> Take for example the Kennedy space centre launch facility. This
> is located
> 28 degrees 36 minutes north latitude.The earths rotation speed at this
> latitude is some 1440 kph and the rocket sitting on the launch
> tower is also
> travelling at this speed relative to space. The rocket itself is a
> multistaged affair(3 or 4) and is fired initially straight up so that it
> will get through the thickest part of the atmosphere as quickly
> as possible
> to minimise fuel use. At a height of approximately 200 km the guidance
> system alters the angle of accent to bear east in line with the earths
> rotation. The various stages fire in sequence driving the craft till it
> reaches a point some 36000 km above the earth. At this point the orbit is
> elliptical and to get the satellite to its final orbit the final stage
> rockets are fired at the farthest point in its orbit and in the
> direction it
> is travelling. The end result of this is to make the orbit circular.
>
> The satellite is now going around 7000 kph and if the earth
> wasn't there it
> would head into space in a straight line. Because of the earths
> gravity the
> satellite falls towards the earth and because the satellite has a forward
> velocity it misses the earth and is in a continual free fall. The
> result is
> a perpetual orbit around the earth and no power is required for the
> satellite to continue in this manner indefinately.
>
> I should also point out that at some point in the rockets
> trajectory it is
> angled such that the inclination caused by its launch from a spot
> other than
> the equator is accounted for and the satellite ends up at zero
> inclination
> to the equator.
>
> Whether a satellites orbit is circular or elliptical inclined or at zero
> inclination is purely at the whim of the guys that launch the craft. They
> merely make the necesary adjustments to the angle of the launch and the
> duration of the rocket burn. All mathematics and Newtons Laws basically.
>
> As far as the moon Kepler etc, the moons orbit is elliptical as
> is most of
> the planets and moons in the solar system, and satellites act in the same
> manner as other orbiting bodies.. You could look at the fact that
> a circle
> is a pure form, perfect you might say but in terms of the solar
> system there
> are many irregularites. The planets moons etc are not perfect
> spheres or of
> uniform density so cicular orbits are not the logical outcome.
>
> > Last question, do you see a geocentric explanation for the movement you
> > describe of these satellites?
>
> No.
>
>
> Regards ,
>
> Neil.
>
>
>
>


Other related posts: