Stationary Satellites: Can We Orbit at the Poles?

  • Thread starter Grimstone
  • Start date
In summary, it is not possible to place a single satellite over the poles, but a constellation of satellites in Molniya orbits can achieve a similar result by staggering their orbits. These satellites would have an inclination angle of 63.4 degrees and would be constantly moving in a relay race to maintain coverage of a specific location.
  • #1
Grimstone
66
0
stationary or not?
I understand that satellites orbit the Earth at a speed and angle that allows them to "free fall" the entire time. That is they are going so fast that they are always cresting the edge of the planet and always in a state of free fall.

isn't it possible to place a satellite or station that is pretty much stationary over the poles?
yes the orbit of the Earth is not round. yes the Earth tilts.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Satellites can be placed stationary over a point on the equator, not at the poles. The satellite must orbit the Earth - over the equator, the orbital period can be made coincident with the Earth's rotation.
 
  • #3
A stable orbit is impossible unless the satellite is traveling at least at escape velocity wrt to the body it orbits - this is orbital mechanics 101.
 
  • #4
Grimstone said:
stationary or not?
I understand that satellites orbit the Earth at a speed and angle that allows them to "free fall" the entire time. That is they are going so fast that they are always cresting the edge of the planet and always in a state of free fall.

isn't it possible to place a satellite or station that is pretty much stationary over the poles?
yes the orbit of the Earth is not round. yes the Earth tilts.

No. As mathman said, an orbiting body can only remain stationary with respect to a point on the Earth's surface when it is in the geocentric orbit (more specifically geostationary). That is, an orbit in the equatorial plane at a distance of about 40,000 km where the orbital speed matches the Earth's rotation in terms of a fixed point on the surface.

Any other orbit must lie in a plane which contains the Earth's center of gravity (mass) so polar orbits are possible, but they cannot be geostationary.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
thank you.
 
  • #6
Chronos said:
A stable orbit is impossible unless the satellite is traveling at least at escape velocity wrt to the body it orbits - this is orbital mechanics 101.
Er, what? No it isn't! Orbital speed is of course lower than "escape" velocity!
 
  • #7
russ_watters said:
Er, what? No it isn't! Orbital speed is of course lower than "escape" velocity!
Google the term "hyperbolic orbit".
 
  • #8
D H said:
Google the term "hyperbolic orbit".

Like russ, I don't understand either. If you just apply the virial theorem to the simple system of a satellite in a circular orbit around some parent body, you get that the speed at the orbital radius is exactly half of what the escape speed would be at that radius. You can also derive this result just by using centripetal force, of course.

So, regardless of what a hyperbolic orbit is (and I haven't googled it), the statement that the escape speed is a minimum speed required for a stable orbit seems manifestly wrong.
 
  • #9
Agreed, I was thinking of escape velocity at the surface of Earth vs orbital velocity around earth. Obviously orbital velocity is always less than escape velocity by a factor of sqrt 2.
 
  • #10
cepheid said:
Like russ, I don't understand either.
I misread. I thought Chronos was talking about a radial orbit directly away from the pole. The satellite isn't stationary in terms of distance, but it is in terms of angular position. Such an orbit is of course of no use for communications or Earth observations.


Chronos said:
Agreed, I was thinking of escape velocity at the surface of Earth vs orbital velocity around earth. Obviously orbital velocity is always less than escape velocity by a factor of sqrt 2.
Still not right. (Closed) orbital velocity is always less than escape velocity. There's no factor of sqrt(2). Escape velocity by definition is that speed at which a trajectory changes from a closed orbit to an open orbit (or escape trajectory, if you don't like using the word "orbit" for things that aren't "orbiting").
 
  • #11
Chronos said:
Agreed, I was thinking of escape velocity at the surface of Earth vs orbital velocity around earth. Obviously orbital velocity is always less than escape velocity by a factor of sqrt 2.

The sqrt 2 factor holds when comparing orbital velocity for a circular orbit to escape velocity. For an elliptical orbit, orbital velocity changes throughout the orbit, and approaches escape velocity at periapsis as the eccentricity approaches 1. This leads to an interesting fact: If you are already in an elliptical orbit, it takes less delta v to achieve escape velocity at periapsis than it does apoapsis
 
  • #12
Grimstone said:
stationary or not?
I understand that satellites orbit the Earth at a speed and angle that allows them to "free fall" the entire time. That is they are going so fast that they are always cresting the edge of the planet and always in a state of free fall.

isn't it possible to place a satellite or station that is pretty much stationary over the poles?
yes the orbit of the Earth is not round. yes the Earth tilts.

It's not possible to put a single satellite into an orbit that's stationary over the poles, but it is possible to accomplish the same result using several satellites.

With a constellation of satellites in Molniya orbits, you can stagger their orbits so there's always some satellite in the same given location all of the time. From the point of view of the tracking station, they point their antenna roughly in one direction and each satellite moves into that location in a kind of relay race. The antenna barely has to move to pick up the next satellite coming along.

Typically, this is done with six satellites in a semi-synchronous orbit (two orbits per day, which means each satellite is used for two periods per day, giving you the equivalent of a 12 satellite relay race). You could do this with a minimum of four satellites if you were willing to move your antenna just a bit further to pick up the next satellite coming along.

And, the satellites wouldn't be directly over the poles. They have to have an inclination angle of 63.4 degrees, so you'd actually always have a satellite at about 63.4 degrees latitude with some nearly constant longitude.

The 63.4 degree requirement is because you create this relay race with satellites in highly elliptical orbits. The satellite is used when its at apogee and is moving very slowly. Because of the equatorial bulge, perigee and apogee will move forwards or backwards depending on the inclination angle, with 63.4 degrees being the angle where perigee and apogee remain stationary.
 

1. What are stationary satellites?

Stationary satellites are satellites that are placed in geosynchronous orbit, meaning they orbit the Earth at the same speed that the Earth rotates. This results in the satellite appearing to be stationary in the sky from a fixed point on the ground.

2. Can we orbit stationary satellites at the poles?

No, it is not possible to orbit stationary satellites at the poles. In order for a satellite to be stationary, it needs to be placed in an orbit above the Earth's equator. The Earth's rotation at the poles is much slower, making it impossible for a satellite to maintain a stationary position.

3. What is the purpose of stationary satellites?

Stationary satellites are primarily used for communication purposes, such as television broadcasting, telephone services, and internet connectivity. They can also be used for weather monitoring and navigation systems.

4. How are stationary satellites different from other satellites?

Unlike other satellites, stationary satellites have a specific orbit that allows them to remain in a fixed position above the Earth's surface. Other satellites, such as those used for mapping or scientific research, have a variety of orbits and do not remain in one location.

5. Are there any disadvantages to using stationary satellites?

One disadvantage of stationary satellites is that they can only cover a limited area of the Earth's surface, typically only one-third. This means that multiple satellites are needed to provide global coverage. Additionally, stationary satellites are more susceptible to interference and signal loss due to their fixed position in the sky.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
697
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top