Why must an orbit become smaller when an orbiting body loses velocity?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relationship between the velocity of an orbiting body and the characteristics of its orbit, specifically why a decrease in velocity leads to a smaller or shallower orbit. Participants explore this concept through logical reasoning and mathematical formulations, touching on aspects of gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy, and specific energy in orbital mechanics.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses curiosity about the mathematical proof for why a decrease in velocity results in a shallower orbit.
  • Another participant presents the equation for orbital velocity, suggesting that a decrease in velocity should lead to an increase in orbital radius, challenging the initial premise.
  • A different participant explains the relationship between kinetic and potential energy, stating that a decrease in total energy (more negative) results in a smaller average radius for the orbit.
  • One participant acknowledges that in a circular orbit, a decrease in velocity would logically imply moving closer to the central body, questioning the earlier claims about the orbit becoming shallower.
  • Another participant concedes to the explanation provided by a previous contributor, indicating a lack of depth in their own understanding of the topic.
  • A participant discusses rearranging equations related to specific energy and semi-major axis, contributing further mathematical insights into the relationship between velocity and orbital characteristics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of a decrease in velocity for an orbiting body. While some argue that it leads to a shallower orbit, others contend that it may result in an increase in orbital radius, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves complex relationships between kinetic and potential energy, and the specific conditions under which these relationships hold may not be fully explored. There are also references to circular and elliptical orbits, which may introduce additional variables not accounted for in all contributions.

Canuck156
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
I'm just curious as to why, when an orbiting body loses velocity (slows down) it's orbit must become more shallow, or smaller. I know this can be explained logically, but I would appreciate if someone could prove mathematically that it should happen.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
v=\sqrt{\frac{Gm_{E}}{r}}
where v is orbital velocity, G is the universal gravitational constant, and E stands for Earth (m_{E} represents the body around which something orbits, not necessarily the Earth). As you can see,
v^{2}~\alpha~\frac{1}{r}
so when velocity decreases, the object should actually begin to move away from whatever it was orbitting around, meaning orbital radius should increase. Why do you think it decreases?
 
The object's trajectory is determined by it's kinetic energy vs. it's potential energy (pull of gravity). Potential energy is negative, since it's pulling the object towards the center of the Earth (the center of the Earth is normally your point of reference).

If the total energy (kinetic and potential) is less than zero, the object follows a closed orbit (either an ellipse or a circle). If it's equal to or greater than zero, the object will follow a parabola and hyperbola and you won't have to worry about it for long (it won't return). The less total energy, the closer the object comes to the Earth (since total energy is negative for objects in orbit, this means they're becoming more negative).

\epsilon=\frac{v^2}{2}-\frac{\mu}{r}

Epsilon is your total specific energy per unit of mass (since you're really concerned about motion instead of the actual amount of energy, you can work with one unit of mass - since all the mass of th object is presumably connected, if you figure out the path of one piece of the mass, you've figured out the path of all the pieces of the mass).
mu is the geocentric gravitational constant (substitute the gravitational constant of the object you're orbiting around, if not Earth) It's equal to the mass of the Earth times the universal gravitational constant.
r is the radius
v is the velocity

If you're at some given distance from the Earth (r) and reduce your velocity, the specific energy has to get smaller (more negative). You've reduced your kinetic energy, which means your overall energy must have decreased.

The semi-major axis, average radius of an orbit, is determined by the total specific energy.

a=\frac{-\mu}{2\epsilon}

The more negative the specific energy (the larger its absolute value), the smaller the average radius gets.
 
Sirus, I realize that if you are in a perfectly circular orbit, then the further away from the central body you are, the slower your velocity must be to stay in that orbit. But thinking logically, if you are in a circular orbit, and the satellite (for some reason) loses velocity, surely you would move towards the central body, rather than away from it?

Thanks BobG, I think that explains my question quite well. I was trying to solve the problem using GPE and KE, but I could only find the equations for a circular orbit.
 
In that case, I stand corrected. My knowledge on orbits does not extend as far as BobG's, so you had better stick to his explanation.
 
If you rearranged that second equation that used specific energy to determine semi-major axis, you could get:

\epsilon=\frac{-\mu}{2a}

In other, words, for a given orbit (elliptical or circular):

\frac{-\mu}{2a}=\frac{v^2}{2}-\frac{\mu}{r}

If you rearrange that to solve for velocity, you get:

v=\sqrt{\mu*(\frac{2}{a}-\frac{1}{r})}

In a circular orbit, r is always equal to the semi-major axis (r = a), which gives you the equation Sirus posted for velocity in a circular orbit.

v=\sqrt{\frac{\mu}{r}}
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
10K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K