Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Covariance — where it appears

The degree to which the errors on two fitted parameters move together. A parameter correlated with others has a formal uncertainty far larger than it would have alone, which is why a published error is often orders of magnitude above the measurement noise.

Named by 4 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

After one revolution the error is 3π times longer than it is wide, and after 300 it is 2827. The two semi-axes of a fitted orbit's position uncertainty, against elapsed revolutions, for a solution whose semi-major axis is uncertain by 12 kilometres. The radial extent does not grow at all: a body on a slightly larger orbit is slightly further out and stays so. The along-track extent grows linearly, because δn/n = −(3/2)δa/a makes a semi-major-axis error into a mean-motion error and a mean-motion error into a phase that runs away — a·δM = 3πN·δa after N revolutions. The ratio is 3π ≈ 9.42 after a single revolution and 2827 after 300, which is why an asteroid recovered after one apparition is found within a few arcseconds of its predicted place along its own track and could be a long way from it in time. Every consequence of this in practice — that an impact probability is a one-dimensional integral rather than a volume, that a keyhole is an interval, that the next observation worth taking is the one across the track rather than the one that fits best — is a restatement of these two lines diverging.

An error that is nearly all in one direction

A fitted orbit's uncertainty is not a ball. Within a few revolutions it has collapsed onto a line along the track, because an error in the size of an orbit is an error in its period and an error in period is a phase that runs away — which is why an impact probability is an integral along a curve rather than over a volume.

orbits · Orbit determination Two interiors, 2.59 mm/s apart, against a floor of 0.02. What a radio link measures when a spacecraft flies past a moon. The horizontal axis is time from closest approach in minutes and the vertical axis is the accumulated change in the line-of-sight velocity in millimetres per second, after the pull of the moon as a point mass has been fitted and removed. What is left is the part of the field that is not spherically symmetric, and the two curves are what two interiors predict for it. The upper one is a body whose tidal Love number is 0.616 — a shell floating on a global liquid layer, free to deform almost as a fluid would. The lower one is a body solid throughout, at 0.03. They differ by 2.59 millimetres per second in the accumulated deflection, against a floor of 0.02 for a coherent two-way X-band link integrated over tens of seconds: 130 standard deviations in a single pass. That ratio is the whole reason the measurement is possible, and it is worth stating what is being compared. The point-mass deflection itself is 837 metres per second — five orders of magnitude larger than the signature of interest — so the interior is not read off the Doppler curve but off the residual left after a model of everything larger has been subtracted: the moon's mass, the planet's, the spacecraft's own thrusting and outgassing, the plasma along the path, the station's motion, and relativity. Every one of those has to be right to a part in a hundred thousand before the last curve here means anything, which is why gravity science needs many passes and a global fit rather than one flyby and a subtraction. The published uncertainty on Titan's k₂ is eleven per cent rather than the fraction of a per cent this signal-to-noise would suggest, and the difference is entirely correlations with the other parameters in that fit — a reminder that a formal error on a curve is not the error on the number extracted from it. The straight-line path assumed here is exact only in the limit of a fast flyby; a slow one bends, and the bending is solved for rather than approximated.

An ocean found in a Doppler residual

A spacecraft flying past a moon is deflected by hundreds of metres a second, and the part of that deflection which says whether the moon has an ocean is two millimetres a second. Everything larger has to be modelled and removed first, exactly, and what is left over is an interior.

spaceflight · Radiometric navigation The best-fitting eccentricity of a circular orbit. What a fitted eccentricity comes out at when the orbit's true eccentricity is 0 and each component of the eccentricity vector carries an error of 0.03. The distribution is not centred on the truth and cannot be: an eccentricity is the length of the vector (e cos ϖ, e sin ϖ), lengths are not negative, and a quantity bounded below by zero whose components scatter symmetrically has a distribution pushed away from the bound. For a circular orbit the most likely fitted value is exactly one error bar, 0.0300 here, and the mean is 0.0376 — 1.2533 error bars, which is √(π/2) and comes from geometry rather than from any property of the data. The practical consequence is a catalogue of small eccentricities that are all measurements of their own error bars, and the fix is not a better fit but a different question: an upper limit rather than a value.

An eccentricity that cannot be zero

Fit an orbit to noisy data and the eccentricity that comes back is never zero, not even when the orbit is a perfect circle. The reason has nothing to do with the data and everything to do with the fact that a length cannot be negative.

orbits · Orbit determination Two diagnostics, two bands, and a crossing to 49 kelvin. The plane of effective temperature against surface gravity, with the constraints from two spectroscopic diagnostics drawn as bands. The wings of a hydrogen line are broadened by collisions, so they respond steeply to the gravity and weakly to the temperature: a narrow, steep band. An ionisation balance — requiring that the same element give the same abundance from its neutral and its singly ionised lines — responds to both, and its band is much shallower. Neither diagnostic determines either quantity on its own. Where the two cross is the answer, and the size of the crossing region is set by the band widths divided by the difference of the slopes — so two diagnostics that respond similarly give a long, thin, nearly useless error region however precise each one is. Choosing diagnostics that disagree in their sensitivities is the whole of the art.

A temperature and a gravity that trade against each other

A stellar spectrum contains the star's temperature, its surface gravity and its composition, and no single feature in it contains only one of the three. Every diagnostic is a band in the parameter plane rather than a point, and the answer is where the bands cross — which makes choosing diagnostics that disagree in their sensitivities the whole of the art.

starlight · Spectra

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Along-track errorArc lengthClone orbitsCondition numberDeep-space networkDegeneracyDoppler trackingEccentricityEccentricity vectorEffective temperatureError propagationExcitation balance

All concepts