[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 18 KB, 355x200, geostat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11889975 No.11889975 [Reply] [Original]

Or they fall slowly towards it? Or speed slowly decreases?
They can't stay in an infinitely stable orbit forever without exchanging any energy isn't it?

>> No.11890040

>>11889975
>Or they fall slowly towards it?
Yes.
>They can't stay in an infinitely stable orbit forever without exchanging any energy isn't it?
Right.
The problem you're having thinking about this is probably "where does that energy go?", and the answer is gravitational waves. They're a little different, but you can think about Hertzian dipoles as an analog, where e.g. a negative charge orbits a positive charge (in the classical sense, in a plane). Since looking at this from the top reveals this to be a dipole that changes orientation, electromagnetic waves are produced, robbing the system of energy and lowering the height of the orbit until at one point, the negative charge will reach the center.

>> No.11890046

>>11889975
>the answer is gravitational waves
wow cool thanks fren

>> No.11890155

>>11890040
>The problem you're having thinking about this is probably "where does that energy go?"
Tidal forces and air resistance mostly.

>> No.11890210

>>11890155
>Tidal forces
not a very satisfying answer...

>> No.11890216

>>11890210
Oh well gee wiz anon it sure is a shame reality didn't even offer to suck your dick

>> No.11890366

>>11890155
>air resistance
>in space

>> No.11890370

they're going just about as fast as they're falling

>> No.11890373
File: 159 KB, 1273x1024, 1582229156153.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11890373

>>11890366
Yes.

>> No.11890392

>>11890373
Anon, I'm not sure how to tell you this, but 35,000 km are a lot more than 420 km. Like, a whole lot more.

>> No.11890395

>>11890392
OP's image mentions GSO but OP's post does not specify.

>> No.11890424

>>11890392
Even deep space has dust, but it's true that geostationary satellites stay in space for a very, very long time.

>> No.11890452

>>11890373
I'm sure that air density is extremely low above GSO orbit for example

>> No.11890454

>>11890373
I'm sure that air pressure is extremely low above GSO orbit for example

>> No.11890462

>>11890452
>>11890454
On human timescales it's utterly negligible at GSO.

>> No.11890510

>>11890424
Dust isn't air.

>> No.11890649

>>11890510
Air is dust.

>> No.11890657

>>11889975

very slowly

>> No.11890705

>>11889975
If you want to better understand basic orbitali mechanics play kerbal space program

>> No.11890748

>>11890705
>play kerbal space program
I surely will soon, everybody in the space / sci community is playing it I'm curious

>> No.11890751

>>11890705
at the same time ksp remains a software running on equations that doesn't necessarily represent reality with 100% accuracy...

>> No.11890764

>>11890751
>Basic orbital mechanics
>Representing reality with 100% accuracy
???

>> No.11890768

>>11890751
It uses patched conics - it's only good for Kepler orbits. It also ignores sun pressure and other effects.
For example the Halo orbit of the JWS telescope cannot be simulated in KSP.

>> No.11890780

The energy has already been given to the space craft when it launched, if there is nothing to rob it of that energy it will orbit forever

>> No.11890788
File: 39 KB, 644x500, branelet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11890788

>>11890780

>> No.11890790

>>11890788
I'm probably wrong but explain to me why ?

>> No.11890829

>>11890768
>patched conics
thanks for making me learn about this numerical way to solve trajectories... seems indarasting

>> No.11890831

>>11890790
Not him but
>orbit space isn't perfectly empty, there are always miniscule amounts of gases and dust that will gradualy slow orbit down
>object you are orbiting is not situated in empty Universe, outside gravitational forces may make orbit unstable in the long run
>minor energy losses to things like tidal forces or gravitational waves

>> No.11890843

>>11890831
>tidal forces

isn't the sum of the forces of a closed system zero

>> No.11890910

>>11890843
I think 2 body systems bleed energy until they're both tidaly locked

>> No.11891917

>>11890910
ooh so the tidally locked state is the lowest energy state (except free fall towards the biggest body ofc)?

>> No.11893755

>>11890040
However our moon is receding. There is a lot more to this than gravitational waves.

>> No.11893798

>>11893755
Indeed. I assumed it was a general question about gravitational interaction without interfering environmental effects.