Understanding Orbital Mechanics and the Concept of Sustained Circular Orbit

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mechanics of orbital motion, specifically the concept of sustained circular orbits. Participants explore the relationship between gravitational acceleration and the motion of satellites, questioning how these forces interact to maintain a stable orbit.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a satellite in orbit is 'falling' while the Earth is 'dropping' away, leading to a perceived need for centrifugal force to maintain a constant distance.
  • Another participant challenges this view, stating that the Earth drops away at an increasing rate, and that a circular orbit occurs when the downward velocity of the satellite matches the rate of the Earth's curvature.
  • A participant introduces the idea that the path of a falling object is a parabola, while the Earth's surface follows a circular path, leading to confusion about whether the two can match in a sustained orbit.
  • There is a claim that a specific velocity exists where the satellite neither gains on nor retreats from the Earth's surface, suggesting this is the condition for a sustained orbit.
  • Another participant corrects the earlier assertion about the shape of the satellite's path, stating it is an ellipse rather than a parabola, and discusses the concept of eccentricity in orbital paths.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the implications of curve matching and the conditions under which a satellite can maintain a stable orbit.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the curves representing satellite and Earth motion, with some asserting that they can never match while others argue that a specific velocity allows for a stable orbit. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact nature of these relationships and the implications for orbital mechanics.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made about the shapes of the paths and the effects of speed on orbital stability. Participants also reference the neglect of air resistance in their analyses.

thetexan
Messages
271
Reaction score
14
When in orbit, a satellite is 'falling' with an accelerating velocity as per the simple gravity formula. Yet the Earth is 'dropping' away from the satellite at a constant rate since it is spherical. This means that the 'left over' value between those two rates should cause the satellite to eventually 'gain' on the Earth and come nearer, rather than remain at a constant distance. Therefore the only other force that can compensate for that left over velocity is centrifugal force.

Do I have this correct? If not, can someone explain it to me please.

tex
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
thetexan said:
When in orbit, a satellite is 'falling' with an accelerating velocity as per the simple gravity formula. Yet the Earth is 'dropping' away from the satellite at a constant rate since it is spherical. This means that the 'left over' value between those two rates should cause the satellite to eventually 'gain' on the Earth and come nearer, rather than remain at a constant distance. Therefore the only other force that can compensate for that left over velocity is centrifugal force.

Do I have this correct? If not, can someone explain it to me please.

tex

I don't understand exactly what you're saying, but it seems quite mixed up. If you move in a straight line past a spherical surface, it drops away at a steadily increasing rate, not at a constant rate, in that the angle of dropping away is proportional to the circumferential distance travelled. Similarly, a satellite being accelerated by gravity has a downwards component of velocity which increases at a steadily increasing rate. When those rates match, you get a circular orbit (when you also take into account the fact that the downwards direction changes as you progress around the orbit).
 
The curve that represents the path taken by a falling object (the satellite) is a parabola I believe. The curve representing the 'fall' of the surface of the Earth is a circle (the sphere).

[PLAIN]http://www.longviewbluegrass.com/parabola.jpg

The two curves will never match. In fact if a rifleman shoots a bullet, regardless of the speed of the bullet, the only way it won't hit the ground if the ground falls away at or greater than the rate at which the bullet is falling.

[PLAIN]http://www.longviewbluegrass.com/parabola2.jpg

Im not saying I am right. On the contrary, I know very little about orbits. Think of this as layman's confusion and lack of understanding. But it does seem than since you can never match the two curves that, considering only curve-matching, either the satellite will eventually hit the Earth or go farther into orbit.

Wait...

Wait...

Ive just had a eureka moment. If it IS true that the curves can never match THEN it IS true that either the satellite will eventually hit the Earth or, if too fast, go out beyond it, this being determined by speed. THEREFORE... there must be some value of velocity where, even though the two curves don't match, the satellite neither gains on the surface or retreats from it. At that point you have a sustained orbit.

Right?

tex
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thetexan said:
The curve that represents the path taken by a falling object (the satellite) is a parabola I believe. The curve representing the 'fall' of the surface of the Earth is a circle (the sphere).

[PLAIN]http://www.longviewbluegrass.com/parabola.jpg

The two curves will never match. In fact if a rifleman shoots a bullet, regardless of the speed of the bullet, the only way it won't hit the ground if the ground falls away at or greater than the rate at which the bullet is falling.

[PLAIN]http://www.longviewbluegrass.com/parabola2.jpg
Actually, the path taken by a satellite or the bullet is an ellipse. The parabola that we normally associate with falling objects is just an approximation based on the assumption that the Earth is flat and gravity always pulls perpendicular to the bullet's original trajectory. Over small distances, this approximation is close enough.

The actual shape of this ellipse is called it eccentricity, the closer the eccentricity is to 1, the flatter the ellipse and the closer it is to 0, the rounder the ellipse. A circle is a special case of ellipse where the eccentricity is exactly 0 The eccentricity of the path of a falling object depends on the strength of gravity and its initial speed and trajectory.

For a satellite, these combine to give the satellite a path that is has a eccentricity that is very nearly 0 and is almost a perfect circle. However, circles or near circles are not the only stable orbit shape. As long as the ellipse does not actually intersect the body being orbited, you can have orbits that are very eccentric (flat). Comets are examples of this. Many have very eccentric orbits that only bring them in close to the Sun for short periods.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thetexan said:
Do I have this correct? If not, can someone explain it to me please.

tex

All bodies in the universe exert forces on one another. The vast majority of them can be discounted, at least in our lifetime. :)

There are a couple of planet-killers out there, but we're tracking them. The key is to ensure we blast them from their ability to smack us a million years in the past before they can.

Can it happen? Sure. Actually, it's happened on Earth several times before.

Let's not let it happen again.
 
thetexan said:
Ive just had a eureka moment. If it IS true that the curves can never match THEN it IS true that either the satellite will eventually hit the Earth or, if too fast, go out beyond it, this being determined by speed. THEREFORE... there must be some value of velocity where, even though the two curves don't match, the satellite neither gains on the surface or retreats from it. At that point you have a sustained orbit.
Your Eureka moment brought you very close to the answer-- your problem is in thinking that the curves can't match (as was pointed out, the problem there is your belief the curve must be a parabola, which gets less and less true as the speed of the bullet increases). Your analysis was completely correct-- at low speed, the curve mismatch causes the bullet to fall and hit the surface, and at high speed, the mismatch causes it to rise away from the surface. What you missed is that if there is a perfect speed where neither happens-- it doesn't fall down nor fly upward-- then it must maintain a constant height above the surface. Since that situation keeps replicating itself (we are neglecting air resistance of course), it means the height is maintained, which further means that there is no curve mismatch at all in that situation. That's the sustained circular orbit speed, and a circle is not a parabola-- you would have been fine had you known that the curves only look parabolic when the speed is low.
 

Similar threads

High School The Sun's Influence on the Moon's Orbit: Is it Negligible?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad I need some support, please, for a gravity assist analysis
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K
Undergrad Tidal effects of galaxies orbiting one another with dark energy?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Tidal effects on Earth's rotation and moon's orbit
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Undergrad How did planets get their Orbits?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Undergrad Do tidal forces slowly make orbits more circular?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Graduate How would Earth mass loss theoretically affect its orbital mechanics?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
14K
Undergrad Can a Gyroscope in a Satellite Detect Orbit?
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
Undergrad Are two-body orbits with a cosmological constant unstable?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
High School Geosynchronous vs geo-stable orbit?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K