Had an, oh, that's how moment - Slingshot manuever

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter thecow99
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Moment Slingshot
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mechanics of the gravitational slingshot maneuver, exploring how an object can gain speed by utilizing the trajectory of another celestial body. Participants examine the principles behind this maneuver, including momentum transfer and the effects of gravitational pull.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the slingshot maneuver as a method for an object to gain speed by using the trajectory of another object, suggesting that it siphons momentum from the other object.
  • The same participant proposes that the ejection trajectory must be steeper than the insertion trajectory to maintain momentum, referencing the gravitational pull's exponential drop-off with distance.
  • Another participant points out that understanding gravitational slingshots cannot be simplified to a two-body problem, noting that the initial and final speeds relative to the planet or moon remain constant without propulsion.
  • This participant also mentions that the velocity relative to a third object can increase during the slingshot process and introduces the concept of the Oberth effect when propulsion is involved.
  • A later reply expresses a desire to further explore the mathematical aspects of the slingshot maneuver, indicating that the initial explanation seemed reasonable but requires deeper analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the mechanics of the slingshot maneuver, with some uncertainty regarding the implications of relative velocities and the necessity of propulsion. The discussion remains unresolved as participants explore these concepts further.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding assumptions about the two-body problem and the effects of propulsion, as well as the mathematical steps involved in analyzing the slingshot maneuver.

thecow99
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Had an, "oh, that's how" moment - Slingshot manuever

So I've pondered on this off and on, could never see how it was possible, suddenly it just hit me.. tell me if I'm correct.

In order to gain speed the object is using the orbital (or simply directional) trajectory of another. It allows itself to be pulled/tugged/towed towards, ideally on the same trajectory as the object, siphoning off it's momentum into itself for a boost. I'm assuming the ejection trajectory must be quite steeper than the insertion in order maintain this momentum, taking advantage of the exponential drop off of gravitational pull over distance.

Makes sense to me, but did I get it right?

Thanks!

I can also see how coming in the opposite direction could also work as well, by not doing the math though I'm not sure which would produce a better result.

Sorry, also just realized this probably belongs in the Classical Physics thread. Don't know how to move/delete this original post.
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
You cannot understand gravitational slingshots as two-body problem. Relative to the planet/moon where the slingshot happens, the initial and final speed are always the same*. The velocity relative to a third object (sun/planet) can increase in this process.

*without propulsion. With propulsion this would use the Oberth effect.
 
Thank you both. Why, oh why, do I think about problems involving the word 'relative'? Tweaks my brain a bit but, at least, it forces me to flex it.

I'm going to have to do the math now as my explanation seemed perfectly reasonable. Give me a bit, possibly a couple days, I'm no student and this might take me a bit to wrap my head around.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K