When the rocket is launched vertically and reaches the first speed of the universe, does it automatically circle the earth?

First of all, rockets are not launched vertically;

Because rockets are launched vertically relative to the ground, or in people's eyes, but don't forget that the earth will rotate and revolve. So if you look at the rocket launch from a static angle in space, the rocket rises in a parabolic direction, but this parabola can be infinite. However, when the parabola reaches a certain height at the first speed of the universe, the rocket will be pulled around the earth by the gravity of the earth. In fact, the satellite "orbit" is to replace the "parabola" when launching a satellite and be pulled into space by gravity.

Don't you get it? To put it more bluntly, you can think of a rocket as a stone in your hand. The harder you throw a stone, the farther it flies. When you throw the stone (that is, when the rocket is launched), then you will see that when the stone reaches the apex, it will be pulled back to the ground by the gravity of the earth (completing a parabola), and so will the rocket, but the speed of the rocket is greater than 7.9 kilometers per second. At this speed, the centrifugal force of any object will be large enough to compete with the gravity of the earth. So the reason why objects don't fly far or fall back to the ground, but revolve around the earth is because the speed of the rocket is not fast enough, so it will be pulled by the gravity of the earth, so the rocket can only revolve around the earth below the cosmic speed.

Is it not affected by the gravity of the earth after reaching 654.38+08400 km? ?

It can also be said that if the rocket flies at the first speed of the universe, that is, at the speed of 7.9 kilometers per second, it is far from reaching 654.38+08400 kilometers, because the centrifugal force generated by 7.9 kilometers per second is only enough to compete with the gravity of the earth, but it cannot be got rid of. Therefore, we must have a higher speed to get rid of the earth's gravity, that is, the second speed of the universe, that is, more than 1 1.2 kilometers per second, in order to completely get rid of the bondage of the earth's gravity. As long as we reach this speed, we can go around the sun. Anything faster than this can go almost anywhere in the solar system, not1840,000 km.

Is there a higher cosmic speed reference than this: /view/ 19358.html? wtp=tt

My expression ability is very poor. It would be much easier if I had a schematic diagram. If you have any questions, please ask. ?

Answer supplement:

I mean, what is vertical? If the rocket is launched vertically relative to people or the ground, the angle will be adjusted as needed when the rocket reaches a certain height. In the distant space, rockets always fly in parabola. Oh ~ it turns out that the website above has a schematic diagram.

Answer, assume and ask again:

That depends on the speed of your rocket. The following schematic diagram is very clear. If the rocket's speed is more than 7.9 kilometers per second and less than 1 1.2 kilometers per second, it will orbit the earth. If the speed of the rocket is greater than11.2km per second, the rocket will completely get rid of the gravity of the earth, and it will revolve around the sun like the earth and the other eight planets. Theoretically, any object that reaches11.2km per second can go almost anywhere in the solar system.

Nothing in this world is completely correct. My answer is that the law of gravity is correct only if it is correct. Of course, the law of gravity may be wrong. )?

Oh, my God ~ You mean? Richie2005？ I shouldn't interrupt you, but isn't my sketch clear enough? Is the orbit of that stone round or elliptical?

Still can't help it:

If the stone reaches the speed of the second universe, it can fly in an orbit opposite to the earth or something, because the faster the stone is, the farther it is from the sun. You can imagine the earth in the diagram above as the sun, but the speed will change. The speed of orbiting the sun in a circular orbit is =11.2km per second, and the speed of stones is greater than 1655. It doesn't matter what its route is. Doesn't Venus go around the sun in the opposite direction, so it doesn't run at that speed? There is also its menstrual period. You have to look at the trajectory of the stone. For example, the period in the orbit of Mercury is only about 88 days, while the period in the orbit of Jupiter is about 4,333 days. It can also be said that the faster the stone moves, the longer the period around the sun.

Is that clear enough ~ ~?

Shouldn't you see it? Richie2005？ Answer some serious mistakes. I'll tell you two. Hope? Richie2005？ It can be corrected.

First of all, I have never seen a satellite that will land on the moon. I've only seen satellites that hit or orbit the moon. Also, as long as the lunar exploration satellite reaches the second speed of the universe, it will not be affected by the earth's gravity, and the influence of the lunar gravity on the lunar exploration satellite is only very small. (Assuming that the lunar exploration satellite flies over the moon instead of flying to the moon, the moon's gravity will only make the original orbit of the lunar exploration satellite deviate at most, and it will not capture the satellite, and the moon will not capture other planets, or even less, because if it exceeds the second speed of the universe, even the sun's gravity will capture the satellite. Is there another planet in the solar system whose gravity is stronger or wider than that of the sun? There are only two consequences when a satellite flies over other planets: it either hits or deviates from its original orbit and flies into distant space.

As long as the speed of the lunar exploration satellite exceeds the second speed of the universe and is reduced to a certain speed by the rocket when approaching the moon, the lunar gravity can capture the lunar exploration satellite. You should have heard of the importance of the braking process of the lunar exploration satellite. I don't need to say more about this.

And anything that runs in space, as long as the object is not affected by resistance, will never slow down because of gravity, because what if it is true? Richie2005？ For example, the earth has fallen into the sun. And the satellite will never fly away from the earth in a straight line, because even if we know that the fastest thing in the universe at present-light will be affected by gravity and change its direction, (you should have never heard of Einstein ring, right? Let alone such a slow satellite.

There is also the problem of orbit. The orbit of detectors that can fly out of the solar system, such as Pioneer 10, is of course accurate, but it was changed later by the rocket on the detector. ?

Alas ~! When you answer again, you added:

The first question:

Main building ~ Did you see the schematic diagram or not? And Richie2005 still made a bigger mistake! If the speed of Chang 'e II doesn't reach the second speed of the universe, it can only go around the earth forever, because Chang 'e II can only go from earth orbit to moon orbit if it exceeds the second speed of the universe, so it is impossible to "exceed the second speed of the universe" as Richie2005 said in 2005. Only by getting rid of the gravity of the earth can we enter the orbit of running to the moon, otherwise we can only go around the earth forever. Also, the speed of Chang 'e II can't be zero as Richie did in 2005, because if the speed was zero, it would have been sucked away by the gravity of the sun. The main building you should know: in the conventional space of the universe (ordinary space), nothing can have zero speed.

The second question:

Chang 'e II decelerated to 2.4 kilometers per second at a speed greater than or equal to 1 1.2 kilometers per second. But slowing down or accelerating in space is different from accelerating on the earth, because rockets have to accelerate Chang 'e II to the first and second speeds of the universe on the surface and orbit of the earth, and at the same time, they have to reach the same speed to accelerate Chang 'e II. Therefore, the rocket has to consume a lot of fuel to accelerate Chang 'e II to more than 1 1.2 km per second. Unlike Chang 'e II, it is easy to accelerate and decelerate when the gravity is almost zero. So it can be reduced to 2.4 kilometers per second without much fuel. Chang 'e II carried about several hundred kilograms of fuel, and the exact amount of fuel is unknown.

Also, when I saw Ricky's answer in 2005, I felt a little impulse to laugh, because his supplement was contradictory and he didn't even know it. In the third paragraph of the answer, it is said that the satellite must exceed the cosmic speed to reach other planets from the earth, but in the supplement, it is said that the speed of Chang 'e II is less than the cosmic speed, and the speed is zero at the intersection of gravity. You should be able to tell right from wrong in the main building.

Haha ~ tell me about the speed of the universe. You know the speed of the universe. Why don't you know the conservation of energy? Forget it, I won't argue with you, but why did you delete all the previous answers? Why not let people who see this problem comment on it in the future?

Ok, I'm here to answer questions, not to argue or anything, and answer the questions of the main building again:

If I remember correctly, right? You once asked the question, "Who knows about Chang 'e II? Come in and answer? Please come in "/question/189393538.html? Si= 1, I am so angry to say this question. Baidu blocked my answer, so you didn't see my answer. Now let me answer for you:

Now I want to know, whether I throw a stone vertically or obliquely, is it right to circle the earth when the speed reaches 7.9?

A: No, because it is impossible to reach the earth's orbit at a speed of 7.9 km/s instantly. The atmospheric resistance on the earth will slow down the stone. Only when the stone reaches and maintains it can it reach the earth's orbit. (And there must be no obstacles in the direction of throwing stones, such as not throwing them to the ground or mountains)

If so, then I don't have to doubt that the rocket will "turn over" when it is launched vertically into the air, right?

A: No, you are asking this/question/189393538.html? Si= 1, I seem to have answered the question. Now let me tell you something:

Did you see the rocket overturned on TV? If so, it's not the rocket, but the camera. Because the camera is stationary and the rocket is constantly rising, if the camera wants to capture the rocket, the photographer can only increase the camera angle (just like if you go to the scene to watch, you have to slowly change your head angle with the height of the rocket so that you can see the rocket). But with the change of lens angle, the rocket on the screen is like "turning over a barrel". In fact, if you don't look at the tail smoke of the rocket, you can hardly see the change of the rocket angle. Let me show you two videos to see if the "flip" you see is like that:

Saturn v launch video:/v _ show/v _ show/id _ xmta2otk5nte2.html

This video shows the rocket flying sideways at 3: 35 seconds, flying sideways at 5: 00 seconds and flying backwards after 5: 00.

The release video of Ares 1:/v _ show/v _ show/id _ xmtq4mtuzziw.html.

Is that what you mean by "rummaging"?

That's because when the angle of the camera increases, the angle of the rocket in the image will also change. When the camera angle is greater than 90 degrees, the rocket in the picture will fly backwards. In fact, the angle of the rocket has not changed at all, and the reason for this situation is entirely photography. Fortunately, I like aerospace and photography, otherwise I don't know how to answer you.

How did the synchronous satellite synchronize with the earth when it was launched to 36 thousand kilometers? For example, it was launched in Xichang, and then the satellite seemed motionless in Xichang.

That's because it takes the same time (that is, about 24 hours) for a synchronous satellite to orbit the earth. For example, on the expressway, if two cars are driving side by side at the speed of 100 km/h, one of them looks at the other car as if it is stationary, but when looking at the scenery on the roadside, it feels that the scenery is moving, so it can be said that the two cars are relatively stationary, so you change cars.

No way, reply to Richie2005: the speed of the satellite in elliptical orbit will change, but the potential energy of the satellite cannot change. And if Chang 'e II is stationary relative to the earth at the intersection of gravity, Chang 'e II will revolve around the earth. It is impossible to fly to the moon if it doesn't change its orbit and accelerate.

To answer your question:

Who says a camera can't shoot things that far away? ? There are some professional cameras that you should not know. I have seen some cameras with a lens diameter of 200mm. The diameter of the objective lens is 1 10mm, and Saturn or Jupiter can already be seen. Do you think you can find an excellent photo of 2008 on the Internet? It only took 16 light changes to capture the space station. Enlarge the picture, you can see that the center of the sun is the shadow of a space station, and the photographer only uses an ordinary telephoto lens. It's not surprising if you shoot this far with a professional camera. (There is also a Sima lens with a diameter of 400mm, which is far more powerful than an astronomical telescope if it only pursues light changes without pursuing image quality. Moreover, the video launched by Ares-1 has reached the limit of the camera at the end, so I can barely see the outline of the rocket, while the video launched by Saturn-5 is shot by a high-speed camera but played in slow motion, so if it is played at normal speed, the actual time of the video is only about 3.4 minutes (because I don't know the multiple of deceleration, I can't tell the actual time of the video accurately). The height of the rocket in 3.4 minutes is about 10 km at most, so the video of Saturn 5 is so clear.

Reply Richie2005? ：

Oh ~ by the way, I almost forgot the exchange of potential energy and kinetic energy. Your answer now is much higher than what you deleted, but I admire you for saying, "Although I am right, you may not believe me." ...

I am really speechless this time. I admit that I was wrong, but there are many mistakes made by others, and there is no way to prove it, because someone deleted the answer for comparison.

Understanding the main building is not a bad thing, because you can exercise your brain and use the thrust of understanding to get what you don't understand. Even if your reasoning is wrong, it will be more profound after correction. Otherwise, it's boring to rely on others to answer everything.