Jump to content

Fez

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    62

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Fez

  1. Fez
    Alright, thanks. Quick question, at what rate is the spacecraft falling? I don't mean relative to the surface, but just in space. Because as its falling, its also moving forward
  2. Fez
    I mean, wouldn't the trajectory not be a circle, but exponentially get steeper till it crashed? If its downward speed is constantly increasing, while its horizontal speed is constant
  3. Fez
    I know that, but if acceleration means its vertical velocity, the rate at which it falls down, is increasing by 9.8 m/s every second, why doesn't the trajectory become very steep?
  4. Fez
    I thought that gravity still pulls the craft down, but the horizontal speed gives it a curved trajectory. How would the horizontal speed counteract gravity?
  5. Fez
    Yeah, I was trying to see if both craft, despite differences in horizontal speed, would fall vertically at the same rate (since acceleration due to gravity would be near equal). Another problem I just thought of, though, is if the craft is accelerating down at say 7.8 m/s/s, then wouldnt its vertical speed keep increasing? Thanks
  6. Fez
    So they would both fall vertically at the same speed? Also, if they're accelerating down at some rate, wouldn't that mean the crafts vertical speed would be increasing until it hit the ground?
  7. Fez
    Would two spacecraft that are orbiting "fall" vertically at the same rate? When i say fall, I don't mean relative to the ground, but just in the sense that orbiting objects fall while orbiting, but go fast enough sideways to keep from hitting the ground. I tried an experiment in KSP, by getting 2 spacecraft in slightly different orbits close to each other, then slowing one down to have a steep re-entry. I watched as the one re-entering fell vertically slightly faster than the one in orbit. But I thought they would have the same force of gravity acting on them?
  8. Fez
    Thank you guys
  9. Fez
    So it doesnt cause that big of a difference, because it's only a slightly different velocity?
  10. Fez
    But i'm talking about when you're right behind the ship you're docking with, and you increase speed to get closer, wouldn't that put you in a slightly higher and more elliptical orbit, since your trajectory now slightly changes?
  11. Fez
    So I've been trying to tackle docking recently, and I'm starting to get the hang of it, but I thought of a question that interests me. At some point, you obviously have to be going at a different velocity than the ship you're trying to dock with. But this difference in speed would cause the trajectory, and therefore the orbit, of your ship to be slightly different than that of the ship you're trying to dock with. But it seems to still work nevertheless. So what's going on?
  12. Fez
    OK, so then because there's more horizontal speed, while you're falling at a fixed rate, the trajectory curves less, and climbs away. Thanks
  13. Fez
    It has something to do with the fact that there's less gravitational pull, but i'm not sure specifically. If anything, the answer to that question is what i'm looking for
  14. Fez
    You mean in the circular orbit? gravity
  15. Fez
    Wouldn't energy be conserved if, when you add kinetic energy, it just stays in a circular, faster orbit? Why does it have to climb?
  16. Fez
    Also, I just thought, why does the craft necessarily have to trade kinetic energy for potential energy?
  17. Fez
    Hey quick question, would you guys agree with this websites explanation of orbits: http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/space-environment/1-what-causes-an-orbit.html Or this one: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orbit-58.html They both say orbits are caused by gravity pullling the craft in, but momentum "pushing" it out, becuase it wants to go in a straight line
  18. Fez
    That's weird, where did the extra energy come from then?
  19. Fez
    So the higher orbit has more total energy? I thought that since its higher and slower, it has less kinetic energy, but more potential energy
  20. Fez
    Well actually, I suppose both orbits have the same energy, since the higher one is slower, so it has lower kinetic energy, but more potential energy Correct me if I'm wrong
  21. Fez
    Well actually I understand that, because as you climb, the pull of gravity becomes weaker, so you fall towards the thing you're orbiting less, so you need less horizontal speed to counteract the fall
  22. Fez
    I think I got it, as you increase horizontal speed, the craft goes forward horizontally a little bit more, while falling down at the same rate, so the trajectory begins to flatten, and you climb. Then, as you slow down, your horizontal speed decreases and you're still falling at the same rate, so the trajectory curves more towards the thing you're orbiting. Does that make sense? BTW, thanks for all your patience guys, I appreciate it
  23. Fez
    But what does kinetic energy have to do with it? That doesn't really explain why it would cause the orbit to increase in altitude, at least not to me
  24. Fez
    Thank you for your responses, I understand the concept, unfortunately I can't seem to visualize it in my head, which is really frustrating
  25. Fez
    Bit in orbit the craft isn't going vertically up, its going horizontally...
×
×
  • Create New...