low earth orbit/geostationary orbit satellites (1 Viewer)

[Arithela]

is it valid to say one costs more to launch than the other? im not sure if we can bring in economical issues into physics


the dot point says 'compare'

i got all the differences, so what are some similarities?

 

[veloc1ty]

I don't think you need any similarities. I just have the differences in period, height above surface, velocity, plane of orbit, orbital decay and uses.

 

[me121]

is it valid to say one costs more to launch than the other? im not sure if we can bring in economical issues into physics


the dot point says 'compare'

i got all the differences, so what are some similarities?

Its PHYSICS, not sociological-economical-histio-geography! So I would say no,

but then again, its HSC physics, which is not really physics. However some outcomes deal with these things, but I don't see economics falling under any of these,
1. the history of physics
2. the nature and practice of physics
3. applications and uses of physics
4. implications for society and the environment

 

[munchiecrunchie]

i guess you could kinda talk about more fuel being required to put a GSO up, eg more fuel is required to give a satellite of GSO the potential energy to maintain the orbit at the higher altitude.

then you could go on to talk about how LEO experience orbital decay and need retro rockets to be fired to maintain the orbit, hence also consuming fuel.

i dont think that its really that big of a point of comparison though.