Calculating Force to Change Earth's Orbit - Kepler

AI Thread Summary
To change Earth's orbit, the force applied must consider the elliptical nature of its current trajectory rather than assuming a circular orbit. The direction of the force is crucial: to raise the orbit, push in the direction of Earth's motion; to lower it, push against that motion. Pushing directly toward or away from the Sun alters the orbit's shape, while pushing at a right angle changes its inclination. The calculated force of approximately 3.54 x 10^22 Newtons may not be accurate without accounting for these factors. Understanding the desired outcome of the orbital change is essential for determining the correct approach.
kepler
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Hi,

If we were to change the Earth's orbit, what force should we apply and in what direction? Shoud we go against G.(M_Earth + M_Sun) / distance^2 or against the centripetal force, M_Earth.v^2/distance?

I've calculated this last one and I got the result:

3,542396634E+22 Newtons

Is this correct?

Regards,

Kepler
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The problem with mv^2/r is that you've assumed the Earth is in a circular orbit. It is, in fact, somewhat elliptical. That difference drastically changes the problem.
 
It really depends on how you want to change the orbit.(what kind of an orbit do you want after the change?) If you want to raise it to an higher orbit, you have to push it in the same direction it is moving around the Sun. If you want to move it into a lower orbit, you push in the opposite direction. If you push directly towards or away from the Sun, you will change the shape of the orbit such that it will be closer to the Sun at part of its orbit and further at another part. If you push it at a right angle to its orbital plane, you will change the inclination or "tilt" of the orbit.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top