Top
Best
New

Posted by beardyw 10/24/2025

In orbit you have to slow down to speed up(www.wired.com)
85 points | 95 comments
antognini 5 days ago|
Orbital mechanics can be counterintuitive. There was a fairly basic orbital mechanics problem that caused some debate among physicists back in the 1970s. The problem went like this:

You are in a spacecraft orbiting the Earth. You distribute a bushel of apples throughout spacecraft so that they are at rest with respect to the spacecraft. After a long time, where do the apples end up?

Hannes Alfvén (more famous for Alfvén waves) argued that they would bunch up together in the middle of the spacecraft. But Michel Hénon (correctly) proved that half would end up in the bottom front corner, and the other half in the top back corner.

I wrote up a blog post explaining the solution a few years ago: https://joe-antognini.github.io/astronomy/apples-in-a-spacec...

lproven 5 days ago||
As Larry Niven wrote in The Smoke Ring and The Integral Trees...

"West takes you In, In takes you East, East takes you Out, Out takes you West, North and South bring you back again."

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3341.0

schiffern 5 days ago|
Buzz Aldrin is the original legend. His PhD was literally "how to eyeball your way there in orbit,"[0] and then he actually performed the calculations and procedure he invented (with slide rule and sextant) when the automatic system failed on Gemini 12. He used less fuel than the computer.[1]

There's a reason why his nickname among the other astronauts is Doctor Rendezvous.

[0] https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652

[1] https://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-figures/buzz-al...

lproven 2 days ago||
This is amazing stuff. I didn't know. Thanks!
hydrogen7800 5 days ago||
I always thought this was unnecessarily made to sound counterintuitive, and I think there is a way to explain it simply without trying to make it sound like rocket science.

Instead of "speed up to slow down", it's "speed up to go higher". I think anyone can get on board with that. You'll come back to the same point you were when you accelerated, but later than before since you went into a higher orbit.

I like the included animations, since it also makes it clear that accelerating or decelerating from a circular orbit makes it elliptical. Your don't just jump to a higher or lower circular orbit.

RataNova 4 days ago|
Once you realize you're not "switching lanes" but reshaping your entire path, it starts to make way more sense
ChicagoBoy11 5 days ago||
For anyone who is remotely interested in this, a considerable chunk of the Gemini program was all about solving some of the practicalities involved with Rendezvous, and it is quite interesting even hearing some of the astronauts come to grips with some of the physics while orbiting in space trying the various types of rendezvous and docking maneuvers that were attempted.
noodlesUK 4 days ago||
I know it's a bit worn out but if you want to learn about practical orbital mechanics and have fun doing it, Kerbal Space Program is the best tutor there is. It's a simplified physics model so stuff like Lagrange points don't work, but there's no better way of getting an intuitive understanding of how bodies move in space.
ubj 5 days ago||
Buzz Aldrin (who was the second person to walk on the moon) wrote his MIT thesis on methods for astronauts to handle the complexities of orbital dynamics when performing rendezvous maneuvers in orbit:

https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652

cweagans 5 days ago||
> In the hopes that this work may in some way contribute to their exploration of space, this is dedicated to the crew members of this country' s present and future manned space programs. If only I could join them in their exciting endeavors.

Imagine writing this 6 years before you were literally standing on the moon.

hinkley 5 days ago||
Didn’t that become “the book” as well? As in he wrote the book on orbital mechanics?
austin-cheney 5 days ago||
I have always wondered about this with regard to Newton's Third law:

    For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So if a craft departs from rendezvous with another craft it must do so by pushing away from that other craft. That means it is equally pushing on both crafts. If the rendezvous was in orbit does that mean departing from rendezvous pushes both crafts out of orbit? If so does the other craft have to correct for this to reestablish orbit or is orbit self-correcting as if in a third body scenario?

I ask because Earth is an third body scenario between the sun and Jupiter. Jupiter has enough gravity to occasionally pull the Earth slightly (not significantly) out of orbit from the Sun, but Earth's orbit to the Sun is self-correcting due to the difference in mass between the Sun and Jupiter. Quick web searching reveals Jupiter's pull on Earth is only approximately 0.005% of the Sun's after accounting for both mass and distance, but that number rises to 0.011% after accounting for syzygy with the moon.

gpm 5 days ago||
> So if a craft departs from rendezvous with another craft it must do so by pushing away from that other craft.

More commonly we push away propellant, but pushing on the other craft is an option.

> If the rendezvous was in orbit does that mean departing from rendezvous pushes both crafts out of orbit?

Assuming we're pushing on the other craft, it means both crafts will change orbits, but in opposite directions. If we're talking about an instantaneous push in the direction of travel one craft will move to an orbit where it is closer to earth one half rotation later, and the other craft will move to an orbit where it is farther from earth one half rotation later.

Both, either, or neither craft could exit orbit like this, but one would be exiting orbit by crashing into the thing its orbiting around (e.g. earth) and the other would exit by reaching escape velocity and flying off into the distance.

> I ask because Earth is an third body scenario between the sun and Jupiter. Jupiter has enough gravity to occasionally pull the Earth slightly (not significantly) out of orbit from the Sun, but Earth's orbit to the Sun is self-correcting due to the difference in mass between the Sun and Jupiter. Quick web searching reveals Jupiter's pull on Earth is only approximately 0.005% of the Sun's after accounting for both mass and distance, but that number rises to 0.011% after accounting for syzygy with the moon.

Yes, Jupiter constantly (not occasionally) perturbs earths orbit, and technically earth constantly perturbs jupiters orbit (though the influence in that direction is completely negligible), but as you note its not enough for either to reach escape velocity or crash into the sun, and it appears to more or less even out over time.

hinkley 5 days ago|||
Orbits are essentially non-euclidean geometry. The opposite reaction is adding or shedding velocity. That still works exactly as Newton predicted. What doesn’t work is throwing something left making you go right. It makes you go right and up, or right and down.
ratelimitsteve 5 days ago||
the "push" is generated by escaping gas from burning fuel. it's possible that if the gas impacts the other craft it could affect that craft's orbit but I can't imagine that 60 years after people walked on the moon you and I are the first to think about that, so I presume its been accounted for
stoneforger 5 days ago||
They should really teach physics using KSP.
vannucci 5 days ago||
I tried to teach a group of HS students about orbital mechanics as a high school physics teacher using KSP. It was... difficult. Not impossible. But I agree it's an excellent learning tool.
hobs 5 days ago||
Right, the UI/UX is a lot to just get to the rocket part. KSP is probably the best game that forces that into your head with a classic simulation that's fun, but I gotta say something like Rocket League was better at building my intuition for rocket behaviors.
matheusmoreira 5 days ago|||
Yeah, it's amazing. With enough docking and maneuvering practice I developed some kind of intuition for moving in space. I could maneuver without meticulously planning the burns.

Still can't leave Eve though...

dabluecaboose 5 days ago|||
I'm a professional astrodynamicist and I owe my base level understanding of orbital mechanics to KSP. It's a fantastic resource for learning the basics of Keplerian motion.

Also, obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1356/

taneq 5 days ago||
Arguably aerodynamics is confusing on a whole other level to mere orbital dynamics. :D
dabluecaboose 5 days ago|||
I washed my hands of aerodynamics after I got my first job in satellite navigation. Messy stuff, that Navier-Stokes business
M95D 5 days ago|||
No, it's simple. Just make sure the airplane falls nose-first if it ever stops (speed<stall).
aaronblohowiak 5 days ago|||
I wish ksp 2 hadn't been a boondoggle
mikkupikku 5 days ago||
I haven't kept up with it, but hopefully Kitten Space Agency will be able to take up the torch.
delichon 5 days ago||
I doubt SpaceX could put a satellite in orbit with KSP physics. Just the absence of realistic thermal conduction would prevent it. The outer skin temperature typically peaks around 300–600 °C during the densest part of the atmosphere. If you calculate those forces wrong the rocket has a bad day. Best case it is over engineered and has a reduced payload. They might as well do their calculations with pi equal to 3.
0_____0 5 days ago|||
What does thermal conduction affect? Is it mostly practical spacecraft construction, or actually related to orbital mechanics?
bogzz 5 days ago||||
The FAR mod is touted as being realistic; I haven't played it though.
iso1631 5 days ago|||
https://xkcd.com/2205/ comes to mind with your pi approximation.

Nobody is saying KSP physics is perfect.

Until I played KSP, I had no idea how hard orbit was compared with just going up into space (and generally the greater population thinks the same -- they think that sending New Shephard upto 100km is about the same as sending a Dragon into orbit). I had no idea how you move in orbit, how getting from low earth equitorial orbit to Jupiter takes less energy than getting from the same ship to a polar orbit (and even then that the only real way to change your orbit like that is to go out beyond the moon and back), etc.

yabones 5 days ago|
Forwards is up, up is back, back is down, down is forwards.
nomel 5 days ago||
It's much easier to reason about when you frame it closer to reality: you're not on a circular path, you're continuously falling, and because you're moving forward, you're continuously missing the earth, with its pull decreasing with distance.
geon 5 days ago|||
Or in the words of Larry Niven (The integral trees)

East takes you Out

Out takes you West

West takes you In

In takes you East

NitpickLawyer 5 days ago|||
Down is where the enemy gate is.
taneq 5 days ago||
So precise, he piss on a plate and never splash.
jayknight 5 days ago||
How related to this is the helicopter 90-degree phase lag thing?
More comments...