Orb.mec: Is the inclination of an ecliptic-perpendicular orbit 113,4º?

  • Thread starter Thread starter xpell
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbit
AI Thread Summary
The inclination of an orbit perpendicular to the ecliptic is not uniquely defined and can vary, with the Earth's axial tilt affecting the launch angle but not the orbit's inclination itself. A satellite in such an orbit would maintain a constant angle relative to Earth's equator and poles, which is not necessarily 113.4º or 66.6º. The inclination could be around 90º, depending on the launch parameters and timing. This type of orbit can be either geocentric or heliocentric, with heliocentric orbits requiring more energy. Understanding the nuances of orbital mechanics and launch dynamics is crucial for accurate calculations.
xpell
Messages
139
Reaction score
16
I'm trying to understand this one. Let's imagine we want to launch a satellite to the perpendicular-to-the-plane-of-the-ecliptic orbit ("passing through the North and South ecliptic poles", or perpendicular to the Sun-Earth line, through the Earth). Since the Earth's axial tilt is around 23.4º, would the inclination of this orbit (and the azimuth of the rocket launch) be 113.4º (90+23.4)? (I think so!) Or maybe would it be 66.6º (90-23.4), as I've been suggested elsewhere?

And a couple secondary questions:

1. If it is 113.4º, this is a retrograde orbit, isn't it?
2. Would this be most probably an Earth-centric orbit or an Heliocentric orbit?
3. Have you heard of any real satellite using this orbit?

Sorry for my English, it's not my primary language, hope you'll understand! Thank you in advance for your answers!
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Inclinations larger than 90° are called retrograde orbits, right.
The direction of the rocket launch is different from the final motion of the satellite, as you always have the rotation of Earth as additional velocity.Assuming you mean an orbit around earth:

Perpendicular to the ecliptic plane is not enough to define the orbit (and with it, its inclination) in a unique way, and the sun-earth line varies within a year. Do you want your orbit to change to keep it Sun-synchronous? That orbit is used by several satellites.

The inclination should be between the two values you calculated, depending on the chosen orbit.If you mean an orbit around sun, the axial tilt of Earth does not matter as the ecliptic is defined in terms of the orbit.
 
A few things:
You could launch a rocket into an orbit perpendicular to the ecliptic. Its inclination to the ecliptic would be, of course, 90°. Because the Earth spins and revolves around the Sun, the launch angle is always changing. However, once in its orbit, it would more or less maintain a constant angle relative to Earth's equator and poles. The exact angle depends on exactly when and in what direction it was launched. It won't be inclined at (90°-23.4°) to the equator unless you happened to launch it such that its ascending and descending nodes (google them) match the equinoxes.

You could launch a rocket into either a geocentric or a heliocentric orbit like this. Heliocentric requires more energy, in order to escape Earth's gravity.

By the way, you probably have a bad definition for "azimuth" as it applies to this kind of problem.
 
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