What's a good second book on space flight?

[martincmartin]

I've read Fundamentals of Astrodynamics (BMW), but it skips interesting things like aerodynamics, plus e.g. it doesn't prove that burning at periapsis is the most efficient way to raise apoapsis and other similar questions.

So what's a book that goes another level deeper?

I'm partly motivated by building and piloting rockets for KSP, but also partly for intellectual curiosity.

Edited March 9, 2016 by martincmartin

[Steel]

I guess the first thing to ask is what exactly do you want to know and what is your mathematical competency? A lot of the more in depth stuff tends to be more separated by topic than introductory material is.

[martincmartin]

17 minutes ago, Steel said:

I guess the first thing to ask is what exactly do you want to know and what is your mathematical competency? A lot of the more in depth stuff tends to be more separated by topic than introductory material is.

Good questions.  In KSP I'm currently wrestling with ascent through an atmosphere.  How do you trade off wanting to get out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible (to minimize losses due to gravity, i.e. get as much delta-V at high speeds as possible) vs wanting to minimize aerodynamic drag, which gets worse as you go faster?  How did they figure this stuff out in the 1950s and 1960s with computers that were less powerful than a FitBit?  I'm looking for a mental framework to help think about these things.

As for mathematical competency, for now you can assume I have a solid undergraduate education in math, especially calculus and linear algebra.  That was mostly true 20 years ago, and I could try brushing up on those again if need be.

Thanks!

[Bill Phil]

I think I've got a very interesting one at home... I'll get back to you.

[mikegarrison]

8 minutes ago, martincmartin said:

Good questions.  In KSP I'm currently wrestling with ascent through an atmosphere.  How do you trade off wanting to get out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible (to minimize losses due to gravity, i.e. get as much delta-V at high speeds as possible) vs wanting to minimize aerodynamic drag, which gets worse as you go faster?  How did they figure this stuff out in the 1950s and 1960s with computers that were less powerful than a FitBit?  I'm looking for a mental framework to help think about these things.

As for mathematical competency, for now you can assume I have a solid undergraduate education in math, especially calculus and linear algebra.  That was mostly true 20 years ago, and I could try brushing up on those again if need be.

Thanks!

Keep in mind that KSP is not the real Earth. Especially when it comes to the atmosphere and flight.

[Kerbart]

9 minutes ago, martincmartin said:

Good questions.  In KSP I'm currently wrestling with ascent through an atmosphere.  How do you trade off wanting to get out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible (to minimize losses due to gravity, i.e. get as much delta-V at high speeds as possible) vs wanting to minimize aerodynamic drag, which gets worse as you go faster?

Apparently the trick is to stay at terminal velocity at all times. I remember vaguely seeing the proof for it once though I was too tired to go through it and convince myself that it's indeed the way to go, but it seems to be repeated by many people.

Now you have to figure out the terminal velocity for your launch vehicle at each altitude, but that should be easier.

[martincmartin]

Just now, mikegarrison said:

Keep in mind that KSP is not the real Earth. Especially when it comes to the atmosphere and flight.

True, but hopefully a lot of the "lessons learned" are similar.  Especially with the updated aerodynamics in 1.0.5, with a mostly proper aerodynamic model and a Cd * S that changes with Mach and (pseudo-)Reynolds number.

And in the end, if I end up learning stuff that applies on Earth but not in KSP, well I still learned something interesting.

[martincmartin]

13 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Apparently the trick is to stay at terminal velocity at all times. I remember vaguely seeing the proof for it once though I was too tired to go through it and convince myself that it's indeed the way to go, but it seems to be repeated by many people.

Now you have to figure out the terminal velocity for your launch vehicle at each altitude, but that should be easier.

You can read about that here:

Unfortunately, it's only true for the old, pre-1.0 drag model, where drag was proportional to mass.  That simplified things, because gravity is also proportional to mass, so that mass term drops out, which is handy because you get the same answer (terminal velocity) no matter how much fuel you've burned.  Once drag doesn't depend on mass (as in real life and KSP 1.0), it gets more complicated.

[Waxing_Kibbous]

https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19720008133

[Spaceception]

@martincmartin Wizards, Aliens, and Starships is pretty good, and has a lot of math in it too

Edited March 10, 2016 by Spaceception

[martincmartin]

On 3/9/2016 at 4:35 PM, Bill Phil said:

I think I've got a very interesting one at home... I'll get back to you.

Hey Bill, any word on this book?

[Snark]

Arthur C. Clarke's Interplanetary Flight is a classic, and well worth reading.  Written in 1950 and still good.  It's been a few years since I last read it, so I don't recall how much math is in there, but it's well worth taking a look at.

Peripherally related, a book that's not really what you're looking for, but a great read nonetheless if you can find a copy in a library somewhere:  A while back I happened to be browsing through the used-books section of the kind of antique store that has books from the last century or so, and came across a little gem titled The Coming Age of Rocket Power, by G. Edward Pendray, copyright 1945.  Not a super lot of math, but it gives a fascinating overview of the early rocket age, and has a lot of discussion of the practical difficulties of rocket-powered spaceflight that are relevant even today.  It's a great historical perspective.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Snark

[martincmartin]

Thanks Snark!  I'm reading Ways to Spaceflight as suggested by Waxing_Kibbous and enjoying it, I'll try to check out those others.

[Jeb1969]

NASA Astronaut Jim Lovell and Jeffery Kluger have a book that talks in detail about the Apollo 13 mission, reader be warned it is very technical, also note in hardback it goes under the title of Lost Moon, but in paperback it goes under the title of Apollo 13, It is the same book Ron Howard used to base his 1995 epic film also titled Apollo 13. Regardless it is a very satisfying read. 

[wumpus]

I found this in my parents collection long ago, and re-read it for a better understanding of flinging kerbals where no kerbal has gone before.

http://www.amazon.com/Space-Flight-Early-thoughts-projections/dp/B0000CK2Z4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451578393&sr=8-1&keywords=space+flight+by+carsbie+adams

On the other hand, it is designed as a *first* book on rocket science (it was hastily published right after Sputnik).  As such, it tends to be on the undergraduate level, but makes no assumption of knowing *any* rocket science.  It is also widely speculative of manned flight, considering it was written before Yuri Gagarin made his flight.

As far as proving burning at pe is the most efficient means of raising ap, I would guess that any book that derived:

V²=GM(2/r - 1/a)

would be able to leave that as an exercise for reader.  I remember writing out the derivation for the Newton's gravity equation via circular orbits during a physics exam.  Doing the derivation for elliptical orbits pretty much requires simultaneous differential equations and getting them back to 1/a must be interesting.  Of course, you could always wimp out and derive the velocity of circular orbits from Newton, then derive the ratio of the change in velocity due to position on the ellipse using Keplar's laws.

I'm afraid the biggest issue is your premise.  "X for dummies" showed that writing a "first book for x" is rather easy and useful.  Going deeper tends to lead to an entire bookshelf.  I might want to track down the Clarke book: he seems most likely to have written the "best first book".

[tater]

Krafft Ehricke's books on space flight are good. Good luck finding volume 2 though (it's usually over $100).