Position of a Body on a Hyperbolic/Parabolic Orbit with Respect to Time

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on calculating the position of a body on hyperbolic and parabolic orbits with respect to time, particularly in the context of coding a simulation of a solar system. Participants explore the limitations of using Keplerian elements for orbits with eccentricities greater than or equal to one and seek alternative methods for determining coordinates along these orbits.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their experience coding a simulation for elliptical orbits and notes issues when the eccentricity approaches or exceeds 1.0, leading to undefined values for true anomaly and radius.
  • Another participant points out that Kepler's equation is not applicable for hyperbolic or parabolic orbits and suggests looking into specific references for solutions related to these types of orbits.
  • There is a discussion about the polar coordinate representation of parabolic and hyperbolic orbits, with one participant questioning whether the angle θ can be treated as a true anomaly.
  • Participants discuss the correct formulas for calculating the radius in polar coordinates, noting that different equations apply for parabolas and hyperbolas, including the use of Barker's equation and the hyperbolic anomaly.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about how to derive true anomaly from hyperbolic anomaly and whether mean anomaly is defined similarly for parabolic orbits.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that Kepler's equation does not apply to hyperbolic and parabolic orbits, but there is no consensus on the best approach to calculate positions along these orbits or how to relate different anomalies. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specifics of calculating true anomaly from hyperbolic anomaly and the applicability of mean anomaly in this context.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential misunderstanding of the relationship between different types of anomalies and the specific conditions under which various equations are valid. There is also a lack of clarity on how to transition between different anomaly types in the context of hyperbolic and parabolic orbits.

whiterook6
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
.. Using Keplerian Elements

Hi. Disclaimer: this is the first foray into orbits I've ever taken. I only did mechanics in university and haven't really touched it sincew.

I'm busy coding a simulation of a solar system. I've managed to code a routine to calculate the position of a body along an elliptic orbit, using a wikipedia article, but the code breaks down when the eccentricity of the orbit approaches or passes 1.0. Specifically, the true anomaly goes to π and the radius goes to ∞ pretty much immediately when the eccentricity is 1.0; when the eccentricity is >1.0, the true anomaly goes to ∞ too.

So, I'm looking for a little help with an algorithm to calculate points on a parabolic orbit, or on a hyperbolic orbit, using the same parameters like semimajor axis and eccentricity. From what I can see, mean/eccentric/true anomalies don't make sense for parabolic and hyperbolic orbits.

I'll take whatever help you can lend, and I don't need anyone to code me a solution, but I'm specifically looking to calculate the coordinates of a point on the orbit with respect to time.

Thanks for your help!

If you're curious, here's the code:
Code:
float meanAnomaly=(2.0f*pi*age)/(period)+meanAnomalyAtEpoch,
      eccentricAnomaly=solveForEccentricAnomaly(meanAnomaly, eccentricity),
      trueAnomaly=2.0f*atan2f(sqrt(1.0f+eccentricity)*sin(eccentricAnomaly/2.0f),
                              sqrt(1.0f-eccentricity)*cos(eccentricAnomaly/2.0f)),
      radius=semiMajorAxis*(1.0f-(eccentricity*eccentricity))/(1+eccentricity*cos(trueAnomaly));
where solveForEccenticAnomaly solves M=E-e*sin(E).
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
whiterook6 said:
where solveForEccenticAnomaly solves M=E-e*sin(E).
That's the source of your problem. That is Kepler's equation for an elliptical orbit. It isn't valid for hyperbolic orbits (e>1) or for orbits with e=1 (parabolic orbits, plus three kinds of degenerate orbits (angular momentum=0)).

The solutions for parabolic and hyperbolic orbits can be found in a number of references:
- Vallado & McClain, Fundamentals of astrodynamics and applications
- Battin, An introduction to the mathematics and methods of astrodynamics
- Astrodynamics, MIT Open CourseWare, http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-346-astrodynamics-fall-2008/
 
D H said:
That's the source of your problem. That is Kepler's equation for an elliptical orbit. It isn't valid for hyperbolic orbits (e>1) or for orbits with e=1 (parabolic orbits, plus three kinds of degenerate orbits (angular momentum=0)).

The solutions for parabolic and hyperbolic orbits can be found in a number of references:
- Vallado & McClain, Fundamentals of astrodynamics and applications
- Battin, An introduction to the mathematics and methods of astrodynamics
- Astrodynamics, MIT Open CourseWare, http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-346-astrodynamics-fall-2008/

Phew, that's a little beyond me. However, I know that it's certainly possible to plot a parabola/hyperbola in polar coordinates (or at least wikipedia says we can):

r=a(e2-1)/(1+e*cosθ)

Can I consider θ to be a true anomaly, and if so, is it possible to calculate θ from time t given parameters similar to Keplerian elements, like semimajor axis, focus distance, or period?
 
whiterook6 said:
Phew, that's a little beyond me. However, I know that it's certainly possible to plot a parabola/hyperbola in polar coordinates (or at least wikipedia says we can):

r=a(e2-1)/(1+e*cosθ)

Can I consider θ to be a true anomaly, and if so, is it possible to calculate θ from time t given parameters similar to Keplerian elements, like semimajor axis, focus distance, or period?

You can't use r=a(e^2-1)/(1+e\cos\theta) for a parabola. You can use r=p/(1+e\cos\theta) where p is the semi latus rectum as a general rule. This is valid for everything but the degenerate cases with zero angular momentum.

Kepler's equation does generalize to parabolic and hyperbolic orbits. For parabolae you need to use Barker's equation. For hyperbolae you need to use the hyperbolic anomaly. The hyperbolic equivalent of Kepler's equation is M=e\sinh H - H.

For more, and for derivations, I suggest you see the references I supplied in my previous post.
 
D H said:
You can't use r=a(e^2-1)/(1+e\cos\theta) for a parabola. You can use r=p/(1+e\cos\theta) where p is the semi latus rectum as a general rule. This is valid for everything but the degenerate cases with zero angular momentum.

Kepler's equation does generalize to parabolic and hyperbolic orbits. For parabolae you need to use Barker's equation. For hyperbolae you need to use the hyperbolic anomaly. The hyperbolic equivalent of Kepler's equation is M=e\sinh H - H.

For more, and for derivations, I suggest you see the references I supplied in my previous post.

Thanks. That doesn't really answer my question, but it's certainly a start. I can get the hyperbolic anomaly from the above formula; can I go from that to a true anomaly, and in the above formula, is M the same as for elliptical orbits? And does Barker's Equation also give a "parabolic anomaly" from a mean anomaly?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
11K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K