Orbits -- radial verses perpendicular orbits & energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the energy requirements for a spaceship to thrust at angles perpendicular to the orbital plane compared to thrusting within the orbital plane while moving outward in the solar system. Participants explore the implications of gravitational forces on such maneuvers and the nature of orbits in relation to the solar system's structure.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the extra energy needed for a spaceship to thrust at angles to the orbital plane and questions whether the sun's gravity would influence its trajectory back into the orbital plane.
  • Another participant asserts that gravity is symmetrical and suggests that traveling along the orbital plane is easier due to existing momentum from the launch point, noting that launches typically occur near the equator and in the direction of Earth's rotation.
  • It is proposed that once in orbit, a spacecraft would not require fuel regardless of its orientation in relation to the solar system.
  • A participant checks their understanding by stating that a satellite or comet at an oblique angle should remain in that orbit, to which another participant agrees, mentioning that while gravity from planets like Jupiter may influence orbits over long periods, the effect would be minimal for a satellite or comet in orbit.
  • Clarification is provided regarding the concept of the "orbital plane," noting that planets do not orbit exactly in the Sun's equatorial plane, with variations in inclination among different celestial bodies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of thrusting at angles to the orbital plane and the effects of gravitational forces, indicating that multiple competing views remain without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the nature of gravitational influence and orbital mechanics are present, but these remain unresolved within the discussion.

Albertgauss
Gold Member
Messages
297
Reaction score
37
Does anyone know where I can find information about how to calculate how much extra energy is required of a spaceship to try to thrust perpendicular (or at some angle) to the orbital plane verses flying completely/only in the orbital plane when moving outwards in our solar system? If the spaceship does thrust perpendicular to the orbital solar system plane, will the sun's gravity try to bring the ship back into the orbital plane?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Albertgauss said:
Does anyone know where I can find information about how to calculate how much extra energy is required of a spaceship to try to thrust perpendicular (or at some angle) to the orbital plane verses flying completely/only in the orbital plane when moving outwards in our solar system? If the spaceship does thrust perpendicular to the orbital solar system plane, will the sun's gravity try to bring the ship back into the orbital plane?
No, gravity is symmetrical in all directions. The only reason that it would be easier to travel along the orbital plane is because your launch point is also traveling along that plane so you already have some momentum. It's the same reason that all launches happen as close to the equator as possible and always go in the same direction that the Earth is rotating.

Once in orbit, you should not require any fuel no matter how you are oriented in regards to the solar system.

The planets are all in a plane because they formed from a spinning blob of dust that formed the sun 4.6 billion years ago. The self-interaction of that gas cloud and spinning motion of it formed it into a disk. Much further out, objects orbit in all lots of different obits. The Oort cloud is theoretically spherical.
 
Oh, I see. Just a check on my logic: Thus, if there was a satellite or comet orbiting at an oblique angle with respect to the orbital plane for some reason and no space gas, the satellite or comet should then stay in that orbit. Is this correct?
 
Albertgauss said:
Oh, I see. Just a check on my logic: Thus, if there was a satellite or comet orbiting at an oblique angle with respect to the orbital plane for some reason and no space gas, the satellite or comet should then stay in that orbit. Is this correct?
For all practical purposes: yes. Once in orbit, it will stay there. There are some known comets that have orbits like that.

If it's in the solar system, the gravity of Jupiter (and the rest of the planets to a less degree) will pull anything towards the plane of the planets, but it'd have to be out there for millions of years to be noticeable.
 
Albertgauss said:
Does anyone know where I can find information about how to calculate how much extra energy is required of a spaceship to try to thrust perpendicular (or at some angle) to the orbital plane verses flying completely/only in the orbital plane when moving outwards in our solar system? If the spaceship does thrust perpendicular to the orbital solar system plane, will the sun's gravity try to bring the ship back into the orbital plane?
If by "orbital plane" you mean the Sun's equatorial plane, Then you should be made aware of the fact that none of the planets actually orbit exactly in that plane. Mercury orbits closest to this plane. The ecliptic, or the Earth's orbital plane, is tilted by some 7.25 degree to the Sun's equatorial plane. Relative to the ecliptic the other planets have inclinations that vary from 0.77 to 3.39 degrees (Pluto's orbit is at 17.15 degrees to the ecliptic.) The main body of the asteroid belt includes objects with as much as 30 degree inclinations.
 
Okay, I got it. Thanks for your help everyone. I'm good to go now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K