4
$\begingroup$

I recently stumbled upon the question Why did New Horizons have to be spin-balanced to grams-level precision? (With quarters!) and the accepted answer written by an authoritative source (the guy who created & performed the test).

I am puzzled by this statement:

However most spacecraft (New Horizons and Ladee included) spin about their minimum axis of inertia

I take "minimum axis of inertia" to mean the principal axis with the lowest moment of inertia. However, looking at the configuration of the New Horizons spacecraft, I intuitively (if moments of inertia can be intuitive) expect the spin axis (Y) to be the maximum axis of inertia:

New Horizons

  1. The New Horizons Spacecraft, Fountain et al. https://www.boulder.swri.edu/pkb/ssr/ssr-fountain.pdf

This is confirmed by Guerra et al.[2] which states:

The nominal spin rate of New Horizons is ω0 = 5 rpm, and the location of the centre of mass is the origin of the reference frame [...]. In this reference frame the principal moments of inertia are A = IXX = 161.38 kg/m2, B = IYY = 402.12 kg/m2, C = IZZ = 316 kg/m2 [19].

Where reference 19 is a private communication with "G. H. Fountain" (author of previously sourced "The New Horizons Spacecraft").

Is the comment made in the accepted answer wrong? Am I misunderstanding what minimum axis of inertia means?

  1. Estimating the thermally induced acceleration of the New Horizons spacecraft, Guerra et al. (2017) (archived)
$\endgroup$
12
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Minimum/maximum perhaps related to the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poinsot%27s_ellipsoid representation ? And you sure don't want the tennis racket theorem coming in to play so don't rotate around z... $\endgroup$
    – Jon Custer
    Nov 2, 2021 at 19:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BrendanLuke15 Two other possible explanations, both wild guesses really: i) the diagram could be incorrect (though it looks plausible to me) or ii) there are different mission phases with the rotation about different axes. You could add a link this question from jon harrison's answer to see what he has to contribute. $\endgroup$
    – Puffin
    Nov 2, 2021 at 21:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Puffin generally a good idea, but it seems they are a "one and done" kind of user as all of their reputation is from that one single answer. $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2021 at 21:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm a co-author of Guerra et al. and IIRC, we had to contact G. H. Fountain because we couldn't find New Horizons' moments of inertia anywhere. I believe the most probable explanation is that he was thinking about the semi-axis of the ellipsoid, as referred by @Jon Custer, and misspoke $\endgroup$
    – Paulo Gil
    Nov 4, 2021 at 9:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ng Ph, I don't have a statistic but would say false. It's not a good idea because vibrations in antennas and other flexible parts make the S/C to loose kinetic energy of rotation and the axis of minimum moment of inertia becomes unstable. This is well known since Explorer-1. Rigid antennas help, but I would say it's always a liability. So, unless you can't avoid it it's better to use the axis of the largest moment of inertia. $\endgroup$
    – Paulo Gil
    Nov 6, 2021 at 23:00

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.