Skip to main content
Space Exploration

Return to Question

Grammatical changes
Source Link
Fred
Fred
  • 13.3k
  • 4
  • 42
  • 81

I was actually answering this question today regarding velocities of spacecraft, and it occurred to me I've never really looked at this graph in much detail before:

Heliocentric velocity of Voyager 2 plotted against distance from the sun

As you can see, after leaving Earth, the craft rapidly slowsslowed down (an example of the inverse square law), and it remainsremained below escape velocity until its encounter with Jupiter raisesraised its velocity by over 10 km/s. It receivesreceived another ~8-9 km/s slingshot from Saturn and another 1 km/s assist from Uranus.

However, the interesting event occursoccured at Neptune: It appears to have had a gravitational slowdown of approximately ~2 km/s, as opposed to an assist. Why was this?

This indicates to me that it took the opposite trajectory of this graph:

Instead of approaching the planet from behind its velocity vector, it flew in from the front and out the back.

I am aware that gravitational slowdowns can have many interesting uses, ESA's mission proposal for a Pluto orbiter require a gravitational slowdown at Jupiter to reduce its velocity for Pluto orbit insertion, so I suspect this was either a result of a science or engineering constraint.

Is there any explanation for why this was done?

I was actually answering this question today regarding velocities of spacecraft, and it occurred to me I've never really looked at this graph in much detail before:

Heliocentric velocity of Voyager 2 plotted against distance from the sun

As you can see, after leaving Earth, the craft rapidly slows down (an example of the inverse square law), and it remains below escape velocity until its encounter with Jupiter raises its velocity by over 10 km/s. It receives another ~8-9 km/s slingshot from Saturn and another 1 km/s assist from Uranus.

However, the interesting event occurs at Neptune: It appears to have had a gravitational slowdown of approximately ~2 km/s, as opposed to an assist. Why was this?

This indicates to me that it took the opposite trajectory of this graph:

Instead of approaching the planet from behind its velocity vector, it flew in from the front and out the back.

I am aware that gravitational slowdowns can have many interesting uses, ESA's mission proposal for a Pluto orbiter require a gravitational slowdown at Jupiter to reduce its velocity for Pluto orbit insertion, so I suspect this was either a result of a science or engineering constraint.

Is there any explanation for why this was done?

I was actually answering this question today regarding velocities of spacecraft, and it occurred to me I've never really looked at this graph in much detail before:

Heliocentric velocity of Voyager 2 plotted against distance from the sun

As you can see, after leaving Earth, the craft rapidly slowed down (an example of the inverse square law), and it remained below escape velocity until its encounter with Jupiter raised its velocity by over 10 km/s. It received another ~8-9 km/s slingshot from Saturn and another 1 km/s assist from Uranus.

However, the interesting event occured at Neptune: It appears to have had a gravitational slowdown of approximately ~2 km/s, as opposed to an assist. Why was this?

This indicates to me that it took the opposite trajectory of this graph:

Instead of approaching the planet from behind its velocity vector, it flew in from the front and out the back.

I am aware that gravitational slowdowns can have many interesting uses, ESA's mission proposal for a Pluto orbiter require a gravitational slowdown at Jupiter to reduce its velocity for Pluto orbit insertion, so I suspect this was either a result of a science or engineering constraint.

Is there any explanation for why this was done?

replaced http://space.stackexchange.com/ with https://space.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

I was actually answering thisthis question today regarding velocities of spacecraft, and it occurred to me I've never really looked at this graph in much detail before:

Heliocentric velocity of Voyager 2 plotted against distance from the sun

As you can see, after leaving Earth, the craft rapidly slows down (an example of the inverse square law), and it remains below escape velocity until its encounter with Jupiter raises its velocity by over 10 km/s. It receives another ~8-9 km/s slingshot from Saturn and another 1 km/s assist from Uranus.

However, the interesting event occurs at Neptune: It appears to have had a gravitational slowdown of approximately ~2 km/s, as opposed to an assist. Why was this?

This indicates to me that it took the opposite trajectory of this graph:

Instead of approaching the planet from behind its velocity vector, it flew in from the front and out the back.

I am aware that gravitational slowdowns can have many interesting uses, ESA's mission proposal for a Pluto orbiter require a gravitational slowdown at Jupiter to reduce its velocity for Pluto orbit insertion, so I suspect this was either a result of a science or engineering constraint.

Is there any explanation for why this was done?

I was actually answering this question today regarding velocities of spacecraft, and it occurred to me I've never really looked at this graph in much detail before:

Heliocentric velocity of Voyager 2 plotted against distance from the sun

As you can see, after leaving Earth, the craft rapidly slows down (an example of the inverse square law), and it remains below escape velocity until its encounter with Jupiter raises its velocity by over 10 km/s. It receives another ~8-9 km/s slingshot from Saturn and another 1 km/s assist from Uranus.

However, the interesting event occurs at Neptune: It appears to have had a gravitational slowdown of approximately ~2 km/s, as opposed to an assist. Why was this?

This indicates to me that it took the opposite trajectory of this graph:

Instead of approaching the planet from behind its velocity vector, it flew in from the front and out the back.

I am aware that gravitational slowdowns can have many interesting uses, ESA's mission proposal for a Pluto orbiter require a gravitational slowdown at Jupiter to reduce its velocity for Pluto orbit insertion, so I suspect this was either a result of a science or engineering constraint.

Is there any explanation for why this was done?

I was actually answering this question today regarding velocities of spacecraft, and it occurred to me I've never really looked at this graph in much detail before:

Heliocentric velocity of Voyager 2 plotted against distance from the sun

As you can see, after leaving Earth, the craft rapidly slows down (an example of the inverse square law), and it remains below escape velocity until its encounter with Jupiter raises its velocity by over 10 km/s. It receives another ~8-9 km/s slingshot from Saturn and another 1 km/s assist from Uranus.

However, the interesting event occurs at Neptune: It appears to have had a gravitational slowdown of approximately ~2 km/s, as opposed to an assist. Why was this?

This indicates to me that it took the opposite trajectory of this graph:

Instead of approaching the planet from behind its velocity vector, it flew in from the front and out the back.

I am aware that gravitational slowdowns can have many interesting uses, ESA's mission proposal for a Pluto orbiter require a gravitational slowdown at Jupiter to reduce its velocity for Pluto orbit insertion, so I suspect this was either a result of a science or engineering constraint.

Is there any explanation for why this was done?

Copy edited (e.g. ref. <http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/15953>). Added some context.
Source Link
edit approved Jul 26, 2015 at 10:44
Peter Mortensen
edit approved Jul 26, 2015 at 10:44
Peter Mortensen
  • 353
  • 2
  • 7

I was actually answering this question today regarding velocities of spacecraft, and it occurred to me I've never really looked at this graph in much detail before:

Heliocentric velocity of Voyager 2 plotted against distance from the sun

As you can see, after leaving Earth, the craft rapidly slows down (an example of the inverse square law), and it remains below escape velocity until its encounter with Jupiter raises its velocity by over 10km10 km/s. It receives another ~8-9km9 km/s slingshot from Saturn and another 1km1 km/s assist from Uranus.

However, the interesting event occurs at Neptune: It appears to have had a gravitational slowdown of approximately ~2km~2 km/s, as opposed to an assist. Why was this?

This indicates to me that it took the opposite trajectory of this graph:

Instead of approaching the planet from behind its velocity vector, it flew in from the front and out the back.

I am aware that gravitational slowdowns can have many interesting uses, ESA's mission proposal for a Pluto OrbiterESA's mission proposal for a Pluto orbiter require a gravitational slowdown at Jupiter to reduce its velocity for Pluto Orbit Insertionorbit insertion, so I suspect this was either a result of a science or engineering constraint.

Is there any explanation for why this was done?

I was actually answering this question today regarding velocities of spacecraft, and it occurred to me I've never really looked at this graph in much detail before:

Heliocentric velocity of Voyager 2 plotted against distance from the sun

As you can see, after leaving Earth, the craft rapidly slows down (an example of the inverse square law) and it remains below escape velocity until its encounter with Jupiter raises its velocity by over 10km/s. It receives another ~8-9km/s slingshot from Saturn and another 1km/s assist from Uranus.

However, the interesting event occurs at Neptune: It appears to have had a gravitational slowdown of approximately ~2km/s, as opposed to an assist. Why was this?

This indicates to me that it took the opposite trajectory of this graph:

Instead of approaching the planet from behind its velocity vector, it flew in from the front and out the back.

I am aware that gravitational slowdowns can have many interesting uses, ESA's mission proposal for a Pluto Orbiter require a gravitational slowdown at Jupiter to reduce its velocity for Pluto Orbit Insertion, so I suspect this was either a result of a science or engineering constraint.

Is there any explanation for why this was done?

I was actually answering this question today regarding velocities of spacecraft, and it occurred to me I've never really looked at this graph in much detail before:

Heliocentric velocity of Voyager 2 plotted against distance from the sun

As you can see, after leaving Earth, the craft rapidly slows down (an example of the inverse square law), and it remains below escape velocity until its encounter with Jupiter raises its velocity by over 10 km/s. It receives another ~8-9 km/s slingshot from Saturn and another 1 km/s assist from Uranus.

However, the interesting event occurs at Neptune: It appears to have had a gravitational slowdown of approximately ~2 km/s, as opposed to an assist. Why was this?

This indicates to me that it took the opposite trajectory of this graph:

Instead of approaching the planet from behind its velocity vector, it flew in from the front and out the back.

I am aware that gravitational slowdowns can have many interesting uses, ESA's mission proposal for a Pluto orbiter require a gravitational slowdown at Jupiter to reduce its velocity for Pluto orbit insertion, so I suspect this was either a result of a science or engineering constraint.

Is there any explanation for why this was done?

Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackSpaceExp/status/624585522028130304
Typofixes.
Source Link
Deer Hunter
Deer Hunter
  • 11.5k
  • 2
  • 53
  • 108
Source Link
marked-down
marked-down
  • 9k
  • 2
  • 43
  • 78