I'm having trouble visualizing the bullet's possible orbit. If it's fired normal to the station's orbit, wouldn't that have it going down toward Earth? I'm not sure how that would put it at risk of collision, and in any case its velocity would be away from the station. Maybe I'm getting the ballistics wrong, but I would have said "tangential"; I can see how launching it on a tangential orbit could create a risk of collision.
This would be easier if I could draw diagrams, but I'll try using my words.
Imagine a satellite's velocity vector, which is tangent to its orbit. If you thrust along or against your velocity, the direction of the vector stays the same, but the magnitude changes. That puts you in an elliptical orbit, with one end at the altitude you started at.
Thrusting toward or away from Earth changes the direction of the vector. The new orbit will be elliptical, with the current altitude between the new apogee and perigee.
The third axis is at right angles to both the current velocity vector and the direction to Earth. Thrusting in that direction leaves the magnitude of the velocity vector the same and keeps it in a circular orbit. But that new orbit is at a slight angle to the old one, so they intersect. One intersection is where you did the burn, the other is 180 degrees away in the orbit. From the viewpoint of someone left behind in the original orbit, the maneuvering object (or bullet) moves away then returns twice per orbit.
I think maybe I get the idea. I was envisioning the bullet as being fired straight down toward Earth, so it stayed in the same orbital plane. You're envisioning the bullet as normal both to the station's velocity and to the vector pointing at Earth, which puts it into a different orbital plane, and you're envisioning the two planes as intersection on a line that passes through the station's orbit at two points?
Your story shows that there will eventually be a need for space coffins with their own limited propulsion systems. The low orbit variety would need to burn up on reentry, of course, but that would prevent this kind of problem. Sending somebody off in their spacesuit just seems like a bad idea anyway.
One of the Soviet Progress capsules would handle that function, though some would object to a body being handled in the same way as trash disposal. Now we have reusable capsules, which would be a pricey coffin.
2) The next time I watch a Star Trek episode where they somberly launch a deceased member of their crew out into space I'm going to snicker a little, and I'm going to blame you
In interstellar space you can toss something overboard and never see it again. If you're orbiting a planet, it's more crowded. In Wrath of Khan they gave that torpedo shell enough of a boost it landed on the Genesis planet, so no orbit worries (other worries, but you probably saw that movie).
I'm having trouble visualizing the bullet's possible orbit. If it's fired normal to the station's orbit, wouldn't that have it going down toward Earth? I'm not sure how that would put it at risk of collision, and in any case its velocity would be away from the station. Maybe I'm getting the ballistics wrong, but I would have said "tangential"; I can see how launching it on a tangential orbit could create a risk of collision.
This would be easier if I could draw diagrams, but I'll try using my words.
Imagine a satellite's velocity vector, which is tangent to its orbit. If you thrust along or against your velocity, the direction of the vector stays the same, but the magnitude changes. That puts you in an elliptical orbit, with one end at the altitude you started at.
Thrusting toward or away from Earth changes the direction of the vector. The new orbit will be elliptical, with the current altitude between the new apogee and perigee.
The third axis is at right angles to both the current velocity vector and the direction to Earth. Thrusting in that direction leaves the magnitude of the velocity vector the same and keeps it in a circular orbit. But that new orbit is at a slight angle to the old one, so they intersect. One intersection is where you did the burn, the other is 180 degrees away in the orbit. From the viewpoint of someone left behind in the original orbit, the maneuvering object (or bullet) moves away then returns twice per orbit.
Does that help? Or do I need to do a video?
I think maybe I get the idea. I was envisioning the bullet as being fired straight down toward Earth, so it stayed in the same orbital plane. You're envisioning the bullet as normal both to the station's velocity and to the vector pointing at Earth, which puts it into a different orbital plane, and you're envisioning the two planes as intersection on a line that passes through the station's orbit at two points?
Yes.
Your story shows that there will eventually be a need for space coffins with their own limited propulsion systems. The low orbit variety would need to burn up on reentry, of course, but that would prevent this kind of problem. Sending somebody off in their spacesuit just seems like a bad idea anyway.
One of the Soviet Progress capsules would handle that function, though some would object to a body being handled in the same way as trash disposal. Now we have reusable capsules, which would be a pricey coffin.
1) This was hilarious and awesome.
2) The next time I watch a Star Trek episode where they somberly launch a deceased member of their crew out into space I'm going to snicker a little, and I'm going to blame you
In interstellar space you can toss something overboard and never see it again. If you're orbiting a planet, it's more crowded. In Wrath of Khan they gave that torpedo shell enough of a boost it landed on the Genesis planet, so no orbit worries (other worries, but you probably saw that movie).