Proving Least-Energy Orbits of Spacecraft

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lonewolf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbits
AI Thread Summary
Proving that a spacecraft's orbit is the least-energy path involves understanding the energy dynamics of elliptical orbits. The least-energy transfer orbit from Earth to another planet is an ellipse, with specific points of perihelion and aphelion marking the closest and farthest distances from the Sun, respectively. The energy of an orbit is determined by both kinetic and gravitational potential energy, with elliptical orbits having energy equivalent to a circular orbit at the average distance from the Sun. For a successful transfer, the semi-major axis of the orbit must be at least equal to the average distance from the Sun of the two bodies involved. This analysis shows that any deviation from the optimal path increases energy requirements for the transfer.
Lonewolf
Messages
329
Reaction score
1
How would one go about proving that a least-energy orbit of a spacecraft is actually the least-energy orbit? I don't want the answer, just a push in the right direction.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
delta v

Hmm, this may not be as easy as it seems at first.

Do you have some contraints? For example, "between two neighbouring planetary orbits"? or, "excluding gravitational slingshots"?
 
In context, the question is to do with sending a probe to Saturn. Not sure if that's helpful, or not. It seems to be a case of being obvious that it is the least energy orbit, but being a pain to prove it.
 
The least energy orbit from Earth to another member of the solar system is an ellipse where the shuttle's perihelion, or distance where the shuttle is closest to the Sun, is the point at which the shuttle leaves the Earth's orbit. The shuttle's contact with the larger body occurs at the shuttle's aphelion or point in the elliptical orbit farthest from the Sun. It can be shown that the major axis of the resulting ellipse is found by adding the average distance in astronomical units from the Sun for each of the two bodies together: Earth and the target planet.

Not sure if this helps, but oh well, I don't understand the question clearly enough to elaborate on mathematics. But I'm only 15, so I doubt I'd be any assistance there! I'll try though.
 
The energy of an orbit is equal to the kinetic energy of the body plus the gravitational potential energy of the the body, or

E = mv²/2 - GMm/r

Now for a circular orbit, v= [squ](GM/r), so

E= GMm/2r - GMm/r = -GMm/2r

Now for an eliptical orbit, the body swings in and out from an average distance from the sun and this average distance is equal to the semimajor axis of the orbit (a) . as it does so, its orbital velocity increases and decreases also.

When the orbital distance is equal to 'a', the orbital velocity is equal to the velocity it would have in a circular orbit at that distance. Since the the energy of an orbit doesn't change, this means that any eliptical orbit has the same energy as a circular one of radius 'a', and we can rewrite our second equation as

E =-GMm/2a

As 'a' gets' larger E become less negative and thus is less.

If you are launching a craft from orbit one to orbit two, it is obvious that if 'a' is less than the average of the distance from the sun of the two planets, then the craft won't reach the second orbit. So 'a' must at least be that large. If the outer limb of the orbit swing out further than the second orbit, then 'a' has to become larger and the energy of the orbit increases.

Thus the energy difference between the first orbit and the transfer orbit increases (As does the energy needed to put the craft into the transfer orbit from oribt one.

This works even if the planet you are launching to orbits closer to the sun.

If you try and make the orbit so that it swings in closer to the sun than the target planet, then 'a' of this orbit gets smaller and the orbit has less energy. But such a tranfer orbit willhave less energy than the launch planet's orbit to start with, so decreasing its energy, increases the difference from the launch orbit, and increases the energy needed to mak the transfer.
 
Yup, that answers it. Thanks Janus. Thanks for having a go, Jeebus :smile:
 
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...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top