5 ms·
Nothing about your post confined the discussion to "similar" orbits; you were in fact responding to a parent describing a need for these to be precisely matched
by kyralis 5y ago
Nothing about your post confined the discussion to "similar" orbits; you were in fact responding to a parent describing a need for these to be precisely matched with a negation. While you're correct that there are orbital changes that are cheap, there are many that are not as well, and your statement without that qualification seemed likely to mislead.
I wasn't assuming bad faith on your part; I merely believed that your response could be confusing. You might consider that guideline as well.
- jjk166 5y agoThe context of the conversation was that OP's comment was questioning the utility of a depot since they believed spacecraft in similar orbits would not be able to access it, only those that happened to be in precisely aligned orbits could. Interpreting "spacecraft can change their orbits" to be a claim that there are no limitations on the maneuvers a spacecraft can perform is very unreasonable.
- perl4ever 5y agoYou're focusing on the first sentence; the reply was, I think, focusing on the second. "The delta-V for such an orbit change is exceedingly small compared to the cost of a launch." In that context, I think it seems appropriate to point out that it's not true as a categorical statement.
- jjk166 5y agothe "for such an orbit change" is the qualifying statement there, as opposed to "for any orbit change". It is clearly referring to the same category of orbit change being discussed in the preceding sentence.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- hinkley 5y agoYou don't have to be able to get all jobs. You just need to be able to get enough jobs.