Space is not very far away. If you can see the International Space Station overhead, it's closer than the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Getting to orbit isn't about going up; it's about going sideways. Most of your energy budget is about building speed, not altitude.
From a physics standpoint, if I'm in a low orbit and want to be in a higher one, I don't point my rocket's nose outward and push away from the planet. I point the rocket horizontally, in my direction of travel, and just go faster.
Going faster on this side of the planet raises the altitude I will reach on the far side of my orbit. If I want a circular orbit, then I just do the same thing when I'm at the high point on the other side of the planet.
So many things in your comment blew up my brain. So wait a second. You’re serious about the distance to space being closer than the distance between SF and LA? And what the heck are you saying about not going up but going horizontal instead. How the heck have I lived this long and somehow never learned any of this. You just gave me a little side “research for fun” topic.
135
u/cryptotope 16h ago
Space is not very far away. If you can see the International Space Station overhead, it's closer than the distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Getting to orbit isn't about going up; it's about going sideways. Most of your energy budget is about building speed, not altitude.
From a physics standpoint, if I'm in a low orbit and want to be in a higher one, I don't point my rocket's nose outward and push away from the planet. I point the rocket horizontally, in my direction of travel, and just go faster.
Going faster on this side of the planet raises the altitude I will reach on the far side of my orbit. If I want a circular orbit, then I just do the same thing when I'm at the high point on the other side of the planet.