Returning from Geo-stationery Orbit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chatterton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbit
Chatterton
Messages
34
Reaction score
5
I know when a Soyuz capsule returns from the ISS it has to orbit Earth a few times before re-entry due to all the momentum it borrowed from ISS.

What would happen if your ship was in the Clarke zone? Assuming we have the radiation shielding covered already. Would it be conceivable that a ship parked like that could just drop capsules in a fairly straight down manner? Assuming we have all the heat-shielding worked out.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Chatterton said:
I know when a Soyuz capsule returns from the ISS it has to orbit Earth a few times before re-entry due to all the momentum it borrowed from ISS.

It's more because they don't want to carry the fuel required to de-orbit in less than a single orbit. Instead, they can break a little bit, fall towards Earth, and then use the air friction to slow them down further and further over successive orbits until the density of the air is high enough that they finally fall back to Earth instead of making another orbit.

Chatterton said:
What would happen if your ship was in the Clarke zone? Assuming we have the radiation shielding covered already. Would it be conceivable that a ship parked like that could just drop capsules in a fairly straight down manner? Assuming we have all the heat-shielding worked out.

No, because the ships would still be moving tangentially "around" the Earth. Firing a capsule straight towards the Earth would just result in an elliptical orbit since the capsule would retain all of the tangential velocity and gain an additional radial component.
 
So, to do it right, my team of commandos will have to de-orbit the old fashioned way, spinning around the globe a few times before hopefully landing in relatively the same area, which would make even clumsier and more random than WWII paratrooper action and oh my God I think that cold be wicked cool. And it would take a while too, right? I think I remember something from Chris Hadfield's book about sleeping on the way down.
 
Chatterton said:
So, to do it right, my team of commandos will have to de-orbit the old fashioned way, spinning around the globe a few times before hopefully landing in relatively the same area, which would make even clumsier and more random than WWII paratrooper action

Not necessarily. They could have control systems designed to keep them in close proximity prior to and during reentry.
Chatterton said:
And it would take a while too, right?

I'm not sure how long it would take. Geostationary orbit is about 22,000 miles above sea level, so I assume it would take a while, with the exact time depending on the velocity the capsules were launched at, the exact orbit, and a few other details.
 
  • Like
Likes Chatterton
Chatterton said:
So, to do it right, my team of commandos will have to de-orbit the old fashioned way, spinning around the globe a few times before hopefully landing in relatively the same area, which would make even clumsier and more random than WWII paratrooper action and oh my God I think that cold be wicked cool. And it would take a while too, right? I think I remember something from Chris Hadfield's book about sleeping on the way down.

Consider a reverse escape from lunar gravity. Then your paratroopers can hang out in a bunker complex in lava tubes. You can also magnetic launch artillery. No need for explosives in the shells. Just crack the heat shield at the altitude you want. Between 2500 and 2600 m/s for Δv. If you give them 3,000 m/s they can launch at multiple angles and all arrive at once.

Dropping from Earth-Moon Lagrange point 1 is easier than dropping to Earth from geosynchronous. That can be done with 750 m/s. Geo requires around 1500 m/s before you can aerobrake. Launchers and fuel tanks sitting in geo are huge targets.
 
  • Like
Likes Chatterton

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
7K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
15K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
9K