3 ms·
The article says GEO, but actual quotes in the article say "GEO graveyard orbit". What this means is that, at the end of the satellite's service life, it was bo
by azernik 7y ago
The article says GEO, but actual quotes in the article say "GEO graveyard orbit". What this means is that, at the end of the satellite's service life, it was boosted into a lower (in this case [1]) or higher (also common) orbit out of the way of the GEO line. There isn't much space in GEO, as it's a one-dimensional space [2] - only true anomaly (position in the orbit) can be varied. So you want to free up the slot once you're not using it anymore.
[1] This particular satellite is http://stuffin.space/?intldes=1967-066E&search=1967-066e http://stuffin.space/?intldes=1967-066E&search=1967-066e. Note the orbital period - it's shorter than a sidereal day of 1436 minutes, which means this is a lower orbit. It's also slightly inclined to GEO, which reduces the chance of collisions even further.
[2] By contrast, the set of Keplerian orbits is generally a six-dimensional space, with singularities at eccentricity = 0 and inclination = 0. Well, also technically at semi-major axis = 0, but that's not a physically possible "orbit".
- yellowapple 7y agoAre lower-than-GEO graveyard orbits common? I mean, I guess they are, judging by stuffin.space, but my intuition would be that it wouldn't take any more fuel to put a satellite in a higher-than-GEO graveyard orbit (and thus further minimize the risk of collision), no?
- azernik 7y agoNo particular reason why a higher orbit is any better than a lower orbit. As long as you're a good 1000 kilometers away from the GEO belt at closest, and preferably a little inclined so that closest approach only happens ~2 times a day, both high and low graveyard orbits are equally good for avoiding collisions.