>>> On Apr 6, 8:45 pm, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid>    wrote:
>>>> On 7/04/2012 6:26 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

>>>>> On Apr 6, 7:08 am, Sylvia Else<syl...@not.here.invalid>      wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/04/2012 8:02 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 2:34 pm, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
>>>>>>> <moor...@ignorethisgreenms.com>        wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Brad Guth"  wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:0a00cfb4-0b8a-411f-bcab-fd3428ba3744@to5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>>>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 2:12 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> : Brad Guth<bradg...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> : I thought retrograde orbits were technically forbidden for all sorts
>>>>>>>>>> : of valid reasons:

>>>>>>>>>> You were wrong.

>>>>>>>>> Obviously.

>>>>>>>>> Apparently, most polar orbits typically utilized for our spy
>>>>>>>>> satellites are also migrating in a retrograde fashion.  Do most of the
>>>>>>>>> Russian, Chinese and others spying upon us do the same, or are they
>>>>>>>>> prograde polar orbits.

>>>>>>>> They would also be in a retrograde orbit for the same reasons.

>>>>>>>>> It seems there could be some spy-sat to spy-sat close encounters, of
>>>>>>>>> closing terribly fast upon each-other.

>>>>>>>> Not really.  I think you forget how big space really is.

>>>>>>> LEO space around us is only big if everyone orbiting plays by the same
>>>>>>> rules.

>>>>>> Being what - all orbits circular with zero inclination?

>>>>>> Not going to happen - never was going to happen.

>>>>>> Sylvia.

>>>>> As per usual, you don't get it.  You also don't really care whatever
>>>>> happens that's bad, as long as it isn't happening to yourself.

>>>> The thing is, the satellite you're complaining about is in a retrograde
>>>> orbit with a high inclination. In the scheme of things, the fact that
>>>> its orbit is retrograde makes little different to the risk it represents.

>>>> Even objects that are not in retrograde orbits can still have high
>>>> relative velocities. Indeed, objects in non-retrograde but near polar
>>>> orbits can have relative velocities of almost twice their orbital
>>>> velocities.

>>>> If you still think I don't get it, you should explain exactly what the
>>>> issue is.

>>>> Sylvia.

>>> The issue is that our mostly public funded stuff that's spendy as hell
>>> is at greater risk whenever flying retrograde to whatever else is up
>>> there, not to mention whatever they manage to run into that will not
>>> survive the encounter.

>> You seem entirely fixated on the word "retrograde", as if there are only
>> two orbits - normal, and retrograde. The reality is otherwise.

>> Sylvia.

> No, not at all.  However, you seem to be fixated on "nothing could
> possibly go wrong", regardless of how many spy and commercial sats we
> and others put up, as well as no matters which way they go.

> Would you travel by air and use airports that allowed retrograde and
> crisscross holding patterns?