How does the Satellite manage to stay in earth's orbit?

AI Thread Summary
Satellites must achieve a velocity of around 8 km/s to maintain orbit and avoid falling back to Earth. Once in motion, they do not require fuel to stay in orbit due to the absence of air resistance in space. Newton's First Law explains that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force. The concept of Newton's cannonball illustrates how an object can achieve a stable orbit without continuously using fuel. Understanding these principles clarifies the mechanics behind satellite motion and stability in Earth's orbit.
yalgaar
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I have read that an object needs to have a velocity of around 8km/s to not fall back on Earth and to stay on orbit.

Based on the above, are all our human made sattelites constantly traveling at around 8km/s to not fall back on earth? Is so doen't it need a lot of fuel? Does it store all this fuel? I think I am missing something basic here.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It doesn't take any fuel to keep moving - there is nothing to stop it.
 
Last edited:
At 8km/s, if you fly through the atmosphere, probably your craft will burn
 
yalgaar said:
I have read that an object needs to have a velocity of around 8km/s to not fall back on Earth and to stay on orbit.

Based on the above, are all our human made sattelites constantly traveling at around 8km/s to not fall back on earth? Is so doen't it need a lot of fuel? Does it store all this fuel? I think I am missing something basic here.

Newton's First Law: an object in motion will tend to stay in motion. There is no air - and therefore no air resistance - in space. Once you get the craft up to speed, it will continue on its merry way forever until it encounters something to stop or slow it (such as faint whiffs of atmosphere in low orbit.)
 
pixel01 said:
At 8km/s, if you fly through the atmosphere, probably your craft will burn
This is not relevant.
 
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 hypothesis of scientists about the origin of the mysterious signal WOW seems plausible only on a superficial examination. In fact, such a strong coherent radiation requires a powerful initiating factor, and the hydrogen atoms in the cloud themselves must be in an overexcited state in order to respond instantly. If the density of the initiating radiation is insufficient, then the atoms of the cloud will not receive it at once, some will receive it earlier, and some later. But then there...
Back
Top