#2 in Engineering & transportation books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Fundamentals of Astrodynamics (Dover Books on Aeronautical Engineering)
Sentiment score: 34
Reddit mentions: 60
We found 60 Reddit mentions of Fundamentals of Astrodynamics (Dover Books on Aeronautical Engineering). Here are the top ones.
Buying options
View on Amazon.comor
- Dover Publications
Features:
Specs:
Height | 8.5 Inches |
Length | 5.5 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Release date | June 1971 |
Weight | 1.06703734808 Pounds |
Width | 1 Inches |
Yup, kinematics, basic orbital dynamics, and simple rocket equations are just algebra! Anybody interested should really check out one of the best Astro books out there: https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610
He can get a used copy of the Fundamentals of Astrodynamics on Amazon for just $16.95
I'll commend the added effort on this one and give it another once-over.
>Before the DC-X, nobody believed rockets could land themselves with precision and reliability.
I will have to mark this one with a big fat [citation needed]. Although I can't quite speak for the folks who worked rockets in the 90's, in principle I see little reason why seasoned experts would be inclined to think of the task as impossible. Intriguing perhaps, difficult certainly, but the problems involved in that kind of landing functionality are well-defined in the propulsion and control theory literature from which a solution must be derived.
What the DC-X provides is an important proof of concept - I see little benefit in trying to analyze how useful that design is relative to any other given one. Although, as a point perhaps of historical interest: there was a "Delta Clipper" full-size vehicle in the plans as a follow-on to the DC-X, with some rather familiar promises of low-cost access to space and large savings through reusability. Some things are just posters, some things become prototypes, and some things end up as something more - that's the reality of aerospace designs if not engineering designs in general. I do have to say that based on the studies I've seen from the 90's, shelving the Delta Clipper concept was definitely the correct decision at that time.
>At this point, reuse was likely not saving over a couple million per launch, as pre-B5 boosters were not optimized for reuse.
I would like to draw attention to a pattern of thought I've coined "the refinement fallacy." That is, the general assumption that the next version will iterate away the relatively fundamental problems with this one. Although the next version could certainly support improvements, it's easy to assume that such improvements will lead to radically different performance even when there is little evidence to support that that is the case. Bottom line: improvements and refinements do not by default resolve fundamental problems.
For the next segment, I'd like to start by collecting a couple of questionable assertions:
1.
>Musk said that reuse was 50% cheaper, however, by the end of this, it would likely be more accurate that the final pre-B5 reuse only saved up to 30%, and that was the expectation from B5.
2.
>Block 5 is the final version of Falcon 9. It is reportedly built for 10 flights with minimal refurbishment and 100 flights over its lifetime, although there is speculation that B5 will be used through 200-300 launches IF Starlink becomes a thing.
3.
>All of these help improve rapid reusability and the amount of times a booster can be used. it is likely only now, when B5 is being mass-produced (in rocket terms) and reuse is down that reuse of the booster can create cost saving with reuse being worthwhile. This is also the point where that 50% savings over making a new one can be reached, which would probably give up to 25% total cost reduction (this takes into account the costs of maintaining and using the ships and their respective equipment).
The problem with each of these claims is largely the source material: not what the average individual would describe as credible. The first and third claims seem relatively tame on their face - statements of economics and of the efficiency of a certain project. The second one is significantly more absurd - one that couples absurdly optimistic performance assumptions with associated claims of economies of scale. Generally, it's easy to make anything seem feasible if you take highly optimistic assumptions about future growth and best-case performance, and that can honestly be somewhat meaningless.
In truth, we have a credibility problem to address here. We don't have detailed financial information about a private company's business, so we have to look at the evidence we do have:
The lack of verifiable numbers, and the consistent rightward shift of the "next iteration will wave a magic wand and erase the problems" mentality is a key facet of the refinement fallacy approach to these topics. Although there is not exactly hard proof available one way or the other (which does leave lots of leeway for speculation), the partial evidence provided does provide sufficient room to warrant significant skepticism.
>A common rebuttal to reuse and SpaceX making money is that ULA makes way more profits than SpaceX. While true, this statement does not take into account the lower prices that SpaceX offers compared to ULA and where that money is going.
What is perhaps more meaningful here is the matter of structural profitability. Generally, more budget services do make a smaller per-unit profit than the more expensive units; the former makes up for the difference in volume. But more meaningful is the more fundamental factors: is the business, including its forward-looking development plans, funded primarily by its operating profits, or by an influx of external capital? Investment is always a staple of large capital expenditures, but there is a massive difference between supplementing a healthy business profit with some external cash for faster development and relying on that money to just keep on top of the current batch of tasks without clearly achievable milestones to turn the trend around (often depending instead on pie-in-the-sky promises of grand successes). One may ask, which do we actually see here?
>Currently, SpaceX is the only launch provider with commercially viable reusable launch vehicles. But it won't be that way much further into the 2020s. Future competitors include: Blue Origin's New Glenn, ULA's Vulcan-Centuar, and possibly China and India.
Launch vehicle reusability has been a long-pursued topic in well-developed space programs all over the world. That has been the case for many decades, it will continue to be the case for years to come. However, two things become quickly clear:
Bold claims about a radically different future generally are far too presumptuous, assuming a world of highly optimistic possibilities without sufficiently considering the more immediate (and generally more mundane) economic and political conditions under which they operate. Again, some things end up as just proposals or prototypes, some things become something more; what a different world we would live in if all the promises of the past decades came true. The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.
Sources
Just me, but I do have a book recommendation: Fundamentals of Astrodynamics - a fairly elementary, but highly informative, book on the principles of orbital mechanics. Great both for learning the basics at an engineering (as opposed to hobbyist) level, and as a reference if you happen to work with the stuff on a daily basis.
Buy this book - you can do the calculations yourself if you're interested in learning how they're done:
http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334804519&sr=8-1-fkmr1
It's cheap too.
Play Kerbal Space Program (seriously). Then pick a book (like this one), it's a much better way to go.
/u/another_user_name posted this list a while back. Actual aerospace textbooks are towards the bottom but you'll need a working knowledge of the prereqs first.
Non-core/Pre-reqs:
Mathematics:
Calculus.
1-4) Calculus, Stewart -- This is a very common book and I felt it was ok, but there's mixed opinions about it. Try to get a cheap, used copy.
1-4) Calculus, A New Horizon, Anton -- This is highly valued by many people, but I haven't read it.
1-4) Essential Calculus With Applications, Silverman -- Dover book.
More discussion in this reddit thread.
Linear Algebra
3) Linear Algebra and Its Applications,Lay -- I had this one in school. I think it was decent.
3) Linear Algebra, Shilov -- Dover book.
Differential Equations
4) An Introduction to Ordinary Differential Equations, Coddington -- Dover book, highly reviewed on Amazon.
G) Partial Differential Equations, Evans
G) Partial Differential Equations For Scientists and Engineers, Farlow
More discussion here.
Numerical Analysis
5) Numerical Analysis, Burden and Faires
Chemistry:
Physics:
2-4) Physics, Cutnel -- This was highly recommended, but I've not read it.
Programming:
Introductory Programming
Programming is becoming unavoidable as an engineering skill. I think Python is a strong introductory language that's got a lot of uses in industry.
Core Curriculum:
Introduction:
Aerodynamics:
Thermodynamics, Heat transfer and Propulsion:
Flight Mechanics, Stability and Control
5+) Flight Stability and Automatic Control, Nelson
5+)[Performance, Stability, Dynamics, and Control of Airplanes, Second Edition](http://www.amazon.com/Performance-Stability-Dynamics-Airplanes-Education/dp/1563475839/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315534435&sr=8-1, Pamadi) -- I gather this is better than Nelson
Engineering Mechanics and Structures:
3-4) Engineering Mechanics: Statics and Dynamics, Hibbeler
6-8) Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures, Bruhn -- A good reference, never really used it as a text.
G) Introduction to the Mechanics of a Continuous Medium, Malvern
G) Fracture Mechanics, Anderson
G) Mechanics of Composite Materials, Jones
Electrical Engineering
Design and Optimization
Space Systems
This book was my textbook for my Spacecraft Dynamics course and honestly is awesome. It's not light reading, but if you just want to understand it, this is the book to read. There should be .PDFs online for free
This was what my prof used in college
Fundamentals of Astrodynamics (Dover Books on Aeronautical Engineering) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0486600610/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_0.eJAb3FG9KQ0
I liked it a lot, but that may have to do with him being an amazing teacher and not the book itself lol
Whenever a movie is portraying a technical subject, they usually massacre the topic. I've a degree in Physics, I'm a computer techie for my day job, and I'm a huge science geek - so I cringe a lot at the movies. A LOT. Unless the most technical or scientific object in the movie is a stone hammer, in which case I may cringe only a little.
But whereas essentially all such movies get 100% of the technical topic wrong, Gravity is more like half-and-half. And the half that they "got wrong" was the one that would have made the movie boring and would have made large parts of the narrative impossible (or difficult to tell in a non-documentary). I was actually very impressed and excited with all the parts they got right. I loved it, all the while being very aware of the physical impossibilities popping up across the narrative.
Yes, I know about horribly expensive orbital plane changes, and Hohmann orbits, and the narrow re-entry window, and all that stuff, so don't even start it. If you want accuracy and physical realism, break out Fundamentals of Astrodynamics, by Bate, Mueller & White, and splurge on. But this movie ain't it, never was, never will be. And that's just the way things ought to be.
---
P.S.: The main topic of the movie was rebirth. Not gravity, not space flight. Rebirth. Learning to let go of past (as Clooney's character literally says at some point), and being born into a new life. There's even a fetal position with an umbilical cord somewhere in the movie (not literally, but broadly suggested by a lingering shot of Sandra Bullock), and then later all sorts of emerging from dark waters with red mud all around, in case the metaphor needed any more emphasis. It was not even too subtle.
As to what "gravity" is a metaphor of - well, it should be obvious by now.
IMO you want Bate's Fundamentals of Astrodynamics.
I don't want to speak out of turn, as I wasn't alive at the time, but my professors claim to have learned everything on this bad boy. It's great for getting a grasp on the concepts and well worth the 15 dollar price tag even just to put on your shelf to sit there and look cool. I got it with that in mind and it's become my go-to. Admittedly, computational approaches have changed the standard regarding some of the info in this text but the core concepts are there and it makes the content approachable.
If you're willing to do a fair amount of reading and math, the obvious approach would be to dig into the rocket equation, the vis-viva equation, and Kepler's third law. More generally, an intro to orbital mechanics can give you lots of cool tools.
I'm partial to Fundamentals of Astrodynamics if you want a physical textbook.
For those wondering how you might go about doing this yourself, you have a few choices. Knowing a language useful for modeling can help. Even if it's "just" Python.
NORAD maintains a two-line element set database that is refreshed daily. What is a two-line element set, or TLE? Back in the 1960s, when punch cards were still used as a primary storage device for computational data, a format was needed for easily storing the orbital elements of a space object (typically a satellite, but it can be anything in orbit, for instance rocket booster debris). The orbital elements are mostly the same as what you're used to seeing in KSP, but there are a few additional ones that are required for accurately* computing the propagation of the orbiting object in real life. A TLE looks like this:
COSMOS 2463 [+]
1 36519U 10017A 18293.58648576 .00000043 00000-0 30755-4 0 9996
2 36519 82.9602 143.9870 0035918 330.7244 29.1897 13.71429387424689
The first line contains mostly metadata, the second mostly orbital elements and some additional information you'll need. The TLE's orbital elements are the following:
Now, the first and last two are not technically your classic orbital elements but we need the first to get an idea of when the data is applicable and the last one comes in handy for objects in the LEO which are subject to significant atmospheric drag compared to say, something in a geostat or geosync orbit that is so high up that drag is not as much of a factor.
Putting these together is the more difficult part. For a classical treatment of the subject, I started with Fundamentals of Astrodynamics by Bate, Mueller and White. This is the older USAF Academy book and is interesting not only because it teaches how to compute a satellite propagation, but it gives you an idea of the strategic position of the USA during the cold war. A significant portion of the book deals with how an ICBM works. Since it is, after all, a space vehicle.
If you want to get deeper into it, you then want to read something like Vallado's Fundamentals of Astrodynamics and Applications which will get into more detail.
Robert Braeunig's website gives a good summary of how all of this goes together, with information derived primarily from the first book I linked, although I will caution that the solutions discussed are not all numerically stable in the format in which they appear. There are many, many different ways to compute the solutions to a satellite propagation using the orbital elements.
If you don't want to spend a few weeks trying to do this yourself (and it will take you that long, unless you're an absolute savant at this), fear not. David Vallado has written code that will do the orbital element calculation along with SGP4 routines for you. What is SGP4? Remember that the Earth is not spherical and there's that other large Moon thing that also orbits the Earth. This means that we can't really model a satellite's orbit like you do in KSP if you want an accurate solution. So, we have to include those perturbations in the final calculuation, which is what the code linked here will do.
As far as I can tell, the popular stuffin.space website uses a ported version of the above code, available in javascript here. The other link I gave gives versions that will work in FORTRAN, C, C++ and MATLAB (because you just can't make it in modern Engineering if you can't do MATLAB. And you'll have to do MATLAB or you will not make it through the course).
This should all get you started. I hate to admit it but I never would have taught myself all of this, nor would my personal bookshelves be as heavy as they are, if it weren't for KSP.
These were the 3 I picked up.
This one seems to be the most popular, probably because of it's publication timeframe, 1971. Not too early, not too late.
This is an earlier textbook and is considered a classic at this point. Still useful.
While less popular (and more expensive), I found this one to be my favorite. Hard to say why, some combination of layout, examples, and teaching style. The fact that it was also published in my lifetime, unlike the other 2, might have something to do with it as well in terms of language, etc.
But take /u/The_Mother_of_Robots advice and don't do it. This is a
slippery slopethick atmosphere in a deep gravity well. There is no Lagrange point, just the abyss.This book is filled with the equations and explanations you are looking for:
Fundamentals of Astrodynamics
It's $12.45 on Amazon Prime.
Assuming an average dorm room ~12x19 feet and height of 8' (thanks google, despite silly american units), thats about 952 square feet of surface area. Measuring the Fundamentals of Astrodynamics book it's about 8.5" x 5.3", about 45 square inches.
You could cover all the walls, floor and ceiling of a dorm with 3044 books, which would cost about $37,900.
There's no message here, I just liked imagining plastering an entire room with this book.
This is a great introductory source.
If you want to get more in depth, then you might want to start looking at books about lagrangian mechanics or Engineering textbooks.
Not sure if you've played then, but haven't: Kerbal Space Program is the best way to get an intuitive understanding of orbital mechanics. If you like to play God you should also try the Universe Sandbox, and if you want a really really hardcore space sim you should play (or wait, it's still in alpha) for Rogue System.
As for actual books, OpenStax recently published their free astronomy book, and it's quite good for an introduction. From there, it depends entirely on what you're interested in, there's literally a universe's worth of information about
Astrophysics,
Astrochemistry,
Astrobiology,
Astrometry and
Orbital mechanics (for the aspiring galactic navigator),
Cosmology,
Planetary geology and
Cosmochemistry (careful, these last two lead to geology and meteorology which are equally disastrously addictive fields!)
Also, feel free to follow NASA's, ESA's, and JAXA's blogs. And spend a minute each morning checking the astronomy picture of the day.
Just don't end up llike me and annoy all your friends.
Not sure what your mathematical background is, but Fundamentals of Astrodynamics is a highly popular introductory textbook for $18.
Okay, for sci-fi, you have to get The Culture series in. Put Player of Games face out.
I don't read a lot of space books, but Asteroid Hunter by Carrie Nugent is awesome. I mostly have recommendations for spaceflight and spaceflight history, and a lot of these come from listeners to my podcast, so all credit to them.
A book I like a lot is Orbital Mechanics by Prussing and Conway
There's Fundamentals of Astrodynamics by Bates, Mueller and White. This Dover book is inexpensive.
I did a coloring book on conic sections and orbital mechanics. Mostly Kepler stuff and a little Newton. No Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation in this edition.
Thanks !
Astroynamics - I really like Battin's introduction to astro ( amzn.to/2Iu6Jhz ), and based my series on the 2-body problem on chapter 3 in that book. It's a lot like a math textbook so BMW's Fundamentals of Astro ( amzn.to/2zJBWe3 ) would be a gentler, on both the wallet and mathematical rigor, text.
Numerical methods - I've learned numerical methods from a bunch of different places so I don't really have a go to textbook.
Note: Those are amazon affiliate links to the mentioned books. Affiliate links are the main way I support the site (pay for hosting costs)
Je me suis débrouillé au final et j'ai à peu près acheté les mêmes livres plus d'autres en français :
J'en ai eu pour un peu moins de 100€ mais là au moins je suis blindé pour te faire toutes les trajectoires que tu veux :)
Sorry that other people are being harsh critics, but yeah man. Respectfully, a couple of these are pretty overpriced.
Thing is, most people would rather buy a new book from the store than buy a used book for barely less than retail. I suggest you lower the prices, especially keeping this in mind:
Astrodynamics sells new for $17: https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610
Propulsion sells new for $25: https://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Thermodynamics-Propulsion-Philip-Peterson/dp/8131729516/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526807320&sr=1-2&keywords=mechanics+and+thermodynamics+of+propulsion+2nd+edition
Your edition of COE 3001 sells new for $113: https://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Materials-James-M-Gere/dp/1111577730/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526807508&sr=1-2&keywords=mechanics+of+materials+goodno and it's also not the current edition
Best of luck. And if you find someone looking specifically for the current edition of the Mechanics of Materials book, please send them my way!
So, I graduated college with a degree in IT and took some calculus and geometry while I was there. I miss learning this kind of thing, and was wondering if there is a way to learn orbital mechanics as a hobby. If I pick up Fundamentals of Astrodynamics, would I be too in over my head?
I'm a fan of my old copy of Fundamentals of Astrodynamics, by Bate, Mueller, and White. It was, by far, the cheapest textbook I purchased for my Aerospace degree (~$7; Amazon has it for <$3 used) but it is one of the primary texts in the field--most other texts wind up referencing this 1970s book. I seldom reference it anymore, though. FoA primarily focuses on how to calculate the motion of a spacecraft. It covers the Patched conics approach, various basic maneuvers, and interplanetary trajectories. It also covers how to figure out the orbit of an object based on ground measurements as well as perturbations--how things like uneven gravity, solar wind, and magnetism can affect an orbiting craft.
I also have read some of the AIAA edition of Space Vehicle Design, but it is considerably more expensive. It goes over more advanced concerns for the design and operation of practical, real-world space craft. If you have the coin and are interested in such things then you could pick it up. I've found the AIAA editions of Aerospace books to be well written in general. That book is only really worth it, though, if you have enough money that you won't miss the $70+ to buy or if you need it for your degree.
I've also had some luck with MIT Open Courseware, but I don't see much on aerospace that would be terribly relevant to KSP.
Looks like you're missing one of the most important basic Orbital Mechanics books.
Maybe Fundamentals of Astrodynamics
Time to get the Bible out.
https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610
It's all calculable, but quicks starts needing a lot of math once you include orbit changes and air resistance.
An easy start is to determine your desired orbit's dV requirements, then plug your engine's Isp into the rocket equation to determine its propellant-mass fraction. Then you can use the weight of the engine plus fuel tanks and payload to estimate the fuel required to reach orbit in an ideal rocket.
There are quite a few online calculators like this one, that give you a sense of what order to calculate things and the terms to look for in equations.
If you're really interested in deeply understanding the maths behind launches and orbital mechanics, I can recommend this book which is a commonly used aerospace engineering text: Fundamentals of Astrodynamics.
This book is quite useful and understandable with a bit of reading: https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1524583559&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=orbital+mechanics
The list provided by david is good, and I'm just going to point out two that are really good for understanding rockets and spaceflight:
One is Rocket Propulsion Elements, which I hear is great if you actually want to build your own engine. The other is Fundamentals of Astrodynamics, which helps to explain orbital mechanics, controls, and some other important facets of spaceflight like how we track a satellite from the ground.
Link:
http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1407087354&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=introduction+to+astrodynamics
Fundamentals of Astrodynamics (ISBN-13: 978-0-486-60061-1) seems to cover the basics.
My favorite orbital mechanics book was like $9 when I bought it. Dover Books has a lot of good older books on math/engineering for dirt cheap, glad we used it in undergrad.
I can't help you with the French part but in America the standard is this. Most people refer to it as BMW for the authors' names. There might be translations of it; I don't know. It's actually a surprisingly fun read. The first few pages talk about Newton with a kind of religious fervor that you never see in a textbook. It's beautiful. Also, it's damn cheap.
My orbitals professor also wrote a more condensed pdf textbook which he gave just to us. It's actually more clear than almost any other engineering textbook I've used. If I can find it, I'll post it.
I found this book quite useful back in high school. I haven't seen/touched it in 10+ years, but the concepts have been tried and true for many many decades. It's math-based and is written by Air Force Academy professors. It definitely doesn't cover everything, but it can get you started in the right direction. It's also not too hard to grasp as far as concepts go, but knowing Calculus and the likes are going to make it fully understandable.
I'm sorry if this is not what you asked, but if you have at the very least high school or ideally some university level knowledge of math it sounds like Fundamentals of Astrodynamics might be at least part of what you are looking for? It's focus is orbital mechanics and maneuvers in space, including interplanetary trajectories. While i have not finished it, it is so far really good and widely used. Bonus points for being really cheap. Although again, you do need math to really appreciate this book. Without going through the math you can still learn some things from it, but i am not sure if this book would still be that fun to read.
Kerbal player?
If you're really diving into orbital mechanics, this is what I highly recommend: Fundamentals of Astrodynamics. "Bate, Mueller, White" is generally considered the intro textbook in aeronautical engineering. It's a long-time classic (and cheap!), and is written by three professors of astrodynamics at the US Air Force academy.
>"Develops the basic two-body and n-body equations of motion; orbit determination; classical orbital elements, coordinate transformations; differential correction; more.
>Includes specialized applications to lunar and interplanetary flight, example problems, exercises."
https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610
The math for the parched comics stuff actually is not that hard. It's just know what you are looking for and plug it in. Basic algebra. Once you stray from that and do the cordinate transformations and into the the non patched conics stuff it gets a lot harder.
> I gotta look at some orbital mechanics books
If you really want to go through with that I highly recommend "Introduction to rocket science and engineering". It goes reasonably into depth but is still accessible with a decent highschool math and physics background. Besides orbital mechanics it covers the basics of pretty much all aspects of rocket science (history, thermodynamics, orbital mechanics, propulsion elements etc.) It is a bit pricey though, you probably want to find it somewhere cheaper.
If you're a bit more advanced (primarily in math) you could also checkout "Fundementals of astrodynamics" which is nice and cheap or "Orbital Mechanics for engineering students" if you really want to make it your job.
I am a mechanical engineer by trade but I am really interested in spaceflight and orbital mechanics so in the past months I have been catching up with those books.
BMW (the book above) is the standard intro astrodynamics book. BMW was updated though and I think the following modern book is a great upgrade to an intro book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0486600610/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1944687462&amp;pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&amp;pf_rd_t=201&amp;pf_rd_i=0080977472&amp;pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&amp;pf_rd_r=1NCCS2QNN7XXT6N691HX
http://www.amazon.com/Orbital-Mechanics-Engineering-Students-Aerospace/dp/0080977472
Quite literally, it means change of velocity. When people talk about "needing enough dV to get somewhere," what they mean is that, they need enough fuel to get there. I'm going to use arbitrary numbers right now because I'm too lazy to look up the actual ones, and simple is better anyhow.
Lets say you have a craft in low kerbin orbit. You want to go to the Mun. You're currently traveling 2300 m/s. In order to intercept the Mun, you need to be going 2900 m/s. Once in the Mun's sphere of influence you're traveling at 800 m/s, and you need to burn retrograde until you're traveling at 200 m/s to achieve orbit. The opposite is true to achieve escape velocity, and then once you escape, you're traveling 3000 m/s and need to reduce your speed to 2700 m/s for your periapsis to allow re-entry to kerbin.
(Again, these numbers are ball park, not exact).
So, the dV you need to get to the Mun's SoI is 600 m/s (from 2300 to 2900). A capture burn is 600 m/s, and an escape burn is 600 m/s. A final burn for entry is 300 m/s of dV. So, the total dV your ship needs in this scenario to go for the whole trip is 2100 m/s of dV.
Now, this does get a little more complicated when in an atmosphere, because you'll burn more fuel trying to escape than you would in a vacuum. Also, the effect of gravity on your craft is going to change the efficiency of your rocket depending on how much vertical and horizontal velocity you have at various points of your burn. When people say they're building a ship with ideal dV, what they typically mean is "I did the math and found that if I manage to fly the most optimal flight path available to use my fuel the most efficiently, I need enough fuel to perform dV burns at various points in the trip totally this number." The math behind all these variables gets a lot more complicated, and if you really want to nerd out, "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" will help you to understand what the hell is going on just a bit better. I like that book because it has the math, a brief explanation, and diagrams all in one package. You'll learn all about various transfer types too!
...or you can just download mods that do the work for you, like many people! Or, you can just wing it and hope for the best like even more people! I mean, worst case scenario it's time for a rescue mission, right?
It sounds like you’re looking to be a spacecraft orbital analyst, or a mission analyst and trajectory planner as we call them at my company.
If this is your dream, choose aerospace engineering and choose a school that has a strong focus on space, because some are better for aircraft. CU boulder is a great example of a school that invests just as much if not more in their space systems research.
You want to start looking into spaceflight dynamics and astrodynamics. The best book for this would be “fundamentals of astrodynamics” by Bate, Mueller, and White. That book is a classic, it’s almost 50 years old but it’s the gold standard of this field. And it’s cheap as hell. You can find it here:
it’s only $15 with prime one day shipping!
I also highly recommend looking up beginner videos on YouTube to supplement the text. Once you have the basics down (orbit and conic geometry, rocket equation, etc) I’d download NASA GMAT (it’s free) and start waking through some tutorials on that software. If you go to college for engineering, usually the school will have STK (systems tool kit) available for free download as well. Both softwares are used heavily throughout the industry.
And play kerbal space program, it’s a fun way of learning and visualizing some of this stuff.
Bates, White, and Mueller are all co-authors of this book: Amazon link, which is commonly referred to as the "BMW" book because of their names.
Side note - it looks like there's a second edition, so might want to go for that. The first edition is fine so far to me, probably just has some outdated numbers or notations.
Ok the best place to start is always the bible of rocket science
https://www.amazon.com/Rocket-Propulsion-Elements-George-Sutton/dp/0470080248
also this is a great book about overall design
https://www.amazon.com/Spacecraft-Systems-Engineering-Peter-Fortescue/dp/047075012X/ref=pd_sim_14_19?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=047075012X&amp;pd_rd_r=NV7BKDVSN225K69DY2JR&amp;pd_rd_w=m3KtM&amp;pd_rd_wg=XqmQL&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=NV7BKDVSN225K69DY2JR
Other than rocket engines and structures it would be
https://www.amazon.com/Orbital-Mechanics-Engineering-Students-Aerospace/dp/0080977472/ref=pd_sim_14_5?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=0080977472&amp;pd_rd_r=NV7BKDVSN225K69DY2JR&amp;pd_rd_w=m3KtM&amp;pd_rd_wg=XqmQL&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=NV7BKDVSN225K69DY2JR
https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610/ref=pd_sim_14_1?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=0486600610&amp;pd_rd_r=NV7BKDVSN225K69DY2JR&amp;pd_rd_w=m3KtM&amp;pd_rd_wg=XqmQL&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=NV7BKDVSN225K69DY2JR
After reading that book cover to cover you can branch into multiple aspects of aerospace engineering.
There are also less formal and fun books like https://www.amazon.de/Ignition-informal-history-liquid-propellants/dp/0813507251
or
https://www.amazon.com/History-Liquid-Propellant-Engines-Library/dp/1563476495/ref=pd_sim_14_63?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_i=1563476495&amp;pd_rd_r=NV7BKDVSN225K69DY2JR&amp;pd_rd_w=m3KtM&amp;pd_rd_wg=XqmQL&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=NV7BKDVSN225K69DY2JR
Let me add, that I bought this game back in 2012... Looking at my email receipt:
>Aug 6, 2012 19:29:07 EDT | Transaction ID: 0XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>Hello Derfherdez,
>You sent a payment of $18.00 USD to Electro Chango S.A. de C.V.
So, yes it was worth $18 USD back then, and it sure is worth that today. At the same time I've gifted about 5 copies of this to friends/family over the years so I've spent way more on KSP, and it's totally worth it.
If you have ever seen the right stuff, Apollo 13, or even been inspired with the idea of the next frontier... This is an incredible buy. It's realistic enough that it's nothing retarded like pressing 'F' to pay respect, but enough that people here have even bought books like Fundamentals of Astrodynamics to get a better idea on how things 'work'.
The game will challenge you in ways that nor mindless button masher ever will. And maybe, just maybe inspire people to take us to that next great leap for mankind.
10/10 I'd buy this game over and over.
Get the demo, build a rocket, try to get it to do something, then get the game before the sale runs out!
The moon book. It's the best book on the subject and good reference material. It's also less than $20.
Also if you or anyone else is really looking into it the two most useful text book I found to be SMAD (Space Mission Analysis and Design): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mission-Analysis-Design-Technology-Library/dp/9401051925/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=space+mission+analysis+and+design&qid=1559028595&s=gateway&sr=8-1
Other good reads are Fundamentals of Astrodynamics (which is much more relevant for KSP) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610/ref=sr_1_1?crid=SWR1ICPOGQ7X&keywords=fundamentals+of+astrodynamics&qid=1559028689&s=gateway&sprefix=the+fundamentals+of+astro%2Caps%2C134&sr=8-1 And Ignition! to cover the history in a very entertaining manner https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ignition-Informal-Propellants-University-Classics/dp/0813595835/ref=pd_sbs_14_1/259-4345144-1867258?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0813595835&pd_rd_r=9e3755d8-811a-11e9-9b3b-b9bbd55e85d0&pd_rd_w=sq1G0&pd_rd_wg=m37dV&pf_rd_p=18edf98b-139a-41ee-bb40-d725dd59d1d3&pf_rd_r=WPHT2J5EFR2KZ1WYVJEX&psc=1&refRID=WPHT2J5EFR2KZ1WYVJEX .
You can probably find pdfs online for those if you look mind.
I can surely suggest you some books which cover a vast field of rocket science.
These are the same books which Elon musk used for self learning Rocket science.
source: http://qr.ae/TUGfdA
Sorry, but no. I took orbital mechanics with Dr. Curtis himself and his book is pretty awful.
Instead I recommend what's been used for decades as the introductory text to orbital mechanics: Fundamentals of Astrodynamics by Bate, Mueller, & White (called 'BMW' for short). Not only is this text better in every objective sense for learning basic space mechanics, but you can buy it for $15. Curtis' book will run you the textbook racket price of $90.
BMW is probably the best intro book I've seen. Doesn't cover the space environment or propulsion as much as this book though.
There is a fairly standard set of data called "two-line elements", which describes the main orbital elements of the satellite. Wikipedia
Orbital elements describe the orbit of the satellite. "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" by Bate, Mueller, and White is the best book for understanding this stuff. Amazon
A lot of satellites broadcast this information in plain Morse code, which you can listen to if you really want. There are lots of resources out there that aggregate this information for you already. CelesTrak, OSSI, SatObs
well to understand basic orbital mechanics, I got my hands on Fundamentals of Astrodynamics which I love, and you can get from there the basic newtonian motion of the planets, from there I don't know a good book to recommend on the concepts of relativity, but basically take the math presented in fundamentals of astrodynamics in the n-body equations and add a fourth dimension to the vectors, t, or time. As time is directly related to the vectors when dealing with the n-body equation.
I think at least, again I'm still learning about relativity myself.
An upvote for the BMW book (link: http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Roger-R-Bate/dp/0486600610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1309920300&amp;sr=1-1-spell )
Fundamentals of Astrodynamics
It doesn't work like that. Go play Orbiter or Kerbal Space Program if you want a glimpse of the physics behind it, but you can't just "slingshot" it out into the abyss. You want to change something's velocity from low Earth orbit? You're going to need fuel.
Alternatively, you can get the Fundamentals of Astrodynamics for about fifteen bucks, but you need to know some calculus.
If you want physical books (personally, I much prefer them to electronic copies despite being a millennial), check out Dover books on Amazon. They publish old textbooks for $10-$20, so you can pick up a bunch for a lot less than you would usually spend on a single textbook. Fundamentals of Astrodynamics, for example, is an old U.S. Air Force Academy textbook that will teach you a lot of basic rocket science and orbital mechanics.
Some less mathy but still very interesting and semi-technical options are How Apollo Flew to the Moon and To Orbit and Back Again.
Not really answering your question, but if you want some reading on trajectory and orbital mechanics, pick up a copy of this book. I skimmed it for an internship one summer and learned a ton. https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Astrodynamics-Dover-Aeronautical-Engineering/dp/0486600610
> for under $100
What a bargain!
Or you could buy this for <$12 and work on expanding the human(and all life on earth) frontier beyond one small fragile planet already guaranteed death by immolation(no matter how many furry bunnies you eat or don't eat)?
During the satellite pass, the direction that you ideally should point it at is constantly changing.. At first the ideal direction at near the horizon where the satellite first appears, then over an arc in the sky until it hits the other horizon disappearing below the rim of the earth. So it can be, worst case, at position that are ultimately 180º opposite in the sky over a period of 10 or so minutes.
The actual direction is determined by the orbital mechanics of the satellite (which can be calculated with a computer but it's a hot mess if you don't have STEM-level math). With this you'd use that data to control the azimuth and elevation of the antenna under robotic control from the computer. The math is algebra, geometry, trigonometry plus calculus. I can point you to the math but it may not mean much.
http://web.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/AERO4701/Course_Documents/AERO4701_week2.pdf
http://www.space.aau.dk/cubesat/documents/Orbital_Mechanics.pdf
Fundamentals of Astrodynamics
This last book is my "go-to" partly because it's relatively easy and because it's the book I learned orbital mechanics with when I was a "rocket scientist" working at this place.
LOL it's fascinating that they are serving a different web site outside the US. Not surprising but fascinating to see.
Instead of that you can get by by being "close enough" to cover most of the path. That's typically what people do. You point at the mid-point of the path and try to catch the extrema of the path in the antenna "side lobes".
When you see people asking about the edges (top or bottom) images being noisy and not being right, it's usually because these extremes and the gain of the antenna doesn't have enough gain in the side lobes to assure noise-free reception using a fixed pointing direction or with the amount of directionality the antenna has.
This is part of why simpler, less directional antennas can sometimes give better results because they receive over a broad range of angles than a direction antenna like a parabolic.