this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
1578 points (99.3% liked)

Science Memes

11086 readers
2538 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OpenStars@discuss.online 52 points 2 months ago (46 children)

Why is that - wouldn't you be working against solar gravity? Like you don't have to get them there quickly, just launch them in some orbit that will decay and be taken in?

[–] Contramuffin@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago (3 children)

That's the thing - in space, orbits don't decay. Orbital decay only happens if there's dust or atmosphere that you bump into along your orbit to slow you down. But in interplanetary space, there's no dust or atmosphere, and certainly not enough to decay your orbit fast enough to achieve results (otherwise, the Earth would have already decayed and melted in the Sun)

You need to spend fuel to lower your orbit to hit the Sun, and you need to spend fuel to raise your orbit to escape the solar system. It turns out to be really freaking difficult to hit the sun because it simply requires so much fuel to lower your orbit enough to hit the Sun.

[–] snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Orbital decay isn't just friction from particles, you also have imperfections in the orbit and other objects influencing the eccentricity over time. The moon has gravity too for instance.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (44 replies)