Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Orbital decay — where it appears

The steady shrinking of an orbit under a dissipative force, which lowers the energy and therefore raises the speed of the body being braked. The paradox is that drag makes a satellite faster, because the energy lost lowers the orbit and a lower orbit is a quicker one.

Named by 6 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Down by 280 km, and faster by 164 m/s. A circular orbit at 400 km with a ballistic coefficient of 100 kg/m², integrated down to 120 km through a tabulated atmosphere at solar minimum and solar maximum. At solar min it takes 1.2 years; at solar max it takes 147 days — a factor of 2.9 for the same satellite in the same orbit, decided by an eleven-year cycle nobody controls. The rising curves are the orbital speed on the right-hand scale, and they are the point: the drag force is opposite the motion and takes energy out, and the body goes faster, from 7673 to 7836 m/s. There is no contradiction in it. The specific energy is −μ/2a, so removing energy shrinks a, and the circular speed √(μ/a) rises when a falls; the kinetic energy gained is exactly half the potential energy lost, and the other half is what the air took. Every point on every curve was integrated from da/dt = −(ρ/β)√(μa), and the speed at each point is √(μ/a) at that point rather than a separate model.

An orbit that speeds up as it is slowed down

Drag takes energy out of a satellite and the satellite goes faster. There is no paradox in it, only a sign — and the same sign makes a re-entry date a space-weather forecast rather than an orbital computation, which is why Skylab was predicted for 1983 and came down in 1979.

spaceflight · Atmospheric drag Everything close in is circular, and nothing else has to be. Orbital eccentricity against period for fifteen real planets, with the tidal circularisation boundary computed from τ_e = (2/21)(Q′/n)(M_p/M⋆)(a/R_p)⁵ for a Jupiter with Q′ = 1e+6 and an age of 3 billion years. It falls at 4.5 days, and the reason it is a wall rather than a slope is the fifth power: at half the period the timescale is 91 times shorter. Nothing inside it has a measurable eccentricity, and outside it eccentricities run to 0.95 — which is the number to hold on to, because a planet on a 0.93 orbit at 111 days comes within 0.030 AU of its star at periastron, closer than Mercury, and is being circularised as it is observed.

A planet where one cannot form

A Jupiter at four days orbits inside a region that was too hot to hold ice and too small to hold the material. It did not form there — and the distribution of eccentricities says which of two journeys brought it in.

exoplanets · Planet migration Dynamical friction is strongest at 0.97 times the dispersion, and weaker either side. The dynamical friction on a body moving through a Maxwellian sea of stars, against its own speed in units of the square root of two times the velocity dispersion. The dashed curve is the fraction of the field moving slower than the body, which is the only part of the field that contributes: a star overtaking from behind pulls the body forward exactly as often as one being overtaken pulls it back, so the fast tail cancels out entirely. That fraction rises from nothing to one. The drag is that fraction divided by the square of the speed, and the quotient of a saturating numerator and a growing denominator has a single maximum, here at 0.97. The consequences run in both directions. A body moving much faster than the stars around it is barely slowed at all, which is why a galaxy passing through a cluster at a thousand kilometres a second does not sink; and a body already at rest with respect to the field feels nothing either, because there is no wake to be behind it. Sinking is therefore fastest in the middle of the process rather than at the start of it.

A drag that is strongest in the middle

Dynamical friction is not like air resistance. Only the stars moving slower than the body contribute at all, so the drag rises from nothing, peaks when the body has slowed to about the speed of everything around it, and falls away again — which is why a fast satellite is never captured and a slow one sinks in a hurry.

gravitation · Dynamical friction The drag coefficient of a sphere runs from 2.03 to 2.79, and 2.2 is a convention. The free-molecular drag coefficient of a sphere against the accommodation coefficient — the fraction of striking molecules that thermalise with the surface and leave in a cosine distribution rather than bouncing — at speed ratios 2, 4, 8, with the surface at 0.3 times the flow's temperature. Specular reflection gives 2.469 at the lowest speed ratio drawn and 2.001 in the hypersonic limit, where every molecule delivers exactly twice its own momentum. Accommodation adds the re-emitted flux, which leaves at the wall temperature in a direction the flow did not choose, and it adds most where the speed ratio is smallest — which is high up, where the light species dominate. The conventional 2.2 lies outside this family at both ends: at s = 8 a sphere reaches only 2.112 even at full accommodation, and at s = 2 it is already 2.469 with none. That is not a defect of the arithmetic — 2.2 is a fitted average for satellite shapes, whose flat panels have a higher coefficient than a sphere of the same projected area, and the sphere is drawn because it is the one geometry with a closed form. What survives the shape is the dependence: a satellite's drag coefficient is an assumption about its surface chemistry and its attitude, and every density inferred from drag carries it in inverse proportion.

A coefficient that belongs to the surface, not the satellite

Every density ever inferred from satellite drag was divided by a drag coefficient, and that coefficient is not a property of the spacecraft. It is a property of what happens when an oxygen atom at eight kilometres a second strikes a surface it has already coated — and the conventional 2.2 is a convention.

spaceflight · Atmospheric drag Assimilation buys a factor of 3.6 at 2 hours and 1.03 at 14 days. The along-track position error of a low-orbit object against how far ahead the prediction reaches, on logarithmic axes. The upper curve uses a climatological density model, whose error stays at 15 per cent however long it is run — the limitation is the functional form and the proxies driving it rather than a shortage of data. The others assimilate the observed drag on objects already in orbit, which replaces that with an observation error of 3 per cent and then lets the thermosphere forget, with memories of 0.5, 1.5, 4 days. Every curve rises as the square of the time, because an error in a drag acceleration integrates twice into a position. The advantage is a factor of 3.6 at 2 hours and 1.03 at 14 days, so assimilation changes what a conjunction screening can do and changes nothing about a re-entry date — and the dashed line is the kilometre at which a close approach becomes a manoeuvre decision.

A weather forecast made out of orbits

A density model fitted to fifty years of satellite drag is a climatology, and its error does not shrink with more data. Updating it from the drag observed on objects in orbit right now is the manoeuvre a weather forecast makes — and it buys a factor of several for a day and nothing at all for a fortnight.

spaceflight · Atmospheric drag One parabola, two causes. Transit times of a planet on a 1.0914-day orbit over 12 years, minus the best straight-line ephemeris, with timing errors of 30 seconds — the shape a period shrinking by 29 milliseconds a year produces, a parabola 116 seconds deep. The curve is drawn once because it is the same curve for both explanations: an orbit decaying at that rate, or a star accelerating towards the observer at 2.9e-6 m/s², which shortens the light-travel time to each successive transit by the same steadily growing amount. Nothing in the transit times can tell them apart.

A clock that slows, or a star that falls

Transit times that curve away from a straight line can mean a planet's orbit is shrinking — the tides draining it into its star — or that the star itself is accelerating along the line of sight under a distant companion's pull. Both draw the same parabola, and the transit times cannot choose. The star's velocities can, but only for the shortest orbits: the acceleration that would fake a given decay grows as one over the period, and beyond a day or two an unseen Saturn can mimic more decay than the tides produce.

exoplanets · Transit timing

Named alongside it

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

Ballistic coefficientHot jupiterSystematic errorThermospheric densityAccommodation coefficientAlong-track errorApsidal precessionAtmospheric dragAtomic oxygenConjunction assessmentCoulomb logarithmData assimilation

All concepts