Putting a satellite into orbit

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wizzart
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbit Satellite
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mechanics of satellite orbits, specifically addressing what occurs when a satellite is released in an orbit that is too high for its speed. Participants explore concepts related to elliptical orbits, the effects of atmospheric drag, and the terminology used to describe different types of orbits.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a satellite released in a high orbit will fall back to Earth and gradually pick up speed until it reaches a stationary orbit.
  • Another participant clarifies that releasing a satellite in a high orbit results in an elliptical orbit, with the release point as the apogee and the closest point to Earth as the perigee, provided it remains above atmospheric drag.
  • There is a contention regarding the term "stationary orbit," with some arguing it is incorrect and suggesting alternatives like "stable orbit" or "quasi-stationary." Others assert that all orbits are elliptical and that a satellite's mechanical energy remains constant unless affected by atmospheric drag.
  • One participant explains that if atmospheric drag affects a satellite, it will lead to a decay in the orbit, altering the apogee rather than the perigee.
  • There is a discussion about the importance of understanding the distinction between stable orbits and decaying orbits due to external forces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the terminology used to describe orbits, particularly the concept of "stationary" versus "stable" orbits. There is no consensus on the correct terminology, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of atmospheric drag on satellite orbits.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the understanding of orbits can be complex and may depend on specific conditions, such as altitude and the presence of atmospheric drag. The discussion highlights the nuances in orbital mechanics without reaching a definitive conclusion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and enthusiasts of physics, particularly those studying orbital mechanics and satellite dynamics.

wizzart
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Geez it's been ages since I last was here. Anyway, I was thinking a little on the subject below and remembered this place. It's probably ridiculously trivial, but still I wonder:

A satellite stays in orbit around the Earth because it's falling at the same pace as the Earth's surface curves, simply put. But that's a sattelite in stationary orbit. What happens if I release a sattelite in an orbit that's to high for it's speed? My guess: it falls back to Earth and because it's angular momentum needs to be preserved it gradually picks up more tangential speed until it lands into a stationary orbit, which would be somewhere between the orbit where it should've been and where it was released...

Correct or rubbish? :redface:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What happens if I release a sattelite in an orbit that's to high for it's speed?
You've put it in an elliptical orbit. Its apogee (maximum altitude) is where you released it, its perigee (minimum altitude) will be where it is closest to the Earth (but moving fastest). Provided the perigee is still above Earth's atmospheric drag, it will remain in that stable, elliptical orbit.

BTW, ALL orbits are elliptical, though some have an eccentricity of nearly zero (meaning it is nearly circular).

gradually picks up more tangential speed until it lands into a stationary orbit, which would be somewhere between the orbit where it should've been and where it was released...
Rubbish. See above.


...stationary orbit...
There is no such thing as a "stationary orbit".
 
Last edited:
hm...sounds plausible too :biggrin:

There is no such thing as a "stationary orbit".
Well, quasi-stationary then...slowly spiralling down to earth.
 
The thing to note, wizzart, is that if you're in an orbiting spaceship and you want to get into a higher orbit, you put your foot on the gas and go faster.

You don't point the nose up and fire the rockets, because that doesn't give you the forward velocity that stretches your arc of fall into a bigger circle. It would just give you an eccentric orbit, like Dave says.
 
wizzart said:
hm...sounds plausible too :biggrin:


Well, quasi-stationary then...slowly spiralling down to earth.
I think your term, stationary, is wrong, making readers wonder what you mean. Do you mean stable orbit? Circular orbit?

Any object with any tangential velocity at all travels in an elliptical orbit. Some of those orbits just happen to intersect the Earth (a Roger Clemens fastball, for example).

If the satellite's trajectory misses the Earth and is high enough that it isn't affected by the Earth's atmosphere, the satellite's mechanical energy stays constant through the entire orbit. The balance between potential and kinetic energy just changes.

As DaveC explained, by time the satellite reaches perigee, it has enough kinetic energy that starts gaining altitude again and returns to the same point it started. The orbit is just as stable as a circular orbit. The orbit remains elliptical and never becomes circular.

The only way the satellite spirals down to Earth is if the satellite is low enough to be affected by the Earth's atmosphere. Generally, only satellites with an altitude lower than 1000 km are affected and circular orbits are affected more than elliptical orbits. In this case, atmospheric drag is decreasing the total mechanical energy rather than just changing the balance between potential and kinetic.

Edit: For an elliptical orbit where perigee is low enough to be affected by atmospheric drag, your assumption would be correct. If you slow a satellite at perigee due to atmospheric drag, it's not the perigee altitude that changes; it's the apogee altitude. As soon as the satellite was slowed, a new orbit was created and the satellite's current location has to be part of that new orbital ellipse. So atmospheric drag would slowly decrease the apogee height until you had a circular orbit, at which point the satellite would 'spiral' into the Earth's atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
wizzart said:
hm...sounds plausible too :biggrin:


Well, quasi-stationary then...slowly spiralling down to earth.
Did you mean Geo-Stationary?
 
wizzart said:
Well, quasi-stationary then...slowly spiralling down to earth.
There is no such thing as a quasi-stationary orbit. The words stationary and orbit used in conjunction with each other are very nearly an oxymoron. (The only combination that makes sense is geo-stationary orbit which is something completely different and has nothing to do with this thread.)



An orbit that is "slowly spiralling down to earth" is an orbit that is decaying. The only thing (within reason) that could be causing this is drag, sapping forward motion from the satellite.

I think the term you are looking for is stable orbit. Unless acted upon by an outside force (such as another gravitational body, or friction) (or, an inside force such as rockets), a satellite will remain in a stable elliptical orbit. Period. This is critical to your understanding of orbits.


Now, if you play with the adjustments carefully, you can get the satellite's orbit to have virtually zero eccentricity, meaning its orbit is circular, and meaning that it will move around while maintaining a constant altitude above the Earth.
 
Last edited:
Look at the attached illo.
 

Attachments

  • PF060821orbits.gif
    PF060821orbits.gif
    26.5 KB · Views: 742
Dang, it's right here in my 1st year Relativity book...need to critically review some of the old stuff I guess.

As for stationarity: stationary to me means nothing changes. For the orbiting object everything changes constantly, without drag the orbit itself (circle or ellipse) doesn't change shape, hence my use of the word stationary. If you prefer stable, I can see why.
 
  • #10
wizzart said:
Dang, it's right here in my 1st year Relativity book
You're in post-2ndary??
 
  • #11
Dude, I'll make it a lil worse...I'm one subject away from my bachelors degree :P Did research on noise in Quantum Dots and all that.

The mechanics course was 5 years ago, and back then I didn't really get the whole orbit stuff (and the big point in the course was relativity, so I got away with it)...read through it again now and makes perfect sense. It's just one of those questions that pops into your head and you go "I'm pretty sure I should know this...but I don't".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K