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