Does it take more energy to get to Venus or to Mars? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowEnergy consumption for travelling to the Moon vs. to MarsCan we get energy from the motion of orbiting bodies?Minimum Delta V to a staging area in cislunar space for a vertical space gunHow large a body could a probe with ion engines land on and launch from?Why has the Earth's motion carried it out of view of Pioneer 11's antenna?How much delta v does it take to get to the Sun-Earth Lagrange 3 point?What precisely is downrange distance - how is it defined mathematically?Parallel orbits around the Earth - effectively?The Martian: Does it really take a supercomputer to calculate spaceflight maneuvers?How can I calculate the $Delta V$

What benefits would be gained by using human laborers instead of drones in deep sea mining?

Are there any unintended negative consequences to allowing PCs to gain multiple levels at once in a short milestone-XP game?

In excess I'm lethal

Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers

Complex fractions

What does convergence in distribution "in the Gromov–Hausdorff" sense mean?

How do we know the LHC results are robust?

Is it ever safe to open a suspicious html file (e.g. email attachment)?

Is it possible to search for a directory/file combination?

Rotate a column

If/When UK leaves the EU, can a future goverment conduct a referendum to join the EU?

Why do we use the plural of movies in this phrase "We went to the movies last night."?

Why does standard notation not preserve intervals (visually)

Would a galaxy be visible from outside, but nearby?

If the heap is initialized for security, then why is the stack uninitialized?

What does "Its cash flow is deeply negative" mean?

"and that skill is always a class skill for you" - does "always" have any meaning in Pathfinder?

What was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?

Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?

How to start emacs in "nothing" mode (`fundamental-mode`)

How to count occurrences of text in a file?

How did people program for Consoles with multiple CPUs?

Is it my responsibility to learn a new technology in my own time my employer wants to implement?

Can I equip Skullclamp on a creature I am sacrificing?



Does it take more energy to get to Venus or to Mars?



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowEnergy consumption for travelling to the Moon vs. to MarsCan we get energy from the motion of orbiting bodies?Minimum Delta V to a staging area in cislunar space for a vertical space gunHow large a body could a probe with ion engines land on and launch from?Why has the Earth's motion carried it out of view of Pioneer 11's antenna?How much delta v does it take to get to the Sun-Earth Lagrange 3 point?What precisely is downrange distance - how is it defined mathematically?Parallel orbits around the Earth - effectively?The Martian: Does it really take a supercomputer to calculate spaceflight maneuvers?How can I calculate the $Delta V$










19












$begingroup$


Let's assume we use the ideal positions of those planets relative to Earth for launch. And let's assume the spacecraft is launched from the same place on Earth. Also let's assume the goal is to get the same mass of payload to those planets, meaning the launch vehicle could be different, depending on the energy requirements.



"Getting to" could possibly be a bit imprecise, so let's define it as meaning directly impacting the surface with the spacecraft.



Alternatively, does anything change if "getting to" means getting into orbit around those planets?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Getting there... slowing down not included... god speed ye brave souls
    $endgroup$
    – Mikey Mouse
    12 hours ago















19












$begingroup$


Let's assume we use the ideal positions of those planets relative to Earth for launch. And let's assume the spacecraft is launched from the same place on Earth. Also let's assume the goal is to get the same mass of payload to those planets, meaning the launch vehicle could be different, depending on the energy requirements.



"Getting to" could possibly be a bit imprecise, so let's define it as meaning directly impacting the surface with the spacecraft.



Alternatively, does anything change if "getting to" means getting into orbit around those planets?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Getting there... slowing down not included... god speed ye brave souls
    $endgroup$
    – Mikey Mouse
    12 hours ago













19












19








19


2



$begingroup$


Let's assume we use the ideal positions of those planets relative to Earth for launch. And let's assume the spacecraft is launched from the same place on Earth. Also let's assume the goal is to get the same mass of payload to those planets, meaning the launch vehicle could be different, depending on the energy requirements.



"Getting to" could possibly be a bit imprecise, so let's define it as meaning directly impacting the surface with the spacecraft.



Alternatively, does anything change if "getting to" means getting into orbit around those planets?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




Let's assume we use the ideal positions of those planets relative to Earth for launch. And let's assume the spacecraft is launched from the same place on Earth. Also let's assume the goal is to get the same mass of payload to those planets, meaning the launch vehicle could be different, depending on the energy requirements.



"Getting to" could possibly be a bit imprecise, so let's define it as meaning directly impacting the surface with the spacecraft.



Alternatively, does anything change if "getting to" means getting into orbit around those planets?







orbital-mechanics delta-v energy






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked yesterday









stackzebrastackzebra

28316




28316











  • $begingroup$
    Getting there... slowing down not included... god speed ye brave souls
    $endgroup$
    – Mikey Mouse
    12 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Getting there... slowing down not included... god speed ye brave souls
    $endgroup$
    – Mikey Mouse
    12 hours ago















$begingroup$
Getting there... slowing down not included... god speed ye brave souls
$endgroup$
– Mikey Mouse
12 hours ago




$begingroup$
Getting there... slowing down not included... god speed ye brave souls
$endgroup$
– Mikey Mouse
12 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















22












$begingroup$

To flyby or impact Venus varies from 3.45 to 3.6 km/s from LEO for the optimal time every 19 months. Mars varies from 3.55 to 3.9 km/s for the optimal time every 26 months. So on average, getting to Venus is a little less energy than getting Mars. But not by much. It could even be a tiny bit more in some years.



If you also want to get barely into orbit propulsively, the ranges are 4 to 4.7 km/s for Venus and 4.25 to 7 km/s for Mars.



Mars is more variable than Venus due to its much larger solar orbit eccentricity (0.09 vs. 0.007).



At either planet, you can aerobrake down to the desired orbit. Aerobraking has been demonstrated at both. Or you can aerocapture directly, with just the flyby costs above. Aerocapture has never been demonstrated, but there are no hurdles that would prevent its use in a mission, other than developing an adequate heatshield for Venus (much higher entry velocity). However you incur the substantial mass penalty of the aeroshell, a cruise stage that is discarded before entry, and the structure and mechanisms to discard the aeroshell and deploy the enclosed spacecraft. Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months. (Aerocapture is mission enabling at Uranus, Neptune, and Titan.)






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    "Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
    $endgroup$
    – TemporalWolf
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
    $endgroup$
    – Nij
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
    $endgroup$
    – TemporalWolf
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Adler
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
    $endgroup$
    – Tom Spilker
    19 hours ago


















13












$begingroup$

The second table here essentially answers your question. Venus transfer from Low Earth Orbit is 3.5 km/s, Mars transfer is 3.6.
This will allow you to impact either body (on Venus you will need to make sure your vehicle is tough enough to actually impact, rather than dissolving in the atmosphere, but that's not really the point).



In either case, you can enter orbit for negligible extra energy, but some risk, by aerocapture. Basically you graze the upper atmosphere, losing just enough velocity relative to the planet to enter a long elliptical orbit. At the highest point of that orbit you make a very small boost to raise the lowest point of the orbit to graze the atmosphere even more gently, and then repeated encounters will lower the high point of the orbit. When it's where you want it, you make a further small correction to miss the atmosphere entirely and you are there.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
    $endgroup$
    – stackzebra
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
    $endgroup$
    – AnT
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    yesterday











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35124%2fdoes-it-take-more-energy-to-get-to-venus-or-to-mars%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









22












$begingroup$

To flyby or impact Venus varies from 3.45 to 3.6 km/s from LEO for the optimal time every 19 months. Mars varies from 3.55 to 3.9 km/s for the optimal time every 26 months. So on average, getting to Venus is a little less energy than getting Mars. But not by much. It could even be a tiny bit more in some years.



If you also want to get barely into orbit propulsively, the ranges are 4 to 4.7 km/s for Venus and 4.25 to 7 km/s for Mars.



Mars is more variable than Venus due to its much larger solar orbit eccentricity (0.09 vs. 0.007).



At either planet, you can aerobrake down to the desired orbit. Aerobraking has been demonstrated at both. Or you can aerocapture directly, with just the flyby costs above. Aerocapture has never been demonstrated, but there are no hurdles that would prevent its use in a mission, other than developing an adequate heatshield for Venus (much higher entry velocity). However you incur the substantial mass penalty of the aeroshell, a cruise stage that is discarded before entry, and the structure and mechanisms to discard the aeroshell and deploy the enclosed spacecraft. Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months. (Aerocapture is mission enabling at Uranus, Neptune, and Titan.)






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    "Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
    $endgroup$
    – TemporalWolf
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
    $endgroup$
    – Nij
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
    $endgroup$
    – TemporalWolf
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Adler
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
    $endgroup$
    – Tom Spilker
    19 hours ago















22












$begingroup$

To flyby or impact Venus varies from 3.45 to 3.6 km/s from LEO for the optimal time every 19 months. Mars varies from 3.55 to 3.9 km/s for the optimal time every 26 months. So on average, getting to Venus is a little less energy than getting Mars. But not by much. It could even be a tiny bit more in some years.



If you also want to get barely into orbit propulsively, the ranges are 4 to 4.7 km/s for Venus and 4.25 to 7 km/s for Mars.



Mars is more variable than Venus due to its much larger solar orbit eccentricity (0.09 vs. 0.007).



At either planet, you can aerobrake down to the desired orbit. Aerobraking has been demonstrated at both. Or you can aerocapture directly, with just the flyby costs above. Aerocapture has never been demonstrated, but there are no hurdles that would prevent its use in a mission, other than developing an adequate heatshield for Venus (much higher entry velocity). However you incur the substantial mass penalty of the aeroshell, a cruise stage that is discarded before entry, and the structure and mechanisms to discard the aeroshell and deploy the enclosed spacecraft. Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months. (Aerocapture is mission enabling at Uranus, Neptune, and Titan.)






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    "Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
    $endgroup$
    – TemporalWolf
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
    $endgroup$
    – Nij
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
    $endgroup$
    – TemporalWolf
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Adler
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
    $endgroup$
    – Tom Spilker
    19 hours ago













22












22








22





$begingroup$

To flyby or impact Venus varies from 3.45 to 3.6 km/s from LEO for the optimal time every 19 months. Mars varies from 3.55 to 3.9 km/s for the optimal time every 26 months. So on average, getting to Venus is a little less energy than getting Mars. But not by much. It could even be a tiny bit more in some years.



If you also want to get barely into orbit propulsively, the ranges are 4 to 4.7 km/s for Venus and 4.25 to 7 km/s for Mars.



Mars is more variable than Venus due to its much larger solar orbit eccentricity (0.09 vs. 0.007).



At either planet, you can aerobrake down to the desired orbit. Aerobraking has been demonstrated at both. Or you can aerocapture directly, with just the flyby costs above. Aerocapture has never been demonstrated, but there are no hurdles that would prevent its use in a mission, other than developing an adequate heatshield for Venus (much higher entry velocity). However you incur the substantial mass penalty of the aeroshell, a cruise stage that is discarded before entry, and the structure and mechanisms to discard the aeroshell and deploy the enclosed spacecraft. Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months. (Aerocapture is mission enabling at Uranus, Neptune, and Titan.)






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



To flyby or impact Venus varies from 3.45 to 3.6 km/s from LEO for the optimal time every 19 months. Mars varies from 3.55 to 3.9 km/s for the optimal time every 26 months. So on average, getting to Venus is a little less energy than getting Mars. But not by much. It could even be a tiny bit more in some years.



If you also want to get barely into orbit propulsively, the ranges are 4 to 4.7 km/s for Venus and 4.25 to 7 km/s for Mars.



Mars is more variable than Venus due to its much larger solar orbit eccentricity (0.09 vs. 0.007).



At either planet, you can aerobrake down to the desired orbit. Aerobraking has been demonstrated at both. Or you can aerocapture directly, with just the flyby costs above. Aerocapture has never been demonstrated, but there are no hurdles that would prevent its use in a mission, other than developing an adequate heatshield for Venus (much higher entry velocity). However you incur the substantial mass penalty of the aeroshell, a cruise stage that is discarded before entry, and the structure and mechanisms to discard the aeroshell and deploy the enclosed spacecraft. Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months. (Aerocapture is mission enabling at Uranus, Neptune, and Titan.)







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered yesterday









Mark AdlerMark Adler

50.6k3128214




50.6k3128214











  • $begingroup$
    "Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
    $endgroup$
    – TemporalWolf
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
    $endgroup$
    – Nij
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
    $endgroup$
    – TemporalWolf
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Adler
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
    $endgroup$
    – Tom Spilker
    19 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    "Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
    $endgroup$
    – TemporalWolf
    yesterday






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
    $endgroup$
    – Nij
    yesterday











  • $begingroup$
    @Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
    $endgroup$
    – TemporalWolf
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark Adler
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
    $endgroup$
    – Tom Spilker
    19 hours ago















$begingroup$
"Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
yesterday




$begingroup$
"Aerocapture at neither body appears to be a win if you can afford the time to aerobrake, measured in months." Did you mean either? This sentence seems contradictory to me as written.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
yesterday




4




4




$begingroup$
The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
$endgroup$
– Nij
yesterday





$begingroup$
The sentence is perfectly grammatical. Neither body is worth aerocapture if you can afford the time to aerobrake instead. @TemporalWolf
$endgroup$
– Nij
yesterday













$begingroup$
@Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
yesterday




$begingroup$
@Nij It seems to preclude doing both, which seems strange as I would expect a mission that aerocaptures to aerobrake as well.
$endgroup$
– TemporalWolf
yesterday












$begingroup$
The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
$endgroup$
– Mark Adler
yesterday




$begingroup$
The statement does not in any way preclude both. And by the way, it is unlikely you would do both, since you can aerocapture all the way down to the desired orbit in a single entry for no additional mass.
$endgroup$
– Mark Adler
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
@TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
19 hours ago




$begingroup$
@TemporalWolf (& Mark Adler, too) Unless you're supremely confident of your aerocapture system's ability to have the exit velocity right where you want it, you probably wouldn't try to aerocapture directly into LVO, since there'd be little margin between the required ∆V and the ∆V that would result in complete entry. 24-hr, 12-hr, even 6-hr orbits would be fine. But for LVO I think you'd aerocapture into a looser orbit, then aerobrake down to LVO.
$endgroup$
– Tom Spilker
19 hours ago











13












$begingroup$

The second table here essentially answers your question. Venus transfer from Low Earth Orbit is 3.5 km/s, Mars transfer is 3.6.
This will allow you to impact either body (on Venus you will need to make sure your vehicle is tough enough to actually impact, rather than dissolving in the atmosphere, but that's not really the point).



In either case, you can enter orbit for negligible extra energy, but some risk, by aerocapture. Basically you graze the upper atmosphere, losing just enough velocity relative to the planet to enter a long elliptical orbit. At the highest point of that orbit you make a very small boost to raise the lowest point of the orbit to graze the atmosphere even more gently, and then repeated encounters will lower the high point of the orbit. When it's where you want it, you make a further small correction to miss the atmosphere entirely and you are there.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
    $endgroup$
    – stackzebra
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
    $endgroup$
    – AnT
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    yesterday















13












$begingroup$

The second table here essentially answers your question. Venus transfer from Low Earth Orbit is 3.5 km/s, Mars transfer is 3.6.
This will allow you to impact either body (on Venus you will need to make sure your vehicle is tough enough to actually impact, rather than dissolving in the atmosphere, but that's not really the point).



In either case, you can enter orbit for negligible extra energy, but some risk, by aerocapture. Basically you graze the upper atmosphere, losing just enough velocity relative to the planet to enter a long elliptical orbit. At the highest point of that orbit you make a very small boost to raise the lowest point of the orbit to graze the atmosphere even more gently, and then repeated encounters will lower the high point of the orbit. When it's where you want it, you make a further small correction to miss the atmosphere entirely and you are there.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
    $endgroup$
    – stackzebra
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
    $endgroup$
    – AnT
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    yesterday













13












13








13





$begingroup$

The second table here essentially answers your question. Venus transfer from Low Earth Orbit is 3.5 km/s, Mars transfer is 3.6.
This will allow you to impact either body (on Venus you will need to make sure your vehicle is tough enough to actually impact, rather than dissolving in the atmosphere, but that's not really the point).



In either case, you can enter orbit for negligible extra energy, but some risk, by aerocapture. Basically you graze the upper atmosphere, losing just enough velocity relative to the planet to enter a long elliptical orbit. At the highest point of that orbit you make a very small boost to raise the lowest point of the orbit to graze the atmosphere even more gently, and then repeated encounters will lower the high point of the orbit. When it's where you want it, you make a further small correction to miss the atmosphere entirely and you are there.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



The second table here essentially answers your question. Venus transfer from Low Earth Orbit is 3.5 km/s, Mars transfer is 3.6.
This will allow you to impact either body (on Venus you will need to make sure your vehicle is tough enough to actually impact, rather than dissolving in the atmosphere, but that's not really the point).



In either case, you can enter orbit for negligible extra energy, but some risk, by aerocapture. Basically you graze the upper atmosphere, losing just enough velocity relative to the planet to enter a long elliptical orbit. At the highest point of that orbit you make a very small boost to raise the lowest point of the orbit to graze the atmosphere even more gently, and then repeated encounters will lower the high point of the orbit. When it's where you want it, you make a further small correction to miss the atmosphere entirely and you are there.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered yesterday









Steve LintonSteve Linton

9,23812451




9,23812451







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
    $endgroup$
    – stackzebra
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
    $endgroup$
    – AnT
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    yesterday












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
    $endgroup$
    – stackzebra
    yesterday







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
    $endgroup$
    – Steve Linton
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
    $endgroup$
    – AnT
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    yesterday







2




2




$begingroup$
Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
yesterday





$begingroup$
Do you perhaps know if any actual spacecraft sent to Venus used aerocapture to get into orbit? Edit: I see Wikipedia saying that no.
$endgroup$
– stackzebra
yesterday





1




1




$begingroup$
@stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
yesterday




$begingroup$
@stackzebra you have a point. On the other hand not that many probes have been sent to orbit Venus at all. Magellan used aerobraking to adjust its orbit.
$endgroup$
– Steve Linton
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
@stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
$endgroup$
– AnT
yesterday




$begingroup$
@stackzebra: Not to get into orbit. Dual-stage atmospheric braking (dive-emerge-dive-land) has been used by "Venus" program landers. And, contrary to the above statement by Steve Linton, there were quite a few orbiters that orbited Venus as part of that program. These orbiters did not use aerocapture though.
$endgroup$
– AnT
yesterday












$begingroup$
@AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
yesterday




$begingroup$
@AnT: Depends on what you understand by "not that many". I count 8: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Venus vs 14 for Mars: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
yesterday

















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%2f35124%2fdoes-it-take-more-energy-to-get-to-venus-or-to-mars%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

រឿង រ៉ូមេអូ និង ហ្ស៊ុយលីយេ សង្ខេបរឿង តួអង្គ បញ្ជីណែនាំ

QGIS export composer to PDF scale the map [closed] Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Print Composer QGIS 2.6, how to export image?QGIS 2.8.1 print composer won't export all OpenCycleMap base layer tilesSave Print/Map QGIS composer view as PNG/PDF using Python (without changing anything in visible layout)?Export QGIS Print Composer PDF with searchable text labelsQGIS Print Composer does not change from landscape to portrait orientation?How can I avoid map size and scale changes in print composer?Fuzzy PDF export in QGIS running on macSierra OSExport the legend into its 100% size using Print ComposerScale-dependent rendering in QGIS PDF output

PDF-ში გადმოწერა სანავიგაციო მენიუproject page