🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1jg6fmINNihe@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl
J Lydick) wrote:
> 
> In article <119.30.uupcb@pcs.sj.ca.us>, paul.burnett@pcs.sj.ca.us (Paul Burnett)  writes:
> >TO: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
> >
> >CJL>DO NOT use Star Trek as a teaching tool.
> >
> >   >Examples:
> >   >    The rapid decay of the Enterprise's orbit.
> >
> >Ah - you remind me of one of my favorites:  The Enterprise goes into
> >geosynchronous orbit over the north pole.  <ROTFL>
> 
> So?  There's nothing wrong with that.  Geosynchronous means that they end up
> over the same spot on the planet at the same time every day.  A spacecraft in a
> polar orbit at 22,600 miles (I think that's the right distance) altitude *IS*
> in a geosynchronlus orbit.  Now, if they'd gone into a GEOSTATIONARY orbit
> (perhaps that's what you meant?) over the north pole, you'd have a valid point.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
> 
> Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
> understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
> unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
> organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
> hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.


I think it was geostationary orbit over the south pole, actually.  The only
way this make sense is if "orbit" is used as a term to mean "parked by this
planet."  I have no doubt the Enterprise's engines could keep her
stationary
above the south pole.  Given the ability to do this easily, a freefall
orbit
might be the exception rather than the rule.

Bob Hearn
Spartacus Software

Opinions expressed here are those of my empolyer, since that's me.