They move on geostationary orbits, or am I understanding you wrong? I mean, geostationary means that if you'd draw a line between the point the satellite orbits and the satellite itself, this line cuts the planet surface at one point for all times. If the satellite "stands still" in the players viewport it means the satellite inherits a point of the invisible sphere you mentioned above, and therefore has a velocity since the sphere rotates with the planet. The planet must rotate, otherwise none geostationary or geosynchronous orbits are possible. Since the satellite moves it has a path, which is in this case circular. It therefore orbits, whether the center is a point or an axis isn't particularly interesting. Naturally only one geostationary orbit is stable, namely along the equator. Satellites north or south to this circle are dragged towards the equator by some part of the gravitational force unless another force cancels this part out. What kind of force is pretty much equal, you could think of another gravitational body, an electric field, a magnetic field or a thruster (and most satellite has a small thruster). By using continuous thrust I therefore can make every point of this sphere a stable geostationary orbit. So why exactly do you think the movement isn't an orbit?
They won't stay in a geostationary orbit for to long (which is also indirectly mentioned in the article). But you are right in the terms of current satellites using the thrust only to stabilize a "stable" geostationary orbit. So why can't future satellites stabilize "unstable" geostationary orbits. Found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclined_orbit So they're called geostationary inclined orbits. Geostationary and geosynchronous orbits. I'm not sure what you wanted to show me, but if it's the flawed scale of the orbit height then just take a look on the bottom of your graphic or http://www.ngawhetu.com/Resources/SenseofScale/images/scalemodelSS.png
Geostationary. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Geosynchronous and geostationationary are two completely different things. You can't use them interchangeably... well, not unless you want to sound like you don't know what you're talking about.
No, they don't. They don't "wobble" in a figure of eight, which is what a geosynchronous satellite would do. Currently the correct terminology for what the satellites are doing is called: bullshit. They don't orbit. They exhibit none of the characteristics of being in an orbit. They just hang there on strings made of the purest handwavium.
If you believe that the next orbit update will improve things? Could as well be, that it gets even more absurd. And it's almost certain, that it won't deal with any other problems the orbital units have, e.g. their broken role in the game play.
Did you even read the rest of this thread? The next update (unless Uber completely reverses their position) will not include orbital mechanics, in any form.
I think I know exactly what it means. And I don't use them interchangeably. By the way, they aren't completely different, geostationary is a subclass of geosynchronous orbits but I assume you already knew that. Not really they can have a geostationary inclined orbit which is described in the second paragraph of the article I linked. Yes, they do. If an geostationary inclined orbit is no orbit for you, it's useless to argue any further.
Look, I'll quote it for you: Now will you please stop butchering the scientific terminology to fit your personal crackpot theory. There is no such thing as a geostationary inclined ORBIT. It breaks the definition of the word.
Since geostationary is a subclass of geosynchronous orbits, they are also geosynchronous, aren't they? This thread is even more pointless than it used to be. (Soon we'll get the Steam PA forum awesome topics level here, enjoy!)
Only if they're on the equator. Geosynchronous orbits do not remain stationary with regards to the planet's surface. PA's "satellites" remain stationary wherever they are placed, even over the poles when they most definitely should not do so. In such a position they are not "in orbit", since being in orbit implies motion around a circular or elliptical path with the parent body (which is providing the gravitational pull on the satellite) having its center of mass squarely in the same plane as the orbital path.
There is no such thing as a geostationary inclined orbit. It's either stationary, inclined or an orbit, but not all 3 at the same time. Thats what logic dictates. There is only a single geostationary orbit per planet and it must always be aligned with the rotational axis of the planet. But you know what? The discussion is pointless. It doesn't matter whether the orbit of the PA satellites is actually possible or not, thats just purely cosmetic. In a realistic scenario, you would put ALL of these satellites in a low orbit with high inclination to achieve a high phasing rate and maximum coverage of the planets surface, possibly even a polar orbit. Showing the satellites in a static is already just for your convenience, under normal circumstances, they would have a ground velocity which makes it impossible for you to simply select them. We should worry more about the mistakes Uber is about to make with the implementation of the satellites, to be specific: Turning them into simple T3 units which only invalidate their corresponding T2 counterparts, just as T2 invalidates T1 as soon as you can afford it.
I think that hi-tech computers and thrusters might compensate the gravity enough to let you orbit around the Z axis of the planet without falling into a traditionnal orbit.
...And so we're back to the bullshit and handwave excuses for lazy implementation. Infinite fuel and "powerful thrusters" that allow the satellite to ignore gravity. In that case why don't they put those thrusters on tanks and just have them FLY everywhere? Why is that technology, which has been refined and assimilated into every Commander's blueprints, not being used to just ignore gravity willy-nilly all the time?
Perhaps you'd read the rest of the text (which is all about inclined orbits and that they can't be geostationary unless you provide thrust). You describe a naturally stable orbit. But the class of orbits contains also naturally unstable orbits, that can be stabilized using external forces. Make a tank hovering forever and nobody cares. Make a helicopter fly forever and nobody cares. Make a satellite hover and everybody loses their minds. (Gravity decreases with r^-2 just if anybody is interested in physics)
I call shenanigans Pizwitch. A commander can lathe a stable cold fusion reactor in seconds and it only costs a little bit of metal. Why should "powerful thrusters" cost so much in comparison? --- Oh, and that "thrust" you need to balance a geostationary orbit? That is 50 to 55 metres of delta-v per year. That's NOTHING. Keeping a "naturally unstable orbit" as I see you're now calling it, would cost potentially hundreds of metres of delta-v per second. That, in case you didn't know, is a lot. Please do a little research on the subject baryon, your ignorance is showing.
Actually, the current implantation uses anti grav generators that work just like superconductors and magnetic fields do, but with gravity! They can 'lock' themselves to the graviton fields lines and stay at a certain distance to the gravity well indefinitely. But they also have a severe drawback: they only function at a very discrete distance from the planets surface. That's why satellites are in this shell around the planet rather than in an orbit.
