Talk:Aerobraking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Aviation (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Aerobraking[edit]

Can somebody add some numbers? What speed, temperature, etc please?

Topic needs revising[edit]

This page needs to be re-written. The author has confused and mixed aerobraking with aerocapture and direct entry.--Belchja 16:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree, and made a first attempt. I had a good reason to keep these two straight (around 1998)! BTW, the picture really does look like aerocapture, but I'm reticent to remove it without a replacement. MFago 04:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Are plane changes/cross-range maneuvers really typical of aerobraking?MFago 04:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Do people think the sectioning helps for such a short article? MFago 00:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk from Aerobrake[edit]

A much more accurate description of Aeroassist maneuvers is located at Marshall Space Flight Center's In-space propulsion website. [1]

MCO did not fail because of "an error in the execution of the aerobraking maneuver", it failed because a unit conversion. The trajectory error caused the spacecraft to enter the atmosphere at lower than designed limits and was destroyed because of this.

  • One could say this is the same thing. Nevertheless, three years of my life .... MFago 04:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Merging with Aerocapture[edit]

shouldn't this article be merged with that? --Juxi 07:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No, Aerobraking and Aerocapture are two different Aeroassist techniques Belchja 21:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Occurances in fiction[edit]

The Clarke maneuver is definitely aerocapture, not aerobraking. I suspect the Hienlein one too, but I have no copy of Space Cadet. Aerobraking is too tedious to make much of a plot device, especially since it makes most sense when the initial orbit is several days long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer (talkcontribs) 22:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, found the book, and it's aerobraking. LouScheffer (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if that statement regarding Aerobreaking in Stargate Universe is correct. I think they use the simple gravity assist in breaking direction. The pass through the atmosphere is a side effect to this. The course change and "gravity assist break" seem to be the primary "goals" --Szap 84.147.62.172 (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Aerobraking time[edit]

There must be some mathematical formula that can be used to calculate how long it takes to aerobrake. If we could find a source that gives that information, it could be useful here. Nat682 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd think that the time requirement would depend on the atmosphere and it's turbulence, composition, thickness, etc, as well as on the design and structure of the spacecraft, the risks its operators are willing to take, and the mission's goals. So it's probably plenty more complicated than a simple formula. Vsst (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Grammar and style[edit]

Could some English native speaker check section "Method" for grammar - the sentence with "...unpredictability turbulence...to predict..." sounds wrong to me. Ovejan (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, fixed this and improved (I hope) some other wording as well. LouScheffer (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Force or force density[edit]

comparable to that acted on the hand? (chapter Method) Consider 3.7 m2 of sonde vs. 0,02 m2 of the hand. --Helium4 (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Aerodynamic braking[edit]

Aerodynamic braking

In looking to place a photo there, I noticed that aerodynamic braking redirects to this article. I'm wondering if this should be a separate article, because aerodynamic braking is a method used in landing airplanes. It consists of holding the nose high while rolling down the runway, using the force of air to help slow the craft down. The photo to the right shows what this looks like. I don't know if it should be a separate article, or a separate section in this one. However, it is very different from the braking described here. I don't think spacecraft use aerodynamic braking, except the space shuttle when it is landing.

Hiten probe description uses wrong units[edit]

The article describes the Hiten probe as decelerating by 1.712 meters/second during its aerobraking maneuver, dropping its apogee by 8665 km. This is clearly off by a factor of a thousand, at the initial speed they describe (11 km/s), decelerating by 1.712 kilometers/second would produce the stated drop in apogee. I've changed the article to read "km/s". Unfortunately the source cited also has that typo, so I wanted to make a note of the change here. Drunaii (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)