Doubt about the polar equation of a Kepler orbit

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differentiation of the polar equation for a Kepler orbit, specifically r = p / (1 + e cos ν), which describes a planet's position relative to a central body. The user initially struggles to derive the expected result for the radial velocity, dot{r}, leading to confusion about the differentiation process. A key insight is provided by referencing Kepler's second law, which states that r² dot{ν} = h, allowing for the substitution of dot{ν} in the equation. After applying this relationship, the user successfully arrives at the correct result for dot{r}. This highlights the importance of integrating Kepler's laws into orbital mechanics calculations.
pc2-brazil
Messages
198
Reaction score
3
Good morning,

I have a doubt about the differentiation of the polar equation of an orbit:
r=\frac{p}{1+e\cos\nu}
It represents the relative position of a planet with respect to the central body.
Here, p is the parameter, e is the eccentricity and r is the radius of the planet measured from the focus (where the central body is located).
If I differentiate it, I obtain the following result:
\dot{r}=\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} t}\left ( \frac{p}{1+e\cos\nu} \right )
p \left(\frac{e\dot{\nu}\sin \nu}{(1+e\cos\nu)^2}\right) = \frac{h^2}{\mu} \left(\frac{e\dot{\nu}\sin \nu}{(1+e\cos\nu)^2}\right)
However, according to the text I'm reading, I should be getting this:
\dot{r}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu}{p}}e\sin\nu
I'm not sure on how I could get this result.
Any ideas?

Thank you in advance.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
From Kepler's second law you have the relationship r^2 \dot{\nu} = h which you can insert into your equation to get rid of \dot{\nu}.
 
Filip Larsen said:
From Kepler's second law you have the relationship r^2 \dot{\nu} = h which you can insert into your equation to get rid of \dot{\nu}.

OK, I tried it and it led me to the correct result.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...

Similar threads

Back
Top