# Talk:Tundra orbit

To the best of my knowledge the key idea of the Tundra and Molniya orbits is that they are elliptical orbits at non-zero inclination that remain in the same ground track. Obviously, for practical reasons, the orbital period of those orbits are then chosen to synchronise to the solar day rather than the siderial day as is mentioned in this article. Please, re-check and modify articles.
--IndigoMind 10:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is correct.  Since the earth rotates once per sidereal day relative to inertial space, that is the necessary orbital period to create a repeating ground track.  Kemperb 00:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Spamhog (talk · contribs) changed the lead paragraph on 16 March 2013 with this note: SOLAR not SIDEREAL. Idea is to hover on approx same area at same hours in SOLAR day. If sidereal hover times would drift.  I can understand that consistent hours might be desirable; but not as desirable as constant longitude, which would be lost with a solar day orbit.  I'll change it back. —Tamfang (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Tamfang, I see your point but I suspect there is no contradiction between solar sync orbit and stable longitude. A geo-stationary orbit is both longitude constant and solar synchronized. Also a Molnya / Tundra orbit can be both. However, here it's a matter of fact, not physics vs. policy. I'll try to check if orbital parameters are physically compatible. I already tried to talk to Lavochkin to see if they published something somewhere but no luck so far. Here is a Molnya with period of exactly 12h. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_Iykeouj3g  Spamhog (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

In what way is a geostationary orbit "solar synchronized"? — Let's say the new Spamhog Satellite is in a 24 hour orbit that reaches apogee at noon Greenwich time.  Today, let's say, its apogee is over 0° longitude.  Tomorrow, at noon Greenwich time, its apogee is over (almost) 1° west, because Earth has turned more than 360° in that time while the orbit stays in the same plane. —Tamfang (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
A geostationary satellite hovers above the same point of the Earth at the same time of the day every day of the year because it hovers above that point at every moment of the day. So it's not really sun synchronised.
If a satellite in a tundra orbit would have an orbital period of a solar day, its ground track would be a figure 8 loop drifting to the west at a rate of about one revolution per year. The Earth's rotational period is one sidereal day, so that must be the orbital period of a satellite that has to keep a fixed (average) longitude. This satellite must also have a prograde (to the east) orbit.
To have a sun synchronous orbit (the satellite passing over the same part of the Earth at the same time of the solar day throughout the year), the orbital plane  must be (more or less) fixed relative to the line from the Earth to the Sun. For this to happen, the nodal precession of the orbit must be prograde (to the east) and have a period of one year. This is possible by choosing a special inclination and a retrograde orbit (to the west). So a satellite in a geosynchronous (tundra) orbit or a semi-geosynchronous (molniya) orbit can never be in a sun synchronous orbit, as it is already in a prograde orbit.
Instead, a satellite in a tundra orbit will hover over the same part or the Earth every day a few minutes earlier. Without nodal precession, it would be about 4 minutes earlier every day, but because of the retrograde nodal precession it's more than 4 minutes. — PiusImpavidus (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Why 63.4°? —Tamfang (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Could it just be a coincidence that Plesetsk Cosmodrome is at 63° North, from where due East launches reach a 63° orbital inclination with no pricey orbital inclination change maneuver required? (sdsds - talk) 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This inclination has a special property: perturbations from the earth's equatorial bulge don't cause any long-term changes in the argument of perigee. That's the angle measured within the orbit plane from the S->N equator crossing to the perigee. At any other inclination the argument of perigee slowly changes and with it the apogee latitude. The Molniya and Tundra orbits are designed to serve high latitudes so you want the argument of perigee to remain at 270 degrees (for the northern hemisphere) or 90 degrees (for the southern hemisphere).
Sirius chose the tundra orbit so that users in the continental US, especially the north central states, could see higher elevation angles than are possible from geostationary orbits over the equator. This reduces the number of terrestrial repeaters needed to provide good coverage in urban canyons. Because they're not stationary (that's possible only over the equator), continuous service requires multiple tundra satellites. They also move in the user's sky, but this isn't a problem because satellite radio uses small, hemispherical antennas that don't have to be pointed. Karn (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't find reference to Molnya orbit taking advantage of an axial asymmetry of the planet.
http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-JBXG199001013.htm
I remember reading that such asymmetry was a big advantage in keeping synchrony at smaller energy cost.
I can barely find some reference to the Pacific - Atlantic asymmetry!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spamhog (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC) 

The map shows an inclination of about 45°, not 63°. —Tamfang (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the map is of the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System groundtrack. Those satellites are in a 43° inclination. As a result, the groundtrack doesn't cover much "tundra", but the map still probably is useful to communicate the concept. VQuakr (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The QZSS satellites (also known as Michibiki) aren't really going into Tundra orbits. Tundra orbits have an eccentricity greater than about 0.15, and the QZSS satellites will fly with an eccentricity of about 0.08. JAXA refers to the orbit that QZSS will fly in as a "quasi-zenith orbit," as seen here and here. Although the quasi-zenith orbit and the Tundra orbit share some similarities, I think it would be best to remove the QZSS references and replace them with Sirius Satellite Radio ones, which would also mean updating the ground track image. AHydrobrain (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the QZSS, as their orbital inclination is about 42 degrees, and their eccentricity is about 1.075, which makes them far from being Tundra orbits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.70.210 (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
So why is this article still illustrated by the analemma for QZSS?  Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Under Properties:
There are several lines with no citations -- do they all get covered by #10?

Yeah, they'll be covered by basically everything Spacepine (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Under Spacecraft Using Tundra Orbits:
I don't see the relevance of discussing satellites "called" Tundra that aren't in Tundra orbits. :)

removed. It was in there because half the sources initially said they're in tundra orbits, the name is obviously designed to mislead, probably because they have a secondary survaliance use. Rest of constellation may go into tundra orbit still? Unfortunately, there aren't sources for that. Spacepine (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
General:
In Molniya orbit, we learn that it's cheaper to send rockets to Molniya orbit but that tracking and control costs more.  Do we know anything about those considerations for Tundra orbits?

It costs about the same to send something into Tundra as Geo, tracking is easier, but signal strength is lower. I see you clarified most of those in your edit - thanks for that! Spacepine (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
---
I've made several edits, which I hope you will find instructive.  --Neopeius (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
(also, note the above discussion comparing Tundra to QZSS orbits -- should that remain?  I see it's been removed once before.)

Yeah, I removed it from the top of the page, but the japanese call it a QZSS/Tundra orbit in a few sources so I figured it's close enough. Wouldn't object to it being put in the HEO article instead Spacepine (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
(further note the discussion regarding the importance of 63 degrees and why the Sirius satellites were put into a Tundra orbit.  I think those tidbits (properly sourced) would be good additions to the article.)

Isn't that covered by properties and uses? Spacepine (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Karn's comment above gives more info about the Sirius satellites, which I thought was interesting.  I don't know what the source would be, though.  Anyway, it's nothing that would hold back a B rating.  Good job!  :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Cheers Spacepine (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tundra orbit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 03:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Looks good. Passing.

As I understand it, "highly elliptical" means the orbit is very elongated (far from being a circle), but "moderate eccentricity" means exactly the opposite (close to being a circle). I guess both are true in a sense - depending on what you compare with, what eccentricity you consider "normal" - but still, having both in the lead, without specifying the standard it is compared to, makes little sense.--Nø (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Mmm, yeah you're right, moderate is a pretty floofy word that doesn't add anything. I'll remove it. --Spacepine (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)