Talk:Orbital inclination change

WikiProject banners and article class

I have added a {{WPSpace}} banner, but since my assessment of the article's class doesn't match that of the {{WPAstronomy}} assessor, I haven't removed that banner. Since the article currently has no references whatsoever, rating it "Start" as I have done seems generous! How does it rate a "C" for Astronomy? Indeed, is it within scope there? (sdsds - talk) 22:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. I guess I had another article opened and I gave C to this one thinking it was the other. My bad. Seems more like a stub to me. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the {{WPAstronomy}} due to lack of applicability. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The equation for delta v as a function of inclination change does not seem correct. For example, take the case where w + f = 0 or 180. This occurs when the spacecraft is at the orbital nodes, where the impulsive maneuver should be performed. In this case abs(cos(w+f)) = 1 (absolute value because negative DV doesn't make sense). Now also consider at the same time the denominator when the spacecraft is at perigee (true anomaly = 0). The denominator is at a maximum which means the fraction is at a minimum. The article states that changing inclination at apogee is optimal. The equation says changing inclination at perigee is optimal. Performing some side analysis suggests that the denominator should be 1-ecos(f), though this is only approximately correct. And finally, the cos(w+f) in the numerator takes on a value of zero when the argument is pi/2. A delta V of zero to change inclination would be quite a good deal! In fact, when w+f = pi/2, it is impossible to change inclination at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.45.94 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]