Direction in Space: Do We Launch Straight Up from the North and South Poles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter elusiveshame
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Direction
AI Thread Summary
Direction in space is relative to the observer, and launching from the poles would not be efficient for exploration. Most space missions launch from near the equator to take advantage of Earth's rotation, which provides a significant fuel savings for reaching orbit. Launching straight up from the poles would lead to long travel distances away from the solar system's plane, where most celestial bodies are located. The energy costs associated with launching in non-equatorial directions make such launches impractical. Overall, launching along the ecliptic plane is preferred due to the proximity of most solar system objects and the efficiency of gravitational assists.
elusiveshame
Messages
170
Reaction score
35
If I understand correctly, direction in space is all relative to the observer (north, south, east, and west). Anyway, suppose we're looking at the Earth from a distance, where the north and south poles are located as on a globe.

My question is: when we send probes and shuttles into space, we seem to be going sideways for travel, but do we ever launch straight up from either of the poles and continue our exploration in other directions?

I do feel that I may not be understanding something, or missing something entirely. Any explanation or resources would be greatly appreciated.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The plane of the solar system roughly corresponds to the plane of the equator of the Earth, this is why we launch things going out "sideways". If we launched something going "straight out of the poles" it wouldn't hit anything interesting for quite a long time as it would just be going away from the plane of the solar system and not towards other planets, etc. In addition, most of the people on Earth are located closer to the equator. There are no people at the poles, so it would be pretty hard to build launch sites there.
 
  • Like
Likes elusiveshame
The issue here is with the energy cost of sending anything into space in directions not coinciding with the rotation/revolution planes.

When you send a satellite into Earth orbit in the equatorial plane (the East-West plane) you can use the rotation of the planet to boost the satellite and save fuel.
The savings in terms of delta-V (the velocity required for a maneuver) are in the vicinity of 500m/s iirc. Compare with ~7 km/s required for a low-Earth circular orbit. It's not a whole lot, but still a substantial saving due to the way rockets work (you need extra fuel to move extra fuel and so on). But since it's not prohibitive either, we do sometimes send satellites into polar orbits.

With the solar system travel, the savings from the orbital velocity of Earth when sending probes in the ecliptic (orbital) plane amount to ~30km/s. Compare to about 45km/s required to escape the solar system from the distance of Earth's orbit. It's much, much easier to send stuff close to the plane of the ecliptic (which differs from equatiorial plane by 23.5 degrees by the way) and then try and alter the orbit with slingshot maneuvers.

But besides, almost everything in the solar system apart from some rare rocks lies within relatively few degrees from the ecliptic, so it's not like there's much reason to send stuff away in any other plane.
 
  • Like
Likes elusiveshame
Thank you both for the explanations, very helpful with imagining this and understanding why we launch along the ecliptic.

I was trying to think of any follow up questions, but it seems you both covered everything that I could think of at the moment :p
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top