Mixing
Question on giant satellite orbit
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
So here's a strange question that came up in a class tonight. It is axiomatic that satellites in the same orbit travel at the same speed.
But is there some size of satellite whose mass is so great that it distorts that axiom. For example, would a satellite 1/2 the mass of Earth also travel at the same speed as a co-orbital paint chip? 3/4 the mass? If so, where is the tipping point. Any help on the math of this is welcome!
orbit
asked 7 hours ago
Brad Carson
361
New contributor
Brad Carson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
So here's a strange question that came up in a class tonight. It is axiomatic that satellites in the same orbit travel at the same speed.
But is there some size of satellite whose mass is so great that it distorts that axiom. For example, would a satellite 1/2 the mass of Earth also travel at the same speed as a co-orbital paint chip? 3/4 the mass? If so, where is the tipping point. Any help on the math of this is welcome!
orbit
asked 7 hours ago
Brad Carson
361
New contributor
Brad Carson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The larger orbital body is likely too massive to be artificially produced, and therefore not a spacecraft. To keep this on-topic for this site, I presume that the smaller orbital body is the spacecraft. Right?
– Dr Sheldon
6 hours ago
1
In that case, the paint chip can't be "co-orbital". The two large bodies are nicely orbiting their combined center of mass, but now you have a three-body problem, where the paint chip will have a complicated trajectory.
– Mark Adler
6 hours ago
Sounds like a moon to me
– Antzi
5 hours ago
That's no moon... that's a space station!
– GdD
21 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
So here's a strange question that came up in a class tonight. It is axiomatic that satellites in the same orbit travel at the same speed.
But is there some size of satellite whose mass is so great that it distorts that axiom. For example, would a satellite 1/2 the mass of Earth also travel at the same speed as a co-orbital paint chip? 3/4 the mass? If so, where is the tipping point. Any help on the math of this is welcome!
orbit
asked 7 hours ago
Brad Carson
361
New contributor
Brad Carson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
So here's a strange question that came up in a class tonight. It is axiomatic that satellites in the same orbit travel at the same speed.
But is there some size of satellite whose mass is so great that it distorts that axiom. For example, would a satellite 1/2 the mass of Earth also travel at the same speed as a co-orbital paint chip? 3/4 the mass? If so, where is the tipping point. Any help on the math of this is welcome!
orbit
orbit
asked 7 hours ago
Brad Carson
361
New contributor
Brad Carson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 7 hours ago
Brad Carson
361
New contributor
Brad Carson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 7 hours ago
Brad Carson
361
New contributor
Brad Carson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 7 hours ago
Brad Carson
361
asked 7 hours ago
Brad Carson
361
361
New contributor
Brad Carson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Brad Carson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Brad Carson is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The larger orbital body is likely too massive to be artificially produced, and therefore not a spacecraft. To keep this on-topic for this site, I presume that the smaller orbital body is the spacecraft. Right?
– Dr Sheldon
6 hours ago
1
In that case, the paint chip can't be "co-orbital". The two large bodies are nicely orbiting their combined center of mass, but now you have a three-body problem, where the paint chip will have a complicated trajectory.
– Mark Adler
6 hours ago
Sounds like a moon to me
– Antzi
5 hours ago
That's no moon... that's a space station!
– GdD
21 mins ago
add a comment |Â
The larger orbital body is likely too massive to be artificially produced, and therefore not a spacecraft. To keep this on-topic for this site, I presume that the smaller orbital body is the spacecraft. Right?
– Dr Sheldon
6 hours ago
1
In that case, the paint chip can't be "co-orbital". The two large bodies are nicely orbiting their combined center of mass, but now you have a three-body problem, where the paint chip will have a complicated trajectory.
– Mark Adler
6 hours ago
Sounds like a moon to me
– Antzi
5 hours ago
That's no moon... that's a space station!
– GdD
21 mins ago
The larger orbital body is likely too massive to be artificially produced, and therefore not a spacecraft. To keep this on-topic for this site, I presume that the smaller orbital body is the spacecraft. Right?
– Dr Sheldon
6 hours ago
The larger orbital body is likely too massive to be artificially produced, and therefore not a spacecraft. To keep this on-topic for this site, I presume that the smaller orbital body is the spacecraft. Right?
– Dr Sheldon
6 hours ago
1
1
In that case, the paint chip can't be "co-orbital". The two large bodies are nicely orbiting their combined center of mass, but now you have a three-body problem, where the paint chip will have a complicated trajectory.
– Mark Adler
6 hours ago
In that case, the paint chip can't be "co-orbital". The two large bodies are nicely orbiting their combined center of mass, but now you have a three-body problem, where the paint chip will have a complicated trajectory.
– Mark Adler
6 hours ago
Sounds like a moon to me
– Antzi
5 hours ago
Sounds like a moon to me
– Antzi
5 hours ago
That's no moon... that's a space station!
– GdD
21 mins ago
That's no moon... that's a space station!
– GdD
21 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
It is axiomatic that satellites in the same orbit travel at the same speed.
Your axiom is not axiomatic.
The idea that there is something called an "orbit" that a satellite can be "in" is a simplification, just like cars are in lanes. They are, roughly, most of the time, but in many countries they are all over the place, without discrete "lanes" evident nor consistent speeds. That's a much better model for thinking about satellite trajectories.
Once you start discussing a satellite's mass, then any mass at all is going to change the motion of everything else in the solar system a little. There is no minimum mass that starts to affect things.
See answers to Does launching a device into orbit change earth's orbit? for example.
As you increase the mass of the satellite, the orbit of the Earth and the mass around each other continuously changes, different paint chips move the Earth different amounts. Likewise the effect of the two paint chips on each other. There is no minimum. Certainly if one gets very massive it will start to noticeably perturb other objects in orbit, but that threshold is only related to how carefully you look and how little you can notice.
If so, where is the tipping point.
There is no spoon tipping point: YouTube
Your question really just asks about how long an approximation or simplification is valid, and that's purely up to you and how much error you can tolerate by using your approximation.
Also:
While you would like to imagine that there can be two satellites in the same orbit but one behind the other, the problem is that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform, so it will not follow in the same path. Orbits are not perfectly closed or repeatable because of this.
It's a hard task to get out of the idea that there are really such things as fixed orbits, it's a jump of intuition, but that's the reality; there isn't. All you have is a gravity field with it's lumpy deviations, plus drag, solar pressure, and the Sun's and Moon's gravity (plus more), and a sophisticated numerical propagator that calculates step-by-step how a body might move in this complex and ever-changing field of accelerations.
Welcome to the edge of space!
answered 5 hours ago
uhoh
31k15106383
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I'm going to add to the pre-existing answer, from the perspective of classical mechanics and astronomy:
Any two masses that you can take, with any initial conditions in position and velocity, will pose a so-called two-body problem. This 'problem' is a, for all times, exactly solvable mathematical description and solution of the setup you've been asking about.
Now what you propose, to increase the mass of the satellite to the point where it becomes 'relevant' would simply be a binary system (of stars, planets, blackholes, whatever). Both bodies then orbit the common barycenter, which is a constant of motion.
This is still true for the special case when one mass is much smaller than the other, but then the barycenter happens to coincide with the center of the more massive body, so it looks as if there is an orbit around the more massive body.
In real-life things are more complicated than just a two-body problem. Then all masses tug on all the others, and binary barycenters (for example the barycenter for the Sun-Jupiter system) move as well and are not a constant of motion anymore. For earthly satellites in geostationary orbit, perturbations from the other solar system bodies play a role already, and/or station-keeping in L2 requires firing of thrusters from time to time.
In order to say what is binary and what's a satellite-like system one would use the position of the barycenter of the more massive body as a guideline. Therefore the Pluto-Charon system is a binary, where the Jupiter-Sun system is a satellite-like orbit, although their barycenter sometimes leaves the solar radius by about 5%. Mind you that even this binary barycenter's position changes over time as Jupiter exchanges angular momentum with the other gas giants over time, that's why the barycenter lies mostly inside the sun.
answered 19 mins ago
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
1,327817
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
It is axiomatic that satellites in the same orbit travel at the same speed.
Your axiom is not axiomatic.
The idea that there is something called an "orbit" that a satellite can be "in" is a simplification, just like cars are in lanes. They are, roughly, most of the time, but in many countries they are all over the place, without discrete "lanes" evident nor consistent speeds. That's a much better model for thinking about satellite trajectories.
Once you start discussing a satellite's mass, then any mass at all is going to change the motion of everything else in the solar system a little. There is no minimum mass that starts to affect things.
See answers to Does launching a device into orbit change earth's orbit? for example.
As you increase the mass of the satellite, the orbit of the Earth and the mass around each other continuously changes, different paint chips move the Earth different amounts. Likewise the effect of the two paint chips on each other. There is no minimum. Certainly if one gets very massive it will start to noticeably perturb other objects in orbit, but that threshold is only related to how carefully you look and how little you can notice.
If so, where is the tipping point.
There is no spoon tipping point: YouTube
Your question really just asks about how long an approximation or simplification is valid, and that's purely up to you and how much error you can tolerate by using your approximation.
Also:
While you would like to imagine that there can be two satellites in the same orbit but one behind the other, the problem is that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform, so it will not follow in the same path. Orbits are not perfectly closed or repeatable because of this.
It's a hard task to get out of the idea that there are really such things as fixed orbits, it's a jump of intuition, but that's the reality; there isn't. All you have is a gravity field with it's lumpy deviations, plus drag, solar pressure, and the Sun's and Moon's gravity (plus more), and a sophisticated numerical propagator that calculates step-by-step how a body might move in this complex and ever-changing field of accelerations.
Welcome to the edge of space!
answered 5 hours ago
uhoh
31k15106383
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
It is axiomatic that satellites in the same orbit travel at the same speed.
Your axiom is not axiomatic.
The idea that there is something called an "orbit" that a satellite can be "in" is a simplification, just like cars are in lanes. They are, roughly, most of the time, but in many countries they are all over the place, without discrete "lanes" evident nor consistent speeds. That's a much better model for thinking about satellite trajectories.
Once you start discussing a satellite's mass, then any mass at all is going to change the motion of everything else in the solar system a little. There is no minimum mass that starts to affect things.
See answers to Does launching a device into orbit change earth's orbit? for example.
As you increase the mass of the satellite, the orbit of the Earth and the mass around each other continuously changes, different paint chips move the Earth different amounts. Likewise the effect of the two paint chips on each other. There is no minimum. Certainly if one gets very massive it will start to noticeably perturb other objects in orbit, but that threshold is only related to how carefully you look and how little you can notice.
If so, where is the tipping point.
There is no spoon tipping point: YouTube
Your question really just asks about how long an approximation or simplification is valid, and that's purely up to you and how much error you can tolerate by using your approximation.
Also:
While you would like to imagine that there can be two satellites in the same orbit but one behind the other, the problem is that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform, so it will not follow in the same path. Orbits are not perfectly closed or repeatable because of this.
It's a hard task to get out of the idea that there are really such things as fixed orbits, it's a jump of intuition, but that's the reality; there isn't. All you have is a gravity field with it's lumpy deviations, plus drag, solar pressure, and the Sun's and Moon's gravity (plus more), and a sophisticated numerical propagator that calculates step-by-step how a body might move in this complex and ever-changing field of accelerations.
Welcome to the edge of space!
answered 5 hours ago
uhoh
31k15106383
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
It is axiomatic that satellites in the same orbit travel at the same speed.
Your axiom is not axiomatic.
The idea that there is something called an "orbit" that a satellite can be "in" is a simplification, just like cars are in lanes. They are, roughly, most of the time, but in many countries they are all over the place, without discrete "lanes" evident nor consistent speeds. That's a much better model for thinking about satellite trajectories.
Once you start discussing a satellite's mass, then any mass at all is going to change the motion of everything else in the solar system a little. There is no minimum mass that starts to affect things.
See answers to Does launching a device into orbit change earth's orbit? for example.
As you increase the mass of the satellite, the orbit of the Earth and the mass around each other continuously changes, different paint chips move the Earth different amounts. Likewise the effect of the two paint chips on each other. There is no minimum. Certainly if one gets very massive it will start to noticeably perturb other objects in orbit, but that threshold is only related to how carefully you look and how little you can notice.
If so, where is the tipping point.
There is no spoon tipping point: YouTube
Your question really just asks about how long an approximation or simplification is valid, and that's purely up to you and how much error you can tolerate by using your approximation.
Also:
While you would like to imagine that there can be two satellites in the same orbit but one behind the other, the problem is that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform, so it will not follow in the same path. Orbits are not perfectly closed or repeatable because of this.
It's a hard task to get out of the idea that there are really such things as fixed orbits, it's a jump of intuition, but that's the reality; there isn't. All you have is a gravity field with it's lumpy deviations, plus drag, solar pressure, and the Sun's and Moon's gravity (plus more), and a sophisticated numerical propagator that calculates step-by-step how a body might move in this complex and ever-changing field of accelerations.
Welcome to the edge of space!
answered 5 hours ago
uhoh
31k15106383
It is axiomatic that satellites in the same orbit travel at the same speed.
Your axiom is not axiomatic.
The idea that there is something called an "orbit" that a satellite can be "in" is a simplification, just like cars are in lanes. They are, roughly, most of the time, but in many countries they are all over the place, without discrete "lanes" evident nor consistent speeds. That's a much better model for thinking about satellite trajectories.
Once you start discussing a satellite's mass, then any mass at all is going to change the motion of everything else in the solar system a little. There is no minimum mass that starts to affect things.
See answers to Does launching a device into orbit change earth's orbit? for example.
As you increase the mass of the satellite, the orbit of the Earth and the mass around each other continuously changes, different paint chips move the Earth different amounts. Likewise the effect of the two paint chips on each other. There is no minimum. Certainly if one gets very massive it will start to noticeably perturb other objects in orbit, but that threshold is only related to how carefully you look and how little you can notice.
If so, where is the tipping point.
There is no spoon tipping point: YouTube
Your question really just asks about how long an approximation or simplification is valid, and that's purely up to you and how much error you can tolerate by using your approximation.
Also:
While you would like to imagine that there can be two satellites in the same orbit but one behind the other, the problem is that the Earth's gravitational field is not uniform, so it will not follow in the same path. Orbits are not perfectly closed or repeatable because of this.
It's a hard task to get out of the idea that there are really such things as fixed orbits, it's a jump of intuition, but that's the reality; there isn't. All you have is a gravity field with it's lumpy deviations, plus drag, solar pressure, and the Sun's and Moon's gravity (plus more), and a sophisticated numerical propagator that calculates step-by-step how a body might move in this complex and ever-changing field of accelerations.
Welcome to the edge of space!
answered 5 hours ago
uhoh
31k15106383
edited 5 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
uhoh
31k15106383
answered 5 hours ago
uhoh
31k15106383
answered 5 hours ago
uhoh
31k15106383
31k15106383
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I'm going to add to the pre-existing answer, from the perspective of classical mechanics and astronomy:
Any two masses that you can take, with any initial conditions in position and velocity, will pose a so-called two-body problem. This 'problem' is a, for all times, exactly solvable mathematical description and solution of the setup you've been asking about.
Now what you propose, to increase the mass of the satellite to the point where it becomes 'relevant' would simply be a binary system (of stars, planets, blackholes, whatever). Both bodies then orbit the common barycenter, which is a constant of motion.
This is still true for the special case when one mass is much smaller than the other, but then the barycenter happens to coincide with the center of the more massive body, so it looks as if there is an orbit around the more massive body.
In real-life things are more complicated than just a two-body problem. Then all masses tug on all the others, and binary barycenters (for example the barycenter for the Sun-Jupiter system) move as well and are not a constant of motion anymore. For earthly satellites in geostationary orbit, perturbations from the other solar system bodies play a role already, and/or station-keeping in L2 requires firing of thrusters from time to time.
In order to say what is binary and what's a satellite-like system one would use the position of the barycenter of the more massive body as a guideline. Therefore the Pluto-Charon system is a binary, where the Jupiter-Sun system is a satellite-like orbit, although their barycenter sometimes leaves the solar radius by about 5%. Mind you that even this binary barycenter's position changes over time as Jupiter exchanges angular momentum with the other gas giants over time, that's why the barycenter lies mostly inside the sun.
answered 19 mins ago
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
1,327817
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I'm going to add to the pre-existing answer, from the perspective of classical mechanics and astronomy:
Any two masses that you can take, with any initial conditions in position and velocity, will pose a so-called two-body problem. This 'problem' is a, for all times, exactly solvable mathematical description and solution of the setup you've been asking about.
Now what you propose, to increase the mass of the satellite to the point where it becomes 'relevant' would simply be a binary system (of stars, planets, blackholes, whatever). Both bodies then orbit the common barycenter, which is a constant of motion.
This is still true for the special case when one mass is much smaller than the other, but then the barycenter happens to coincide with the center of the more massive body, so it looks as if there is an orbit around the more massive body.
In real-life things are more complicated than just a two-body problem. Then all masses tug on all the others, and binary barycenters (for example the barycenter for the Sun-Jupiter system) move as well and are not a constant of motion anymore. For earthly satellites in geostationary orbit, perturbations from the other solar system bodies play a role already, and/or station-keeping in L2 requires firing of thrusters from time to time.
In order to say what is binary and what's a satellite-like system one would use the position of the barycenter of the more massive body as a guideline. Therefore the Pluto-Charon system is a binary, where the Jupiter-Sun system is a satellite-like orbit, although their barycenter sometimes leaves the solar radius by about 5%. Mind you that even this binary barycenter's position changes over time as Jupiter exchanges angular momentum with the other gas giants over time, that's why the barycenter lies mostly inside the sun.
answered 19 mins ago
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
1,327817
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
I'm going to add to the pre-existing answer, from the perspective of classical mechanics and astronomy:
Any two masses that you can take, with any initial conditions in position and velocity, will pose a so-called two-body problem. This 'problem' is a, for all times, exactly solvable mathematical description and solution of the setup you've been asking about.
Now what you propose, to increase the mass of the satellite to the point where it becomes 'relevant' would simply be a binary system (of stars, planets, blackholes, whatever). Both bodies then orbit the common barycenter, which is a constant of motion.
This is still true for the special case when one mass is much smaller than the other, but then the barycenter happens to coincide with the center of the more massive body, so it looks as if there is an orbit around the more massive body.
In real-life things are more complicated than just a two-body problem. Then all masses tug on all the others, and binary barycenters (for example the barycenter for the Sun-Jupiter system) move as well and are not a constant of motion anymore. For earthly satellites in geostationary orbit, perturbations from the other solar system bodies play a role already, and/or station-keeping in L2 requires firing of thrusters from time to time.
In order to say what is binary and what's a satellite-like system one would use the position of the barycenter of the more massive body as a guideline. Therefore the Pluto-Charon system is a binary, where the Jupiter-Sun system is a satellite-like orbit, although their barycenter sometimes leaves the solar radius by about 5%. Mind you that even this binary barycenter's position changes over time as Jupiter exchanges angular momentum with the other gas giants over time, that's why the barycenter lies mostly inside the sun.
answered 19 mins ago
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
1,327817
I'm going to add to the pre-existing answer, from the perspective of classical mechanics and astronomy:
Any two masses that you can take, with any initial conditions in position and velocity, will pose a so-called two-body problem. This 'problem' is a, for all times, exactly solvable mathematical description and solution of the setup you've been asking about.
Now what you propose, to increase the mass of the satellite to the point where it becomes 'relevant' would simply be a binary system (of stars, planets, blackholes, whatever). Both bodies then orbit the common barycenter, which is a constant of motion.
This is still true for the special case when one mass is much smaller than the other, but then the barycenter happens to coincide with the center of the more massive body, so it looks as if there is an orbit around the more massive body.
In real-life things are more complicated than just a two-body problem. Then all masses tug on all the others, and binary barycenters (for example the barycenter for the Sun-Jupiter system) move as well and are not a constant of motion anymore. For earthly satellites in geostationary orbit, perturbations from the other solar system bodies play a role already, and/or station-keeping in L2 requires firing of thrusters from time to time.
In order to say what is binary and what's a satellite-like system one would use the position of the barycenter of the more massive body as a guideline. Therefore the Pluto-Charon system is a binary, where the Jupiter-Sun system is a satellite-like orbit, although their barycenter sometimes leaves the solar radius by about 5%. Mind you that even this binary barycenter's position changes over time as Jupiter exchanges angular momentum with the other gas giants over time, that's why the barycenter lies mostly inside the sun.
answered 19 mins ago
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
1,327817
answered 19 mins ago
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
1,327817
answered 19 mins ago
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
1,327817
answered 19 mins ago
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
1,327817
1,327817
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Brad Carson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Brad Carson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Brad Carson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Brad Carson is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31747%2fquestion-on-giant-satellite-orbit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
The larger orbital body is likely too massive to be artificially produced, and therefore not a spacecraft. To keep this on-topic for this site, I presume that the smaller orbital body is the spacecraft. Right?
– Dr Sheldon
6 hours ago
1
In that case, the paint chip can't be "co-orbital". The two large bodies are nicely orbiting their combined center of mass, but now you have a three-body problem, where the paint chip will have a complicated trajectory.
– Mark Adler
6 hours ago
Sounds like a moon to me
– Antzi
5 hours ago
That's no moon... that's a space station!
– GdD
21 mins ago