DOCSLIB.ORG

Today in Astronomy 111: Asteroids, Perturbations and Orbital Resonances

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Today in Astronomy 111: Asteroids, Perturbations and Orbital Resonances Today in Astronomy 111: asteroids, perturbations and orbital resonances Leftovers: proofs of Kepler’s second and third laws Elliptical orbits and center of mass More than two bodies: perturbations by planets on each other’s orbits Mean motion resonances Simulation of perturbation by the inner Asteroids planets of the orbits of asteroids initially Stability and instability in spread evenly along the Earth’s orbit, by the asteroid belt Paul Wiegert (U. W. Ontario) and colleagues. 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 1 News flash: 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics … goes for the detection of acceleration in the Universe’s expansion, by measurement of distances with supernovae of type Ia, to Saul Perlmutter (UC Berkeley) Adam Riess (STScI and JHU) Brian Schmidt (ANU) Occasionally, physics prizes are given in astronomy. 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 2 Kepler’s Laws (continued) Kepler’s first law: we just showed, above, that elliptical orbits are consistent with gravity and the laws of motion, and the relationship between the parameters of the ellipse and the conserved mechanical quantities. Kepler’s second law (equal areas): dη dr’ dA′= dr ′′( r dη ) dA r r2 dA′ r’ dA= dηη r′′ dr = d ∫0 2 r’dη dA r2 dη 1 = = rvη dt22 dt h 1 ==GMa 1 −=ε 2 constant. 22 ( ) 29 September2011 Leftovers Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 3 Kepler’s Laws (continued) Kepler’s third law (period and semimajor axis): dA h = Integrate over one orbital period: dt 2 APh dA′ = dt ∫∫002 h A= P = π ab 2 πε24− 2 44ππ222ab 41a ( ) 2 Pa23= = = . 2 h GMa(1 −ε 2 ) GM 29 September2011 Leftovers Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 4 Elliptical orbits and center of mass As in the case of circular orbits, allowing the two masses to be finite in ratio changes the equations for elliptical orbits very little, if one just introduces the center of mass and reduced mass. The results for positions, velocities and conserved quantities: mm12 µµ µ =,r12 =−= rr ,, r mm12+ m1 m 2 µµ v12=−= vv,, v mm12 1 Gmµµ( ++ m) Gm( m) Ev=−=µ 2 12− 12, 22ra 2 L=µε Gm( 12 +− m) a(1.) 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 5 Elliptical orbits and center of mass (continued) And for a few other useful relations: dA h 1 ==+−Gm( m) a1 ε 2 dt 22 12( ) 4π 2 Pa23= Gm( 12+ m) 2 21 v=+− Gm( 21 m) ra 22ππr Recall: P = = for circular orbits. v ω 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 6 A two-body-system simulator Courtesy of Terry Herter (Cornell U.): http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~dmw/ast111/Java/binary.htm Chandra X-ray Observatory/TRW/NASA 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 7 Perturbation of orbits by other planets In the two-body problem considered hitherto, each body is subjected to a purely 1 r 2 force centered at the other body. When there is any deviation from the perfect inverse square law, orbits are no longer perfect ellipses. Such departures would be produced, for instance, by additional bodies in the system, or by nonspherical symmetry of the mass density in one or other of the bodies. In our solar system these effects are small enough that orbits are usually very close to elliptical. We call the small additional effects perturbations. The main effect of perturbations is that the orbits don’t exactly close: each successive orbit is very slightly different from the last. 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 8 Perturbation of orbits by other planets (cont’d) Because of perturbation and slight departure from closed elliptical orbits, the orientations of planetary orbits slowly change. We call this effect perihelion precession. The best example is Mercury, with a perihelion precession of 5600.73 arcsec/century. 5025 arcsec/century of this is an artifact of our coordinate system (the precession of equinoxes, due to Earth’s rotational-axis precession, but the remaining 576 arcsec/century is due to perturbations: 280 arcsec/century from Venus 151 arcsec/century from Jupiter 102 arcsec/century from other planets (mostly Earth) 43 arcsec/century from general relativity (warping of space by the Sun) 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 9 The many-body problem The two-body problem is of a class mathematical physicists call completely integrable. That means that there is one conserved quantity per degree of freedom. • For point masses: t ↔ E;,, x y z ↔= px mv xyz,,. p p Unique solutions can be obtained for completely integrable systems, so orbits can be predicted exactly for the two-body system. For more bodies, even 3, there is no general analytical solution. Even the restricted three-body problem (two massive, one massless particle) is complicated, as we shall see. Among the unpredictable problems: • Cumulative effects of perturbations (resonances) • Non-deterministic solutions (“chaos”) 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 10 Orbital resonances Periodic perturbations on an object, such as the nearby passage of a planet, will add up if they are in phase with the orbital motion of the object. If there are out of phase, then the perturbations will cancel on average and there will be no net change in the orbit of the object. 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 11 Orbital resonances (continued) Even small perturbations can be important: • The solar system is about 4.6 billion years old. • This means that everything in the inner Solar system has had more than a billion orbits. A billion small perturbations, if they add constructively (mostly in phase), can have large effects on the orbit of a small planet or asteroid. The leading cause in our solar system of small perturbations in phase with orbital motion are the mean- motion resonances of three-body systems. 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 12 Mean-motion resonances Consider the three-body system consisting of the Sun, a particle (large or small), and a perturbing planet. When do perturbations from the planet on the particle add constructively? That is, how could they be in phase with the orbital motion? One way is for an integer times the orbital period of the planet is equal to an integer times the orbital period of the particle. • Define the mean motion to be the average value of angular velocity during a period: 2π GM Here, MM= , since it's our ω ≡= P a3 Solar system we're discussing. 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 13 Mean-motion resonances (continued) • If the mean motion of the particle, ω p , and that of the perturbing planet, ω q , are related by ijωω≅ , Note that we don’t need pqexact equality for there to be or equivalently jPpq≅ iP , a big effect over many orbits. where i and j are integers, then any possible orientation of the three bodies will recur every j orbits of the particle and every i orbits of the perturber – and if any of those orientations comprise a perturbation, that is manifestly in phase with the orbit. We would call this one the “i:j resonance.” 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 14 Mean-motion resonances (continued) Recall that 2π a3/2 P = GM (Kepler’s third law), so the semimajor axis ratio for a resonance is 23 2/3 aPpp i = ≈ . aPqq j The largest convenient collection of small particles in orbit around the Sun, on which to see the effect of planetary perturbations, is the asteroids, a collection of small rocky bodies lying mostly between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 15 Vital statistics of main-belt asteroids 24 -4 Total mass ~2.3×× 10 gm (3.9 10 M⊕ ) ~200,000 with diameter Number ≥ 1 km Mass range 1014− 10 24 gm Diameter range 1-1000 km Density range 0.5− 7 gm cm-3 Orbits: Major axis range 1.7− 3.7 AU Eccentricity range 0.05− 0.9 Inclination range 0−° 30 Typical separation 107 km (0.07 AU) Eight asteroids seen at close range, shown on a common scale (Dawn/JPL/NASA) 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 16 Visits to the asteroids Including NASA’s Galileo and Cassini, which came close to some asteroids on their way to the outer planets, eight satellites have encountered ten different asteroids: Mission Launch Visited (flyby unless otherwise indicated) Galileo (NASA) 1989 951 Gaspra, 243 Ida (+ Dactyl, the first asteroidal moon) NEAR (NASA) 1996 433 Eros – orbiter, lander Cassini (NASA) 1997 2685 Masursky Deep Space 1 (NASA) 1998 9969 Braille Stardust (NASA) 1999 5535 Annefrank Hayabusa (JAXA) 2003 25143 Itokawa – orbiter, lander, sample return Rosetta (ESA) 2004 2867 Steins, 21 Lutetia Dawn (NASA) 2007 4 Vesta, 1 Ceres (2015) – will orbit both 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 17 The main asteroid belt Number of asteroids of Number Distance from Sun (AU) Sun from Distance Distance from Sun (AU) Distance from Sun (AU) Snapshot of distribution of main-belt asteroids, as would be viewed from the ecliptic pole (Bidstrup et al. 2005). The Sun’s position is labelled with a blue star, and the five inner planets by red blocks. 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 18 The main asteroid belt (continued) Distance above above Distance ecliptic (AU) Distance from Sun (AU) Snapshot of distribution of main-belt asteroids above and below the ecliptic (left), and perspective sketch of volume occupied by the main belt (right) (Bidstrup et al. 2005). 4 October 2011 Astronomy 111, Fall 2011 19 Resonances resulting in instability Within the asteroid belt, particles often change orbits due to gravitation of other particles they encounter.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AAS 13-250 Hohmann Spiral Transfer with Inclination Change Performed
    AAS 13-250 Hohmann Spiral Transfer With Inclination Change Performed By Low-Thrust System Steven Owens1 and Malcolm Macdonald2 This paper investigates the Hohmann Spiral Transfer (HST), an orbit transfer method previously developed by the authors incorporating both high and low- thrust propulsion systems, using the low-thrust system to perform an inclination change as well as orbit transfer. The HST is similar to the bi-elliptic transfer as the high-thrust system is first used to propel the spacecraft beyond the target where it is used again to circularize at an intermediate orbit. The low-thrust system is then activated and, while maintaining this orbit altitude, used to change the orbit inclination to suit the mission specification. The low-thrust system is then used again to reduce the spacecraft altitude by spiraling in-toward the target orbit. An analytical analysis of the HST utilizing the low-thrust system for the inclination change is performed which allows a critical specific impulse ratio to be derived determining the point at which the HST consumes the same amount of fuel as the Hohmann transfer. A critical ratio is found for both a circular and elliptical initial orbit. These equations are validated by a numerical approach before being compared to the HST utilizing the high-thrust system to perform the inclination change. An additional critical ratio comparing the HST utilizing the low-thrust system for the inclination change with its high-thrust counterpart is derived and by using these three critical ratios together, it can be determined when each transfer offers the lowest fuel mass consumption.
    [Show full text]
  • Astrodynamics
    Politecnico di Torino SEEDS SpacE Exploration and Development Systems Astrodynamics II Edition 2006 - 07 - Ver. 2.0.1 Author: Guido Colasurdo Dipartimento di Energetica Teacher: Giulio Avanzini Dipartimento di Ingegneria Aeronautica e Spaziale e-mail: [email protected] Contents 1 Two–Body Orbital Mechanics 1 1.1 BirthofAstrodynamics: Kepler’sLaws. ......... 1 1.2 Newton’sLawsofMotion ............................ ... 2 1.3 Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation . ......... 3 1.4 The n–BodyProblem ................................. 4 1.5 Equation of Motion in the Two-Body Problem . ....... 5 1.6 PotentialEnergy ................................. ... 6 1.7 ConstantsoftheMotion . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... 7 1.8 TrajectoryEquation .............................. .... 8 1.9 ConicSections ................................... 8 1.10 Relating Energy and Semi-major Axis . ........ 9 2 Two-Dimensional Analysis of Motion 11 2.1 ReferenceFrames................................. 11 2.2 Velocity and acceleration components . ......... 12 2.3 First-Order Scalar Equations of Motion . ......... 12 2.4 PerifocalReferenceFrame . ...... 13 2.5 FlightPathAngle ................................. 14 2.6 EllipticalOrbits................................ ..... 15 2.6.1 Geometry of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 15 2.6.2 Period of an Elliptical Orbit . ..... 16 2.7 Time–of–Flight on the Elliptical Orbit . .......... 16 2.8 Extensiontohyperbolaandparabola. ........ 18 2.9 Circular and Escape Velocity, Hyperbolic Excess Speed . .............. 18 2.10 CosmicVelocities
    [Show full text]
  • Optimisation of Propellant Consumption for Power Limited Rockets
    Delft University of Technology Faculty Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics Optimisation of Propellant Consumption for Power Limited Rockets. What Role do Power Limited Rockets have in Future Spaceflight Missions? (Dutch title: Optimaliseren van brandstofverbruik voor vermogen gelimiteerde raketten. De rol van deze raketten in toekomstige ruimtevlucht missies. ) A thesis submitted to the Delft Institute of Applied Mathematics as part to obtain the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE in APPLIED MATHEMATICS by NATHALIE OUDHOF Delft, the Netherlands December 2017 Copyright c 2017 by Nathalie Oudhof. All rights reserved. BSc thesis APPLIED MATHEMATICS \ Optimisation of Propellant Consumption for Power Limited Rockets What Role do Power Limite Rockets have in Future Spaceflight Missions?" (Dutch title: \Optimaliseren van brandstofverbruik voor vermogen gelimiteerde raketten De rol van deze raketten in toekomstige ruimtevlucht missies.)" NATHALIE OUDHOF Delft University of Technology Supervisor Dr. P.M. Visser Other members of the committee Dr.ir. W.G.M. Groenevelt Drs. E.M. van Elderen 21 December, 2017 Delft Abstract In this thesis we look at the most cost-effective trajectory for power limited rockets, i.e. the trajectory which costs the least amount of propellant. First some background information as well as the differences between thrust limited and power limited rockets will be discussed. Then the optimal trajectory for thrust limited rockets, the Hohmann Transfer Orbit, will be explained. Using Optimal Control Theory, the optimal trajectory for power limited rockets can be found. Three trajectories will be discussed: Low Earth Orbit to Geostationary Earth Orbit, Earth to Mars and Earth to Saturn. After this we compare the propellant use of the thrust limited rockets for these trajectories with the power limited rockets.
    [Show full text]
  • Flight and Orbital Mechanics
    Flight and Orbital Mechanics Lecture slides Challenge the future 1 Flight and Orbital Mechanics AE2-104, lecture hours 21-24: Interplanetary flight Ron Noomen October 25, 2012 AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 1 | Example: Galileo VEEGA trajectory Questions: • what is the purpose of this mission? • what propulsion technique(s) are used? • why this Venus- Earth-Earth sequence? • …. [NASA, 2010] AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 2 | Overview • Solar System • Hohmann transfer orbits • Synodic period • Launch, arrival dates • Fast transfer orbits • Round trip travel times • Gravity Assists AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 3 | Learning goals The student should be able to: • describe and explain the concept of an interplanetary transfer, including that of patched conics; • compute the main parameters of a Hohmann transfer between arbitrary planets (including the required ΔV); • compute the main parameters of a fast transfer between arbitrary planets (including the required ΔV); • derive the equation for the synodic period of an arbitrary pair of planets, and compute its numerical value; • derive the equations for launch and arrival epochs, for a Hohmann transfer between arbitrary planets; • derive the equations for the length of the main mission phases of a round trip mission, using Hohmann transfers; and • describe the mechanics of a Gravity Assist, and compute the changes in velocity and energy. Lecture material: • these slides (incl. footnotes) AE2104 Flight and Orbital Mechanics 4 | Introduction The Solar System (not to scale): [Aerospace
    [Show full text]
  • A Strategy for the Eigenvector Perturbations of the Reynolds Stress Tensor in the Context of Uncertainty Quantification
    Center for Turbulence Research 425 Proceedings of the Summer Program 2016 A strategy for the eigenvector perturbations of the Reynolds stress tensor in the context of uncertainty quantification By R. L. Thompsony, L. E. B. Sampaio, W. Edeling, A. A. Mishra AND G. Iaccarino In spite of increasing progress in high fidelity turbulent simulation avenues like Di- rect Numerical Simulation (DNS) and Large Eddy Simulation (LES), Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models remain the predominant numerical recourse to study com- plex engineering turbulent flows. In this scenario, it is imperative to provide reliable estimates for the uncertainty in RANS predictions. In the recent past, an uncertainty estimation framework relying on perturbations to the modeled Reynolds stress tensor has been widely applied with satisfactory results. Many of these investigations focus on perturbing only the Reynolds stress eigenvalues in the Barycentric map, thus ensuring realizability. However, these restrictions apply to the eigenvalues of that tensor only, leav- ing the eigenvectors free of any limiting condition. In the present work, we propose the use of the Reynolds stress transport equation as a constraint for the eigenvector pertur- bations of the Reynolds stress anisotropy tensor once the eigenvalues of this tensor are perturbed. We apply this methodology to a convex channel and show that the ensuing eigenvector perturbations are a more accurate measure of uncertainty when compared with a pure eigenvalue perturbation. 1. Introduction Turbulent flows are present in a wide number of engineering design problems. Due to the disparate character of such flows, predictive methods must be robust, so as to be easily applicable for most of these cases, yet possessing a high degree of accuracy in each.
    [Show full text]
  • Spacecraft Guidance Techniques for Maximizing Mission Success
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 5-2014 Spacecraft Guidance Techniques for Maximizing Mission Success Shane B. Robinson Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Mechanical Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Robinson, Shane B., "Spacecraft Guidance Techniques for Maximizing Mission Success" (2014). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 2175. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/2175 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPACECRAFT GUIDANCE TECHNIQUES FOR MAXIMIZING MISSION SUCCESS by Shane B. Robinson A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Mechanical Engineering Approved: Dr. David K. Geller Dr. Jacob H. Gunther Major Professor Committee Member Dr. Warren F. Phillips Dr. Charles M. Swenson Committee Member Committee Member Dr. Stephen A. Whitmore Dr. Mark R. McLellan Committee Member Vice President for Research and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2013 [This page intentionally left blank] iii Copyright c Shane B. Robinson 2013 All Rights Reserved [This page intentionally left blank] v Abstract Spacecraft Guidance Techniques for Maximizing Mission Success by Shane B. Robinson, Doctor of Philosophy Utah State University, 2013 Major Professor: Dr. David K. Geller Department: Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Traditional spacecraft guidance techniques have the objective of deterministically min- imizing fuel consumption.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Dalbello Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs Intelsat General
    Commercial Management of the Space Environment Richard DalBello Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs Intelsat General The commercial satellite industry has billions of dollars of assets in space and relies on this unique environment for the development and growth of its business. As a result, safety and the sustainment of the space environment are two of the satellite industry‘s highest priorities. In this paper I would like to provide a quick survey of past and current industry space traffic control practices and to discuss a few key initiatives that the industry is developing in this area. Background The commercial satellite industry has been providing essential space services for almost as long as humans have been exploring space. Over the decades, this industry has played an active role in developing technology, worked collaboratively to set standards, and partnered with government to develop successful international regulatory regimes. Success in both commercial and government space programs has meant that new demands are being placed on the space environment. This has resulted in orbital crowding, an increase in space debris, and greater demand for limited frequency resources. The successful management of these issues will require a strong partnership between government and industry and the careful, experience-based expansion of international law and diplomacy. Throughout the years, the satellite industry has never taken for granted the remarkable environment in which it works. Industry has invested heavily in technology and sought out the best and brightest minds to allow the full, but sustainable exploitation of the space environment. Where problems have arisen, such as space debris or electronic interference, industry has taken 1 the initiative to deploy new technologies and adopt new practices to minimize negative consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • New Closed-Form Solutions for Optimal Impulsive Control of Spacecraft Relative Motion
    New Closed-Form Solutions for Optimal Impulsive Control of Spacecraft Relative Motion Michelle Chernick∗ and Simone D'Amicoy Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 94305, USA This paper addresses the fuel-optimal guidance and control of the relative motion for formation-flying and rendezvous using impulsive maneuvers. To meet the requirements of future multi-satellite missions, closed-form solutions of the inverse relative dynamics are sought in arbitrary orbits. Time constraints dictated by mission operations and relevant perturbations acting on the formation are taken into account by splitting the optimal recon- figuration in a guidance (long-term) and control (short-term) layer. Both problems are cast in relative orbit element space which allows the simple inclusion of secular and long-periodic perturbations through a state transition matrix and the translation of the fuel-optimal optimization into a minimum-length path-planning problem. Due to the proper choice of state variables, both guidance and control problems can be solved (semi-)analytically leading to optimal, predictable maneuvering schemes for simple on-board implementation. Besides generalizing previous work, this paper finds four new in-plane and out-of-plane (semi-)analytical solutions to the optimal control problem in the cases of unperturbed ec- centric and perturbed near-circular orbits. A general delta-v lower bound is formulated which provides insight into the optimality of the control solutions, and a strong analogy between elliptic Hohmann transfers and formation-flying control is established. Finally, the functionality, performance, and benefits of the new impulsive maneuvering schemes are rigorously assessed through numerical integration of the equations of motion and a systematic comparison with primer vector optimal control.
    [Show full text]
  • One Team from This State Was the First Your Writer Ever Lost to at a National Tournament
    1. (Meta) One team from this state was the first your writer ever lost to at a National tournament. One ​ coach from this state created (^) an A-set tournament solely in order to qualify his team for HSNCT ​ after proposing an all-female tournament, Title IX Bowl. A 2009 cheating scandal in (+) this state ​ involved a team’s gmail account being used by its treasurer to access SCT questions, which he then used to defeat such powerhouse teams as Vanderbilt B. A standing rule (*) of ILQBM bans memes ​ from this state, and the top-ranked team from this state lost to their own B team at New Trier Varsity. For ten points, name this state home to teams such as Northview and Chattahoochee. Answer: Georgia ​ Bonus: Name the following about other cheaters. [10] This Windhaven Park E player won a tournament with a 66/18/3 statline after improperly accessing IS-164 questions. He did not demonstrate his knowledge via skype due to a sudden attack of buzzer shyness. Answer: Ethan McBride ​ [10] (pseudonyms acceptable) This early Ohioan cheater notably created two sock puppet forum accounts pretending to be his friend and his friend’s mother to attest to his good character and mask the fact that he played a HS tournament despite being in college. Answer: Basileus (accept dafirenze, Paul Harold, Nancydf64) ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ [10] This most notorious of quizbowl cheaters was referred to as “the grand vizier of fuckfaces” in a hate thread dedicated to him. He won three ICTs for Harvard, all of which were rescinded. Answer: Andy Watkins ​ 2.
    [Show full text]
  • PPARC Cassinni
    Seasons on Saturn Sightseeing What is en-route toSaturn Cassini Huygens was launched Cassini in 1997 on a Titan IV/Centaur Huygens? rocket. In order to build up the energy needed to reach distant Saturn, the spacecraft followed a Cassini Huygens is an international space mission spiral route past the Earth, Venus to explore Saturn and its largest moon, Titan. The and Jupiter. As it swung by each mission is made up of NASA’s Cassini orbiter and planet, it picked up speed using a the European Space Agency’s Huygens probe. technique called “gravity assist”. Cassini Huygens launch Taking this roundabout route meant that The mission is named after two 17th Cassini could carry out science investigations Century astronomers: Jean Dominique during its journey. The spacecraft’s ISS cameras Cassini, the discoverer of four of took spectacular images of the Moon during an Saturn’s orbit Saturn’s moons, and Christiaan Huygens, Earth flyby in 1999 and picked out Asteroid Jupiter who discovered Titan and realised that 2685 Masursky from a distance of 1.6 million Earth’s orbit the “ears” Galileo had observed either kilometres – good practice for its task of Jupiter’s orbit Between November 2000 and February 2001, Cassini teamed up side of Saturn were actually rings. finding new moons at Saturn. Venus’ orbit with NASA’s Galileo mission to study Jupiter. Besides taking some beautiful pictures of the gas giant, Cassini found that Jupiter’s Jean Dominique Cassini Christian Huygens Cassini’s trajectory magnetic field is lopsided, leaks high-energy particles and changes size as space weather events pass by.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercury's Resonant Rotation from Secular Orbital Elements
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Institute of Transport Research:Publications Mercury’s resonant rotation from secular orbital elements Alexander Stark a, Jürgen Oberst a,b, Hauke Hussmann a a German Aerospace Center, Institute of Planetary Research, D-12489 Berlin, Germany b Moscow State University for Geodesy and Cartography, RU-105064 Moscow, Russia The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10569-015-9633-4. Abstract We used recently produced Solar System ephemerides, which incorpo- rate two years of ranging observations to the MESSENGER spacecraft, to extract the secular orbital elements for Mercury and associated uncer- tainties. As Mercury is in a stable 3:2 spin-orbit resonance these values constitute an important reference for the planet’s measured rotational pa- rameters, which in turn strongly bear on physical interpretation of Mer- cury’s interior structure. In particular, we derive a mean orbital period of (87.96934962 ± 0.00000037) days and (assuming a perfect resonance) a spin rate of (6.138506839 ± 0.000000028) ◦/day. The difference between this ro- tation rate and the currently adopted rotation rate (Archinal et al., 2011) corresponds to a longitudinal displacement of approx. 67 m per year at the equator. Moreover, we present a basic approach for the calculation of the orientation of the instantaneous Laplace and Cassini planes of Mercury. The analysis allows us to assess the uncertainties in physical parameters of the planet, when derived from observations of Mercury’s rotation. 1 1 Introduction Mercury’s orbit is not inertially stable but exposed to various perturbations which over long time scales lead to a chaotic motion (Laskar, 1989).
    [Show full text]
  • SATELLITES ORBIT ELEMENTS : EPHEMERIS, Keplerian ELEMENTS, STATE VECTORS
    www.myreaders.info www.myreaders.info Return to Website SATELLITES ORBIT ELEMENTS : EPHEMERIS, Keplerian ELEMENTS, STATE VECTORS RC Chakraborty (Retd), Former Director, DRDO, Delhi & Visiting Professor, JUET, Guna, www.myreaders.info, [email protected], www.myreaders.info/html/orbital_mechanics.html, Revised Dec. 16, 2015 (This is Sec. 5, pp 164 - 192, of Orbital Mechanics - Model & Simulation Software (OM-MSS), Sec 1 to 10, pp 1 - 402.) OM-MSS Page 164 OM-MSS Section - 5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------43 www.myreaders.info SATELLITES ORBIT ELEMENTS : EPHEMERIS, Keplerian ELEMENTS, STATE VECTORS Satellite Ephemeris is Expressed either by 'Keplerian elements' or by 'State Vectors', that uniquely identify a specific orbit. A satellite is an object that moves around a larger object. Thousands of Satellites launched into orbit around Earth. First, look into the Preliminaries about 'Satellite Orbit', before moving to Satellite Ephemeris data and conversion utilities of the OM-MSS software. (a) Satellite : An artificial object, intentionally placed into orbit. Thousands of Satellites have been launched into orbit around Earth. A few Satellites called Space Probes have been placed into orbit around Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, etc. The Motion of a Satellite is a direct consequence of the Gravity of a body (earth), around which the satellite travels without any propulsion. The Moon is the Earth's only natural Satellite, moves around Earth in the same kind of orbit. (b) Earth Gravity and Satellite Motion : As satellite move around Earth, it is pulled in by the gravitational force (centripetal) of the Earth. Contrary to this pull, the rotating motion of satellite around Earth has an associated force (centrifugal) which pushes it away from the Earth.
    [Show full text]