What is the closest fly-by of a planet/moon ever completed?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I was thinking that on a fly-by of the moon, due to a lack of atmosphere, you could get really close! Of course, in practice this isnt a very good idea- going 1000m/s 50 meters above ground wouldn't allow for all that much more science and would allow for tons more risk. That being said, what is the closest fly-by ever completed and by what spacecraft? This can include captures, but should only consider the initial perigee of the trajectory before capture burns. For planets without atmosphere the height should be from the surface. For planets with atmosphere the height should be from the karman line of that body (or the surface- whichever makes more sense given the scenario Im assuming no flyby ever intends to dip below the atmosphere of a planet at hyperbolic speeds aside from aerocaptures- which would count).






flyby







share|improve this question





















  • Do you allow asteroids, etc?
    – PearsonArtPhoto♦
    7 hours ago










  • @PearsonArtPhoto I mean, why not to be honest, I'm sure your comment has piqued the interest of some (myself included).
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    49 mins ago















up vote
3
down vote

favorite












I was thinking that on a fly-by of the moon, due to a lack of atmosphere, you could get really close! Of course, in practice this isnt a very good idea- going 1000m/s 50 meters above ground wouldn't allow for all that much more science and would allow for tons more risk. That being said, what is the closest fly-by ever completed and by what spacecraft? This can include captures, but should only consider the initial perigee of the trajectory before capture burns. For planets without atmosphere the height should be from the surface. For planets with atmosphere the height should be from the karman line of that body (or the surface- whichever makes more sense given the scenario Im assuming no flyby ever intends to dip below the atmosphere of a planet at hyperbolic speeds aside from aerocaptures- which would count).






flyby







share|improve this question





















  • Do you allow asteroids, etc?
    – PearsonArtPhoto♦
    7 hours ago










  • @PearsonArtPhoto I mean, why not to be honest, I'm sure your comment has piqued the interest of some (myself included).
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    49 mins ago













up vote
3
down vote

favorite









up vote
3
down vote

favorite











I was thinking that on a fly-by of the moon, due to a lack of atmosphere, you could get really close! Of course, in practice this isnt a very good idea- going 1000m/s 50 meters above ground wouldn't allow for all that much more science and would allow for tons more risk. That being said, what is the closest fly-by ever completed and by what spacecraft? This can include captures, but should only consider the initial perigee of the trajectory before capture burns. For planets without atmosphere the height should be from the surface. For planets with atmosphere the height should be from the karman line of that body (or the surface- whichever makes more sense given the scenario Im assuming no flyby ever intends to dip below the atmosphere of a planet at hyperbolic speeds aside from aerocaptures- which would count).






flyby







share|improve this question













I was thinking that on a fly-by of the moon, due to a lack of atmosphere, you could get really close! Of course, in practice this isnt a very good idea- going 1000m/s 50 meters above ground wouldn't allow for all that much more science and would allow for tons more risk. That being said, what is the closest fly-by ever completed and by what spacecraft? This can include captures, but should only consider the initial perigee of the trajectory before capture burns. For planets without atmosphere the height should be from the surface. For planets with atmosphere the height should be from the karman line of that body (or the surface- whichever makes more sense given the scenario Im assuming no flyby ever intends to dip below the atmosphere of a planet at hyperbolic speeds aside from aerocaptures- which would count).






flyby




flyby






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 7 hours ago









Magic Octopus Urn

1,6791934




1,6791934











  • Do you allow asteroids, etc?
    – PearsonArtPhoto♦
    7 hours ago










  • @PearsonArtPhoto I mean, why not to be honest, I'm sure your comment has piqued the interest of some (myself included).
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    49 mins ago

















  • Do you allow asteroids, etc?
    – PearsonArtPhoto♦
    7 hours ago










  • @PearsonArtPhoto I mean, why not to be honest, I'm sure your comment has piqued the interest of some (myself included).
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    49 mins ago
















Do you allow asteroids, etc?
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
7 hours ago




Do you allow asteroids, etc?
– PearsonArtPhoto♦
7 hours ago












@PearsonArtPhoto I mean, why not to be honest, I'm sure your comment has piqued the interest of some (myself included).
– Magic Octopus Urn
49 mins ago





@PearsonArtPhoto I mean, why not to be honest, I'm sure your comment has piqued the interest of some (myself included).
– Magic Octopus Urn
49 mins ago











1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote













Here's a list of what the closest flybys that I have found of several objects. For Cassini and Galileo, I took the closest approaches they had to any object, pre-impact.



  • Earth: Galileo- 301 km

  • Moon- Apollo 13- 254 km

  • Mars- Rosetta- 250 km

  • Mercury- Messenger- 200 km

  • Amalthea- Galileo- 160 km

  • Enceladus- Cassini- 25 km

I guess the gas giant moons were selected because a significant amount of time was present to get a good orbital trajectory, and the orbits are relatively short. It could be known with precision where the spacecraft would be. With, say Pluto, the knowledge of where it is is only to within a thousand kilometers or so, so some margin for error is required!






share|improve this answer






















  • I hadn't thought of non-manmade objects. Also Cassini got THAT close? I hadn't known. Amazing.
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    46 mins ago










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',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
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%2f31526%2fwhat-is-the-closest-fly-by-of-a-planet-moon-ever-completed%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote













Here's a list of what the closest flybys that I have found of several objects. For Cassini and Galileo, I took the closest approaches they had to any object, pre-impact.



  • Earth: Galileo- 301 km

  • Moon- Apollo 13- 254 km

  • Mars- Rosetta- 250 km

  • Mercury- Messenger- 200 km

  • Amalthea- Galileo- 160 km

  • Enceladus- Cassini- 25 km

I guess the gas giant moons were selected because a significant amount of time was present to get a good orbital trajectory, and the orbits are relatively short. It could be known with precision where the spacecraft would be. With, say Pluto, the knowledge of where it is is only to within a thousand kilometers or so, so some margin for error is required!






share|improve this answer






















  • I hadn't thought of non-manmade objects. Also Cassini got THAT close? I hadn't known. Amazing.
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    46 mins ago














up vote
4
down vote













Here's a list of what the closest flybys that I have found of several objects. For Cassini and Galileo, I took the closest approaches they had to any object, pre-impact.



  • Earth: Galileo- 301 km

  • Moon- Apollo 13- 254 km

  • Mars- Rosetta- 250 km

  • Mercury- Messenger- 200 km

  • Amalthea- Galileo- 160 km

  • Enceladus- Cassini- 25 km

I guess the gas giant moons were selected because a significant amount of time was present to get a good orbital trajectory, and the orbits are relatively short. It could be known with precision where the spacecraft would be. With, say Pluto, the knowledge of where it is is only to within a thousand kilometers or so, so some margin for error is required!






share|improve this answer






















  • I hadn't thought of non-manmade objects. Also Cassini got THAT close? I hadn't known. Amazing.
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    46 mins ago












up vote
4
down vote










up vote
4
down vote









Here's a list of what the closest flybys that I have found of several objects. For Cassini and Galileo, I took the closest approaches they had to any object, pre-impact.



  • Earth: Galileo- 301 km

  • Moon- Apollo 13- 254 km

  • Mars- Rosetta- 250 km

  • Mercury- Messenger- 200 km

  • Amalthea- Galileo- 160 km

  • Enceladus- Cassini- 25 km

I guess the gas giant moons were selected because a significant amount of time was present to get a good orbital trajectory, and the orbits are relatively short. It could be known with precision where the spacecraft would be. With, say Pluto, the knowledge of where it is is only to within a thousand kilometers or so, so some margin for error is required!






share|improve this answer














Here's a list of what the closest flybys that I have found of several objects. For Cassini and Galileo, I took the closest approaches they had to any object, pre-impact.



  • Earth: Galileo- 301 km

  • Moon- Apollo 13- 254 km

  • Mars- Rosetta- 250 km

  • Mercury- Messenger- 200 km

  • Amalthea- Galileo- 160 km

  • Enceladus- Cassini- 25 km

I guess the gas giant moons were selected because a significant amount of time was present to get a good orbital trajectory, and the orbits are relatively short. It could be known with precision where the spacecraft would be. With, say Pluto, the knowledge of where it is is only to within a thousand kilometers or so, so some margin for error is required!







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 6 hours ago









PearsonArtPhoto♦

77.6k16217423




77.6k16217423











  • I hadn't thought of non-manmade objects. Also Cassini got THAT close? I hadn't known. Amazing.
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    46 mins ago
















  • I hadn't thought of non-manmade objects. Also Cassini got THAT close? I hadn't known. Amazing.
    – Magic Octopus Urn
    46 mins ago















I hadn't thought of non-manmade objects. Also Cassini got THAT close? I hadn't known. Amazing.
– Magic Octopus Urn
46 mins ago




I hadn't thought of non-manmade objects. Also Cassini got THAT close? I hadn't known. Amazing.
– Magic Octopus Urn
46 mins ago

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31526%2fwhat-is-the-closest-fly-by-of-a-planet-moon-ever-completed%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Long meetings (6-7 hours a day): Being “babysat” by supervisor

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 31 down vote favorite 4 I hold a PhD in mechanical engineering with a 7 year background in self-guided, self-paced research including 2 years as a graduate level course instructor and a subject matter expert for various engineering projects in a university setting in the United States. For the last 10-11 months, I am working in a research industry in France where my task is to debug C++ spaghetti code written over a period of several years by my current supervisor. It is a team of 2: just I and my supervisor. Diurnally, I am posed with a "bug of the day" to get out of this C++ code. My supervisor generally gives me about 15-30 minutes to solve it and then accosts me about whether or not the task is completed and then rinses and repeats this until the end of the day. Off-late, my supervisor has been holding 6-7 hour long "meetin
Read more

Is the Concept of Multiple Fantasy Races Scientifically Flawed? [closed]

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite Many fantasy worlds have multiple humanoid species (elves, orcs, humans, etc) living in the same world, in addition to that, they often have the ability to interbreed. And I can't help but question their believability... fantasy-races reproduction interspecies-relations share | improve this question edited Aug 9 at 14:46 Michael Kjörling ♦ 21.1k 10 85 161 asked Aug 9 at 13:13 Chlodio 118 6 closed as unclear what you're asking by MichaelK, Gryphon, John, Vincent, Frostfyre Aug 9 at 15:25 Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question. 3 Stack Exchange exist to
Read more

Confectionery

Image
Prepared foods made with a lot of sugar or other cabohydrates "Sweetmeat" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Sweetmeat (horse). Not to be confused with Sweetbread. This Kransekake is a traditional Scandinavian baker's confection. Confectionery is the art of making confections , which are food items that are rich in sugar and carbohydrates. Exact definitions are difficult. [1] In general, though, confectionery is divided into two broad and somewhat overlapping categories, bakers' confections and sugar confections. [2] Bakers' confectionery, also called flour confections , includes principally sweet pastries, cakes, and similar baked goods. Sugar confectionery includes candies ( sweets in British English), candied nuts, chocolates, chewing gum, bubble gum, pastillage, and other confections that are made primarily of sugar. In some cases, chocolate confections (confections made of chocolate) are treated as a separate category, as are sugar-free versions of
Read more