Relationship between characteristic energy and delta-v

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between characteristic energy and delta-V in the context of spacecraft missions from Earth to Mars. Participants explore the implications of Porkchop plots and the assumptions involved in mission planning, focusing on the physics of orbital mechanics and trajectory design.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the relationship between characteristic energy and delta-V, suggesting that a characteristic energy of zero implies a delta-V of zero.
  • Another participant clarifies that a characteristic energy of zero corresponds to a parabolic escape orbit, which requires a significant delta-V to achieve, specifically over 3 km/s from low Earth orbit.
  • There is a discussion about the interpretation of Porkchop plots, with one participant asking if the curves represent the energy needed to transition from Earth orbit to an orbit that coincides with Mars.
  • A later reply confirms this interpretation and elaborates on the assumptions made in mission planning, including the patched conic approximation, short times in gravitational spheres of influence, and impulsive changes in velocity.
  • Participants discuss why delta-V is often expressed in terms of energy rather than delta-V, citing factors like the complexity of escaping Earth's gravity well and the non-additive nature of delta-V.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the significance of characteristic energy and its relationship to delta-V, but there are nuances in understanding the implications of these concepts in mission planning. The discussion includes multiple perspectives on the assumptions involved, and no consensus is reached on the best way to express the relationship between these variables.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the assumptions made during mission planning, such as ignoring the gravitational effects of other celestial bodies and the complexities of delta-V calculations in practical scenarios.

Gone
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Firstly, apologies if this is in the wrong thread.

I'm currently writing a presentation on the physics of getting a spacecraft from Earth to Mars in the near future. In my research I've come up against Porkchop plots which seem to plot contours of equal characteristic energy so you can find out the best dates to launch the spacecraft .

What I'm struggling to understand is the relationship between characteristic energy and delta-V, I think that when the characteristic energy is 0 the delta -V is also 0 because you'll just stay in the orbit you were, but I'm not sure.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
A characteristic energy of zero means the spacecraft is exactly on a parabolic escape orbit. It takes quite a bit of delta-V just to achieve that, over 3 km/s from low Earth orbit.
 
Ok, so when I'm looking at the plots and it shows different curves of the characteristic energy is that the energy needed getting the craft from Earth orbit into one that will coincide with Mars
 
Gone said:
Ok, so when I'm looking at the plots and it shows different curves of the characteristic energy is that the energy needed getting the craft from Earth orbit into one that will coincide with Mars
That's correct.

Porkchop plots are a mission planning tool. In many endeavors, mission planning has to make a number of simplifying assumptions to reduce the complexity of the search space to a level that can be studied. This is most certainly the case when planning interplanetary missions. The algorithms used to produce a porkchop plot make three key of simplifying assumptions: Patched conics, short times while escaping Earth's gravity well and entering that of the target planet, and impulsive changes in velocity.

The patched conic approximation ignores the gravitational attraction of the Sun and other planets when the spacecraft is within the gravitational sphere of influence of a planet, and on the flip side ignores the gravitational attractions of the planets when the spacecraft is outside of the gravitational sphere of influence of any planet. With this assumption, gravitation is always a solvable two body problem. The assumption of short times inside a planet's gravitational sphere of influence means that the only issue of concern is getting from Earth's orbit about the Sun to the target planet's orbit about the Sun. The assumption of impulsive Δv means that solvers of Lambert's problem can be employed.

Something that is never explicitly said (except perhaps in college lectures) is why the Δv's that result from solving Lambert's problem are expressed in terms of energy rather than in terms of Δv. There are a number of reasons for not using Δv. First and foremost, the simplifying assumptions ignore escaping Earth's own gravity well. This is not a good assumption from the perspective of a launch provider. Secondly, Δv is a bit misleading because Δv is not additive. Interplanetary vehicles are typically launched from the surface of the Earth into a temporary parking orbit and then given a short burn that sends them on the desired interplanetary trajectory. This means there's a huge Oberth effect involved. Thirdly, burns aren't instantaneous. Launch providers need to account for this. It turns out that energy is a better metric than is Δv.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Gone and Bandersnatch
Thank you! It makes sense now :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
13K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Sticky
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
70K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K