Such obnoxious Claudish in this article. I don't know enough verify the analysis and I genuinely don't know if the author does either.
walrus01•6m ago
It also doesn't "know" basic orbital mechanics.
From the article:
> and station-keeping burns corrupt them
Geostationary satellites execute station keeping burns. A LEO satellite such as starlink has thrusters, yes, and it executes burns, yes, but its burns are executed prograde in the direction of travel to increase orbital altitude. Likely in several small burns. A single prograde burn made when on one side of the planet has the effect of increasing the height of apogee on the opposite side of the planet, so after you do your first burn and are halfway around a full orbit, you need to do at least a second burn to re-circularize your orbit.
Nobody that's involved in LEO satellite operations would call it a station keeping burn because it's literally not keeping station anywhere.
jubilanti•15m ago
walrus01•6m ago
From the article:
> and station-keeping burns corrupt them
Geostationary satellites execute station keeping burns. A LEO satellite such as starlink has thrusters, yes, and it executes burns, yes, but its burns are executed prograde in the direction of travel to increase orbital altitude. Likely in several small burns. A single prograde burn made when on one side of the planet has the effect of increasing the height of apogee on the opposite side of the planet, so after you do your first burn and are halfway around a full orbit, you need to do at least a second burn to re-circularize your orbit.
Nobody that's involved in LEO satellite operations would call it a station keeping burn because it's literally not keeping station anywhere.