Talk:Orbital mechanics

message: How do astrodynamics differ from orbital mechanics, celestial mechanics, and the like?  There is also astrometry, and I am unsure how these fields differ/related to one another.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.140.53 (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences 

message: I was asked to clarify this request.  Suggestions of things that might be illustrated or animated:
* A sequence showing initial orbit, transfer orbit, and final orbit.
* Docking maneuver
* Lower orbits = faster movement
* Equal areas in equal times
-- Beland (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagram request

message: "Without applying torque (such as using thrusters or reaction wheels) a satellite will maintain the same orientation with respect to the fixed stars."
This seems incorrect. It seems like it should state that a satellite will maintain the same angular rotation rate with respect to the fixed stars. Certainly communications satellites can not require a constant expenditure of fuel or increasingly fast reaction wheels to aim their antennae at the planet they orbit.Three d dave (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification on orientation 

message: I am having problems with understanding space, vacuum, and atmosphere.
That is aerodynamics versus astrodynamics! 
If somebody is wrong or everybody is wrong, or we need the story,
or I am a skeptic. I wonder if being a skeptic and self publishing a book
is a post modern given free humans rights! Well not in some countries.
Well don't throw at me a whack of equations, as basics is enough.
Cheers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.223.49 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a specific question relevant to this article that could be answered better in it?--agr (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody is missing the point, or I do not understand Newton 

message: Some of the statements in the Rules of thumb section are rather confusing:
* Orbits are elliptical, with the heavier body at one focus of the ellipse. Special case of this is a circular orbit (a circle is a special case of ellipse) with the planet at the center.
: What planet?
* Thus one cannot move from one circular orbit to another with only one brief application of thrust.
: How long is brief?
* From a circular orbit, thrust applied in a direction opposite to the satellite's motion changes orbit to elliptical; 
: But all orbits are elliptical...
Apart from the lack of citations, the wording in this section is ambiguous and confusing. Could somebody with more knowledge of the subject clarify matters. I think it's a good thing to have this section, but it's not really serving its purpose with the current wording. Thanks  Davidelit (Talk)  01:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing rules of thumb 

message: When was the change from using analytical solutions to numerical solutions? It seems that in the early days, even though it seems strange now, NASA used analytical solutions, that is analytical geometry. Gah4 (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  when 

message: There is a recent change from delta-v. As well as I know it, delta-v (spelled out and spoken) is the usual term, but I am not sure enough, and didn't check and references, to change it. Gah4 (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  delta-v 

message: The following article is at the edge of my comprehension. I thought I would post it here so that someone more knowledgeable about the subject would figure a way how to weave it into this article.
*
Peaceray (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculating orbits with the Conley-Zehnder index & the Floer number