Flyby Anomalies Explained?

I'll pull it down - thanks for the link

Is this a silo problem in which newtonians didn't think to look for relativistic effects at sub-light speed?

Only a partial 'silo problem', I think. JPL uses an approximation for the relativistic effects, because a full implementation is pretty complex and eats computer cycles, especially on the older generation of space-worthy computers. Should not be a problem with modern computers.

Management are probably reluctant to allow modifications to well-proven software. If the Mbelek analysis stands up to scrutiny, they will have very red faces!

-J

I wonder if the curent Challenge Question came off their drawing board

It's interesting how much debate such a "nonsense" challenge can invoke!

On a more serious note, I think it is possible to gain orbital energy from the Sun by a slingshot, but for interplanetary missions, it is a feeble amount, based upon the Sun essentially orbiting the Sun-Jupiter barycenter. Problem is the Sun's movement is very slow (~74 meters/second) in that frame. It is better to use a planet for that.

However, for interstellar missions, the Sun has > 200 km/s orbital speed in the galactic frame of reference and as I estimated, one can get about 10% of that as a gravity-assist boost if you arrange things correctly. One snag is that you must already have solar escape velocity when you arrive at the closest approach, which is difficult to obtain practically. It is however possible by using planetary flybys first, as the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft did. They did not go to the Sun, but did escape the Sun, so they got enough delta-V from the planets to exceed escape energy.

-J

Hi Jorrie,

Yep, such things can sure stir it up ! A lot of fun, though. If we ignore the seeming absurdities, they provide a good excuse to read up on topics we'd not usually find ourselves looking at (well, the likes of me anyway !). I've peeked at a fair number of other sites reading about different flavours of 'flyby', the various probe missions, orbits (space and visual), as well as trying to comprehend a few geometric digressions. All unlikely to be of direct use to me, but good general learning/brain exercise.

If I've understood correct, simple physics preclude the idea from happening within our solar system. Apart from relative motion, there are a lot of aspects I wish I could devote more time to looking into. I spent a while looking at planetary flyby's, and it was interesting to read how some missions were altered due to various mishaps. I couldn't find a comprehensive listing of flyby height for all missions (). It's fascinating to read of these complex missions, which rely on such straight-forward basic equations.

This is probably an idiotic flight of fancy, but I'm not one to let such things hold me back; If Shoemaker-Levy had been assumed to be an approaching rocket, and if you had been it's pilot, could you have fired a thruster so as to miss Jupiter, see 80% of it, and disappear toward the edge of the solar system? Completely absurd, but I was wondering about comparisons to the Challenge Question. If there's any sense in that question, feel free to make me pilot in the answer ! I meant 'you' in the meaning that you'd know if it were possible - my own absence would be less damaging to CR4's expert base !

Thanks Jorrie,

I was trying to sneakily see if you knew of the closest flyby (in respect of 'closest' meaning greatest angular view of the 'orbited' planet). Some of the probes seem to have gone close to planets; even though not 'slingshot', the passage seemed a bit similar. ie, with some trajectory tweaks + available power they might have gotten a very large angular view whilst skittering past ? There was one in particular that I came across, but I can't remember which (!) - it was an instance where plans had to be changed - in which the distance was of the order of 100s' of miles.

There was interesting news recently of a meteor impact. Interesting in that it had been tracked prior to hitting Earth. I know nothing of the speed of such space objects, bit it makes me wonder if other planets (ie without atmosphere) have had flyby objects that approximate the nature of that Challenge Question. Sorry - I've gone a bit off topic for your thread here . I shall way to do some more reading on the topic !

Cheers