4 ms·

I believe you have an incorrect mental model of orbital mechanics. I would recommend playing with KSP to more intuitively understand the concepts, and then read

I believe you have an incorrect mental model of orbital mechanics. I would recommend playing with KSP to more intuitively understand the concepts, and then reading resources like, http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm For now, here's a video that might help you get a clearer idea, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_jM_BxQGvE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_jM_BxQGvE - as you can see there's no fuel required. It's all about the inclination of the orbit (i.e. the angle it makes with Earth's equator). At a 85˚ to 98˚ inclination, the satellite will pass over every to almost every point on the Earth (save for some bits on the poles depending on where you are on that spectrum. There is no fuel required to make passes over Gaza. The satellite does that naturally, as a matter of course.

qart 5y ago
The video shows a polar orbit. How does this address azernik's point that "if the data exists for one place at a similar latitude, then it exists for every other place at a similar latitude"? With a polar or near-polar orbit, you'd get the densest (fewest stitches) and freshest data near the poles. > as you can see there's no fuel required. Like I wrote before, no fuel is required if you're orbiting the center of the earth. No one orbits the axis of the earth (other than orbiting above the equator). I was only responding to what azernik wrote. Here's what I am saying: 1. the resolution of the images on Google Maps varies a lot from place to place. Not just Gaza, but other places too. I mentioned specific places too. Please verify that for yourself. 2. Orbital mechanics is the wrong explanation to reach for to account for the disparities.