On 21Jan2018 2235, Caleuche wrote:

I was going to mention that, or ask about it. As far as I can tell,
there's no reason that everyone shouldn't be using powered orbits, is
there? All traveler spacecraft (prior to T5 at least) could minimally
maintain 1g acceleration for 30 days which removes the need for orbits
at all. I'd imagine space stations need not be in orbit either. In fact,
around asteroids and planetoids, the space station operator would have
to be careful as an object in a powered orbit like that is effectively a
gravitational tractor, and will change the orbit of the planetoid around
its primary star over a long enough period of time.

I assume that most objects, unless there's a clear need for them to be in a powered orbit, aren't. The reasons are tradition, 'safety' (i.e. a largely irrational belief that unpowered objects are less likely to collide with something), and ease of management - put something in an unpowered orbit and it's easy to find later.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=z4ykj54zpoNxz3pUaE773cJHeATwsgSu