Haven't they done this a few times?
They have but I think this is the first time that the ISS had to play dodgeball with the parts. Considering the somewhat recent "oops I fired a thruster" event it "seems like" they have a problem with the ISS
Haven't they done this a few times?
I've been looking for the actual trajectory DART is taking to get to the destination. If any of you have found it please share the link.
I read the booster change basically made the ion thruster unnecessary, but I can't find if it's now a direct trajectory or there's an Earth flyby or something like that? Thanks...
One of the solar panels is only 75-95% extended (estimated from the current it is producing).Whatever happened to LUCY?
The last I read about it one of the solar panels had problem fully deploying.
<sigh> That's me, a day late and a dollar short every time. I should've known a bunch of nerds couldn't resist that one! Carry on, please.Not to spoil the fun but the word plays have all been done already.
"The Lucy mission is named after the fossilized skeleton of an early hominid found in Ethiopia on Nov 24, 1974 by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray. That Lucy in turn was named by expedition member Pamela Alderman after a celebratory evening dancing and singing to the Beatles’ song “Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds.” Just as that Lucy fossil provided unique insights into humanity’s evolution, the Lucy mission promises to revolutionize our knowledge of planetary origins and the formation of the Solar System."
http://lucy.swri.edu/mission/Overview.html
"L’TES is Lucy’s Thermal Emission Spectrometer, which detects far infrared radiation emitted by the asteroids."
...
"Like its predecessor, inside L’TES is a large diamond that serves as a beamsplitter. (Perhaps a reference to a certain Beatles song is appropriate here.)"
http://lucy.swri.edu/instruments/LTES.html
This gives them some empirical data to compare with their theoretical calculations. They can now revisit the theory and tweak as necessary (of course, they would need many more strikes to have enough data to make significant adjustments). It's like using a simulation program for your rockets; you put in all the data that is easily measured - mass, size, motor impulse, etc. - but your coefficient of drag is a guess at best. With enough flights, you can better define the coefficient for a better simulation.I still can't understand the reason behind this mission. I know they said it was to show what might be possible with changing the trajectory of an asteroid. But my question is: how does this really help?
In order to get the DART to the asteroid's moon in the first place the engineers had to understand orbital mechanics *very* well. They got this very tiny spacecraft to hit a very tiny moon from a very long ways away.
They know the maths, they understand what the change in direction and velocity will be.
So what was the purpose? Was there a chance they'd hit the moon, they'd make measurements, and then say, "Well dang, I did NOT expect that to happen?"
When learning about new things, sure, these kinds of tests are very valuable and great sources of information. But this is well established stuff already or else they'd never have been able to do the test to begin with.
No, my point is they have TONS of empirical data about orbital mechanics and have decades of data they've collected. They wouldn't have been able to hit the moon at all unless they knew it very very well already. I still don't understand what they were able to gain from this.This gives them some empirical data to compare with their theoretical calculations.
ATLAS observations of the DART spacecraft impact at Didymos
I wonder how closely the amount of material ejected will match simulations.There is an interesting effect that comes into play at impact. The impact gets an expected 2.5 to 3 times the energy of the kinetic thump alone. The gas and ejecta from the impact contribute very significantly to the perturbing force on the asteroid.
There are definitely some intriguing physics in many aspects of asteroid redirection and planetary protection.
I still can't understand the reason behind this mission. I know they said it was to show what might be possible with changing the trajectory of an asteroid. But my question is: how does this really help?
...
So what was the purpose? Was there a chance they'd hit the moon, they'd make measurements, and then say, "Well dang, I did NOT expect that to happen?"
I still can't understand the reason behind this mission. I know they said it was to show what might be possible with changing the trajectory of an asteroid. But my question is: how does this really help?
In order to get the DART to the asteroid's moon in the first place the engineers had to understand orbital mechanics *very* well. They got this very tiny spacecraft to hit a very tiny moon from a very long ways away.
They know the maths, they understand what the change in direction and velocity will be.
So what was the purpose? Was there a chance they'd hit the moon, they'd make measurements, and then say, "Well dang, I did NOT expect that to happen?"
When learning about new things, sure, these kinds of tests are very valuable and great sources of information. But this is well established stuff already or else they'd never have been able to do the test to begin with.
What others said in other replies above, for sure. But also: we have now developed and tested a working model of how to track an asteroid's movement and control an onrushing spacecraft to impact dead center. The data learned developing the nav/control programming, and from the telemetry of the DART actually executing its program, is HUGE.I still can't understand the reason behind this mission. I know they said it was to show what might be possible with changing the trajectory of an asteroid. But my question is: how does this really help?
In order to get the DART to the asteroid's moon in the first place the engineers had to understand orbital mechanics *very* well. They got this very tiny spacecraft to hit a very tiny moon from a very long ways away.
They know the maths, they understand what the change in direction and velocity will be.
So what was the purpose? Was there a chance they'd hit the moon, they'd make measurements, and then say, "Well dang, I did NOT expect that to happen?"
When learning about new things, sure, these kinds of tests are very valuable and great sources of information. But this is well established stuff already or else they'd never have been able to do the test to begin with.
Enter your email address to join: