![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:03:41 GMT, Richard Lamb
wrote: Hey Ron, help me out some more here on rec.aviation.homebuilt.spacecraft. For the reentry phase from orbit... For the sake of argument (and ignoring the increased fuel required) wouldn't slowing down too much before reentry be a problem? Steeper path, higher G load, and even more reentry heat? Like I said on an earlier post, I don't have much background on re-entry physics. But I think it's possible to deorbit going slowly at a fairly shallow angle...you just have to time the deorbit burn properly. But one thing you can't do is "slow fly" a satellite. For any given speed, for any given velocity vector, there is only one possible orbit. Sure, you can probably increase your angle of attack and do a "skip", but that just means that on the other side of the world, you're going to come down at a much steeper angle. Kinda like bouncing a landing without the ability to add a burst of power to catch the bounce. Ron Wanttaja |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 03:41:16 +0000, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 01:03:41 GMT, Richard Lamb wrote: Hey Ron, help me out some more here on rec.aviation.homebuilt.spacecraft. For the reentry phase from orbit... For the sake of argument (and ignoring the increased fuel required) wouldn't slowing down too much before reentry be a problem? Steeper path, higher G load, and even more reentry heat? Like I said on an earlier post, I don't have much background on re-entry physics. But I think it's possible to deorbit going slowly at a fairly shallow angle...you just have to time the deorbit burn properly. But one thing you can't do is "slow fly" a satellite. For any given speed, for any given velocity vector, there is only one possible orbit. Sure, you can probably increase your angle of attack and do a "skip", but that just means that on the other side of the world, you're going to come down at a much steeper angle. Kinda like bouncing a landing without the ability to add a burst of power to catch the bounce. I'm having one of those moments... I had always wondered why you couldn't dolphin in and out of the earth's atmosphere, cooling down in between hops. AC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 05:41:36 +0100, anonymous coward
wrote: But one thing you can't do is "slow fly" a satellite. For any given speed, for any given velocity vector, there is only one possible orbit. Sure, you can probably increase your angle of attack and do a "skip", but that just means that on the other side of the world, you're going to come down at a much steeper angle. Kinda like bouncing a landing without the ability to add a burst of power to catch the bounce. I'm having one of those moments... I had always wondered why you couldn't dolphin in and out of the earth's atmosphere, cooling down in between hops. I think you'd re-enter at steeper and steeper angles each time, since you lose velocity at each encounter with the atmosphere. I suspect, at some point, you can't "pull out" and may break up due to the overly steep re-entry. Just a guess, mind you. Ron Wanttaja |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
Like I said on an earlier post, I don't have much background on re-entry physics. But I think it's possible to deorbit going slowly at a fairly shallow angle...you just have to time the deorbit burn properly. Me either, Ron. And I don't think my Holiday Inn Express line is gonna work on this one, either. I thought I'd try to see if I could at least set the problem up. Hey, it's only calculus, right? But I found nothing there I could get hold of except the (obvious) arrogance of ignorance. Humbling... For a body in motion, the first derivative gives the rate of change in position per unit time (i.e.: speed = rate of change of position per second) If the object is accelerating, the second derivative gives the rate at which the first derivative is changing, or the rate of change in speed (acceleration = rate of change in position per second per second). Third derivative gives the rate of change in acceleration (what the physics guys call 'jerk' = rate of change of position per second per second per second). Like the way an old car jerks if there is too sudden a change is how it is accelerating. Quoting Martin Gardner, "Beyond the third, higher order derivatives are seldom needed. This testifies to the fortunate fact that the universe seems to favor simplicity in it's fundamental laws". BUT Simplicity is relative. On orbit, our ship is in steady state unaccellerated motion, right? Well, not exactly. Due to the curved path of the orbit there is an 'outward' centrifugal force that is exactly opposed by the opposite 'inward' centripetal force (of gravity). So our steady state 'unaccelerated' motion is actually a _second_ derivative from the straight line path (ASSUMING the orbit path is perfectly circular?). therefore Adding an acceleration to our _forward_ motion (second and third derivatives) causes an immediate third derivative reaction of the orbital altitude, i.e.: motion inward (if slowing) or outward (if speeding up). If I'm not too badly mistaken, we are up to the SIXTH derivative, and still haven't accounted for any deviation that would result if the acceleration vector is not EXACTLY aligned with the true orbital path in both pitch and yaw. Taking those into account, we are looking at the TWELFTH derivative just to predict what's going to happen when we try to change speed. If we are off in pitch, I think the end result would be an oscillation in the the orbital path. Think about an AC electrical signal imposed on a DC carrier. If we were thrusting straight 'outward', the thrust pushes us to a highe altitude that our orbital velocity will not be able to maintain. As soon as the thrust is removed, and momentum decays, we will drop back down, gaining inward momentum on the way, which will cause an 'undershoot' of our previous altitude, which will again bleed off momentum until we go back 'up', and over shoot again. There is probably going to be a fairly strong damping effect that will eventually (sota) stabilize at the original altitude, but I haven't a clue how to set THAT one up... Sheesh! Rocket Science.... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Spaceship 1 hits 212,000 feet!!!!!! | BlakeleyTB | Home Built | 10 | May 20th 04 10:12 PM |