How Do Satellites Stay in Place? | In Orbit | BBC Earth Science
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- For Satellites to work most of them need to stay in one place. So you may think it's simple, the satellite needs to spin at the same pace as Earth. But nothing is ever that easy, because if a satellite was to spin at Earth's rotational speed it would crash back down into Earth.
Best of Earth Science: bit.ly/EarthLab...
Best of BBC Earth: bit.ly/TheBestO...
In Orbit: How Satellites Rule Our World (2012)
How the thousands of satellites orbiting the Earth have transformed the modern world.
This is a channel from BBC Studios who help fund new BBC programmes. Service information and feedback: bbcworldwide.co...
Nicely done! I have seen many explanations of geosynchronous orbit, but I basically had to figure it out for myself (decades ago). I hope this woman keeps making videos like this because this one was great!
What about the satellites allow them to speed up or slow down? You might want to get telegram if you are seeking truth. UA-cam is highly censored.
She learnt this from playing KSP
I think this lady is brilliant at explaining stuff.
I already knew this but i just love listening to her, she makes stuff interesting.
Magnets
I consider gravity as a myth, and to change your vector in space without thrusters, and how can you do this in a vacuum. You can’t and how did you get past the firmament, and what about the Van Allen belt, you got a lot of explaining to do Lucy !
She talks like Boris and with force haahah
Best 2 minutes spent on science
You teach very well, I like you but I like you
Then why the need to hide all those fiberoptic lines under oceans???
Whattttt tell me more hahaha
This only works for signals, but if you want to point a camera down at Earth, you can only keep it stationary on one spot, at the equator.
Radio signals can be focused just as tightly as the field view of a camera. But you are correct that a geostationary orbit, as opposed to the infinitude of geosynchronous orbits, must remain over the equator.
However, with a Molina orbit, you can practically something like a geostationary sat at higher latitudes with a small array of satellites. I think it just takes 5 or so. This was a popular solution for Russia.
That makes no sense. You can’t keep up being that close but further away you can?? The further away, the more you have to travel now? But apparently they say because it’s less gravity, the satellite goes faster hahaha
Why do you think it makes no sense? What do you mean by “you can’t keep up”? And who says “because it’s less gravity”? If you think it’s because of less gravity, it seems like you don’t understand the physics of an orbit.
The satellite is falling as fast as it’s being pulled away from earth by gravity, almost like when velocity and air pressure even out making terminal velocity, making the satellite stay in orbit due to evening out its forces and travels extremely fast. Although people would prefer you just research stuff instead of sounding like you’re mocking stuff you don’t understand at all
Lovely demonstration
Hey you. Yeah you. If you're reading this hope all is well and have a great day please 🤗
Nonsense, utter nonsense
What is nonsense?
"a magical point"?😕
Should be noted this video is only about geosynchronous satellites which is a tiny percentage of satellites.
There are many satellites in geosynchronous orbit - I think you are getting confused with geostationary orbits.
Good.
I Don understand
Satellite moves further away from earth so gravity wont affect as much. Hence they dont fall.
@@bantubonke5389 why doesn't the asteroid 2023 bu which is closer to earth not fall to earth?
@@HiSaiKou Orbital parameters
@@HiSaiKou The simple explanation is that it was moving too fast at closest approach to be captured by Earth's gravity. However, its orbit was changed somewhat during the pass.
Idk why This question randomly popped in my head but thanks for this video !
Same here.
@@JAY1892 great minds think alike 🦾
Earth doesn’t rotate and satellites are on balloons! !!
1. Yes it does. The paths of the stars, seen from both hemispheres prove that.
2. The photos taken of the ISS from the ground prove they don't use balloons.
@@darkner2390 bahaha ahahaha! I guess it’s the same kind of proof as the cables “astro-NOTs” use to make it look like there’s little “gravity “ on the ISS… yep totally real. The stars movements could also prove that earth is stationary and they rotate around us, you know like the sun does!
@@SAVETHEPLANET-KILL-A-GLOBALIST Right, because water can also float because of cables: ua-cam.com/video/H_qPWZbxFl8/v-deo.html
"The stars movements could also prove that earth is stationary and they rotate around us, you know like the sun does!"
The movement of the stars is different on both hemispheres. Given their vast distance from the earth, which have been calculated using parallax, it would be impossible for them to move that fast.
And since we're on this topic, what's your evidence to your claim that everything revolves around earth and that the earth doesn't rotate?
Let's not forget point 2 I made. Please show me any photo which shows the balloons attached to the ISS.
@@darkner2390 I’ve never seen water float? Unless you’re talking about NASA’s cgi footage of the Astro-NOTs playing catch with water in a multi billion dollar state of the art science research space craft with so many highly sensitive electrical sensors , guidance, oxygen generators, life support systems , power generation, telemetry, that are not water proof or even water resistant. You name it they got it. And are just spraying water everywhere! So much fun…. Bullsh/+ . Or maybe your talking about in cloud form. But that’s not really water, because when it becomes water, it falls which is known as rain. I’ve never seen the Southern Hemisphere. And I never said ISS was balloon powered, I said satellites are on balloons! In my opinion based off of nasa’s own video documentation, the ISS does not orbit earth! It’s fake. But who knows? maybe it’s jet powered. I’m not sure, I’ve never seen the ISS orbiting besides the crap nasa puts out… which is obviously one of the following or a combination of; cgi, industrial light & magic L.E.D. Screen tech, filmed in a pool, green/blue screen. maybe it really is filmed in a Hollywood basement. Maybe it’s just a 747 made to look like the ISS. With nasa’s budget anything is possible, apparently besides actually going to space! Oh and shocker , there are no rovers on mars… I wish what they said was truthful but they are con-men and continue to steal taxpayers money. It’s over 60 million a day. Wtf?
@@SAVETHEPLANET-KILL-A-GLOBALIST "I’ve never seen water float? Unless you’re talking about NASA’s cgi footage of the Astro-NOTs"
Right, so you're favouring evidence that suits you, while denying evidence that doesn't. Gotcha.
"Or maybe your talking about in cloud form. But that’s not really water, because when it becomes water, it falls which is known as rain."
Does that mean you didn't even watch the video? Alright, so you're either not even paying attention or not taking this seriously.
"And I never said ISS was balloon powered, I said satellites are on balloons!"
If satellites orbit using balloons, then so does the ISS, right? Look up any photos taken from the ground, showing the ISS. Tell me. Where are the balloons? Don't try evade the question.
"maybe it’s jet powered."
Oh yea, the ISS has been flying for how many years now, using jet fuel? No plane flies for that long, let alone the fact the ISS is not nearly close to being aerodynamic.
"I’m not sure, I’ve never seen the ISS orbiting besides the crap nasa puts out…"
The people who independantly photographed the ISS from the ground will tell you otherwise.
"Maybe it’s just a 747 made to look like the ISS."
BAHAHAHA! Yea, of course. A passenger plane looks SO MUCH like the ISS. Grow up, you tool.
"With nasa’s budget anything is possible, apparently besides actually going to space!"
Here's a question for you. About 18,000 people work at NASA. And nevermind the fact that there's quite a few other space agencies out there with roughly the same amount of people. How come there hasn't been A SINGLE whistleblower, so far? A secret that big and known to so many people is hardly a secret, after all. And I haven't even talked about the vast portion of other people involved with the very same field of science. Still, not a single person telling us: It's all fake. Hm... I wonder why that is?
This is madness
BUT A GEOSTATIONARY ORBIT IS ONLY POSSIBLE AT THE EQUATOR. AND THEN, WHAT IS THE FUEL INPUT AND PROPULSION TO MAINTAIN ORBITAL SPEED? WHAT PROVIDES THE PUSH?
Balloons
The push doesn’t slow down because there’s no air pressure bro.. it’s in the atmosphere…
ISS however flies with speed of 7.66 km/h and it's "always falling" 🤡
isn't scienceTM amazing?
that's how gravity works, it's not like the satellite isn't falling, it's just moving faster laterally than it is moving towards the planet, the closer you are to the planet the faster your orbit has to be in order not fall into it, it's why the the ISS has to move that fast, it orbits way closer to earth than satellites, remember gravity pulls on all things no matter it's distance, it's strength just gets exponentially weaker when you get further away.
@@dondontrollisten2915 If this was true I could create type one perpetuum mobile in my garage, fuse it with small generator and heat my house. If you can prove gravity exist with scientific method and not circular logic, why not do it in front of the class and get a Nobel Prize?
@@Sannidor ok, drop something, did it fall? therefore gravity exists, if things do not fall, gravity does not exist. now throw something far, it should form a parabola, if you throw something really far, and high enough to experience minimal drag it should still form a parabola because of gravity, orbits are just large parabolas that eventually connect to make circles or ellipticals. you can prove it and measure the speed of which gravity pulls objects, it's 9.82m/s^2 on earth, if you drop a object on earth for 1 whole second it should gain 9.82 m/s of speed. also if you're talking about perpetual motion you're a fucking retard, the ISS wont stay up there forever it was never classified as perpetual motion in the first place so I'm not sure where you got that idea, but it has to boost in order to prevent reentry of the Karman line above earth. but the reason why it'll eventually fall is because when the space station orbits the planet, it is being thrown around the planet and it'll carry the momentum of the space craft effectively raising it's apogee and lowering it's perigee that'll eventually knock itself off course and eventually send it's perigee below the Karman line, its not carried on a track, you're acting as if there are no forces in space that can take place after you leave the comforts of the ground. also please spell, "perpetual motion", and if you're so confident gravity isn't real, ok, make a perpetual motion machine, because I can assure you, perpetual motion does not deal with gravity, it's thermodynamics, you're being incredibly dumb, please read more than one book in your entire life. thank you.
I proved it through observation and by extension the scientific method because there is a hypothesis and data to support it, gravity isn't hard to prove. we've developed known laws about it since the 1700's therefore answering your question please, go read more books.
@@dondontrollisten2915 I dropped a balloon filled with helium and it flew up. Yikes.
lies...
What are lies? It all seems to line up perfectly well with observational reality.
The earth is not spinning. It is stable.
Why are those mutually exclusive?
In fact, there are plenty of examples of things that are stable BECAUSE they are spinning!
If the earth was spinning you would be spinning too,the oceans an seas would have made huge tsunamis due to the spinning of earth, and furthermore birds wouldn't have been able to fly due to the fast velocity the earth is causing on the atmosphere.
@@talia.jxd33 why do you think the water and the air would be spinning along with the earth?
True.
A magical point.
Sorry, this does not explain how a satellite stays in a geocentric orbit. The earth spins at a speed between 1000 and 67000 mph depending upon location. The satellite is 300 to 1000 miles above the earth, it must travel at a speed much faster than the rotation of the earth below it. While gravity may be weak at that distance, it still has a drag effect. So by what means does the satellite propel itself through space to keep its geocentric position.
Now the next query, the earth has a 23.5 degree tilt at its axis. Each 365.25 days that tilt will vary 47 degrees from the winter to summer solstice. By what means does the satellite adjust to the constant movement of the axis tilt?
Once on a plane I met a person who worked in the industry and he had no answers for these questions, his only reply was “that’s not the department I work in”.
Would you like to have a conversation about these questions? I can answer them, but I’d rather not get into a big gish-gallop session, as these conversations often do.
@@PsychoMuffinSDM just would like an answer because it does not makes sense to me.
If it requires a conversation, that’s ok by me.
@@Crow-gg5se Sure, this video isn't really the greatest, and it is a tough thing to make sense of.
First, you should just note there is a difference between linear speed and rotational speed. The linear speed of the earth at the equator is 1000mph, and it decreases as you go to other latitudes. (the 67000mph is the speed of earth around the sun, at that has nothing to do with this situation).
Satellites at low earth orbit need to travel fast because gravity is stronger. Think of it this way; the satellite needs to get to another side of the earth where gravity is pulling a different direction, before gravity at the previous position pulls it too far down. I'm assuming at this point you understand how basic orbits work, and your questions are about geosats.
By raising the orbit, the gravity is weaker, so it doesn't have to move as fast. This doesn't mean it is not orbiting, its just that the orbit takes 23hours 56minutes (a sidereal day), thus matching our rotational speed. There are also very very very few particles in space. Especially at geosat altitude which is more like 22,000 miles up. Because of this, there isn't anything to create drag. It will maintain that motion. It doesn't need anything else to propel it.
As for the tilt; the tilt does not change. Our view of the sun may change through the year, but that is because we are moving around it.
In summer, the tilt is pointing towards polaris.
In fall, the tilt is pointing towards polaris.
In winter, the tilt is pointing towards polaris.
In spring, the tilt is pointing towards polaris.
There is no movement of the axis tilt, so there is no adjustments satellites need to do.
@@PsychoMuffinSDM alright, so you are saying that due to very few particles at an altitude of say 300 miles, there is no resistance to slow the object therefore it needs no propulsion to maintain speed? Is that is the case, what force does propulsion act against to achieve the necessary speed to maintain orbit?
And I am not a mathematician by any stretch of the imagination so, how fast does a satellite need to travel in low earth orbit to maintain its position?
After thinking it through, The tilt explanation makes sense.
@@Crow-gg5se There are very few air particles at an altitude of 300 miles. Put it this way, at sea level there is about 1.2kg of air in every cubic meter. While at the international space station, at 250 miles up, there is 0.0000000000038kg of air per cubic meter. Yet ISS loses about 100 meters of altitude per day. It has a small thruster that boosts it every so often. You can find videos online. Everything floating slowly drifts to one end when it is going.
However, geosats are more like 20,000 miles up instead of 250. I think they start counting particles per cubic meter at that point. So air friction really is negligible.
Regarding speeds, a lot of this can be looked up. The Geostationary Orbit Wikipedia as a really nice interactive image. LEO is like 17,500mph, while geostat is 7000mph.
As for "what force does propulsion act against to achieve the necessary speed to maintain orbit?" I'm not quite sure what you mean by "propulsion act against" especially in the context of maintaining an orbit. Are you asking how rockets work? Are you asking about N3?
As for tilt, I've talked to people who really could not grasp the concept. One guy thought the earth should be rotating a different direction every 6 months, lol.
🎉
Consider the following:
a. Numbers: Modern science does not even know how numbers and certain mathematical constants exist for math to do what math does. (And nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and certain mathematical constants can come from the Standard Model Of Particle Physics).
b. Space: Modern science does not even know what 'space' actually is nor how it could actually expand.
c. Time: Modern science does not even know what 'time' actually is nor how it could actually vary.
d. Gravity: Modern science does not even know what 'gravity' actually is nor how gravity actually does what it appears to do.
e. Speed of Light: 'Speed', distance divided by time, distance being two points in space with space between those two points. But yet, here again, modern science does not even know what space and time actually are that makes up 'speed' and they also claim that space can expand and time can vary, so how could they truly know even what the speed of light actually is that they utilize in many of the formulas? Speed of light should also vary depending upon what space and time it was in. And if the speed of light can vary in space and time, how then do far away astronomical observations actually work that are based upon light and the speed of light that could vary in actual reality?
Yep. True concepts are immaterial and we would never had access to them without existing on much more than physical plain. Math is a basic and universal example of mind existing independently from matter which should humble anyone who claims to understand and respect scientific method and logic.
"Science of space" is mostly a gibberish nonsense. "Space" agencies claim to operate on real data but most of their workers have no will or way to verify truthfulness of models they process. NASA actively recruits their officers in youth camps, literally creating teams of useful idiots who stare at screens and when the countdown goes beep they clap and high five each other.
They may be hiding the truth or just launder money in a giant scam but what they present as real is beyond silly, low effort CGI.
Bet you think the earth is also flat!
@@Chrisallengallery No, I don't. I am an EBQ.
(copy and paste from my files):
TO ALL ENERGY BASED QUARKELECTRONIANS (EBQ's) WHO READ THIS:
Solution needed:
Current Analysis: Long Term: (Short Version):
* Species stay on this Earth: They all eventually die and go extinct.
* Species leave this Earth: They all eventually die and go extinct.
(No exceptions at this time).
In Other Words:
Currently:
Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, AND Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. (OSICA)
Of which then:
Current Analysis: Long Term: (Very Short Version):
All life on and from this Earth is eventually going to die and go extinct. No exceptions at this time. This Earth and all on it are all just a waste of spacetime in this universe.
* What good is life if there are no entities left to live it?
@@Chrisallengallery GRAVITY: (copy and paste from my files):
Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way.
a. Imagine a 12 hour clock.
b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions.
c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions.
(The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.)
d. Direct a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields.
e. Do this with the em fields on and off.
(The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results, cancelling out the em modalities of the laser, thereby leaving behind the gravity modality.)
f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects.
(Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.)
(And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
(An alternative to the above would be to direct 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.)
'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done.
'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world.
This test can speak for itself. It will either be true, partly true, or not true at all. It will either show what gravity truly is, might be, or is not. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
* And note: Whether my gravity test or another's, a gravitational black hole would have to be formed to prove the concept as being really true. A gravitational black hole that 'if' self fed itself, could literally wipe out this Earth and all on it, possibly this solar system, possibly put a black hole in this section of our galaxy, and potentially even causing a ripple effect in this galaxy and surrounding universe. But hey, if it does, no worries. Nobody would be left to prosecute those who did so. (Possibly famous last words: "Hey, it worked. Ooooppppssss.................)
But as NASA has already proven that low gravity conditions over a prolonged period of time is harmful to the human species, and large rotating space ships won't really work for space bases on planets and moons, those space bases probably being needed somewhere along the way out of this solar system and galaxy, we need to figure out what gravity truly is and see if we can generate artificial gravity so as to have smaller space ships and proper gravity conditions for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, at least all human life will most probably die and go extinct one day. Currently, no exceptions.
** Added note: Just trying to save at least 1 single species from this Earth to exist beyond this Earth so that life itself from this Earth has continued meaning and purpose to. Gives me something to do while I exist, otherwise, what is it all and everything for? Even if my TOE idea were correct, but if it did not help species survive beyond this Earth, what good would it ultimately be?
So, are you feeling lucky? Doing nothing and at least the entire human species eventually dies and goes extinct with a high degree of certainty. Doing a gravity test, (mine and/or another's), and there is at least a slim chance of literally wiping out this entire Earth and all on it, and possibly more. Do you and other's truly want me to prove my TOE idea as being really true?
(Since all of life itself is ultimately meaningless in the grand of scheme of things anyway, do the gravity test and see what occurs?)
@@Chrisallengallery 'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, the 'gravity' modality acting 90 degrees from the 'em' modalities, which act 90 degrees to each other, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows:
Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction;
Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction.
Then:
1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe.
(And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have. This would also be the maximum potential energy point or as some might call it, the 'zero point energy point'.).
And also how possibly mathematical constants exist in this universe as well.
* Note also: Nobody as of yet has been able to show me how numbers and mathematical constants can exist and do what they do in this universe from the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SMPP). While the SMPP has it's place, I believe we need to move beyond the SMPP to get closer to real reality.
Magical points has to be perfect..no more no less..just perfect
Balloons with engines.
I'm more curious to know how satellites survive in space given the fact that the melting points of the metals used are far lower than the temperature in the "thermosphere" where they supposedly are.
You ignore the fact that there are very few molecules in the thermosphere to be heated. As such, the energy density of the thermosphere is far lower than that of your body. So if a thermosphere molecule comes in contact with an object, it is almost instantly cooled by the much lower temperature of that object. Reference "heat sink" for information about heat transfer.
The significant heating for satellites is due to the radiant heat emitted by the sun - and possibly some minor heating due to atmospheric drag.