Why didn't voyager1 and voyager2 crash on into Jupiter or Uranus when they approached near to these massive...
$begingroup$
I was reading about gravity assist and I read that both the voyagers used gravitational force of these planets to speed up.
But I wanted to know why weren't they completely attracted by their gravitational field?
One thing I thought about it was that the escape velocity of these planets were known to NASA and these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape but how did NASA calculated escape velocity?
$$v_{escape} = sqrt{frac{2GM}{R}}$$
But how could they predict mass?
Radius I guess can be predicted by parallax method.
jupiter gravity-assist flyby escape-velocity uranus
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was reading about gravity assist and I read that both the voyagers used gravitational force of these planets to speed up.
But I wanted to know why weren't they completely attracted by their gravitational field?
One thing I thought about it was that the escape velocity of these planets were known to NASA and these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape but how did NASA calculated escape velocity?
$$v_{escape} = sqrt{frac{2GM}{R}}$$
But how could they predict mass?
Radius I guess can be predicted by parallax method.
jupiter gravity-assist flyby escape-velocity uranus
New contributor
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I kind of feel like we should have some kind of a canonical "how does gravity work?" question that we could link to whenever these kinds of questions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of orbital mechanics come up. Unfortunately, searching for that phrase only turns up questions about zero-gravity cat litter boxes and other random stuff like that. :P
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
That said, searching for "gravity assist" instead does turn up this question, which I highly recommend the OP should read.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I have a question that branches off this one... How do you kind of crash into something????
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Never mind these unhelpful/unkind comments above, it's a good question! You've taken the time to find out that escape velocity is important and added the equation (I converted it to MathJax for you). Your question has certainly attracted several great answers below. Welcome to Space!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
26 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I was reading about gravity assist and I read that both the voyagers used gravitational force of these planets to speed up.
But I wanted to know why weren't they completely attracted by their gravitational field?
One thing I thought about it was that the escape velocity of these planets were known to NASA and these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape but how did NASA calculated escape velocity?
$$v_{escape} = sqrt{frac{2GM}{R}}$$
But how could they predict mass?
Radius I guess can be predicted by parallax method.
jupiter gravity-assist flyby escape-velocity uranus
New contributor
$endgroup$
I was reading about gravity assist and I read that both the voyagers used gravitational force of these planets to speed up.
But I wanted to know why weren't they completely attracted by their gravitational field?
One thing I thought about it was that the escape velocity of these planets were known to NASA and these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape but how did NASA calculated escape velocity?
$$v_{escape} = sqrt{frac{2GM}{R}}$$
But how could they predict mass?
Radius I guess can be predicted by parallax method.
jupiter gravity-assist flyby escape-velocity uranus
jupiter gravity-assist flyby escape-velocity uranus
New contributor
New contributor
edited 30 mins ago
uhoh
36.1k18127451
36.1k18127451
New contributor
asked 9 hours ago
GarimaGarima
111
111
New contributor
New contributor
1
$begingroup$
I kind of feel like we should have some kind of a canonical "how does gravity work?" question that we could link to whenever these kinds of questions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of orbital mechanics come up. Unfortunately, searching for that phrase only turns up questions about zero-gravity cat litter boxes and other random stuff like that. :P
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
That said, searching for "gravity assist" instead does turn up this question, which I highly recommend the OP should read.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I have a question that branches off this one... How do you kind of crash into something????
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Never mind these unhelpful/unkind comments above, it's a good question! You've taken the time to find out that escape velocity is important and added the equation (I converted it to MathJax for you). Your question has certainly attracted several great answers below. Welcome to Space!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
26 mins ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I kind of feel like we should have some kind of a canonical "how does gravity work?" question that we could link to whenever these kinds of questions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of orbital mechanics come up. Unfortunately, searching for that phrase only turns up questions about zero-gravity cat litter boxes and other random stuff like that. :P
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
That said, searching for "gravity assist" instead does turn up this question, which I highly recommend the OP should read.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I have a question that branches off this one... How do you kind of crash into something????
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Never mind these unhelpful/unkind comments above, it's a good question! You've taken the time to find out that escape velocity is important and added the equation (I converted it to MathJax for you). Your question has certainly attracted several great answers below. Welcome to Space!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
26 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I kind of feel like we should have some kind of a canonical "how does gravity work?" question that we could link to whenever these kinds of questions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of orbital mechanics come up. Unfortunately, searching for that phrase only turns up questions about zero-gravity cat litter boxes and other random stuff like that. :P
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
I kind of feel like we should have some kind of a canonical "how does gravity work?" question that we could link to whenever these kinds of questions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of orbital mechanics come up. Unfortunately, searching for that phrase only turns up questions about zero-gravity cat litter boxes and other random stuff like that. :P
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
That said, searching for "gravity assist" instead does turn up this question, which I highly recommend the OP should read.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
That said, searching for "gravity assist" instead does turn up this question, which I highly recommend the OP should read.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I have a question that branches off this one... How do you kind of crash into something????
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have a question that branches off this one... How do you kind of crash into something????
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Never mind these unhelpful/unkind comments above, it's a good question! You've taken the time to find out that escape velocity is important and added the equation (I converted it to MathJax for you). Your question has certainly attracted several great answers below. Welcome to Space!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
26 mins ago
$begingroup$
Never mind these unhelpful/unkind comments above, it's a good question! You've taken the time to find out that escape velocity is important and added the equation (I converted it to MathJax for you). Your question has certainly attracted several great answers below. Welcome to Space!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
26 mins ago
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
why weren't they completely attracted by their gravitational field?
How much a trajectory is changed, depends on 3 factors:
- the mass of the planet,
- the speed of the spacecraft,
- the distance between spacecraft and planet
Voyager's speed and distance were chosen to make sure Voyager wouldn't enter orbit around the planet. Voyager's speed before approaching Jupiter was higher than Jupiter's escape speed.
In fact, as long as your trajectory doesn't touch the planet's atmosphere, you're good: because you're arriving from another planet your speed is always higher than escape speed.
But how could they predict mass?
When a planet has moons, you can calculate the planet's mass to a good degree of accuracy. This uses Kepler's third law:
$$ M = frac{4pi^2r^3}{GT^2}$$
G is the universal gravitational constant, 6.6726 x 10-11N-m2 /kg2
r = orbital radius of the moon
T = orbital period of the moon
these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape
No. When Voyager 1 was launched from Earth, the last stage of the rocket put it on an escape trajectory, then it was jettisonned. That was the last time a rocket was used to significantly change Voyager's speed.
It traveled to Jupiter without further propulsion, so its speed slowly decreased as it got further away from the Sun.
Here's a plot of Voyager 2's speed:
Then as it got close to Jupiter, Voyager's speed increased drastically as it was pulled in by Jupiter's gravity. At Voyager's closest approach, Voyager's trajectory was bent. This put the spacecraft on course to Saturn.
As Voyager sped away from Jupiter, Jupiter's gravity slowed it down.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
+1. Heck, exact mass value isn't really that important for orbital mechanics . Gravitational Parameter (GM) is what the orbital equations generally care about and can be measured easily from observations to better accuracy than G or M individually.
$endgroup$
– notovny
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
While accurate as far as it goes, I kind of feel like this answer fails to fully address some of the OP's deeper misconceptions, such as that "these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape". It seems like the OP imagines gravity as some kind of a dissipative "suction" force that would capture incoming spacecraft unless they actively used their engines to escape it, rather than as the conservative force that it is.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The gravity assist did not change velocity relative to the planet, only to the sun, so it had nothing to do with escape velocity.
$endgroup$
– Nathan Tuggy
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
fixed that, thanks.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's try and understand how gravity works in space. This is kind of key idea to understanding lots of issues in space travel and astronomy.
So imagine a space probe, or rock, which is heading in from deep space, aimed almost, but not quite towards a planet. We can break that motion into two parts -- the part towards the planet and the "sideways" part. The planet's gravity accelerates the part towards the planet, but it does nothing to the sideways part, so the space probe is still not heading quite towards the planet. This keeps on happening, so the probe is moving increasingly fast, still almost but not quite heading at the planet.
After a while the probe whizzes past the side of the planet, going very fast. It can't hit it because it has never lost the "sideways" part of its motion (called angular momentum, more or less). It is still being pulled towards the planet but still moving around it, due to all the speed it has picked up. Then that speed starts to carry it away from the planet again (possibly with its course having been bent around to a greater or lesser extent). Now the gravity is slowing it down. However it is slowing it down just exactly as much as it speeded it up coming in so if it came in from far away at a certain speed, it will eventually escape equally far away at the same speed.
If someone can add some diagrams to this, that would be great.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To add to the answers @Hobbes & @Steve Linton posted, the mission designers indeed knew Jupiter's gravity field quite well from the orbits of Jupiter's moons. But before the Voyagers arrived they got additional measurements from the close flybys of two other spacecraft, Pioneers 10 and 11.
@Steve Linton correctly describes the effect of the "sideways" part of a spacecraft's velocity with respect to the planet it's approaching. If the sideways component is large enough, the probe will miss the planet. To increase that sideways component, on approach you aim the spacecraft [via trajectory adjustment maneuvers, where you use the spacecraft's rocket engine(s)] to precisely tune the components of velocity, one straight toward the planet and one sideways. That combination sets the "aim point", the point to the side of the planet where the spacecraft would go if the planet had no gravity. Trajectory designers call that miss distance "b", a part of the b-plane aim point.
This diagram helps to see the effect of increasing b if the approach velocity is held constant. For typical interplanetary trajectories the approach velocity doesn't depend on the chosen b. [Sorry for the pixellation—this is a very old diagram I pulled out of my presentation archives]
The brownish-tan (in the original file it was orange!) circle represents the planet, and the different colors of curves represent the trajectories followed by spacecraft with different b, all coming in at the same approach velocity and parallel to the black dashed line through the center of the planet. The thinner, dot-dashed lines represent what the spacecrafts' trajectories would be if the planet had no gravity. If b isn't large enough, as with the red and brownish-tan (formerly orange!) trajectories, they impact the planet. The thick, dashed red and brownish-tan lines show how those two trajectories would continue if they didn't run into anything, as would be the case if the planet were the same mass but a lot smaller in size (i.e., a lot denser).
The green and blue lines are for trajectories whose b are large enough that they miss the planet. They point out a couple of characteristics of these hyperbolic orbits: 1) the larger the b, the farther from the planet is the closest-approach distance; and 2) the larger the b, the smaller is the angle the planet "bends" the trajectory. Again, this is for a fixed approach velocity. The red trajectory is bent by almost 180°, while the blue one is bent only ~135-140°.
This bend is key to making gravity assists so useful.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pretty much the speed of the aircraft was really high, so the gravitational force around it couldn't bring it crashing down. But most likely the spacecraft changed it's path a little due to the slight force.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Garima is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33896%2fwhy-didnt-voyager1-and-voyager2-crash-on-into-jupiter-or-uranus-when-they-appro%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
why weren't they completely attracted by their gravitational field?
How much a trajectory is changed, depends on 3 factors:
- the mass of the planet,
- the speed of the spacecraft,
- the distance between spacecraft and planet
Voyager's speed and distance were chosen to make sure Voyager wouldn't enter orbit around the planet. Voyager's speed before approaching Jupiter was higher than Jupiter's escape speed.
In fact, as long as your trajectory doesn't touch the planet's atmosphere, you're good: because you're arriving from another planet your speed is always higher than escape speed.
But how could they predict mass?
When a planet has moons, you can calculate the planet's mass to a good degree of accuracy. This uses Kepler's third law:
$$ M = frac{4pi^2r^3}{GT^2}$$
G is the universal gravitational constant, 6.6726 x 10-11N-m2 /kg2
r = orbital radius of the moon
T = orbital period of the moon
these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape
No. When Voyager 1 was launched from Earth, the last stage of the rocket put it on an escape trajectory, then it was jettisonned. That was the last time a rocket was used to significantly change Voyager's speed.
It traveled to Jupiter without further propulsion, so its speed slowly decreased as it got further away from the Sun.
Here's a plot of Voyager 2's speed:
Then as it got close to Jupiter, Voyager's speed increased drastically as it was pulled in by Jupiter's gravity. At Voyager's closest approach, Voyager's trajectory was bent. This put the spacecraft on course to Saturn.
As Voyager sped away from Jupiter, Jupiter's gravity slowed it down.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
+1. Heck, exact mass value isn't really that important for orbital mechanics . Gravitational Parameter (GM) is what the orbital equations generally care about and can be measured easily from observations to better accuracy than G or M individually.
$endgroup$
– notovny
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
While accurate as far as it goes, I kind of feel like this answer fails to fully address some of the OP's deeper misconceptions, such as that "these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape". It seems like the OP imagines gravity as some kind of a dissipative "suction" force that would capture incoming spacecraft unless they actively used their engines to escape it, rather than as the conservative force that it is.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The gravity assist did not change velocity relative to the planet, only to the sun, so it had nothing to do with escape velocity.
$endgroup$
– Nathan Tuggy
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
fixed that, thanks.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
why weren't they completely attracted by their gravitational field?
How much a trajectory is changed, depends on 3 factors:
- the mass of the planet,
- the speed of the spacecraft,
- the distance between spacecraft and planet
Voyager's speed and distance were chosen to make sure Voyager wouldn't enter orbit around the planet. Voyager's speed before approaching Jupiter was higher than Jupiter's escape speed.
In fact, as long as your trajectory doesn't touch the planet's atmosphere, you're good: because you're arriving from another planet your speed is always higher than escape speed.
But how could they predict mass?
When a planet has moons, you can calculate the planet's mass to a good degree of accuracy. This uses Kepler's third law:
$$ M = frac{4pi^2r^3}{GT^2}$$
G is the universal gravitational constant, 6.6726 x 10-11N-m2 /kg2
r = orbital radius of the moon
T = orbital period of the moon
these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape
No. When Voyager 1 was launched from Earth, the last stage of the rocket put it on an escape trajectory, then it was jettisonned. That was the last time a rocket was used to significantly change Voyager's speed.
It traveled to Jupiter without further propulsion, so its speed slowly decreased as it got further away from the Sun.
Here's a plot of Voyager 2's speed:
Then as it got close to Jupiter, Voyager's speed increased drastically as it was pulled in by Jupiter's gravity. At Voyager's closest approach, Voyager's trajectory was bent. This put the spacecraft on course to Saturn.
As Voyager sped away from Jupiter, Jupiter's gravity slowed it down.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
+1. Heck, exact mass value isn't really that important for orbital mechanics . Gravitational Parameter (GM) is what the orbital equations generally care about and can be measured easily from observations to better accuracy than G or M individually.
$endgroup$
– notovny
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
While accurate as far as it goes, I kind of feel like this answer fails to fully address some of the OP's deeper misconceptions, such as that "these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape". It seems like the OP imagines gravity as some kind of a dissipative "suction" force that would capture incoming spacecraft unless they actively used their engines to escape it, rather than as the conservative force that it is.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The gravity assist did not change velocity relative to the planet, only to the sun, so it had nothing to do with escape velocity.
$endgroup$
– Nathan Tuggy
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
fixed that, thanks.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
why weren't they completely attracted by their gravitational field?
How much a trajectory is changed, depends on 3 factors:
- the mass of the planet,
- the speed of the spacecraft,
- the distance between spacecraft and planet
Voyager's speed and distance were chosen to make sure Voyager wouldn't enter orbit around the planet. Voyager's speed before approaching Jupiter was higher than Jupiter's escape speed.
In fact, as long as your trajectory doesn't touch the planet's atmosphere, you're good: because you're arriving from another planet your speed is always higher than escape speed.
But how could they predict mass?
When a planet has moons, you can calculate the planet's mass to a good degree of accuracy. This uses Kepler's third law:
$$ M = frac{4pi^2r^3}{GT^2}$$
G is the universal gravitational constant, 6.6726 x 10-11N-m2 /kg2
r = orbital radius of the moon
T = orbital period of the moon
these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape
No. When Voyager 1 was launched from Earth, the last stage of the rocket put it on an escape trajectory, then it was jettisonned. That was the last time a rocket was used to significantly change Voyager's speed.
It traveled to Jupiter without further propulsion, so its speed slowly decreased as it got further away from the Sun.
Here's a plot of Voyager 2's speed:
Then as it got close to Jupiter, Voyager's speed increased drastically as it was pulled in by Jupiter's gravity. At Voyager's closest approach, Voyager's trajectory was bent. This put the spacecraft on course to Saturn.
As Voyager sped away from Jupiter, Jupiter's gravity slowed it down.
$endgroup$
why weren't they completely attracted by their gravitational field?
How much a trajectory is changed, depends on 3 factors:
- the mass of the planet,
- the speed of the spacecraft,
- the distance between spacecraft and planet
Voyager's speed and distance were chosen to make sure Voyager wouldn't enter orbit around the planet. Voyager's speed before approaching Jupiter was higher than Jupiter's escape speed.
In fact, as long as your trajectory doesn't touch the planet's atmosphere, you're good: because you're arriving from another planet your speed is always higher than escape speed.
But how could they predict mass?
When a planet has moons, you can calculate the planet's mass to a good degree of accuracy. This uses Kepler's third law:
$$ M = frac{4pi^2r^3}{GT^2}$$
G is the universal gravitational constant, 6.6726 x 10-11N-m2 /kg2
r = orbital radius of the moon
T = orbital period of the moon
these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape
No. When Voyager 1 was launched from Earth, the last stage of the rocket put it on an escape trajectory, then it was jettisonned. That was the last time a rocket was used to significantly change Voyager's speed.
It traveled to Jupiter without further propulsion, so its speed slowly decreased as it got further away from the Sun.
Here's a plot of Voyager 2's speed:
Then as it got close to Jupiter, Voyager's speed increased drastically as it was pulled in by Jupiter's gravity. At Voyager's closest approach, Voyager's trajectory was bent. This put the spacecraft on course to Saturn.
As Voyager sped away from Jupiter, Jupiter's gravity slowed it down.
edited 6 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
HobbesHobbes
89.1k2253402
89.1k2253402
2
$begingroup$
+1. Heck, exact mass value isn't really that important for orbital mechanics . Gravitational Parameter (GM) is what the orbital equations generally care about and can be measured easily from observations to better accuracy than G or M individually.
$endgroup$
– notovny
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
While accurate as far as it goes, I kind of feel like this answer fails to fully address some of the OP's deeper misconceptions, such as that "these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape". It seems like the OP imagines gravity as some kind of a dissipative "suction" force that would capture incoming spacecraft unless they actively used their engines to escape it, rather than as the conservative force that it is.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The gravity assist did not change velocity relative to the planet, only to the sun, so it had nothing to do with escape velocity.
$endgroup$
– Nathan Tuggy
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
fixed that, thanks.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
+1. Heck, exact mass value isn't really that important for orbital mechanics . Gravitational Parameter (GM) is what the orbital equations generally care about and can be measured easily from observations to better accuracy than G or M individually.
$endgroup$
– notovny
8 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
While accurate as far as it goes, I kind of feel like this answer fails to fully address some of the OP's deeper misconceptions, such as that "these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape". It seems like the OP imagines gravity as some kind of a dissipative "suction" force that would capture incoming spacecraft unless they actively used their engines to escape it, rather than as the conservative force that it is.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The gravity assist did not change velocity relative to the planet, only to the sun, so it had nothing to do with escape velocity.
$endgroup$
– Nathan Tuggy
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
fixed that, thanks.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
6 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
+1. Heck, exact mass value isn't really that important for orbital mechanics . Gravitational Parameter (GM) is what the orbital equations generally care about and can be measured easily from observations to better accuracy than G or M individually.
$endgroup$
– notovny
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
+1. Heck, exact mass value isn't really that important for orbital mechanics . Gravitational Parameter (GM) is what the orbital equations generally care about and can be measured easily from observations to better accuracy than G or M individually.
$endgroup$
– notovny
8 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
While accurate as far as it goes, I kind of feel like this answer fails to fully address some of the OP's deeper misconceptions, such as that "these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape". It seems like the OP imagines gravity as some kind of a dissipative "suction" force that would capture incoming spacecraft unless they actively used their engines to escape it, rather than as the conservative force that it is.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
While accurate as far as it goes, I kind of feel like this answer fails to fully address some of the OP's deeper misconceptions, such as that "these space crafts used the propeller fuel to escape". It seems like the OP imagines gravity as some kind of a dissipative "suction" force that would capture incoming spacecraft unless they actively used their engines to escape it, rather than as the conservative force that it is.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
The gravity assist did not change velocity relative to the planet, only to the sun, so it had nothing to do with escape velocity.
$endgroup$
– Nathan Tuggy
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
The gravity assist did not change velocity relative to the planet, only to the sun, so it had nothing to do with escape velocity.
$endgroup$
– Nathan Tuggy
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
fixed that, thanks.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
fixed that, thanks.
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's try and understand how gravity works in space. This is kind of key idea to understanding lots of issues in space travel and astronomy.
So imagine a space probe, or rock, which is heading in from deep space, aimed almost, but not quite towards a planet. We can break that motion into two parts -- the part towards the planet and the "sideways" part. The planet's gravity accelerates the part towards the planet, but it does nothing to the sideways part, so the space probe is still not heading quite towards the planet. This keeps on happening, so the probe is moving increasingly fast, still almost but not quite heading at the planet.
After a while the probe whizzes past the side of the planet, going very fast. It can't hit it because it has never lost the "sideways" part of its motion (called angular momentum, more or less). It is still being pulled towards the planet but still moving around it, due to all the speed it has picked up. Then that speed starts to carry it away from the planet again (possibly with its course having been bent around to a greater or lesser extent). Now the gravity is slowing it down. However it is slowing it down just exactly as much as it speeded it up coming in so if it came in from far away at a certain speed, it will eventually escape equally far away at the same speed.
If someone can add some diagrams to this, that would be great.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's try and understand how gravity works in space. This is kind of key idea to understanding lots of issues in space travel and astronomy.
So imagine a space probe, or rock, which is heading in from deep space, aimed almost, but not quite towards a planet. We can break that motion into two parts -- the part towards the planet and the "sideways" part. The planet's gravity accelerates the part towards the planet, but it does nothing to the sideways part, so the space probe is still not heading quite towards the planet. This keeps on happening, so the probe is moving increasingly fast, still almost but not quite heading at the planet.
After a while the probe whizzes past the side of the planet, going very fast. It can't hit it because it has never lost the "sideways" part of its motion (called angular momentum, more or less). It is still being pulled towards the planet but still moving around it, due to all the speed it has picked up. Then that speed starts to carry it away from the planet again (possibly with its course having been bent around to a greater or lesser extent). Now the gravity is slowing it down. However it is slowing it down just exactly as much as it speeded it up coming in so if it came in from far away at a certain speed, it will eventually escape equally far away at the same speed.
If someone can add some diagrams to this, that would be great.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's try and understand how gravity works in space. This is kind of key idea to understanding lots of issues in space travel and astronomy.
So imagine a space probe, or rock, which is heading in from deep space, aimed almost, but not quite towards a planet. We can break that motion into two parts -- the part towards the planet and the "sideways" part. The planet's gravity accelerates the part towards the planet, but it does nothing to the sideways part, so the space probe is still not heading quite towards the planet. This keeps on happening, so the probe is moving increasingly fast, still almost but not quite heading at the planet.
After a while the probe whizzes past the side of the planet, going very fast. It can't hit it because it has never lost the "sideways" part of its motion (called angular momentum, more or less). It is still being pulled towards the planet but still moving around it, due to all the speed it has picked up. Then that speed starts to carry it away from the planet again (possibly with its course having been bent around to a greater or lesser extent). Now the gravity is slowing it down. However it is slowing it down just exactly as much as it speeded it up coming in so if it came in from far away at a certain speed, it will eventually escape equally far away at the same speed.
If someone can add some diagrams to this, that would be great.
$endgroup$
Let's try and understand how gravity works in space. This is kind of key idea to understanding lots of issues in space travel and astronomy.
So imagine a space probe, or rock, which is heading in from deep space, aimed almost, but not quite towards a planet. We can break that motion into two parts -- the part towards the planet and the "sideways" part. The planet's gravity accelerates the part towards the planet, but it does nothing to the sideways part, so the space probe is still not heading quite towards the planet. This keeps on happening, so the probe is moving increasingly fast, still almost but not quite heading at the planet.
After a while the probe whizzes past the side of the planet, going very fast. It can't hit it because it has never lost the "sideways" part of its motion (called angular momentum, more or less). It is still being pulled towards the planet but still moving around it, due to all the speed it has picked up. Then that speed starts to carry it away from the planet again (possibly with its course having been bent around to a greater or lesser extent). Now the gravity is slowing it down. However it is slowing it down just exactly as much as it speeded it up coming in so if it came in from far away at a certain speed, it will eventually escape equally far away at the same speed.
If someone can add some diagrams to this, that would be great.
answered 5 hours ago
Steve LintonSteve Linton
7,12311741
7,12311741
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To add to the answers @Hobbes & @Steve Linton posted, the mission designers indeed knew Jupiter's gravity field quite well from the orbits of Jupiter's moons. But before the Voyagers arrived they got additional measurements from the close flybys of two other spacecraft, Pioneers 10 and 11.
@Steve Linton correctly describes the effect of the "sideways" part of a spacecraft's velocity with respect to the planet it's approaching. If the sideways component is large enough, the probe will miss the planet. To increase that sideways component, on approach you aim the spacecraft [via trajectory adjustment maneuvers, where you use the spacecraft's rocket engine(s)] to precisely tune the components of velocity, one straight toward the planet and one sideways. That combination sets the "aim point", the point to the side of the planet where the spacecraft would go if the planet had no gravity. Trajectory designers call that miss distance "b", a part of the b-plane aim point.
This diagram helps to see the effect of increasing b if the approach velocity is held constant. For typical interplanetary trajectories the approach velocity doesn't depend on the chosen b. [Sorry for the pixellation—this is a very old diagram I pulled out of my presentation archives]
The brownish-tan (in the original file it was orange!) circle represents the planet, and the different colors of curves represent the trajectories followed by spacecraft with different b, all coming in at the same approach velocity and parallel to the black dashed line through the center of the planet. The thinner, dot-dashed lines represent what the spacecrafts' trajectories would be if the planet had no gravity. If b isn't large enough, as with the red and brownish-tan (formerly orange!) trajectories, they impact the planet. The thick, dashed red and brownish-tan lines show how those two trajectories would continue if they didn't run into anything, as would be the case if the planet were the same mass but a lot smaller in size (i.e., a lot denser).
The green and blue lines are for trajectories whose b are large enough that they miss the planet. They point out a couple of characteristics of these hyperbolic orbits: 1) the larger the b, the farther from the planet is the closest-approach distance; and 2) the larger the b, the smaller is the angle the planet "bends" the trajectory. Again, this is for a fixed approach velocity. The red trajectory is bent by almost 180°, while the blue one is bent only ~135-140°.
This bend is key to making gravity assists so useful.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To add to the answers @Hobbes & @Steve Linton posted, the mission designers indeed knew Jupiter's gravity field quite well from the orbits of Jupiter's moons. But before the Voyagers arrived they got additional measurements from the close flybys of two other spacecraft, Pioneers 10 and 11.
@Steve Linton correctly describes the effect of the "sideways" part of a spacecraft's velocity with respect to the planet it's approaching. If the sideways component is large enough, the probe will miss the planet. To increase that sideways component, on approach you aim the spacecraft [via trajectory adjustment maneuvers, where you use the spacecraft's rocket engine(s)] to precisely tune the components of velocity, one straight toward the planet and one sideways. That combination sets the "aim point", the point to the side of the planet where the spacecraft would go if the planet had no gravity. Trajectory designers call that miss distance "b", a part of the b-plane aim point.
This diagram helps to see the effect of increasing b if the approach velocity is held constant. For typical interplanetary trajectories the approach velocity doesn't depend on the chosen b. [Sorry for the pixellation—this is a very old diagram I pulled out of my presentation archives]
The brownish-tan (in the original file it was orange!) circle represents the planet, and the different colors of curves represent the trajectories followed by spacecraft with different b, all coming in at the same approach velocity and parallel to the black dashed line through the center of the planet. The thinner, dot-dashed lines represent what the spacecrafts' trajectories would be if the planet had no gravity. If b isn't large enough, as with the red and brownish-tan (formerly orange!) trajectories, they impact the planet. The thick, dashed red and brownish-tan lines show how those two trajectories would continue if they didn't run into anything, as would be the case if the planet were the same mass but a lot smaller in size (i.e., a lot denser).
The green and blue lines are for trajectories whose b are large enough that they miss the planet. They point out a couple of characteristics of these hyperbolic orbits: 1) the larger the b, the farther from the planet is the closest-approach distance; and 2) the larger the b, the smaller is the angle the planet "bends" the trajectory. Again, this is for a fixed approach velocity. The red trajectory is bent by almost 180°, while the blue one is bent only ~135-140°.
This bend is key to making gravity assists so useful.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
To add to the answers @Hobbes & @Steve Linton posted, the mission designers indeed knew Jupiter's gravity field quite well from the orbits of Jupiter's moons. But before the Voyagers arrived they got additional measurements from the close flybys of two other spacecraft, Pioneers 10 and 11.
@Steve Linton correctly describes the effect of the "sideways" part of a spacecraft's velocity with respect to the planet it's approaching. If the sideways component is large enough, the probe will miss the planet. To increase that sideways component, on approach you aim the spacecraft [via trajectory adjustment maneuvers, where you use the spacecraft's rocket engine(s)] to precisely tune the components of velocity, one straight toward the planet and one sideways. That combination sets the "aim point", the point to the side of the planet where the spacecraft would go if the planet had no gravity. Trajectory designers call that miss distance "b", a part of the b-plane aim point.
This diagram helps to see the effect of increasing b if the approach velocity is held constant. For typical interplanetary trajectories the approach velocity doesn't depend on the chosen b. [Sorry for the pixellation—this is a very old diagram I pulled out of my presentation archives]
The brownish-tan (in the original file it was orange!) circle represents the planet, and the different colors of curves represent the trajectories followed by spacecraft with different b, all coming in at the same approach velocity and parallel to the black dashed line through the center of the planet. The thinner, dot-dashed lines represent what the spacecrafts' trajectories would be if the planet had no gravity. If b isn't large enough, as with the red and brownish-tan (formerly orange!) trajectories, they impact the planet. The thick, dashed red and brownish-tan lines show how those two trajectories would continue if they didn't run into anything, as would be the case if the planet were the same mass but a lot smaller in size (i.e., a lot denser).
The green and blue lines are for trajectories whose b are large enough that they miss the planet. They point out a couple of characteristics of these hyperbolic orbits: 1) the larger the b, the farther from the planet is the closest-approach distance; and 2) the larger the b, the smaller is the angle the planet "bends" the trajectory. Again, this is for a fixed approach velocity. The red trajectory is bent by almost 180°, while the blue one is bent only ~135-140°.
This bend is key to making gravity assists so useful.
$endgroup$
To add to the answers @Hobbes & @Steve Linton posted, the mission designers indeed knew Jupiter's gravity field quite well from the orbits of Jupiter's moons. But before the Voyagers arrived they got additional measurements from the close flybys of two other spacecraft, Pioneers 10 and 11.
@Steve Linton correctly describes the effect of the "sideways" part of a spacecraft's velocity with respect to the planet it's approaching. If the sideways component is large enough, the probe will miss the planet. To increase that sideways component, on approach you aim the spacecraft [via trajectory adjustment maneuvers, where you use the spacecraft's rocket engine(s)] to precisely tune the components of velocity, one straight toward the planet and one sideways. That combination sets the "aim point", the point to the side of the planet where the spacecraft would go if the planet had no gravity. Trajectory designers call that miss distance "b", a part of the b-plane aim point.
This diagram helps to see the effect of increasing b if the approach velocity is held constant. For typical interplanetary trajectories the approach velocity doesn't depend on the chosen b. [Sorry for the pixellation—this is a very old diagram I pulled out of my presentation archives]
The brownish-tan (in the original file it was orange!) circle represents the planet, and the different colors of curves represent the trajectories followed by spacecraft with different b, all coming in at the same approach velocity and parallel to the black dashed line through the center of the planet. The thinner, dot-dashed lines represent what the spacecrafts' trajectories would be if the planet had no gravity. If b isn't large enough, as with the red and brownish-tan (formerly orange!) trajectories, they impact the planet. The thick, dashed red and brownish-tan lines show how those two trajectories would continue if they didn't run into anything, as would be the case if the planet were the same mass but a lot smaller in size (i.e., a lot denser).
The green and blue lines are for trajectories whose b are large enough that they miss the planet. They point out a couple of characteristics of these hyperbolic orbits: 1) the larger the b, the farther from the planet is the closest-approach distance; and 2) the larger the b, the smaller is the angle the planet "bends" the trajectory. Again, this is for a fixed approach velocity. The red trajectory is bent by almost 180°, while the blue one is bent only ~135-140°.
This bend is key to making gravity assists so useful.
answered 3 hours ago
Tom SpilkerTom Spilker
8,8011949
8,8011949
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pretty much the speed of the aircraft was really high, so the gravitational force around it couldn't bring it crashing down. But most likely the spacecraft changed it's path a little due to the slight force.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pretty much the speed of the aircraft was really high, so the gravitational force around it couldn't bring it crashing down. But most likely the spacecraft changed it's path a little due to the slight force.
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pretty much the speed of the aircraft was really high, so the gravitational force around it couldn't bring it crashing down. But most likely the spacecraft changed it's path a little due to the slight force.
New contributor
$endgroup$
Pretty much the speed of the aircraft was really high, so the gravitational force around it couldn't bring it crashing down. But most likely the spacecraft changed it's path a little due to the slight force.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 23 mins ago
ZeeshanZeeshan
11
11
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Garima is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Garima is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Garima is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Garima is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33896%2fwhy-didnt-voyager1-and-voyager2-crash-on-into-jupiter-or-uranus-when-they-appro%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
I kind of feel like we should have some kind of a canonical "how does gravity work?" question that we could link to whenever these kinds of questions based on a fundamental misunderstanding of orbital mechanics come up. Unfortunately, searching for that phrase only turns up questions about zero-gravity cat litter boxes and other random stuff like that. :P
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
That said, searching for "gravity assist" instead does turn up this question, which I highly recommend the OP should read.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I have a question that branches off this one... How do you kind of crash into something????
$endgroup$
– Happy Koala
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Never mind these unhelpful/unkind comments above, it's a good question! You've taken the time to find out that escape velocity is important and added the equation (I converted it to MathJax for you). Your question has certainly attracted several great answers below. Welcome to Space!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
26 mins ago