How Do Satellites Get & Stay in Orbit?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лип 2014
- SciShow Space takes you into Low Earth Orbit to explain how artificial satellites get up there and stay there -- at least for a while.
----------
Like SciShow? Want to help support us, and also get things to put on your walls, cover your torso and hold your liquids? Check out our awesome products over at DFTBA Records: dftba.com/artist/52/SciShow
Or help support us by subscribing to our page on Subbable: subbable.com/scishow
----------
Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook: / scishow
Twitter: / scishow
Tumblr: / scishow
Thanks Tank Tumblr: / thankstank
Sources:
science.howstuffworks.com/sate...
science.howstuffworks.com/dict...
www.universetoday.com/93077/ho...
www.universetoday.com/42198/ho...
www.nasa.gov/pdf/475144main_LP...
www.nasa.gov/audience/forstude...
www.nasa.gov/audience/forstude...
www.spacetelescope.org/about/...
www.deepastronomy.com/how-the-...
• Real World: Keeping th...
www.slate.com/articles/news_an...
newsfeed.time.com/2011/09/22/s...
God, the atmosphere is such a drag.
Woolywuffta...
:o)
genius
Dad was such a drag...
Turn to Christianity before it's too late. It's not just when you die but when Jesus comes back too.
You are such a charismatic and interesting teacher. Never a dull moment in this video. Thank you
I loved that "don't blame us" moment XD
It does my heart good to see all the people in the comments who know about orbital mechanics, and who are also big fans of KSP.
8 years ago... Hello from the future
Throw it so fast that it misses the ground. It's like flying in the Hitchhikers' Guide.
8 years ago... Hello from the future
It's so convenient to blame the dead guy... ;)
What did Issac do for us? Other than steal Calculus from Gottfried.
Lutranereis
Leibniz independently invented calculus, and they are both credited with inventing it. However Newton invented infinitesimal calculus and Leibniz is only considered because his notation was preferred. (Not to mention Newton's contributions to optics and other fields of physics dwarf his discovery of calculus.)
Monochromicornicopia You obviously didn't get the joke.
Lutranereis
Your comment doesn't contain tone or inflection. You need to punctuate or otherwise indicate your satire.
Monochromicornicopia So you had a choice: The comment is serious, or the comment is a joke. And since you didn't know which one, you thought you'd display your intellectual superiority by assuming that it was serious. You got it wrong, and next time you don't know whether a comment should be taken seriously or not, maybe you'll consider not commenting.
Love your channel! Great show!
straight up. This dude looks like he is just good at reading a script more than he actually knows. I'm not saying he doesn't know any thing, and I'm not saying I know every thing. Let's just say, he doesn't appear to be some one who pays attention to the things he talks about. Still thumbs up all day every day
Well, just because you go a little too fast doesn't necessarily mean that you'll escape the Earth's orbit. You could set the satellite in a highly eccentric orbit. Which in a way, if far more dangerous because its orbit intersects many, many more objects than if it was circular.
Technically, circular and eccentric orbits intersect with an even amount of orbits... except circular intersect more eccentric ones and vice-versa.
Tyrope Games I was referring to the orbits of satellites being intersected, since most of them are (reasonably) circular.
8 years ago... Hello from the future
@@GrimReefer710 lol !!
@@jaydendimakatso1493 hello person I'll never meet
Just repeating what other people said already in here. If you really want to get a good foundation of this in your head, playing Kerbal Space Program is amazingly helpful. You don't need to buy it, just download the free demo, play the tutorials and try to recreat them in the sandbox. Simply having the visual aspect and being able to interact with that, is doing way more then carefully chosen words in a UA-cam Video could ever do.
Yes, playing the game takes more then 4 Minutes, but it's a fun time ;)
8 years ago... Hello from the future
Amazing explaination man!!!
Thank you so much sir for your packaged information.
Excellent video! This is one of those questions I've had but never remembered to research myself when I got in front of a computer. It's much nicer to learn from a sci show space video.
8 years ago... Hello from the future
The comment section makes me cry so hard. Losing faith in humanity
It is interesting to think that the people who actually build those sattelites and the morons who write these comments probably went to the same schools.
Why are you so mad.
Try understanding first
Try to figure out why people are saying these crazy things
There's s good reason for it
I was in your position and now I at least see why people don't believe everything they're told at face value.
Doesn't mean they're right or wrong
But I get where they're coming from and you can't expect anything else
Calling people. Bad names is pointless.
It fuels rebellion
@@Veganphobicwhat is crazy is that people actually believe him go and Google satellites go to images not one true real picture
Ya because your shows come from space😂😂😂😂 bs
The best video for this topic.
I wish people in the comments would stop whining about the content of this channel. I've never studied physics or anything so this channel has actually been really educational for me, this video included.
8 years ago... Hello from the future
284 logged hours of KSP tells me that the balance between crashing back into the Earth and escaping it's orbit isn't as fine as you make it out to be.
Well, objects can certainly get shot out into deep space if they're not in a stable orbit around their parent body before trying to re-enter.
I was wondering how high up the first KSP comment would be.
In real life the atmosphere extends much farther than it does in KSP, our satellites get slowed down over years by the occasional atom, which don't exist in KSP.
Yes, and in real life the window between crashing back into Earth and escaping it's orbit is a pretty fucking wide one, which was the only point I was making.
PossumCuber That is something I was hoping they would cover in this video:What are the margins?
This video did a good job of making me, and a lot of other people, create questions.
Absolutely.
Touché
This was good info for my 4th grade astronomy project on satellites!
great channel
Could you guys possibly do an episode on Kessler Syndrome? Just to delve deeper into artificial satellites' lives and possible scenarios. Thanks!
That’s gunna be bad when it happens
8 years ago... Hello from the future
Just play Kerbal Space Program, and learn all about orbital velocity, escape velocity, and the horrors of bad math and poor timing!
Edit: Fixed Kernan to Kerbal
HAHA Came here to say the same thing :)
*Kerbal
That game frustrated me. My rocket would just spin on its self as it leaves earth and just fly off into space.
Lol commented before reading comments, and mentioned ksp just like you!
Attila Török thanks. Stupid phone never let's me say say what I want! I'll edit when I get home =)
Thank you mate :)
Awsome video
Thank you! It is all about how much the satellite got speed in order to be on orbit. But, can a satellite turn between the polar axis?
This obviously leads in to the issue of Space Junk, but thankfully we've already started working on that. Thanks, Switzerland!
8 years ago... Hello from the future
Hello from 10 months in the future@@GrimReefer710
Well explained
I love your show
Great explanation. If I understand, it's the launch vehicle that gives the satellite it's orbital velocity of 25000km/h ?
Thrusters.
Actually satellites are constantly falling towards earth but due to earths revolution satellites stay in orbit just like atmosphere of earth stays with it.
so the speed of satellite is the falling speed towards earth due to gravity but it doesn't fall because earth is constantly moving/revolving
pretty much same how planets are revolving around sun but planets have zero drag as they have vacuum around them but satellites have drag of earth's atmosphere so they stay in orbit but somehow after decade or so they stop revolving so they need occasional thrust to keep them going
Jim Sagubigula thrusters do not work space. Propulsion needs an atmosphere to push of of. Noth can travel in a vacuum.
It blew my mind when I first heard that the ISS stayed in orbit by essentially falling *around* the earth rather than towards it.
Not a single picture of it in action
@@WorldViralDaily You can spot the ISS pass over your head at night against the dark sky when its solar panels reflect the sunlight . In the daytime as it passes over your area on the earth you can't see it, but it has live cameras that are pointing downwards and you can see the area of the earth where you are at that time.
Right and we went to the moon too past all that radiation in the 70s with space foil to protect us lol. If you think this you're a tool and very gullible
8 years ago... Hello from the future
@@bradleymilton1720
Nasa uses helium balloons...it's all fake
Good teaching
fascinating how important the relationship is between things like speed and gravity... connections matter. The concepts of working together of overlay or is it just competing with falling or opposing forces... it's a lot of a lot.
Omg just Google satellites go to images …there is not one true rendering all of them are computer generated …ALL OF THEM
“What goes up, must come down” Isaac Newton. He warned us..
It's very misleading to describe this as a "delicate balance". Orbits are basically robust, not delicate. If it's too slow for the orbit it's in, it just drops a bit, gains velocity and re-stabilises. After all, the Earth has orbited quite happily for 4.5 billion years.
Earth hasn't has to deal with drag though
8 years ago... Hello from the future
Thank you for this.I thought that the rockets carrying the satellite flew straight up I didn’t know they had to tilt in order to put the satellite in orbit .I mean I kind of guessed that but wasn’t sure
Dude It's Just Awesome You Illustrate Better than Anyone Else.
You Made Me Subscribe By Watching YourVideo for the first time
Imagine a century or two from now when there’s a rain down of satellites...
Lmao this is very possible too
@@DYZYLink its not, they burn up in the atmosphere
So what source of energy (fuel) does it use to orbit at a speed of 28000km/h for about 15 to 20 years none stop?
I did not really find a good answer to this!
For starters, you seem to be under the impression that satellites need a constant source of power to maintain their speed. That's most certainly not the case. Space is virtually a vacuum, and in accordance with Newton's law of inertia, an object in motion will remain in motion, so those satellites will for all intents and purposes maintain the speed they got from the initial launch. Most satellites have some sort of fuel supply and small engine built in for periodic boosts - - because space is not a PERFECT vacuum. There is a tiny bit of drag, so the satellites need to be boosted up to speed a couple of times a year, but the amount of fuel needed is minimal. Once a satellite runs out of fuel, it is at the mercy of gravity. As drag slows the satellite, it's orbit will decay and eventually it will become unstable and fall; burning up in the atmosphere. However, it takes a while for drag to do its work. Years.
You can't find an answer because it seems you have a misunderstanding of how orbits work.
+Willoughby Krenzteinburg Not buying onto the whole thing.. but hey, life goes on.. chill out.
Thanks for the reply bro.
+F.A. M.Z. No satellites just some BS...
George Mckenzie Right. Whatever gets you through the day, brah.
Easier. They keep falling but due to earths movement they stay in orbit
Excellent episode.
8 years ago... Hello from the future
remarkakble info tanx
"Don't blame us; this was all Issac Newton's idea." That's hilarious.
i read this as he said it wtf xD
Off topic, but I wish the US would convert to the metric system! It sucks that the only time you encounter it is in science here.
Very nice
How do we continue to get communication when it’s on the other side of the globe circling?
There is more than one satellite on the same orbit doing the same job. As one leaves the area the next one takes over. Much like when your on a cell phone in a moving car, your signal movies from one cell tower to the next keeping your call connected.
Thank you Jack’s Son for explaining that. It makes sense. Have a very good evening!
These days, we don't just launch a single satellite for communications, but an entire network. Sometimes dozens. This way, if one satellite doesn't have line of site with whatever receiving station is intended, then other satellites relay that signal through the network.
they dont exist
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg sometimes 49 thousandsss...
here's a fun game!! close your eyes and pretend it's penn gillette.. it totally works!
Amaaaazing..
That was Awesome, you covered the topic very well and did a good job of presenting it.
Thank you.
8 years ago... Hello from the future
Flat Earthers be like:
A K C H U A L Y I E E E . . . .
"Thare's like buoansy and stoff like sho me som non CGI imegess ya know gurllll"
Satalites are fake. You're a brainwashed puppet. Get on your moms smartphone. Google Satalites for me. Now tell me which is a real photo and which is fake.
ua-cam.com/video/SoAD5P1YRnc/v-deo.html
@@AlphaFlight You mean the smartphone that uses GPS Satellites for driving directions? I could also ask...what are *Satalites*, but no need to be mean...
@@AlphaFlight yeah I also believe there are no satellites. Look how much they show exist in cgi, imagine how much space trips that is. 1000% fake.
So we're just boosting our satellite junk further up for future astronauts to run into? Wow, way to kick it down the road 21th Century!
Tell you what, if you can come up with an additional 1490 m/s delta-v to deorbit a satellite, we'll gladly stop trashing up LEO and MEO.
That should have been part of the original plan. Don't send it up if you can't dispose of it properly once you're done with it. It's like going on a picnic with no trash disposal bags & just leaving the stuff you're done with to clutter up the area. If we don't start acting responsibly, space will one day be Way more dangerous than it already is.
Lutranereis you could build a big reflective plate and vaporize bits of satalite off to deorbit them! Or is that too scifi?
TheDajamster To send a satellite into a graveyard orbit, it requires 11 m/s delta-v. That's insignificant, about 3 month's worth of correctional burns for your typical GSP satellite.
That 1490 m/s more that's required to deorbit the satellite is *33 years worth* of correctional burns.
We currently don't have the ability to send up satellites with that much fuel in a cost effective way. Simply put, if we had to deorbit every satellite that we put up, we'd have almost no satellites, and the cost of using them would be great.
But how dangerous are we really talking about here anyway? These satellite graveyards are at thousands of kilometers higher than low Earth orbit, where almost all of our human activity takes place. We're actually more at risk with the small stuff in LEO than we are of these satellites in MEO and HEO.
I'm certainly with you that we should be responsible about what we put orbiting our planet, but I'm also pragmatic enough to realize that what we're doing is what we have the technology for right now.
thief9001 Laser debris systems are pretty awesome, and hopefully we'll be using them very soon to deorbit debris.
I have a request for a video topic. I would like to know everything there is to know about atmospheric re-entry. I love astronomy but re-entry is just something I find to be the most fascinating about space travel. Please please please cover this topic and make a geek happy.
8 years ago... Hello from the future
Here's a flow chart that describes your understanding of orbital mechanics throughout your life.
High school physics< college physics< theatrical physicist
Kerbal Space Program will teach you how artificial satellites get into orbit real fast...
If they can get past the learning curve. First they need to learn how to fly in a straight line
rayamat01 lol yeah the learning curve is very steep... it took me a month to get into orbit proper, without MechJeb
anthonyhdean Really? I just watched a lets play..then bought the game..played the tutorial and went to mun and minmus the same day (not back thou ;) )...understanding mechjeb was harder then to learn how to orbit..still dont use mechjeb as autopilot..only when building stuff. Hardest thing in my opinion is to rendevouz with my spacestations =P
Sizzlik it all became easier once I learned hot to use the nav ball. Plus Mech Jeb is a bit cheaty but its a single player game so I guess you're not hurting anyone
rayamat01 Didnt said it is a cheat..its an autopilot..good for efficient orbiting once you set it up right. I just said it was harder for me to learn how mechjeb works than it was learning to get in orbit manually. And yes..the nav ball is the most important tool that you need to understand first =)
Without it its pretty much impossible to get into orbit efficient
sad thing is I learn more in kerbal space program than my science class.
Smitty it's still your little knowledge
yeah i got the brain of a 2 year old. or maybe im a 2 year old disguised as a 13 year old. we will never know xD
Nothing wrong with that. If it teaches you physics, then more power to you.
It's both fake
WAKE ur as up
I like your cartoon about a cannon rotating the earth 0:40 meaning if a canon would have the power of a satellite propeller you could hit yourself in the back. seems you just invented something good for the army, enough gun powder to hit your enemies from behind while they still facing you. genius
Do a video on the best ideas DARPA has on recycling space junk, pretty please!
Anybody here answer this question? How come all the space debris in space we don't see it from earth and the space station doesn't encounter a storm of this debris live?
Because space is a really big place. It's not going to be a dense debris field. There are also people whose job it is to keep track of all space debris and if necessary, alert mission control that a maneuver is necessary to avoid it. The ISS is also hit pretty often by microscopic pieces of debris that mostly do no harm. The bigger pieces could be catastrophic and this is when they move out of the way. Very rarely, they find larger debris heading toward them and don't have time to steer out of the way so they alert the crew and they get into a Soyuz craft and if necessary, they can evacuate the ISS and come back to Earth if needed. They have only had to do this a handful of times...like 4 or 5 times, and they've never been hit in this situation.
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg yes but they be swimming in the sea of it and it's not space it's orbiting earth. Your telling me it's out in space but it supposed to be orbiting EARTH. Like a seaweed patch in the ocean. The live can are supposed to show Sparks or damages to the orbiter. It shows it's like it's brand new. They're supposed to be wear and tear on it from the Debris especially the solar panels.
@@thebuddhaofknowledgemichae2486 Asked and answered
Not sure why you are confused on how something can be both in space and orbiting earth. What is your confusion here?
@@willoughbykrenzteinburg you mentioned space. We are talking about the Earth's orbit. If they're are debris. The space station should be receiving ba daily dose of Sparks or mini collisions and they are no way that can be detected from earth. Large debris yes. But small debris you can't detect. The Earth revolves. So every minute you will encounter the same debris. There should be Sparks of contact around the station everyday. Or Solar panels being bruised. Mini dust is infinite and when you make contact it supposed to cause friction. Or it wear down your glass portal of the space station. I don't see any of it during live feeds
@@thebuddhaofknowledgemichae2486 What you expect should happen simply doesnt happen. There is nothing to say beyond that.
If you're trying to argue that the ISS is fake or something, someone should tell you that it is visible to the naked eye, and with a cheap pair of binoculars, you can see that it is up there...in the shape of all the pictures of the ISS out there and is in precisely predictable locations. Hundreds of millions of people have seen it. I'm not humoring any nonsensical amd frankly moronic assertions that it is fake. Go troll someone else if that's what you're on about.
And all this while the earth is also supposed to be spinning 1000mph on axis and 67,000mph around the sun? Pretty impressive. I would have to say you all have not only discovered a way to defy physics but logic too! Well done!!!
+OzzelTheComposer It is precisely BECAUSE of that, that satellites do work.
Wrong. Makes no sense.
+OzzelTheComposer Makes no sense to you, THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE!!
+OzzelTheComposer Im with you on that. First off he is wrong about which goes faster. Those that are closer can go slower than the satellites are further away. Hes not even sure himself. I dont believe anything about space till we get 24\7 streaming video of the earth
This is sooooooooooo cool 😃👍
very helpful for my homework
Where is a video showing these artificial satellites in space? A real video not a CGI?
How about your eyes? Would that work for you? Because, you can see many satellites in orbit with your naked eyes. That seems like something better, right? Something you can verify with your own eyes?
true i've seen hubble, iss, iridium satellites and a couple of amateur radio satellites since the last 6 months
if we can see satellites with our naked eyes from earth , why cant we see them from the ISS ? let me guess , its too far lmao
@iphil25 A satellite is an object that is in orbit. The *Moon* is a natural satellite. What we send up are artificial satellites. He doesn't call them 'artificial' because they're fake, lol. Ignorance is bliss...
@@MulleDK19 Ironically they ARE fake lol It's only the perception of them that lives on.
A better question is how would thousands of satellites remain in orbit without any control or boundaries set in place? Isn't the ISS in DIRE jeopardy of being decapitated by one of the orbiting satellites?! Think about it
Is this how planets orbit?
Pretty much. They obviously weren't launched from the sun like satellites are from Earth. But they are all falling towards the sun but they move fast enough sideways that they miss the sun and keep falling. This is an orbit. That's what our moon does around earth and what Saturn's rings do around Saturn. Orbits are amazing!
The principles are all the same, yes. However, planets experience virtually no drag and their orbits are stable.
Yes
Although around the sun obviously
Jacob Thomas Unless you're one of those crazy geocentrists.
I keep adding to favorites whenever I try to like a video, DAMN YOU UA-cam!
There should be a link to Kerbal Space Program in the description of the video. Playing KSP taught me how satellites work.
When I first found out scishow was starting a special space channel i was really exited, but now it's getting to the point where I think that it may as well be for 10 year old's with how basic and patronising the videos are.
I mean how do orbits work? Really?
Surely if you don't know how an orbit works you couldn't give a dam about space.
I'm sorry if I'm being really arrogant, but couldn't you have some more in depth videos? Maybe but like a 'WARNING-SPACE KNOWLEGE REQUIRED' before those vids or something.
It seems to have gone the way of all "science" programming. I'd love to see them try the same sort of patronising dumbed down so far it's actually wrong with sports fans. Instead of coverage of a game, just 10 minutes of fancy graphics and idiotic misinformation.
Actually, not even 10 year olds. Man landed on the moon in 1969 when I was 6 years old. I knew far more about basic orbital mechanics at that age than was presented in this show. I could have told you even then what the minimum orbital velocity was, what escape velocity was. And I would have told you in the *proper* units, not friggin miles per hour!
gasdive
They said kilometers.
I would imagine they try to keep it simple to include a wider audience, you would be surprised at the general public's lack of knowledge when it comes to space.
Diana Peña I know, but this is very VERY basic. I held back from saying anything on some of their earlier simple vids for that reason, but I couldn't help myself any longer.
I'm not saying we can't have these videos, just saying there could be some more in depth ones as well.
(also, I hate how youtube just marked all the negative comments here as spam.)
V=√(GM/r)
no, its V=√(2GM/r)
This comment is 5 years old but facts don't change.
I believe the ISS also has a night glide mode where the solar panels are oriented parallel to the direction of movement to reduce drag(as it is used at night the solar panels are not required to be functioning).
Cool video! I know you already did something on the Kepler Belt and the Oort Cloud, but is it possible for us to get something on the Keiper Belt?
8 years ago... Hello from the future
I play KSP, I know dis.
Me2
Except, luckily, we don't have to deal with orbital decay.
The difference is that in real life, the atmosphere doesn't disappear at 70km.
Walz Kerbin is a hell of a lot smaller than Earth.
Mark Tuchinsky And the atmosphere of Earth still doesn't disappear anywhere. It extends indefinitely, and its density at a given altitude varies hugely just from solar activity.
thumbs up for pie
Can I has some pie? :(
James Collins No.
Chef:I baked you a pie!
Little boy:Oh boy!What flavor?!
Chef:Pie flavor!(disoriented electric guitar noise)
My wife asked my how things in orbit, stay in orbit, so I explained it to her and then when that didn't really make a ton of sense, I showed her this and she totally got it. I remember science classes in college, and missing the planet you are falling toward is not an easy concept for a lot of folks.
Ur super indoctrinated. U should have done more research and realized it's by using helium balloons. Nasa is #1 helium consumer on the planet. That's why u can't find many pictures
8 years ago... Hello from the future
Nice shirt, I too have played Kerbal Space Program.
Kerbals space program
Google it..
Some of these comments are so stupid there actually rather scary that people can be that dumb.
+IAN m imagine if these people were in charge of things.
+Your Average American there are so many of them browsing the internet. I think they're just trolling...
Yeah, I had an argument with a woman at work a couple of days ago, she doesn't believe in other planets. Thinks the Earth is the only one.
Your comment should be the "Top Comment" for all UA-cam videos.
stupid people are the ones who believe nasa
Awesome Video!
Maybe you could make another about why the moon doesn't crash into earth and also why the earth doesn't crash into the sun. Should be just a little extension to the contents that already have been presented here from my understanding.
It's the same reason. It is still affected by the earth's gravity but it is moving fast enough that it misses it every time.
@@nir61202
Better question is if moon is only 26k miles away how come we're not going back and forth to the moon as it would only take 2 days to get there going 500 to 700 miles an hour ?
And that moon landing film looks so ridiculous when you look at it today its like a bad B movie...
It's not hard to understand how space deniers can find this all 'rediculous'. Because orbital mechanics is a rather fantastic idea that (as suggested by Douglas Adams) something can fall towards the earth and 'miss'.
It's easy to dismiss this as too unbelievable to be true because you simply don't understand it.
I f*ing love science.
7-1...
"artificial"
So there are organic ones?
Yes, we call it the moon.
Did you meant “natural ones”?
The moon
What you said was wrong "travels further before it falls" - horizontal motion has no effect on vertical motion. A canon ball falls as soon as it leaves the canon unless its angle is pointing upwards in which case the falling is seen as a decrease in upward momentum until that momentum becomes 0 and then we see the ball fall to earth. Falling, or gravitational pull, happens as soon as the canon is no longer preventing it.
If the canon is horizontal to the earth the canon ball falls and hits the ground at the same time as a canon ball that it simply dropped from the hand at the same time.
This is what happens when you simplify something so much that it's wrong.
you clearly don't understand the concept...
since I've wasted couple of seconds to comment, let me correct your brain. "horizontal motion has no effect on vertical motion." yes you are correct, but the things that matters of putting something in orbit is its horizontal motion, NOT its vertical motion. The reason why we put it up there are because of the existence of a thick atmosphere and of course, mountains...
I do understand. My problem was with a science show stating incorrect information about something we established hundreds of years ago. I'm not being arsey about it, but just don't. I don't know everything and I don't expect anyone else to, mistakes happen.
The idea is we project an object so fast that the horizon drops faster than the projectile falls. Objects in orbit are continually falling towards Earth, they just keep missing.
Isaac, Robert Green is right and SciShow is wrong. The cannon ball doesn't "fly parallel to the earth until gravity pulled it back down to the ground". It never flys, nor does it travel parallel to the ground except at a single point at apogee. It simply (ignoring air resistance) enters a highly elliptical orbit. One that soon intersects the ground. Just like any other object released in a gravitational field. The big boost in horizontal velocity simply circularises the orbit.
Actually I was thinking when the gravitational force and the "centrifugal force" of an object cancel each other out, then the object is in orbit. The centrifugal force is mass*rotational speed^2*radius, so in order to mentain the centrifugal force constant you must increase the radius and lower the rotational speed (which can be transformed in linear speed) or vice versa.
How do you explain the astronaut floating in space along side it? How do they keep up?!
@@johnlowe7355 Because they're already moving that speed and the effect of drag out in space is close to none. Newtons first law explains this.
@VaoDxArchAngel
NASA means to decieve in Hebrew...it's all fake, you been duped by helium balloons and trickery photography
why would something burn up on re-entry but not burn up on its way out?
Vague answer: because at re-entry, the satellite collides with the molecules of air, and each molecule causes friction that heats up the satellite, thus basically setting it on fire, because their falling speed is so great. That's why stuff, that fall to the Earth from space, fires up. On its way out, on the other hand, there are no molecules or atoms to collide with, thus it simply moves away.
Tadej Smerke
If a rocket is going 16,900 mph on its way out at 350,000 ft and 17,150 mph on it's way back in when it hits 350,000 ft, either way it is going roughly 17,000 mph at 350,000 ft. Question: what is the minimum speed it would take a rocket or any craft for that matter to begin reaching critical temperatures? Would they become glowing red hot if they were going 14,000 mph? 12,000 mph? Because 12,000 mph, 14,000 mph and 17,000 mph are all considered as high-hypersonic speeds. High hypersonic speeds require considerable thermal protection.
And think about this. The shuttle reaches roughly 17,000 mph at at 350,000 ft. It still needs to climb another 950,000 ft or 180 miles to get to the ISS. But it only needs to accelerate 150 more mph to reach the ISS's speed? Nothing about that makes sense.
reversecourse Now, I'm not rocket engineer, but I might try and explain how I see things; Sound is made by moving through the air and compressing air molecules, so they kind of travel in waves, and your ear can detect that motion of waves. Planes and rockets do go multiple times faster than sound when they go out into orbit, but only as long as they are in our atmosphere - you hear them, because they are pushing away air and thus creating sound. Now, they can't reach such massive speeds as to actually start burning when going out of orbit because they have to fight the force of gravity on their way out. BUT, that only happens in the atmosphere. Once in space, there is no air, so nothing to produce sound; there are no molecules they can hit, thus there can be no 'ignition' caused by the drag of air. In space, everything travels so much faster than sound, because there are no molecules that can slow them down. So once the Shuttle needs to climb to the ISS, it's basically traveling inside empty space, so nothing can slow it down or affect it. But once they re-enter the Earth's atmosphere, they are already traveling at such massive speeds + gravity is pulling them down, so it's easy to see, why they can start to burn; they are hitting those air molecules so fast, that they cause an ignition because of sheer drag. I hope I made some sense.
A satellite is protected inside a rocket on it's way up and out. It basically becomes like an unprotected ballistic free falling meteor on the way down, with all it's unprotected sides burning up easily. In fact, the Space Shuttle comes close to burning up on re-entry if things don't go exactly right. It if loses a few of it's small thermal shields, the heat burns through the hull like a blowtorch. Keep in mind that getting up to speed to exit the Earth's gravitational pull is very difficult to do, so it is easy to maintain a speed just below the melting point. On re-entry, anyone who has watched a meteor fall knows that even a monkey can make something burn up in the way back down. Try this: Load a dump truck full of rock and try to drive up the steepest hill you can find. You might be able to maintain 55mph on the way up, but you have to fight with every ounce of energy. Now turn around and go back down. No engine needed. Halfway down, you are burning up the brakes, and nearing 80 mph. Same thing with rockets. They need to push with everything they have to get out, but coming back down can be a real whore. If anything they need to slow their descent to make it back in one piece.
glassdogangle satellites don't exit Earth's gravitational pull.
Who are asking these questions?
people who have never played Kerbal Space Program.
curious people
We have search engines for curious people
mavxr
1. This is a bit more interesting than reading about it.
2.They're answering a question asked by one, but that many don't know the answer to. If the question never comes to mind, you'll never search for an answer. SciShow and SciShow Space (and a multitude of other awesome channels) provide answers to questions you may have never thought of asking.
Mat Comtois
Maybe if the video subject wasn't elementary
Question! Could you explain cold welding and whether it is actually a problem for astronauts? What is it about the vacuum of space that "confuses" the atoms and make them bind?
space engineers moment
8 years ago... Hello from the future
That would be so cool for a few hundred years in the future an old disused satellite starts a decaying orbit and falls towards Earth - and it gets saved. Like that'd be a cool look back into our current time period which will then be history. I know that records will most likely survive to make it unnecessary but it'd be a cool novelty, maybe inspire some people to get into the history of space, etc. Or: the records don't exist anymore. Disaster has struck and this ancient satellite holds some interesting information for the new age.
SHOW ME A VIDEO OF ONE SATELLITE.............just one
uvarvu1 Well, have they shown us any yet? Or do we need to do a welfare check for you?! Not totally joking...let me know that you are okay.
+uvarvu1 No, you are not worthy, subhuman.
+uvarvu1 yeah right Satellites are Bull Shit and this Video also!!!
+uvarvu1 You don't need a video. You can see them with your own naked eyes. You can even use some average binoculars to see the shape of something as big as the International Space Station. Not a very bright one here, folks. So, I can save you the time by assuming your response to this will be some kind of childish insult followed by NOTHING resembling an actual argument that directly addresses anything I've said.
Textbook : Troll.
+Ahmed12585 Well if you hate satellites so much, then why did you click on this video?
"[...] that was all Isaac Newton's idea."
:D
Thank you for using the metric system instead of the "freedom" system!
0:05 - It would help to state when "as of now" was. Six years later things are changing _fast._
3:05 - Only geostationary satellites are moved into "graveyard" orbit.
so why don't the moon as a satellite not crash into Earth?
cos it stays at the orbit of the earth far far away and it doesn't have any thrusters to move so that it can change its orbit
Vladimir Nachev Because the moon is 225,772 miles away. much farther than artificial satellites
the moon is actually getting further away as time passes and also slowing the erfs rotation.
the moon is 3200 miles away, it is part of earth
+Dallas Quinley No, it's much farther out.
Thermosphere is up to 2000 degrees Celsius where satellites made out of metals like aluminum, steel, cpu's, Mainboards, cameras etc. are supposed to be! My samsung phone shuts down when getting over 50 degrees Celsius!
the individual air molecules at that altitude have on average the amount of kinetic energy that a 2000 degrees more dense air down on earth would have. the satellites aren't really affected by the temperature of the gas because the air density up there is so low. they don't collide too often with air
+Tardigrades so how can satellites stay cool when the accumulated heat has no air to deflect itself away from satellite?
it radiates heat through electromagnetic radiation.
research blackbody radiation.
so cuz the air density up there is so low the satellites dont melt , ok but i presume in outer space there is no air at all , so there is no heat ? then one can just fly straight up to the sun and dont burn/melt ?
Lemcal Kerman ?... i like coca cola
what kind of drag can you experience in space? i thought there would have to be an object moving through a fluid in order to have drag. thanks in advance!
Drag from the atmosphere. Especially in Low Earth Orbit, while mainly a vacuum, there’s still stray bits of air that slowly push against a satellite.
if you set up satellite, how do you agree with air port to guard over traffic road map in the air? ?
And that's why we haven't been to space xD
1100 active satellites plus 2600 still in orbit but not working. Total 3700 satellites. 1958-2016 = 3016 weeks.
1.22 launches per week on average for 58 years long.
What is your logic telling you?
well said. though they will tell you and they cant agree. anywhere from 1300 to 8500 satelittes anywhere and they cant agree from 400 kms to 20000. I suppose the further out they are the less chance we have of spotting them.
+Flat Earther EXACTLY!!!
You know rockets almost never carry 1 satellite per launch right. One of India's rockets managed to send up 104 satellites in one launch. Try again tinfoil hatter.
Thanks, this was useful. I am writing a story on the journey of Entrepreneur and Rocket Engines.
All the best sir 👍
can you do a video about orbital slingshots and achieving orbit around other bodies efficiently.
lets see a video of just one of the eleven being launched- this is bs
I HOPE YOU WAKE UP FROM THE COMA...
ilL tRy
Again no actual photos just cartoon...
People like you are just hell bent on rejecting the existence of satellites. If you had a photo of one, you'd just call it fake. There aren't going to be many photos of satellites because for the most part, they are launched with robotic missions. Many of the satellites have cameras, but they are not designed to take selfies.
The good news is : you don't NEED a video of a satellite in order to know they exist - you know, since you can SEE many of them with your own naked eyes.
Blake Snipe I'm not the one to blame... I'm only telling the truth from my pov... I made it my civic duty to find real images of satellites a few months ago and seriously made a fool of myself in spite of a heated debate with a friend... I even watch the video clip you posted btw and still it's a painting of animation...
Pls tell me you don't actually believe those to be real photos images... I'm asking you as nicely as possible to pls help me find real photo images of satellites so I can even things out with my friend...
As far as communication cell towers are for cell phones... Weather forecast are also ground base... They also use underground or should I say underwater cable for internet across the ocean (did you know that)... Google use planes and vans for GPS... Which explain why the so called satellite images are not in real time...
Blake Snipe "If you had a photo of one, you'd just call it fake."
Sir if I had a real photo of a satellite we wouldn't be having this conversation...
If I had a real photo of a satellite in orbit this video wouldn't be necessary... It's all propaganda ....
E Jones
I posted no video clip, so I'm not sure what you are referring to.
There are thousands of photographs of the International Space Station. There are thousands of photographs of the Hubble Space Telescope. There are thousands of photographs of other various satellites.
You deem every single one of these photographs as CGI. In other words, fake. Just like I said.
Here's how you operate :
You do not believe there are satellites or anything in orbit, so if you see a photograph of something claiming to represent an object in orbit, you AUTOMATICALLY deem it to be CGI because in YOUR mind, it is the only explanation for how such a photo can exist. Just as I said - even if you saw a photograph of a satellite, you'd just call it fake - because so far - YOU HAVE.
Cell phones use cell towers to transmit calls and texts - and a few phones use it for triangulation. However, the GPS function of phones uses a GPS satellite network. Actual GPS devices use satellites as well. Satellite television (Dish Network, DirecTV, etc.) use satellites as well. Satellite internet uses satellites. I'm not talking about ALL internet service providers; I'm talking about SATELLITE ISPs. Google Earth is a composite. The photographs change as you zoom in and out. The wide angle images - generally lower resolution come from satellites. The high resolution (zoomed in) photographs come from aircraft. Doppler radar is indeed ground based - and I didn't say anything different.
And then finally - something you failed to address in all your rambling - you can SEE satellites with your naked eyes.
Thanks guys, I've been asking this question for a long time. so what you're saying is...once a satellite gets up and going...it still has a fuel tank,full of fuel to do micro adjustments to it's orbit. You mentioned the ISS gets refueled, but I'm under the assumption that your run of the mill satellite has all the fuel it needs when it leaves the launch pad.
Also, how does the rocket steer itself from launch to orbit? By moving it's wings, like an airplane? Or by using multiple boosters, firing at different rates to gradually change from launch to orbit. Or, a combination of both.
Thanks again guys!!!
The satellite does indeed get all the fuel its ever going to need. Well, more specifically - it gets all the fuel its ever going to get. It will need to do slight orbital maneuvers here and there to maintain orbit. They are few and far between, but eventually, it will run out of fuel, and when this happens, eventually it will decay enough that it falls back to Earth. It will burn up long before reaching the ground though.
Rockets use gyroscopes to steer mainly. Have you ever been in a science museum where you sit in a swivel chair and someone spins a bike tire - and if you twist that bike tire one direction, you will swivel in your chair? Same concept.
+Justin Giglio
During the initial ascent they can usually tilt the engines seeing as they're going to be burning for the entire launch to orbit.
Once it's in orbit the satellite usually uses a "reaction control system" depending on the size of the satellite. A reaction control system is a series of small thrusters that are fired to change the orientation of the object in question.
8 years ago... Hello from the future
@willoughbykrenzteinburg
So how does one stop a satellite from hitting a highway or house ? With supposedly thousands in orbit who keeps an eye on old satellites I mean helium balloons 🎈
Where can I go to find photos of satellites in space that aren't computer graphics? I want to see real ones up close to see how cool they are
Closeup photos of satellites in space are rare since there rarely are _other_ satellites nearby to take the photos. However, here is the *_TDRS-5 communication satellite_* when it was deployed from the space shuttle Atlantis in 1991:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-43#/media/File:TDRS-E_deployment_from_STS-43.jpg
The satellite had a small rocket stage attached to it in order to bring it up to geostationary orbit since the shuttle couldn't go that high.
And here's the *_Hubble Space Telescope_* seen from the same space shuttle in 2009 after being overhauled by astronauts:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#/media/File:HST-SM4.jpeg
The ISS loses 90 meters a day? That seems like a lot. So how often do they boost it back up? 'Periodically' is such a gay answer.
"Periodically" is a happy answer? Seriously dude, people need to stop using the word gay in a negative context.
You just undermined your own argument by saying 'happy', the definitions of words change through generations.
Super Hans I'm aware of that. Using it in a negative way is still bad, so just stop please. That's all I'm saying.
I respect your opinion but I'm not going to do that
Fine. I can't make you. I will just think less of you as a person. So I hope that's ok with you.