Solutions to Odd Exercises

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Solutions to Odd Exercises Solutions to all Odd Problems of BASIC CALCULUS OF PLANETARY ORBITS AND INTERPLANETARY FLIGHT Chapter 1. Solutions of Odd Problems Problem 1.1. In Figure 1.33, let V represent Mercury instead of Venus. Let α = \V ES be the maximum angle that Copernicus observed after measuring it many times. As in the case of Venus, α is at its maximum when the line of sight EV is tangent to the orbit of Mercury (assumed to be a circle). This means that when α is at its maximum, the triangle EV S is a right triangle VS with right angle at V . Since Copernicus concluded from his observations that ES ≈ 0:38, we VS know that sin α = ES ≈ 0:38. Working backward (today we would push the inverse sine button 1 ◦ of a calculator) provides the conclusion that α ≈ 22 3 . So the maximum angle that Copernicus 1 ◦ observed was approximately 22 3 . From this he could conclude that EV ≈ 0:38. Problem 1.3. Since the lines of site BA and B0A of Figure 1.36a are parallel, Figure 1.36b tells us that (α + β) + (α0 + β0) = π as asserted. By a look at the triangle ∆BB0M, β + β0 + θ = π. So β + β0 = π − θ, and hence α0 + α + (π − θ) = π. So θ = α + α0. Problem 1.5. Let R the radius of the circle of Figure 1.40b. Turn to Figure 1.40a, and notice that cos ' = R . The law of cosines applied to the triangle of Figure 1.40b tells us that (BB0)2 = rE R2 + R2 − 2R · R cos θ = 2R2(1 − cos θ). So BB0 = Rp2(1 − cos θ): Since the point B rotates on 1 the circle of Figure 1.40b at a constant rate, the ratio of 6 6 hours to 24 hours is the same as the 1 ◦ 6 6 ◦ ratio of θ expressed in degrees to 360 . So θ = 24 360 = 92:5 , and 0 p ◦ p ◦ BB = (rE cos ') 2(1 − cos θ) = (6364:57 cos 52:92 ) 2(1 − cos 92:5 ) ≈ 5543:98 km. a3 Problem 1.7. Newton's computations of T 2 for Saturn's five moons, were 1:953 2:53 3:53 83 243 45:312 ≈ 0:00361; 65:692 ≈ 0:00362; 108:422 ≈ 0:00365; 372:692 ≈ 0:00369, and 1903:82 ≈ 0:00381, where for each of the five moons, a is the radius of the circular orbit (and hence also the semimajor axis of the orbit) measured in outer ring radii, and T is the corresponding period of the orbit in hours. Given the difficulty of determining the radii and the periods of the orbits of these five moons with precision with the instruments that existed in Newton's time, these results seem close enough to confirm Kepler's third law for Saturn and these moons. Figure Sol 1.1 shows a planet (comet or asteroid) at its aphelion position A and a short stretch of its orbit QA before its arrival at A. Its time of travel from Q to A is ∆t. It has already been Q R Δs A S Sol 1.1 established that a planet (or comet or asteroid) attains its minimum speed vmin at aphelion. 1 Problem 1.9. i. Let arc QA be the length of the arc between Q and A. Since ∆t is the time of arc QA travel of the body, its average velocity vav during its trip from Q to A is equal to ∆t . For a very arc QA ∆s small ∆t, Q is close to A so that arc QA is close to ∆s, so that vav = ∆t ≈ ∆t . ii. For a small ∆s, the area ∆A of the elliptical sector SAQ is approximately equal to the area of 1 1 ∆A 2 (SA·∆s) the triangle ∆SAQ. Since the area of this triangle is 2 (SA · ∆s) it follows that κ = ∆t ≈ ∆t . 1 2 (a+c)·∆s abπ ∆s 2abπ From Figure 1.9, SA = a + c, so that κ ≈ ∆t . Since κ = T It follows that ∆t ≈ (a+c)T : ∆s iii. When ∆t is pushed to zero, Q gets pushed to A, so that the average speed vav ≈ ∆t , gets pushed to the speed vmin at aphelion. Simultaneously, the approximation of the area ∆A of the 1 1 elliptical sector SAQ by the area 2 (SA · ∆s) = 2 (a + c) · ∆s of ∆SAQ becomes tighter and tighter. 1 ∆A 2 (a+c)·∆s 1 abπ Therefore, the approximations κ = ∆t ≈ ∆t ≈ 2 (a + c)vmin snap to equalities. Since κ = T 2abπ this leads to the conclusion vmin = (a+c)T : p p 2 2 2 iv. Since c = "a and b = a − c , we get a + c = a(1 + ") and b = a 1 − " . So vmin = p p p 2 2 2a( 1−")( 1+") q 2a 1−" π p π 2aπ 1−" a(1+") T = ( 1+")2 T = T 1+" : Recall that 149,597,870.7 km 1 year 1 au/year = × ≈ 4:74 km/sec: 1 year 31,557,600 sec Problem 1.11. With Halley's semimajor axis a = 17:83 au, eccentricity " = 0:967, and period T = 75.32 years, we get 2aπ q 1+" 2(17:83)π q 1+0:967 vmax = T 1−" = 75:32 1−0:967 ≈ 11:483 au/year ≈ 54:43 km/sec and 2aπ q 1−" 2(17:83)π q 1−0:967 vmin = T 1+" = 75:32 1+0:967 ≈ 0:193 au/year ≈ 0:91 km/sec: 2 2 MME 4π M ME d 4π M ME d MME Problem 1.13. Using both F = G 2 and F = 2 , we get 2 = G 2 , hence d T ME +M T ME +M d 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 4π d G 4π d 4π d 4π d ME +M M 2 = 2 , and therefore 2 · = G: So · 2 = ME +M and · 2 = = 1+ : T ME +M d T ME +M G T GME T ME ME Problem 1.15. i. Let F be the force of gravity of Earth on the Moon, ME the mass of Earth, and M that of the Moon. By Newton's law of universal gravitation, 14 22 GME M (3:98600×10 )(7:3461×10 ) 20 F ≈ 2 = 8 2 = 1:98165 × 10 newtons. aM (3:844×10 ) ii. Let F be the force of gravity of the Sun on the Moon, MS the mass of the Sun, and M that of the Moon. By Newton's law of universal gravitation, 20 22 GMS M (1:32712×10 )(7:3461×10 ) 20 F ≈ 2 = 11 2 = 4:35628 × 10 newtons. aE (1:49598×10 ) iii. So the gravitational force of the Sun on the Moon is more than twice than that of Earth on the Moon. So why is the Moon orbiting Earth? The fact is that both Earth and Moon are orbiting the Sun. As these orbiting motions occur, the Earth pulls the Moon into orbit around it. −11 m3 Problem 1.17. With G = 6:67384 × 10 kg·sec2 in MKS, we get −11 m3 −11 m3 (100 cm)3 1 kg 1 −8 cm3 G = 6:67384 × 10 kg·sec2 = 6:67384 × 10 kg·sec2 · 1 m3 · 1000 gr · sec = 6:67384 × 10 gr·sec2 : 2 Problem 1.19. We know from section 1G that 1 foot = 30.48 cm and 1 inch = 2.54 cm. With the 1 2:54 2:54 spheres of Figure 1.47 \distant but by 4 inch", 2d = 4 so that d = 8 = 0:3175 cm. Since the 1 radius of the spheres is 2 foot, c = 15:24 + d = 15:24 + 0:3175 = 15:5575 cm. The volume of each 4 3 3 3 of the two spheres is 3 π(15:24) cm ≈ 14827 cm . Under the assumption that their densities are the same as that of the Earth, the mass of each sphere is (14827)(5:54) gr = 82;142 gr. Problem 1.21. If can determine the time t it takes for the mutual force of attraction to move each of the spheres through a distance d, then the two spheres will touch after time t and the problem q 1 F 2 2 2mx(t) 2mx(t) is solved. The equality x(t) = 2 m t informs us that t = F and hence that t = F . With x(t) = d = 0:3175 cm and F equal to the magnitude of the maximal force of 0:485 dynes throughout the motion of the sphere, we get q 2mx(t) q 2(82;142)(0:3175) t = F = 0:485 = 327:94 sec. q 2mx(t) Under the assumption that the minimal force acts throughout the motion, we get t = F = q 2(82;142)(0:3175) 0:465 = 334:92 sec and it takes a little longer for the two spheres to meet. Since the force of gravity between the two sphere varies from the smaller of these two values to the larger, 1 the time it takes for the two spheres to meet lies between the two calculated values, thus about 5 2 minutes. This conclusion is of course at odds with Newton's assertion about the matter. Why? While Newton could compute GM with M the Earth's mass (from his version of Kepler's third law), he had no clue about G (as he had asserted himself). Problem 1.23. i. Let a and " be the semimajor axis and eccentricity of Sputnik 1's elliptical orbit.
Recommended publications
  • Astrodynamics
    Politecnico di Torino SEEDS SpacE Exploration and Development Systems Astrodynamics II Edition 2006 - 07 - Ver. 2.0.1 Author: Guido Colasurdo Dipartimento di Energetica Teacher: Giulio Avanzini Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aeronautica e Spaziale e-mail: [email protected] Contents 1 Two–Body Orbital Mechanics 1 1.1 BirthofAstrodynamics: Kepler’sLaws. ......... 1 1.2 Newton’sLawsofMotion ............................ ... 2 1.3 Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation . ......... 3 1.4 The n–BodyProblem ................................. 4 1.5 Equation of Motion in the Two-Body Problem . ....... 5 1.6 PotentialEnergy ................................. ... 6 1.7 ConstantsoftheMotion . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 7 1.8 TrajectoryEquation .............................. .... 8 1.9 ConicSections ................................... 8 1.10 Relating Energy and Semi-major Axis . ........ 9 2 Two-Dimensional Analysis of Motion 11 2.1 ReferenceFrames................................. 11 2.2 Velocity and acceleration components . ......... 12 2.3 First-Order Scalar Equations of Motion . ......... 12 2.4 PerifocalReferenceFrame . ...... 13 2.5 FlightPathAngle ................................. 14 2.6 EllipticalOrbits................................ ..... 15 2.6.1 Geometry of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 15 2.6.2 Period of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 16 2.7 Time–of–Flight on the Elliptical Orbit . .......... 16 2.8 Extensiontohyperbolaandparabola. ........ 18 2.9 Circular and Escape Velocity, Hyperbolic Excess Speed . .............. 18 2.10 CosmicVelocities
    [Show full text]
  • Orbit Options for an Orion-Class Spacecraft Mission to a Near-Earth Object
    Orbit Options for an Orion-Class Spacecraft Mission to a Near-Earth Object by Nathan C. Shupe B.A., Swarthmore College, 2005 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences 2010 This thesis entitled: Orbit Options for an Orion-Class Spacecraft Mission to a Near-Earth Object written by Nathan C. Shupe has been approved for the Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences Daniel Scheeres Prof. George Born Assoc. Prof. Hanspeter Schaub Date The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. iii Shupe, Nathan C. (M.S., Aerospace Engineering Sciences) Orbit Options for an Orion-Class Spacecraft Mission to a Near-Earth Object Thesis directed by Prof. Daniel Scheeres Based on the recommendations of the Augustine Commission, President Obama has pro- posed a vision for U.S. human spaceflight in the post-Shuttle era which includes a manned mission to a Near-Earth Object (NEO). A 2006-2007 study commissioned by the Constellation Program Advanced Projects Office investigated the feasibility of sending a crewed Orion spacecraft to a NEO using different combinations of elements from the latest launch system architecture at that time. The study found a number of suitable mission targets in the database of known NEOs, and pre- dicted that the number of candidate NEOs will continue to increase as more advanced observatories come online and execute more detailed surveys of the NEO population.
    [Show full text]
  • Stargazer Vice President: James Bielaga (425) 337-4384 Jamesbielaga at Aol.Com P.O
    1 - Volume MMVII. No. 1 January 2007 President: Mark Folkerts (425) 486-9733 folkerts at seanet.com The Stargazer Vice President: James Bielaga (425) 337-4384 jamesbielaga at aol.com P.O. Box 12746 Librarian: Mike Locke (425) 259-5995 mlocke at lionmts.com Everett, WA 98206 Treasurer: Carol Gore (360) 856-5135 janeway7C at aol.com Newsletter co-editor: Bill O’Neil (774) 253-0747 wonastrn at seanet.com Web assistance: Cody Gibson (425) 348-1608 sircody01 at comcast.net See EAS website at: (change ‘at’ to @ to send email) http://members.tripod.com/everett_astronomy nearby Diablo Lake. And then at night, discover the night sky like EAS BUSINESS… you've never seen it before. We hope you'll join us for a great weekend. July 13-15, North Cascades Environmental Learning Center North Cascades National Park. More information NEXT EAS MEETING – SATURDAY JANUARY 27TH including pricing, detailed program, and reservation forms available shortly, so please check back at Pacific Science AT 3:00 PM AT THE EVERETT PUBLIC LIBRARY, IN Center's website. THE AUDITORIUM (DOWNSTAIRS) http://www.pacsci.org/travel/astronomy_weekend.html People should also join and send mail to the mail list THIS MONTH'S MEETING PROGRAM: [email protected] to coordinate spur-of-the- Toby Smith, lecturer from the University of Washington moment observing get-togethers, on nights when the sky Astronomy department, will give a talk featuring a clears. We try to hold informal close-in star parties each month visualization presentation he has prepared called during the spring, summer, and fall months on a weekend near “Solar System Cinema”.
    [Show full text]
  • THE GREAT CHRIST COMET CHRIST GREAT the an Absolutely Astonishing Triumph.” COLIN R
    “I am simply in awe of this book. THE GREAT CHRIST COMET An absolutely astonishing triumph.” COLIN R. NICHOLL ERIC METAXAS, New York Times best-selling author, Bonhoeffer The Star of Bethlehem is one of the greatest mysteries in astronomy and in the Bible. What was it? How did it prompt the Magi to set out on a long journey to Judea? How did it lead them to Jesus? THE In this groundbreaking book, Colin R. Nicholl makes the compelling case that the Star of Bethlehem could only have been a great comet. Taking a fresh look at the biblical text and drawing on the latest astronomical research, this beautifully illustrated volume will introduce readers to the Bethlehem Star in all of its glory. GREAT “A stunning book. It is now the definitive “In every respect this volume is a remarkable treatment of the subject.” achievement. I regard it as the most important J. P. MORELAND, Distinguished Professor book ever published on the Star of Bethlehem.” of Philosophy, Biola University GARY W. KRONK, author, Cometography; consultant, American Meteor Society “Erudite, engrossing, and compelling.” DUNCAN STEEL, comet expert, Armagh “Nicholl brilliantly tackles a subject that has CHRIST Observatory; author, Marking Time been debated for centuries. You will not be able to put this book down!” “An amazing study. The depth and breadth LOUIE GIGLIO, Pastor, Passion City Church, of learning that Nicholl displays is prodigious Atlanta, Georgia and persuasive.” GORDON WENHAM, Adjunct Professor “The most comprehensive interdisciplinary of Old Testament, Trinity College, Bristol synthesis of biblical and astronomical data COMET yet produced.
    [Show full text]
  • An In-Depth Look at Simulations of Galaxy Interactions a DISSERTATION SUBMITTED to the GRADUATE DIVISION
    Theory at a Crossroads: An In-depth Look at Simulations of Galaxy Interactions A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MANOA¯ IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ASTRONOMY August 2019 By Kelly Anne Blumenthal Dissertation Committee: J. Barnes, Chairperson L. Hernquist J. Moreno R. Kudritzki B. Tully M. Connelley J. Maricic © Copyright 2019 by Kelly Anne Blumenthal All Rights Reserved ii This dissertation is dedicated to the amazing administrative staff at the Institute for Astronomy: Amy Miyashiro, Karen Toyama, Lauren Toyama, Faye Uyehara, Susan Lemn, Diane Tokumura, and Diane Hockenberry. Thank you for treating us all so well. iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank several people who, over the course of this graduate thesis, have consistently shown me warmth and kindness. First and foremost: my parents, who fostered my love of astronomy, and never doubted that I would reach this point in my career. Larissa Nofi, my partner in crime, has been my perennial cheerleader – thank you for never giving up on me, and for bringing out the best in me. Thank you to David Corbino for always being on my side, and in my ear. To Mary Beth Laychack and Doug Simons: I would not be the person I am now if not for your support. Thank you for trusting me and giving me the space to grow. To my east coast advisor, Lars Hernquist, thank you for hosting me at Harvard and making time for me. To my dear friend, advisor, and colleague Jorge Moreno: you are truly inspirational.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentals of Orbital Mechanics
    Chapter 7 Fundamentals of Orbital Mechanics Celestial mechanics began as the study of the motions of natural celestial bodies, such as the moon and planets. The field has been under study for more than 400 years and is documented in great detail. A major study of the Earth-Moon-Sun system, for example, undertaken by Charles-Eugene Delaunay and published in 1860 and 1867 occupied two volumes of 900 pages each. There are textbooks and journals that treat every imaginable aspect of the field in abundance. Orbital mechanics is a more modern treatment of celestial mechanics to include the study the motions of artificial satellites and other space vehicles moving un- der the influences of gravity, motor thrusts, atmospheric drag, solar winds, and any other effects that may be present. The engineering applications of this field include launch ascent trajectories, reentry and landing, rendezvous computations, orbital design, and lunar and planetary trajectories. The basic principles are grounded in rather simple physical laws. The paths of spacecraft and other objects in the solar system are essentially governed by New- ton’s laws, but are perturbed by the effects of general relativity (GR). These per- turbations may seem relatively small to the layman, but can have sizable effects on metric predictions, such as the two-way round trip Doppler. The implementa- tion of post-Newtonian theories of orbital mechanics is therefore required in or- der to meet the accuracy specifications of MPG applic ations. Because it had the need for very accurate trajectories of spacecraft, moon, and planets, dating back to the 1950s, JPL organized an effort that soon became the world leader in the field of orbital mechanics and space navigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Parabolic Trajectories
    CHAPTER Parabolic trajectories (e =1) CHAPTER CONTENT Page 148 / 338 9- PARABOLIC TRAJECTORIES (e =1) Page 149 / 338 9- PARABOLICTRAJECTORIES (e =1) If the eccentricity equals 1. then the orbit equation becomes: (1) If For a parabolic trajectory the conservation of energy is It means that the speed anywhere on a parabolic path is: (2) Page 150 / 338 9- PARABOLICTRAJECTORIES (e =1) If the body is launched on a parabolic trajectory; it will coast to infinity, arriving there with zero velocity relative to . It will not return Parabolic paths are therefore called escape trajectories. At a given distance r from , the escape velocity is: (4) Page 151 / 338 9- PARABOLICTRAJECTORIES (e =1) Let be the speed of a satellite in a circular orbit of radius then : (4) ( NOTE 16, P66, {1}) For the parabola, the flight path angle takes the form: Using the trigonometric identities We can write (5) Page 152 / 338 9- PARABOLICTRAJECTORIES (e =1) That is, on parabolic trajectories the flight path angle is one-half the true anomaly Page 153 / 338 9- PARABOLICTRAJECTORIES (e =1) Recall that the parameter of an orbit: . Substitute this expression into equation(1) and then 2a plot r in a cartesian 1 cos coordinate system centered at the focus, we will get: From the figure it is clear that: (6) (7) Page 154 / 338 9- PARABOLICTRAJECTORIES (e =1) Therefore Working to simplify the right-hand side, we get: It follows that: (10) This is the equation of a parabola in a cartesian coordinate system whose origin serves as the focus. Page 155 / 338 9- PARABOLICTRAJECTORIES (e =1) EXAMPLE ?.1 The perigee of a satellite in parabolic geocentric trajectory is 7000km.
    [Show full text]
  • High-Speed Escape from a Circular Orbit American Journal of Physics
    HIGH-SPEED ESCAPE FROM A CIRCULAR ORBIT AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS High-speed escape from a circular orbit Philip R. Blancoa) Department of Physics and Astronomy, Grossmont College, El Cajon, CA, 92020-1765 Department of Astronomy, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-1221, USA Carl E. Munganb) Physics Department, United States Naval Academy Annapolis, MD, 21402-1363 (Accepted for publication by American Journal of Physics in 2021) You have a rocket in a high circular orbit around a massive central body (a planet, or the Sun) and wish to escape with the fastest possible speed at infinity for a given amount of fuel. In 1929 Hermann Oberth showed that firing two separate impulses (one retrograde, one prograde) could be more effective than a direct transfer that expends all the fuel at once. This is due to the Oberth effect, whereby a small impulse applied at periapsis can produce a large change in the rocket’s orbital mechanical energy, without violating energy conservation. In 1959 Theodore Edelbaum showed that this effect could be exploited further by using up to three separate impulses: prograde, retrograde, then prograde. The use of more than one impulse to escape can produce a final speed even faster than that of a fictional spacecraft that is unaffected by gravity. We compare the three escape strategies in terms of their final speeds attainable, and the time required to reach a given distance from the central body. To do so, in an Appendix we use conservation laws to derive a “radial Kepler equation” for hyperbolic trajectories, which provides a direct relationship between travel time and distance from the central body.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.1.3 Understanding Orbits
    Understanding 4.1.3 Orbits In This Subsection You’ll Learn to... Outline Explain the basic concepts of orbital motion and describe how to 4.1.3.1 Orbital Motion analyze them Baseballs in Orbit Explain and use the basic laws of motion Isaac Newton developed Analyzing Motion Use Newton’s laws of motion to develop a mathematical and geometric representation of orbits 4.1.3.2 Newton’s Laws Use two constants of orbital motion—specific mechanical energy and Weight, Mass, and Inertia specific angular momentum—to determine important orbital variables Momentum Changing Momentum Action and Reaction Gravity 4.1.3.3 Laws of Conservation Momentum Energy 4.1.3.4 The Restricted Two-body Problem Coordinate Systems Equation of Motion Simplifying Assumptions Orbital Geometry 4.1.3.5 Constants of Orbital Motion Specific Mechanical Energy Specific Angular Momentum pacecraft work in orbits. We describe an orbit as a “racetrack” that a spacecraft drives around, as seen in Figure 4.1.3-1. Orbits and Strajectories are two of the basic elements of any space mission. Understanding this motion may at first seem rather intimidating. After all, to fully describe orbital motion we need some basic physics along with a healthy dose of calculus and geometry. However, as we’ll see, spacecraft orbits aren’t all that different from the paths of baseballs pitched across home plate. In fact, in most cases, both can be described in terms of the single force pinning you to your chair right now—gravity. Armed only with an understanding of this single pervasive force, we can predict, explain, and understand the motion of nearly all objects in space, from baseballs to spacecraft, to planets and even entire galaxies.
    [Show full text]
  • Orbit Calculation and Re-Entry Control of Vorsat Satellite
    FACULDADE DE ENGENHARIA DA UNIVERSIDADE DO PORTO Orbit Calculation and Re-Entry Control of VORSat Satellite Cristiana Monteiro Silva Ramos PROVISIONAL VERSION Master in Electrical and Computers Engineering Supervisor: Sérgio Reis Cunha (PhD) June 2011 Resumo Desde o lançamento do primeiro satélite artificial para o espaço, Sputnik, mais de 30 000 satélites foram desenvolvidos e foram lançados posteriormente. No entanto, por mais autonomia que o satélite possa alcançar, nenhum satélite construido pelo Homem teria valor se não fosse possível localiza-lo e comunicar com ele. Os olhos humanos foram os primeiros recursos de que os seres humanos dispuseram para observar o Universo. O telescópio surgiu depois e foi durante séculos o único instrumento de exploração do Espaço. Hoje em dia, é possível localizar e seguir o trajecto que o satélite faz no espaço através de programas computacionais que localizam o satélite num dado instante e fazem a previsão do cálculo da órbita. Esta dissertação descreve o desenvolvimento de um sistema de navegação enquadrado no caso de estudo do satélite VORSat. O VORSat é um programa de satélite em desenvolvido na Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto (FEUP), Potugal. Este projecto refere-se à construção de um CubeSat, de nome GAMA-Sat, e à reentrada de uma cápsula na Terra (ERC). Os objectivos consistem em determinar os parâmetros que descrevem uma órbita num dado instante (elementos de Kepler) e em calcular as posições futuras do satélite através de observações iterativas, minimizando o erro associado a cada observação. Também se pretende controlar, através de variações do termo de arrastamento, o local de reentrada.
    [Show full text]
  • The Science of Sungrazers, Sunskirters, and Other Near-Sun Comets
    Space Sci Rev (2018) 214:20 DOI 10.1007/s11214-017-0446-5 The Science of Sungrazers, Sunskirters, and Other Near-Sun Comets Geraint H. Jones1,2 · Matthew M. Knight3,4 · Karl Battams5 · Daniel C. Boice6,7,8 · John Brown9 · Silvio Giordano10 · John Raymond11 · Colin Snodgrass12,13 · Jordan K. Steckloff14,15,16 · Paul Weissman14 · Alan Fitzsimmons17 · Carey Lisse18 · Cyrielle Opitom19,20 · Kimberley S. Birkett1,2,21 · Maciej Bzowski22 · Alice Decock19,23 · Ingrid Mann24,25 · Yudish Ramanjooloo1,2,26 · Patrick McCauley11 Received: 1 March 2017 / Accepted: 15 November 2017 © The Author(s) 2017. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract This review addresses our current understanding of comets that venture close to the Sun, and are hence exposed to much more extreme conditions than comets that are typ- ically studied from Earth. The extreme solar heating and plasma environments that these objects encounter change many aspects of their behaviour, thus yielding valuable informa- tion on both the comets themselves that complements other data we have on primitive solar system bodies, as well as on the near-solar environment which they traverse. We propose clear definitions for these comets: We use the term near-Sun comets to encompass all ob- B G.H. Jones [email protected] 1 Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, UK 2 The Centre for Planetary Sciences at UCL/Birkbeck, London, UK 3 University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA 4 Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
    [Show full text]
  • The Comet's Tale
    THE COMET’S TALE Newsletter of the Comet Section of the British Astronomical Association Number 29, 2010 January The Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams (CBAT) The Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams be supernovae, comets, novae and other unusual (CBAT) has recently celebrated the 125th anniversary variable stars, and satellites of minor planets and major since its founding by the editors of Astronomische planets – both discovery information and follow-up Nachrichten at Kiel, Germany, in late 1882. The information. Contributors also send information to the immediate cause was the sudden appearance of the CBAT regarding novae in other galaxies, and while great September sungrazing comet, for which a publication is generally made of novae in galaxies other coordinated worldwide center was seen to be much than M31, the CBAT webpage devoted to M31 novae needed, due to problems in getting proper information now appears satisfactorily to provide a venue for circulated quickly to the astronomical community. The designating and announcing new novae in that nearby CBAT moved to Copenhagen Observatory out of galaxy, with suitable follow-up observations also necessity during World War I, where it took on IAU provided there. Following discussion with IAU acceptance in 1922 (after an initial 2-year stint of an Commission 22 in Prague in 2006, reports on new IAU Central Bureau floundered in Brussels); the IAU's meteor showers also are now routinely published by the Central Bureau remained at Copenhagen until its CBAT. transfer to Cambridge at the start of 1965 (where Harvard College Observatory had maintained the The years 2006-2008 continued the marked transition western hemisphere's central bureau for astronomical toward the increased issuance of Central Bureau telegrams since 1883).
    [Show full text]