Ok, another successful completion of this Callisto Challenge. It happens to be my most efficient attempt to date - and one that makes use of some new trajectory planning tools that I've put together - but that's not the point. What I want to do here is use this mission to make a point - about what it takes to enter into orbit around a planetary moon when on a low delta-V budget.
A bit of a recap
Before going on to make the point, its worthwhile briefly reiterating a few key themes that underpin this challenge. In essence, the Callisto Challenge is intended to be a way of practicing the "three burn" approach of orbit insertion. Here, we use Callisto as the moon, and Jupiter as the planet, but the concept of the "three-burn" approach has wide applicability for entry into orbit around the Moon, or even Phobos and Deimos. And, again, the whole point of the "three-burn" approach is to save delta-V (at the expense, though, of a considerable increase in the amount of time needed to achieve orbit insertion around the target moon.)
The following picture captures the essence of what the "three-burn" solution:
In the above diagram, Jupiter is located at the origin of the coordinate system (i.e., at the point (0,0). The red line indicates the orbit of Callisto. The blue line, which starts from the lower left of the diagram, represents the Delta Glider approaching the Jovian system with a hyperbolic excess velocity of around 6 km/s. Because the Delta Glider starts out moving fast, and because it continues to accelerate as it dives into Jupiter's gravitational well, any direct encounter with one of the four Galilean moons - Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto - is necessarily a high speed one. A direct orbit insertion around any of these moons takes a large retrograde burn. Because it is moving the slowest, Callisto is the easiest of the four moons to approach. Io, on the other hand, is a long way inside Jupiter's gravitational well and it is the hardest to approach.
Reducing delta-V
So, to reduce the final encounter velocity with the target moon, Callisto in this case, we resort a series of manoeuvres designed to slow the Delta Glider down, and give us sufficient to line ourselves up so that we can have a low velocity rendezvous with Callisto. There are three basic steps:
- A retrograde burn at Jupiter periapsis. This is designed to reduce the Delta Glider's hyperbolic excess velocity from around 6,000 m/s to essentially zero with a retrograde burn of around 400 m/s. This is a highly efficient procedure and is an example of the Oberth Effect at work.
- At Jupiter apoapsis, a prograde burn to set up a rendezvous with Callisto at the periapsis of the new orbit.
- Finally, a retrograde burn to enter into orbit around Callisto.
Hence, as the name implies, the "three-burn" method has three main burns. The above diagram represents the approach in two dimensions. In practice, orbital insertion is a three-dimensional problem and the full procedure requires two more important steps:
A. One of the principal tasks that the three burn method requires is an alignment the 'line of nodes' of the Delta-Glider and Callisto so that we arrive at Jupiter periapsis at a point that lies on the line of nodes. (The line of nodes is just the line of intersection between two orbital planes.) This alignment ensures that after we have completed our retrograde burn at periapsis, our new orbital apoapsis will also lie on the line of nodes - and so too will our new periapsis once we have completed a largely prograde burn at apoapsis. And all this to create a situation in which: a) we have a rendezvous with Callisto; and b) that the encounter velocity with Callisto is as slow as possible. To align the line of nodes with our periapsis, and when we are still at some distance from Jupiter, we have to rotate our orbital plane so that the line of nodes coincide with orbital periapsis. Upon starting this challenge, this task has the highest priority.
B. Now, aligning the line of nodes in this way means that we rotate the Delta-Glider's orbit out of Jupiter's orbital and equatorial planes. In fact, we end up with an orbit that is highly inclined with respect to Callisto's. In the Callisto Challenge, and after we have completed this manoeuvre, Orbit MFD shows that the Delta Glider is 24 degrees out of plane with respect to Callisto. At some point, we have to rotate our orbit plane once again, so as to preserve the alignment of the line of nodes, but also to reduce the inclination of the Delta Glider's orbit relative to Callisto. This a burn we undertake at apoapsis and, as 'dgatsoulis' has suggested elsewhere, it is efficient to combine this plane alignment task with the prograde burn needed to raise orbital periapsis to Callisto's orbital radius.
A comparison with theory
OK, so that's a bit of background on what this challenge is all about. Now, the first image of this post shown above is that of a successful completion of the challenge. All good. But what I thought I would look at is a comparison of a breakdown of mission delta-V costs against what theory suggests it should be. The following table gives the breakdown of actual delta-V costs for this mission and compares them with the 2-body theoretical values.
This table breaks up delta-v expenditure into a number of basic tasks that need to be carried out in order to successfully complete this mission.
First, we have the alignment of nodes. Now, I have developed a little widget that can tell me exactly by how many degrees I need to rotate the Delta-Glider's orbital plane in order to have the Jupiter periapsis lie on the line of nodes with Callisto. From this, I can work out exactly how much delta-v it takes to achieve this burn. And to cut a long story short, I can tell you that I need exactly 88.53 m/s to rotate the achieve the correct node alignment. Now, in practice this manoeuvre costs a little more because I find it expedient to engage the 'Normal -' autopilot to execute this burn - and using the autopilot 'costs' an additional 0.2 m/s. Such is life.
Second, I set my target apoapsis altitude is 30 million km. The 2-body theory says that this should be 388.7 m/s. However, I can use my trajectory planning tools to show that because largely of perturbations from the Sun, I actually only need a retrograde burn of 385.0 m/s.
Third, at apoapsis, my trajectory planning tools estimate that a largely prograde burn of 572 m/s is needed to: a) raise the Delta Glider's periapsis, b) synchronise rendezvous with Callisto, and c) get into plane alignment with Callisto. Two-body theory suggests that this should cost 585.9 m/s. The actual delta-V requirement here is less than theory because, again, perturbations from the Sun influence our return trajectory.
Fourth, the actual flight required one mid-course correction of 1.9 m/s. Frankly, I find this a little large and have yet to track down why it isn't smaller - say 0.2 - 0.3 m/s or so. Theory, of course, has no use for mid-course corrections.
Fifth, on 'Callisto final approach' we need to fine tune our arrival altitude and orientation. For these tasks, I 'spent' 5.7 m/s. Of this, around 4.5 m/s was spent on a plane adjustment so that my arrival inclination at Callisto was near equatorial. (In principle, this expenditure wasn't strictly necessary and amounted to little more than orbital housekeeping.) This left around 1.2 m/s to ensure that Callisto periapsis altitude was 20 km. Again, I find 1.2 m/s a little disconcerting and this reflects some inaccuracies in my trajectory planning tools. Still, not bad - but there is room for improvement.
Sixth, orbit insertion around Callisto. In practice, it took roughly 30 m/s more fuel than theory would suggest to enter orbit around Callisto. Why? Well, I can think of two likely reasons: the theory assumes that Callisto orbits around Jupiter in a circular orbit - it doesn't, so its orbital speed varies; and my approach angle to Callisto may have been off by a fraction of a degree.
Seventh, orbital fine tuning. This reflects a blunder on my part. Due mainly to laziness and an over reliance on autopilots, I was forced to spend 4 m/s correcting some imperfections in the autopilot's best attempt to insert the Delta Glider into a 20 x 20 km orbit.
Overall, this table shows that there really isn't much 'fat' left in the delta-V budget for this mission. I may be able to eek out an extra 20 m/s or so by correcting a few things, but one quickly finds that one is hitting up against the buffers of physical reality.
The gorilla in our midst
Does this mean that one can't do better than, say, 3,200 m/s in getting into orbit around Callisto. Yes, I would say that's about right for this challenge if one is focusing purely on the "three-burn" approach. It is an improvement in delta-V terms over other, more basic orbital insertion methods - but it is still not optimal.
Having gone through the the breakdown of delta-V costs, (and now we come to the point of the tale) it is clear that the 400 lb gorilla in the room is the cost of Callisto orbit insertion. At 2,200 m/s this is by far and away the largest delta-V budget item. The large delta-v is a direct function of our approach speed to Callisto. In this challenge the Delta Glider's approach speed is around 3,000 m/s. But what if we can reduce this to only 1,000 m/s (or even less). If we could do that, we could save upwards of 1,300 m/s on mission delta-V requirements.
So the question is: can we do anything to further reduce our Callisto approach speed? The answer is, of course, yes - so long as we are prepared to accept a further time delay of one or more ballistic breaking encounters with Callisto before, finally, inserting into orbit around Callisto. (A ballistic braking encounters is simply a 'fly-by' of the moon in which some of kinetic energy is transferred from the craft to the Moon. Repeated encounters progressively slow the craft.)
And all of this raises the question: in Orbiter, how can one design and execute a series of repeated ballistic braking encounters with a moon (or even a planet) to reduce orbital speed prior to orbit insertion. And it is to this question that my thoughts now turn - and the subject, no doubt, of future threads.