Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Depth

Series — page 7

A field says what an essay is about. A series follows one idea essay by essay — from the question that introduces it to the one that assumes all the others.
An eccentricity and an inclination trading, at 65° of mutual tilt. The secular equations integrated from a nearly circular orbit (e = 0.02) inclined at 65° to a distant perturber's plane, over three oscillations. Above, the eccentricity; below, the inclination, with the constant √(1−e²)cos i drawn as the flat line it is. The eccentricity climbs to 0.8380 and the inclination falls to 39.25° at the same instant, and neither is a coincidence: the product is fixed, so one can only rise as the other falls. That floor is the same for every starting tilt — at maximum eccentricity j = √(5/3)Θ, so cos i = √(3/5) and the inclination arrives at 39.23° whether the orbit began at 50° or at 89°. The closed form for a circular start is e_max = √(1 − (5/3)cos²i₀) = 0.8380, which contains nothing about the perturber — not its mass, not its distance. Those set the clock and not the amplitude, and the period here is 4.83 Kozai times. What the figure cannot show is what happens at the top of the cycle in a real system: at e = 0.838 the pericentre is 0.1620 of the semi-major axis, where tides, general relativity or a stellar surface all intervene, and the quadrupole picture ends.

Kozai–Lidov

  1. 1 An inclination that turns into an eccentricity
  2. 2 The precession that switches the cycle off
2 essays · orbits Flight time against semi-major axis, for a fixed 135° sweep. Lambert's theorem drawn: the time to fly between two points 1 and 1.524 AU out and 135° apart, against the semi-major axis of the orbit that does it. Nothing else about the orbit enters — not its eccentricity, not where its periapsis is, not how it is oriented — which is the content of the theorem and the reason a two-point transfer is a one-dimensional search rather than a six-dimensional one. Two branches: the lower one is the ellipse whose arc stays short of apoapsis, falling towards the parabolic floor at 103.2 days as a grows without limit; the upper one is the ellipse of the same size whose arc runs through apoapsis, rising without limit. They meet at a = s/2 = 1.2161 AU, 244.2 days, which is the minimum-energy transfer and the slowest ellipse available — every faster one is bigger. Each branch is monotone, checked point by point across the drawn range, so a horizontal line cuts each at most once: for a given pair of points and a given time there is exactly one ellipse, and at 260 days it is a = 1.2189 AU on the upper branch. The freedom a mission designer has is not in this picture: it is the choice of the two points, which is what a porkchop plot sweeps.

Lambert's problem

  1. 1 Two places and a clock decide the path
  2. 2 One time of flight and five ways round
2 essays · orbits The cost of going to Mars, against when to leave and how long to take. Contours of departure energy C₃ over a grid of 64 × 56 solved Lambert problems: each point is a departure date, a flight time, and the unique single-revolution conic that connects the two planets between them. The cheapest transfer on this grid costs 5.1 km²/s², leaving in Mar 2001 with a flight time of 220 days, against 8.7 for the idealised Hohmann transfer between circular orbits of the same radii. A launch window is a region on this plane, not a moment, and its shape is what a launch period is negotiated against.

Launch windows

  1. 1 Two dates decide a mission
  2. 2 The window that comes back and the cost that does not
2 essays · spaceflight The sub-Earth point over 400 days. Where on the Moon the Earth stands overhead, in selenographic longitude and latitude, sampled over 400 days. The excursion in longitude is the equation of centre — the Moon's rotation is uniform and its orbital motion is not, so the face runs alternately ahead and behind by up to 6.3° — and the excursion in latitude is the tilt of its equator, up to 6.7°. The two run on months of different length, so the track never repeats.

Libration

  1. 1 The face that is not quite fixed
  2. 2 Four numbers that weigh a planet's core
2 essays · sky The limb is 40% as bright as the centre, and that is a temperature gradient. Left: a stellar disc shaded by the grey-atmosphere law I(μ)/I(1) = (2 + 3μ)/5, in 26 steps, with μ = cos θ read from the centre outwards. Right: that law against μ, with linear laws at the measured solar coefficients from 400 to 1600 nm. The grey law's coefficient is exactly 3/5 and its very limb is exactly 2/5 of the central brightness — both read off the drawn curve rather than quoted — because the Eddington–Barbier relation makes the emergent intensity at angle μ the source function at optical depth τ = μ, and in radiative equilibrium that source function is linear in τ. The limb is not a cooler part of the star. A sight line entering at the edge reaches unit optical depth higher up, where the gas is cooler, so what the darkening measures is the run of temperature with depth; a star with an isothermal atmosphere would show a uniform disc, and one with a steeper gradient a darker limb. The measured coefficients fall from 0.9 at 400 nm to 0.35 at 1600 — the same gradient seen through a less steep Planck function — which is why a radius measured from a transit or a fringe null has to say which colour it was measured in.

Limb darkening

  1. 1 The light that is missing from the edge
  2. 2 The depth is not the area
2 essays · starlight A lever 12 radii long, and the spin it removes. A magnetised stellar wind, drawn with the Alfvén surface at 12 stellar radii — the schematic distance at which the wind's inertia finally beats the field. Inside it the gas is forced to turn with the star, so every gram that leaves carries the specific angular momentum of the radius at which it broke free rather than of the surface it came from, and the lever squares: J̇ = (2/3) Ṁ Ω r_A². Beyond the surface the streamlines curve backwards, because angular momentum conservation makes the azimuthal speed fall as 1/r while the radial speed does not. With a moment of inertia coefficient of 0.073 and a mass loss of 2.3·10⁻¹⁴ solar masses a year, the star loses a fraction 2.3·10⁻¹⁴ of its mass and a fraction 3·10⁻¹¹ of its angular momentum in the same year — a ratio of 1,315, which is (2/3)(r_A/R)²/k² and nothing else. The e-folding time for the spin is 3.3·10¹⁰ years against 4.3·10¹³ years for the mass. Nothing here is to scale in one respect that matters: the wind's density falls by more than ten orders of magnitude across the drawn region, so the streamlines are drawn as though the flow were visible when almost none of it is.

Magnetic braking

  1. 1 A wind that takes no mass and all the spin
  2. 2 The clock that starts by forgetting
2 essays · stars A boundary that a sixty-fourfold gust moves by a factor of two. The standoff distance of a dipole magnetosphere against a wind, in planetary radii, against the wind's proton density, for three wind speeds. The boundary sits where magnetic pressure equals ram pressure — the only balance available, since the field exerts no force on neutral gas and the wind touches nothing. Because a dipole falls as the cube of distance its pressure falls as the sixth power, so the standoff goes as the ram pressure to the −1/6: at 450 km/s a density of 6 per cubic centimetre puts the nose at 9.3 radii — against a measured average of ten to eleven — and a sixty-fourfold compression moves it only to 4.7. That exponent is the reason a magnetosphere is a stable thing to have. It is also the reason the boundary's position is a poor measurement of the field: a factor of two in the distance is a factor of sixty-four in what caused it, so the standoff measures the wind badly and the planet's moment hardly at all.

Magnetosphere

  1. 1 A boundary that hardly moves
  2. 2 An aurora that is a sixth root inside an arcsine
2 essays · sky Luminosity against mass, against a slope of 3.5. Main-sequence luminosity against mass, both in solar units, on logarithmic axes, over the range 0.079 to 63 solar masses. The measured curve comes from the eclipsing binaries and is the same in every drawing of it; what changes here is what it is compared against. The dashed line is a pure power law of exponent 3.5, and the curve crosses it rather than following it — the local slope runs from about 2.3 at the bottom of the range, where the interiors are convective, through nearly 4 near a solar mass where bound-free opacity dominates, to about 3 among the massive stars where electron scattering does. Quoting one exponent across the whole sequence is a convenience and the places it fails are the places the interior physics changes. Because the slope is between three and four across most of the range, a small spread in mass becomes an enormous spread in output: the 63-solar-mass end is 3.0e+9 times brighter than the 0.079-solar-mass end.

The mass–luminosity relation

  1. 1 Mass decides everything, by a power of three and a half
  2. 2 An exponent that is a slope, not a law
2 essays · stars Two responses to the same transfer, turning round at q = 0.79 and q = 1. What conservative mass transfer does to the orbit and to the lobe, plotted against the mass ratio of donor to accretor on a logarithmic axis. Both curves are logarithmic derivatives with respect to the donor's mass, so a positive value means the quantity shrinks as the donor loses mass and a negative one means it grows. The orbit's response is exactly twice the mass ratio less one, which follows from holding the total mass and the total angular momentum fixed and nothing else, and it crosses zero at equal masses: transfer from the heavier star draws the orbit in, transfer from the lighter one pushes it out. The lobe's response adds to that the change in the lobe's shape, and it crosses zero earlier, at a mass ratio of 0.788. Between those two crossings the orbit is still widening while the lobe is already closing. To the right of both, a donor that loses mass finds its lobe shrinking around it, which is the runaway the essay is about: the transfer narrows the valve it is flowing through.

Mass transfer

  1. 1 The flow that narrows its own channel
  2. 2 Three clocks and a runaway
2 essays · stars Measured moment-of-inertia factors, from the Sun's 0.07 to the Moon's 0.3931. Eleven bodies whose interiors have never been sampled, arranged by the one interior quantity that has been measured for all of them. C/MR² is 2/5 for a uniform sphere and falls as mass is concentrated toward the centre, and the values here span from 0.07 to 0.3931. That spread is the content. The Moon at 0.3931 is barely differentiated — whatever iron core it has is a few per cent of its radius, which is why the Moon is the one large body in the inner solar system without a magnetic field of its own. Mercury at 0.346 is nearly as low as the Earth despite being an eighth of its mass, and for a body that small the only way to get there is an iron core filling most of the radius. The Sun at 0.07 is off the scale of anything a two-layer model describes; a star is not a planet with a bigger core but a body whose density falls by five orders of magnitude between centre and surface. The faint curves behind are the two-layer relation at a few density contrasts, drawn to show what kind of interior each value is consistent with — and the horizontal placement of each body on them is an illustration rather than a result, since one factor never fixes one core. Every number here was obtained by watching the body turn: a precession rate, a libration amplitude, a gravity field sampled on a flyby, or in the Sun's case the frequencies of its own oscillations.

Moment of inertia

  1. 1 Whether the heavy material sank
  2. 2 The part of a shape the spin cannot explain
2 essays · gravitation Two equilibria become four, and three worlds sit near the join. The Cassini equilibria of a spin axis, drawn against the ratio of its own precession rate to the rate at which its orbit plane turns, for an orbit inclination of 1.5 degrees. Each column of dots is the full set of obliquities at which the two precessions keep step at that ratio, found by root-finding rather than by tracing a remembered curve. Below α cos ε/|g| = 1.135 there are two such obliquities and above it there are four, and the figure checks both counts on either side of the join. The three marked bodies are placed by their own measured precession constants: the Earth with the Moon at 2.67, safely on the four-state side; the Earth without it at 0.86; and Mars at 1.06. Two of the three sit within a few tenths of the bifurcation, which is the whole reason their obliquities are not constants: near the join the equilibria are close together, the libration around them is wide, and a body pushed between neighbouring resonances wanders. The Moon's contribution to the Earth's precession constant is what moves the first mark away from that region, and the second mark is the same planet with that contribution removed. This is a two-frequency model of a many-frequency system, and the real chaos comes from the overlap of resonances it does not contain.

Obliquity

  1. 1 A tilt that is not a constant
  2. 2 A tilt held still by being too fast to resonate
2 essays · sky A gap where planets should be. The number of planets per star per interval of log radius, for orbital periods under a hundred days, corrected for detection efficiency. There are two peaks — super-Earths near 1.3 R⊕ and sub-Neptunes near 2.4 R⊕ — and a deficit between them at 1.89 R⊕, where the occurrence falls to 33% of the peak. The gap is not a gap in what can be detected: detection efficiency rises smoothly through it, so a smooth underlying distribution could not produce a dip there.

Occurrence rates

  1. 1 The planets that were not seen
  2. 2 The part of a rate that is a definition
2 essays · exoplanets Four averages of one distance, and the two of them that are the semi-major axis. The average distance of a body from its primary, against eccentricity and in units of the semi-major axis, computed four ways: averaged over time, over true anomaly, over eccentric anomaly, and as the harmonic mean in time. Every curve is a quadrature over the orbit — 2,048 panels uniform in eccentric anomaly, with Kepler's equation supplying the time weight — and not a closed form. Two of the four are exactly a at every eccentricity, which is why they are drawn as one line: the eccentric-anomaly average, because the mean of cos E over a turn is zero, and the harmonic mean in time, because the time weight cancels 1/r at every node before the sum begins. The other two are not: the time average is a(1 + e²/2), which rises to 1.4050 a at e = 0.9, and the true-anomaly average is a√(1−e²) — the semi-minor axis — which falls to 0.4359 a there. So a is the average distance in two senses out of four, and the ordering b ≤ a ≤ ⟨r⟩ₜ holds at every eccentricity with equality only on the circle. At Earth's e = 0.0167 the four agree to 0.014%, and at Mercury's e = 0.2056 the spread is 2.14%. The distinction is invisible for the planets and unavoidable for a comet, and it is the reason a quoted "mean distance" has to say which mean.

Orbital averages

  1. 1 The average depends on what is being averaged
  2. 2 An average that precession cannot move
2 essays · orbits A quadratic and a linear, crossing at 149 objects. The two rates that decide whether a shell at 900 km is stable, against how many objects are in it. Production goes as N² — every collision needs two objects, so the number of collisions is proportional to the square of the population, and each one is taken here to make 1600 trackable fragments. Removal goes as N, because drag acts on each object independently and takes 1,195 years to do it at this altitude. A quadratic and a linear cross exactly once, at 149 objects in this shell, and above that crossing the population grows with nothing launched. The shell presently holds about 2,280, which is 15 times the crossing. Every number on the production side is uncertain by a factor of a few — the fragment yield most of all, and the cross-section is calibrated against an observed collision rate rather than measured — so the position of the crossing carries that uncertainty with it. The shape does not, and the shape is the argument: a quadratic overtakes a linear once and never comes back, the crossing falls as the altitude rises because the lifetime is in the denominator, and what results is a threshold rather than a trend.

Orbital debris

  1. 1 A collision rate that needs no collision
  2. 2 The fragments nobody can see and cannot shield against
2 essays · spaceflight A Hohmann transfer, 2.6 to 1 in radius. Two circular orbits and the ellipse that touches both. The first burn raises the far point to the outer orbit; the second, half an orbit later, circularises. The costs are computed from the vis-viva relation.

Orbital transfer

  1. 1 The cheapest way between two orbits, and why it is so slow
  2. 2 Going too far in order to arrive cheaply
2 essays · spaceflight How small a sphere of influence is. Each planet's sphere of influence as a fraction of its own orbital radius, against that radius, both logarithmic. The largest belongs to Jupiter at 6.19% and the smallest to Mercury at 0.194%. The patched-conic method treats a trajectory as heliocentric everywhere outside these, and the figure is the argument for why that costs so little: they are thousandths of the journey.

Patched conics

  1. 1 One trajectory, stitched from three two-body problems
  2. 2 The discontinuity a patched conic hides
2 essays · spaceflight A true peak at 0.3103 and a false one at 0.6897, from the same data. The Lomb–Scargle periodogram of 162 simulated observations taken over 419 nights from one site, of a star carrying a 4.2-unit sinusoid at 0.3103 cycles per day under 3 units of Gaussian noise per point. The injected signal is recovered at 0.3103 cycles per day, within the 0.0024 resolution element the baseline allows. The second peak, at 0.6899, is 87 per cent as tall and corresponds to nothing: it is 1 − f, the signal reflected in the one-cycle-per-day spike of the sampling. Neither peak is more real than the other in this picture — deciding between them needs a second site at a different longitude, or a run long enough for the seasonal window to separate them. The dashed line is the power a pure-noise series would exceed once in 1000 trials, computed from 586 independent frequencies rather than from the 4691 grid points searched; using the grid count instead would put the line 2.08 higher and reject a real detection.

Periodograms

  1. 1 A period found in the gaps
  2. 2 The tallest peak in nothing at all
2 essays · starlight Everything close in is circular, and nothing else has to be. Orbital eccentricity against period for fifteen real planets, with the tidal circularisation boundary computed from τ_e = (2/21)(Q′/n)(M_p/M⋆)(a/R_p)⁵ for a Jupiter with Q′ = 1e+6 and an age of 3 billion years. It falls at 4.5 days, and the reason it is a wall rather than a slope is the fifth power: at half the period the timescale is 91 times shorter. Nothing inside it has a measurable eccentricity, and outside it eccentricities run to 0.95 — which is the number to hold on to, because a planet on a 0.93 orbit at 111 days comes within 0.030 AU of its star at periastron, closer than Mercury, and is being circularised as it is observed.

Planet migration

  1. 1 A planet where one cannot form
  2. 2 A torque that nearly cancels
2 essays · exoplanets A 20-day delay, recovered at 20 days from two curves that share no wavelength. Above: a quasar's continuum, drawn as a damped random walk with a 90-day damping time, and the broad emission line responding to it. The line curve is the continuum convolved with a top-hat response of half-width 20 days, so it is later and smoother — it varies only 51 per cent as much, because at any instant it is an average of the continuum over a range of light-travel times. Below: the cross-correlation of the two, which peaks at 20 days. That number is a length: 20 light-days is 5.2·10¹⁴ metres, or 3463 astronomical units, and it has been measured for an object that subtends 3.5·10⁻⁵ arcseconds at a hundred megaparsecs — some thirty times finer than the best optical interferometry has ever resolved anything, and reached here with a photometer and a clock. The irregularity of the continuum is what makes this work. A periodic source would give a cross-correlation with many equal peaks and no way to choose; a random one gives a single peak, and the whole method rests on active nuclei being erratic.

Quasars

  1. 1 A size measured from a delay
  2. 2 The factor that multiplies every quasar mass
2 essays · galaxies The wobble of a star with a circular companion. The star's velocity along the line of sight, over two orbits, computed from the companion's orbit. A circular orbit gives a sine wave; an eccentric one gives a skewed curve whose shape encodes the eccentricity.

Reflex velocity

  1. 1 The star moves, and the mass is a lower bound
  2. 2 A planet that was the star's own rotation
2 essays · exoplanets

All essays