Would it be harder to leave the solar system by going up or by leaving through the planetary plane?

Question

You know, in case I ever build a spaceship.

That does make sense about sling shotting off of each planet. I also thought, is there a difference between up or down? Like if the solar system is travelling sort of up, then you can exit faster going down. Isn't it weird to think of speed as relative and everything is moving.

Answer 1

It might be necessary to define 'harder' in terms of fuel, thrust (engine size) and time. However it is an interesting consideration. Neglecting liftoff from earth and other planets that may have a temporary advantage, etc. you could 'fly' either straight out from earth through the plane of the planets or perpendicular to the plane. The main difference would be that a flight away from the sun through the plane gains distance from the sun faster than if the flight is perpendicular (at constant absolute speed). likely the perpendicular flight would require less thrust. Walk directly away from a flagpole on a radius passing through a circle about it as opposed to walking away from it along a tangent to the same circle.

Answer 2

First of all there's no such thing as "up". But yes, it may be easier to leave following the "ecliptic plane". That is the plane in which the Earth orbit around the Sun is contained. Not all planets share exactly the same plane. The difference however is no larger than several degrees. It would be easier to leave in this direction because the space ship would undergo progressive acceleration by properly utilising the "gravitational slingshot effect " by the gravity field of the planets of the solar system. This would allow substancial fuel saving and also a less bulky ship. It would nevertheless mean that you would have to plan carefully yhe voyage and have an adequate onboard computer with corresponding software and reasonable measuring implements. The advantage of "taking off" perpendiculary would mean you would probably NOT have to find your way through the asteroid belt and could benefit from a less "coercissive" trip planning.
Most space travel (Pioneer probes or Mars missions) are still being made today in the ecliptic plane. One of the reasons is that otherwise it would be less easy to reach the planets. Which as I said all share more or less the same ecliptic plane.

Answer 3

Distance need to be travelled is less if you leaving on planetary plane and also you can use other planets to boost your speed. Definitely planetary plane is easier.

Answer 4

I would go trough the planetary line. That way I can do the speed boost around Jupiter.

Answer 5

Leaving along the plane of the ecliptic lets you take advantage of he Earths velocity as well as (maybe, if things are lined up properly) allowing you to do 'sling-shot' maneuvers around other planets.

Doug

Answer 6

It is much easier and fuel-efficient to leave along the planetary plane, because we use the earth's orbital and rotational momentum to help slingshot us into space. To obtain a trajectory perpendicular to that plane would require a tremendous amount of fuel -- more than our current vehicles could hold and still be light enough to achieve escape velocity.

Answer 7

If you "go up" ( I know what you mean) your chances of hitting space junk declines since you won't be going through the asteroid belt or the kuiper belt. You still have to worry about the oort cloud though. Of course if you go through the plane of the ecliptic you can obtain significant speed boosts by interacting with the gravitational field of one or another large planet. Bon Voyage!

Answer 8

"Up" would be harder. The key advantage to leaving through the planetary plane is using Jupiter, Saturn, etc. as gravity boosts. This will greatly increase speed of the craft as well as conserve fuel.

Answer 9

It would be about the same time. I've done it both ways and it only took about 3 more light years when I went up..