||This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (February 2010)|
Orbital mechanics or astrodynamics is the application of ballistics and celestial mechanics to the practical problems concerning the motion of rockets and other spacecraft. The motion of these objects is usually calculated from Newton's laws of motion and Newton's law of universal gravitation. It is a core discipline within space mission design and control. Celestial mechanics treats more broadly the orbital dynamics of systems under the influence of gravity, including both spacecraft and natural astronomical bodies such as star systems, planets, moons, and comets. Orbital mechanics focuses on spacecraft trajectories, including orbital maneuvers, orbit plane changes, and interplanetary transfers, and is used by mission planners to predict the results of propulsive maneuvers. General relativity is a more exact theory than Newton's laws for calculating orbits, and is sometimes necessary for greater accuracy or in high-gravity situations (such as orbits close to the Sun).
Until the rise of space travel in the twentieth century, there was little distinction between orbital and celestial mechanics, and at the time of Sputnik, the field was called Space Dynamics (ref. the 1961 book by William Thompson of that name). The fundamental techniques, such as those used to solve the Keplerian problem (determining position as a function of time), are therefore the same in both fields. Furthermore, the history of the fields is almost entirely shared.
Johannes Kepler was the first to successfully model planetary orbits to a high degree of accuracy, publishing his laws in 1605. Isaac Newton published more general laws of celestial motion in his 1687 book, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
|This section requires expansion. (August 2008)|
The following rules of thumb are useful for situations approximated by classical mechanics under the standard assumptions of astrodynamics. The specific example discussed is of a satellite orbiting a planet, but the rules of thumb could also apply to other situations, such as orbits of small bodies around a star such as the Sun.
The consequences of the rules of orbital mechanics are sometimes counter-intuitive. For example, if two spacecraft are in the same circular orbit and wish to dock, unless they are very close, the trailing craft cannot simply fire its engines to go faster. This will change the shape of its orbit, causing it to gain altitude and miss its target. One approach is to thrust retrograde, or opposite to the direction of motion, and then thrust again to re-circularize the orbit at a lower altitude. Because lower orbits are faster than higher orbits, the trailing craft will begin to catch up. A third firing at the right time will put the trailing craft in an elliptical orbit that intersects the path of the leading craft, approaching from below.
To the degree that the standard assumptions of astrodynamics do not hold, actual trajectories will vary from those calculated. For example, simple atmospheric drag is another complicating factor for objects in Earth orbit. These rules of thumb are decidedly inaccurate when describing two or more bodies of similar mass, such as a binary star system (see n-body problem). (Celestial mechanics uses more general rules applicable to a wider variety of situations.) The differences between classical mechanics and general relativity can also become important for large objects like planets.
Every orbit and trajectory outside atmospheres is in principle reversible, i.e., in the space-time function the time is reversed. The velocities are reversed and the accelerations are the same, including those due to rocket bursts. Thus if a rocket burst is in the direction of the velocity, in the reversed case it is opposite to the velocity. Of course in the case of rocket bursts there is no full reversal of events, both ways the same delta-v is used and the same mass ratio applies.
Standard assumptions in astrodynamics include non-interference from outside bodies, negligible mass for one of the bodies, and negligible other forces (such as from the solar wind, atmospheric drag, etc.). More accurate calculations can be made without these simplifying assumptions, but they are more complicated. The increased accuracy often does not make enough of a difference in the calculation to be worthwhile.
Kepler's laws of planetary motion may be derived from Newton's laws, when it is assumed that the orbiting body is subject only to the gravitational force of the central attractor. When an engine thrust or propulsive force is present, Newton's laws still apply, but Kepler's laws are invalidated. When the thrust stops, the resulting orbit will be different but will once again be described by Kepler's laws. The three laws are:
The formula for escape velocity is easily derived as follows. The specific energy (energy per unit mass) of any space vehicle is composed of two components, the specific potential energy and the specific kinetic energy. The specific potential energy associated with a planet of mass M is given by
while the specific kinetic energy of an object is given by
does not depend on the distance, , from the center of the central body to the space vehicle in question. Therefore, the object can reach infinite only if this quantity is nonnegative, which implies
The escape velocity from the Earth's surface is about 11 km/s, but that is insufficient to send the body an infinite distance because of the gravitational pull of the Sun. To escape the Solar System from a location at a distance from the Sun equal to the distance Sun–Earth, but not close to the Earth, requires around 42 km/s velocity, but there will be "part credit" for the Earth's orbital velocity for spacecraft launched from Earth, if their further acceleration (due to the propulsion system) carries them in the same direction as Earth travels in its orbit.
where μ is called the gravitational parameter which is G * M, where M is Mass, G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of objects 1 and 2, and h is the specific angular momentum of object 2 with respect to object 1. The parameter θ is known as the true anomaly, p is the semi-latus rectum, while e is the orbital eccentricity, all obtainable from the various forms of the six independent orbital elements.
All bounded orbits where the gravity of a central body dominates are elliptical in nature. A special case of this is the circular orbit, which is an ellipse of zero eccentricity. The formula for the velocity of a body in a circular orbit at distance r from the center of gravity of mass M is
where is the gravitational constant, equal to
To properly use this formula, the units must be consistent; for example, M must be in kilograms, and r must be in meters. The answer will be in meters per second.
If 0<e<1, then the denominator of the equation of free orbits varies with the true anomaly θ, but remains positive, never becoming zero. Therefore, the relative position vector remains bounded, having its smallest magnitude at periapsis rp, which is given by:
The maximum value r is reached when θ = 180. This point is called the apoapsis, and its radial coordinate, denoted ra, is
Let 2a be the distance measured along the apse line from periapsis P to apoapsis A, as illustrated in the equation below:
Substituting the equations above, we get:
a is the semimajor axis of the ellipse. Solving for p, and substituting the result in the conic section curve formula above, we get:
Under standard assumptions the orbital period () of a body traveling along an elliptic orbit can be computed as:
The velocity equation for a hyperbolic trajectory has either + , or it is the same with the convention that in that case a is negative.
Using the virial theorem we find:
If the eccentricity equals 1, then the orbit equation becomes:
As the true anomaly θ approaches 180°, the denominator approaches zero, so that r tends towards infinity. Hence, the energy of the trajectory for which e=1 is zero, and is given by:
In other words, the speed anywhere on a parabolic path is:
If e>1, the orbit formula,
describes the geometry of the hyperbolic orbit. The system consists of two symmetric curves. the orbiting body occupies one of them. The other one is its empty mathematical image. Clearly, the denominator of the equation above goes to zero when cosθ = -1/e. we denote this value of true anomaly
since the radial distance approaches infinity as the true anomaly approaches θ∞. θ∞ is known as the true anomaly of the asymptote. Observe that θ∞ lies between 90° and 180°. From the trig identity sin2θ+cos2θ=1 it follows that:
Under standard assumptions the body traveling along hyperbolic trajectory will attain in infinity an orbital velocity called hyperbolic excess velocity () that can be computed as:
The hyperbolic excess velocity is related to the specific orbital energy or characteristic energy by
One approach to calculating orbits (mainly used historically) is to use Kepler's equation:
Finding the eccentric anomaly at a given time (the inverse problem) is more difficult. Kepler's equation is transcendental in , meaning it cannot be solved for algebraically. Kepler's equation can be solved for analytically by inversion.
A solution of Kepler's equation, valid for all real values of is:
Evaluating this yields:
Alternatively, Kepler's Equation can be solved numerically. First one must guess a value of and solve for time-of-flight; then adjust as necessary to bring the computed time-of-flight closer to the desired value until the required precision is achieved. Usually, Newton's method is used to achieve relatively fast convergence.
The main difficulty with this approach is that it can take prohibitively long to converge for the extreme elliptical orbits. For near-parabolic orbits, eccentricity is nearly 1, and plugging into the formula for mean anomaly, , we find ourselves subtracting two nearly-equal values, and accuracy suffers. For near-circular orbits, it is hard to find the periapsis in the first place (and truly circular orbits have no periapsis at all). Furthermore, the equation was derived on the assumption of an elliptical orbit, and so it does not hold for parabolic or hyperbolic orbits. These difficulties are what led to the development of the universal variable formulation, described below.
For simple procedures, such as computing the delta-v for coplanar transfer ellipses, traditional approaches[clarification needed] are fairly effective. Others, such as time-of-flight are far more complicated, especially for near-circular and hyperbolic orbits.
The Hohmann transfer orbit alone is a poor approximation for interplanetary trajectories because it neglects the planets' own gravity. Planetary gravity dominates the behaviour of the spacecraft in the vicinity of a planet and in most cases Hohmann severely overestimates delta-v, and produces highly inaccurate prescriptions for burn timings.
A relatively simple way to get a first-order approximation of delta-v is based on the 'Patched Conic Approximation' technique. One must choose the one dominant gravitating body in each region of space through which the trajectory will pass, and to model only that body's effects in that region. For instance, on a trajectory from the Earth to Mars, one would begin by considering only the Earth's gravity until the trajectory reaches a distance where the Earth's gravity no longer dominates that of the Sun. The spacecraft would be given escape velocity to send it on its way to interplanetary space. Next, one would consider only the Sun's gravity until the trajectory reaches the neighbourhood of Mars. During this stage, the transfer orbit model is appropriate. Finally, only Mars's gravity is considered during the final portion of the trajectory where Mars's gravity dominates the spacecraft's behaviour. The spacecraft would approach Mars on a hyperbolic orbit, and a final retrograde burn would slow the spacecraft enough to be captured by Mars.
The size of the "neighborhoods" (or spheres of influence) vary with radius :
This simplification is sufficient to compute rough estimates of fuel requirements, and rough time-of-flight estimates, but it is not generally accurate enough to guide a spacecraft to its destination. For that, numerical methods are required.
To address computational shortcomings of traditional approaches for solving the 2-body problem, the universal variable formulation was developed. It works equally well for the circular, elliptical, parabolic, and hyperbolic cases, the differential equations converging well when integrated for any orbit. It also generalizes well to problems incorporating perturbation theory.
The universal variable formulation works well with the variation of parameters technique, except now, instead of the six Keplerian orbital elements, we use a different set of orbital elements: namely, the satellite's initial position and velocity vectors and at a given epoch . In a two-body simulation, these elements are sufficient to compute the satellite's position and velocity at any time in the future, using the universal variable formulation. Conversely, at any moment in the satellite's orbit, we can measure its position and velocity, and then use the universal variable approach to determine what its initial position and velocity would have been at the epoch. In perfect two-body motion, these orbital elements would be invariant (just like the Keplerian elements would be).
However, perturbations cause the orbital elements to change over time. Hence, we write the position element as and the velocity element as , indicating that they vary with time. The technique to compute the effect of perturbations becomes one of finding expressions, either exact or approximate, for the functions and .
The following are some effects which make real orbits differ from the simple models based on a spherical earth. Most of them can be handled on short timescales (perhaps less than a few thousand orbits) by perturbation theory because they are small relative to the corresponding two-body effects.
Over very long timescales (perhaps millions of orbits), even small perturbations can dominate, and the behaviour can become chaotic. On the other hand, the various perturbations can be orchestrated by clever astrodynamicists to assist with orbit maintenance tasks, such as station-keeping, ground track maintenance or adjustment, or phasing of perigee to cover selected targets at low altitude.
In spaceflight, an orbital maneuver is the use of propulsion systems to change the orbit of a spacecraft. For spacecraft far from Earth—for example those in orbits around the Sun—an orbital maneuver is called a deep-space maneuver (DSM).[not verified in body]
Transfer orbits are usually elliptical orbits that allow spacecraft to move from one (usually substantially circular) orbit to another. Usually they require a burn at the start, a burn at the end, and sometimes one or more burns in the middle.
For the case of orbital transfer between non-coplanar orbits, the change-of-plane thrust must be made at the point where the orbital planes intersect (the "node").
In a gravity assist, a spacecraft swings by a planet and leaves in a different direction, at a different speed. This is useful to speed or slow a spacecraft instead of carrying more fuel.
This maneuver can be approximated by an elastic collision at large distances, though the flyby does not involve any physical contact. Due to Newton's Third Law (equal and opposite reaction), any momentum gained by a spacecraft must be lost by the planet, or vice versa. However, because the planet is much, much more massive than the spacecraft, the effect on the planet's orbit is negligible.
The Oberth effect can be employed, particularly during a gravity assist operation. This effect is that use of a propulsion system works better at high speeds, and hence course changes are best done when close to a gravitating body; this can multiply the effective delta-v.
It is now possible to use computers to search for routes using the nonlinearities in the gravity of the planets and moons of the Solar System. For example, it is possible to plot an orbit from high earth orbit to Mars, passing close to one of the Earth's Trojan points. Collectively referred to as the Interplanetary Transport Network, these highly perturbative, even chaotic, orbital trajectories in principle need no fuel beyond that needed to reach the Lagrange point (in practice keeping to the trajectory requires some course corrections). The biggest problem with them is they can be exceedingly slow, taking many years to arrive. In addition launch windows can be very far apart.
Many of the options, procedures, and supporting theory are covered in standard works such as: