Increasing the speed of a circular orbit

AI Thread Summary
Increasing the velocity of a particle in a circular orbit will result in it transitioning to an elliptical orbit with a larger average radius. To achieve a higher circular orbit, a two-step process is required: first, increase the velocity to set the farthest point of the new elliptical orbit at the desired radius, then increase the velocity again to circularize the orbit. In the new higher orbit, the orbital velocity will be lower than in the previous orbit, despite the two increases in speed. If the velocity increase exceeds a threshold of √2 times the original speed, the orbit will become unbound, resulting in a hyperbolic trajectory. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for applications like satellite maneuvers from elliptical to circular orbits.
Ahmedemad22
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
What If the velocity of particle moving in a circular orbit has increased , would the particle be no longer in circular orbit or it would go in an orbit with bigger radius?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It will enter an elliptical orbit, one with an average radius greater than its present radius*. The new orbit will repeatedly return to the point where its velocity was changed. If you want to move into a higher circular orbit, you can do it in a two step process. First you increase your velocity so that the furthest point of your new elliptical orbit is at the same distance as you want for the radius of your target orbit. When you reach this point of the orbit, you increase your velocity again to circularize your orbit again. In your new higher orbit you will have a smaller orbital velocity than you did in the lower orbit. This might seem strange considering you made two velocity increases, but you lose velocity while traveling outward in the elliptical orbit.

* assuming your new velocity is less than ## \sqrt{2}## times that of your starting orbital velocity. Otherwise, you will no longer be in a closed orbit but an open-ended one that will carry you away from the mass you are orbiting, never to return.
 
  • Like
Likes Nugatory, Merlin3189 and berkeman
Janus said:
It will enter an elliptical orbit, one with an average radius greater than its present radius*. The new orbit will repeatedly return to the point where its velocity was changed. If you want to move into a higher circular orbit, you can do it in a two step process. First you increase your velocity so that the furthest point of your new elliptical orbit is at the same distance as you want for the radius of your target orbit. When you reach this point of the orbit, you increase your velocity again to circularize your orbit again. In your new higher orbit you will have a smaller orbital velocity than you did in the lower orbit. This might seem strange considering you made two velocity increases, but you lose velocity while traveling outward in the elliptical orbit.

* assuming your new velocity is less than ## \sqrt{2}## times that of your starting orbital velocity. Otherwise, you will no longer be in a closed orbit but an open-ended one that will carry you away from the mass you are orbiting, never to return.
Hi Janus !
Thanks for your answer, it is clear and good in my opinion.

One small follow up question: in the (*) note, you give the sqrt(2) threshold limit factor for the increase of the orbital speed. If the increases in a circular orbital speed are below that threshold, one gets ellipses, if the increase factor is exactly sqrt(2) one gets a parabola, and if the increases are above it one gets hyperbolas.. Am I right?
 
Felipe good guy said:
Hi Janus !
Thanks for your answer, it is clear and good in my opinion.

One small follow up question: in the (*) note, you give the sqrt(2) threshold limit factor for the increase of the orbital speed. If the increases in a circular orbital speed are below that threshold, one gets ellipses, if the increase factor is exactly sqrt(2) one gets a parabola, and if the increases are above it one gets hyperbolas.. Am I right?
That's about it. Below escape velocity, you have elliptical orbits (with a circular orbit being a special case of an ellipse). At escape velocity, you have a parabolic trajectory. Above escape velocity, you have a hyperbolic trajectory. The other way to categorize them is by total orbital energy (KE+GPE)
Thus using the equation:
$$E= \frac{mv^2}{2}- \frac{GMm}{r}$$
Circular/elliptical orbits result in a negative values
Escape velocity/parabolic trajectories result in an answer of 0
Hyperbolic trajectories yield positive values.
 
Thanks Janus ! Thanks for your confirmation !

I do remember some points on this subject in classical mechanics. I guess I will need to review some lecture notes on the topic.

Among some curious things about orbital energy is the following:
It is nice and clear that the mechanical energy E = K+V , suffices to determine the type of orbit. But this encapsulates all the complications from the momentum equation: for example the fact that for non-circular orbits, the kinetic energy, function of the speed, comes from radial and tangential components of velocity. There is this separation on the tangential kinetic energy and the effective potential..
Whatever, it blows my mind that the formula above captures the vector problem, and finally simply the 'signs, 0s and extremes' of E dictate the type of orbit... amazing !

cheers
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top