Gravitational tractor for towing asteroids

AI Thread Summary
Astronauts Edward T. Lu and Stanley G. Love propose using a spaceship as a gravitational tractor to tow asteroids, as detailed in their recent paper. The discussion highlights confusion around the mathematical formulas presented, particularly regarding thrust calculations needed to counteract gravitational attraction. The calculations reveal discrepancies between the required thrust of 1 Newton and the derived values of approximately 0.5 Newtons and 5.67, raising questions about the formulas' accuracy. The need for additional thrust is attributed to the spaceship angling its thrusters away from the asteroid to avoid collision. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the complexities and potential oversights in the mathematical modeling of asteroid towing.
tony873004
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
1,753
Reaction score
143
Tex doesn't seem to work in preview mode anymore. So sorry for the hard-to-read formulas.

In a paper recently published astronauts Edward T. Lu and Stanley G. Love propose using a spaceship as a "gravitational tractor for towing asteroids".
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0509/0509595.pdf

There's some math I don't understand in this paper:

The thrust required to balance the gravitational attraction is given by T cos[sin-1(r/d)+a] = GMm/d^2 = 1.12(p/2g/cm^3)(r/d)^3(m/2x10^4Kg)(d/100m). Thus a notional 20 ton spacecraft with a=20 degrees hovering one half radius above the surface (d/r=1.5) can tow a 200m diameter asteroid (r=100m) with density p=2g/cm^3 provided it can maintain a total thrust T=1N.

Since the formula is in the form x=y=z, I imagine that if I computed them seperately, that I'd get 3 identical answers. I'll try the 2nd and 3rd approaches:

Since it gives the asteroid diameter as 200m, and its density as 2g/cc, this means the asteroid's mass (M) is 8377580410 kg. It states the spacecraft is 20 tons. Tons has a few different meanings. I'm assuming they mean metric tons or 20,000 kg. Distance from center of mass is 150m.

GMm/d^2
(6.67e-11 * 8377580409.57278 * 20000) / 150^2 = 0.496696224 N

1.12(p/2g/cm^3)(r/d)^3(m/2x10^4Kg)(d/100m)
1.12((2g)/2g/cm^3)(1.5)^3(20000Kg/2x10^4Kg)(150m/100m)
1.12(1)(1.5)^3(1)(1.5)
1.12*1.5^3*1.5 = 5.67 (no units. They all cancel, so how can this equal thrust? Also, there's no M (asteroid mass) in this formula. How can I compute the amount of thrust needed to hover over an asteroid without the asteroid's mass?)

0.4967 N does not equal 5.67 does not equal 1 N. What am I failing to understand?
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The spaceship is angling its thrusters away from the asteroid to avoid hitting it - that's why more thrust is needed than GmM/d^2.

Using google calculator, I also get .496 Newtons for the force.

The spaceship is angling it's thrusters roughly 60 degrees away from a straight-line thrust, which is why it needs 1 Newton of thrust rather than .5 Newton.

60 degrees comes from arcsin(1/1.5) which is close to 40 degrees, plus 20 more.

The second expression is dimensionless - but it should have a value of 1 with the parameters specified - except for the first constant, which is in Newtons.

The paper probably meant to write

Thus T = 1 N * (complicated dimensionless expression)

I don't know why they didn't write it that way :-(.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top