Is it possible to get an orbit that looks like this?

[dogon11]

I\'ve wondered about space for a while, but one thing I really wonder about in KSP now is if one can have an orbit that looks like the attachment. Is it possible in KSP? The real world?

[RedDwarfIV]

Not in KSP.

[Akaliwolf]

Yeah, I dont thinks thats possible in Ksp...but in real life...I dont really know, sadly :L

[LukeTim]

With my (admittedly limited) knowledge of orbital mechanics, I would say that it is not possible to get an orbit like that in real life or KSP.

I always thought that the peri and apo had to always be exactly opposite each other.

[Phoenix Aerospace]

Sure! That\'s juts a picture of a circular orbit taken at an angle, and rotated 90 degrees!

[dogon11]

I detect your sarcasm, but if anyone comes along and isn\'t be sarcastic when they answer this...

It\'s from the top down.

You made me laugh.

[shhhilent1]

Ive done that in Orbiter 2010! XD

[UmbralRaptor]

It\'s not doable -- the body you\'re orbiting around has to be at one of the ellipse\'s foci.

[illectro]

If you change gravity from an inverse square law to being proportional to distance then I think that\'s an orbit you would expect.

[Tim_Barrett]

If that curve was present then it would be escape velocity. There would be no reason how an object could get that close and seemingly not be affected, and then change direction so quickly when it is further from the body it is orbiting.

[Ydoow]

This is not possible.

Here\'s why.

An ellipse has TWO focci

When you\'re orbiting one planet, there can only be 1 physically represented focci, and the other doesn\'t truly exist, although it\'s position can be found.

This does NOT mean you can\'t make a elliptical orbit, I do it all the time. And in fact, the elliptical orbit you provided is very possible.

However the placement of the planet is not possible.

Orbiting a planet, you have 2 focci, as I said, one is physically represented (the planet) the other doesn\'t exist.

This means that only 1 influences your path (gravity).

If both influenced gravity, then you could take the average of their positions and it would give you a \'third imaginary\' focci; the one you painted in that picture.

The picture just shows an estimated placement of the two focci that exist when you orbit.

Either one of the red dots could be a planet, with the other being an imaginary, non-existant, focci.

Or, if you imagine both focci are planets, then the middle (where you drew your planet) would become an imaginary focci

[Candre]

I once tried to simulate gravity with a computer program and goofed up on the force calculation. The pull ended up being constant, and that orbit is exactly what was produced.

[Khrissetti]

presumably it would be possible if you spent tonnes of Delta-V burning to produce it? No idea why youu\'d bother, though...

[roarke]

But what about that in space there is no right/left and up/down ?

[PeriapsisPrograde]

It\'s possible to make an orbit look that way in 3D space, however if constained perpendicular to the reference plane, then no.

Images make more sense.

[Dobrodav]

Well, maybe something close to that possible with additional huge gravity field from the side of periapsis. There is no way for such a system to be stable however.

[Guest]

Im pretty sure i\'ve pulled this off in universe sandbox. Im retrying now.

[kknight13]

one of keplers laws state that the orbit of a body is around two foci (the places where the turns 180 degrees) if the orbit is circular then the points occur in the same place.

in this case the two foci are at the top and bottom of the orbital circle, the body it is orbiting is near neither of these points.

The orbit is wrong

[N2maniac]

With a 1/r² force law, orbits will never look from that top down. Under a r²r¹ force law (positive exponent!) they will appear like this (try a mass on a spring or a long pendulum, they generally do this).

There is a relation between the power of r that a force law takes and the shape of an orbit under that force law (in terms of what rotation angle is progressed as the altitude does 1 cycle), but I can\'t remember it at the moment. Many powers end up with the non-circular orbits not being closed for 1 cycle, with -2 and +2 being notable exceptions.

Edit: The +r solution is r^1, not r^2. I do not know why I was thinking Hooke\'s law was r^2...

[Minecraftpeti]

Nah, its not possible. A Orbit has to have a highest Point (Apoapsis) and a lowest Point (Periapsis). This means that you have to ascend 1/2 of the Orbit and then descend the other half.

In your Picture, you would be ascending twice an orbit, and this isnt possible.

[draeath]

What am I missing? This looks like a perfectly normal eccentric orbit at 90-degrees inclination (polar). Am I just blind?

EDIT: Oooh, I get it. Nevermind. My brain was making it work by tricking me into thinking it was circular, with the camera off-angle.

Edited September 28, 2012 by draeath

[Felsmak]

I assume it isn't a circular orbit seen from an angle, so the answer is no. The parent body has to be in one of the two ends.

[vexx32]

Aye... a trajectory can look like that, but only if you're very accurately messing with it all the time to keep it like that xD

[stoex]

I am pretty sure what is meant is that the viewing angle is from the normal of the orbital plane, meaning it is not a projection of a circular orbit. Thus not possible.

Oops, ninja'd...

[Richy teh space man]

Nice necro lolz

But yeah this orbit does look impossible tbh..