I'm working on this project and I've kind of come to a roadblock.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Here's a little background: we have a 1 solar mass star and a planet orbiting it. The planet is defined by 5 orbital elements (period, mass, eccentricity, longitude of periastron, and mean anomaly). I wrote a code that will plot the radial velocity of the planet vs. time. I'm using the systemic console (www.oklo.org). I don't know how familiar you guys are with it; this is my first post here.

Now the radial velocity of the planet tells us the radial velocity of the star. The only difference is the semi-major axis is reduced by 1/(1 + Ms/Mp) and the path is flipped by 180°.

Here's the problem: I plot the radial velocity vs. time and I get an ok looking graph. Then I go to do a fitting test. The amplitude is dead on. So that's correct. But every time, the phase is off! Sometimes by ~30°, sometimes by ~180°. What's going on?

Here's my math (skip to the bottom to see the phase): I'm using the bookSolar System Dynamicsby Murray and Dermott. There's a neat matrix and I'm taking the radial velocity to be along the X axis. The equation for that is...

X = r(cosΩ*cos(ω + f) - sinΩ*sin(ω + f)*cosI)

where r is the radius, Ω is the longitude of ascending node, ω is the longitude of periastron, I is the inclination angle, and f is the true anomaly. Ω = I = 0, so our equation is reduced to...

X = r*cos(ω + f)

Take a derivative to get radial velocity. r and f change with time so you have to product rule.

There's useful formulas in the book for r dot and r*(f dot), but my final solution for the phase of the planet is...

-[e*sinω + sin(ω +f)]

e is eccentricity.

Just switch the sign for the radial velocity of the star. Now f can't be explained simply in terms of the mean anomaly, but it can with the eccentric anomaly, E.

tan(f/2) = sqrt[(1+e)/(1-e)]*tan(M/2)

It's messy but my new phase for the star looks like...

e*sinω + sin(ω + [2 * arctan(sqrt[(1+e)/(1-e)]*tan(E/2))])

If we consider a perfectly circular orbit (e = 0), then arctan-tan eliminate, 2s cancel and we have ω + M on the inside, as I'd expect.

I related E to M using Newton-Raphson iterations, and checked for convergence using Kepler's Equation. And it works. I think I'm overlooking something really obvious. I've been staring at this for a few days.

Anyone brave enough to conquer my wall of text and lend me some insight? It would be greatly appreciated! Thank you!

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Orbit in space (extrasolar planets)

Loading...

Similar Threads - Orbit space extrasolar | Date |
---|---|

I Changing the ISS's orbital inclination to match the Moon | Feb 12, 2018 |

I First Chinese space station about to de-orbit soon | Oct 13, 2017 |

I What causes the deceleration of a satellite? Space dust? | Mar 22, 2017 |

B When are we "trailing" the Sun in its galactic revolution? | Nov 12, 2016 |

I Space debris | May 11, 2016 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**