Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Kepler's equation — where it appears

The transcendental relation M = E − e sin E, which converts elapsed time on an elliptical orbit into a position and has no closed-form inverse. It is solved by Newton's method in a handful of iterations for a moderate eccentricity, and by other means near a parabola where the iteration stops converging.

Named by 11 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Equal areas in equal times, at eccentricity 0.65. Positions of an orbiting body at equal intervals of time, obtained by solving Kepler's equation. The two shaded sectors span the same interval and enclose the same area — a long thin one at the far end, a short fat one at the close approach.

Equal areas in equal times, which is angular momentum in disguise

Kepler's second law is a statement about the area a radius line sweeps. It looks like an odd thing to have noticed, and it turns out to be a conservation law arriving eighty years early.

orbits · Angular momentum The three anomalies at E = 1.15 rad. The auxiliary circle construction. The eccentric anomaly E is measured at the centre, the true anomaly ν at the focus, and the mean anomaly M is time expressed as an angle. Here E = 1.150, ν = 1.827 and M = 0.602 radians, related by M = E − e sin E.

The position that has no formula, and is computed anyway

Kepler's equation relates where a body is to when it is there. It cannot be solved in elementary functions, Kepler said so, and nobody has managed it since — which has stopped nothing.

orbits · The ellipse One series, two eccentricities, and a limit between them. The Lagrange series for E − M, summed to 1, 2, 3, 6, 22 terms, against the exact solution of Kepler's equation, over half a revolution. Left, at e = 0.5: the partial sums close on the exact curve and the last two are indistinguishable from it. Right, at e = 0.8: they do not, and the 22-term sum is worse than the 1-term one, missing the exact value by 0.24 radians at M = π/2. Nothing about the orbit changes between the two panels — an eccentricity of 0.8 is an ordinary comet — and nothing about the equation changes either. What changes is that a singularity of E as a function of complex e has come inside the circle of radius e, at the Laplace limit 0.6627434, which is the root of e·exp√(1+e²) = 1 + √(1+e²) and has no astronomical meaning whatever. The coefficients are computed from the Bessel expansion in logarithms; the first two are sin M and ½sin 2M exactly, which is what the generator asserts before drawing.

The formula that exists, and is not used

Kepler's equation does have a closed-form solution — an infinite series in the eccentricity, written down by Lagrange. It converges up to e = 0.6627434 and not one part beyond, and that number has nothing to do with astronomy.

orbits · The ellipse 1I/ʻOumuamua: an orbit at e = 1.201, and the angle it turned through. The open branch of a conic at eccentricity 1.201 and periapsis 0.2559 AU, with the Sun at the occupied focus. Two numbers fix everything else: |a| = q/(e−1) = 1.273 AU, an impact parameter b = |a|√(e²−1) = 0.847 AU, an asymptote at ν∞ = arccos(−1/e) = 146.37° from periapsis, and a deflection of δ = 2ν∞ − 180° = 112.74° — which is the same statement as sin(δ/2) = 1/e. The asymptotes cross at |a|e = 1.529 AU from the Sun on the periapsis side, where a bound orbit's centre would be on the other. The speed left over at infinity is √(μ/|a|) = 26.40 km/s. Schematic in one respect: the drawing runs at about 119 px to the AU, so the Sun's own disc would be far smaller than its marker.

The orbit that has no period

Above an eccentricity of 1 the conic is open, the energy is positive and the semi-major axis is negative — and the vis-viva relation survives the sign change without a single alteration. What replaces the period is a speed, and that speed is what says where a visitor came from.

orbits · Hyperbolic orbits Ceres from five directions and no distance. Ceres seen five times over 41 days, from an Earth on a circular orbit, reduced in the plane. Each sighting gives a direction and no range, so the object is somewhere on its sight line; the five lines here span 1.37° of geocentric arc altogether, and Earth's own motion supplies the only baseline there is — 0.403 AU of its 0.691 AU of travel lies across the sight lines. A planar orbit is four numbers, so five angles over-determine it and one orbit comes out: a = 2.7658 AU, e = 0.0785. That is the answer and not an input — the sightings were generated at a = 2.7658 AU and e = 0.0785, and the solve, which sees only the directions and the dates, returns them to 3e-12. The two shaded sectors are what closes the determination: between the first and middle sightings the radius vector sweeps 0.2993 AU² in 21.0 days and between the middle and last 0.2853 AU² in 20.0 days, a ratio of 1.04918 against a time ratio of 1.04918. Slide all three crossings out along their sight lines together and that equality fails at once, so it fixes the distance by itself, with no propagation anywhere in the argument — and it gives a = 2.7658 AU over again. The two dashed curves are candidates that thread the same three sight lines at 85% and 108% of the recovered distance: a = 1.86 AU at e = 0.35, sweeping its areas in a ratio 4.5% wrong; and a = 5.61 AU at e = 0.49, sweeping its areas in a ratio 2.9% wrong. A few per cent in the distance is an orbit of another kind, which is the same fact the conditioning panel measures: one arcsecond of angle error moves a by 0.60% on this arc.

Five directions and no distance among them

An image of a moving point records an angle and throws the range away, so an orbit has to be assembled out of angles alone. How many angles are needed is not a detail of the method — it is the whole of what a determination is.

orbits · Orbit determination Four conics through one periapsis, drawn by one solve. Distance from the Sun against time for four orbits sharing a periapsis of 0.5 AU, at e = 0.6, e = 1, e = 1.0001, e = 1.4, over 900 days. Every point on every curve came from the same universal Kepler solve — no branch on the conic class anywhere in it — and each curve was then checked against the classical solution of its own kind at the midpoint: Kepler's equation at e = 0.6 agrees to machine precision; Barker's cubic at e = 1 agrees to machine precision; e sinh H − H at e = 1.0001 agrees to machine precision; e sinh H − H at e = 1.4 agrees to machine precision. The curve to read twice is e = 1.0001: over this arc it lies within 0.02% of the parabola and is indistinguishable from it, and it is the only one of the four whose fate the drawing cannot show. What the classical parameterisation costs there is arithmetic rather than impossibility: at the midpoint of this arc, e sinh H − H throws away 3.3 of its sixteen digits to cancellation, against 0.2 at e = 1.4 — enough to matter to an ephemeris and not enough to stop a plot.

The one solve that does not ask which conic it is

Kepler's equation is for ellipses, Barker's cubic for parabolas, and a hyperbolic sine for the rest — three parameterisations of one motion, each worst exactly where its neighbour takes over. The universal variable removes the question, and the removal is not a convenience.

orbits · Universal variables Four averages of one distance, and the two of them that are the semi-major axis. The average distance of a body from its primary, against eccentricity and in units of the semi-major axis, computed four ways: averaged over time, over true anomaly, over eccentric anomaly, and as the harmonic mean in time. Every curve is a quadrature over the orbit — 2,048 panels uniform in eccentric anomaly, with Kepler's equation supplying the time weight — and not a closed form. Two of the four are exactly a at every eccentricity, which is why they are drawn as one line: the eccentric-anomaly average, because the mean of cos E over a turn is zero, and the harmonic mean in time, because the time weight cancels 1/r at every node before the sum begins. The other two are not: the time average is a(1 + e²/2), which rises to 1.4050 a at e = 0.9, and the true-anomaly average is a√(1−e²) — the semi-minor axis — which falls to 0.4359 a there. So a is the average distance in two senses out of four, and the ordering b ≤ a ≤ ⟨r⟩ₜ holds at every eccentricity with equality only on the circle. At Earth's e = 0.0167 the four agree to 0.014%, and at Mercury's e = 0.2056 the spread is 2.14%. The distinction is invisible for the planets and unavoidable for a comet, and it is the reason a quoted "mean distance" has to say which mean.

The average depends on what is being averaged

Four ways of averaging one orbit's distance from its primary give four different numbers, and only two of them are the semi-major axis. Which two is not a matter of convention, and the same arithmetic decides how much sunlight a planet receives in a year.

orbits · Orbital averages Flight time against semi-major axis, for a fixed 135° sweep. Lambert's theorem drawn: the time to fly between two points 1 and 1.524 AU out and 135° apart, against the semi-major axis of the orbit that does it. Nothing else about the orbit enters — not its eccentricity, not where its periapsis is, not how it is oriented — which is the content of the theorem and the reason a two-point transfer is a one-dimensional search rather than a six-dimensional one. Two branches: the lower one is the ellipse whose arc stays short of apoapsis, falling towards the parabolic floor at 103.2 days as a grows without limit; the upper one is the ellipse of the same size whose arc runs through apoapsis, rising without limit. They meet at a = s/2 = 1.2161 AU, 244.2 days, which is the minimum-energy transfer and the slowest ellipse available — every faster one is bigger. Each branch is monotone, checked point by point across the drawn range, so a horizontal line cuts each at most once: for a given pair of points and a given time there is exactly one ellipse, and at 260 days it is a = 1.2189 AU on the upper branch. The freedom a mission designer has is not in this picture: it is the choice of the two points, which is what a porkchop plot sweeps.

Two places and a clock decide the path

The time to fly between two points depends on the semi-major axis, the chord between them, and the sum of their distances — and on nothing else about the orbit. Not the eccentricity, not where periapsis is, not the orientation. Lambert's theorem is why an interplanetary launch date is the root of one equation.

orbits · Lambert's problem Energy error over 240 revolutions, at one step size. The relative error in total energy against revolution number, for three integrators run on the same Kepler orbit at e = 0.5 with the same step of 200 per revolution. The exact energy is a constant, so every curve here is the method rather than the problem. Euler climbs steadily: its energy at the end is 106.5% wrong, and the orbit it draws has spiralled outwards. Runge–Kutta 4 begins 4.7e+2 times more accurate than leapfrog and ends at 2.22e-4, having grown by a factor of 10 across the run: the error is SECULAR. Leapfrog oscillates inside a band and stays there — worst error 2.62e-3, and the second half of the run is no worse than the first, which is measured here rather than claimed. That is the property that decides whether a five-billion-year integration means anything, and it is not accuracy: a symplectic method is the exact solution of a Hamiltonian a step-size away from the intended one, so its energy cannot wander, while a more accurate non-symplectic method has no such constraint and eventually wanders further.

Wrong about where, and right about how much

Runge–Kutta is the more accurate method and loses energy steadily; leapfrog is cruder and its energy error never leaves a band. Over five billion years only one of those properties survives — and neither method knows where the planet is.

gravitation · Numerical integration The equation of time, and its two causes. The difference between a sundial and a clock over the year, in minutes, computed from Kepler's equation and the tilt. The eccentricity term has one cycle a year and the obliquity term has two; their sum runs from −14.2 to 16.4 minutes.

Two fictitious suns in sequence

The equation of time is usually described as one quantity with two causes. It is better read as two separate reductions, each with its own imaginary body — one that moves uniformly along the ecliptic and one that moves uniformly along the equator — and the second is not the first.

sky · Equation of time Three biases against eccentricity, and they do not agree. Four quantities against orbital eccentricity, each relative to a circular orbit of the same semi-major axis, averaged over the argument of periastron. The transit probability rises as (1 − e²)⁻¹, because an eccentric planet spends part of its orbit inside its own semi-major axis: at e = 0.5 a transit is 1.33 times as likely. The transit duration falls as √(1 − e²), so the event carries less signal-to-noise, and the two together — probability times the square root of the time in transit — come to 1.24 at the same eccentricity. They very nearly cancel, and that is the surprise: a transit survey has almost no eccentricity bias at all. The radial-velocity curve is the one that does. A Keplerian of eccentricity e puts less of its variance in the fundamental and more into harmonics no sinusoidal search is looking at — 68 per cent remains at e = 0.6 and 47 per cent at e = 0.8 — so a velocity survey loses amplitude exactly where a transit survey does not. What no figure here can show is which of these the measured eccentricity distribution is made of, because the correction depends on a detection pipeline rather than on geometry, and the two surveys have to be corrected separately before their answers can be compared.

Every method prefers a circle, and not for the same reason

A transit is more likely on an eccentric orbit and shorter when it happens, and the two very nearly cancel. A velocity curve loses amplitude to harmonics no sinusoidal search is looking at, and that one does not cancel at all.

exoplanets · Detection bias

Named alongside it

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

EccentricitySemi-major axisAnomalyConic sectionsMean anomalyOrbital elementsOrbital energyPeriapsisTrue anomalyAngular momentumCharacteristic energyConditioning

All concepts