Does it take more energy to get to Venus or to Mars? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowEnergy consumption for travelling to the Moon vs. to MarsCan we get energy from the motion of orbiting bodies?Minimum Delta V to a staging area in cislunar space for a vertical space gunHow large a body could a probe with ion engines land on and launch from?Why has the Earth's motion carried it out of view of Pioneer 11's antenna?How much delta v does it take to get to the Sun-Earth Lagrange 3 point?What precisely is downrange distance - how is it defined mathematically?Parallel orbits around the Earth - effectively?The Martian: Does it really take a supercomputer to calculate spaceflight maneuvers?How can I calculate the $Delta V$
Can we say or write : "No, it'sn't"?
Is it okay to majorly distort historical facts while writing a fiction story?
RigExpert AA-35 - Interpreting The Information
Would this house-rule that treats advantage as a +1 to the roll instead (and disadvantage as -1) and allows them to stack be balanced?
Are police here, aren't itthey?
Solving system of ODEs with extra parameter
Why does the flight controls check come before arming the autobrake on the A320?
Is it ever safe to open a suspicious HTML file (e.g. email attachment)?
Why didn't Khan get resurrected in the Genesis Explosion?
Proper way to express "He disappeared them"
Why does standard notation not preserve intervals (visually)
Is a distribution that is normal, but highly skewed considered Gaussian?
Is this "being" usage is essential?
Easy to read palindrome checker
Does soap repel water?
Do I need to write [sic] when a number is less than 10 but isn't written out?
Is it possible to replace duplicates of a character with one character using tr
WOW air has ceased operation, can I get my tickets refunded?
How to invert MapIndexed on a ragged structure? How to construct a tree from rules?
Recycling old answers
What was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?
Won the lottery - how do I keep the money?
Help understanding this unsettling image of Titan, Epimetheus, and Saturn's rings?
What steps are necessary to read a Modern SSD in Medieval Europe?
Does it take more energy to get to Venus or to Mars?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowEnergy consumption for travelling to the Moon vs. to MarsCan we get energy from the motion of orbiting bodies?Minimum Delta V to a staging area in cislunar space for a vertical space gunHow large a body could a probe with ion engines land on and launch from?Why has the Earth's motion carried it out of view of Pioneer 11's antenna?How much delta v does it take to get to the Sun-Earth Lagrange 3 point?What precisely is downrange distance - how is it defined mathematically?Parallel orbits around the Earth - effectively?The Martian: Does it really take a supercomputer to calculate spaceflight maneuvers?How can I calculate the $Delta V$
$begingroup$
Let's assume we use the ideal positions of those planets relative to Earth for launch. And let's assume the spacecraft is launched from the same place on Earth. Also let's assume the goal is to get the same mass of payload to those planets, meaning the launch vehicle could be different, depending on the energy requirements.
"Getting to" could possibly be a bit imprecise, so let's define it as meaning directly impacting the surface with the spacecraft.
Alternatively, does anything change if "getting to" means getting into orbit around those planets?
orbital-mechanics delta-v energy
asked 2 days ago
stackzebrastackzebra
28316
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's assume we use the ideal positions of those planets relative to Earth for launch. And let's assume the spacecraft is launched from the same place on Earth. Also let's assume the goal is to get the same mass of payload to those planets, meaning the launch vehicle could be different, depending on the energy requirements.
"Getting to" could possibly be a bit imprecise, so let's define it as meaning directly impacting the surface with the spacecraft.
Alternatively, does anything change if "getting to" means getting into orbit around those planets?
orbital-mechanics delta-v energy
asked 2 days ago
stackzebrastackzebra
28316
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Getting there... slowing down not included... god speed ye brave souls
$endgroup$
– Mikey Mouse
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's assume we use the ideal positions of those planets relative to Earth for launch. And let's assume the spacecraft is launched from the same place on Earth. Also let's assume the goal is to get the same mass of payload to those planets, meaning the launch vehicle could be different, depending on the energy requirements.
"Getting to" could possibly be a bit imprecise, so let's define it as meaning directly impacting the surface with the spacecraft.
Alternatively, does anything change if "getting to" means getting into orbit around those planets?
orbital-mechanics delta-v energy
asked 2 days ago
stackzebrastackzebra
28316
$endgroup$
Let's assume we use the ideal positions of those planets relative to Earth for launch. And let's assume the spacecraft is launched from the same place on Earth. Also let's assume the goal is to get the same mass of payload to those planets, meaning the launch vehicle could be different, depending on the energy requirements.
"Getting to" could possibly be a bit imprecise, so let's define it as meaning directly impacting the surface with the spacecraft.
Alternatively, does anything change if "getting to" means getting into orbit around those planets?
orbital-mechanics delta-v energy
orbital-mechanics delta-v energy
asked 2 days ago
stackzebrastackzebra
28316
asked 2 days ago
stackzebrastackzebra
28316
asked 2 days ago
stackzebrastackzebra
28316
asked 2 days ago
stackzebrastackzebra
28316
asked 2 days ago
stackzebrastackzebra
28316
28316
$begingroup$
Getting there... slowing down not included... god speed ye brave souls
$endgroup$
– Mikey Mouse
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Getting there... slowing down not included... god speed ye brave souls
$endgroup$
– Mikey Mouse
yesterday
$begingroup$
Getting there... slowing down not included... god speed ye brave souls
$endgroup$
– Mikey Mouse
yesterday
$begingroup$
Getting there... slowing down not included... god speed ye brave souls
$endgroup$
– Mikey Mouse
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
To flyby or impact Venus varies from 3.45 to 3.6 km/s from LEO for the optimal time every 19 months. Mars varies from 3.55 to 3.9 km/s for the optimal time every 26 months. So on average, getting to Venus is a little less energy than getting Mars. But not by much. It could even be a tiny bit more in some years.
If you also want to get barely into orbit propulsively, the ranges are 4 to 4.7 km/s for Venus and 4.25 to 7 km/s for Mars.
Mars is more variable than Venus due to its much larger solar orbit eccentricity (0.09 vs. 0.007).
At either planet, you can aerobrake down to the desired orbit. Aerobraking has been demonstrated at both. Or you can aerocapture directly, with just the flyby costs above. Aerocapture has never been demonstrated, but there are no hurdles that would prevent its use in a mission, other than developing an adequate heatshield for Venus (much higher entry velocity). However you incur the substantial mass penalty of the aeroshell, a cruise stage that is discarded before entry, and the structure and mechanisms to discard the aeroshell and deploy the enclosed spacecraft. Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months. (Aerocapture is mission enabling at Uranus, Neptune, and Titan.)
answered 2 days ago
Mark AdlerMark Adler
50.6k3129215
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
5
$begingroup$
The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
$begingroup$
The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
$endgroup$
– Mark Adler
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
@TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
The second table here essentially answers your question. Venus transfer from Low Earth Orbit is 3.5 km/s, Mars transfer is 3.6.
This will allow you to impact either body (on Venus you will need to make sure your vehicle is tough enough to actually impact, rather than dissolving in the atmosphere, but that's not really the point).
In either case, you can enter orbit for negligible extra energy, but some risk, by aerocapture. Basically you graze the upper atmosphere, losing just enough velocity relative to the planet to enter a long elliptical orbit. At the highest point of that orbit you make a very small boost to raise the lowest point of the orbit to graze the atmosphere even more gently, and then repeated encounters will lower the high point of the orbit. When it's where you want it, you make a further small correction to miss the atmosphere entirely and you are there.
answered 2 days ago
Steve LintonSteve Linton
9,27812451
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
$endgroup$
– AnT
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35124%2fdoes-it-take-more-energy-to-get-to-venus-or-to-mars%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
To flyby or impact Venus varies from 3.45 to 3.6 km/s from LEO for the optimal time every 19 months. Mars varies from 3.55 to 3.9 km/s for the optimal time every 26 months. So on average, getting to Venus is a little less energy than getting Mars. But not by much. It could even be a tiny bit more in some years.
If you also want to get barely into orbit propulsively, the ranges are 4 to 4.7 km/s for Venus and 4.25 to 7 km/s for Mars.
Mars is more variable than Venus due to its much larger solar orbit eccentricity (0.09 vs. 0.007).
At either planet, you can aerobrake down to the desired orbit. Aerobraking has been demonstrated at both. Or you can aerocapture directly, with just the flyby costs above. Aerocapture has never been demonstrated, but there are no hurdles that would prevent its use in a mission, other than developing an adequate heatshield for Venus (much higher entry velocity). However you incur the substantial mass penalty of the aeroshell, a cruise stage that is discarded before entry, and the structure and mechanisms to discard the aeroshell and deploy the enclosed spacecraft. Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months. (Aerocapture is mission enabling at Uranus, Neptune, and Titan.)
answered 2 days ago
Mark AdlerMark Adler
50.6k3129215
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
5
$begingroup$
The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
$begingroup$
The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
$endgroup$
– Mark Adler
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
@TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
To flyby or impact Venus varies from 3.45 to 3.6 km/s from LEO for the optimal time every 19 months. Mars varies from 3.55 to 3.9 km/s for the optimal time every 26 months. So on average, getting to Venus is a little less energy than getting Mars. But not by much. It could even be a tiny bit more in some years.
If you also want to get barely into orbit propulsively, the ranges are 4 to 4.7 km/s for Venus and 4.25 to 7 km/s for Mars.
Mars is more variable than Venus due to its much larger solar orbit eccentricity (0.09 vs. 0.007).
At either planet, you can aerobrake down to the desired orbit. Aerobraking has been demonstrated at both. Or you can aerocapture directly, with just the flyby costs above. Aerocapture has never been demonstrated, but there are no hurdles that would prevent its use in a mission, other than developing an adequate heatshield for Venus (much higher entry velocity). However you incur the substantial mass penalty of the aeroshell, a cruise stage that is discarded before entry, and the structure and mechanisms to discard the aeroshell and deploy the enclosed spacecraft. Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months. (Aerocapture is mission enabling at Uranus, Neptune, and Titan.)
answered 2 days ago
Mark AdlerMark Adler
50.6k3129215
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
5
$begingroup$
The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
$begingroup$
The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
$endgroup$
– Mark Adler
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
@TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
To flyby or impact Venus varies from 3.45 to 3.6 km/s from LEO for the optimal time every 19 months. Mars varies from 3.55 to 3.9 km/s for the optimal time every 26 months. So on average, getting to Venus is a little less energy than getting Mars. But not by much. It could even be a tiny bit more in some years.
If you also want to get barely into orbit propulsively, the ranges are 4 to 4.7 km/s for Venus and 4.25 to 7 km/s for Mars.
Mars is more variable than Venus due to its much larger solar orbit eccentricity (0.09 vs. 0.007).
At either planet, you can aerobrake down to the desired orbit. Aerobraking has been demonstrated at both. Or you can aerocapture directly, with just the flyby costs above. Aerocapture has never been demonstrated, but there are no hurdles that would prevent its use in a mission, other than developing an adequate heatshield for Venus (much higher entry velocity). However you incur the substantial mass penalty of the aeroshell, a cruise stage that is discarded before entry, and the structure and mechanisms to discard the aeroshell and deploy the enclosed spacecraft. Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months. (Aerocapture is mission enabling at Uranus, Neptune, and Titan.)
answered 2 days ago
Mark AdlerMark Adler
50.6k3129215
$endgroup$
To flyby or impact Venus varies from 3.45 to 3.6 km/s from LEO for the optimal time every 19 months. Mars varies from 3.55 to 3.9 km/s for the optimal time every 26 months. So on average, getting to Venus is a little less energy than getting Mars. But not by much. It could even be a tiny bit more in some years.
If you also want to get barely into orbit propulsively, the ranges are 4 to 4.7 km/s for Venus and 4.25 to 7 km/s for Mars.
Mars is more variable than Venus due to its much larger solar orbit eccentricity (0.09 vs. 0.007).
At either planet, you can aerobrake down to the desired orbit. Aerobraking has been demonstrated at both. Or you can aerocapture directly, with just the flyby costs above. Aerocapture has never been demonstrated, but there are no hurdles that would prevent its use in a mission, other than developing an adequate heatshield for Venus (much higher entry velocity). However you incur the substantial mass penalty of the aeroshell, a cruise stage that is discarded before entry, and the structure and mechanisms to discard the aeroshell and deploy the enclosed spacecraft. Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months. (Aerocapture is mission enabling at Uranus, Neptune, and Titan.)
answered 2 days ago
Mark AdlerMark Adler
50.6k3129215
answered 2 days ago
Mark AdlerMark Adler
50.6k3129215
answered 2 days ago
Mark AdlerMark Adler
50.6k3129215
answered 2 days ago
Mark AdlerMark Adler
50.6k3129215
50.6k3129215
$begingroup$
"Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
5
$begingroup$
The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
$begingroup$
The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
$endgroup$
– Mark Adler
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
@TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
"Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
5
$begingroup$
The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
$begingroup$
The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
$endgroup$
– Mark Adler
2 days ago
2
$begingroup$
@TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
yesterday
$begingroup$
"Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
$begingroup$
"Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
5
5
$begingroup$
The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
$begingroup$
The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
$endgroup$
– Nij
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
2 days ago
$begingroup$
The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
$endgroup$
– Mark Adler
2 days ago
$begingroup$
The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
$endgroup$
– Mark Adler
2 days ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
yesterday
$begingroup$
@TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
yesterday
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
The second table here essentially answers your question. Venus transfer from Low Earth Orbit is 3.5 km/s, Mars transfer is 3.6.
This will allow you to impact either body (on Venus you will need to make sure your vehicle is tough enough to actually impact, rather than dissolving in the atmosphere, but that's not really the point).
In either case, you can enter orbit for negligible extra energy, but some risk, by aerocapture. Basically you graze the upper atmosphere, losing just enough velocity relative to the planet to enter a long elliptical orbit. At the highest point of that orbit you make a very small boost to raise the lowest point of the orbit to graze the atmosphere even more gently, and then repeated encounters will lower the high point of the orbit. When it's where you want it, you make a further small correction to miss the atmosphere entirely and you are there.
answered 2 days ago
Steve LintonSteve Linton
9,27812451
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
$endgroup$
– AnT
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The second table here essentially answers your question. Venus transfer from Low Earth Orbit is 3.5 km/s, Mars transfer is 3.6.
This will allow you to impact either body (on Venus you will need to make sure your vehicle is tough enough to actually impact, rather than dissolving in the atmosphere, but that's not really the point).
In either case, you can enter orbit for negligible extra energy, but some risk, by aerocapture. Basically you graze the upper atmosphere, losing just enough velocity relative to the planet to enter a long elliptical orbit. At the highest point of that orbit you make a very small boost to raise the lowest point of the orbit to graze the atmosphere even more gently, and then repeated encounters will lower the high point of the orbit. When it's where you want it, you make a further small correction to miss the atmosphere entirely and you are there.
answered 2 days ago
Steve LintonSteve Linton
9,27812451
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
$endgroup$
– AnT
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The second table here essentially answers your question. Venus transfer from Low Earth Orbit is 3.5 km/s, Mars transfer is 3.6.
This will allow you to impact either body (on Venus you will need to make sure your vehicle is tough enough to actually impact, rather than dissolving in the atmosphere, but that's not really the point).
In either case, you can enter orbit for negligible extra energy, but some risk, by aerocapture. Basically you graze the upper atmosphere, losing just enough velocity relative to the planet to enter a long elliptical orbit. At the highest point of that orbit you make a very small boost to raise the lowest point of the orbit to graze the atmosphere even more gently, and then repeated encounters will lower the high point of the orbit. When it's where you want it, you make a further small correction to miss the atmosphere entirely and you are there.
answered 2 days ago
Steve LintonSteve Linton
9,27812451
$endgroup$
The second table here essentially answers your question. Venus transfer from Low Earth Orbit is 3.5 km/s, Mars transfer is 3.6.
This will allow you to impact either body (on Venus you will need to make sure your vehicle is tough enough to actually impact, rather than dissolving in the atmosphere, but that's not really the point).
In either case, you can enter orbit for negligible extra energy, but some risk, by aerocapture. Basically you graze the upper atmosphere, losing just enough velocity relative to the planet to enter a long elliptical orbit. At the highest point of that orbit you make a very small boost to raise the lowest point of the orbit to graze the atmosphere even more gently, and then repeated encounters will lower the high point of the orbit. When it's where you want it, you make a further small correction to miss the atmosphere entirely and you are there.
answered 2 days ago
Steve LintonSteve Linton
9,27812451
answered 2 days ago
Steve LintonSteve Linton
9,27812451
answered 2 days ago
Steve LintonSteve Linton
9,27812451
answered 2 days ago
Steve LintonSteve Linton
9,27812451
9,27812451
2
$begingroup$
Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
$endgroup$
– AnT
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
2 days ago
1
$begingroup$
@stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
$endgroup$
– AnT
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
2 days ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
2 days ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
$endgroup$
– AnT
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
$endgroup$
– AnT
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35124%2fdoes-it-take-more-energy-to-get-to-venus-or-to-mars%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Getting there... slowing down not included... god speed ye brave souls
$endgroup$
– Mikey Mouse
yesterday