Something better than a patched conic approximation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexrey
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approximation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the exploration of spacecraft transfer methods from Earth to Mars, specifically examining alternatives to the patched conic approximation. Participants consider the potential for an n-body approximation that accounts for the gravitational influences of multiple celestial bodies simultaneously, as well as the accuracy and applicability of the patched conic method for various planetary transfers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes the use of an n-body approximation to simulate gravitational influences from Earth, Mars, and the Sun simultaneously, rather than relying on patched conic approximations.
  • Another participant notes that the accuracy of the patched conic approximation depends on the velocity and trajectory of the spacecraft, suggesting that numerical simulations may yield better results when close to a planet.
  • A participant mentions that they have incorporated the gravitational acceleration of the Sun, Earth, and Mars into their simulation using Mathematica's NDSolve, seeking equations for calculating delta-v and phase angles for orbital insertion.
  • One reply challenges the feasibility of finding a general set of equations for such transfers, stating that most real-world problems lack analytic solutions and emphasizing the role of numerical optimization.
  • Another participant highlights that while the patched conic approximation was developed during a time of limited computational power, modern numerical techniques can provide sufficient solutions without needing the approximation.
  • A participant expresses difficulty in breaking down the departure delta-v equation into its x- and y-components, indicating that their current approach results in excessive velocity for the spacecraft.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and accuracy of the patched conic approximation versus n-body simulations. There is no consensus on the best approach, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal method for calculating spacecraft transfers.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their approaches, such as the dependence on numerical methods and the challenges of accurately modeling trajectories in a multi-body gravitational field. There is also recognition that real-world execution may introduce additional errors that need to be corrected mid-course.

Alexrey
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Hi guys,

I've made a Mathematica n-body simulation of the first few planets in our Solar System and thought it would be a good idea to try and simulate a spacecraft transfer from Earth to Mars. I've thought about using a patched conic approximation, but I was wondering if there is anything more along the lines of an "n-body approximation" where, say for example, the gravitational acceleration from the Earth, Mars and the Sun influence the transferring spacecraft all at the same time (i.e. no disjoint 2-body approximations and spheres of influence). Has anyone developed such a method?

By the way, how accurate is the patched conic approximation? I know it was used during the Moon missions, but what about getting to planets such as Uranus or Neptune? Does its accuracy drop off with distance, and is this drop linear?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
By the way, how accurate is the patched conic approximation?
That depends on the velocity and the trajectory. It is more accurate for faster velocities (significantly above the escape velocity of one of the objects in a transition).
For a transfer from Earth to mars, I would expect better results if you simulate this numerically (taking both sun and planet into account) if the spacecraft is close to one of the planets. Or just take all significant objects (Sun, Earth, Mars, Moon, Jupiter, ...) into account. Computing power for such a simple task should not be an issue today.
 
Currently I've added the gravitational acceleration of the Sun, Earth and Mars into the simulation, which have been calculated numerically using Mathematica's NDSolve. What I really wanted to know was if there are a set of equations, similar to those for calculating planetary transfers using the patched conic approximation, that will allow me to calculate the delta-v, and phase angle etc. required, in order to hit or arrive in an orbit around the target planet.
 
If that would be possible in general, there would be no need for the patched conic approximation.
You will have to try some different trajectories. If they are close to what you want, check parameter values nearby, and optimize your trajectory in that way. This is just a numerical optimization problem.
 
Alexrey said:
What I really wanted to know was if there are a set of equations, similar to those for calculating planetary transfers using the patched conic approximation, that will allow me to calculate the delta-v, and phase angle etc. required, in order to hit or arrive in an orbit around the target planet.
Of course not. Most real world problems don't have analytic solutions. This is yet another of those.

The patched conic approximation comes from a day where the most powerful supercomputer in the world had about 1/30th of the processing power of the typical laptop of today. There were better uses for the very small number (< 100) of late 1960s era supercomputers other than solving a boundary value optimal control problem for which a very good approximate solution (the patched conic approximation) exists. Nowadays you can apply numeric techniques to solve and optimize this problem on your laptop. You don't need that patched conic approximation.

On the other hand, do you need that perfect answer? An answer whose error is less than the errors that result just from firing the thrusters is good enough. Even with your ideal solution at hand, you're still going to need midcourse corrections because a real vehicle will never execute your ideal solution perfectly.
 
Thanks for the answers guys. So patched conic it is :)

I've been trying to figure out how to get the departure \triangle v equation into its x- and y-components (since I'm using a Heliocentric x-y coordinate system), but have had no luck so far. This is what I did:

I took the original vector equation:
\triangle v=\sqrt{\frac{\mu_{sun}}{r_{1}}}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2r_{2}}{r_{1}+r_{2}}}-1\right)

And then attempted to get it into its x and y scalar components by doing the following:
\triangle v_{x}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu_{sun}}{r_{1x}}}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2r_{2x}}{r_{1x}+r_{2x}}}-1\right), \triangle v_{y}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu_{sun}}{r_{1y}}}\left(\sqrt{\frac{2r_{2y}}{r_{1y}+r_{2y}}}-1\right)

Where r_{1x}, r_{1y} and r_{2x}, r_{2y} are the x- and y-components of the radial position of the Earth and Mars from the Sun respectively, and have been obtained from Mathematica's AstronomicalData function (which returns a list of 3 numbers of position, one for each coordinate). But when using these two equations to give the orbiting spacecraft the required instantaneous \triangle v kick to get to Mars, I find that it has been given far too much speed and flies off into deep space instead of making it just to Mars' orbital radius. Clearly there is something drastically wrong with how I broke the original equation into its components, but cannot seem to figure out where I went wrong.

If anyone knows how I can fix this, I would greatly appreciate their help. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K