Isn't it time, as the process is becoming normalized (as with the Artemis project) to start using the term "(gravitational) slingshot" in headlines?
- 8/2025 Venus flyby
- 2nd and 3rd Earth flybys 9/2026 and 1/2029
- 7/2031 arrives Jupiter; Jupiter orbit insertion and apocentre reduction with multiple Ganymede gravity assists
- 1/2032 .. 11/2034 Reduction of velocity with Ganymede–Callisto assists. Increase inclination with 10–12 Callisto gravity assists.
- 12/2034 enter Ganymede orbit for its close-up science mission
- 12/2035 will impact on Ganymede when runs out of propellant
summarizing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Explorer#Sum...
I'm not a fan of this inexact and incorrect language.
"Rerouted" means that the route was changed, not that the trajectory was changed. The route was planned before launch, and that hasn't changed. The headline makes it seem like there was an unplanned change.
“using the gravity of Earth to send it Venus-bound”
While technically correct, this sentence is misleading. The ESA can do better.
Passing by a body can deflect a spacecraft. So technically, the Earth’s gravity sends the craft “Venus bound.” But “the gravity of Earth” imparts no net delta-v and wouldn’t on its own allow the craft to reach Venus.
A “gravity assist around a planet changes a spacecraft's velocity (relative to the Sun) by entering and leaving the gravitational sphere of influence of a planet” [1]. The Earth’s revolution around the Sun gets the craft to Venus, not the Earth’s gravity.
In other news, Lunchables may soon be meeting its demise: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lunchables-lead-sodium-consumer...
Here's a deep link to an animated overview
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2024/08/Juice_s_lu...
(for those that are more visual)