What is the smallest body in which a sling shot maneuver can be performed? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Use Pluto's gravitation to reach the next dwarf planetWhat was the smallest intentional, acknowledged slingshot maneuver?What is the smallest body that has sufficient gravity for another body to orbit it?How can I obtain the parameters related to launch of Delta 4 Medium?Which orbital maneuver is currently regarded as the most viable for a human mission to mars?How can a yo-yo de-spin maneuver reverse the rotation?What would be the minimum energy trajectory for an inbound intercept course for another body?Can orbital maneuvers be performed by a solar sail to correct eccentricity?Maneuver to the optimal point of a given orbitWhat are common guidance strategies for a finite orbital maneuver?What orbital maneuver(s) did the SOHO have to execute for halo orbit insertion?What was the smallest intentional, acknowledged slingshot maneuver?

Is there a trick to getting spices to fix to nuts?

What was the last x86 CPU that did not have the x87 floating-point unit built in?

Did God make two great lights or did He make the great light two?

Can a novice safely splice in wire to lengthen 5V charging cable?

How to politely respond to generic emails requesting a PhD/job in my lab? Without wasting too much time

Didn't get enough time to take a Coding Test - what to do now?

Make it rain characters

Can the prologue be the backstory of your main character?

Am I ethically obligated to go into work on an off day if the reason is sudden?

Pandas DataFrames: Create new rows with calculations across existing rows

University's motivation for having tenure-track positions

Wall plug outlet change

How to pronounce 1ターン?

Derivation tree not rendering

How to test the equality of two Pearson correlation coefficients computed from the same sample?

Match Roman Numerals

Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?

Working through the single responsibility principle (SRP) in Python when calls are expensive

rotate text in posterbox

What is this lever in Argentinian toilets?

What are these Gizmos at Izaña Atmospheric Research Center in Spain?

Mortgage adviser recommends a longer term than necessary combined with overpayments

How many people can fit inside Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion?

Why does the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) not include telescopes from Africa, Asia or Australia?



What is the smallest body in which a sling shot maneuver can be performed?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Use Pluto's gravitation to reach the next dwarf planetWhat was the smallest intentional, acknowledged slingshot maneuver?What is the smallest body that has sufficient gravity for another body to orbit it?How can I obtain the parameters related to launch of Delta 4 Medium?Which orbital maneuver is currently regarded as the most viable for a human mission to mars?How can a yo-yo de-spin maneuver reverse the rotation?What would be the minimum energy trajectory for an inbound intercept course for another body?Can orbital maneuvers be performed by a solar sail to correct eccentricity?Maneuver to the optimal point of a given orbitWhat are common guidance strategies for a finite orbital maneuver?What orbital maneuver(s) did the SOHO have to execute for halo orbit insertion?What was the smallest intentional, acknowledged slingshot maneuver?










8












$begingroup$


This question asks about the smallest sling shot maneuver performed. What was the smallest intentional, acknowledged slingshot maneuver?



I'm asking how small of an object be to perform a sling shot maneuver around it?



Update
I didn't think of Magnestars and micro-blackholes when I wrote this question but the replies are great.



Within our solar system I would guess that an object lacking an atmosphere a spacecraft could get closer to the surface of it during the sling shot.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    This question is a little different than mine. I've asked for a real documented maneuver in a real spacecraft's planned or executed trajectory (1, 2). This is asking each person to judge for themselves what counts as a slingshot maneuver which leaves things more open to interpretation about sizes and threshold. So this is going to be more difficult to answer without expressing an opinion.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 25 at 10:01






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Technically, any close flyby is a slingshot maneuver. With small objects, the trajectory change just becomes too small to be significant. In this question, the calculation is done for a really close flyby of Pluto, yielding a 1.4° change in course. So the question becomes, what is the smallest course change you want to consider?
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Mar 25 at 10:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The object also doesn't have to be lacking an atmosphere, I don't think that portion has anything to do with this and should be removed. Also the tag identify-this-object definitely doesn't belong here.
    $endgroup$
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    Mar 25 at 16:25
















8












$begingroup$


This question asks about the smallest sling shot maneuver performed. What was the smallest intentional, acknowledged slingshot maneuver?



I'm asking how small of an object be to perform a sling shot maneuver around it?



Update
I didn't think of Magnestars and micro-blackholes when I wrote this question but the replies are great.



Within our solar system I would guess that an object lacking an atmosphere a spacecraft could get closer to the surface of it during the sling shot.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    This question is a little different than mine. I've asked for a real documented maneuver in a real spacecraft's planned or executed trajectory (1, 2). This is asking each person to judge for themselves what counts as a slingshot maneuver which leaves things more open to interpretation about sizes and threshold. So this is going to be more difficult to answer without expressing an opinion.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 25 at 10:01






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Technically, any close flyby is a slingshot maneuver. With small objects, the trajectory change just becomes too small to be significant. In this question, the calculation is done for a really close flyby of Pluto, yielding a 1.4° change in course. So the question becomes, what is the smallest course change you want to consider?
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Mar 25 at 10:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The object also doesn't have to be lacking an atmosphere, I don't think that portion has anything to do with this and should be removed. Also the tag identify-this-object definitely doesn't belong here.
    $endgroup$
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    Mar 25 at 16:25














8












8








8





$begingroup$


This question asks about the smallest sling shot maneuver performed. What was the smallest intentional, acknowledged slingshot maneuver?



I'm asking how small of an object be to perform a sling shot maneuver around it?



Update
I didn't think of Magnestars and micro-blackholes when I wrote this question but the replies are great.



Within our solar system I would guess that an object lacking an atmosphere a spacecraft could get closer to the surface of it during the sling shot.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




This question asks about the smallest sling shot maneuver performed. What was the smallest intentional, acknowledged slingshot maneuver?



I'm asking how small of an object be to perform a sling shot maneuver around it?



Update
I didn't think of Magnestars and micro-blackholes when I wrote this question but the replies are great.



Within our solar system I would guess that an object lacking an atmosphere a spacecraft could get closer to the surface of it during the sling shot.







orbital-mechanics orbital-maneuver physics gravity-assist






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 25 at 22:35







Muze

















asked Mar 25 at 3:32









MuzeMuze

1,3141366




1,3141366











  • $begingroup$
    This question is a little different than mine. I've asked for a real documented maneuver in a real spacecraft's planned or executed trajectory (1, 2). This is asking each person to judge for themselves what counts as a slingshot maneuver which leaves things more open to interpretation about sizes and threshold. So this is going to be more difficult to answer without expressing an opinion.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 25 at 10:01






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Technically, any close flyby is a slingshot maneuver. With small objects, the trajectory change just becomes too small to be significant. In this question, the calculation is done for a really close flyby of Pluto, yielding a 1.4° change in course. So the question becomes, what is the smallest course change you want to consider?
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Mar 25 at 10:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The object also doesn't have to be lacking an atmosphere, I don't think that portion has anything to do with this and should be removed. Also the tag identify-this-object definitely doesn't belong here.
    $endgroup$
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    Mar 25 at 16:25

















  • $begingroup$
    This question is a little different than mine. I've asked for a real documented maneuver in a real spacecraft's planned or executed trajectory (1, 2). This is asking each person to judge for themselves what counts as a slingshot maneuver which leaves things more open to interpretation about sizes and threshold. So this is going to be more difficult to answer without expressing an opinion.
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 25 at 10:01






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Technically, any close flyby is a slingshot maneuver. With small objects, the trajectory change just becomes too small to be significant. In this question, the calculation is done for a really close flyby of Pluto, yielding a 1.4° change in course. So the question becomes, what is the smallest course change you want to consider?
    $endgroup$
    – Hobbes
    Mar 25 at 10:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The object also doesn't have to be lacking an atmosphere, I don't think that portion has anything to do with this and should be removed. Also the tag identify-this-object definitely doesn't belong here.
    $endgroup$
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    Mar 25 at 16:25
















$begingroup$
This question is a little different than mine. I've asked for a real documented maneuver in a real spacecraft's planned or executed trajectory (1, 2). This is asking each person to judge for themselves what counts as a slingshot maneuver which leaves things more open to interpretation about sizes and threshold. So this is going to be more difficult to answer without expressing an opinion.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 25 at 10:01




$begingroup$
This question is a little different than mine. I've asked for a real documented maneuver in a real spacecraft's planned or executed trajectory (1, 2). This is asking each person to judge for themselves what counts as a slingshot maneuver which leaves things more open to interpretation about sizes and threshold. So this is going to be more difficult to answer without expressing an opinion.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
Mar 25 at 10:01




11




11




$begingroup$
Technically, any close flyby is a slingshot maneuver. With small objects, the trajectory change just becomes too small to be significant. In this question, the calculation is done for a really close flyby of Pluto, yielding a 1.4° change in course. So the question becomes, what is the smallest course change you want to consider?
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Mar 25 at 10:45




$begingroup$
Technically, any close flyby is a slingshot maneuver. With small objects, the trajectory change just becomes too small to be significant. In this question, the calculation is done for a really close flyby of Pluto, yielding a 1.4° change in course. So the question becomes, what is the smallest course change you want to consider?
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
Mar 25 at 10:45




1




1




$begingroup$
The object also doesn't have to be lacking an atmosphere, I don't think that portion has anything to do with this and should be removed. Also the tag identify-this-object definitely doesn't belong here.
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
Mar 25 at 16:25





$begingroup$
The object also doesn't have to be lacking an atmosphere, I don't think that portion has anything to do with this and should be removed. Also the tag identify-this-object definitely doesn't belong here.
$endgroup$
– Magic Octopus Urn
Mar 25 at 16:25











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















21












$begingroup$

How small do you want to get? $F=GMm over r^2$ applies regardless of size. If you remove enough disturbances from other bodies you can get two neutrons to orbit a common barycenter on gravity alone - or send them against each other on a near-miss trajectory and they'll pass influencing each other gravitationally in essence performing a slingshot against each other.



That's considering mass. Considering size as radius - a singularity is dimensionless, zero size, and can easily slingshot planets or smaller stars... but if you're going to slingshot against one, better stay well clear of the event horizon, which may span many kilometers past the dimensionless singularity point.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 10




    $begingroup$
    I think considering a singularity as zero size is misleading, since anything that crosses the event horizon cannot get out, so there are no slingshot trajectories that get closer than that. The event horizon is, effectively, a (very hard) surface.
    $endgroup$
    – Davidmh
    Mar 25 at 12:01






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Davidmh: I disagree. It's like adding 5mln km to the Sun radius (on top of its 700,000km) because entering the corona is bound to fry the spacecraft.
    $endgroup$
    – SF.
    Mar 25 at 13:44







  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @SF.: Davidmh didn't say it's wrong, he said it's misleading. For all intents and purposes, anything that touches the event horizon is dead (orbitally speaking) as if it smacked into a planet's surface. For your solar example, you're hinging on what you find a reasonable limit on temperatures a spacecraft can handle. Different spacecraft, different limit. You can build better spacecraft (or send something that doesn't disintegrate), but an event horizon doesn't care about what you send, it will (definitively) capture whatever you choose to send.
    $endgroup$
    – Flater
    Mar 25 at 14:55







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @SF. a sufficiently shielded spacecraft going sufficiently fast can survive the corona; the specifics are an engineering detail. Coming back out after crossing the event horizon is a mathematical impossibility. General Relativity shows that, once you cross the horizon, the only possible trajectories are going towards the centre every step of the way.
    $endgroup$
    – Davidmh
    Mar 25 at 15:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @SF. depends on your model. You could model the black hole as a 2-brane coincident with its event horizon, with some extra strings stuck onto it. The only observers able to tell the difference would be those that have already reached the event horizon. The neat fact about this brane is that it would have exactly one bit of entropy per Planck area.
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    Mar 25 at 17:52


















4












$begingroup$

We've done a slingshot maneuver with the Moon. That's essentially what Apollo 13's free return trajectory was when the spacecraft became crippled and had to be returned to Earth.




I would like to address some comments this answer has drawn. First, some have said that this dies not answer the question of what the smallest object suitable for a slingshot is. But that question has no clear answer because technically any gravitational deflection that does not result in capture is a slingshot. [This reference] describes a (very low angle) slingshot-type maneuver past the Martian moon Phobos used to nail down it's mass and density (thus, it's porosity). Thus the above is intended as a practical example of a much more significant slingshot involving an object smaller than the planets.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 10




    $begingroup$
    This is interesting trivia, but does not answer the question about what body is the smallest with which a slingshot maneuver can be performed. I am not even sure Luna is the smallest body ever used for a slingshot maneuver in practice. What about Cassini and its fly-bys of several Saturn moons, for example?
    $endgroup$
    – Philipp
    Mar 25 at 10:28










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not sure that was done for the slingshot effect -- it was more a case of "this is the simplest path requiring the least thruster use and lowest risk of return failure" . I remember listening to the news every day during A-13's journey.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Mar 25 at 14:54










  • $begingroup$
    I know. What I'm saying is, at the beginning of the return we used the Moon as we would for a slingshot effect, basically setting the turn angle to 180°.
    $endgroup$
    – Oscar Lanzi
    Mar 25 at 17:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CarlWitthoft Which does not say it wasn't a slingshot maneuver. The Apollo rockets specifically launched into a path that would slingshot back to Earth if no further burns were done.
    $endgroup$
    – Loren Pechtel
    Mar 25 at 18:39






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @OscarLanzi, most of the turnaround on an Apollo free-return trajectory was because the spacecraft was near the apoapsis of its Earth-centered orbit. Yes, the lunar flyby provided a bit of braking, but it was nowhere near as dramatic as it seems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Mar 25 at 20:43











Your Answer








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
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35031%2fwhat-is-the-smallest-body-in-which-a-sling-shot-maneuver-can-be-performed%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









21












$begingroup$

How small do you want to get? $F=GMm over r^2$ applies regardless of size. If you remove enough disturbances from other bodies you can get two neutrons to orbit a common barycenter on gravity alone - or send them against each other on a near-miss trajectory and they'll pass influencing each other gravitationally in essence performing a slingshot against each other.



That's considering mass. Considering size as radius - a singularity is dimensionless, zero size, and can easily slingshot planets or smaller stars... but if you're going to slingshot against one, better stay well clear of the event horizon, which may span many kilometers past the dimensionless singularity point.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 10




    $begingroup$
    I think considering a singularity as zero size is misleading, since anything that crosses the event horizon cannot get out, so there are no slingshot trajectories that get closer than that. The event horizon is, effectively, a (very hard) surface.
    $endgroup$
    – Davidmh
    Mar 25 at 12:01






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Davidmh: I disagree. It's like adding 5mln km to the Sun radius (on top of its 700,000km) because entering the corona is bound to fry the spacecraft.
    $endgroup$
    – SF.
    Mar 25 at 13:44







  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @SF.: Davidmh didn't say it's wrong, he said it's misleading. For all intents and purposes, anything that touches the event horizon is dead (orbitally speaking) as if it smacked into a planet's surface. For your solar example, you're hinging on what you find a reasonable limit on temperatures a spacecraft can handle. Different spacecraft, different limit. You can build better spacecraft (or send something that doesn't disintegrate), but an event horizon doesn't care about what you send, it will (definitively) capture whatever you choose to send.
    $endgroup$
    – Flater
    Mar 25 at 14:55







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @SF. a sufficiently shielded spacecraft going sufficiently fast can survive the corona; the specifics are an engineering detail. Coming back out after crossing the event horizon is a mathematical impossibility. General Relativity shows that, once you cross the horizon, the only possible trajectories are going towards the centre every step of the way.
    $endgroup$
    – Davidmh
    Mar 25 at 15:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @SF. depends on your model. You could model the black hole as a 2-brane coincident with its event horizon, with some extra strings stuck onto it. The only observers able to tell the difference would be those that have already reached the event horizon. The neat fact about this brane is that it would have exactly one bit of entropy per Planck area.
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    Mar 25 at 17:52















21












$begingroup$

How small do you want to get? $F=GMm over r^2$ applies regardless of size. If you remove enough disturbances from other bodies you can get two neutrons to orbit a common barycenter on gravity alone - or send them against each other on a near-miss trajectory and they'll pass influencing each other gravitationally in essence performing a slingshot against each other.



That's considering mass. Considering size as radius - a singularity is dimensionless, zero size, and can easily slingshot planets or smaller stars... but if you're going to slingshot against one, better stay well clear of the event horizon, which may span many kilometers past the dimensionless singularity point.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 10




    $begingroup$
    I think considering a singularity as zero size is misleading, since anything that crosses the event horizon cannot get out, so there are no slingshot trajectories that get closer than that. The event horizon is, effectively, a (very hard) surface.
    $endgroup$
    – Davidmh
    Mar 25 at 12:01






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Davidmh: I disagree. It's like adding 5mln km to the Sun radius (on top of its 700,000km) because entering the corona is bound to fry the spacecraft.
    $endgroup$
    – SF.
    Mar 25 at 13:44







  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @SF.: Davidmh didn't say it's wrong, he said it's misleading. For all intents and purposes, anything that touches the event horizon is dead (orbitally speaking) as if it smacked into a planet's surface. For your solar example, you're hinging on what you find a reasonable limit on temperatures a spacecraft can handle. Different spacecraft, different limit. You can build better spacecraft (or send something that doesn't disintegrate), but an event horizon doesn't care about what you send, it will (definitively) capture whatever you choose to send.
    $endgroup$
    – Flater
    Mar 25 at 14:55







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @SF. a sufficiently shielded spacecraft going sufficiently fast can survive the corona; the specifics are an engineering detail. Coming back out after crossing the event horizon is a mathematical impossibility. General Relativity shows that, once you cross the horizon, the only possible trajectories are going towards the centre every step of the way.
    $endgroup$
    – Davidmh
    Mar 25 at 15:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @SF. depends on your model. You could model the black hole as a 2-brane coincident with its event horizon, with some extra strings stuck onto it. The only observers able to tell the difference would be those that have already reached the event horizon. The neat fact about this brane is that it would have exactly one bit of entropy per Planck area.
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    Mar 25 at 17:52













21












21








21





$begingroup$

How small do you want to get? $F=GMm over r^2$ applies regardless of size. If you remove enough disturbances from other bodies you can get two neutrons to orbit a common barycenter on gravity alone - or send them against each other on a near-miss trajectory and they'll pass influencing each other gravitationally in essence performing a slingshot against each other.



That's considering mass. Considering size as radius - a singularity is dimensionless, zero size, and can easily slingshot planets or smaller stars... but if you're going to slingshot against one, better stay well clear of the event horizon, which may span many kilometers past the dimensionless singularity point.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



How small do you want to get? $F=GMm over r^2$ applies regardless of size. If you remove enough disturbances from other bodies you can get two neutrons to orbit a common barycenter on gravity alone - or send them against each other on a near-miss trajectory and they'll pass influencing each other gravitationally in essence performing a slingshot against each other.



That's considering mass. Considering size as radius - a singularity is dimensionless, zero size, and can easily slingshot planets or smaller stars... but if you're going to slingshot against one, better stay well clear of the event horizon, which may span many kilometers past the dimensionless singularity point.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Mar 25 at 7:07









SF.SF.

32.6k8106239




32.6k8106239







  • 10




    $begingroup$
    I think considering a singularity as zero size is misleading, since anything that crosses the event horizon cannot get out, so there are no slingshot trajectories that get closer than that. The event horizon is, effectively, a (very hard) surface.
    $endgroup$
    – Davidmh
    Mar 25 at 12:01






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Davidmh: I disagree. It's like adding 5mln km to the Sun radius (on top of its 700,000km) because entering the corona is bound to fry the spacecraft.
    $endgroup$
    – SF.
    Mar 25 at 13:44







  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @SF.: Davidmh didn't say it's wrong, he said it's misleading. For all intents and purposes, anything that touches the event horizon is dead (orbitally speaking) as if it smacked into a planet's surface. For your solar example, you're hinging on what you find a reasonable limit on temperatures a spacecraft can handle. Different spacecraft, different limit. You can build better spacecraft (or send something that doesn't disintegrate), but an event horizon doesn't care about what you send, it will (definitively) capture whatever you choose to send.
    $endgroup$
    – Flater
    Mar 25 at 14:55







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @SF. a sufficiently shielded spacecraft going sufficiently fast can survive the corona; the specifics are an engineering detail. Coming back out after crossing the event horizon is a mathematical impossibility. General Relativity shows that, once you cross the horizon, the only possible trajectories are going towards the centre every step of the way.
    $endgroup$
    – Davidmh
    Mar 25 at 15:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @SF. depends on your model. You could model the black hole as a 2-brane coincident with its event horizon, with some extra strings stuck onto it. The only observers able to tell the difference would be those that have already reached the event horizon. The neat fact about this brane is that it would have exactly one bit of entropy per Planck area.
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    Mar 25 at 17:52












  • 10




    $begingroup$
    I think considering a singularity as zero size is misleading, since anything that crosses the event horizon cannot get out, so there are no slingshot trajectories that get closer than that. The event horizon is, effectively, a (very hard) surface.
    $endgroup$
    – Davidmh
    Mar 25 at 12:01






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Davidmh: I disagree. It's like adding 5mln km to the Sun radius (on top of its 700,000km) because entering the corona is bound to fry the spacecraft.
    $endgroup$
    – SF.
    Mar 25 at 13:44







  • 6




    $begingroup$
    @SF.: Davidmh didn't say it's wrong, he said it's misleading. For all intents and purposes, anything that touches the event horizon is dead (orbitally speaking) as if it smacked into a planet's surface. For your solar example, you're hinging on what you find a reasonable limit on temperatures a spacecraft can handle. Different spacecraft, different limit. You can build better spacecraft (or send something that doesn't disintegrate), but an event horizon doesn't care about what you send, it will (definitively) capture whatever you choose to send.
    $endgroup$
    – Flater
    Mar 25 at 14:55







  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @SF. a sufficiently shielded spacecraft going sufficiently fast can survive the corona; the specifics are an engineering detail. Coming back out after crossing the event horizon is a mathematical impossibility. General Relativity shows that, once you cross the horizon, the only possible trajectories are going towards the centre every step of the way.
    $endgroup$
    – Davidmh
    Mar 25 at 15:26






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @SF. depends on your model. You could model the black hole as a 2-brane coincident with its event horizon, with some extra strings stuck onto it. The only observers able to tell the difference would be those that have already reached the event horizon. The neat fact about this brane is that it would have exactly one bit of entropy per Planck area.
    $endgroup$
    – John Dvorak
    Mar 25 at 17:52







10




10




$begingroup$
I think considering a singularity as zero size is misleading, since anything that crosses the event horizon cannot get out, so there are no slingshot trajectories that get closer than that. The event horizon is, effectively, a (very hard) surface.
$endgroup$
– Davidmh
Mar 25 at 12:01




$begingroup$
I think considering a singularity as zero size is misleading, since anything that crosses the event horizon cannot get out, so there are no slingshot trajectories that get closer than that. The event horizon is, effectively, a (very hard) surface.
$endgroup$
– Davidmh
Mar 25 at 12:01




2




2




$begingroup$
@Davidmh: I disagree. It's like adding 5mln km to the Sun radius (on top of its 700,000km) because entering the corona is bound to fry the spacecraft.
$endgroup$
– SF.
Mar 25 at 13:44





$begingroup$
@Davidmh: I disagree. It's like adding 5mln km to the Sun radius (on top of its 700,000km) because entering the corona is bound to fry the spacecraft.
$endgroup$
– SF.
Mar 25 at 13:44





6




6




$begingroup$
@SF.: Davidmh didn't say it's wrong, he said it's misleading. For all intents and purposes, anything that touches the event horizon is dead (orbitally speaking) as if it smacked into a planet's surface. For your solar example, you're hinging on what you find a reasonable limit on temperatures a spacecraft can handle. Different spacecraft, different limit. You can build better spacecraft (or send something that doesn't disintegrate), but an event horizon doesn't care about what you send, it will (definitively) capture whatever you choose to send.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Mar 25 at 14:55





$begingroup$
@SF.: Davidmh didn't say it's wrong, he said it's misleading. For all intents and purposes, anything that touches the event horizon is dead (orbitally speaking) as if it smacked into a planet's surface. For your solar example, you're hinging on what you find a reasonable limit on temperatures a spacecraft can handle. Different spacecraft, different limit. You can build better spacecraft (or send something that doesn't disintegrate), but an event horizon doesn't care about what you send, it will (definitively) capture whatever you choose to send.
$endgroup$
– Flater
Mar 25 at 14:55





4




4




$begingroup$
@SF. a sufficiently shielded spacecraft going sufficiently fast can survive the corona; the specifics are an engineering detail. Coming back out after crossing the event horizon is a mathematical impossibility. General Relativity shows that, once you cross the horizon, the only possible trajectories are going towards the centre every step of the way.
$endgroup$
– Davidmh
Mar 25 at 15:26




$begingroup$
@SF. a sufficiently shielded spacecraft going sufficiently fast can survive the corona; the specifics are an engineering detail. Coming back out after crossing the event horizon is a mathematical impossibility. General Relativity shows that, once you cross the horizon, the only possible trajectories are going towards the centre every step of the way.
$endgroup$
– Davidmh
Mar 25 at 15:26




2




2




$begingroup$
@SF. depends on your model. You could model the black hole as a 2-brane coincident with its event horizon, with some extra strings stuck onto it. The only observers able to tell the difference would be those that have already reached the event horizon. The neat fact about this brane is that it would have exactly one bit of entropy per Planck area.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
Mar 25 at 17:52




$begingroup$
@SF. depends on your model. You could model the black hole as a 2-brane coincident with its event horizon, with some extra strings stuck onto it. The only observers able to tell the difference would be those that have already reached the event horizon. The neat fact about this brane is that it would have exactly one bit of entropy per Planck area.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
Mar 25 at 17:52











4












$begingroup$

We've done a slingshot maneuver with the Moon. That's essentially what Apollo 13's free return trajectory was when the spacecraft became crippled and had to be returned to Earth.




I would like to address some comments this answer has drawn. First, some have said that this dies not answer the question of what the smallest object suitable for a slingshot is. But that question has no clear answer because technically any gravitational deflection that does not result in capture is a slingshot. [This reference] describes a (very low angle) slingshot-type maneuver past the Martian moon Phobos used to nail down it's mass and density (thus, it's porosity). Thus the above is intended as a practical example of a much more significant slingshot involving an object smaller than the planets.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 10




    $begingroup$
    This is interesting trivia, but does not answer the question about what body is the smallest with which a slingshot maneuver can be performed. I am not even sure Luna is the smallest body ever used for a slingshot maneuver in practice. What about Cassini and its fly-bys of several Saturn moons, for example?
    $endgroup$
    – Philipp
    Mar 25 at 10:28










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not sure that was done for the slingshot effect -- it was more a case of "this is the simplest path requiring the least thruster use and lowest risk of return failure" . I remember listening to the news every day during A-13's journey.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Mar 25 at 14:54










  • $begingroup$
    I know. What I'm saying is, at the beginning of the return we used the Moon as we would for a slingshot effect, basically setting the turn angle to 180°.
    $endgroup$
    – Oscar Lanzi
    Mar 25 at 17:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CarlWitthoft Which does not say it wasn't a slingshot maneuver. The Apollo rockets specifically launched into a path that would slingshot back to Earth if no further burns were done.
    $endgroup$
    – Loren Pechtel
    Mar 25 at 18:39






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @OscarLanzi, most of the turnaround on an Apollo free-return trajectory was because the spacecraft was near the apoapsis of its Earth-centered orbit. Yes, the lunar flyby provided a bit of braking, but it was nowhere near as dramatic as it seems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Mar 25 at 20:43















4












$begingroup$

We've done a slingshot maneuver with the Moon. That's essentially what Apollo 13's free return trajectory was when the spacecraft became crippled and had to be returned to Earth.




I would like to address some comments this answer has drawn. First, some have said that this dies not answer the question of what the smallest object suitable for a slingshot is. But that question has no clear answer because technically any gravitational deflection that does not result in capture is a slingshot. [This reference] describes a (very low angle) slingshot-type maneuver past the Martian moon Phobos used to nail down it's mass and density (thus, it's porosity). Thus the above is intended as a practical example of a much more significant slingshot involving an object smaller than the planets.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 10




    $begingroup$
    This is interesting trivia, but does not answer the question about what body is the smallest with which a slingshot maneuver can be performed. I am not even sure Luna is the smallest body ever used for a slingshot maneuver in practice. What about Cassini and its fly-bys of several Saturn moons, for example?
    $endgroup$
    – Philipp
    Mar 25 at 10:28










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not sure that was done for the slingshot effect -- it was more a case of "this is the simplest path requiring the least thruster use and lowest risk of return failure" . I remember listening to the news every day during A-13's journey.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Mar 25 at 14:54










  • $begingroup$
    I know. What I'm saying is, at the beginning of the return we used the Moon as we would for a slingshot effect, basically setting the turn angle to 180°.
    $endgroup$
    – Oscar Lanzi
    Mar 25 at 17:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CarlWitthoft Which does not say it wasn't a slingshot maneuver. The Apollo rockets specifically launched into a path that would slingshot back to Earth if no further burns were done.
    $endgroup$
    – Loren Pechtel
    Mar 25 at 18:39






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @OscarLanzi, most of the turnaround on an Apollo free-return trajectory was because the spacecraft was near the apoapsis of its Earth-centered orbit. Yes, the lunar flyby provided a bit of braking, but it was nowhere near as dramatic as it seems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Mar 25 at 20:43













4












4








4





$begingroup$

We've done a slingshot maneuver with the Moon. That's essentially what Apollo 13's free return trajectory was when the spacecraft became crippled and had to be returned to Earth.




I would like to address some comments this answer has drawn. First, some have said that this dies not answer the question of what the smallest object suitable for a slingshot is. But that question has no clear answer because technically any gravitational deflection that does not result in capture is a slingshot. [This reference] describes a (very low angle) slingshot-type maneuver past the Martian moon Phobos used to nail down it's mass and density (thus, it's porosity). Thus the above is intended as a practical example of a much more significant slingshot involving an object smaller than the planets.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



We've done a slingshot maneuver with the Moon. That's essentially what Apollo 13's free return trajectory was when the spacecraft became crippled and had to be returned to Earth.




I would like to address some comments this answer has drawn. First, some have said that this dies not answer the question of what the smallest object suitable for a slingshot is. But that question has no clear answer because technically any gravitational deflection that does not result in capture is a slingshot. [This reference] describes a (very low angle) slingshot-type maneuver past the Martian moon Phobos used to nail down it's mass and density (thus, it's porosity). Thus the above is intended as a practical example of a much more significant slingshot involving an object smaller than the planets.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Mar 31 at 10:26

























answered Mar 25 at 9:26









Oscar LanziOscar Lanzi

78429




78429







  • 10




    $begingroup$
    This is interesting trivia, but does not answer the question about what body is the smallest with which a slingshot maneuver can be performed. I am not even sure Luna is the smallest body ever used for a slingshot maneuver in practice. What about Cassini and its fly-bys of several Saturn moons, for example?
    $endgroup$
    – Philipp
    Mar 25 at 10:28










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not sure that was done for the slingshot effect -- it was more a case of "this is the simplest path requiring the least thruster use and lowest risk of return failure" . I remember listening to the news every day during A-13's journey.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Mar 25 at 14:54










  • $begingroup$
    I know. What I'm saying is, at the beginning of the return we used the Moon as we would for a slingshot effect, basically setting the turn angle to 180°.
    $endgroup$
    – Oscar Lanzi
    Mar 25 at 17:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CarlWitthoft Which does not say it wasn't a slingshot maneuver. The Apollo rockets specifically launched into a path that would slingshot back to Earth if no further burns were done.
    $endgroup$
    – Loren Pechtel
    Mar 25 at 18:39






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @OscarLanzi, most of the turnaround on an Apollo free-return trajectory was because the spacecraft was near the apoapsis of its Earth-centered orbit. Yes, the lunar flyby provided a bit of braking, but it was nowhere near as dramatic as it seems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Mar 25 at 20:43












  • 10




    $begingroup$
    This is interesting trivia, but does not answer the question about what body is the smallest with which a slingshot maneuver can be performed. I am not even sure Luna is the smallest body ever used for a slingshot maneuver in practice. What about Cassini and its fly-bys of several Saturn moons, for example?
    $endgroup$
    – Philipp
    Mar 25 at 10:28










  • $begingroup$
    I'm not sure that was done for the slingshot effect -- it was more a case of "this is the simplest path requiring the least thruster use and lowest risk of return failure" . I remember listening to the news every day during A-13's journey.
    $endgroup$
    – Carl Witthoft
    Mar 25 at 14:54










  • $begingroup$
    I know. What I'm saying is, at the beginning of the return we used the Moon as we would for a slingshot effect, basically setting the turn angle to 180°.
    $endgroup$
    – Oscar Lanzi
    Mar 25 at 17:49






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CarlWitthoft Which does not say it wasn't a slingshot maneuver. The Apollo rockets specifically launched into a path that would slingshot back to Earth if no further burns were done.
    $endgroup$
    – Loren Pechtel
    Mar 25 at 18:39






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @OscarLanzi, most of the turnaround on an Apollo free-return trajectory was because the spacecraft was near the apoapsis of its Earth-centered orbit. Yes, the lunar flyby provided a bit of braking, but it was nowhere near as dramatic as it seems.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Mar 25 at 20:43







10




10




$begingroup$
This is interesting trivia, but does not answer the question about what body is the smallest with which a slingshot maneuver can be performed. I am not even sure Luna is the smallest body ever used for a slingshot maneuver in practice. What about Cassini and its fly-bys of several Saturn moons, for example?
$endgroup$
– Philipp
Mar 25 at 10:28




$begingroup$
This is interesting trivia, but does not answer the question about what body is the smallest with which a slingshot maneuver can be performed. I am not even sure Luna is the smallest body ever used for a slingshot maneuver in practice. What about Cassini and its fly-bys of several Saturn moons, for example?
$endgroup$
– Philipp
Mar 25 at 10:28












$begingroup$
I'm not sure that was done for the slingshot effect -- it was more a case of "this is the simplest path requiring the least thruster use and lowest risk of return failure" . I remember listening to the news every day during A-13's journey.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Mar 25 at 14:54




$begingroup$
I'm not sure that was done for the slingshot effect -- it was more a case of "this is the simplest path requiring the least thruster use and lowest risk of return failure" . I remember listening to the news every day during A-13's journey.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Mar 25 at 14:54












$begingroup$
I know. What I'm saying is, at the beginning of the return we used the Moon as we would for a slingshot effect, basically setting the turn angle to 180°.
$endgroup$
– Oscar Lanzi
Mar 25 at 17:49




$begingroup$
I know. What I'm saying is, at the beginning of the return we used the Moon as we would for a slingshot effect, basically setting the turn angle to 180°.
$endgroup$
– Oscar Lanzi
Mar 25 at 17:49




1




1




$begingroup$
@CarlWitthoft Which does not say it wasn't a slingshot maneuver. The Apollo rockets specifically launched into a path that would slingshot back to Earth if no further burns were done.
$endgroup$
– Loren Pechtel
Mar 25 at 18:39




$begingroup$
@CarlWitthoft Which does not say it wasn't a slingshot maneuver. The Apollo rockets specifically launched into a path that would slingshot back to Earth if no further burns were done.
$endgroup$
– Loren Pechtel
Mar 25 at 18:39




1




1




$begingroup$
@OscarLanzi, most of the turnaround on an Apollo free-return trajectory was because the spacecraft was near the apoapsis of its Earth-centered orbit. Yes, the lunar flyby provided a bit of braking, but it was nowhere near as dramatic as it seems.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:43




$begingroup$
@OscarLanzi, most of the turnaround on an Apollo free-return trajectory was because the spacecraft was near the apoapsis of its Earth-centered orbit. Yes, the lunar flyby provided a bit of braking, but it was nowhere near as dramatic as it seems.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Mar 25 at 20:43

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35031%2fwhat-is-the-smallest-body-in-which-a-sling-shot-maneuver-can-be-performed%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

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







Popular posts from this blog

How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye