3 ms·
After doing some cursory Google searches on relative motion in orbit, establishing a rotating frame seems standard to me. Even the original Clohessy-Wiltshire p
by kmm 3y ago
After doing some cursory Google searches on relative motion in orbit, establishing a rotating frame seems standard to me. Even the original Clohessy-Wiltshire paper[1] starts by doing that.
As a physicist, though admittedly not working in orbital mechanics, I can assure you working with non-inertial frames and their concomitant pseudoforces is nothing out of the ordinary. Whether or not these forces are "magical" or even "real" is more of a philosophical question, secondary to the fact of their utility.
1: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/8.8704 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/8.8704
- dabluecaboose 3y agoAppreciate the link! I actually dabbled with Clohessy-Wiltshire equations in some higher-level orbital classes years ago. I haven't done anything with spacecraft rendezvous since college so it definitely fell off my radar. As for the "existence" of the force, I suppose you're right in that it can get quite philosophical, as even our "Earth-Centered Inertial" reference frame isn't truly inertial.