Let's plot a course between Earth and Gor












2














We know that Gor, or Counter-Earth, is not stable in a long-term sense. Let's handwave that away, or assume that we are dealing with a temporary span of time in which the instability is immaterial.



Mid-20th to early 21st century Gor and Earth have finally discovered each other and made contact. An alliance of nations on Gor have succeeded in building a space station in Low Gor Orbit (LGO) and are very interested in starting regular passenger/cargo shuttle flights to Earth's International Space Station.



What trajectory would a more-or-less contemporary crewed spaceship use to travel between Earth and Counter-Earth? We are dealing with civilizations that are, technologically, more or less anywhere between Earth's mid 20th century and a few decades from now. That is, incremental advances in technology (e.g. slightly more accurate thrusters, 10% more effective radiation shielding, or tastier meals-in-a-pill) are fine, but no Stargates or Millenium Falcons. The trip should be as short as reasonably possible, but should keep the persons on board reasonably safe. Spaceman Thumper reminds you that if you fly directly into the Sun, you are going to have a bad time.



I'm imagining that ships would simply drop into an elliptical orbit that would put them onto a trajectory to intercept the other Earth, but what would that look like? Would such an orbit be quick and reasonably achievable, or are our hypothetical cross-world pioneers going to be wandering around the Solar System like Odysseus?










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    I'm not fluent in orbital mechanics but I believe the solution would actually take you away from the Sun. An apogee somewhere nearer the outer solar system where orbital periods are longer and a perigee—or perhaps peri*gor*—back at Earth/Gor orbit.
    – B.fox
    5 hours ago


















2














We know that Gor, or Counter-Earth, is not stable in a long-term sense. Let's handwave that away, or assume that we are dealing with a temporary span of time in which the instability is immaterial.



Mid-20th to early 21st century Gor and Earth have finally discovered each other and made contact. An alliance of nations on Gor have succeeded in building a space station in Low Gor Orbit (LGO) and are very interested in starting regular passenger/cargo shuttle flights to Earth's International Space Station.



What trajectory would a more-or-less contemporary crewed spaceship use to travel between Earth and Counter-Earth? We are dealing with civilizations that are, technologically, more or less anywhere between Earth's mid 20th century and a few decades from now. That is, incremental advances in technology (e.g. slightly more accurate thrusters, 10% more effective radiation shielding, or tastier meals-in-a-pill) are fine, but no Stargates or Millenium Falcons. The trip should be as short as reasonably possible, but should keep the persons on board reasonably safe. Spaceman Thumper reminds you that if you fly directly into the Sun, you are going to have a bad time.



I'm imagining that ships would simply drop into an elliptical orbit that would put them onto a trajectory to intercept the other Earth, but what would that look like? Would such an orbit be quick and reasonably achievable, or are our hypothetical cross-world pioneers going to be wandering around the Solar System like Odysseus?










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    I'm not fluent in orbital mechanics but I believe the solution would actually take you away from the Sun. An apogee somewhere nearer the outer solar system where orbital periods are longer and a perigee—or perhaps peri*gor*—back at Earth/Gor orbit.
    – B.fox
    5 hours ago
















2












2








2







We know that Gor, or Counter-Earth, is not stable in a long-term sense. Let's handwave that away, or assume that we are dealing with a temporary span of time in which the instability is immaterial.



Mid-20th to early 21st century Gor and Earth have finally discovered each other and made contact. An alliance of nations on Gor have succeeded in building a space station in Low Gor Orbit (LGO) and are very interested in starting regular passenger/cargo shuttle flights to Earth's International Space Station.



What trajectory would a more-or-less contemporary crewed spaceship use to travel between Earth and Counter-Earth? We are dealing with civilizations that are, technologically, more or less anywhere between Earth's mid 20th century and a few decades from now. That is, incremental advances in technology (e.g. slightly more accurate thrusters, 10% more effective radiation shielding, or tastier meals-in-a-pill) are fine, but no Stargates or Millenium Falcons. The trip should be as short as reasonably possible, but should keep the persons on board reasonably safe. Spaceman Thumper reminds you that if you fly directly into the Sun, you are going to have a bad time.



I'm imagining that ships would simply drop into an elliptical orbit that would put them onto a trajectory to intercept the other Earth, but what would that look like? Would such an orbit be quick and reasonably achievable, or are our hypothetical cross-world pioneers going to be wandering around the Solar System like Odysseus?










share|improve this question















We know that Gor, or Counter-Earth, is not stable in a long-term sense. Let's handwave that away, or assume that we are dealing with a temporary span of time in which the instability is immaterial.



Mid-20th to early 21st century Gor and Earth have finally discovered each other and made contact. An alliance of nations on Gor have succeeded in building a space station in Low Gor Orbit (LGO) and are very interested in starting regular passenger/cargo shuttle flights to Earth's International Space Station.



What trajectory would a more-or-less contemporary crewed spaceship use to travel between Earth and Counter-Earth? We are dealing with civilizations that are, technologically, more or less anywhere between Earth's mid 20th century and a few decades from now. That is, incremental advances in technology (e.g. slightly more accurate thrusters, 10% more effective radiation shielding, or tastier meals-in-a-pill) are fine, but no Stargates or Millenium Falcons. The trip should be as short as reasonably possible, but should keep the persons on board reasonably safe. Spaceman Thumper reminds you that if you fly directly into the Sun, you are going to have a bad time.



I'm imagining that ships would simply drop into an elliptical orbit that would put them onto a trajectory to intercept the other Earth, but what would that look like? Would such an orbit be quick and reasonably achievable, or are our hypothetical cross-world pioneers going to be wandering around the Solar System like Odysseus?







planets space-travel orbital-mechanics modern-age counter-earth






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago

























asked 6 hours ago









Robert Columbia

1,004617




1,004617








  • 1




    I'm not fluent in orbital mechanics but I believe the solution would actually take you away from the Sun. An apogee somewhere nearer the outer solar system where orbital periods are longer and a perigee—or perhaps peri*gor*—back at Earth/Gor orbit.
    – B.fox
    5 hours ago
















  • 1




    I'm not fluent in orbital mechanics but I believe the solution would actually take you away from the Sun. An apogee somewhere nearer the outer solar system where orbital periods are longer and a perigee—or perhaps peri*gor*—back at Earth/Gor orbit.
    – B.fox
    5 hours ago










1




1




I'm not fluent in orbital mechanics but I believe the solution would actually take you away from the Sun. An apogee somewhere nearer the outer solar system where orbital periods are longer and a perigee—or perhaps peri*gor*—back at Earth/Gor orbit.
– B.fox
5 hours ago






I'm not fluent in orbital mechanics but I believe the solution would actually take you away from the Sun. An apogee somewhere nearer the outer solar system where orbital periods are longer and a perigee—or perhaps peri*gor*—back at Earth/Gor orbit.
– B.fox
5 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















4














With the technologies we have now, I would suggest a simple transfer orbit. It perhaps may not be the quickest--of course, the quickest route would be a straight, constant-acceleration, flip'n burn sort of affair--but the speed at which you may reach Gor is entirely dependent on how much delta-v you're capable of.



Your spacecraft could engage in a longer-period orbit about the Sun comparative to Earth. Due to orbital mechanics, this would actually mean a burn to accelerate faster than the Earth, which would push your craft into a higher orbit with a longer orbital period. Then, simply wait for the Earth to proceed ahead of you and Gor to catch up to you. When Gor is at the proper position, you perform a burn that would slow your velocity and thus lower your orbit back to Earth/Gor orbit, whereupon you engage in a circular orbit about Gor.



Again, the deciding factor for how quick this all is is how much delta-v you can use. You could raise your orbit a mere hundred kilometers higher than Earth orbit and watch the Earth gradually drift ahead of you, though, it would likely take years to reach Gor. Raise it several million kilometers, and perhaps shorter than a year, perhaps only a handful of months.



If I were to read this simple explanation in whatever story or world you're working with, I wouldn't doubt its feasibility.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Actually, I suspect that you're better off thrusting retrograde and taking the inner (shorter) path.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    2 hours ago










  • @WhatRoughBeast Would it expend less energy and time? If you lower your orbit, then your orbital period increases, so you would move ahead relative to Earth rather than behind.
    – B.fox
    2 hours ago










  • Depends on the delta-v available. Since we're talking available technology, let's go all-out and develop Project Orion. Screw the fallout.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    1 hour ago










  • @WhatRoughBeast Yes, but then you'd be working against the motion of Earth and Gor. Swimming upriver, in a sense. Going inward gets you going faster, but you've got more distance to travel to catch up to the other planet. JBH explains this nicely in the opening of his answer. Maybe I'm missing something
    – B.fox
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    Yeah, you are. Go look up Project Orion. Nuclear pulse engineering - throw nukes out the back and ride the shock wave. Sustained 1g acceleration over long (multi-day) periods. Takes less than 2 hours to produce retrograde orbital velocity (30 km/sec). And yeah, it's sort of cheating, but the technology seems doable and has been for decades. There are issues with economics and collateral effects.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    1 hour ago





















0














These kinds of questions are fun.




  1. The preferred path will always be counter-orbit. I don't want to move forward toward Gor because it's moving away from me and that will lengthen the mission. We want to move backward, so Gor is approaching us as we approach Gor.


enter image description here



In this case we have the most fuel efficient solution because all we need is to get the ship out of our atmosphere. If all it did was sit there with a relative velocity of zero, 180 days later it would collide with Gor. However, cheap as it may be, time is money! We need a faster solution, but preferrably one that doesn't cost us a mint.




  1. Trivially, we can give our space ship constant thrust. We can leave it on the same path — the planetary orbital path — and reduce the number of days waiting by the allowed thrust period. OK, it's fast. But we can do better.


  2. We're using contemporary technology, the cost-vs-time trade-off (which always exists) is basically the size of the boosters + the capability of the onboard engines vs. how long we're willing to wait to get the job done. Frankly, we're basically in the hands of newtonian physics anyway — but that includes the sun! If we pull the flight path closer to the sun, we actually get a boost from the sun (both in terms of acceleration and deceleration), which speeds us up without additional cost, and shortens the path.



enter image description here



Let's use some real data to ship some cargo. Humans will be slower because, well, we hate being squished. Therefore, let's use New Horizons as our benchmark. It left the Earth at a screaming 16.26 Km/s and passed the moon's orbit in just 8.5 hours. Smokin'! But the moon's a kicked can compared to Gor.



Now, here's where I'm very happy you didn't include the hard-science tag. I stink at orbital mechanics. I'm slowly working through a textbook on it, but I'm not to the point I can just pull the math out of my head. Not by a long shot. But, here's the gist.




  • We're working with a sphere (a sphere described by the orbits of Earth & Gor) and there's a reason we fly over the pole here on Earth. But remember that our launch point and destination are both on the "equator" of that sphere. therefore, the sphere actually buys us little if anything at all.


  • We have an initial velocity that's fixed at 16.26 Km/s. However, we'll speed up as we approach the sun. We want to get as close to the sun as our heat shields and (and this is important) the oribit of Gor will allow. That minimizes the time of transit.


  • We do need to miss Venus and Mercury. They're not particularly in the way, but there are certain times of the year where they might (I stress, might) be inconvenient. However, we can always lift the path of the ship on the sphere such that it flys over or under the inner planets and avoids them completely — so they're really not much of a threat.


  • Earth's orbital path does have an eccentricity, which I'm going to completely ignore. The biggest reason for this is that, when thinking of the orbit of Earth as the reference plane, there is no eccentricity between Earth and Gor. Huzzah! (On the other hand, the gravitational effects of Venus and Mercury might be non-zero. OK, lift the flight path higher on the sphere so we can ignore that, too.)



What would be the actual shortest path given all of the above? Well, you need the circumference of the orbit (940x106 Km) and you need the effect of the Sun's gravity (274 m/s2) and you need our reference intial velocity (V0 = 16.26 Km/s) and then [magic happens here].



What can I say. I'm not to that point in the book, yet.



If HDE 226868 or Kingledion answer, be sure to upvote them. They are initiates of the inner circle and know the correct incantations and which Demon to invoke to provide an actual, numerical answer.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Ooh, but isn't approaching the Sun more delta-v costly? You are, after all, cancelling (and then subsequently replenishing to reach Gor) the orbital velocity of the Earth. (A fellow student of OM here (-: )
    – B.fox
    2 hours ago












  • @B.fox, That was a good question. The answer, I think, ultimately, is no. If you launch in the direction of orbit (max orbital V), then you're chasing Gor and must compensate for that. If you launch in the other direction, then you benefit from Gor's orbit. The two appear to me to cancel each other out, meaning that the net effect of the sun is independent of the planetary orbital velocities. It's a byproduct of a counter-Earth. This is different for, say, Mars where the orbital velocities and circumferences are different and don't cancel out.
    – JBH
    14 mins ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135333%2flets-plot-a-course-between-earth-and-gor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









4














With the technologies we have now, I would suggest a simple transfer orbit. It perhaps may not be the quickest--of course, the quickest route would be a straight, constant-acceleration, flip'n burn sort of affair--but the speed at which you may reach Gor is entirely dependent on how much delta-v you're capable of.



Your spacecraft could engage in a longer-period orbit about the Sun comparative to Earth. Due to orbital mechanics, this would actually mean a burn to accelerate faster than the Earth, which would push your craft into a higher orbit with a longer orbital period. Then, simply wait for the Earth to proceed ahead of you and Gor to catch up to you. When Gor is at the proper position, you perform a burn that would slow your velocity and thus lower your orbit back to Earth/Gor orbit, whereupon you engage in a circular orbit about Gor.



Again, the deciding factor for how quick this all is is how much delta-v you can use. You could raise your orbit a mere hundred kilometers higher than Earth orbit and watch the Earth gradually drift ahead of you, though, it would likely take years to reach Gor. Raise it several million kilometers, and perhaps shorter than a year, perhaps only a handful of months.



If I were to read this simple explanation in whatever story or world you're working with, I wouldn't doubt its feasibility.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Actually, I suspect that you're better off thrusting retrograde and taking the inner (shorter) path.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    2 hours ago










  • @WhatRoughBeast Would it expend less energy and time? If you lower your orbit, then your orbital period increases, so you would move ahead relative to Earth rather than behind.
    – B.fox
    2 hours ago










  • Depends on the delta-v available. Since we're talking available technology, let's go all-out and develop Project Orion. Screw the fallout.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    1 hour ago










  • @WhatRoughBeast Yes, but then you'd be working against the motion of Earth and Gor. Swimming upriver, in a sense. Going inward gets you going faster, but you've got more distance to travel to catch up to the other planet. JBH explains this nicely in the opening of his answer. Maybe I'm missing something
    – B.fox
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    Yeah, you are. Go look up Project Orion. Nuclear pulse engineering - throw nukes out the back and ride the shock wave. Sustained 1g acceleration over long (multi-day) periods. Takes less than 2 hours to produce retrograde orbital velocity (30 km/sec). And yeah, it's sort of cheating, but the technology seems doable and has been for decades. There are issues with economics and collateral effects.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    1 hour ago


















4














With the technologies we have now, I would suggest a simple transfer orbit. It perhaps may not be the quickest--of course, the quickest route would be a straight, constant-acceleration, flip'n burn sort of affair--but the speed at which you may reach Gor is entirely dependent on how much delta-v you're capable of.



Your spacecraft could engage in a longer-period orbit about the Sun comparative to Earth. Due to orbital mechanics, this would actually mean a burn to accelerate faster than the Earth, which would push your craft into a higher orbit with a longer orbital period. Then, simply wait for the Earth to proceed ahead of you and Gor to catch up to you. When Gor is at the proper position, you perform a burn that would slow your velocity and thus lower your orbit back to Earth/Gor orbit, whereupon you engage in a circular orbit about Gor.



Again, the deciding factor for how quick this all is is how much delta-v you can use. You could raise your orbit a mere hundred kilometers higher than Earth orbit and watch the Earth gradually drift ahead of you, though, it would likely take years to reach Gor. Raise it several million kilometers, and perhaps shorter than a year, perhaps only a handful of months.



If I were to read this simple explanation in whatever story or world you're working with, I wouldn't doubt its feasibility.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Actually, I suspect that you're better off thrusting retrograde and taking the inner (shorter) path.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    2 hours ago










  • @WhatRoughBeast Would it expend less energy and time? If you lower your orbit, then your orbital period increases, so you would move ahead relative to Earth rather than behind.
    – B.fox
    2 hours ago










  • Depends on the delta-v available. Since we're talking available technology, let's go all-out and develop Project Orion. Screw the fallout.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    1 hour ago










  • @WhatRoughBeast Yes, but then you'd be working against the motion of Earth and Gor. Swimming upriver, in a sense. Going inward gets you going faster, but you've got more distance to travel to catch up to the other planet. JBH explains this nicely in the opening of his answer. Maybe I'm missing something
    – B.fox
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    Yeah, you are. Go look up Project Orion. Nuclear pulse engineering - throw nukes out the back and ride the shock wave. Sustained 1g acceleration over long (multi-day) periods. Takes less than 2 hours to produce retrograde orbital velocity (30 km/sec). And yeah, it's sort of cheating, but the technology seems doable and has been for decades. There are issues with economics and collateral effects.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    1 hour ago
















4












4








4






With the technologies we have now, I would suggest a simple transfer orbit. It perhaps may not be the quickest--of course, the quickest route would be a straight, constant-acceleration, flip'n burn sort of affair--but the speed at which you may reach Gor is entirely dependent on how much delta-v you're capable of.



Your spacecraft could engage in a longer-period orbit about the Sun comparative to Earth. Due to orbital mechanics, this would actually mean a burn to accelerate faster than the Earth, which would push your craft into a higher orbit with a longer orbital period. Then, simply wait for the Earth to proceed ahead of you and Gor to catch up to you. When Gor is at the proper position, you perform a burn that would slow your velocity and thus lower your orbit back to Earth/Gor orbit, whereupon you engage in a circular orbit about Gor.



Again, the deciding factor for how quick this all is is how much delta-v you can use. You could raise your orbit a mere hundred kilometers higher than Earth orbit and watch the Earth gradually drift ahead of you, though, it would likely take years to reach Gor. Raise it several million kilometers, and perhaps shorter than a year, perhaps only a handful of months.



If I were to read this simple explanation in whatever story or world you're working with, I wouldn't doubt its feasibility.






share|improve this answer












With the technologies we have now, I would suggest a simple transfer orbit. It perhaps may not be the quickest--of course, the quickest route would be a straight, constant-acceleration, flip'n burn sort of affair--but the speed at which you may reach Gor is entirely dependent on how much delta-v you're capable of.



Your spacecraft could engage in a longer-period orbit about the Sun comparative to Earth. Due to orbital mechanics, this would actually mean a burn to accelerate faster than the Earth, which would push your craft into a higher orbit with a longer orbital period. Then, simply wait for the Earth to proceed ahead of you and Gor to catch up to you. When Gor is at the proper position, you perform a burn that would slow your velocity and thus lower your orbit back to Earth/Gor orbit, whereupon you engage in a circular orbit about Gor.



Again, the deciding factor for how quick this all is is how much delta-v you can use. You could raise your orbit a mere hundred kilometers higher than Earth orbit and watch the Earth gradually drift ahead of you, though, it would likely take years to reach Gor. Raise it several million kilometers, and perhaps shorter than a year, perhaps only a handful of months.



If I were to read this simple explanation in whatever story or world you're working with, I wouldn't doubt its feasibility.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 4 hours ago









B.fox

9131314




9131314








  • 1




    Actually, I suspect that you're better off thrusting retrograde and taking the inner (shorter) path.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    2 hours ago










  • @WhatRoughBeast Would it expend less energy and time? If you lower your orbit, then your orbital period increases, so you would move ahead relative to Earth rather than behind.
    – B.fox
    2 hours ago










  • Depends on the delta-v available. Since we're talking available technology, let's go all-out and develop Project Orion. Screw the fallout.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    1 hour ago










  • @WhatRoughBeast Yes, but then you'd be working against the motion of Earth and Gor. Swimming upriver, in a sense. Going inward gets you going faster, but you've got more distance to travel to catch up to the other planet. JBH explains this nicely in the opening of his answer. Maybe I'm missing something
    – B.fox
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    Yeah, you are. Go look up Project Orion. Nuclear pulse engineering - throw nukes out the back and ride the shock wave. Sustained 1g acceleration over long (multi-day) periods. Takes less than 2 hours to produce retrograde orbital velocity (30 km/sec). And yeah, it's sort of cheating, but the technology seems doable and has been for decades. There are issues with economics and collateral effects.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    1 hour ago
















  • 1




    Actually, I suspect that you're better off thrusting retrograde and taking the inner (shorter) path.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    2 hours ago










  • @WhatRoughBeast Would it expend less energy and time? If you lower your orbit, then your orbital period increases, so you would move ahead relative to Earth rather than behind.
    – B.fox
    2 hours ago










  • Depends on the delta-v available. Since we're talking available technology, let's go all-out and develop Project Orion. Screw the fallout.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    1 hour ago










  • @WhatRoughBeast Yes, but then you'd be working against the motion of Earth and Gor. Swimming upriver, in a sense. Going inward gets you going faster, but you've got more distance to travel to catch up to the other planet. JBH explains this nicely in the opening of his answer. Maybe I'm missing something
    – B.fox
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    Yeah, you are. Go look up Project Orion. Nuclear pulse engineering - throw nukes out the back and ride the shock wave. Sustained 1g acceleration over long (multi-day) periods. Takes less than 2 hours to produce retrograde orbital velocity (30 km/sec). And yeah, it's sort of cheating, but the technology seems doable and has been for decades. There are issues with economics and collateral effects.
    – WhatRoughBeast
    1 hour ago










1




1




Actually, I suspect that you're better off thrusting retrograde and taking the inner (shorter) path.
– WhatRoughBeast
2 hours ago




Actually, I suspect that you're better off thrusting retrograde and taking the inner (shorter) path.
– WhatRoughBeast
2 hours ago












@WhatRoughBeast Would it expend less energy and time? If you lower your orbit, then your orbital period increases, so you would move ahead relative to Earth rather than behind.
– B.fox
2 hours ago




@WhatRoughBeast Would it expend less energy and time? If you lower your orbit, then your orbital period increases, so you would move ahead relative to Earth rather than behind.
– B.fox
2 hours ago












Depends on the delta-v available. Since we're talking available technology, let's go all-out and develop Project Orion. Screw the fallout.
– WhatRoughBeast
1 hour ago




Depends on the delta-v available. Since we're talking available technology, let's go all-out and develop Project Orion. Screw the fallout.
– WhatRoughBeast
1 hour ago












@WhatRoughBeast Yes, but then you'd be working against the motion of Earth and Gor. Swimming upriver, in a sense. Going inward gets you going faster, but you've got more distance to travel to catch up to the other planet. JBH explains this nicely in the opening of his answer. Maybe I'm missing something
– B.fox
1 hour ago




@WhatRoughBeast Yes, but then you'd be working against the motion of Earth and Gor. Swimming upriver, in a sense. Going inward gets you going faster, but you've got more distance to travel to catch up to the other planet. JBH explains this nicely in the opening of his answer. Maybe I'm missing something
– B.fox
1 hour ago




2




2




Yeah, you are. Go look up Project Orion. Nuclear pulse engineering - throw nukes out the back and ride the shock wave. Sustained 1g acceleration over long (multi-day) periods. Takes less than 2 hours to produce retrograde orbital velocity (30 km/sec). And yeah, it's sort of cheating, but the technology seems doable and has been for decades. There are issues with economics and collateral effects.
– WhatRoughBeast
1 hour ago






Yeah, you are. Go look up Project Orion. Nuclear pulse engineering - throw nukes out the back and ride the shock wave. Sustained 1g acceleration over long (multi-day) periods. Takes less than 2 hours to produce retrograde orbital velocity (30 km/sec). And yeah, it's sort of cheating, but the technology seems doable and has been for decades. There are issues with economics and collateral effects.
– WhatRoughBeast
1 hour ago













0














These kinds of questions are fun.




  1. The preferred path will always be counter-orbit. I don't want to move forward toward Gor because it's moving away from me and that will lengthen the mission. We want to move backward, so Gor is approaching us as we approach Gor.


enter image description here



In this case we have the most fuel efficient solution because all we need is to get the ship out of our atmosphere. If all it did was sit there with a relative velocity of zero, 180 days later it would collide with Gor. However, cheap as it may be, time is money! We need a faster solution, but preferrably one that doesn't cost us a mint.




  1. Trivially, we can give our space ship constant thrust. We can leave it on the same path — the planetary orbital path — and reduce the number of days waiting by the allowed thrust period. OK, it's fast. But we can do better.


  2. We're using contemporary technology, the cost-vs-time trade-off (which always exists) is basically the size of the boosters + the capability of the onboard engines vs. how long we're willing to wait to get the job done. Frankly, we're basically in the hands of newtonian physics anyway — but that includes the sun! If we pull the flight path closer to the sun, we actually get a boost from the sun (both in terms of acceleration and deceleration), which speeds us up without additional cost, and shortens the path.



enter image description here



Let's use some real data to ship some cargo. Humans will be slower because, well, we hate being squished. Therefore, let's use New Horizons as our benchmark. It left the Earth at a screaming 16.26 Km/s and passed the moon's orbit in just 8.5 hours. Smokin'! But the moon's a kicked can compared to Gor.



Now, here's where I'm very happy you didn't include the hard-science tag. I stink at orbital mechanics. I'm slowly working through a textbook on it, but I'm not to the point I can just pull the math out of my head. Not by a long shot. But, here's the gist.




  • We're working with a sphere (a sphere described by the orbits of Earth & Gor) and there's a reason we fly over the pole here on Earth. But remember that our launch point and destination are both on the "equator" of that sphere. therefore, the sphere actually buys us little if anything at all.


  • We have an initial velocity that's fixed at 16.26 Km/s. However, we'll speed up as we approach the sun. We want to get as close to the sun as our heat shields and (and this is important) the oribit of Gor will allow. That minimizes the time of transit.


  • We do need to miss Venus and Mercury. They're not particularly in the way, but there are certain times of the year where they might (I stress, might) be inconvenient. However, we can always lift the path of the ship on the sphere such that it flys over or under the inner planets and avoids them completely — so they're really not much of a threat.


  • Earth's orbital path does have an eccentricity, which I'm going to completely ignore. The biggest reason for this is that, when thinking of the orbit of Earth as the reference plane, there is no eccentricity between Earth and Gor. Huzzah! (On the other hand, the gravitational effects of Venus and Mercury might be non-zero. OK, lift the flight path higher on the sphere so we can ignore that, too.)



What would be the actual shortest path given all of the above? Well, you need the circumference of the orbit (940x106 Km) and you need the effect of the Sun's gravity (274 m/s2) and you need our reference intial velocity (V0 = 16.26 Km/s) and then [magic happens here].



What can I say. I'm not to that point in the book, yet.



If HDE 226868 or Kingledion answer, be sure to upvote them. They are initiates of the inner circle and know the correct incantations and which Demon to invoke to provide an actual, numerical answer.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Ooh, but isn't approaching the Sun more delta-v costly? You are, after all, cancelling (and then subsequently replenishing to reach Gor) the orbital velocity of the Earth. (A fellow student of OM here (-: )
    – B.fox
    2 hours ago












  • @B.fox, That was a good question. The answer, I think, ultimately, is no. If you launch in the direction of orbit (max orbital V), then you're chasing Gor and must compensate for that. If you launch in the other direction, then you benefit from Gor's orbit. The two appear to me to cancel each other out, meaning that the net effect of the sun is independent of the planetary orbital velocities. It's a byproduct of a counter-Earth. This is different for, say, Mars where the orbital velocities and circumferences are different and don't cancel out.
    – JBH
    14 mins ago
















0














These kinds of questions are fun.




  1. The preferred path will always be counter-orbit. I don't want to move forward toward Gor because it's moving away from me and that will lengthen the mission. We want to move backward, so Gor is approaching us as we approach Gor.


enter image description here



In this case we have the most fuel efficient solution because all we need is to get the ship out of our atmosphere. If all it did was sit there with a relative velocity of zero, 180 days later it would collide with Gor. However, cheap as it may be, time is money! We need a faster solution, but preferrably one that doesn't cost us a mint.




  1. Trivially, we can give our space ship constant thrust. We can leave it on the same path — the planetary orbital path — and reduce the number of days waiting by the allowed thrust period. OK, it's fast. But we can do better.


  2. We're using contemporary technology, the cost-vs-time trade-off (which always exists) is basically the size of the boosters + the capability of the onboard engines vs. how long we're willing to wait to get the job done. Frankly, we're basically in the hands of newtonian physics anyway — but that includes the sun! If we pull the flight path closer to the sun, we actually get a boost from the sun (both in terms of acceleration and deceleration), which speeds us up without additional cost, and shortens the path.



enter image description here



Let's use some real data to ship some cargo. Humans will be slower because, well, we hate being squished. Therefore, let's use New Horizons as our benchmark. It left the Earth at a screaming 16.26 Km/s and passed the moon's orbit in just 8.5 hours. Smokin'! But the moon's a kicked can compared to Gor.



Now, here's where I'm very happy you didn't include the hard-science tag. I stink at orbital mechanics. I'm slowly working through a textbook on it, but I'm not to the point I can just pull the math out of my head. Not by a long shot. But, here's the gist.




  • We're working with a sphere (a sphere described by the orbits of Earth & Gor) and there's a reason we fly over the pole here on Earth. But remember that our launch point and destination are both on the "equator" of that sphere. therefore, the sphere actually buys us little if anything at all.


  • We have an initial velocity that's fixed at 16.26 Km/s. However, we'll speed up as we approach the sun. We want to get as close to the sun as our heat shields and (and this is important) the oribit of Gor will allow. That minimizes the time of transit.


  • We do need to miss Venus and Mercury. They're not particularly in the way, but there are certain times of the year where they might (I stress, might) be inconvenient. However, we can always lift the path of the ship on the sphere such that it flys over or under the inner planets and avoids them completely — so they're really not much of a threat.


  • Earth's orbital path does have an eccentricity, which I'm going to completely ignore. The biggest reason for this is that, when thinking of the orbit of Earth as the reference plane, there is no eccentricity between Earth and Gor. Huzzah! (On the other hand, the gravitational effects of Venus and Mercury might be non-zero. OK, lift the flight path higher on the sphere so we can ignore that, too.)



What would be the actual shortest path given all of the above? Well, you need the circumference of the orbit (940x106 Km) and you need the effect of the Sun's gravity (274 m/s2) and you need our reference intial velocity (V0 = 16.26 Km/s) and then [magic happens here].



What can I say. I'm not to that point in the book, yet.



If HDE 226868 or Kingledion answer, be sure to upvote them. They are initiates of the inner circle and know the correct incantations and which Demon to invoke to provide an actual, numerical answer.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    Ooh, but isn't approaching the Sun more delta-v costly? You are, after all, cancelling (and then subsequently replenishing to reach Gor) the orbital velocity of the Earth. (A fellow student of OM here (-: )
    – B.fox
    2 hours ago












  • @B.fox, That was a good question. The answer, I think, ultimately, is no. If you launch in the direction of orbit (max orbital V), then you're chasing Gor and must compensate for that. If you launch in the other direction, then you benefit from Gor's orbit. The two appear to me to cancel each other out, meaning that the net effect of the sun is independent of the planetary orbital velocities. It's a byproduct of a counter-Earth. This is different for, say, Mars where the orbital velocities and circumferences are different and don't cancel out.
    – JBH
    14 mins ago














0












0








0






These kinds of questions are fun.




  1. The preferred path will always be counter-orbit. I don't want to move forward toward Gor because it's moving away from me and that will lengthen the mission. We want to move backward, so Gor is approaching us as we approach Gor.


enter image description here



In this case we have the most fuel efficient solution because all we need is to get the ship out of our atmosphere. If all it did was sit there with a relative velocity of zero, 180 days later it would collide with Gor. However, cheap as it may be, time is money! We need a faster solution, but preferrably one that doesn't cost us a mint.




  1. Trivially, we can give our space ship constant thrust. We can leave it on the same path — the planetary orbital path — and reduce the number of days waiting by the allowed thrust period. OK, it's fast. But we can do better.


  2. We're using contemporary technology, the cost-vs-time trade-off (which always exists) is basically the size of the boosters + the capability of the onboard engines vs. how long we're willing to wait to get the job done. Frankly, we're basically in the hands of newtonian physics anyway — but that includes the sun! If we pull the flight path closer to the sun, we actually get a boost from the sun (both in terms of acceleration and deceleration), which speeds us up without additional cost, and shortens the path.



enter image description here



Let's use some real data to ship some cargo. Humans will be slower because, well, we hate being squished. Therefore, let's use New Horizons as our benchmark. It left the Earth at a screaming 16.26 Km/s and passed the moon's orbit in just 8.5 hours. Smokin'! But the moon's a kicked can compared to Gor.



Now, here's where I'm very happy you didn't include the hard-science tag. I stink at orbital mechanics. I'm slowly working through a textbook on it, but I'm not to the point I can just pull the math out of my head. Not by a long shot. But, here's the gist.




  • We're working with a sphere (a sphere described by the orbits of Earth & Gor) and there's a reason we fly over the pole here on Earth. But remember that our launch point and destination are both on the "equator" of that sphere. therefore, the sphere actually buys us little if anything at all.


  • We have an initial velocity that's fixed at 16.26 Km/s. However, we'll speed up as we approach the sun. We want to get as close to the sun as our heat shields and (and this is important) the oribit of Gor will allow. That minimizes the time of transit.


  • We do need to miss Venus and Mercury. They're not particularly in the way, but there are certain times of the year where they might (I stress, might) be inconvenient. However, we can always lift the path of the ship on the sphere such that it flys over or under the inner planets and avoids them completely — so they're really not much of a threat.


  • Earth's orbital path does have an eccentricity, which I'm going to completely ignore. The biggest reason for this is that, when thinking of the orbit of Earth as the reference plane, there is no eccentricity between Earth and Gor. Huzzah! (On the other hand, the gravitational effects of Venus and Mercury might be non-zero. OK, lift the flight path higher on the sphere so we can ignore that, too.)



What would be the actual shortest path given all of the above? Well, you need the circumference of the orbit (940x106 Km) and you need the effect of the Sun's gravity (274 m/s2) and you need our reference intial velocity (V0 = 16.26 Km/s) and then [magic happens here].



What can I say. I'm not to that point in the book, yet.



If HDE 226868 or Kingledion answer, be sure to upvote them. They are initiates of the inner circle and know the correct incantations and which Demon to invoke to provide an actual, numerical answer.






share|improve this answer












These kinds of questions are fun.




  1. The preferred path will always be counter-orbit. I don't want to move forward toward Gor because it's moving away from me and that will lengthen the mission. We want to move backward, so Gor is approaching us as we approach Gor.


enter image description here



In this case we have the most fuel efficient solution because all we need is to get the ship out of our atmosphere. If all it did was sit there with a relative velocity of zero, 180 days later it would collide with Gor. However, cheap as it may be, time is money! We need a faster solution, but preferrably one that doesn't cost us a mint.




  1. Trivially, we can give our space ship constant thrust. We can leave it on the same path — the planetary orbital path — and reduce the number of days waiting by the allowed thrust period. OK, it's fast. But we can do better.


  2. We're using contemporary technology, the cost-vs-time trade-off (which always exists) is basically the size of the boosters + the capability of the onboard engines vs. how long we're willing to wait to get the job done. Frankly, we're basically in the hands of newtonian physics anyway — but that includes the sun! If we pull the flight path closer to the sun, we actually get a boost from the sun (both in terms of acceleration and deceleration), which speeds us up without additional cost, and shortens the path.



enter image description here



Let's use some real data to ship some cargo. Humans will be slower because, well, we hate being squished. Therefore, let's use New Horizons as our benchmark. It left the Earth at a screaming 16.26 Km/s and passed the moon's orbit in just 8.5 hours. Smokin'! But the moon's a kicked can compared to Gor.



Now, here's where I'm very happy you didn't include the hard-science tag. I stink at orbital mechanics. I'm slowly working through a textbook on it, but I'm not to the point I can just pull the math out of my head. Not by a long shot. But, here's the gist.




  • We're working with a sphere (a sphere described by the orbits of Earth & Gor) and there's a reason we fly over the pole here on Earth. But remember that our launch point and destination are both on the "equator" of that sphere. therefore, the sphere actually buys us little if anything at all.


  • We have an initial velocity that's fixed at 16.26 Km/s. However, we'll speed up as we approach the sun. We want to get as close to the sun as our heat shields and (and this is important) the oribit of Gor will allow. That minimizes the time of transit.


  • We do need to miss Venus and Mercury. They're not particularly in the way, but there are certain times of the year where they might (I stress, might) be inconvenient. However, we can always lift the path of the ship on the sphere such that it flys over or under the inner planets and avoids them completely — so they're really not much of a threat.


  • Earth's orbital path does have an eccentricity, which I'm going to completely ignore. The biggest reason for this is that, when thinking of the orbit of Earth as the reference plane, there is no eccentricity between Earth and Gor. Huzzah! (On the other hand, the gravitational effects of Venus and Mercury might be non-zero. OK, lift the flight path higher on the sphere so we can ignore that, too.)



What would be the actual shortest path given all of the above? Well, you need the circumference of the orbit (940x106 Km) and you need the effect of the Sun's gravity (274 m/s2) and you need our reference intial velocity (V0 = 16.26 Km/s) and then [magic happens here].



What can I say. I'm not to that point in the book, yet.



If HDE 226868 or Kingledion answer, be sure to upvote them. They are initiates of the inner circle and know the correct incantations and which Demon to invoke to provide an actual, numerical answer.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 3 hours ago









JBH

39.9k589192




39.9k589192








  • 1




    Ooh, but isn't approaching the Sun more delta-v costly? You are, after all, cancelling (and then subsequently replenishing to reach Gor) the orbital velocity of the Earth. (A fellow student of OM here (-: )
    – B.fox
    2 hours ago












  • @B.fox, That was a good question. The answer, I think, ultimately, is no. If you launch in the direction of orbit (max orbital V), then you're chasing Gor and must compensate for that. If you launch in the other direction, then you benefit from Gor's orbit. The two appear to me to cancel each other out, meaning that the net effect of the sun is independent of the planetary orbital velocities. It's a byproduct of a counter-Earth. This is different for, say, Mars where the orbital velocities and circumferences are different and don't cancel out.
    – JBH
    14 mins ago














  • 1




    Ooh, but isn't approaching the Sun more delta-v costly? You are, after all, cancelling (and then subsequently replenishing to reach Gor) the orbital velocity of the Earth. (A fellow student of OM here (-: )
    – B.fox
    2 hours ago












  • @B.fox, That was a good question. The answer, I think, ultimately, is no. If you launch in the direction of orbit (max orbital V), then you're chasing Gor and must compensate for that. If you launch in the other direction, then you benefit from Gor's orbit. The two appear to me to cancel each other out, meaning that the net effect of the sun is independent of the planetary orbital velocities. It's a byproduct of a counter-Earth. This is different for, say, Mars where the orbital velocities and circumferences are different and don't cancel out.
    – JBH
    14 mins ago








1




1




Ooh, but isn't approaching the Sun more delta-v costly? You are, after all, cancelling (and then subsequently replenishing to reach Gor) the orbital velocity of the Earth. (A fellow student of OM here (-: )
– B.fox
2 hours ago






Ooh, but isn't approaching the Sun more delta-v costly? You are, after all, cancelling (and then subsequently replenishing to reach Gor) the orbital velocity of the Earth. (A fellow student of OM here (-: )
– B.fox
2 hours ago














@B.fox, That was a good question. The answer, I think, ultimately, is no. If you launch in the direction of orbit (max orbital V), then you're chasing Gor and must compensate for that. If you launch in the other direction, then you benefit from Gor's orbit. The two appear to me to cancel each other out, meaning that the net effect of the sun is independent of the planetary orbital velocities. It's a byproduct of a counter-Earth. This is different for, say, Mars where the orbital velocities and circumferences are different and don't cancel out.
– JBH
14 mins ago




@B.fox, That was a good question. The answer, I think, ultimately, is no. If you launch in the direction of orbit (max orbital V), then you're chasing Gor and must compensate for that. If you launch in the other direction, then you benefit from Gor's orbit. The two appear to me to cancel each other out, meaning that the net effect of the sun is independent of the planetary orbital velocities. It's a byproduct of a counter-Earth. This is different for, say, Mars where the orbital velocities and circumferences are different and don't cancel out.
– JBH
14 mins ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135333%2flets-plot-a-course-between-earth-and-gor%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Understanding the information contained in the Deep Space Network XML data?

Ross-on-Wye

Eastern Orthodox Church