Question for rocket scientists

Consider the frame of reference of the planet being used for the slingshot. In that frame the slingshot projectile does arrive and depart symmetrically. If the velocity of the planet is pointing in the direction you want the projectile to go then even with this symmetry the slingshot process adds velocity in the desired direction.
And (because of pure physics) the planet that gave the sling-shot boost to the space craft's velocity (wait for it) slows down. The planet's orbit also changes. Admittedly, these effects are extremely small because of the relative mass involved.
 
And the n-body problem was unsolved in my college days...
I would have thought that as far as the orbital mechanics are concerned the planets used for slingshotting are sufficiently massive that this could be considered a sequential 2-body problem (and hence solvable) rather than a true N-body problem. I was never really a rocket scientist though, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
 
And (because of pure physics) the planet that gave the sling-shot boost to the space craft's velocity (wait for it) slows down. The planet's orbit also changes. Admittedly, these effects are extremely small because of the relative mass involved.
This can still be solved exactly (though now in the frame of the center of mass of the slingshott-er and slingshot-ee, which differs ever so slightly from the frame of the massive slingshott-er). It's when you start considering interactions with other bodies like the Sun and Jupiter that things start to get really messy.
 
While others were looking at getting TO Mars.... I'm looking at the problem OF GETTING BACK ! The planetary geometry to get there (with slingshot) makes getting back ** much longer than the time to get there **.
Anyone else consider THAT problem?
 
While others were looking at getting TO Mars.... I'm looking at the problem OF GETTING BACK ! The planetary geometry to get there (with slingshot) makes getting back ** much longer than the time to get there **.
Anyone else consider THAT problem?

Hotel California. You go, you're not coming back.
 
While others were looking at getting TO Mars.... I'm looking at the problem OF GETTING BACK ! The planetary geometry to get there (with slingshot) makes getting back ** much longer than the time to get there **.
Anyone else consider THAT problem?
One thing that will help is that it's easier to escape Mars than it is to escape Earth.

I'm guessing that pre-staging of fuel and/or thrusters in Mars orbit before the mission could help a lot but I'm no expert so YMMV.
 
I don't know, but in the process I learned about 'porkchop plots'. I still don't know!
 
I think it best simply to leave Mars to the Martians...
Nah, we need to learn how now so that when we need to go we can. Wouldn't it be great if we had colonies on Mars and a huge meteor destroyed all like on Earth. Elon would be known forever, or until a meteor hit Mars.
 
Humans seem to have no other choice but to explore. Oddly enough, what seems like a crazy idea at first ultimately expands our capabilities in many other areas.

Arguably, the original race to the moon is what led to each of us having a computer on our desk and one in our pocket that can contact almost any other human on the planet. (I still remember the first satellite feed with (IIRC) TelStar ca 1962.)
 
Humans seem to have no other choice but to explore. Oddly enough, what seems like a crazy idea at first ultimately expands our capabilities in many other areas...
Explore is fine.
Dominate and conquer is not fine.
Look what happened to Native Americans.
We should not let the same thing happen to the Martians...
 
Personally, I love to travel and will go just about anywhere, anytime.

But there are an awful lot of people who are totally content to stay where they are. I've met quite a few who have never, or almost never, been out of the county they were born in. Perspective is everything,

What does perspective mean? This is from the New Yorker magazine a number of years ago, and shows how the typical New Yorker sees the world:

NY Map.jpg


Disclaimer: I was born and raised in NYC so I'm allowed to make fun of them. :cool:
 
Explore is fine.
Dominate and conquer is not fine.
Look what happened to Native Americans.
We should not let the same thing happen to the Martians...
Not too worried about natives on Mars though I suppose it's possible.
 
I've always said I'd not choose to go on a space ship, but if they got 32ft/sec2 engines, I might consider it. There would be that uncomfortable greeting from the captain when halfway there, though. "Please go to your cabin, grab your barf bag, and strap in, we will be shifting to deceleration mode in 3, 2, 1"
 
I've always said I'd not choose to go on a space ship, but if they got 32ft/sec2 engines, I might consider it. There would be that uncomfortable greeting from the captain when halfway there, though. "Please go to your cabin, grab your barf bag, and strap in, we will be shifting to deceleration mode in 3, 2, 1"
No need to stop the acceleration. Simply use the thrusters to turn the ship 180 degrees while the main engines continue to thrust. In the few seconds of reversal process, the ship would only stray slightly from it's required path which could be easily corrected on the remainder of the trip. The captain might even choose not to inform the passengers of the maneuver. If they weren't looking out at the stars, passengers might not notice the slight acceleration of the turning thrusters. (Heh, heh, who was it who said "Do it at night?" - that way the passengers would be asleep.) :2funny::cool:
 
Why not station a booster package in orbit, like 50k miles out that the ship could rendezvous with? Strap it on, fire it up and increase velocity greatly. They’d have to save some for deceleration too. It’s doable
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom