I Taking Projectile Motion to make Planetary Trajectories

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on finding equations to map planetary motion in polar coordinates, specifically to determine perigee and apogee radii. The user has been using Kepler's equations but finds them inadequate without knowing the orbit's eccentricity. They are now exploring basic projectile motion equations, acknowledging that these typically assume a flat Earth, which complicates their application to planetary trajectories. The user suggests a piecewise approach using Newton's gravitational law and the second law of motion to animate the orbital path, while also noting the need for a variable gravitational acceleration based on distance from the Sun. They seek assistance in simplifying their equations to make them less dependent on computational methods.
10Exahertz
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi all I have been trying to find A set of equations that can allow me to map the movement of a planetary body on a polar coordinate sheet (a 2-D Problem). As well as allow me to find out about information such as the perigee and apogee radaii.
So far i have been using Keplers equations and guessing the eccentricity of the orbit. But that is not really a good way of approaching it. However, I couldn't figure out how to do it with Keplers equations so I turned to Projectile Motion. I am currently trying to figure out how to use the basic projectile motion diff eq to map a planets orbital trajectory. Only problem I haven't tried to account for yet is that the normal projectile motion equations seem to assume a flat earth.
I have attached a screenshot of some of my work.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20170719-174058.png
    Screenshot_20170719-174058.png
    10.3 KB · Views: 604
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It's pretty easy to apply Newton's gravitational law and the Second law of motion (any co ordinates you want) and do a step by step approach to give an animation. Start with a given velocity and position and apply the gravitational acceleration over a short time Δt. That gives you another position and velocity. The piecewise linear approach will introduce a small error but reducing the step size can reduce it as much as you want.
Re "flat Earth"; the acceleration you need is not constant g (flat Earth) but GM/r2, directed along the radius from the Sun. I did this on a Psion 3a, many years ago with a compiled 'Basic' language. You could leave it running for a long time before the orbit precessed noticeably. It's not a very sophisticated method by you can find perigee and apogee easily enough by finding the turning values of r.
 
Well I created an equation but its implicitly defined. I am not sure if the computer would have a problem with this. But I do considering i would like to be able to map this out without the assistance of a computer.
Here is what I have gotten so far(linked image), but maybe I am overthinking the simplification. Any help in simplifying this so its only dependent on r would be helpful.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20170720-165516.png
    Screenshot_20170720-165516.png
    9.6 KB · Views: 551
Is a homemade radio telescope realistic? There seems to be a confluence of multiple technologies that makes the situation better than when I was a wee lad: software-defined radio (SDR), the easy availability of satellite dishes, surveillance drives, and fast CPUs. Let's take a step back - it is trivial to see the sun in radio. An old analog TV, a set of "rabbit ears" antenna, and you're good to go. Point the antenna at the sun (i.e. the ears are perpendicular to it) and there is...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top