If its orbit is tilted relative to the equator,it will move over different parts of the earth.
It would move further out of the current orbit. Possibly into an unstable orbit & be flung from earth altogether (however, the people who design satellites are fairly smart and won't allow that to happen)
A geostationary orbit would allow a satellite to see all parts of the globe as it orbits the Earth at the same speed that the Earth rotates. This means the satellite remains fixed above the same point on the equator, providing continuous coverage of that area.
5 hours
In general the farthest point in a satellite's orbit from its focus is its apoapsis. If the focus is the Sun or Earth however then you would say the satellite's farthest point is its aphelion and apogee, respectively.
Pluto has a tilted orbit (compared with the average plane of the orbits of the other planets). Also, Pluto would be considered a "terrestrial planet", but it is not now defined as a planet. It's just called a "dwarf planet" now.
The tilt of a satellites (compared to anything) really has very little effect on its orbit. The only thing that really does have a major effect is its distance from whatever the satelite is orbiting.
It is tilted (23.5 degrees).
It would do some damage, just break, or depending on where it hit it could REALLY hurt.
Neptune's orbit is more like Pluto's orbit, slightly tilted.
The most likely factor that would cause a communications satellite orbiting Earth to return to Earth from its orbit would be atmospheric drag. As the satellite moves through the Earth's atmosphere, it experiences friction with air molecules which can slow it down and cause its orbit to decay, eventually leading to re-entry into Earth's atmosphere.
It would move further out of the current orbit. Possibly into an unstable orbit & be flung from earth altogether (however, the people who design satellites are fairly smart and won't allow that to happen)
Maybe because the earth's tilted orbital plane causes the moon to orbit tiled, if the earth was straight it has said that the moon would orbit straight line.
The speed of the satellite will remain the same regardless of doubling the mass, as long as the radius of its orbit remains constant. The speed of the satellite in orbit is determined by the gravitational force between the satellite and the celestial body it is orbiting, not the mass of the satellite itself.
If the earth was not tilted at an angle of 23.5 degrees, there would not be the different seasons.
A geostationary orbit would allow a satellite to see all parts of the globe as it orbits the Earth at the same speed that the Earth rotates. This means the satellite remains fixed above the same point on the equator, providing continuous coverage of that area.
No, a moon is a natuaral satellite and would always be in orbit around a planet. If it did'nt orbit the planet it would fall into the planet.
You don't really have a question here. If the satellite is in orbit, the mass is essentially irrelevant; it wouldn't change the speed of the orbit or the altitude. A larger satellite mass WOULD HAVE required more fuel and more energy to LAUNCH it, but once in orbit, it will stay there. The only exception would be an exceptionally large, light satellite. There is still some minuscule traces of atmosphere at 200 miles, and a large, light satellite would be slowed by air friction much more than a small dense satellite would. This is what caused the "ECHO" satellite - essentially a silvered mylar balloon inflated in orbit as a primitive reflector comsat - to deorbit.