Talk:Tundra orbit

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: old

message: Why 63.4°? —Tamfang (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  what's special about that angle? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Geosynchronicity and Earth asymmetry 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  So why is this article still illustrated by the analemma for QZSS?  Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quasi-Zenith Orbit is Not Tundra 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Isn't that covered by properties and uses? Spacepine (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Cheers Spacepine (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Highly elliptical but moderate eccentricity