New answers tagged

0

To complement other answers: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://history.nasa.gov/sp4231.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiy9t3V8KroAhXvwMQBHTE6DJkQFjAAegQIBBAC&usg=AOvVaw1VUaZsWkjc0fc12Bj9bwJx here is the book about full history of Galileo spacecraft. On page 76 in pdf file (page 121 in the book) Quote: "the probe was only ...


5

Galileo could even have filmed its fall into Jupiter if it had a good camera for that. Why wasn't that planned for Galileo? Because it wasn't possible for the Galileo Probe, which did not have a camera (good or bad), and it wouldn't have made sense (it wouldn't even have worked) for the Galileo spacecraft. The Galileo Probe and the Galileo spacecraft are ...


4

I think the overarching consideration is that it wasn't thought that a worthwhile picture would be obtained, and transmitting the picture would compete for bandwidth with more "interesting" instruments in the last seconds before the spacecraft were destroyed. There are a variety of reasons to suppose you couldn't get a good image. The spacecrafts' camera ...


1

Let's see if the physics of collecting ion propellant from atmospheres makes sense first. Using the vis-viva equation and the standard gravitational parameters for the two extreme cases that you've asked about, we can see what those orbital velocities might be for a circular orbit near the atmosphere (I'll use 5% larger than the planet's radius, it doesn't ...


Top 50 recent answers are included