Gravity Assist and

Related Concepts
within Space
Exploration
NUFFIELD REPORT
ALICE CHENG

Abstract
This dissertations explores gravity
assist, its implications and the
physical principles behind the orbital
technique that helped humanity to
explore the greater depths of space. It
includes a related experiment
demonstrating conservation of
momentum and transfer of energy
similar to that during a gravity assist
maneuver, and the analysis of the
experiment will show the
improvements that will be made for
the experiment in order to obtain
better results in the future

Acknowledgements
Many thanks to my mentor, Conway
Mothobi for assisting us with our project,
through interesting talks and sorting out
required apparatus for the experiments.
Also thank you to Sam McCormack for
working on the project with me, and
helping me to explore new concepts that I
havent considered before. Lastly, Id like to
express my gratitude to Sarah Fenton and
David Ward for attending our presentations,
and giving us the opportunity to take place
on the Nuffield Research Placement.

Before the existence of the manoeuvre technique gravity assist, long

interplanetary travel was deemed almost unthinkable; vast amounts of energy is
required to be generated to provide heat for the spacecraft as the temperature
decreases as the spacecraft moves away from the sun, while more energy is
required to propel the spacecraft, to communicate with earth and most
importantly, gather the required scientific data.
Nevertheless, to be able to generate enough energy to satisfy all of the criteria
above, the amount of fuel carried would be significantly more, which meant that
that the spacecraft will need to be significantly larger in order to carry the fuel;
this will cost significantly more compared to a mission which utilizes gravity
assist, and more energy will be required at take-off to achieve the same velocity.
The fact that most deep space spacecraft require plutonium as fuel would cause
political tension with Russia, as Russia is currently the only supplier of plutonium
238, and the supplies for plutonium 238 is running low.
Because of this, many missions utilize this technique to approach the destination
sooner with more fuel left to collect and transmit relevant data back to earth to
analysis. Examples of this include Voyager 1 and 2 missions, the Rosetta mission
and notably, the recent New Horizon mission to the dwarf planet Pluto, where the
Jovian gravity assist increase the velocity of the spacecraft by 14 500 kilometres
per hour, making this one of the fastest velocities reached by a man-made
object. In fact, the spacecraft would have taken 5 years longer to reach Pluto
without a gravity assist, thus providing more energy 1 for data collection during
and after its flyby mission to Pluto.
However, although gravity assist is one of the main techniques utilised to
improve the efficiency of space travel, its worth noting that there are limitations
within gravity assist, including situations where gravity assist is not possible,
such as the gravity field strength from a body is too weak, when the date for the
launch window is too soon, or when the spacecraft require propulsion from within
a planets atmosphere.
The aim of my project is to explore the fundamentals of gravity assist, its
principles involved, and the feasibility other concepts for long-term space travel
using with experimental results to prove and further demonstrate the key ideas
involved in gravity assist and concepts within space exploration.
Gravity Assist
Gravity assist is often referred as a gravitational slingshot; this is a manoeuvre
used in deep space missions involving a close flyby with a hyperbolic trajectory
into the planets, which will alter the heliocentric 2 velocity of the spacecraft, thus
increase or decrease the velocity depending on the direction of approach to the
planets motion.
In simpler terms, if a spacecraft approaches the planet in the same direction the
planet orbits around the sun, it will speed up; if the spacecraft approaches in the
opposite direction to the planets orbit, it will slow down. This is particularly
1 Energy from radioactive decay decreases overtime regardless of conditions, thus a shorter space of time
meant more energy

2 When the frame of reference is the sun.

3

useful for sending a spacecraft to planets and bodies with a smaller g 3; an

example mission of this include the Messenger mission to the planet Mercury,
where the planets gravity field strength is at a much weaker 3.7 4 compared to
earths g, which is 9.8, thus gravity assist is required to slow down the spacecraft
enough to fall below the escape velocity of the spacecraft and fall into orbit,
whilst making sure that enough fuel is left for the data collection within the
hostile environment, being protected from the intense heat and radiation from
the sun at all times, and meeting the fuel requirement which make the mission
economically viable.
Nevertheless, to be able to utilise gravity assist, a point of reference must be
chosen as all objects are in motion relative to each other. As a frame of
reference, the object will appear stationary while other objects appear to be in
motion. For gravity assist manoeuvres, in particular, the reference frame thats
frequently used for is the sun.
From the planets frame, the planet is stationary, thus a gravity assist seems like
it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics; this law states that energy must be
conserved, thus the spacecraft should in theory enter and exit the orbit with the
same momentum, hence the same velocity. This can be shown by:

V =V out
Where :
'

V =Velocity of the spacecraft coming into the plane t s gravity well .

'

V out =Velocity of the spacecraft coming out of the planet s gravity well.
Nevertheless, during gravity assist, spacecraft from the planets frame appear to
gain (or in some cases loose, as this will be explained later) free momentum from
the stationary planet after exiting the orbit, where it gains velocity after exiting
the gravity well, as shown by:

V <V out Or

V >V out

Depending on the direction of the spacecrafts approach towards the planet, thus
it appears that a gravity assist is violating the First Law of Thermodynamics.
However, when a gravity assist is viewed from the suns frame, the planet is no
longer stationary from this point of view and is moving at a velocity around the
sun. If the spacecraft need to gain velocity, such as in the new horizon mission, it
will approach the planet from the opposite direction to the planets trajectory (in
the case of New Horizon, the planet that is providing gravity assist is Jupiter). As
the spacecraft is moving at a velocity, V
velocity, U

and the planet is moving at a

their velocities must subtract as both are moving in opposite

directions to each other (Appendix Suns Frame). This meant that the velocity
3 g is the gravity field strength.
4 To 2 significant figures as gravity vary on different parts of the planet depending on altitude and the
subsurface composition. At is 0.37 times the gravity of earth.

of the spacecraft coming into the planets gravity well, V

is V U . As the

spacecraft curves around the planet, its direction changes, thus the spacecraft is
now moving in the same direction as the planet, and gains velocity as their
velocities add together, so that the velocity of the spacecraft is now
the change in velocity,

V , is

V +U , and

2U .

Similarly, this can also be utilised to slow down as spacecraft like in the
messenger missions. To do this, the spacecraft must approach the planet in the
same direction to the planets direction of motion, then bend away from the
planet. Again, the spacecraft is moving at a velocity V , thus V =V +U , and
as the spacecraft curves away from the planet, their velocities subtract, reducing
the velocity to V U , which meant that the change in velocity, V

is 2 U

. This meant that the angle of approach strongly affects the outcome of the
gravity assist, thus the timing of the arrival and the direction of approach of the
spacecraft are extremely important, as the angle of approach determines the
final velocity of the spacecraft, as well as the angle the spacecraft leaves the
planet as angle of approach is equal to the angle of departure relative to the
planet itself. The timing is important as the timing of arrival affects the angle of
approach of the planet, thus affecting the final velocity as well as the angle of
departure.
This proposes a limitation with gravity assist; since the time of arrival is
extremely important to the required change in velocity of the spacecraft, a
launch window5 have to be set and the spacecraft have to launch within a strict
period of time. The fact that planets all orbit the sun at different velocities meant
that to gain a single gravity assist (using New Horizons Mission as an example),
the planet Jupiter have to be in position to provide the correct angle of departure
for the New Horizons Spacecraft to Arrive to Pluto. The alignment of Jupiter and
Pluto required for a Jovian gravity assist occurs every 12.5 years, this meant that
the New Horizons mission had to be launched between 2004 and 2007 or the
launch window will be missed, and the next mission will have to be launched in
2028 to 2029. Within this period, launch opportunities will be available after
every 13 months due to Earths orbit around the sun, which takes 12 months.
Consequently, the launch periods for New Horizons mission are Mid-December
2004, Mid-January to Early February 2006 and late February 2007 were available
for a flyby mission to Pluto6
Gravity assist and New Horizons
During the New Horizons mission, the optimum year for the mission was 2004, as
Earth, Jupiter and Pluto move out of phase with each other. Nevertheless New
Horizons was launched in January 2006 due to insufficient funding, thus the
5 A time frame set for the launch of a space mission
6 The reason for a flyby mission is due to the amount of fuel required for an orbiter mission is too large as
Plutos gravity is too weak to capture the spacecraft at the velocity its travelling, thus large amount of fuel is
required to decelerate the spacecraft which can be extremely costly. Alternatively, if the spacecraft travels at a
lower velocity, it will not reach Pluto within the time required thus the mission is not feasible, as the fuel from
the radioactive decay will run out during that time, and no significant data can be received from such mission.

velocity gained from a Jovian gravity is lower than optimum and a more powerful
launch vehicle had to be obtained in order to send the spacecraft to Jupiter on
time, as Jupiter is further away from the optimum position.
Due to this, alternate mission designs were analysed during missions such as
New Horizons in case of events which can lead to missing the launch window.
These can often include alternate gravity assists from Venus and Earth, and deep
space burns7 to provide additional acceleration the spacecraft needs to approach
arrive within the desired time frame. Alternate missions were also planned along
with their trajectories, such as a mission to Uranus or Neptune for New Horizons
in case the desired planets were not in position to provide a gravity assist after
launch during the time frame given for the encounter to occur (Appendix Table
1).
Furthermore, another limiting factor within gravity assist is the suns gravity
field; after gaining speed after a gravity assist, the spacecraft will gradually lose
this speed over time due to the fact that the spacecraft is still within the suns
gravity well. As the spacecraft is moving away from the sun, the spacecraft is
moving out of the suns gravity well, hence is loses kinetic energy and gains
gravitational potential energy from the sun, thus slowing down the spacecraft
(Appendix Gravity Assist Analogy).
One idea from this can be using suns gravity field to slow the spacecraft enough
for an orbiter mission. Nevertheless, there are two limitations associated with
this. The first being that the force exerted by the sun is too small to have a
significant effect on the New Horizons spacecraft. This can be approximated
using Newtons Law of Gravitation8move where:

F=

G m1 m2
r2

So that :

F=Force
G=Gravitational Constant ,6.674 1011 m 3 kg1 s2
m1=mass of the first body
m2=mass of the second body
r=distance the center of the two bodies
3

So for the sun, this value is approximately 2.73 10 N , and for Pluto, This is
2.797 N . The reason that the suns value is very small is due to the inverse
7 Burns are when propellants are used in space to provide extra propulsion.
8 Its an approximation as this does not work for all bodies in space, especially for smaller objects, thus general
relativity would have been better for calculating the exact force. Nevertheless, as inaccuracies are very small
(less than 10-2), it is used for the purposes for this demonstrating the forces exerted by the celestial bodies in
our solar system.

square law, whereas the distance increases, the forces decrease exponentially. To
stop New Horizons over the time period of approach to Pluto, Newtons second
law of motion can be utilised:

F=

(mv)
t

Where :
F=Force

m=Mass
t=Time

=The Changea Value

Since the mass of New Horizons stay constant, and that

force required to stop the spacecraft is approximately

v
=3830 m/s , the
t
6

1.91 10

N, which

exceeds the force exerted by both the Suns and Plutos combined by an order of
magnitude of 6. Thus, slowing down the spacecraft requires lots of energy which
can be extremely expensive and requires lots of propellants.
As the equation has shown, the mass of Pluto affects the force it exerts on the
spacecraft, therefore, as the mass of Pluto is small relative to the other celestial
bodies within our solar system, the force exerted by Pluto is, therefore small,
even if the distance, r , between Pluto and the spacecraft is reduced, thus an
orbiter mission will be difficult to design for a mission to Pluto.
Another way of demonstrating the difficulty or an orbiter mission to Pluto is by
comparing the velocities of the spacecraft with the escape velocity of Pluto; the
escape velocity for Pluto is 1.21 kms-1 (compared to Earths 11.19 ks-1), and the
approaching velocity of New Horizons spacecraft is 14.5 kms -1, the differences in
the value itself show that Pluto is not able to capture the spacecraft as the
escape velocity of the New Horizons spacecraft is already greater than the
Earths escape velocity. The fact that earth has a gravitational field strength of
9.8N/kg compared to Plutos 0.66N/kg (nearly 15 times smaller than Earths
gravitational field strength) meant that it will be difficult to slow the spacecraft to
Plutos escape velocity during the approach for Pluto.

Conservation of Energy and Momentum

During a gravity assist, the overall energy is conserved as the planet loses the
same amount of energy as the spacecraft gains in a heliocentric reference frame.
This is due to the conservation momentum, shown by the equation:

m1 u1 +m2 u 2=m1 v 1+ m2 u2
7

Where :
m1=mass of the planet
m2=mass of the spacecraft
u1=initial velocity of the planet
u2=initial velocity of the spacecraft
v 1=final velocity of the planet
v 2=final velocity of the spacecraft
Since the planet have a greater mass, the change in velocity,

is

insignificant compared to the spacecraft, which have a much smaller mass. Thus,
for the same momentum, the planet hardly loses velocity, while the spacecraft
gains a significant amount of velocity. In the case of the New Horizons mission,
the planet Jupiter loses

1025

Th

of its original velocity, which is a negligible

amount for Jupiter as its travelling at a mean orbital velocity 9of 13.06m/s, thus
the velocity lost is

1.306 1021 m/ s . The same principle applies to reverse gravity assist for
slowing down a spacecraft. As the spacecraft slow down, the planet gains a small
amount of velocity thus energy is conserved.
This is similar to a stacked ball drop experiment where a few balls are dropped
from a height to the ground, in ascending order (heaviest at the bottom), while
the height and the velocity of the balls are measured. Normally, as a ball drops
from a height, its potential energy (from the work done to lift the ball to a greater
height) is converted into kinetic energy. Nevertheless, as the ball loses energy
during the drop, it does not have the same amount of energy it had initially, thus
it will bounce to a height lower than its initial height where the balls are originally
dropped. However, during a stacked ball drop experiment, the smallest ball tends
to have the smallest mass, thus it gains velocity from the larger balls, which
have a larger mass. The kinetic energy of the larger ball is transferred into the
smaller ball, causing the smaller ball bounces to a greater height than its initial
height where it was dropped at.

Our Ball Drop Experiment

To prove and demonstrate the conservation of energy in relation to gravity assist,
my team member and I have planned carried out and analysed data from our
ball drop experiment. Our hypothesis predicts that when the smaller ball is
9 The value is a mean due to Keplers First Law, where the planets orbiting a star must always be an ellipse.
This meant that the velocity varies at different sections of the ellipse, slowing down at the periapsis (the
shortest distance from the centre) and speeding up at the apoapsis (the longest distance from the centre), thus
a mean velocity has determined.

stacked on top of the larger one and dropped simultaneously, the smaller ball will
bounce higher than the initial height it was released due to the conservation of
energy and momentum.
Materials required:
-

Stepladder
Basketball
Tennis Ball
Ping-Pong ball
Squash ball
Rubber band ball
Blu-tack
Camera (capable of recording at a high resolution)
Tripod
Measuring tape
Marker
Sticky notes
Computer (with access to the internet)
Video editing software (Lightworks)
Photo editing software (Microsoft Paint and Pixlr.com)
Pixel Counter

The experiment was taken place next to a pillar against a dark background in
order to provide a high contrast for the footage, so that a more precise
measurement can be taken during the analysis of the ball drop experiment. This
experiment requires a minimum of 3 people to ensure the safety of the
experiment as well as the accuracy of the results obtained. One person should
stay on top of the stepladder for the duration of the experiment, and another
should pass the ball to the person on the ladder. The third person should record
the experiment, making sure the ball is in frame from its highest point.
Method
1) Using the measuring tape, measure the height of 1m on the pillar and
marked it with a thick black line on the sticky note. (This will be used for
scale for the later analysis of the height increase for the smallest ball).
2) Using the Blu-tack, shape it into an O shape to make an O-ring. The size
of the O-ring depends on the ball on top, thus the diameter of the O-ring
for placing under the tennis ball, or the rubber band should be between
5cm-8cm while the diameter of the O-ring for placing under the Ping-Pong
and the squash ball should be within 1cm-2.5cm. An O-ring was not
required for the basketball as the ball was held at the bottom by hand.
3) Set up the camera by placing it on a tripod at a distance of approximately
over 20 metres, and the angle of the camera should point slightly upwards
by 5-15, making sure the bounce is in shot. Confirm this by carrying out
a rough attempt, and adjust accordingly. Mark the location of the tripod so
the distance and the angle of the camera stay consistent.

4) Stacking the tennis ball on top of the O-ring, and stack both on top of the
basketball. Pass the stacked balls to the person on top of the stepladder.
Using the camera, record the drop.
5) Repeat the previous step with the following combinations:
-

Basketball, O-ring and Rubber band

Basketball, O-ring, tennis ball, second O-ring, squash ball
Basketball, O-ring, tennis ball, second O-ring, Ping-Pong ball
Basketball, O-ring, rubber band ball, second O-ring, squash ball
Basketball, O-ring, rubber band ball, second O-ring, Ping-Pong ball
tennis ball, O-ring, squash ball
tennis ball, O-ring, Ping-Pong ball

6) After this, using a video editing software on the computer to find the exact
frame where the smallest ball reaches its lowest point near the ground,
and the highest point after the first bounce. Take a screenshot of each
frame and save each as an image to the computer.
7) Using the photo editing software, overlap the image on top of each other,
and adjust the layer transparency of the pictures so both pictures align,
and that both the lowest point of the smallest ball immediately after the
drop, and the highest point of the ball after the first bounce can be seen
simultaneously. Take a screenshot of this, and open the pixel counter
software.
8) Using the pixel counter, measure the distance between the floor and the
1m mark on the sticky note. Record this number, and divide 1 metre by
the number of pixels there is between the floor and the 1m mark in the
picture to work out the scale factor such that:

Scale factor=

1metre
Number of Pixels

9) Repeat step 8 for the remaining footages, and record the results in the
table (Appendix Actual Table)

Comparison of Methods
For this experiment, other methods can be used to gain similar results as this
one. An alternative, simpler method can be achieved by using a stopwatch to
time the amount of time it takes for the smallest ball to reach its lowest point
immediately after dropping to the highest point of the smallest ball after the
drop. Then, using the equation:

1 2
s=ut + a t
2
Where :
s=Displacement

u=Initial velocity
10

a=Acceleration
t=Time taken
As the balls are dropped vertically in Earths gravitational field, where
acceleration due to gravity is approximately

9.8 m s2 we can assume that the

initial velocity = 0, thus the equation becomes:

s=4.9 t 2

Thus, the height can be calculated using the time taken. Nevertheless, this
method produces a large uncertainty, as the average reaction time to visual
stimulus is 0.2895 seconds, uncertainty for the stopwatch is

0.01 seconds,

while the average time taken for the ball to reach its highest point can be
estimated to be approximately 0.5 seconds. As the percentage uncertainty for
apparatus error is:

Percentage uncertainty=

uncertaintymeasurement
100
Average measurement

The estimated uncertainty for experimental error for the time taken in this
method to 3 significant places is:

0.2895+ 0.1
100=77.9
0.5
As the uncertainty for this method is very large, this method is not utilized for
the experiment.
For the current method, the video editor splits the footage into 24 frames per
second (this is the frame rate of the video) and the shutter speed of the camera
used was 4000 times per second, thus the uncertainty for time to 3 significant
places is:

1
1
+
24 4000
100= 8.38
0.5

Although the uncertainty of this value is still large, is a significant improvement

from the previous method, thus this method is utilized. Nevertheless, to improve
the uncertainty, the frame rate of the video can be increased, which greatly can
reduce the uncertainty. This will be taken into account to improve the accuracy of
the experiment in the future.
Risk Assessment
11

Risk
Unstable ladder

Hazard
Risk of falling from height

Large balls used

Measuring tape

Dropping balls on foot

Can cut skin, and retract
to hurt eyes
Tripping hazard

Tripod

Precaution
A helmet need to be worn
and the ladder need to
be attached to the pillar
with a rope. This needs to
be done by the mentor10.
Handle with care.
Handle with care.
Take care when moving
around the tripod.

Mathematical Methods
Using the equation:

p=mv
Where :

p=Momentum
m=Mass

v =Velocity
The momentum of the balls can be calculated by obtaining the mass of the balls
using a top pan balance (uncertainty

0.02%), and the velocity using the time

taken for the ball to move between the two consecutive frames in the video and
calculate the velocity using the equation:

v=

s
t

Where :
v =velocity

s=displacementheight
t=timetaken

Experiment Results
For the results, there are two tables available for the experiment. One is used for
the actual experiment, and the other is the improved version for the experiment.
10 In our case, we have received the help from our mentor to assist with dropping the ball from the required
height from the step ladder.

12

The actual experiment table is fairly straightforward, where the initial and final
height in pixels is noted and recorded before a percentage is calculated where:

percentage changeheight =

highest rebound height

100
initial height

Experiment Analysis
Overall, the experiment neither proved nor disproved the hypothesis as the data,
the validity of the experiment can be questioned due to the lack of control
variables and repeated attempts. The fact that the balls were held by hand
meant that the balls are dropped from different heights due to the way the way
the arm move when stretched for an extended period of time. The fact that the
balls were not held completely perpendicular to the ground also meant that there
was a horizontal component to the balls position as it bounced up, thus the
height achieved is not the maximum height possible, as work was done on
providing horizontal motion for the smallest ball. The wind in the area also meant
that energy was transferred into horizontal motion for smaller balls, thus making
the measurements inaccurate.
Moreover, even though the footage for individual ball drops (as control
experiments) were recorded, nevertheless, the footage was lost, thus, the
experimental data cannot be analysed. For the footages that were obtained, the
frames of the videos were cropped, thus the ground cannot be seen, and
measurements cannot be taken.
To improve this experiment, 2 camera set-ups will be used, where one is used for
a closer shot of the ball as it falls, and the other is used from a further distance
to film the highest height achieved after the drop. Both will use the metre mark
on the sticky note as a point of reference to calibrate the measurements.
Repeated experiments will be carried out, where each drop will be repeated at
least 3 times until 3 valid attempts are recorded for each drop. To ensure the
fairness of the experiment, the balls will be also be dropped from reverse order,
hence smallest (bottom) to largest (top) as well as the largest (bottom) and
smallest (top) respectively.
To improve the precision of the experiment, the balls will be stacked
perpendicular to the ground, and will be placed placed on top of a trap door
attached to the pillar, where a rope can be pulled to release the balls. This
ensures that the balls will fall vertically, and that the ball will be consistently
dropped from the same height, and this would also improve the safety of the
experiment, as stepladders will not be required for this experiment.
The experiment table can be improved to look like the one attached to the
appendix (Appendix Improved Table). The coloured sections where the balls
should not be dropped for the particular combination as this does not apply to
that particular drop. For instance, if that drop only included the basketball drop
as a controlled experiment, then the tennis ball, squash ball, rubber band ball,
Ping-Pong ball and the O-ring will not be dropped with the basketball, therefore,
13

sections for those will be coloured in and data will not be collected for that
particular combination.
For the calculations required for the data in the table, the highest rebound can
be calculated using the method mentioned in the previous section. The improved
table also have a section on energy lost/gained which lessens the difficulty of
trying to spot the trends within the dataset. The energy lost/gained can be
calculated using:

E=mgh
Where :

E=Energy
m=Mass

h=Height of the smallest ball thelowest point

of the drop the highest drop after the bounce
Conclusion
As an orbital manoeuvre, gravity assist plays an essential part in space travel,
especially for the New Horizons mission to Pluto in July 2015. Its principles rely
heavily on the conservation of energy and momentum while its principles can be
demonstrated using the stacked ball drop experiment. As for the experiment,
although the actual experiment did not demonstrate the principles of gravity
assist, it provided the foundations for a better experiment, thus a future
experiment with better procedures may agree with the hypothesis, and if not, it
may provide better evidence on the reasons behind why the relationship
between the theoretical results and the experimental results, and hopefully
reveal other concepts that was not considered for the current experiment.

14

Appendix
Plutonium in Space
From Suns Frame
To gain velocity:

To reduce velocity:

15

Table 1
Image Source: YanPing Guo and Robert Farquhar, New Horizons Mission Design,
JHU/APL, page 10.

Gravity Assist Analogy

An analogy for the spacecrafts behaviour in the Suns gravity well is like a bike
on the hill. Although the bike gained kinetic energy, its moving uphill, thus its
gaining gravitational potential energy and losing kinetic energy. This is due to the
Conservation of Energy as the First law of Thermodynamics, where:

KE=GPE

16

Thus

1
m v 2=mgh
2
Where :

KE=kinetic energy

GPE=gravitational potential energy

m=Mass

v =velocity
g= Acceleration due gravity

h=Height

Thus the bike loses speed going uphill.

Likewise, during a gravity assist, the bike is the spacecraft going uphill and
up from the suns gravity field, hence it loses kinetic energy, thus its velocity as
well.

17

Bibliography
Mashable, 2015, What is Gravity Assist. Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=0iAGrdITIiE&list=PLbBGM32VSi8xYubkT5NMXHk2WQxyySLyj&index=2
S Super and Dr T. Phillips, 2007. Grand Theft Pluto. Available at:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/26feb_grandtheft/
N.d., anon, Analysing Gravity Assist Mission Comparison. Available at:
http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2011/project_snow/NewHoriz
ons/Mission_Analysis.html
N.d., JHU/APL, Messenger The Journey. Available at:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/faq/faq_journey.html#7
2015 (Last updated), Dr D. Williams, Planetary Fact Sheet Ratio to Earth
Values. Available at:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/planet_table_ratio.html
2015 (Last updated), Glenn Research Center, First Law of thermodynamics.
Available at: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/thermo1.html
N.d., NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, A
Gravity Assist Primer. Available at:
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/grav/primer.php
2013, anon, Gravity Assist. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=JnPmL7hbGaI
2015, A. J. LePage, What About the Next Pluto Mission?. Available at:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2787/1
N.d., Y. Guo and R. W. Farquhar, JHU/APL, New Horizons Mission Design.
Available at: http://www.boulder.swri.edu/pkb/ssr/ssr-mission-design.pdf page 811
2015 (Last updated), anon, Wikipedia, New Horizons. Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Horizons
2014, R. Austin, Surface Gravitational Field Strengths for Numerous Solar
System Objects. Available at:
https://robertlovespi.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/surface-gravitational-fieldstrengths-for-numerous-solar-system-objects/
2015, JHU/APL, Current Position. Available at:
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Mission/Where-is-New-Horizons/index.php#
N.d., J. Boat, N. Daiss-Fechner, Sight or Sound: A study of Reaction Times,
Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/courses/1230jbasey/abstracts
%202005/5.htm
2012, R. Sylvan, Nikon D3200: The Professional Modes. Available at:
http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1930034&seqNum=4
18