4 ms·
I think the reason they're saying it's a bit more tricky than people realise is because, even when dealing solely in terms of relative speed, you're dealing wit
by electromagnetic 14y ago
I think the reason they're saying it's a bit more tricky than people realise is because, even when dealing solely in terms of relative speed, you're dealing with orbits.
If you try to accelerate, you'll actually end up in a higher orbit. It would be like putting down the gas to overtake someone on the highway and end up flying above them and even if you let off the gas, you will slowly drift further away as you're now dealing with a small amount less gravity.
It's tricky, because the common person doesn't have any clue how to relate to three dimensional movement in an orbit.
- ChuckMcM 14y agoActually, another funny story ... One of the first programs I ever wrote was a BASIC game called 'orbit' which simulated docking with other space ships and satellites in orbit. No graphics other than things like closing speed and distance from target, sort of like the old Lunar program at the time. One of the things that always got people thinking it was 'broken' was that you had to slow down to catch up, basically by slowing you moved to a lower orbit and moved faster relative to an object in a higher orbit, and then you went to a higher orbit to slow down (accelerating).