Generator

The orbital-decay generator

PSR B1913+16: 45 years of periastron arriving 88 seconds early

PSR B1913+16: 45 years of periastron arriving 88 seconds early. The cumulative shift of periastron passage for PSR B1913+16, Δt = ½(Ṗ_b/P_b)T², over 45 years from its discovery in 1975. The orbital period is 0.322997449 days and is measured to be shortening at 2.423e-12 seconds per second — a change in the twelfth decimal place, which over a career accumulates to 87.5 seconds. That is the whole reason the effect is measurable. Ṗ_b is taken here as a measured quantity and no radiated power is derived from it; the parabola is the general-relativistic prediction as published, and the points are that prediction scaled by the published ratio of observed to predicted decay, 0.997 ± 0.002 (Hulse & Taylor 1975; Weisberg & Huckins 2016), which is how the agreement is quoted. The error bars are drawn: at the last point the bar is 1.25 px tall against a dot 9 pixels across, so they are invisible, and their invisibility is the result. The campaign has run 45 years.

The cumulative shift of periastron passage for PSR B1913+16, Δt = ½(Ṗ_b/P_b)T², over 45 years from its discovery in 1975. The orbital period is 0.322997449 days and is measured to be shortening at 2.423e-12 seconds per second — a change in the twelfth decimal place, which over a career accumulates to 87.5 seconds. That is the whole reason the effect is measurable. Ṗ_b is taken here as a measured quantity and no radiated power is derived from it; the parabola is the general-relativistic prediction as published, and the points are that prediction scaled by the published ratio of observed to predicted decay, 0.997 ± 0.002 (Hulse & Taylor 1975; Weisberg & Huckins 2016), which is how the agreement is quoted. The error bars are drawn: at the last point the bar is 1.25 px tall against a dot 9 pixels across, so they are invisible, and their invisibility is the result. The campaign has run 45 years.

5 essays call orbital-decay. 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.

PSR B1913+16: 45 years of periastron arriving 88 seconds early. The cumulative shift of periastron passage for PSR B1913+16, Δt = ½(Ṗ_b/P_b)T², over 45 years from its discovery in 1975. The orbital period is 0.322997449 days and is measured to be shortening at 2.423e-12 seconds per second — a change in the twelfth decimal place, which over a career accumulates to 87.5 seconds. That is the whole reason the effect is measurable. Ṗ_b is taken here as a measured quantity and no radiated power is derived from it; the parabola is the general-relativistic prediction as published, and the points are that prediction scaled by the published ratio of observed to predicted decay, 0.997 ± 0.002 (Hulse & Taylor 1975; Weisberg & Huckins 2016), which is how the agreement is quoted. The error bars are drawn: at the last point the bar is 1.25 px tall against a dot 9 pixels across, so they are invisible, and their invisibility is the result. The campaign has run 45 years.

An orbit measured to be shrinking

A 7.75-hour orbital period that shortens by 68 nanoseconds each turn is beyond any single measurement, and unmissable after fifty thousand of them, because the shift accumulates as the square of the elapsed time. Forty-five years of pulse arrival times have made it 87.5 seconds, which is why the rate is a measured quantity rather than an inferred one.

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.

Every pair arrives circular. Eccentricity against gravitational-wave frequency for four binaries of 30 and 30 solar masses, each starting at 0.2 astronomical units with an eccentricity of 0.3, 0.7, 0.9, 0.99. Both axes are logarithmic and the tracks run left to right as the orbit shrinks. The curves are Peters' closed solution a(e), and they are checked against Peters' differential equation at three eccentricities on each track rather than against the integral they came from. The ordering is preserved — a pair that starts rounder stays rounder — but by the time the orbit is radiating at 10 hertz, where a ground-based detector begins to hear it, the four eccentricities are 8.8·10⁻⁸, 5.6·10⁻⁷, 3.6·10⁻⁶, 1.5·10⁻⁴. All four are far below anything a detector could measure. That is the figure's whole content and it is a strong statement: radiation reaction removes angular momentum faster, relative to energy, than a circular orbit would need, so eccentricity is destroyed on the way in. A binary observed to be eccentric in band therefore cannot have spent long shrinking quietly, and must have been put on that orbit recently — by a third body, or in the crowded centre of a cluster. The figure assumes the two bodies are points and nothing else acts on them, which is exactly the assumption an eccentric detection would refute.

Every pair arrives circular

Gravitational radiation drains a binary's energy and its angular momentum at rates that do not keep step, and the mismatch destroys eccentricity far faster than it shrinks the orbit. A pair that starts at 0.99 and spirals in from a fifth of an astronomical unit is round to better than a part in a hundred million by the time a detector can hear it.

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

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.

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.

The whole library · All essays