Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Generator

The universal-variable generator

Four conics through one periapsis, drawn by one solve
Four conics through one periapsis, drawn by one solve. Distance from the Sun against time for four orbits sharing a periapsis of 0.5 AU, at e = 0.6, e = 1, e = 1.0001, e = 1.4, over 900 days. Every point on every curve came from the same universal Kepler solve — no branch on the conic class anywhere in it — and each curve was then checked against the classical solution of its own kind at the midpoint: Kepler's equation at e = 0.6 agrees to machine precision; Barker's cubic at e = 1 agrees to machine precision; e sinh H − H at e = 1.0001 agrees to machine precision; e sinh H − H at e = 1.4 agrees to machine precision. The curve to read twice is e = 1.0001: over this arc it lies within 0.02% of the parabola and is indistinguishable from it, and it is the only one of the four whose fate the drawing cannot show. What the classical parameterisation costs there is arithmetic rather than impossibility: at the midpoint of this arc, e sinh H − H throws away 3.3 of its sixteen digits to cancellation, against 0.2 at e = 1.4 — enough to matter to an ephemeris and not enough to stop a plot.

Distance from the Sun against time for four orbits sharing a periapsis of 0.5 AU, at e = 0.6, e = 1, e = 1.0001, e = 1.4, over 900 days. Every point on every curve came from the same universal Kepler solve — no branch on the conic class anywhere in it — and each curve was then checked against the classical solution of its own kind at the midpoint: Kepler's equation at e = 0.6 agrees to machine precision; Barker's cubic at e = 1 agrees to machine precision; e sinh H − H at e = 1.0001 agrees to machine precision; e sinh H − H at e = 1.4 agrees to machine precision. The curve to read twice is e = 1.0001: over this arc it lies within 0.02% of the parabola and is indistinguishable from it, and it is the only one of the four whose fate the drawing cannot show. What the classical parameterisation costs there is arithmetic rather than impossibility: at the midpoint of this arc, e sinh H − H throws away 3.3 of its sixteen digits to cancellation, against 0.2 at e = 1.4 — enough to matter to an ephemeris and not enough to stop a plot.

2 essays call universal-variable. 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.

Four conics through one periapsis, drawn by one solve. Distance from the Sun against time for four orbits sharing a periapsis of 0.5 AU, at e = 0.6, e = 1, e = 1.0001, e = 1.4, over 900 days. Every point on every curve came from the same universal Kepler solve — no branch on the conic class anywhere in it — and each curve was then checked against the classical solution of its own kind at the midpoint: Kepler's equation at e = 0.6 agrees to machine precision; Barker's cubic at e = 1 agrees to machine precision; e sinh H − H at e = 1.0001 agrees to machine precision; e sinh H − H at e = 1.4 agrees to machine precision. The curve to read twice is e = 1.0001: over this arc it lies within 0.02% of the parabola and is indistinguishable from it, and it is the only one of the four whose fate the drawing cannot show. What the classical parameterisation costs there is arithmetic rather than impossibility: at the midpoint of this arc, e sinh H − H throws away 3.3 of its sixteen digits to cancellation, against 0.2 at e = 1.4 — enough to matter to an ephemeris and not enough to stop a plot. Orbits

The one solve that does not ask which conic it is

Kepler's equation is for ellipses, Barker's cubic for parabolas, and a hyperbolic sine for the rest — three parameterisations of one motion, each worst exactly where its neighbour takes over. The universal variable removes the question, and the removal is not a convenience.

 One squaring, and the singularity is gone. Left, a harmonic oscillator: an ellipse centred on the origin, marked at 24 equal steps of its own phase. Right, the same points after squaring as complex numbers, u ↦ u². The image is an ellipse with the origin at a focus — checked here by the focal property, r₁ + r₂ = 2a to nine figures at four points — with semi-axes (A²+B²)/2 = 2.5000 and AB = 1.5000 and the focus at (A²−B²)/2 = 2.0000, which is ae exactly. Three things follow at once. The angle doubles, so one turn of the oscillator is one whole orbit traversed twice as fast in phase; the equal phase steps on the left arrive as the eccentric anomaly on the right, which is why that anomaly and not the true one is what the equations want; and the collision at r = 0, where the inverse square is infinite, is the point u = 0, where the oscillator has a perfectly ordinary velocity. The singularity was a property of the coordinates. Orbits

The singularity that is a change of variable

The Kepler problem blows up at zero separation, and a fixed-step integrator falls apart long before it gets there. Divide time by the radius and the equations become a harmonic oscillator — exactly, for every conic at once.

The whole library · All essays