3 ms·
If it was really about burning fuel, ESA would not have waited until half an orbit before. The longer you wait, the more you have to burn.
by russdill 7y ago
If it was really about burning fuel, ESA would not have waited until half an orbit before. The longer you wait, the more you have to burn.
- tehbeard 7y agoNot really. a. They did an altitude increase. There's no real gains from an earlier burn that one might get when doing something like a hohmann transfer. b. Half an orbit before out means more/better telemetry to work with. c. They are from a quick google, well within the range where atmospheric drag plays a role, and you need to do station keeping. leaving it this late means you don't "waste" fuel from drag. Admittedly, my only credentials for this are a few thousand hours in KSP and reading around the subject. Anyone with a proper degree on this is welcome to correct me.
- russdill 7y agoIn that case they were simply adjusting their station keeping schedule and minimum (if any) fuel would be wasted. If that wasn't the case, they could raise or lower the altitude slightly several orbits before the "event" causing them to arrive at the intersection point earlier or later. For a desired time delta, the sooner your perform your altitude change the smaller the changed required.
- october_sky 7y agoSure, but I'm positive the ESA's argument is their fuel burn should have been zero.