mrpotatoed
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 195
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
Students helping students, join us in improving Bored of Studies by donating and supporting future students!
If it was remaining in orbit then yes but if something is travelling an a specific orbit and it loses speed it doesn't have the speed to rotate in that orbit and falls back to earth slowlyView attachment 32196
Answer is D, why not A? If Velocity is the square root of (GM/r), if velocity is decreased, wouldn't radius have to increase? I know it would make no sense for it do so, but it seems to go against the formula...
And besides it needs energy to be put in the higher orbit but you're reducing the energyIf it was remaining in orbit then yes but if something is travelling an a specific orbit and it loses speed it doesn't have the speed to rotate in that orbit and falls back to earth slowly
The probe needs to gain potential energy to get into an orbit of larger radius.yes I know that much... but it goes against the orbital velocity equation which is why I started this thread...
Think of it like this. You just decreased the speed of the probe. Now there are a few things that can arise from this.So, the orbital velocity equation only applies when it is in a stable orbit? When the speed is first halved in the question, the orbit is no longer stable, equation no longer applies.. hence it undergoes orbital decay until the KE it gains from losing GPE puts it back into a stable orbit, at which time the equation will apply again?
That's precisely what orbital decay is. Due to friction between the probe and the atmospheric molecules, its speed is reduced, and it cyclically undergoes the process described above (but generally its speed doesn't halve so quickly.Because orbital decay?