Why are probes that tend to explore outer system always launched to go outwards instead of straight upwards...
Let's take a look at the trajectory of variety probe missions.
New Horizons and Ultima Thule will be 4.1 billion miles away when it visits the Kuiper Belt object. This chart shows the path of New Horizons compared to other probes that have left the solar system. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [1]
I wonder, why all these probes tend to explore outer system were launched to go outwards of the eliptical plane instead of go upwards or downwards? What I'm talking about here is go upwards or downwards that is considerably close to 90 degree. I was told the eliptical plane of any solar system tends to stay relatively uniform, with only Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) showing bizarre inclinations. The closest thing we'd find "below" the Earth would be an Oort Cloud object or outer star system, is it accurate to said so? What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?
Point of interest
1 Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor, January 2 2019, NASA's New Horizons Just Made the Most Distant Flyby in Space History. So, What's Next?
probe planetary-science solar-system
|
show 1 more comment
Let's take a look at the trajectory of variety probe missions.
New Horizons and Ultima Thule will be 4.1 billion miles away when it visits the Kuiper Belt object. This chart shows the path of New Horizons compared to other probes that have left the solar system. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [1]
I wonder, why all these probes tend to explore outer system were launched to go outwards of the eliptical plane instead of go upwards or downwards? What I'm talking about here is go upwards or downwards that is considerably close to 90 degree. I was told the eliptical plane of any solar system tends to stay relatively uniform, with only Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) showing bizarre inclinations. The closest thing we'd find "below" the Earth would be an Oort Cloud object or outer star system, is it accurate to said so? What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?
Point of interest
1 Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor, January 2 2019, NASA's New Horizons Just Made the Most Distant Flyby in Space History. So, What's Next?
probe planetary-science solar-system
16
The interesting things are in the ecliptic plane more or less.
– Organic Marble
23 hours ago
2
Why would we want to? What goal are you intending to achieve by doing so? What do you consider the primary purpose of such a mission? What do you consider are/were the primary purposes of the missions you are asking about? How would those have been met by using a trajectory that wasn't in the ecliptic?
– Makyen
18 hours ago
1
@Makyen, you could just as easily ask, why wouldn't we want to? There are many great reasons to, and in the spirit of the question being asked, why haven't we done more missions out of the ecliptic?
– Dave
17 hours ago
2
@Dave No, that's not as easy a question, not even close. We don't have unlimited resources. The number of missions isn't unlimited. There must be a reason to do something, and that reason must be more important than all the other projects that are competing for the limited resources available..
– Makyen
14 hours ago
2
You'd find a bunch of nothing, and then have to spend your entire second stage's budget (probably more) on a 90 degree inclination change, or continue to find nothing that Voyager 1 hasn't already. Launched at 90 degrees inclination, the only thing you can do is keep going that way.
– Mazura
13 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Let's take a look at the trajectory of variety probe missions.
New Horizons and Ultima Thule will be 4.1 billion miles away when it visits the Kuiper Belt object. This chart shows the path of New Horizons compared to other probes that have left the solar system. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [1]
I wonder, why all these probes tend to explore outer system were launched to go outwards of the eliptical plane instead of go upwards or downwards? What I'm talking about here is go upwards or downwards that is considerably close to 90 degree. I was told the eliptical plane of any solar system tends to stay relatively uniform, with only Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) showing bizarre inclinations. The closest thing we'd find "below" the Earth would be an Oort Cloud object or outer star system, is it accurate to said so? What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?
Point of interest
1 Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor, January 2 2019, NASA's New Horizons Just Made the Most Distant Flyby in Space History. So, What's Next?
probe planetary-science solar-system
Let's take a look at the trajectory of variety probe missions.
New Horizons and Ultima Thule will be 4.1 billion miles away when it visits the Kuiper Belt object. This chart shows the path of New Horizons compared to other probes that have left the solar system. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory [1]
I wonder, why all these probes tend to explore outer system were launched to go outwards of the eliptical plane instead of go upwards or downwards? What I'm talking about here is go upwards or downwards that is considerably close to 90 degree. I was told the eliptical plane of any solar system tends to stay relatively uniform, with only Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) showing bizarre inclinations. The closest thing we'd find "below" the Earth would be an Oort Cloud object or outer star system, is it accurate to said so? What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?
Point of interest
1 Nola Taylor Redd, Space.com Contributor, January 2 2019, NASA's New Horizons Just Made the Most Distant Flyby in Space History. So, What's Next?
probe planetary-science solar-system
probe planetary-science solar-system
asked 23 hours ago
Boosted Nub
774326
774326
16
The interesting things are in the ecliptic plane more or less.
– Organic Marble
23 hours ago
2
Why would we want to? What goal are you intending to achieve by doing so? What do you consider the primary purpose of such a mission? What do you consider are/were the primary purposes of the missions you are asking about? How would those have been met by using a trajectory that wasn't in the ecliptic?
– Makyen
18 hours ago
1
@Makyen, you could just as easily ask, why wouldn't we want to? There are many great reasons to, and in the spirit of the question being asked, why haven't we done more missions out of the ecliptic?
– Dave
17 hours ago
2
@Dave No, that's not as easy a question, not even close. We don't have unlimited resources. The number of missions isn't unlimited. There must be a reason to do something, and that reason must be more important than all the other projects that are competing for the limited resources available..
– Makyen
14 hours ago
2
You'd find a bunch of nothing, and then have to spend your entire second stage's budget (probably more) on a 90 degree inclination change, or continue to find nothing that Voyager 1 hasn't already. Launched at 90 degrees inclination, the only thing you can do is keep going that way.
– Mazura
13 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
16
The interesting things are in the ecliptic plane more or less.
– Organic Marble
23 hours ago
2
Why would we want to? What goal are you intending to achieve by doing so? What do you consider the primary purpose of such a mission? What do you consider are/were the primary purposes of the missions you are asking about? How would those have been met by using a trajectory that wasn't in the ecliptic?
– Makyen
18 hours ago
1
@Makyen, you could just as easily ask, why wouldn't we want to? There are many great reasons to, and in the spirit of the question being asked, why haven't we done more missions out of the ecliptic?
– Dave
17 hours ago
2
@Dave No, that's not as easy a question, not even close. We don't have unlimited resources. The number of missions isn't unlimited. There must be a reason to do something, and that reason must be more important than all the other projects that are competing for the limited resources available..
– Makyen
14 hours ago
2
You'd find a bunch of nothing, and then have to spend your entire second stage's budget (probably more) on a 90 degree inclination change, or continue to find nothing that Voyager 1 hasn't already. Launched at 90 degrees inclination, the only thing you can do is keep going that way.
– Mazura
13 hours ago
16
16
The interesting things are in the ecliptic plane more or less.
– Organic Marble
23 hours ago
The interesting things are in the ecliptic plane more or less.
– Organic Marble
23 hours ago
2
2
Why would we want to? What goal are you intending to achieve by doing so? What do you consider the primary purpose of such a mission? What do you consider are/were the primary purposes of the missions you are asking about? How would those have been met by using a trajectory that wasn't in the ecliptic?
– Makyen
18 hours ago
Why would we want to? What goal are you intending to achieve by doing so? What do you consider the primary purpose of such a mission? What do you consider are/were the primary purposes of the missions you are asking about? How would those have been met by using a trajectory that wasn't in the ecliptic?
– Makyen
18 hours ago
1
1
@Makyen, you could just as easily ask, why wouldn't we want to? There are many great reasons to, and in the spirit of the question being asked, why haven't we done more missions out of the ecliptic?
– Dave
17 hours ago
@Makyen, you could just as easily ask, why wouldn't we want to? There are many great reasons to, and in the spirit of the question being asked, why haven't we done more missions out of the ecliptic?
– Dave
17 hours ago
2
2
@Dave No, that's not as easy a question, not even close. We don't have unlimited resources. The number of missions isn't unlimited. There must be a reason to do something, and that reason must be more important than all the other projects that are competing for the limited resources available..
– Makyen
14 hours ago
@Dave No, that's not as easy a question, not even close. We don't have unlimited resources. The number of missions isn't unlimited. There must be a reason to do something, and that reason must be more important than all the other projects that are competing for the limited resources available..
– Makyen
14 hours ago
2
2
You'd find a bunch of nothing, and then have to spend your entire second stage's budget (probably more) on a 90 degree inclination change, or continue to find nothing that Voyager 1 hasn't already. Launched at 90 degrees inclination, the only thing you can do is keep going that way.
– Mazura
13 hours ago
You'd find a bunch of nothing, and then have to spend your entire second stage's budget (probably more) on a 90 degree inclination change, or continue to find nothing that Voyager 1 hasn't already. Launched at 90 degrees inclination, the only thing you can do is keep going that way.
– Mazura
13 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
Starting out from Earth, you have the free 30 km/s from Earth's movement around the Sun, which is in the plane of the ecliptic. To get far out of the plane you either have to boost a similar amount "up" or "down" (which is beyond the capability of current rockets) or go via one of the gas giants, and use its gravity to change course. So at least to start with you don't really have a choice.
One example of using a gas giant to change plane was the Ulysses probe, which, although it only barely got into the Outer Solar System, did orbit at almost 90 degrees to the ecliptic (80.2 degrees, in fact) in order to get a look at the North and South poles of the sun and the radiation and magnetic fields coming from them.
add a comment |
It is important to realize that space probes aren't really useful for finding objects in deep space. Space is so empty that a probe sent in a random "exploratory" direction would have a negligible chance of detecting an object orbiting the sun. The best way to find objects outside the ecliptic is to look for them using really large Earth-based or orbital telescopes. And there doesn't appear to be much out there.
All of the probes on their way out of the solar system were meant to explore current or former planets, which are all close to the plane of the ecliptic. That really is the reason the probes are close to that plane.
It would be of interest to sample the far reaches of the Sun's magnetosphere in different directions, but it hasn't been judged worth the expense.
Finally, it is easier to send probes out within the plane of the ecliptic because we can use the motions of the planets to give a speed boost. The Earth's motion of about 30 km/s is a nice start, but it's useless if you are heading directly towards the ecliptic north pole. And you can't use the outer planets as gravitational slingshots if you are going perpendicularly away from them.
3
Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
– Organic Marble
17 hours ago
1
I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
– Bob Jacobsen
14 hours ago
add a comment |
We've had 5 flyby missions to the outer solar system so far. All of them had primary missions at one or more planets. That set the main constraints for their trajectories. Anything after the last planetary encounter was secondary.
For Voyager 2, for instance, the Neptune flyby was aimed at a close encounter with Triton, which reduced the possible exit trajectories:
You also see Voyager 2 now has a significant angle relative to the ecliptic.
The others:
- Voyager 1 had moons to visit at Saturn
- for the Pioneers, I don't think an interstellar mission was considered at all
- New Horizons had to fly by Pluto, so it was limited to Pluto's plane (Pluto is not large enough to change NH's course significantly)
What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?
There are almost no targets of interest outside the ecliptic. No planets or other bodies we can visit until you get to the Oort cloud, which is 1000 AU out (10x further than the Voyagers are now after 40+ years of traveling).
The only reason to choose a trajectory perpendicular to the ecliptic, is to have another measurement point for the solar wind. But spending an entire mission to 100 AU on just that would be expensive for very limited return.
A study for an interstellar mission is underway, but that too is planned to include a KBO visit so it'll be constrained to the ecliptic.
Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
– Ellesedil
19 hours ago
A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
– Hobbes
17 hours ago
add a comment |
Staying in the same plane as the planets of the solar system allows us to use them for propulsion by means of a slingshot maneuver. Actually this Wikipedia page even has gifs showing the Voyagers as an example, so I guess it doesn't make much sense for me to go into detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
But in essence there is no reason to not use such maneuvers for additional acceleration and as mentioned before going perpendicular to the plane would require propulsion systems we don't have (yet). Even if we had such technology, there is still no reason to not use that free energy anyway, since these probes have no specific destination.
New contributor
add a comment |
Mostly because launching upwards would be useless to us, as we have extremely limited deep space travel capabilities.
Besides that; all rockets are launched along our equator anyways, the pull and movement of the Earth allows for an easier launch, and if we launch along our familiar plain we are able to utilize gravity assists from other celestial objects.
Gravity assists are a big reason, they give a huge boost to the rocket being launched and they give a flyby opportunity (great for research).
New contributor
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%2f33289%2fwhy-are-probes-that-tend-to-explore-outer-system-always-launched-to-go-outwards%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Starting out from Earth, you have the free 30 km/s from Earth's movement around the Sun, which is in the plane of the ecliptic. To get far out of the plane you either have to boost a similar amount "up" or "down" (which is beyond the capability of current rockets) or go via one of the gas giants, and use its gravity to change course. So at least to start with you don't really have a choice.
One example of using a gas giant to change plane was the Ulysses probe, which, although it only barely got into the Outer Solar System, did orbit at almost 90 degrees to the ecliptic (80.2 degrees, in fact) in order to get a look at the North and South poles of the sun and the radiation and magnetic fields coming from them.
add a comment |
Starting out from Earth, you have the free 30 km/s from Earth's movement around the Sun, which is in the plane of the ecliptic. To get far out of the plane you either have to boost a similar amount "up" or "down" (which is beyond the capability of current rockets) or go via one of the gas giants, and use its gravity to change course. So at least to start with you don't really have a choice.
One example of using a gas giant to change plane was the Ulysses probe, which, although it only barely got into the Outer Solar System, did orbit at almost 90 degrees to the ecliptic (80.2 degrees, in fact) in order to get a look at the North and South poles of the sun and the radiation and magnetic fields coming from them.
add a comment |
Starting out from Earth, you have the free 30 km/s from Earth's movement around the Sun, which is in the plane of the ecliptic. To get far out of the plane you either have to boost a similar amount "up" or "down" (which is beyond the capability of current rockets) or go via one of the gas giants, and use its gravity to change course. So at least to start with you don't really have a choice.
One example of using a gas giant to change plane was the Ulysses probe, which, although it only barely got into the Outer Solar System, did orbit at almost 90 degrees to the ecliptic (80.2 degrees, in fact) in order to get a look at the North and South poles of the sun and the radiation and magnetic fields coming from them.
Starting out from Earth, you have the free 30 km/s from Earth's movement around the Sun, which is in the plane of the ecliptic. To get far out of the plane you either have to boost a similar amount "up" or "down" (which is beyond the capability of current rockets) or go via one of the gas giants, and use its gravity to change course. So at least to start with you don't really have a choice.
One example of using a gas giant to change plane was the Ulysses probe, which, although it only barely got into the Outer Solar System, did orbit at almost 90 degrees to the ecliptic (80.2 degrees, in fact) in order to get a look at the North and South poles of the sun and the radiation and magnetic fields coming from them.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 21 hours ago
Steve Linton
6,61911540
6,61911540
add a comment |
add a comment |
It is important to realize that space probes aren't really useful for finding objects in deep space. Space is so empty that a probe sent in a random "exploratory" direction would have a negligible chance of detecting an object orbiting the sun. The best way to find objects outside the ecliptic is to look for them using really large Earth-based or orbital telescopes. And there doesn't appear to be much out there.
All of the probes on their way out of the solar system were meant to explore current or former planets, which are all close to the plane of the ecliptic. That really is the reason the probes are close to that plane.
It would be of interest to sample the far reaches of the Sun's magnetosphere in different directions, but it hasn't been judged worth the expense.
Finally, it is easier to send probes out within the plane of the ecliptic because we can use the motions of the planets to give a speed boost. The Earth's motion of about 30 km/s is a nice start, but it's useless if you are heading directly towards the ecliptic north pole. And you can't use the outer planets as gravitational slingshots if you are going perpendicularly away from them.
3
Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
– Organic Marble
17 hours ago
1
I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
– Bob Jacobsen
14 hours ago
add a comment |
It is important to realize that space probes aren't really useful for finding objects in deep space. Space is so empty that a probe sent in a random "exploratory" direction would have a negligible chance of detecting an object orbiting the sun. The best way to find objects outside the ecliptic is to look for them using really large Earth-based or orbital telescopes. And there doesn't appear to be much out there.
All of the probes on their way out of the solar system were meant to explore current or former planets, which are all close to the plane of the ecliptic. That really is the reason the probes are close to that plane.
It would be of interest to sample the far reaches of the Sun's magnetosphere in different directions, but it hasn't been judged worth the expense.
Finally, it is easier to send probes out within the plane of the ecliptic because we can use the motions of the planets to give a speed boost. The Earth's motion of about 30 km/s is a nice start, but it's useless if you are heading directly towards the ecliptic north pole. And you can't use the outer planets as gravitational slingshots if you are going perpendicularly away from them.
3
Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
– Organic Marble
17 hours ago
1
I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
– Bob Jacobsen
14 hours ago
add a comment |
It is important to realize that space probes aren't really useful for finding objects in deep space. Space is so empty that a probe sent in a random "exploratory" direction would have a negligible chance of detecting an object orbiting the sun. The best way to find objects outside the ecliptic is to look for them using really large Earth-based or orbital telescopes. And there doesn't appear to be much out there.
All of the probes on their way out of the solar system were meant to explore current or former planets, which are all close to the plane of the ecliptic. That really is the reason the probes are close to that plane.
It would be of interest to sample the far reaches of the Sun's magnetosphere in different directions, but it hasn't been judged worth the expense.
Finally, it is easier to send probes out within the plane of the ecliptic because we can use the motions of the planets to give a speed boost. The Earth's motion of about 30 km/s is a nice start, but it's useless if you are heading directly towards the ecliptic north pole. And you can't use the outer planets as gravitational slingshots if you are going perpendicularly away from them.
It is important to realize that space probes aren't really useful for finding objects in deep space. Space is so empty that a probe sent in a random "exploratory" direction would have a negligible chance of detecting an object orbiting the sun. The best way to find objects outside the ecliptic is to look for them using really large Earth-based or orbital telescopes. And there doesn't appear to be much out there.
All of the probes on their way out of the solar system were meant to explore current or former planets, which are all close to the plane of the ecliptic. That really is the reason the probes are close to that plane.
It would be of interest to sample the far reaches of the Sun's magnetosphere in different directions, but it hasn't been judged worth the expense.
Finally, it is easier to send probes out within the plane of the ecliptic because we can use the motions of the planets to give a speed boost. The Earth's motion of about 30 km/s is a nice start, but it's useless if you are heading directly towards the ecliptic north pole. And you can't use the outer planets as gravitational slingshots if you are going perpendicularly away from them.
answered 18 hours ago
Mark Foskey
1,825817
1,825817
3
Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
– Organic Marble
17 hours ago
1
I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
– Bob Jacobsen
14 hours ago
add a comment |
3
Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
– Organic Marble
17 hours ago
1
I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
– Bob Jacobsen
14 hours ago
3
3
Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
– Organic Marble
17 hours ago
Your last statement is wrong. The Ulysses mission used Jupiter to change the plane of its orbit out of the ecliptic. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(spacecraft)#Jupiter_swing-by
– Organic Marble
17 hours ago
1
1
I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
– Bob Jacobsen
14 hours ago
I think the last statement is about the assist,, which is like cos theta of the inclination change: plus or minus a maximum in plane, dropping to zero when completely out of plane.
– Bob Jacobsen
14 hours ago
add a comment |
We've had 5 flyby missions to the outer solar system so far. All of them had primary missions at one or more planets. That set the main constraints for their trajectories. Anything after the last planetary encounter was secondary.
For Voyager 2, for instance, the Neptune flyby was aimed at a close encounter with Triton, which reduced the possible exit trajectories:
You also see Voyager 2 now has a significant angle relative to the ecliptic.
The others:
- Voyager 1 had moons to visit at Saturn
- for the Pioneers, I don't think an interstellar mission was considered at all
- New Horizons had to fly by Pluto, so it was limited to Pluto's plane (Pluto is not large enough to change NH's course significantly)
What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?
There are almost no targets of interest outside the ecliptic. No planets or other bodies we can visit until you get to the Oort cloud, which is 1000 AU out (10x further than the Voyagers are now after 40+ years of traveling).
The only reason to choose a trajectory perpendicular to the ecliptic, is to have another measurement point for the solar wind. But spending an entire mission to 100 AU on just that would be expensive for very limited return.
A study for an interstellar mission is underway, but that too is planned to include a KBO visit so it'll be constrained to the ecliptic.
Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
– Ellesedil
19 hours ago
A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
– Hobbes
17 hours ago
add a comment |
We've had 5 flyby missions to the outer solar system so far. All of them had primary missions at one or more planets. That set the main constraints for their trajectories. Anything after the last planetary encounter was secondary.
For Voyager 2, for instance, the Neptune flyby was aimed at a close encounter with Triton, which reduced the possible exit trajectories:
You also see Voyager 2 now has a significant angle relative to the ecliptic.
The others:
- Voyager 1 had moons to visit at Saturn
- for the Pioneers, I don't think an interstellar mission was considered at all
- New Horizons had to fly by Pluto, so it was limited to Pluto's plane (Pluto is not large enough to change NH's course significantly)
What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?
There are almost no targets of interest outside the ecliptic. No planets or other bodies we can visit until you get to the Oort cloud, which is 1000 AU out (10x further than the Voyagers are now after 40+ years of traveling).
The only reason to choose a trajectory perpendicular to the ecliptic, is to have another measurement point for the solar wind. But spending an entire mission to 100 AU on just that would be expensive for very limited return.
A study for an interstellar mission is underway, but that too is planned to include a KBO visit so it'll be constrained to the ecliptic.
Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
– Ellesedil
19 hours ago
A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
– Hobbes
17 hours ago
add a comment |
We've had 5 flyby missions to the outer solar system so far. All of them had primary missions at one or more planets. That set the main constraints for their trajectories. Anything after the last planetary encounter was secondary.
For Voyager 2, for instance, the Neptune flyby was aimed at a close encounter with Triton, which reduced the possible exit trajectories:
You also see Voyager 2 now has a significant angle relative to the ecliptic.
The others:
- Voyager 1 had moons to visit at Saturn
- for the Pioneers, I don't think an interstellar mission was considered at all
- New Horizons had to fly by Pluto, so it was limited to Pluto's plane (Pluto is not large enough to change NH's course significantly)
What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?
There are almost no targets of interest outside the ecliptic. No planets or other bodies we can visit until you get to the Oort cloud, which is 1000 AU out (10x further than the Voyagers are now after 40+ years of traveling).
The only reason to choose a trajectory perpendicular to the ecliptic, is to have another measurement point for the solar wind. But spending an entire mission to 100 AU on just that would be expensive for very limited return.
A study for an interstellar mission is underway, but that too is planned to include a KBO visit so it'll be constrained to the ecliptic.
We've had 5 flyby missions to the outer solar system so far. All of them had primary missions at one or more planets. That set the main constraints for their trajectories. Anything after the last planetary encounter was secondary.
For Voyager 2, for instance, the Neptune flyby was aimed at a close encounter with Triton, which reduced the possible exit trajectories:
You also see Voyager 2 now has a significant angle relative to the ecliptic.
The others:
- Voyager 1 had moons to visit at Saturn
- for the Pioneers, I don't think an interstellar mission was considered at all
- New Horizons had to fly by Pluto, so it was limited to Pluto's plane (Pluto is not large enough to change NH's course significantly)
What would we find if we go straight upwards and downwards?
There are almost no targets of interest outside the ecliptic. No planets or other bodies we can visit until you get to the Oort cloud, which is 1000 AU out (10x further than the Voyagers are now after 40+ years of traveling).
The only reason to choose a trajectory perpendicular to the ecliptic, is to have another measurement point for the solar wind. But spending an entire mission to 100 AU on just that would be expensive for very limited return.
A study for an interstellar mission is underway, but that too is planned to include a KBO visit so it'll be constrained to the ecliptic.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 21 hours ago
Hobbes
86.7k2246393
86.7k2246393
Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
– Ellesedil
19 hours ago
A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
– Hobbes
17 hours ago
add a comment |
Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
– Ellesedil
19 hours ago
A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
– Hobbes
17 hours ago
Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
– Ellesedil
19 hours ago
Is it really just objects of interest? Would it not be more difficult to send a probe along the axis perpendicular to the elliptical plane?
– Ellesedil
19 hours ago
A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
– Hobbes
17 hours ago
A bit, but not much, I'd expect. You do a gravity assist at Jupiter, then use Saturn to aim the probe out of the ecliptic.
– Hobbes
17 hours ago
add a comment |
Staying in the same plane as the planets of the solar system allows us to use them for propulsion by means of a slingshot maneuver. Actually this Wikipedia page even has gifs showing the Voyagers as an example, so I guess it doesn't make much sense for me to go into detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
But in essence there is no reason to not use such maneuvers for additional acceleration and as mentioned before going perpendicular to the plane would require propulsion systems we don't have (yet). Even if we had such technology, there is still no reason to not use that free energy anyway, since these probes have no specific destination.
New contributor
add a comment |
Staying in the same plane as the planets of the solar system allows us to use them for propulsion by means of a slingshot maneuver. Actually this Wikipedia page even has gifs showing the Voyagers as an example, so I guess it doesn't make much sense for me to go into detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
But in essence there is no reason to not use such maneuvers for additional acceleration and as mentioned before going perpendicular to the plane would require propulsion systems we don't have (yet). Even if we had such technology, there is still no reason to not use that free energy anyway, since these probes have no specific destination.
New contributor
add a comment |
Staying in the same plane as the planets of the solar system allows us to use them for propulsion by means of a slingshot maneuver. Actually this Wikipedia page even has gifs showing the Voyagers as an example, so I guess it doesn't make much sense for me to go into detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
But in essence there is no reason to not use such maneuvers for additional acceleration and as mentioned before going perpendicular to the plane would require propulsion systems we don't have (yet). Even if we had such technology, there is still no reason to not use that free energy anyway, since these probes have no specific destination.
New contributor
Staying in the same plane as the planets of the solar system allows us to use them for propulsion by means of a slingshot maneuver. Actually this Wikipedia page even has gifs showing the Voyagers as an example, so I guess it doesn't make much sense for me to go into detail here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
But in essence there is no reason to not use such maneuvers for additional acceleration and as mentioned before going perpendicular to the plane would require propulsion systems we don't have (yet). Even if we had such technology, there is still no reason to not use that free energy anyway, since these probes have no specific destination.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 6 hours ago
Andreas Hartmann
1233
1233
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Mostly because launching upwards would be useless to us, as we have extremely limited deep space travel capabilities.
Besides that; all rockets are launched along our equator anyways, the pull and movement of the Earth allows for an easier launch, and if we launch along our familiar plain we are able to utilize gravity assists from other celestial objects.
Gravity assists are a big reason, they give a huge boost to the rocket being launched and they give a flyby opportunity (great for research).
New contributor
add a comment |
Mostly because launching upwards would be useless to us, as we have extremely limited deep space travel capabilities.
Besides that; all rockets are launched along our equator anyways, the pull and movement of the Earth allows for an easier launch, and if we launch along our familiar plain we are able to utilize gravity assists from other celestial objects.
Gravity assists are a big reason, they give a huge boost to the rocket being launched and they give a flyby opportunity (great for research).
New contributor
add a comment |
Mostly because launching upwards would be useless to us, as we have extremely limited deep space travel capabilities.
Besides that; all rockets are launched along our equator anyways, the pull and movement of the Earth allows for an easier launch, and if we launch along our familiar plain we are able to utilize gravity assists from other celestial objects.
Gravity assists are a big reason, they give a huge boost to the rocket being launched and they give a flyby opportunity (great for research).
New contributor
Mostly because launching upwards would be useless to us, as we have extremely limited deep space travel capabilities.
Besides that; all rockets are launched along our equator anyways, the pull and movement of the Earth allows for an easier launch, and if we launch along our familiar plain we are able to utilize gravity assists from other celestial objects.
Gravity assists are a big reason, they give a huge boost to the rocket being launched and they give a flyby opportunity (great for research).
New contributor
New contributor
answered 12 hours ago
PolyversialMind
235
235
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2f33289%2fwhy-are-probes-that-tend-to-explore-outer-system-always-launched-to-go-outwards%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
16
The interesting things are in the ecliptic plane more or less.
– Organic Marble
23 hours ago
2
Why would we want to? What goal are you intending to achieve by doing so? What do you consider the primary purpose of such a mission? What do you consider are/were the primary purposes of the missions you are asking about? How would those have been met by using a trajectory that wasn't in the ecliptic?
– Makyen
18 hours ago
1
@Makyen, you could just as easily ask, why wouldn't we want to? There are many great reasons to, and in the spirit of the question being asked, why haven't we done more missions out of the ecliptic?
– Dave
17 hours ago
2
@Dave No, that's not as easy a question, not even close. We don't have unlimited resources. The number of missions isn't unlimited. There must be a reason to do something, and that reason must be more important than all the other projects that are competing for the limited resources available..
– Makyen
14 hours ago
2
You'd find a bunch of nothing, and then have to spend your entire second stage's budget (probably more) on a 90 degree inclination change, or continue to find nothing that Voyager 1 hasn't already. Launched at 90 degrees inclination, the only thing you can do is keep going that way.
– Mazura
13 hours ago