Terminology for motion in the solar system, ecliptic maybe?

[Albertgauss]

TL;DR Summary

What is the terminology for moving through the solar system?

Just looking for terminology here.

If an object moves through the solar system, what is the simplest terminology that relates to how the object moves through the solar system?

What are the words for if an object moves

towards the sun (radially inwards)
away from the sun (radially outwards)
counterclockwise with the Earth's orbit (prograde?) (as seen from north hemisphere of Earth, looking south)
clockwise with respect to the Earth's orbit (retrograde?) (as seen from north hemisphere of Earth, looking south)
Out of the solar system plane
Towards the solar system plane

Are there any simpler terms than "North Ecliptic Pole" and "South Ecliptic Pole"?

I could not find anything obvious on the internet but are there any stars that remain relatively fixed over a human lifetime above the north pole of the sun? South pole of the sun?

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you looking for industry terms or just convenient terms?
'cuz you seem to have already got some pretty good convenience terms there.

Some quick Googly-eying turns up this:

"The North Pole of the sun points towards the constellation Draco. There is no bright star close to the North Pole of the Sun. The closest fairly bright star is Delta Draco, "Altais". A magnitude 3 star."
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com...star-is-directly-north-of-the-suns-north-pole

 

[Bystander]

TL;DR Summary: What is the terminology for moving through the solar system?

Just looking for terminology here.

"Trajectory?"

 

[Albertgauss]

Are you looking for industry terms or just convenient terms?
'cuz you seem to have already got some pretty good convenience terms there.

Whichever is simplest. I feel like there's got to be an easier/simpler way to say "moving radially towards the sun" or "out of the ecliptic plane" for instance. What would someone at NASA say if they were trying to move a satellite around the solar system?

"The North Pole of the sun points towards the constellation Draco. There is no bright star close to the North Pole of the Sun. The closest fairly bright star is Delta Draco, "Altais". A magnitude 3 star."

Yes, that looks to be the case. That looks to be why I couldn't find a star over the north pole of the sun.

"Trajectory?"

Too vague.

Local motion on Earth could be described completely as: "up, down, left, right, out, in." I realize from this post that analogous terminology for moving in the solar system may not exist, but maybe someone will have some terminology I could not find easily on the internet.

 

[pbuk]

TL;DR Summary: What is the terminology for moving through the solar system?

Up (or North), down (or South), in, out, clockwise (or West), anti-clockwise (or East).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecliptic_coordinate_system

 

[Albertgauss]

Up (or North), down (or South), in, out, clockwise (or West), anti-clockwise (or East).

That works! So simple I missed it.

 

[DaveC426913]

...there's got to be an easier/simpler way to say "moving radially towards the sun"...

sunward.

 

[DaveC426913]

Up (or North), down (or South), in, out, clockwise (or West), anti-clockwise (or East).

Prograde and retrograde are more objective and more useful.

 

[pbuk]

Prograde and retrograde are more objective and more useful.

You may find them more useful but you can hardly say that they are more objective: prograde with respect to what?

Personally I can never remember which way the Earth goes round the Sun, but I know that once we have defined 'North' (or 'up') for an orbital system, clockwise is easy to find.

For more technical insight (reference frames used by NASA's JPL) see https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons/manual.html#frames

 

[DaveC426913]

You may find them more useful but you can hardly say that they are more objective: prograde with respect to what?

All the planets, minor planets and asteroids. And the sun's revolution.
In short: with respect virtually everything.

Personally I can never remember which way the Earth goes round the Sun,

You, pbuk, do know. It goes prograde, by definition.

See?

What you don't have to remember is whether that's clockwise or counterclockwise, because who cares?


See it's not about knowing some external-to-the-solar-system direction. This about moving within the solar system. What is going to be very important is the direction relative to what the things you are amongst are doing.


Captain: "Helmsman, we're about to cross Mars' orbit. Which way are we orbiting?"
Pilot pbuk: "Clockwise, sir!"
Captain: "Great. Er ... remind me again which direction Mars is orbiting?"
Pilot pbuk: "Counterclockwise, sir!"
Captain: "Great. Opposite to Mars. It'll whiz past us long before we cross."


Captain: "Helmsman, we're about to cross Mars' orbit. Which way are we orbiting?"
Pilot Dave: "Retrograde, sir!"
Captain: "Great. Opposite to Mars. It'll whiz past us long before we cross."

 

[Drakkith]

Note that prograde and retrograde are used in reference to something's orbit. If you're talking about which direction something is going in relation to the Sun, or a coordinate system centered on the Sun, then you can't use those.

 

[DaveC426913]

Note that prograde and retrograde are used in reference to something's orbit. If you're talking about which direction something is going in relation to the Sun, or a coordinate system centered on the Sun, then you can't use those.

I'm not sure what you are objecting to.

"A planet has a prograde orbit or rotation if the sense of rotation is the same as the general sense of rotation of the Solar System."
- Oxford Reference

"[Pro]grade motion in astronomy is, in general, orbital or rotational motion of an object in the direction [the same as] the rotation of its primary, that is, the central object.
...
In the Solar System, the orbits around the Sun of all planets and most other objects, except many comets, are prograde. They orbit around the Sun in the same direction as the sun rotates about its axis..."

- Wiki


This seems to cover what I'm getting at. Is it possible I'm misinterpreting the gist of your post?

 

[pbuk]

In short: with respect [to] virtually everything.

What is going to be very important is the direction relative to what the things you are amongst are doing.

I think you are missing my point: when a definition is "with respect to" or "relative to" something then it is subjective, not objective.

 

[Tom.G]

I think you are missing my point: when a definition is "with respect to" or "relative to" something then it is subjective, not objective.

If it is not relative to something then by definition you can not describe its motion/trajectory!

For instance a thrown object in a gravity field could be seen as a parabola if seen from a point perpendicular to its plane, or as a straight line if seen from a point in its plane of motion.

Each description is relative to the observer, you, and totally accurate.

p.s. isn't philosophy banned here?