This is like calling a democratic budget cut a cut, rather than actually a reduction in the rate of increase, which is what democrats call ‘cuts’. In this case, the booster rocket has a faster rate of decay because it is all empty tanks, so it has a lower density and therefore loses velocity faster given the same drag, than the fully fueled probe and upper stage assembly.
The ghost of Carl Sagan can only push so hard!
As a wild guess, I’m going to say venting from the drop tank. It wasn’t designed to be in orbit for more than a few hours, so it could possibly be venting slightly, and the attitude control system is keeping the craft stable in spite of an off-axis thrust.
The basis for my guess is Apollo 13; a tiny amount of LEM venting was sufficient to keep shallowing the trajectory vs. the re-entry corridor.
Apparently the decay is back to “normal”; follow the thread at the original link.
This is like calling a democratic budget cut a cut, rather than actually a reduction in the rate of increase, which is what democrats call ‘cuts’. In this case, the booster rocket has a faster rate of decay because it is all empty tanks, so it has a lower density and therefore loses velocity faster given the same drag, than the fully fueled probe and upper stage assembly.
The ghost of Carl Sagan can only push so hard!
As a wild guess, I’m going to say venting from the drop tank. It wasn’t designed to be in orbit for more than a few hours, so it could possibly be venting slightly, and the attitude control system is keeping the craft stable in spite of an off-axis thrust.
The basis for my guess is Apollo 13; a tiny amount of LEM venting was sufficient to keep shallowing the trajectory vs. the re-entry corridor.
Apparently the decay is back to “normal”; follow the thread at the original link.