ROCKET SCIENCE explained in 15 minutes! And How do satellites work?

[@sahilchoudhary834]

Love , blessing and praise from India🇮🇳

[@yetygamer94]

You must be from up north, people from south India look horrible. Love from Indonesia 🇮🇩

[@sharaths7471]

@@yetygamer94 Maybe u have some bad experience with South India. Sorry for that but people from South India also look good.

[@sahilchoudhary834]

@@yetygamer94 u guessed it right....but south indians do look beautiful.....and are undoubtedly the most honest , innocent, intelligent people across the globe..

[@fugslayernominee1397]

@@yetygamer94 what's wrong with you mate, this is a science channel not a cosmetic shit show or some shitty social media platform where stupid people are all about looks. You should know better earlier humans were Africans and its not because our look but of our mind and intellect qualities that we humans have reached where we are now.

[@sahilchoudhary834]

@@yetygamer94 hey listen...i think you should scrap your comment...

[@darkmatter6714]

Fascinating. I always learn something new off Arvin! I looked up how many countries are on the equator. There are 13: Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Sao Tome & Principe, Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Maldives, Indonesia and Kiribati. If I was running one of these countries I’d try to take advantage of my geography to establish a low cost commercial rocket launch industry. Or maybe persuade the other 12 in to some kind of club of equator-based nations to pool resources. The Latin American countries on the equator could cater for the Americas, the African ones for Europe and the Asian ones for Asia.

[@ArvinAsh]

Now, you're thinking like an entrepreneur! That's a good idea. There are probably some technical barriers to this, but worth exploring for those countries.

[@darkmatter6714]

Arvin Ash Technical barriers, yes...but it’s only rocket science! 😁

[@Skaldewolf]

Well, European satellites are launched from Equatorial Guinea, a French colony kept pretty much for this purpose alone. Then there's the possibility to launch from ships, which have some advantages, such as not having to ship the rocket as far, and having a ready source of hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis of water. Furthermore you are generally limited to launch-sites at the east-coast, as having a lot of empty space (ocean, desert, uninhabitated mountains) to the east of your launch site is useful, since you tend to drop spend rocket stages there.

[@deathnote4171]

@@ArvinAsh sir can u kindly make detail Courses In different science topics in future in this Channel from Basic to academic research

[@steffenleo5997]

Good Day Mr Arvin, on Video 9:45 stated KSFC AT Florida is at 28degree Latitude, do we need to add 23 degree to IT as Our earth tilted 23 degree? I mean here the ecliptic plane is same as equatorial plane or am i wrong?

[@fikipilot]

Dr. Ash- as an educator, I have to say I love, LOVE your explainer videos. This video, for example, or the "all physics in 20 minutes" are amazing. I'd be in awe if you resumed making these types of videos.

[@phiphedude7684]

2 interesting things to add. 1. The use of an elliptical orbit to reach a circular orbit (as shown in the process used to reach geostationary orbit) is called a Hohmann transfer 2. A rocket engine becomes more efficient the at faster speeds (relative to the earth), since the lower your altitude, the faster your speed this means that the most efficient place to use the boosters is at the perigee. This is called the oberth effect

[@ArvinAsh]

Interesting. Thank you.

[@stuartgray5877]

Another way to think about it: Work = Force X Distance. Rocket engines apply a constant force regardless the speed that the vehicle is travelling. So, when the engine fires at higher velocity (for the same duration) the force is applied over a longer distance resulting in more work being done.

[@michael.forkert]

_The best way to get out of reach of a Force is not orbiting around it, but in distancing yourself from the Force perpendicularly._

[@yasirpanezai5690]

U cant accelerate a rocket in space

[@stuartgray5877]

@@yasirpanezai5690 So if a rocket PUSHES mass out the back that will NOT propel the rocket forward? Maybe you should review Newtons Laws?

[@2010sunshine]

Arvin Ash has amazing communication skills.. He is like a big communication satellite 😀😂

[@krishnabansal440]

lame comment

[@ospoymaygul779]

And I have poor communication skills.

[@michael.forkert]

_The questions are: “WHO are his employers, and is HE telling us the TRUTH?_

[@michael.forkert]

_All those guys explain phenomena and things, as if their audience were retarded kindergarten kids._ _Little colored balls in kaleidoscopic graphics, unrealistic swarming of satellites around the globe, teaching people platitudes as: “When you are watching the weather forecast you are connected with a satellite._ _After all it’s ROCKET SCIENCE, and you as a US Citizen ought to be proud of it, very, very proud._ _The prouder the better, and easier to bamboozle._

[@michael.forkert]

_When you explain Newtons Third wrongly, then rockets can fly in a vacuum._

[@rafanifischer3152]

In school I was great at geometry, ok in algebra, bad at trigonometry, and I flunked calculus. But thanks to KZbin in just 13 minutes I'm a rocket scientist. My how we have progressed.

[@neonblack211]

lol

[@neonblack211]

time to get a job in the space industry then!~

[@neonblack211]

there is no way btw, that you can just be "ok at algebra, bad at trigonometry and flunk calculus" and actually fully understand and be able to manipulate and solve problems using the mathematics in this video...., I understand you might be joking but I just figure i might say it anway. not to mention all the chemistry and other subjects ect ect in this video

[@rafanifischer3152]

@@neonblack211 Of course I'm just joking. Except about flunking calculus.

[@krzysztofkowalski2816]

@@neonblack211 once its figured out the first time, this knowledge level is useless and usually all about trial/error. Touting their own horn is what makes people drink. Its so annoying in a world where not much is going besides a new version of the same old.

[@shamsulazhar]

Apparently, even rocket science is not quite "Rocket Science"

[@blindmoonbeaver1658]

Why you're so accurate..

[@Enes-wj5xq]

Lol

[@julioperez1850]

Thank you, Mr Ash. I learn so much watching your videos

[@CaptainPeterRMiller]

What a great video Arvin. All the answers about geostationary orbits of satellites we wanted to know. Clear animated graphics helped me understand all the difficult bits about orbits and where satellites are placed to be so useful. Great. Thanks.

[@sushilkumarkalia8605]

Thank you, sir for explaining complex issues in a simple and lucid manner. 🙏

[@GururajBN]

After two years, I have watched this video the second time. It is a pleasure listening to you.👍

[@DeepDiveIntoScience]

Your explanation is so clear and easy to understand!

[@nabeelafarheen8224]

This is becomming one of my fav channel.. Tq u sir💝

[@PestOnYT]

Some 20 years ago my director said to me "This is not rocket science. We know how to build rockets but we don't know how to do "... In the first moment I was shocked as I did not expected the turn he put into is words. Then I laughed out loud. ;-)

[@theknave4415]

Sometimes, you have to turn the problem on it's head, and see it from a completely different pov, in order to solve it. ;)

[@samuelzubah9581]

On of the best teachers I have seen so far. Thank you sir.

[@GururajBN]

He is a wonderful communicator. So lucid in whatsoever explains, be it quantum physics, or cosmology or rocket science. 👌 I didn’t know that Arthur Clarke had anticipated the geostationary orbit. Good enlightenment.

[@feelingzhakkaas]

excellent information. A small typo error ....at 1:53 the figure shows 36,786 kms for Geostationary orbit distance....it should be 35,786 kms.

[@ri3m4nn]

Actual Rocket Scientist here, aerospace engineering is consistently considered to be one of the hardest degrees to complete.... HENCE the colloquialism.

[@Paradox1606]

Hi Arvin! Their are a couple of questions which I've been trying to solve for months.I hope you can answer them in the most simplest way. Q.1) If atoms are dead then how we are alive? because we are made up of cells which are alive but cells are made atoms which are dead (cells - protein - amino acid - nitrogen and carbon atoms). Q.2) If universe is expanding then what is it expanding into? Q.3) What's inside the Bermuda Triangle, because recently a strange thing happened in that.Trying to write in short. A pilot went into it........................ and he reached his destiny which was around 4 hours far from him in only 30 mins. Q.4) How did the first particle of big bang came into existence?

[@ArvinAsh]

It depends on what you mean by "dead" -- atoms are active with energy. This energy combines with other atoms to make molecules which form the basis of chemistry, which forms the basis of life. Universe doesn't expand into anything, Bermuda triangle is just a very large region of the ocean. There is nothing special about it. Not currently known what happened before the big bang.

[@Paradox1606]

@@ArvinAsh Thanks Arvin!

[@lenheuser8016]

@@Paradox1606 The Bermuda Triangle is like Arvin explains just a section of Ocean which is defined by 3 Landmarks. The special part of it is that lots of ships have sunk there which is probably related to weather like wind creating huge waves and strong water currents. There are claims that airplanes instruments get affected by magnetic forces which may leave pilots disoriented and in bad weather conditions lose their bearings. The Big Bang and expanding Universe are theories which try to explain the nature of things.

[@srinivasanr5157]

Addicted to your videos...❤️💯

[@La_Space]

Arvin, your videos are exceptional. So well presented. Thanks.

[@gypsycruiser]

Stunning presentation!

[@navegct8457]

Great video arvin! :D Keep up the good work

[@fugslayernominee1397]

A very very very informative video, thanks a lot sir for sharing your wonderful knowledge with us too.

[@saddreams3449]

Teacher: this is not rocket science : wait it is

[@ommhatre2222]

Rocket science nicely explained... When you explain things we understand them better😁

[@GauravKumar-qr8pt]

I always wait for ur video arvin ❤️

[@mdatiqurrahman9951]

Very clean and concise explanation 😇

[@RaddDronzy]

This is beyond rocket science...

[@chetank552]

Sir.... It's not as simple as it looks..... It's a very tricky and complicated subject in Aerospace Engineering..... 🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@awtachewraya2890]

What a clear presentation . Thanks man.

[@leopardtiger1022]

This is the best clear explanation with excellent animations about rickets and launching satellites... I am thankful to Arvin Ash for this wonderful presentation which I am sure many like me have enjoyed watchibg. Super explanation better than the lectures of MIT and Stanford and Caltech.

[@hriutiksawant7156]

How satellite rectified radio waves? And how satellite knows where to deliver signals? By the way great video Thank you sir for great video

[@jamieoglethorpe]

There are many things that keep Rocket Science hard. I'll drop some names: Rocket Equation, Specific Impulse, Chamber Pressure, Vacuum Optimization, Planetary Slingshot Manoevre, Hohmann Transfer Orbit.

[@rajachan8588]

Such a superb video. Thank you 🙏

[@1Kickblast]

Thank you Arvin.

[@AdarshRaj-fj4fw]

I have a question . Why the exhaust's (i don't know exactly what we call the fire behind rocket😅) flame isn't blue eventhough it contains liquid o2🤔. I mean o2 emits the blue flame, isn't it.

[@ArvinAsh]

Depends on the oxygen to fuel ratio.

[@joy2000cyber]

and fuel type.

[@Hieulegen27]

Blue flame is only caused when the fire is so intense and so hot that it causes the air molecules around it to glow a blue color So as for your question, just like he said It depends on the ratio of the oxygen/fuel you used, plus no one would dump all oxygen into the combustion chamber right away to waste all the oxygen, instead they poured the oxygen in bit by bit with a certain ratio to prevent running out of oxygen before burning all the fuel

[@artificiallysweetend]

Sooo, after take off...what next? :D This is not designed to be disrespectful; the manner by which complex concepts is explained was clear and concise. Ash's ability to explain the physics and science is always a pleasure and the wannabe space man inside of me thinks pretends he fully understands. Now, I'm going to read the manual for my new toaster

[@rhadeya9]

I hope all physics teacher to be like him, make it alot easier

[@markjaws1]

What a talent you have.

[@LTVoyager]

You also need to set the satellite in rotation of 1 rotation per day to keep it aimed at the earth, right?

[@ArvinAsh]

Yep, while the solar panels alway need to be facing the Sun. I didn't get into the mechanism of this, but it is also interesting.

[@konquer247]

Excellent explanation. As simple as rocket science 😁

[@himalkosala8136]

Great explanation,, this is a so worthy video.. Expecting videos just like this

[@varunvaijnath1262]

Yayyy now I know rocket science 🥰🥰

[@cathleenwilliamson6668]

I'm still can't quite put it together. I understand it whilst you're explaining it but as soon as the tutorial is over, it's still rocket science to me. Lol

[@ArvinAsh]

That's why it;s called Rocket Science brother!

[@cathleenwilliamson6668]

Agreed. What's not rocket science is the name Cathleen equates to " sister" as in female. Lol

[@ArvinAsh]

@@cathleenwilliamson6668 Oops. I'm literally gender blind. Does that make me woke?

[@cathleenwilliamson6668]

Arvin Ash, nope. Just gender blind. Lol. You're a good guy though.

[@Ed-hz2um]

If you can understand it during the explanation, then you can learn it. It's really a matter of watching a presentation a few times and absorbing more information each time. In the end, you remember the details.

[@kiranchannayanamath3230]

Great explanation as always, I guess Rocket science is easier in theory than on practice. Can you please make a video on ultraviolet catastrophe.

[@dekippiesip]

Yeah that's the thing. It's one thing to calculate clean Newtonian orbits, and use the odd classical equation here or there. Rocket science is at most moderately difficult at that level of analysis. But it's an entirely different story to actually build a rocket and get it into space... Many complications we don't consider in elememtary context, like air resistance at launch, come into play. The only thing I can think of that genuinely is even more complicated is making micro chips.

[@LordandGodofYouTube]

Another great video Arvin! I came across the wikipedia page for tachyons this evening which I found interesting, I know that most physicists don't believe they exist, but they and other hypothetical particles might make for a good future video.

[@ArvinAsh]

That's a good idea. I just noted it down on my list. Thank you.

[@LordandGodofYouTube]

@@ArvinAsh Thanks!

[@justcurious1940]

Great explanation, Thanks.

[@raghavankrishnaswamy2580]

Beautiful explanation

[@samuelvijaykumar6695]

Great video, learned a lot

[@shriramdahiphale6856]

Hey. Love the way you explain. So can you please make more videos about rocket science?

[@tomashull9805]

What about the Sagnac effect? Wouldn't be worth mentioning the Sagnac correction that is built into the GPS...and what would happen without it? Or, is it beyond rocket science?

[@physicslover1950]

Arvin Ash, my mentor, please make a video on radio telescopes and resolution attain with aperture size also please make a video on frame dragging in general relativity. Thanks a lot for the interesting information of 23 hours 56 mins of Earth's rotation 💚💚💚 I loved that. Sir one thing that I failed to understand is the bending of photons due to curvature of planet. Is this bending effect due to frame dragging ? Another question is that why can't we have geostationay orbits above or below the standard geostationay orbit. Is it due to the fact that tangential orbital speed makes it hard to do so? I mean if the speed is greater than the escape velocity then will it go out of orbit? So can you please make a video on escape velocity and escape velocity in circular and elliptical orbits ? Please 🤕🤕🤕😕 Please don't forget to answer my questions 😘😘

[@ArvinAsh]

The speed of the satellite is determined by its radius. Only at the geo stationary orbit, the speed is such that the satellite appears to remain stationary with respect to the surface of the earth. If it was higher, it would be slower than the rotation, and if it was lower, it would orbit faster than the rotation of earth.

[@physicslover1950]

@@ArvinAsh Oh thanks Sir

[@physicslover1950]

@chopprado But I want to tell you that this frame dragging not only results from spin of a massive object but also there is an additional information. Frame dragging are of 2 types: Translational frame dragging Rotational frame dragging A massive body can still frame drag space time even if it is moving in a straight line. I think somehow frame dragging is related to dual nature of matter and also it is related to formation of gravitational waves. Am I right? Can you please suggest me a good book or article that describes frame dragging visually? A

[@physicslover1950]

@chopprado please watch this 3 minute video and you will know about translational frame dragging kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4aumaepeJpspdk

[@physicslover1950]

@chopprado So can you please suggest me an artile or theases on frame dragging or please suggest me a book that visually explains frame dragging.

[@mig_21bison]

Nicely explained... 👌

[@baasantserenganbold2925]

Amazing video. Thank you.

[@prateekgupta2408]

Nice video Arvin. It could be better ,but rocket science is a tough subject.

[@dennistucker1153]

Very good video. Thanks.

[@MrCampbellambulus]

Wonderful video.

[@vag3l899]

You should explain the Einstein s photoelectric effect

[@nk77078]

Arvin proved that there is no such Rocket science to understand Rocket science.

[@macklane4127]

We love you harry bellefonte 👌

[@daveburton]

5:21 "high pressure exhaust gasses" - my understanding is that ideally the exhaust gas pressure should be the same as the surrounding atmospheric pressure to extract the maximum efficiency from engine. The engine bells have that shape so the gasses are expanded as close as possible to surrounding pressure. Over expansion or under expansions results in lower efficiency.

[@PsychoMuffinSDM]

Yeah, and that’s why the nozzles for the first stage, used in atmosphere, are a different shape than the ones on later states operating in space. Everyday Astronaut has some great videos about this.

[@nafeesaneelufer5023]

Do we have an orientation of rocket path such that it moves from north pole to the south pole and to north pole again?

[@ArvinAsh]

Sure, you can put satellites in that orbit. I am not sure how many or if any are in that orbit currently.

[@kudchum236]

very good presentation

[@ankushpradhan237]

I really need it

[@abhaylath5601]

What a fantastic explanation! as always. Now I know Rocket science. Lol However, I'm still waiting for the video on quantum computing, as promised! @arvin

[@itwasntidio4623]

Hey Arvin Ash, I need a little advice, hope you reply. So, I'm 13 and interested in quantum mechanics, where do you think I should start with, like which topic. Hope you reply.

[@ArvinAsh]

Read the Feynman lectures, or you can search for "full course on Quantum mechanics" on KZbin.

[@prateekgupta2408]

@@ArvinAsh i have the feynman lectures on physics but they are too hard too understand please tell ne what should i do

[@ArvinAsh]

@@prateekgupta2408 In that case, just start out with classical physics - Newtonian mechanics to start. You can take a course, or read a book on it. Then you can progress to more difficult subjects in Physics.

[@MM6_Bruh]

start by reading books like "a brief history of time" or "the elegant universe" or just watch yt vids.U can also use brilliant.org too

[@prateekgupta2408]

@@ArvinAsh its the lagnuage and arguments of feynman that i find hard to follow . He will say somethings which are hard to follow and then move on. Like in the probability chapter he tries to prove simple things which we take for granted . I am unable to understand his reasoning there .

[@Petrov3434]

Very nicely done !!

[@ArvinAsh]

Thank you! Cheers!

[@Wintersghost135]

My favorite phrase - accidentally used by a host on a home improvement show years ago “It’s not rocket surgery”.

[@drew-shourd]

Great video, it really flowed for me and you wrapped it up quite nicely....one of your best I have seen for sure. @ 1;35 you had an animation of 'space junk'...I would love to see you do a video on that subject, possibly combined with the number of satellites that have been launched in 50+ years and where is all that metal? I find the subject very fascinating. I saw a doc. about it last year about all the different solutions a few companies have to clear it, space nets etc.

[@ArvinAsh]

Awesome, thank you! Interesting idea. Will put it on my list.

[@michaelcox8699]

My son's favorite movie was Jimmy Neutron Boy Genius. When they are getting the carnival rides read to chase the space alliins that took their parent, Jimmy makes the statement "it isn't rocket science. wait yes it is." It has been a running joke in our family for years. My son ended up getting an Airo Space Engineering degree from NC State. He was on the competitive rocketry team for four years. I remember the math involved in the rocket they launched. I cannot even imagine the math needed for the satellites. I do like your videos.

[@HarinderSingh3]

Great explanation

[@justayoutuber1906]

I never knew that all geo-stationary satellites are at the exact same altitude.

[@gigab28]

Thank you! 👍🙂

[@rajendrakhanvilkar9362]

Great video

[@ghalikabbaj1853]

I have a question for anyone who might know the answer. Why in the formula of 5:52 F=mv I mean the units don’t make sense. Shouldn’t it be dm/dt , I saw this in a course earlier this year. I don’t know if it’s the same thing or not, but anyone who could shed some light it will be appreciated 😊

[@anand.pandey]

Hi. I might be a bit late, but the 'm' in the equation here is not just the mass of the propellant, but the mass of the propellant ejected per unit time. The video mistakenly labels it as just mass. Hope this helps.

[@ghalikabbaj1853]

@@anand.pandey thank you !

[@CATVIDEOS-C4T]

now I can say it is more difficult to understand what a flat-earther think, than rocket science

[@colinp2238]

Very interesting.

[@chinmaykrishna6485]

2:45 The formula looks extremely similar to the formula of the period of a pendulum in a gravitational field in classical physics.

[@paradox6102]

I also noticed that 😄

[@richardrigling4906]

I'm glad you referenced Arthur C. Clarke and the Clarke otbit. Now if we could just get remote operated manipulators to be called Waldos. They used to use the term in the early nuclear industry to remotely handle radioactive materials. Not sure whether the term is still used.

[@pamross2744]

Also Satellites in orbit are losing time not because they are outside of gravity but because they are moving fast. Its a lot faster then we are moving but it is a small fraction of the speed of light thats why the time lose is small but it is noticeable. Speed not gravity causes the time dilation.

[@phiphedude7684]

Do geostationary satellites have exactly 0 eccentricity or just an extremely low one? Being able to match perigee and apogee exactly seeks impossible

[@case_sensitive]

from looking at a satellite tracking website, it seems that they just have a very low eccentricity, like a 8-10km difference between perigee and apogee

[@R.Instro]

In point of fact, actual "geostationary" orbits are practically impossible for at least two reasons: The Moon, and The Sun. Each of those exerts a significant gravitational force on the satellite which work against the Earth's pull, and this causes the satellite to drift out of even a perfectly positioned orbit over time. As such, onboard fuel/thrusters are needed to counteract this over the life of the satellite & maintain its spot in orbit. Fun Fact: in animations/visualizations of orbital objects around the Earth, you'll see not one, but two belts near the equator: the one directly over it is for active sats; the inclined orbit is a "graveyard" orbit which is where those sats end up when they can't maintain their spots any longer. =)

[@nafeesaneelufer5023]

As we know the axis of earth precesses then does these satellites also have precessional motion or not?

[@naturemc2]

It means if you set a proper radius with blackhole orbit. You can you can rotate objects with same time as blackhole rotate around the galaxy? As geostationary mirror the earth rotation

[@jeff-73]

You are the best educational speaker there is today. I prefer you over Neil Degrass Tyson. Thank you for your videos.

[@prasadt772]

I believe what people meant by "rocket science is hard" is that the working model and the actual know hows are way too sophisticated than the working principles and physics. Also it's expensive so you can't just 'trial and error' it out.

[@XEinstein]

2:06 well that particular point in space is only the same point relative to the rotation of earth. Counting earth's orbit around the sun and the sun's orbit around the galaxy it's a very complex trajectory that the satellite takes.

[@himynameissaksham]

Easier than music theory

[@ArvinAsh]

You can say that again. That's more complicated than quantum mechanics!

[@hafidahsan3464]

I love astronomy and space technology

[@jarikinnunen1718]

Next you can try explain how make round low level orbit in the moon? Apollo made it and others. Barycenter probably make something difficulties because orbit is elliptical and not moon centered.

[@Cheekymukka]

Thank you for the great video Arvin. Can I ask why there is a phenomenon called escape velocity? I why wouldn't any prolonged velocity not eventually leave the earths atmosphere?

[@case_sensitive]

I think what you mean is any prolonged *acceleration* (because if you want a constant velocity on earth you need to accelerate to stop drag and gravity from pulling you back), and yes, if you are constantly accelerating you will eventually leave the atmosphere. But escape velocity is not about leaving the atmosphere, it's about leaving the earth's gravitational field. Escape velocity is the speed you need to go at so that the earth's gravity will never be able to pull you back towards it.

[@MartinA-kp8xg]

The centrifugal force of the rotation is balanced perfectly against the pull of gravity. The higher the orbit the less speed is needed. The lower the more speed. Your question is very valid indeed you are a thinker. If the balance is not perfect and it could never be, an increase in altitude would cause a loss of orbit because at the higher altitude the speed would be to high. This would mean the centrifugal force was greater than the gravitational pull. Its most likely to be the other way round however. A loss of speed due to atmospheric drag would slow the craft. Bthis would then decrease the centrifugal force and increase gravitation pull. This would in turn produce more drag less speed more gravity etc and so on. Boasts to maintain orbit would necessary and enough fuel could never be available. So you question is excellent it can't be done

[@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012]

Mr Ash! Question from long time fan: Why is there only one geo stationary orbit? Why can't one just increase the speed and obtain a stationary orbit closer to the earth? Thanks!!

[@rabbits2345]

Also wondering this as well

[@ArvinAsh]

If you wanted to orbit the earth closer than the geo-stationary orbit, in order maintain your orbit, your velocity could have to be faster than the relative spin of the earth. In other words, you could not stay at the same point in the sky relative to the surface of the earth. If you tried to do that, you would fall towards the surface and crash, because your speed would be too slow to maintain that orbit. You could have a geo-synchronous orbit that is not on the plane of the equator, where your orbital period matched that of the earth (23 hours 56 minutes), but you would not be at the same point in space relative to the surface as you went around the earth.

[@larsalfredhenrikstahlin8012]

@@ArvinAsh OMG how dumb am I?? Thank you. The first sentence was enough to make it click and now i feel so dumb :'D

[@SRangerMtl]

That's also why planets closer to the sun orbit faster, and the further away from the sun a planet is, the slower it goes around it. (Mercury's year is 88 days long, Venus's is 225 days, Mars: 687, Jupiter: almost 12 years...) So in theory any orbital period is possible. But there can be only one that exactly matches the period of rotation of the body that is orbited.

[@mkamalakkannan8327]

Excellent.❤

[@alexanders.7452]

@arvin Can you use moon's gravitation to support a rocket launch? If yes, woudn't it make more sense to execute rocket launches in the night time?

[@ArvinAsh]

It would not have much effect because the moon pulls the earth along with the rocket on the launch pad. I suppose there is somewhat of a pull from the moon on the spacecraft, but it is so small at this distance, that it would be negligible. You would only feel the effect of the moon on the spacecraft if you were much closer to the moon.

[@TheH8redd]

If you guys want to practice this "Rocket science" thingie, you should try Kerbal Space Program. I learned alot about orbital mechanics just by constructing rockets and sending them into orbit. This game will give you a general understanding of orbital mechanics, and how to reach the moon with a rocket and make it back safely on, not Earth, but Kerbin... lol.

[@salvatoreshiggerino6810]

Surely the truly hard thing is rocket engineering. Just to make an engine that doesn’t run parts-rich.

[@souravkumarnayak5823]

Wow, u made rocket science quite simpler.👍👍

[@therakshasan8547]

I have seen some depiction of orbital paths as Snaking thru the orbital plane , undulating left , and right [ ~~~~ ] as a snake moves . 1) Is this an accurate depiction? 2) What were they trying to depict if it is not accurate ?

[@ArvinAsh]

If I understand what you are talking about correctly, the depiction you are talking about presumes a fixed reference frame. I don't think such a frame exists in space-time.

[@theknave4415]

14+ nations now have active space programs, with over 100 private companies around the globe entering the space race, as well. At the current pace of change and growth, the space race may be coming soon, to a neighborhood, near you. ;)

[@mdatiqurrahman9951]

My question is: what types of material are being used is these satellites, and what are the boundary conditions to operate at this such altitude? Thank you in advance. Please suggest me reference articles or book, if possible.