Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:21:42.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Orbital Error Analysis for Comet Encke, 1980

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Several recent studies have been undertaken to optimize mission strategies and to select appropriate instrumentation for in situ studies of short period comets (Farquhar et al, 1974; Bender, 1974; Newburn, 1973; Meissinger, 1972; Roberts, 1971). Although some studies have contrasted the physical characteristics of several proposed target comets, few have comprehensively studied the orbital history and ephemeris uncertainties of target comets. In general, the navigational accuracy of cometary flyby probes is almost entirely dependent upon the target comet’s position uncertainty at the time of intercept. Although cometary error analyses are necessary for realistic mission planning, such analyses cannot be conducted in the standard fashion. Comets are affected by nongravitational forces (Marsden et al, 1973), they occasionally exhibit slight discontinuities in their orbital motions, and at least one comet (Biela) has completely disintegrated (Marsden and Sekanina, 1971). Each comet is an individual. Comets have steadfastly resisted recent attempts at classification. Hence, it seems clear that, for each comet of interest in mission planning, a separate in-depth error analysis study must be undertaken to realisticly determine the target comet’s ephemeris uncertainty at the time of intercept. Such studies should consider a number of criteria in order to assure accurate ephemerides for prospective cometary targets. Using the 1980 apparition of comet Encke as an example, these criteria are outlined below.

Type
Part II
Copyright
Copyright © NASA 1976

References

Byrnes, D. V., and Boain, R. J. (1974). “An Integrated Approach to Comet Mission Navigation Utilizing Astronomical Observations of the Target Body,” American Institute of Astronautics and Aeronautics (AIAA) paper No. 74849.Google Scholar
Bender, D. F. (1974). “Encke Ballistic Flyby s in 1980,” AIAA paper No. 74–782.Google Scholar
Farquhar, R., McCarthy, D. K., Muhonen, D. P., and Yeomans, D. K. (1974). “Mission Design for a Ballistic Slow Flyby of Comet Encke 1980,” NASA TN D-7726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farquhar, R. (1975). “Mission Strategy for Cometary Exploration in the 1980’s,” this colloquium.Google Scholar
Marsden, B. G. and Sekanina, Z. (1971). Astron. J. 76, 1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, B. G. and Sekanina, Z. (1974). Astron. J. 79, 413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, B. G., Sekanina, Z., and Yeomans, D. K. (1973). Astron. J. 78, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meissinger, H. F. (1972). “Study of a Comet Rendezvous Mission,” TRW Technical Report 20513–6006-R0-00.Google Scholar
Newburn, R. L. (ed.) (1973). “Science Rationale and Instrument Package for a Slow Flyby of Comet Encke”, J. P. L. Document 760–90.Google Scholar
Roberts, D. L. (ed.) (1971). “Proceedings of the Cometary Science Working Group. Yerkes Observatory, June, 1971,” IIT Research Institute Document.Google Scholar
Roemer, E. (1972). Mercury Nov./Dec., 1972, p. 19.Google Scholar