Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Perturbations — where it appears

The departures from two-body motion caused by every force other than the dominant central attraction. Their short-period parts average away over a few orbits and their secular parts do not, which is the division the whole of planetary theory is built on.

Named by 7 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

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 A separation of 10⁻¹⁰ becomes 0.0285. The distance between two copies of Burrau's problem, started 10⁻¹⁰ apart in one coordinate of one body and then stepped in lockstep — one loop, one step size, both states advanced by it — for 60 time units. The vertical axis is logarithmic, so the straight stretch is exponential growth, and its slope is the Lyapunov exponent: 0.3413 per time unit, fitted over the 604 samples lying between ten times the starting offset and a tenth of the system's own size. That is an e-folding every 2.93 time units, so the separation multiplies by ten every 6.75 and by 7.8·10⁸ across the whole run. It has not saturated within the drawn interval: the growth rate over the last tenth of the run is still 0.6002 per time unit, 176% of the fitted exponent, and the separation has reached only 0.90% of the system's own size. The exponent is what sets a prediction horizon, and this run is drawn short of it on purpose: the straight line is the measurement, and the flat part that follows is arithmetic about how far apart two bounded systems can get.

A prediction with an expiry date

The inner solar system's Lyapunov time is about five million years, so a centimetre of error becomes an orbit in a hundred million. The ephemeris dies while the system survives — because the elements stay bounded when the phase does not, and only one of those is what stability means.

gravitation · Chaos A thousandth of the field, and all of the precession. Left: the Earth's figure against a sphere of the same equatorial radius, with the flattening drawn 28× its true value. The real difference between the equatorial and polar radii is 21.4 km on 6378 — 1 part in 298 — which at this size would be 0.5 pixels and invisible, so the drawing is a schematic and the number is here instead. Right: the two components of the J₂ perturbation at the surface, each as a fraction of the monopole μ/r², both differentiated from the potential rather than quoted. The radial one strengthens the inward pull by 1.62×10⁻³ over the equator, where the extra mass is, and weakens it by 3.25×10⁻³ over the poles, vanishing at ±35.26° where P₂ does. The transverse one is zero at the equator and at both poles and peaks at ±45°, at 1.62×10⁻³ — and that is the component that does the work. It pulls an inclined orbit back towards the equatorial plane, which is a torque about the line of nodes, and a torque applied to something already turning moves it sideways rather than back. Averaged over an orbit the pair leave a, e and i untouched and turn the whole plane instead, which is why a term a thousandth of the field is the largest single perturbation on almost every satellite ever flown.

The Earth's shape, read off a satellite's node

The Earth is a thousandth of a part from being a sphere, and that thousandth turns every satellite's orbital plane. Vanguard 1 measured it in 1959 — and one retrograde inclination turns the plane at exactly the rate the Sun moves, which is a perturbation used as a design constraint rather than corrected for.

gravitation · Oblateness 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 Jupiter and Saturn meet every 19.86 years, tracing a three-cornered figure that turns 8.5° each round. The heliocentric longitudes at which Jupiter and Saturn are in conjunction — the same longitude seen from the Sun — for 21 successive conjunctions from 1800 to 2200, computed from Keplerian elements and dotted in three colours for the first, middle and last thirds of the span. The mean interval is 19.857 years, the synodic period the two mean motions give. Each conjunction falls 242.8° further round the orbit of Saturn than the one before, so 3 of them come back within 8.5° of where they started: the conjunctions sit near the corners of a 3-sided figure, and the figure itself rotates by 8.5° every 59.6 years. At that rate it returns to its starting orientation — a figure with 3 identical corners only needs to turn by a third of a turn — after about 838 years. The drawn corners are not exactly repeated because the orbits are ellipses: the planets move faster near perihelion, and the conjunction longitudes cluster where both are slow. That near-return is not a coincidence of dates. It is the statement that 3 synodic periods are close to a whole number of each planet's years, which is a near-commensurability of the two mean motions — and near-commensurabilities are where planets perturb one another most. The elements are a fit valid between 1800 and 2050; outside those years they are carried as fixed ellipses turning at their mean rates, which is right for the pattern and not for any individual date.

A triangle of meetings that turns in eight centuries

Jupiter and Saturn meet every twenty years, and each meeting falls about two-thirds of the way round the sky from the last, so the meetings trace a triangle. The triangle turns a third of a turn in 838 years because five of Jupiter's years almost equal two of Saturn's — and that same near-fit is the largest perturbation in the solar system, the one that made Saturn appear to be slowing down.

sky · Apparent motion A two-body arc flown in the real field. How far from its target a spacecraft arrives when it flies the velocity Lambert's two-body problem gives, through the Earth's real field with its equatorial bulge, against the angle of the transfer, from a 400 km orbit to a point on a 420 km orbit, on a logarithmic scale. In a pure two-body field every solution arrives within a metre of the target; exactly 180° is left out, where the two points and the Earth's centre are in line and the transfer's plane is not determined. In the real field the miss grows with the transfer: at 51.6° inclination, 4.2 km after 60° and 43.0 km after 300°. An equatorial orbit misses most, because the bulge's extra pull is strongest over the equator and acts on it all the way round; an inclined orbit feels it only part of the time but also has its plane turned.

An answer from two bodies, flown through a flattened Earth

Lambert's problem gives the exact velocity that carries a spacecraft between two points in a given time — exactly, for a spherical Earth. The real Earth bulges at the equator, by a thousandth of its central pull, and a spacecraft flying the exact two-body answer between two points in low orbit arrives tens of kilometres from where it was sent. The repair is to keep the two-body solver and lie to it about the target, and the lie converges by a factor of a hundred each time it is told.

orbits · Lambert's problem An iteration that slows toward the straight-through transfer. The contraction ratio of the corrected-target iteration — how much each pass shrinks the miss — against the transfer angle, for a transfer between orbits of 51.6° inclination at 400 and 420 km, with the Earth's bulge at its real strength and at 10 and 30 times it, on a logarithmic scale. The iteration converges where the ratio is below 1 (dashed). At the real strength it shrinks the miss 1857-fold per pass at 150°, 83-fold at 178° and 8-fold at 181°: always convergent, ever slower. At 10 times the strength it fails between 181° and 184°; at 30 times it fails between 182.5° and 192°. The slowing is geometric: near 180° the transfer's plane is set by a sideways shift of the aim point, so correcting the bulge's sideways miss tilts the whole arc.

A correction that tilts the arc it meant to aim

A transfer designed with Lambert's two-body solution and flown through the Earth's flattened field misses its target, and the standard repair is to aim at the target minus the miss and solve again. That converges fast — until the transfer angle approaches 180°. There the two end points and the Earth's centre are nearly in line, the arc's plane is decided by a sideways shift of the aim, and correcting the bulge's sideways miss rotates the whole arc. The iteration slows by a factor of a hundred, and with a larger perturbation it runs away. Correcting only within the plane fixes it, at the cost of a plane change paid at arrival.

orbits · Lambert's problem

Named alongside it

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

J2OblatenessCorrected target iterationDifferential correctionLambert's problemNodal regressionNumerical integrationOrbital elementsOrbital energyPhase-spaceThree-body problemAtmospheric drag

All concepts