Orbital Elements-Identification of method

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter solarblast
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Method Orbital
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the identification of a method for calculating the six orbital elements as presented in a specific book. Participants are exploring the origins of the equations used, the correctness of references made by the author, and the relationship of the method to known approaches such as those by Gauss and LaPlace. The scope includes theoretical understanding and mathematical reasoning related to orbital mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on the origin of the equations for the six orbital elements and questions the author's reference to equations (87) and (88), suspecting a misreference to (86) and (87).
  • Another participant suggests that the method requires finding the parameter p before calculating the eccentricity e, indicating a sequence in the calculations.
  • A later reply notes that the equations on page 40 transform coordinates from equatorial to ecliptic, which is necessary for determining additional orbital parameters such as omega, capital omega, and inclination.
  • It is mentioned that the author did not clarify the distinction between ecliptic and orbital elements, which could lead to confusion.
  • One participant concludes that the mathematical approach appears to be derived from the LaPlace method.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the correct referencing of equations and the clarity of the author's presentation. There is no consensus on the correctness of the author's claims or the identification of the method used.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves assumptions about the definitions of orbital elements and the transformations between coordinate systems, which may not be fully resolved in the provided text.

solarblast
Messages
146
Reaction score
2
Orbital Elements--Identification of method

I'm looking at a book that has a method for calculating the six orbital elements. I'm attaching the relevant pages. My knowledge about orbits is limited to knowing the meaning of the six elements. What I'd like to know is where did these equations come from, and is the author right when he says, "e from (87) and (88)" at the bottom of page 39. I suspect he meant 86 and 87.

I've heard of Gauss' and LaPlace's methods for determining orbits. Is the approach given one of those? He notes Herget as a source at the top of page 40. I have access to it, but is not a simple matter to browse through to find the approach on page 40.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org


Well, for all practical purposes, it looked like I attached 4 jpg files. Guess not, so I'll do it now.

Ah, they were tif files. Invalid. Not quite. I had posted these before with a similar question, and apparently cannot post them again. It's a different question this time.

See <https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=556478> Pages 37-40.
 


I think it's saying that you need to find p before you can find e, so you would have to do 88 first then do 87. Not sure really.
 


As it turns out, after really following the text onto page 40, the equations there at the top of the page transform x,y,z in equatorial coordinates to ecliptic coordinates. That paves the way to get omega, capital omega, and the inclination. These are all related to the ecliptic, while the six on the previous page are orbital. If the author had mentioned ecliptic that would have made it clearer. There actually seven orbital elements. q, perihelion distance is mentioned above eq (85), and in (92). We are now getting proper results.

It appears the math here is from the La Place method.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
15K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
13K