Is it possible at all to go faster in an orbit around the earth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter vjk2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Earth Orbit
AI Thread Summary
In orbital mechanics, accelerating in the direction of orbit increases altitude and orbital period, while accelerating against it decreases altitude and period. The only way to achieve a faster orbit is to reduce orbital energy, resulting in a smaller orbit and increased speed. Radial thrust can also be applied, but it requires careful energy management, as thrust and fuel limitations are significant factors in space travel. The fastest route around Earth is typically at a low altitude of about 200 km, where atmospheric drag is minimal. Ultimately, without new physics, the options for increasing orbital speed are constrained by energy availability and the mechanics of orbits.
vjk2
Messages
89
Reaction score
0
My understanding is that generally with space flight, when you accelerate in the direction of orbit, you don't go around the Earth any faster but instead ascend to a higher orbital plane, which arguably has a longer period of orbit.

Is there any manuver method that let's you move around the Earth faster?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
You can apply radial thrust as well.
 
Accelerate in the opposite direction of motion. That reduces the size of the orbit and the satellite takes less time to orbit the Earth.

That's an almost intentionally confusing way to look at things, though.

You either add energy to the orbit, making it bigger and increasing the time it takes to complete an orbit ... or you subtract energy from the orbit, making it smaller and decreasing the amount of time it takes to complete an orbit.

Until transporters are invented allowing us to say, "Beam me up, Scotty!", kinetic energy is the only type of energy we can add or subtract - and that's what you're really doing: adding or subtracting kinetic energy.

When the energy is subtracted, and the orbit gets smaller, the potential energy is less. Some is gone because you subtracted energy from the orbit and some of it is converted to kinetic energy. So, while the speed of the spacecraft may have increased, it lost more potential energy than it gained in kinetic energy.

And just the reverse when you add energy to the orbit. Some of the kinetic energy is converted to potential energy, plus you've added energy. The speed winds up decreasing, but it gained more potential energy than it lost in kinetic energy.
 
Last edited:
Simon Bridge said:
You can apply radial thrust as well.
This. If thrust and fuel is not an issue, you can ignore orbital mechanics and just head to any position you like. In (current) space travel, thrust and fuel are relevant, so you have to look for cheap transitions between orbits. In that case, the quickest way to go around Earth is the lowest possible orbit, at a height of ~200km (everything below that quickly falls down to Earth due to friction).
 
Oh, of course. Yes, you should be able to just ignore it all and use thrust to go fast. It would be tremendously expensive though.
 
The question, as stated, does allow that [radial thrust] as a serious answer.
Indeed, the preamble to the question appears to suggest that an orbit-radius change is not desired: OP knows about that but wants another way. The only other way is radial thrust (or finding a new law of physics).

But the question could be more closely defined than that - if the object, for example, is to end up at the same spot after going around the Earth exactly once by the fastest route then ... changing to an elliptical orbit? Everything will require a burn. As mentioned, manouvers are usually strongly constrained by energy availability.

Oh I suppose you could make your vessel dumbell shaped and spinning so that each end will spend part of the orbit faster and part slower... I don't think that's what is meant either somehow :D

I can only think of similarly "throwaway" answers :/
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
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...
Back
Top