August 21st, 2009
The Navigators: How We Fly Spacecraft Around the Solar System
Written by Nancy Atkinson
Filed under: Space Flight
Tags: spaceflightRelated stories on Universe Today
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
The complexity of the navigator's job is far beyond what I can imagine. To me celestial navigation of a sailing ship involving trig on a spherical surface is beyond what I have learned. Now do this in 3d with moving targets!
August 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Too long, didn't read.
August 21st, 2009 at 2:54 pm
HeadAroundU: Rocket science isn't for everyone, I guess =D
August 21st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
A great reminder that getting a spacecraft on target and then maintaining orbit is no simple matter, no matter how sophisticated our computers and hardware are.
August 21st, 2009 at 9:51 pm
@ Jon Hanford,
Indeed, now just imagine what would happen if OilIsMastery/Total Science and Anaconda were the navigators on that team: SNAFU!
August 21st, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Such a job would probably be mostly boring, then become very intense when a shift in trajectory is necessary- the bad part is, if the prrobe is near Pluto, hours of tenseness to the Navigator will happen-due to the speed limit of lightspeed. .It would take so many hours to figure out if the Navigator did the right thing or made a potential fatal mistake to the probe!!!!! I pass on this job, but wish the people who care to pursue this job good luck and good care.
August 22nd, 2009 at 4:00 am
I know the Electric Universe is a dud on the order of astrology (the former: no energy source; the later: no interaction medium). But I'm not so certain about the existence of these mythical crackpots of EU.
If a EU crackpot comments offline and no one is around to read it does it make nonsense?
[I'm not saying that we shouldn't make fun of friends in absentia ... well, maybe I am. Anyhow, the point is that it is so much funnier if these guys actually appear. Haven't seen them for a while - seems like since the last sun spot disappeared?!]
August 22nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
HeadAroundU: "Too long, didn't read."
Dave Finton: "Rocket science isn't for everyone"
The article could have been shorter, if it were more to the point, i.e. navigation of spacecrafts — or rocket science, if you want –, and not about the public, the engineers, the scientists, and bob and his brother getting excited, thrilled, and euphoric.
If someone wants excitement, it's ok for me, of course. But I think, I'm not the only one who doesn't need getting excited in order to get a job done or merely being interested in something. Excitement isn't the only reward for us humans, there are e.g. just feeling good or being intellectually satisfied or being entertained. By the way, excitement is of minor importance for me when I'm in astronomy and spaceflight.
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
The topic of interplanetary travel can't easily be summed up in a bite-sized article, and this post does a good job of covering all the bases.
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
They should split it a make a series. Still didn't read.
August 23rd, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Great article Nancy. I must say, the in-depth UT articles are by far my favourite, and this was among the best yet. I have always found the subject of spacecraft navigation to be an absolutely fascinating one. It is great to see them getting a bit of due recognition for the work that they do – I can't recall a mission lately that has failed due to botched navigation, despite the immense difficulties involved and inherent complexity of multiple fly-by trajectories and orbit insertions etc. Truly testament to the dedication and professionalism of the nav teams.
# HeadAroundU Says:
August 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
"Too long, didn't read."
a) It only takes 5 minutes.
b) Why bother commenting then?
# HeadAroundU Says:
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
"They should split it a make a series. Still didn't read.
"
So reading one longer article is far harder than clicking into a 'part 1' page, reading it, closing it down, going back to whatever you were doing, waiting for part 2 to come out, coming back to the computer, clicking into part 2, trying to remember what part 1 said, and then reading part 2?
Taken your Ritalin today?…
August 24th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
I played a small role in this. Mostly I worked on orbital scenarios instead of direct navigation of craft. The Messenger orbital scanio is an amazing feat.
LC
August 24th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
@Lawrence B. Crowell, what did you think of the article. Was it a fair description of what goes on behind the scenes at satellite control centers? (Btw, great story, Nancy, on this neglected but crucial part of every satellite program
).
August 25th, 2009 at 3:01 am
Astrofiend: "So reading one longer article is far harder than clicking into a 'part 1' page, reading it, closing it down, going back to whatever you were doing, waiting for part 2 to come out, coming back to the computer, clicking into part 2, trying to remember what part 1 said, and then reading part 2?"
Two articles should not be — and usually are not — written like one article simply split into two parts. Nancy Atkinson is good enough at her trade, as far as I can tell, that she knows how to help the reader. And your description of reading, closing down, going back, waiting, coming back, clicking into, remembering, and reading — well, you can overdo things. It's not that taxing, isn't it
August 25th, 2009 at 6:14 am
The article was good and entertaining. The comparison with art is interesting. I always compared space navigation with golf. There are so many strokes for parr, which correspond to boosts or nonHohman orbital transfers.
I do find the orbital configuration of the Mercury mission "Messenger" fascinating. What people don't realize is that getting a craft closer to the sun requires lots of energy. We might imagine putting something on the sun, which requires sending a spacecraft 29.5km/s directly opposite to the orbital speed of 29.5km/s. That way the craft drops to the sun. That is a lot of what is called "delta v," and more than what we can get from launch vehicles. The delta v for a Mercury mission is large as well, and requires a lot of energy for a significantly large craft. So this creative orbital billiard ball configuration was worked up.
Cheers LC
August 25th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Thanks for the reply LBC. I always wondered about the reason for the unusual triple flybys for Messenger (same with Mariner 10). Your mention of the large delta v elicited a 'Doh' moment
.