Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Optimisation — where it appears

Finding the value of a free parameter that maximises or minimises a quantity. The useful diagnostic is where the answer sits: an optimum at the end of its allowed range usually means a term of a different order has been dropped, because a genuine interior optimum has a vanishing derivative.

Named by 2 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Where the 9.4 km/s should be divided between two unequal stages. Overall payload fraction against the share of the 9.4 km/s given to the first stage, for a vehicle whose two stages are not alike: kerosene and oxygen, first stage at ε = 0.06 and I_sp 300 s, so vₑ = 2.942 km/s; hydrogen and oxygen, second stage at ε = 0.09 and I_sp 450 s, so vₑ = 4.413 km/s. The curve falls to zero at both ends, because a stage asked for too much Δv has a negative payload fraction and the vehicle does not close. The maximum is at 26.8 per cent — 2.52 km/s in the first stage and 6.88 in the second — and it delivers 5.130 per cent of the lift-off mass as payload against 4.240 per cent for an equal division. The gain from optimising is 21.0 per cent of the payload — worth having on a vehicle whose payload is five per cent of its mass, and small next to the difference the second stage's exhaust speed makes. What the shape says is more useful than where the peak is: moving ten points either side of the optimum still delivers 4.905 per cent, so the penalty for getting the split wrong is 4.4 per cent of the payload. A penalty that small is why launch vehicles are staged on structural and operational grounds — where the tank domes go, which engines exist, what can be transported by road — and the calculus is run afterwards to check that nothing has been left on the table. Note also which way the optimum leans: the better stage is the second, and it is given more of the work, because a share of Δv bought at a higher exhaust speed costs less mass.

The split that is not an equal split

Two stages sharing a velocity budget do not share it evenly, and the calculus that divides it hands more of the work to whichever stage has the better exhaust speed. The optimum is interior, it is worth about a fifth of the payload, and at this mission it is flat enough that nobody designs to it.

spaceflight · Rocket equation The best split of a plane change between perigee and apogee, for three turns. How much is saved by moving part of the plane change into the perigee burn, against how much is moved, for turns of 15°, 28.5°, 51.6°. Doing the whole rotation at apogee is the standard answer and it is not the cheapest one: at perigee the turn is bought as a small correction to a burn that is happening anyway, so the first fraction of a degree is nearly free while the apogee saving is linear. Each curve therefore rises to an interior maximum — 10 m/s at 1.35° for a 15° turn, 25 m/s at 2.23° for a 28.5° turn, 40 m/s at 2.88° for a 51.6° turn — and falls back through zero at about twice that split. The saving is small against a 4.78 km/s budget, and it is free.

A rotation split between two burns

The standard answer is to do the whole plane change at apogee, where the vehicle is slowest. It is not the cheapest answer, and the reason is that a small part of the turn bought at perigee is a second-order correction to a burn that is happening anyway.

spaceflight · Plane change

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

ΔvApoapsisCircular velocityExhaust velocityGeostationary orbitHohmann transferLaunch azimuthMass ratioOrbital inclinationPayload fractionPlane changePropellant

All concepts