Neptune Orbiter, Another proposed mission |
Neptune Orbiter, Another proposed mission |
Nov 10 2005, 03:51 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 509 Joined: 2-July 05 From: Calgary, Alberta Member No.: 426 |
This seems like a good place to start off the Uranus and Neptune forum: with the next ice-giants mission.
I will admit to not knowing a whole lot about the Neptune Orbiter With Probes (NOWP), other than the fact that it's in the planning stages, and a few other details I've gathered from Wikipedia and various other Internet sources. Anyone care to get this one going with a bit more information? |
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 07:35 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
Does Triton *really* have enough of an atmosphere to allow for efficient aerobraking? At least, without a gazillion passes before you're significantly slowed down?
-the other Doug -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 08:34 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 648 Joined: 9-May 05 From: Subotica Member No.: 384 |
QUOTE (dvandorn @ Dec 5 2005, 10:35 AM) Does Triton *really* have enough of an atmosphere to allow for efficient aerobraking? At least, without a gazillion passes before you're significantly slowed down? -the other Doug NO IT DOES NOT! The atmospheric pressure at Triton's surface is about 15 microbars , 0.000015 times the sea-level surface pressure on Earth...that's not enough for any kind of aerobraking... Mars has average presure of 7 milibars, that is why MRO will have to spend many months aerobraking and don't forget that it uses only upper parts of atmosphere where presure is much less than that... The average pressure on the Earth surface (sea level) is 1000 millibars.... In order to use that little atmosphere on Triton for aerobraking our unlucky spaceprobe would have to fly verry,verry,verry dangerously close to surface... Edit: Some approximate calculatins based on these facts: Mars atmosphere is 143 times less efficient in aerobraking then atmosphere of Earth is... Triton atmosphere is 467 times worst then Mars... So it would take gazillon passes through it to slow down significantly... Solution : USE ROCKET ENGINES!!! -------------------- The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.
Jules H. Poincare My "Astrophotos" gallery on flickr... |
|
|
Dec 5 2005, 12:02 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Dublin Correspondent Group: Admin Posts: 1799 Joined: 28-March 05 From: Celbridge, Ireland Member No.: 220 |
QUOTE (Toma B @ Dec 5 2005, 09:34 AM) Not really. Despite having only a few millibars surface pressure Mars' atmosphere is denser at high altitudes than the earth's and extends further so it is not any worse than the earth's for orbital aerobraking. The cross over point is at around an altitude of around 70km if I recall correctly and orbiter aerobraking takes place much further out than that. The problems arise for landing craft as the lower density near surface atmosphere leads to much higher terminal velocities. Again I'm just going by recollection here but I think martian terminal velocities are about 5-10x Earth ones so from a lander aerobraking perspective I reckon it would be more accurate to say that Mars was about 10 times less efficient. Triton's atmosphere does seem to be just too thin to be of much use but it would be worth running some calculations on it to be certain. More on this later when I can find my drag calculations spreadsheet. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 1st November 2024 - 12:58 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |