Re: Space Geography

On Friday 23 September 2011 19:18:21 Indy wrote:
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> 
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk>
wrote:
> > On Friday 23 September 2011 14:30:28 Indy wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk>
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > (1) - one way around this is to set up a handful (3-4 minimum) of
area
> > > detectors in polar orbit around the Sun.
> > 
> > How about sticking them in the same orbit as the main world, at
> > the 3 Lagrange points (L3, L4, L5)? That would give similar coverage
> > I would have thought.
> 
> It would be difficult to have a direct comms link with the L3 sensor
since
> the primary would be directly interposed. Either L4 or L5 would have
to
> relay, and if one (or both!) of them is down...

Yeah, I was expecting the L3 one to relay via L4/L5.

> In a polar orbit, with 3 satellites, at least two of them will be out
of
> the ecliptic plane at any one time, and able to look 'down' (or 'up')
to
> see the entirety of the ecliptic plane (assuming one is concentrating
> toward the plane for an invading force; elsewise the sensors should be
> basically 360). Also, while above/below the ecliptic plane, the
sensors
> could have direct comms to the main world.

True, and other bits I've snipped also true.

As I was saying, don't stick them in the Lagrange points, because that
would be a silly idea... :-)

-- 
Be seeing you,
Sam.