Slashdot Log In
The Mathematics of a Trip to Mars?
Posted by
Cliff
on Mon Aug 15, 2005 06:02 PM
from the shouldn't-it-be-more-complex-than-this dept.
from the shouldn't-it-be-more-complex-than-this dept.
hakonhaugnes wonders: "Since trips to Mars seems commonplace (NASA has sent one every 26 months), I thought it made sense to try to understand how the interplanetary trajectory is calculated. NASA's page is deploringly void of intricate details. I found this
excellent page, but it still left me feeling that I was missing something. Surely the calculus must go beyond two bodies (mars/earth)? (It seems there are commercial MATLAB scripts available but at $150 it went beyond the defensible to satisfy my curiosity). Are there any curious Slashdot readers with the usual great insight into how to calculate a trip to Mars?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Extemely Complex Calculations (Score:4, Funny)
Mathematics is for Mathematicians (Score:5, Funny)
The Ronco Equant Point is a pointless mathematical abstraction that gives you that perfect Renaissance instrumentalist astronomical result! Up to 200% more accurate than the other leading brand of Ptolemaic system, the Ronco Equant point will actually reduce the number of epicycles within 20 minutes - or your money back!
Call now, and receive a *free* video, "Aristotle and You" - learn about the five elements, and find out how to justify your Ronco-enhanced Ptolemaic system in terms of Aristotelian cosmology!
Look out for more Ronco History of Science products soon, including the "Intelligent Designer's Kit" and the "Ronco Enhanced Bottle-O-Caloric"!
Parent
Re:Extemely Complex Calculations (Score:3, Funny)
You'd think it was rocket science.
Re:Extemely Complex Calculations (Score:4, Funny)
How do you know if an astrodynamicist is an extrovert?
He looks at your feet when he talks to you!
Parent
Why would you expect us to? (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmm. (Score:4, Funny)
Numerical integration (Score:3, Funny)
Come on, this ain't rocket science, people. Oh, wait...
Re:Numerical integration (Score:3, Funny)
I asked a rocket scientist what he said to indicate that something isn't so difficult. He said: I say, "this isn't nuclear physics."
I asked a nuclear physicist what he said to incicate that something isn't so difficult. He said: I say, "this isn't brain surgery."
I asked a brain surgeon what he said to indicate that something isn't so difficult. He said: I say, "this isn't rocket science."
What about (Score:3, Funny)
I am sure that can get you to Mars.
Re:What about (Score:3, Insightful)
No change it orbit of the center of mass of the earth-jumpers system, sure. But the earth itself would most certainly change its orbit. Of course, the earth's gravity would soon pull the jumpers back just as the jumpers' gravity would pull the earth back, and the earth's orbit would return to its initial orbit.
The Slashdot "common" (Score:3, Funny)
Since trips to Mars seems commonplace (NASA has sent one every 26 months)
Was I the only one to think... Slashdot... commonplace... once every 2 years....
"Having Sex is commonplace for me"... the new Slashdot definition of commonplace.
Re:The Slashdot "common" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
easy (Score:4, Funny)
It's like a message in a bottle, but so much cooler.
Re:easy: 4 step program (Score:4, Funny)
1) Leave Earth
2) ???
3) Arrive Mars
4) PROFIT!!!
Parent
Simplifying interplanetary control software (Score:3, Funny)
Ok ok...I understand some of you will be rolling your eyes at this stage, struggling to understand how on earth a piece of command line software designed for the installation and maintenance of Debian packages could even be remotely applicable to designing a robust mission control interface for missions to the Mars. I will explain. Basically, think of the Earth as a large Debian mirror, equipped with many astronaut 'files'. Imagine the space ship as a .deb package, safely protecting all the astronauts from the harsh vacuum of space. The Mars (or Mars...this solution is cross-platform after all) is your local host. The Sun is...well...that creaky old Sun Ultra 5 from yesterday's OSnews article that no one wants to go close to lest they get burned or flamed by Sun zealots. OK...now how does the system work?
Basically, a mission controller wants to 'install' a 'package' of astronauts from the Earth 'mirror' onto the Mars 'host'. It's 5am, the mission controller hasn't slept for 3 days, and every command sent from Houston is critical. Enter apt-get. The initial launch command would be something like:
apt-get install astronauts
Great! The launch vehicle is on its way! Since the 'link' between the 'mirror' and the 'host' is quite slow (imagine an old school 9600 baud leased line), the 'package' 'download' may take a few days to complete. This is where the mission control staff go to work on getting their Gentoo boxes compiling KDE. When the 'package' is 'downloaded', it's important to check that no astronauts were hurt along the way. The mission controller enters the following command:
apt-get check
This wil check for 'broken dependencies'. So far, so good! The '.deb package' will now successfully 'install' onto the 'host', meaning the astronauts can land on the Mars, and perform their critical experiments. However, all good things must come to and end, and the 'package' will need to be removed from the host. Mission control to the rescue.
apt-get remove astronauts
Excellent! Tom Hanks, Gary Sinese and that other guy are now on their way home. Again, this is a slow link, so our 'host' may take a few days to remove it from it's 'hard disk'. Once the capsule has landed back on Earth, it will be ready for the next group of astronauts to make their journey. But no-one would want to spend 10 days locked up in a small space filled with cast-off cans of Jolt Cola and empty Penguin Mint containers. The capsule will need to be tidied up! Mission control enters one last command to complete the mission:
apt-get autoclean
Done! Another successful Mars shot. Mission control is a breeze with the new apt-get mission control system. No more complicated GUIs, voice recognition or toggle switches. apt-get to infinity and beyond!
Security and Open and Available Software (Score:5, Informative)
I would bet that the information you desire is now considered to be highly classified and thus not available. You could produce trajectory information for ballistic missiles and who knows how it might be mis-construed as useful to those "terrorists" of whom the US is so fearful these days.
Besides... you might find a units of measure error or two if you got to see this code.
Fear and Fear Itself (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a time when such math was secret, and strategic. But we caught up to the Soviets shortly after they tested that ballistic missile math on Sputnik, in the late 1950s. A half century later, our open society has proven more than a match for such "proprietary" losers. If we can stay that way, despite the exaggerated bugbears that people throw around to justify the secrecy that kills both science and liberty.
Parent
Nope. Not really. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Elements of Spacecraft Design" by Charles D. Brown has a few good chapters on orbital mechanics. Check a local university library, cause the book cost me nigh unto $100
-everphilski-
Parent
Much more than a 2-body problem ... (Score:5, Informative)
Cheers,
IT
Re:Much more than a 2-body problem ... (Score:4, Informative)
SPICE [nasa.gov]-formated files are used for the MRO. Some SPICE kernels are/will be available here [nasa.gov].
Parent
JPL has a good intro (Score:5, Interesting)
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/porkcho
Re:JPL has a good intro (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, without at least some education in orbital mechanics/astrodynamics, the above ref will probably be a little overwhelming. To get up to speed I recommend the following:
Parent
Simple Newtonian (Score:5, Informative)
I recently had a NASA guy come to speak to my research group at my medical school in Houston. We were talking about the long term effect of micro-gravity on human physiology (round trip to Mars). Anyway he told us that most of the mathematical calculations that the Space Flight Center here in Houston use are the "simple" Newtonian laws of motion. He claimed they were suitable for calculating trajectories to the Moon, Mars, etc...
Re:Simple Newtonian (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. To use Einstein's general relativity would be overkill as the changes are too small.
But Newtons laws can get arbitrarily complex with the number of bodies that go into the equation.
One is newton's axiom.
Two is still easy and taught in school. Kepler ellipses etc. Together with the rocket equation (also only newton), it gives everything needed to go to earth orbit.
But.. three is not analytically solvable. From there, numerics takes over and this is still a very active field of research, still far from perfect. But they're surely good enough
Parent
Re:Simple Newtonian (Score:4, Funny)
As long as you don't get your units mixed up. :-)
Parent
Orbiter (Score:5, Informative)
It has tools for calculating all sorts of interplanetary transfers and you can actually perform the flight from launch to landing on mars with all kinds of spacecraft.
Trajectory Math (Score:5, Informative)
The key here is the energy required. Space travel is still dominated by propulsion. That is, the engines and the fuel they need, and the fuel needed to launch that fuel to orbit, etc., is where most of the cost is.
It is important to travel on a trajectory, called the transfer orbit, that requires the least energy. For a high thrust spacecraft, the minimum energy trajectory is called a Holman transfer [nasa.gov]. Simply, it is an orbit that just touches the orbits of both planets. The periapsis, the closest point to the sun, touches the orbit of the one planet and the apoapsis, the furtherest point, touches the other planet. For this to work, the destination planet needs to be half an orbit away when the spacecraft arrives. This is a lot easier to see in a picture.
For Earth to Mars, the spacecraft launches and then the thrusters fire to change the spacecraft's orbit of the sun from Earth's orbit to the transfer orbit. It then travels half of the transfer orbit and fires its thrusters to change its orbit to match Mars. This can be done by aerocapture, aerobraking or propulsion. The opportunity for a Holman transfer to Mars occurs every 26 years. It is based on the length of the orbit for the bodies being transferred between. The return trip also needs to be a Holman transfer to save fuel. The opportunity does not occur until many months after arrival. I forget the actual number. That is why Mars trips will have a long stay on Mars before returning.
Low thrust is different. Low thrust spacecraft thrust all or most of the time during the trip and the trajectory is more complicated. It is not usable for manned flight because it is to slow but is useful for unmanned spacecraft sometimes.
This is called Celestial Mechanics. When you add propulsion, it becomes Orbital Mechanics.
The best site I have found is NASA's Spacefligh Basics [nasa.gov].
Also good is this site [braeunig.us].
For explanation of gravity assists see this site [ednet.ns.ca].
Also see, Science World at Wolrram [wolfram.com]
Re:Trajectory Math (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Trajectory Math (Score:3, Funny)
Two more things... (Score:5, Informative)
For my mission planning software we never considered more than two bodes at a time. For the real stuff, they probably consider more than two bodies at a time, but the other bodies are just correction factors.
The Mechanical Universe [caltech.edu], is an excellent way to learn this stuff. It comes on in reruns from time to time.
Parent
Re:Trajectory Math (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Low Thrust and Space Lanes (Score:3, Interesting)
I find recent work on low thrust trajectories the most fascinating. I was made aware of it in Science News a few months ago. Although the combined influence of the Sun and all the planets form a chaotic system (in principle not predictable beyond certain time limits),
Re:Trajectory Math (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Trajectory Math (Score:4, Interesting)
Hohmann transfers are never the minimum energy orbital transfer. IPS (interplanetary superhighway) orbits are lower energy for all cases, although they take much longer. (To be fair, IPS [wikipedia.org] orbits are new - 1997-ish - and before that, Hohmann transfers were the minimum energy orbital transfer). IPS orbits are so low energy that it basically takes the same delta-V to get almost anywhere in the solar system - the delta-V to get to a Lagrange point.
For manned missions, however, you don't really care about lowest-energy, because orbits are always tradeoffs between transit time and energy, and manned missions want the shortest transit time feasible.
Parent
get someone else to foot the bill.. (Score:3, Funny)
sit back and watch all the funds get diverted to a new space program.
Some info (Score:4, Informative)
The best info I've found so far is actually a do-it-yourself [orbitermars.co.uk] exercise... there's a space-travel simulator [ucl.ac.uk] that you can use to try to figure out how to get to mars, along with some helper apps that do some math for you.
In terms of starting, basic data... you can ignore the effects of the MRO on the two planets, since it's so small. But the positions of the two planets can be gotten from here [navy.mil]. To understand the coordinates used, study here [wikipedia.org].
I'd like to find some decent open-source apps to visualize the orbits in 3D... at least a static diagram, if not an animation.
Worth a prize (Score:5, Interesting)
I helped judge the Canada-Wide Science Fair a few years ago, and the person my judging team ranked the highest had set himself precisely this problem: how do you really calculate the trajectory of a spacecraft from Earth to Mars? His solution was a wonderful exploration of the gory details of the problem--he had parts of the orbit that could be approximated reasonably in closed form (basically when the spacecraft was far away from everything, especially Jupiter) and other bits where there were three-body and more calculations.
He understood error estimation and the importance of computing the same quantity several different ways so that they act as a check on each other. He also had modeled aspects of the spacecraft itself, the rotational moments, effects of changing fuel mass, etc, etc, etc. In short, he understood that science is more of an art than a science. It was really nice work.
TransX! (Score:5, Informative)
C'mon Orbiter [ucl.ac.uk] fans, you were thinking the exact same thing when you read this article... Planning a trip to Mars? Just hit Shift-J and start plotting your Hohmann transfer orbit insertion burn. [wikipedia.org]
For those who are lost:
ORBITER is a free flight simulator that goes beyond the confines of Earth's atmosphere. Launch the Space Shuttle from Kennedy Space Center to deploy a satellite, rendezvous with the International Space Station or take the futuristic Delta-glider for a tour through the solar system - the choice is yours.
But make no mistake - ORBITER is not a space shooter. The emphasis is firmly on realism, and the learning curve can be steep. Be prepared to invest some time and effort to brush up on your orbital mechanics background. A good starting point is JPL's Space Flight Learners' Workbook. [nasa.gov]
also...
TransX is [Duncan Sharpe's] eXtended Transfer MFD. It's designed for planning trips across the solar system, or even just to the moon. It's full-featured, with support for complex flight plans, including slingshot trajectories. And naturally, there's a manual that comes with it.
"Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" (Score:3, Informative)
A fun physics exercise is to model a slingshot maneuver and then try to figure out *why* your rocket burn is more effective if you dip inside gravity well when you do it.
Re:"Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" (Score:3, Informative)
I too was going to suggest Bate, Mueller and White, but I see somebody beat me to it.
The sections on Hohmann Transfer Orbits and Patched Conics would see to answer the OP's question. Not good enough to actually fly a mission, but more than good enough to get the orders of magnitude (delta v, elapsed time, etc.) and figure out what else you need to figure out.
...laura
the Simple Answer and the Complex Answer (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the actual procedure.
1. surface to low earth orbit.
2. circularize low earth orbit. [hohmann transfer]
3. correct orbital parameters (longitude of ascending node, argument of periapsis, orbital inclination)
4. low earth orbit to trans-martian-injection [hohmann transfer]
(3 and 4 can be combined, to a point, in order to save delta-V.)
5. burn to circularize martian orbit [hohmann transfer]
6. correct orbital parameters (Same as 3)
7. Burn to descend to surface
The actual math is too much for a slashdot post. Sorry. If you are truly curious check out "Elements of Spacecraft Design" by Charles D. Brown.
-everphilski-
"Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" (Score:5, Informative)
The easiest way to conceive of interplanetary orbits is to first pretend that they lie in a single plane (the plane of the ecliptic) and then pretend that the planets themselves are insignificant for most of the trip -- so you consider only the gravitational field of the Sun. Then your orbit is an ellipse. It's pretty easy to show that, if you're going at Earth's orbital velocity, the ellipse that gets you from Earth's orbit to any other nearly circular orbit with the least change in velocity (ie rocket fuel) is an ellipse that is tangent to both orbits.
Once you've figured that out, you have to figure out when to launch to get to Mars's orbit in the same place that Mars happens to be. Those times happen at a particular phase of Mars's and Earth's orbit.
You can do pretty well by pretending that you can neglect the Sun entirely until you get far enough from the Earth, then you can neglect Earth and Mars entirely until you get close enough to Mars. That is the technique that was used for Apollo trajectories -- the "method of spliced conics". You can hear some evidence of it in the Apollo 13 movie, when they talk about "entering the Moon's gravitational field" or something like that -- the Moon's gravitational field extends throughout the Universe, of course, but to simplify the calculations they neglected everything but the mass with the strongest gravitational force on the capsule.
Nowadays you can get really, really good orbital elements [nasa.gov] for each of the planets online, which lets you calculate exactly where each planet is at any given time. You can just code up an insanely cheesy inverse-square-law integrator in PDL [perl.org] or one of the other free languages -- or even a spreadsheet -- and find a good orbit by trial and error using the gravitational fields of all the large bodies in the solar system.
A good book which touches on the topic..... (Score:4, Informative)
The solar-system map they use is public at JPL (Score:4, Informative)
They use high-precision numerical integration for the trajectory of the spacecraft, using one of the standard high-precision general ephemerides as background data. (Textbooks mentioned by posters elsewhere in this thread decribe in general terms the astronav. techniques used for mission planning, but as soon as they get down to mapping the trajectory as precisely as possible, they need the background ephemeris as well.)
For the recent Mars missions, the background ephemeris is a very highly refined ephemeris "DE410" produced by the JPL, this appears to be a local improvement intended especially to reduce errors in the neighborhood of Mars and Saturn, relative to the DE405 ephemeris which remains the world standard for official ephemeris publications. It seems they got an accuracy in the region of Mars as close as only "a few meters"!!!
See details of DE410 on the public JPL site here [nasa.gov], and especially you might want to look at the background report on DE410 [nasa.gov].
-wb-
Re:Trip to mars dont seem that "simple" (Score:5, Informative)
I once worked on a more complex version (after writing a simpler version), but got distracted to other projects somewhere between the finished code to implement Kirchoff's laws for the electrical system and the unfinished code to calculate the volume and mass of a fuel tank.
Parent
Porkchop Plots (Score:4, Insightful)
-everphilski-
Parent
Re:Trip to mars dont seem that "simple" (Score:5, Funny)
<cheap shot> // TODO: INSERT ENGLISH-METRIC CONVERSION
Here's a line of the code:
</cheap shot>
Parent
Re:method... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:method... (Score:4, Funny)
y = (o*u) / (ar^e + an - (i*(d-i)+(o-t)))
Keep dreaming. It's a complicated thing. You have to factor in the gravity of all the planets, moons, other large bodies and the ship itself. You have to make sure the thing doesn't crash into any asteriods, and it's going to have to make course corrections en route, to avoid things and to stay on track. Maybe the best route is to loop around a planet, and get a speed boost from its gravity. Maybe there isn't enough fuel to do it the fastest way, maybe the timeframe for one route is too small, etc etc etc.
Sorry to break it to you, but there isn't an equation that spits on a directional vector for you to shoot your rocket at. If you want to play pretend, download some solar system simulator, I'd assume at least one of them has some dinky flight planner thingy.
Parent
Re:method... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent