2 ms·
I think you're interpreting it a little wrong. While it does look like 500km is about where things fall out quickly, it also looks like there's a sweet spot of
by anonporridge 6y ago
I think you're interpreting it a little wrong.
While it does look like 500km is about where things fall out quickly, it also looks like there's a sweet spot of altitude to orbital period ratio where stuff just stays there. Outside of that sweet spot stuff still falls out fairly quickly.
- DavidSJ 6y agoI'm not 100% sure I'm interpreting your comment correctly, but higher orbits will always decay more slowly, all other things being equal. There's just far less atmosphere to bleed off the energy. Edit: I think I now understand what you mean, but I suspect you're not realizing that every satellite appears twice on the chart: once in blue, for its periapsis (perigee, i.e. low point of its orbit), and once in red, for its apoapsis (apogee, i.e. high point of its orbit). You're probably noticing that some of the red dots, at high altitude, are decaying quickly, but that's because the corresponding blue dots are at low altitude. Note also that orbital period is a monotonic function of altitude. More precisely, the square of orbital period goes with the cube of the semi-major axis (the long axis of the orbital ellipse).
- anonporridge 6y agoI see what you're saying, and you're right, I am mistaken. Thanks!