Mixing
Why are there no LEO satellites in the earth's equatorial plane?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
From my elementary school understanding of Satellite orbits, I know that GEO satellites are placed in equatorial plane, MEO satellites are placed in an smaller degree inclined plane while LEO satellites are placed in larger degree inclined plane near the poles.
During my research, I found that only O3b MEO satellite constellation is in the equatorial plane. However, I didn't find any LEO satellites constellations that are placed in the equatorial plane. Why is that?
Why are LEO satellites never place in the equatorial place with near 0 degree inclination?
The one reason I get is that since LEO is close to earth, the coverage cone is very small & if placed in the equatorial plane, it will cover only a small percentage of the earth surface & hence will be wasteful expenditure. Aside from money wasting, what other orbital factors prevent LEO satellite placement in equatorial plane?
orbital-mechanics low-earth-orbit satellite-constellation
edited 7 mins ago
Organic Marble
50.3k3129213
asked 8 hours ago
KharoBangdo
20816
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
From my elementary school understanding of Satellite orbits, I know that GEO satellites are placed in equatorial plane, MEO satellites are placed in an smaller degree inclined plane while LEO satellites are placed in larger degree inclined plane near the poles.
During my research, I found that only O3b MEO satellite constellation is in the equatorial plane. However, I didn't find any LEO satellites constellations that are placed in the equatorial plane. Why is that?
Why are LEO satellites never place in the equatorial place with near 0 degree inclination?
The one reason I get is that since LEO is close to earth, the coverage cone is very small & if placed in the equatorial plane, it will cover only a small percentage of the earth surface & hence will be wasteful expenditure. Aside from money wasting, what other orbital factors prevent LEO satellite placement in equatorial plane?
orbital-mechanics low-earth-orbit satellite-constellation
edited 7 mins ago
Organic Marble
50.3k3129213
asked 8 hours ago
KharoBangdo
20816
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
From my elementary school understanding of Satellite orbits, I know that GEO satellites are placed in equatorial plane, MEO satellites are placed in an smaller degree inclined plane while LEO satellites are placed in larger degree inclined plane near the poles.
During my research, I found that only O3b MEO satellite constellation is in the equatorial plane. However, I didn't find any LEO satellites constellations that are placed in the equatorial plane. Why is that?
Why are LEO satellites never place in the equatorial place with near 0 degree inclination?
The one reason I get is that since LEO is close to earth, the coverage cone is very small & if placed in the equatorial plane, it will cover only a small percentage of the earth surface & hence will be wasteful expenditure. Aside from money wasting, what other orbital factors prevent LEO satellite placement in equatorial plane?
orbital-mechanics low-earth-orbit satellite-constellation
edited 7 mins ago
Organic Marble
50.3k3129213
asked 8 hours ago
KharoBangdo
20816
From my elementary school understanding of Satellite orbits, I know that GEO satellites are placed in equatorial plane, MEO satellites are placed in an smaller degree inclined plane while LEO satellites are placed in larger degree inclined plane near the poles.
During my research, I found that only O3b MEO satellite constellation is in the equatorial plane. However, I didn't find any LEO satellites constellations that are placed in the equatorial plane. Why is that?
Why are LEO satellites never place in the equatorial place with near 0 degree inclination?
The one reason I get is that since LEO is close to earth, the coverage cone is very small & if placed in the equatorial plane, it will cover only a small percentage of the earth surface & hence will be wasteful expenditure. Aside from money wasting, what other orbital factors prevent LEO satellite placement in equatorial plane?
orbital-mechanics low-earth-orbit satellite-constellation
orbital-mechanics low-earth-orbit satellite-constellation
edited 7 mins ago
Organic Marble
50.3k3129213
asked 8 hours ago
KharoBangdo
20816
edited 7 mins ago
Organic Marble
50.3k3129213
asked 8 hours ago
KharoBangdo
20816
edited 7 mins ago
Organic Marble
50.3k3129213
edited 7 mins ago
Organic Marble
50.3k3129213
edited 7 mins ago
Organic Marble
50.3k3129213
50.3k3129213
asked 8 hours ago
KharoBangdo
20816
asked 8 hours ago
KharoBangdo
20816
asked 8 hours ago
KharoBangdo
20816
20816
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Nothing physically prevents equatorial orbits at any altitude above the Kármán line. The question is really; what would be the point in flying over exactly the same equatorial band roughly every 90 minutes, when a higher-inclination orbit would let you cover much more of the planet (all of it, eventually, for polar orbits) or a higher orbit would let you both see a wider swath and not be constantly coming into and out of range of stuff on the ground.
Even a cheap orbital launch currently costs millions of dollars. So the suggestion that you offered in your answer is likely the correct answer; it would be a wasteful expenditure.
edited 3 hours ago
uhoh
31.3k15107385
answered 6 hours ago
CBHacking
68839
1
I toned down the condescension a bit, and the rhetorical questions. I hope you don't mind. I think this way the answer is the same but it's more comfortable for the OP and future readers when the answer is not quite so passionate. I do that from time to time as well, and get reminded as well.
– uhoh
2 hours ago
A satellite at say ~1000 km in LEO can see a sizable chunk of the Earth's surface every ~90 minutes, over ~15% with elevations above 45 degrees, and it's quite a populated 15% of the Earth at that! Still, Even when there are constellations of thousands, all orbits tend to be inclined and equatorial orbits not included. See SpaceX's 4,425 satellite constellation - what's the method to the madness?
– uhoh
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Uhoh touches one side of the problem: "Why" - the lower the orbit, the less of Earth is covered in a single pass, and the closer to equator the orbit, the less do the passes vary further narrowing the area. MEO equatorial satellites make sense. The lower the orbit though, the less useful they become.
Still, there's a slew of tasks that wouldn't be hurt by that inclination - plenty of satellites just need to be in orbit, any orbit, to do their job. Why not the simple equatorial LEO?
Because it's expensive. Orbital plane change in LEO is very expensive maneuver and any straightforward launch followed by insertion (without the dogleg maneuver) will result in orbit of inclination no less that latitude of the spaceport. The French Guiana spaceport, with best location for equatorial launches at 5°14′14″N is best equipped for Arianne which is a very heavy launch platform, and one of the most expensive - and you still need to perform a dogleg of (AFAIR; verify that) ~1km/s to make the orbit equatorial. Plane changes from any other spaceport to equatorial LEO will be of order of 3-5km/s extra.
That way the equatorial LEO is not only of little use, it's also so expensive mostly everything you may need it for, is better achieved by more inclined orbits.
answered 1 hour ago
SF.
30.1k899216
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Nothing physically prevents equatorial orbits at any altitude above the Kármán line. The question is really; what would be the point in flying over exactly the same equatorial band roughly every 90 minutes, when a higher-inclination orbit would let you cover much more of the planet (all of it, eventually, for polar orbits) or a higher orbit would let you both see a wider swath and not be constantly coming into and out of range of stuff on the ground.
Even a cheap orbital launch currently costs millions of dollars. So the suggestion that you offered in your answer is likely the correct answer; it would be a wasteful expenditure.
edited 3 hours ago
uhoh
31.3k15107385
answered 6 hours ago
CBHacking
68839
1
I toned down the condescension a bit, and the rhetorical questions. I hope you don't mind. I think this way the answer is the same but it's more comfortable for the OP and future readers when the answer is not quite so passionate. I do that from time to time as well, and get reminded as well.
– uhoh
2 hours ago
A satellite at say ~1000 km in LEO can see a sizable chunk of the Earth's surface every ~90 minutes, over ~15% with elevations above 45 degrees, and it's quite a populated 15% of the Earth at that! Still, Even when there are constellations of thousands, all orbits tend to be inclined and equatorial orbits not included. See SpaceX's 4,425 satellite constellation - what's the method to the madness?
– uhoh
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Nothing physically prevents equatorial orbits at any altitude above the Kármán line. The question is really; what would be the point in flying over exactly the same equatorial band roughly every 90 minutes, when a higher-inclination orbit would let you cover much more of the planet (all of it, eventually, for polar orbits) or a higher orbit would let you both see a wider swath and not be constantly coming into and out of range of stuff on the ground.
Even a cheap orbital launch currently costs millions of dollars. So the suggestion that you offered in your answer is likely the correct answer; it would be a wasteful expenditure.
edited 3 hours ago
uhoh
31.3k15107385
answered 6 hours ago
CBHacking
68839
1
I toned down the condescension a bit, and the rhetorical questions. I hope you don't mind. I think this way the answer is the same but it's more comfortable for the OP and future readers when the answer is not quite so passionate. I do that from time to time as well, and get reminded as well.
– uhoh
2 hours ago
A satellite at say ~1000 km in LEO can see a sizable chunk of the Earth's surface every ~90 minutes, over ~15% with elevations above 45 degrees, and it's quite a populated 15% of the Earth at that! Still, Even when there are constellations of thousands, all orbits tend to be inclined and equatorial orbits not included. See SpaceX's 4,425 satellite constellation - what's the method to the madness?
– uhoh
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Nothing physically prevents equatorial orbits at any altitude above the Kármán line. The question is really; what would be the point in flying over exactly the same equatorial band roughly every 90 minutes, when a higher-inclination orbit would let you cover much more of the planet (all of it, eventually, for polar orbits) or a higher orbit would let you both see a wider swath and not be constantly coming into and out of range of stuff on the ground.
Even a cheap orbital launch currently costs millions of dollars. So the suggestion that you offered in your answer is likely the correct answer; it would be a wasteful expenditure.
edited 3 hours ago
uhoh
31.3k15107385
answered 6 hours ago
CBHacking
68839
Nothing physically prevents equatorial orbits at any altitude above the Kármán line. The question is really; what would be the point in flying over exactly the same equatorial band roughly every 90 minutes, when a higher-inclination orbit would let you cover much more of the planet (all of it, eventually, for polar orbits) or a higher orbit would let you both see a wider swath and not be constantly coming into and out of range of stuff on the ground.
Even a cheap orbital launch currently costs millions of dollars. So the suggestion that you offered in your answer is likely the correct answer; it would be a wasteful expenditure.
edited 3 hours ago
uhoh
31.3k15107385
answered 6 hours ago
CBHacking
68839
edited 3 hours ago
uhoh
31.3k15107385
edited 3 hours ago
uhoh
31.3k15107385
edited 3 hours ago
uhoh
31.3k15107385
31.3k15107385
answered 6 hours ago
CBHacking
68839
answered 6 hours ago
CBHacking
68839
answered 6 hours ago
CBHacking
68839
68839
1
I toned down the condescension a bit, and the rhetorical questions. I hope you don't mind. I think this way the answer is the same but it's more comfortable for the OP and future readers when the answer is not quite so passionate. I do that from time to time as well, and get reminded as well.
– uhoh
2 hours ago
A satellite at say ~1000 km in LEO can see a sizable chunk of the Earth's surface every ~90 minutes, over ~15% with elevations above 45 degrees, and it's quite a populated 15% of the Earth at that! Still, Even when there are constellations of thousands, all orbits tend to be inclined and equatorial orbits not included. See SpaceX's 4,425 satellite constellation - what's the method to the madness?
– uhoh
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
I toned down the condescension a bit, and the rhetorical questions. I hope you don't mind. I think this way the answer is the same but it's more comfortable for the OP and future readers when the answer is not quite so passionate. I do that from time to time as well, and get reminded as well.
– uhoh
2 hours ago
A satellite at say ~1000 km in LEO can see a sizable chunk of the Earth's surface every ~90 minutes, over ~15% with elevations above 45 degrees, and it's quite a populated 15% of the Earth at that! Still, Even when there are constellations of thousands, all orbits tend to be inclined and equatorial orbits not included. See SpaceX's 4,425 satellite constellation - what's the method to the madness?
– uhoh
2 hours ago
1
1
I toned down the condescension a bit, and the rhetorical questions. I hope you don't mind. I think this way the answer is the same but it's more comfortable for the OP and future readers when the answer is not quite so passionate. I do that from time to time as well, and get reminded as well.
– uhoh
2 hours ago
I toned down the condescension a bit, and the rhetorical questions. I hope you don't mind. I think this way the answer is the same but it's more comfortable for the OP and future readers when the answer is not quite so passionate. I do that from time to time as well, and get reminded as well.
– uhoh
2 hours ago
A satellite at say ~1000 km in LEO can see a sizable chunk of the Earth's surface every ~90 minutes, over ~15% with elevations above 45 degrees, and it's quite a populated 15% of the Earth at that! Still, Even when there are constellations of thousands, all orbits tend to be inclined and equatorial orbits not included. See SpaceX's 4,425 satellite constellation - what's the method to the madness?
– uhoh
2 hours ago
A satellite at say ~1000 km in LEO can see a sizable chunk of the Earth's surface every ~90 minutes, over ~15% with elevations above 45 degrees, and it's quite a populated 15% of the Earth at that! Still, Even when there are constellations of thousands, all orbits tend to be inclined and equatorial orbits not included. See SpaceX's 4,425 satellite constellation - what's the method to the madness?
– uhoh
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Uhoh touches one side of the problem: "Why" - the lower the orbit, the less of Earth is covered in a single pass, and the closer to equator the orbit, the less do the passes vary further narrowing the area. MEO equatorial satellites make sense. The lower the orbit though, the less useful they become.
Still, there's a slew of tasks that wouldn't be hurt by that inclination - plenty of satellites just need to be in orbit, any orbit, to do their job. Why not the simple equatorial LEO?
Because it's expensive. Orbital plane change in LEO is very expensive maneuver and any straightforward launch followed by insertion (without the dogleg maneuver) will result in orbit of inclination no less that latitude of the spaceport. The French Guiana spaceport, with best location for equatorial launches at 5°14′14″N is best equipped for Arianne which is a very heavy launch platform, and one of the most expensive - and you still need to perform a dogleg of (AFAIR; verify that) ~1km/s to make the orbit equatorial. Plane changes from any other spaceport to equatorial LEO will be of order of 3-5km/s extra.
That way the equatorial LEO is not only of little use, it's also so expensive mostly everything you may need it for, is better achieved by more inclined orbits.
answered 1 hour ago
SF.
30.1k899216
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Uhoh touches one side of the problem: "Why" - the lower the orbit, the less of Earth is covered in a single pass, and the closer to equator the orbit, the less do the passes vary further narrowing the area. MEO equatorial satellites make sense. The lower the orbit though, the less useful they become.
Still, there's a slew of tasks that wouldn't be hurt by that inclination - plenty of satellites just need to be in orbit, any orbit, to do their job. Why not the simple equatorial LEO?
Because it's expensive. Orbital plane change in LEO is very expensive maneuver and any straightforward launch followed by insertion (without the dogleg maneuver) will result in orbit of inclination no less that latitude of the spaceport. The French Guiana spaceport, with best location for equatorial launches at 5°14′14″N is best equipped for Arianne which is a very heavy launch platform, and one of the most expensive - and you still need to perform a dogleg of (AFAIR; verify that) ~1km/s to make the orbit equatorial. Plane changes from any other spaceport to equatorial LEO will be of order of 3-5km/s extra.
That way the equatorial LEO is not only of little use, it's also so expensive mostly everything you may need it for, is better achieved by more inclined orbits.
answered 1 hour ago
SF.
30.1k899216
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Uhoh touches one side of the problem: "Why" - the lower the orbit, the less of Earth is covered in a single pass, and the closer to equator the orbit, the less do the passes vary further narrowing the area. MEO equatorial satellites make sense. The lower the orbit though, the less useful they become.
Still, there's a slew of tasks that wouldn't be hurt by that inclination - plenty of satellites just need to be in orbit, any orbit, to do their job. Why not the simple equatorial LEO?
Because it's expensive. Orbital plane change in LEO is very expensive maneuver and any straightforward launch followed by insertion (without the dogleg maneuver) will result in orbit of inclination no less that latitude of the spaceport. The French Guiana spaceport, with best location for equatorial launches at 5°14′14″N is best equipped for Arianne which is a very heavy launch platform, and one of the most expensive - and you still need to perform a dogleg of (AFAIR; verify that) ~1km/s to make the orbit equatorial. Plane changes from any other spaceport to equatorial LEO will be of order of 3-5km/s extra.
That way the equatorial LEO is not only of little use, it's also so expensive mostly everything you may need it for, is better achieved by more inclined orbits.
answered 1 hour ago
SF.
30.1k899216
Uhoh touches one side of the problem: "Why" - the lower the orbit, the less of Earth is covered in a single pass, and the closer to equator the orbit, the less do the passes vary further narrowing the area. MEO equatorial satellites make sense. The lower the orbit though, the less useful they become.
Still, there's a slew of tasks that wouldn't be hurt by that inclination - plenty of satellites just need to be in orbit, any orbit, to do their job. Why not the simple equatorial LEO?
Because it's expensive. Orbital plane change in LEO is very expensive maneuver and any straightforward launch followed by insertion (without the dogleg maneuver) will result in orbit of inclination no less that latitude of the spaceport. The French Guiana spaceport, with best location for equatorial launches at 5°14′14″N is best equipped for Arianne which is a very heavy launch platform, and one of the most expensive - and you still need to perform a dogleg of (AFAIR; verify that) ~1km/s to make the orbit equatorial. Plane changes from any other spaceport to equatorial LEO will be of order of 3-5km/s extra.
That way the equatorial LEO is not only of little use, it's also so expensive mostly everything you may need it for, is better achieved by more inclined orbits.
answered 1 hour ago
SF.
30.1k899216
answered 1 hour ago
SF.
30.1k899216
answered 1 hour ago
SF.
30.1k899216
answered 1 hour ago
SF.
30.1k899216
30.1k899216
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31781%2fwhy-are-there-no-leo-satellites-in-the-earths-equatorial-plane%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password