Generator

The lagrange-points generator

The five Lagrange points at mass fraction 0.12

The five points at which a small body can keep station with two larger ones. The three on the line of centres are roots of a quintic and are unstable; the two forming equilateral triangles are stable for a sufficiently lopsided mass ratio.

4 essays call lagrange-points. 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.

$The five Lagrange points at mass fraction 0.12. The five points at which a small body can keep station with two larger ones. The three on the line of centres are roots of a quintic and are unstable; the two forming equilateral triangles are stable for a sufficiently lopsided mass ratio.$ Gravitation

Five places that keep station, in a problem with no solution

Three bodies under gravity cannot be solved. Restrict the problem slightly and five exact answers fall out anyway — three of them roots of a quintic, two of them perfect equilateral triangles.

Three bodies, integrated. Three equal masses integrated forward under mutual gravity: the figure-eight choreography — all three bodies on one closed curve. Every point is a step of the equations of motion, and the total energy is conserved to 2.5e-11 across the run.

Gravitation

Three bodies, and what "no solution" actually means

The three-body problem is routinely called unsolvable. Trajectories are computed for it every day, exact periodic solutions are known, and both statements are true — the word is doing more work than it looks.

$The Hill radius against the mass ratio, and where four planets keep their outermost moon. The Hill radius R_H = a(μ/3)^⅓ and the exact L₁ distance from the same quintic, both in units of the planet's own semi-major axis, against the mass ratio μ = m/(M+m) from 10⁻⁸ to 0.12. The two are the same line to the width of the stroke across the whole planetary range — the cube-root formula runs 0.33% short of the exact L₁ distance at the Earth's mass ratio and 10.0% short at the right-hand edge — so the departure between them is drawn on its own percentage scale at the right, which is the only place it can be seen. Below the curves are the numerically determined stability limits, 0.5 R_H for a prograde satellite and 0.7 R_H for a retrograde one, and the outermost known satellite of each of four planets, each at a Hill fraction computed from that planet's own mass and orbit: Moon 0.257, Sinope 0.451, Phoebe 0.198, Neso 0.424. Of the four, three are retrograde — Sinope, Phoebe, Neso — and they reach 0.451 of their planet's Hill radius against 0.257 for the one prograde satellite: 1.8 times as far out, in a diagram whose two stability limits stand in the ratio 0.7 to 0.5. No equilibrium argument predicts that, and it is what the drawing makes plain.$ Gravitation

The region a planet may keep a moon in

A satellite is not held by orbiting but by orbiting inside the radius at which the Sun's tidal field would take it away. That radius is the same distance the innermost Lagrange point sits at, asked a different question — and the boundary the sky actually respects is smaller, by a factor that depends on which way the moon is going round.

At the Sun–Earth L₂ the cheapest correction is every 23 days, and it costs e σ per e-folding. The annual station-keeping cost at the Sun–Earth L₂ point, against the interval between corrections, on logarithmic axes, for velocity errors of 0.5 cm/s, 2.0 cm/s, 5.0 cm/s along the unstable direction at each correction. Correcting often costs a lot because every correction carries its own error σ; correcting rarely costs a lot because the error has grown by e^(T/τ) in between, with an e-folding time τ = 23.4 days set by the point's growth rate of 2.484 times the orbital mean motion. The product (365.25/T) σ e^(T/τ) has its minimum at exactly T = τ, where the annual cost is 365.25 e σ/τ: 0.21 m/s a year for σ = 0.5 cm/s, 0.85 m/s a year for σ = 2.0 cm/s, 2.12 m/s a year for σ = 5.0 cm/s. The minimum is broad, so an operator can correct at a convenient interval near the e-folding time for little penalty, and the cost scales linearly with how well the spacecraft's velocity is known and executed. This is a one-dimensional caricature: a real halo orbit's correction also removes a stable component it need not, and solar radiation pressure on a large sunshield is a steady error source of its own. The figure's claim is the structure — an unstable equilibrium is cheap to hold if the instability is caught while it is still small, and its cost is a navigation budget rather than a force budget.

Spaceflight

An unstable point that costs less to hold than a stable orbit

A spacecraft at the Sun–Earth L₂ point sits on an equilibrium that throws it away, doubling any error every sixteen days. It holds station for a few metres per second a year — a twentieth of what a geostationary satellite pays to stay on an orbit that is stable. The difference is what is being paid for — an instability caught small costs a navigation budget, and a steady torque costs a force budget.

The whole library · All essays