Generator

The hyperbolic-path generator

1I/ʻOumuamua: an orbit at e = 1.201, and the angle it turned through
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 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.

5 essays call hyperbolic-path. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues about.

Where it is called

Every figure listed here is the same construction drawn at different numbers, so a correction to one is a correction to all of them.

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. Orbits

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.

The aim point and the miss distance are the same number far out and nothing like it close in. Periapsis distance against aim point for a hyperbolic approach to Jupiter at v∞ = 5.6 km/s, both in planet radii. The diagonal is where the two would be equal — where gravity did nothing — and the curve falls below it everywhere, by more the closer in the aim is. A trajectory aimed at 10.68 radii grazes the surface, because gravitational focusing means the planet's effective size is √(1 + v_esc²/v∞²) times its radius. The slope of this curve is what a navigation team cares about: it is 0.208 at an aim of 12 radii and 0.936 at 150, so the same correction manoeuvre changes the periapsis distance by 4.5 times as much at one end of the range as at the other, while changing B by exactly the same amount at both; far outside this plot, where focusing has run out, it reaches 1.000 and the two numbers become the same one. That is why the aim point is the coordinate a manoeuvre is quoted in, why an error ellipse is published in the B-plane, and why the turn angle — 2 arctan(μ/Bv∞²), 156.0° at 12 radii and 77.8° at 70 — is thought of as a function of B rather than of anything the spacecraft does. Orbits

Aiming at a plane instead of at a planet

A spacecraft arriving at a planet is not aimed at a periapsis distance. It is aimed at a point in a plane perpendicular to its own incoming asymptote, because that is the one coordinate in which the miss distance responds linearly to a correction — and every navigation product ever published for a flyby is written in it.

One admissible root, 0.01% from the truth. Gauss's reduction of three directions to a distance, drawn as the two relations whose intersection it is. Three observations of Ceres on days 0, 20, 40 of an arc, generated from its elements and used only as sight directions — no range, no radial velocity. The rising curve is geometry: the heliocentric distance a candidate at geocentric distance ρ₂ would have, r₂² = ρ₂² + 2ρ₂(R₂·L̂₂) + R₂², which contains no dynamics at all. The falling curve is dynamics: ρ₂ = A + µB/r₂³, with A and B built from the three sight vectors, the three observer positions and the three times, and containing no orbit. Eliminating ρ₂ between them gives r₂⁸ + a r₂⁶ + b r₂³ + c = 0 — an eighth-degree equation, from a problem with exactly as many equations as unknowns. Here they cross once at a positive ρ₂, at r₂ = 2.5893 AU against the true 2.5890. The other 2 real roots are rejected not by fitting but by sign: the ρ₂ each implies is negative, and an object behind the observer was not the thing observed. Orbits

Three observations and no orbit at all

Three directions in space give six numbers for the six elements of an orbit, which sounds like a solved problem. The algebra that solves it is of the eighth degree, and for a near-Earth asteroid three perfect observations can be consistent with three different orbits.

Along a contour is free; across one costs, and 6 resonances sit on this one. Perihelion against aphelion, in units of Jupiter's orbit, with contours of constant v∞ — which is the Tisserand parameter through v∞² = (3 − T)v_p². Every contour crosses the line r_p = r_a = 1, because a spacecraft has to be at the planet's orbit to have an encounter there at all, and every point on one contour is reachable from every other point on it with no propellant: a flyby rotates the v∞ vector without changing its length, which moves the pump angle and slides the spacecraft along the curve. A burn is the only thing that moves it between curves, and that is the whole economy of a gravity-assist tour. The diagonals are resonant orbits — 1:1, 3:2, 2:1, 5:2, 3:1, 4:1 with the planet — and each is a straight line of slope −1 because a resonance fixes the semi-major axis and r_p + r_a = 2a. They matter because a spacecraft on one comes back to the same place at the same time as the planet, which is what makes a second encounter possible without waiting for a chance alignment. The marked points are where the v∞ = 0.3 contour meets each: a tour is a walk along the highlighted curve from one to the next, and the arithmetic that decides whether it can be walked is the turn one flyby delivers. At 1.35 Jupiter radii and 3.9 km s⁻¹ that turn is 163°, so the longest step drawn here needs 0.1 encounters — which is why a real tour has dozens of flybys and why the ones with the largest steps are the ones that need a deep-space manoeuvre in between. Spaceflight

A map of the transfers that are free

Drawn as contours of perihelion against aphelion, the invariant that survives an encounter becomes a map. A flyby slides a spacecraft along its own contour and costs nothing; a burn is the only thing that moves it between contours — so tour design is reading a graph.

An invariant that moves by 8.0e-3 once the planet's orbit is real. The Tisserand parameter of a comet on an orbit of semi-major axis 5 and eccentricity 0.8, followed through a close passage of Jupiter, integrated twice. The lower trace has Jupiter on a perfect circle, which is the problem the parameter is an exact constant of: it survives the encounter having moved by 1.0e-4, which is the integrator's own error and not a physical change, and the spike at the moment of closest approach is the osculating elements being briefly meaningless while the comet is inside Jupiter's sphere of influence rather than the constant failing. The upper trace is the same encounter with Jupiter on its real orbit, eccentricity 0.0489. The parameter comes out changed by 8.0e-3, 79 times as much, because the Jacobi constant exists only when the rotating frame is uniformly rotating and a planet on an ellipse does not provide one. That number is small and it is not negligible: comet families are separated by boundaries in this parameter placed to two decimal places, and a comet that drifts across one over several encounters has changed class without anything having happened to it that a single encounter could account for. Orbits

An invariant that is only almost one

The Tisserand parameter survives a close encounter with Jupiter exactly, and comet families are separated by boundaries in it drawn to two decimal places. The exactness holds for a Jupiter on a circle. Jupiter's eccentricity is 0.0489, and integrating the same encounter twice shows what that costs.

The whole library · All essays