DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1801.01947V1 [Astro-Ph.IM] 6 Jan 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1801.01947V1 [Astro-Ph.IM] 6 Jan 2018 Draft version January 9, 2018 Preprint typeset using LATEX style AASTeX6 v. 1.0 RADVEL: THE RADIAL VELOCITY MODELING TOOLKIT Benjamin J. Fulton1,2,3, Erik A. Petigura1,4, Sarah Blunt1, Evan Sinukoff1,2,5 1California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, U.S.A. 2Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawai‘i at Ma¯anoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA 3Texaco Fellow 4Hubble Fellow 5Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Graduate Student Fellow ABSTRACT RadVel is an open source Python package for modeling Keplerian orbits in radial velocity (RV) time series. RadVel provides a convenient framework to fit RVs using maximum a posteriori optimization and to compute robust confidence intervals by sampling the posterior probability density via Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). RadVel allows users to float or fix parameters, impose priors, and perform Bayesian model comparison. We have implemented realtime MCMC convergence tests to ensure adequate sampling of the posterior. RadVel can output a number of publication-quality plots and tables. Users may interface with RadVel through a convenient command-line interface or directly from Python. The code is object-oriented and thus naturally extensible. We encourage contributions from the community. Documentation is available at http://radvel.readthedocs.io. 1. INTRODUCTION (MCMC) sampling techniques and robust convergence The radial velocity (RV) technique was among the first criteria to ensure accurately estimated orbital parame- techniques to permit the discovery and characterization ters and their associated uncertainties. of extrasolar planets (e.g., Campbell et al. 1988; Latham The goal of this paper is to document the core features et al. 1989; Mayor & Queloz 1995; Marcy & Butler 1996). of RadVel version 1.0 (Fulton & Petigura 2017). Due to Prior to NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope (Borucki et al. the evolving nature of RadVel, the most up to date docu- 2010), the RV technique accounted for the vast majority mentation can be found at http://radvel.readthedocs.io of exoplanet detections (Akeson et al. 2013). (RTD page hereafter). This paper complements that In the post-Kepler era, the RV field has shifted some- documentation and is structured as follows: we describe what from discovery to follow up and characterization the parameters involved to describe an RV orbit in Sec- of planets discovered by transit surveys. In the case tion2, in Section3 we discuss Bayesian inference as of planets discovered via either technique the need to implemented in RadVel. The design of the code is de- model RV orbits to extract planet masses (or minimum scribed in Section4 and the model fitting procedure is masses, M sin i) is a critical tool necessary to understand described in Section5. We explain how to install RadVel the compositions and typical masses of exoplanets. and walk through two example fits to demonstrate how Several software packages have been written to ad- the code is run in Section6. We describe the mechanism for support and contributions in Section7 and close with arXiv:1801.01947v1 [astro-ph.IM] 6 Jan 2018 dress the need of the exoplanet community to fit RV time series.1 In designing RadVel, we have emphasized some concluding remarks in Section8. ease of use, flexibility, and extensibility. RadVel can be installed and a simple planetary system can mod- 2. THE RADIAL VELOCITY ORBIT eled from the command-line in seconds. RadVel also RV orbits are fundamentally described with five or- provides an extensive and well-documented application bital elements: orbital period (P ), a parameter that de- programming interface (API) to perform complex fitting scribes the orbital phase at a given time (we use the tasks. We employ modern Markov Chain Monte Carlo time of inferior conjunction, Tc), orbital eccentricity (e), the argument of periastron of the star’s orbit (!), and the velocity semi-amplitude (K). We also include terms 1 a non-exhaustive list includes RVLIN (Wright & Howard 2009), for the mean center-of-mass velocity (γ), plus linear (γ_ ) Systemic (Meschiari et al. 2009; Meschiari & Laughlin 2010), EXOFAST (Eastman et al. 2013), rvfit (Iglesias-Marzoa et al. 2015), and quadratic (γ¨) acceleration terms in the RV model. and ExoSOFT (Mede & Brandt 2017) Since RV measurement uncertainties generally do not 2 take into account contributions from astrophysical and single orbiting planet. Equation 1 is known as Kepler’s instrumental sources of noise we also fit for a “jitter” equation and we solve it using the iterative method pro- term (σ), which is added in quadrature with the mea- posed by Danby(1988), and reproduced in Murray & surement uncertainties. These parameters are listed and Dermott(1999). described in Table2 for reference. Figure1 depicts an Note that we equate _z to vr in our description of the example eccentric Keplerian orbit with several of these RV orbit. In our coordinate system, the ^z unit vector parameters annotated. We define a cartesian coordi- points away from the observer. Historically, this has nate system described by the ^x, ^y, and ^z unit vectors been the observational convention so that positive RV such that ^z points away from the observer and ^y is nor- can be interpreted as a redshift of the star. However, mal to the plane of the planet’s orbit. In this coordinate some derivations of this equation in the literature (e.g., system, the x-y plane defines the sky plane. Murray & Correia 2010; Deck et al. 2014) define their co- ordinate system such that ^z points toward the observer Table 1. Keplerian Orbital Elements and derive an equation for RV which is very similar to our Equation 3. The key difference when defining a co- Parameter Description Symbol ordinate system with ^z pointing toward the observer is that the sign in Equation 3 must be flipped (vr = −_z) Keplerian Orbital Parameters or, equivalently, ! must refer to the argument of peri- orbital period P apsis of the planet’s orbit which is shifted by π relative to the argument of periapsis of the star’s orbit. time of inferior conjunction (or transit)1 T c In the case of multiple planets the Keplerian orbits time of periastron1,2 T p are summed together. We also add acceleration terms eccentricity e to account for additional perturbers in the system with 2 argument of periapsis of the star’s orbit ! orbital periods much longer than the observational base- velocity semi-amplitude K line. The total RV motion of the star due to all com- panions (Vr) is, Mean and Acceleration Terms 3 Npl mean center-of-mass velocity γi X 2 Vr = vr;k + γ +γ _ (t − t0) +γ ¨(t − t0) ; (4) linear acceleration term γ_ k second order acceleration term γ¨ where Npl is the total number of planets in the system Noise Parameters and t0 is an arbitrary abscissa epoch defined by the user. radial velocity “jitter” (white noise)3 σ i 2.2. Parameterization 1 In order to speed fitting convergence and avoid biasing Either Tc or Tp can be used to describe the phase of the orbit. Both are not needed simultaneously. parameters that must physically be finite and positive 2undefined for circular orbits (e.g. Lucy & Sweeney 1971) analytical transformations of the orbital elements are often used to describe the 3usually specific to each instrument (i) orbit. In RadVel we have implemented several of these transformations into six different “basis” sets. One of the highlight features of RadVel is the ability to easily switch between these different bases. This allows the 2.1. Keplerian Solver user to explore any biases that might arise based on Synthesizing radial velocities involves solving the fol- the choice of parameterization, and/or impose priors on lowing system of equations, parameters or combinations of parameters that are not typically used to describe an RV orbit (e.g. a prior on M = E − e sin E (1) e cos ! from a secondary eclipse detection). ! r1 + e E We have implemented the basis sets listed in Ta- ν = 2 tan−1 tan (2) 1 − e 2 ble 2.2. Users can easily add additional basis sets by modifying the radvel.basis.Basis object. A _z= v = K[cos(ν + !) + e cos(!)] (3) r string representation of the new basis should be where M is the mean anomaly, E is the eccentric added to the radvel.basis.Basis.BASIS_NAMES at- anomaly, and e is the orbital eccentricity, ν is commonly tribute. The radvel.basis.Basis.to_synth and referred to as the true anomaly, K is the velocity semi- radvel.basis.Basis.from_synth methods should also amplitude, and vr is the star’s reflex RV caused by a be updated to properly transform the new basis to and 3 315° 150 0° 270° orbital period ( ) apoapsis of the planet's orbit ) ( 100 e d u t i l p m a - i m ] e redshift periapsis of the s toward Earth s 50 45° star's orbit 225° m [ V inferior R direction conjunction ) of orbit ( 0 e periapsis of d u t i orbit of the planet's orbit l star p m a orbit of - planet i m e blueshift s 90° 180° 50 sky plane 135° 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 true anomaly ( ) Orbital Phase Figure 1. Diagram of a Keplerian orbit. Left: Top-down view of an eccentric Keplerian orbit with relevant parameters labeled. The planet’s orbit is plotted as a light grey dotted line and the star’s orbit is plotted in blue (scale exaggerated for clarity). Right: Model radial velocity curve for the same orbit with the relevant parameters labeled. We define a cartesian coordinate system described by the ^x, ^y, and ^z unit vectors such that ^z points away from the observer and ^y is normal to the plane of the planet’s orbit.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix a Orbits
    Appendix A Orbits As discussed in the Introduction, a good ¯rst approximation for satellite motion is obtained by assuming the spacecraft is a point mass or spherical body moving in the gravitational ¯eld of a spherical planet. This leads to the classical two-body problem. Since we use the term body to refer to a spacecraft of ¯nite size (as in rigid body), it may be more appropriate to call this the two-particle problem, but I will use the term two-body problem in its classical sense. The basic elements of orbital dynamics are captured in Kepler's three laws which he published in the 17th century. His laws were for the orbital motion of the planets about the Sun, but are also applicable to the motion of satellites about planets. The three laws are: 1. The orbit of each planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one focus. 2. The line joining the planet to the Sun sweeps out equal areas in equal times. 3. The square of the period of a planet is proportional to the cube of its mean distance to the sun. The ¯rst law applies to most spacecraft, but it is also possible for spacecraft to travel in parabolic and hyperbolic orbits, in which case the period is in¯nite and the 3rd law does not apply. However, the 2nd law applies to all two-body motion. Newton's 2nd law and his law of universal gravitation provide the tools for generalizing Kepler's laws to non-elliptical orbits, as well as for proving Kepler's laws.
    [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]
  • Electric Propulsion System Scaling for Asteroid Capture-And-Return Missions
    Electric propulsion system scaling for asteroid capture-and-return missions Justin M. Little⇤ and Edgar Y. Choueiri† Electric Propulsion and Plasma Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544 The requirements for an electric propulsion system needed to maximize the return mass of asteroid capture-and-return (ACR) missions are investigated in detail. An analytical model is presented for the mission time and mass balance of an ACR mission based on the propellant requirements of each mission phase. Edelbaum’s approximation is used for the Earth-escape phase. The asteroid rendezvous and return phases of the mission are modeled as a low-thrust optimal control problem with a lunar assist. The numerical solution to this problem is used to derive scaling laws for the propellant requirements based on the maneuver time, asteroid orbit, and propulsion system parameters. Constraining the rendezvous and return phases by the synodic period of the target asteroid, a semi- empirical equation is obtained for the optimum specific impulse and power supply. It was found analytically that the optimum power supply is one such that the mass of the propulsion system and power supply are approximately equal to the total mass of propellant used during the entire mission. Finally, it is shown that ACR missions, in general, are optimized using propulsion systems capable of processing 100 kW – 1 MW of power with specific impulses in the range 5,000 – 10,000 s, and have the potential to return asteroids on the order of 103 104 tons. − Nomenclature
    [Show full text]
  • Elliptical Orbits
    1 Ellipse-geometry 1.1 Parameterization • Functional characterization:(a: semi major axis, b ≤ a: semi minor axis) x2 y 2 b p + = 1 ⇐⇒ y(x) = · ± a2 − x2 (1) a b a • Parameterization in cartesian coordinates, which follows directly from Eq. (1): x a · cos t = with 0 ≤ t < 2π (2) y b · sin t – The origin (0, 0) is the center of the ellipse and the auxilliary circle with radius a. √ – The focal points are located at (±a · e, 0) with the eccentricity e = a2 − b2/a. • Parameterization in polar coordinates:(p: parameter, 0 ≤ < 1: eccentricity) p r(ϕ) = (3) 1 + e cos ϕ – The origin (0, 0) is the right focal point of the ellipse. – The major axis is given by 2a = r(0) − r(π), thus a = p/(1 − e2), the center is therefore at − pe/(1 − e2), 0. – ϕ = 0 corresponds to the periapsis (the point closest to the focal point; which is also called perigee/perihelion/periastron in case of an orbit around the Earth/sun/star). The relation between t and ϕ of the parameterizations in Eqs. (2) and (3) is the following: t r1 − e ϕ tan = · tan (4) 2 1 + e 2 1.2 Area of an elliptic sector As an ellipse is a circle with radius a scaled by a factor b/a in y-direction (Eq. 1), the area of an elliptic sector PFS (Fig. ??) is just this fraction of the area PFQ in the auxiliary circle. b t 2 1 APFS = · · πa − · ae · a sin t a 2π 2 (5) 1 = (t − e sin t) · a b 2 The area of the full ellipse (t = 2π) is then, of course, Aellipse = π a b (6) Figure 1: Ellipse and auxilliary circle.
    [Show full text]
  • Interplanetary Trajectories in STK in a Few Hundred Easy Steps*
    Interplanetary Trajectories in STK in a Few Hundred Easy Steps* (*and to think that last year’s students thought some guidance would be helpful!) Satellite ToolKit Interplanetary Tutorial STK Version 9 INITIAL SETUP 1) Open STK. Choose the “Create a New Scenario” button. 2) Name your scenario and, if you would like, enter a description for it. The scenario time is not too critical – it will be updated automatically as we add segments to our mission. 3) STK will give you the opportunity to insert a satellite. (If it does not, or you would like to add another satellite later, you can click on the Insert menu at the top and choose New…) The Orbit Wizard is an easy way to add satellites, but we will choose Define Properties instead. We choose Define Properties directly because we want to use a maneuver-based tool called the Astrogator, which will undo any initial orbit set using the Orbit Wizard. Make sure Satellite is selected in the left pane of the Insert window, then choose Define Properties in the right-hand pane and click the Insert…button. 4) The Properties window for the Satellite appears. You can access this window later by right-clicking or double-clicking on the satellite’s name in the Object Browser (the left side of the STK window). When you open the Properties window, it will default to the Basic Orbit screen, which happens to be where we want to be. The Basic Orbit screen allows you to choose what kind of numerical propagator STK should use to move the satellite.
    [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]
  • Low Rfi Observations from a Low-Altitude Frozen Lunar Orbit
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170010155 2019-08-31T01:49:00+00:00Z (Preprint) AAS 17-333 DARE MISSION DESIGN: LOW RFI OBSERVATIONS FROM A LOW-ALTITUDE FROZEN LUNAR ORBIT Laura Plice* and Ken Galal † The Dark Ages Radio Experiment (DARE) seeks to study the cosmic Dark Ages approximately 80 to 420 million years after the Big Bang. Observations require truly quiet radio conditions, shielded from Sun and Earth electromagnetic (EM) emissions, on the far side of the Moon. DARE’s science orbit is a frozen orbit with respect to lunar gravitational perturbations. The altitude and orientation of the orbit remain nearly fixed indefinitely without maintenance. DARE’s obser- vation targets avoid the galactic center and enable investigation of the universe’s first stars and galaxies. INTRODUCTION The Dark Ages Radio Experiment (DARE), currently proposed for NASA’s 2016 Astrophys- ics Medium Explorer (MIDEX) announcement of opportunity, seeks to study the universe in the cosmic Dark Ages approximately 80 to 420 million years after the Big Bang.1 DARE’s observa- tions require truly quiet radio conditions, shielded from Sun and Earth EM emissions, a zone which is only available on the far side of the Moon. To maximize time in the best science condi- tions, DARE requires a low, equatorial lunar orbit. For DARE, diffraction effects define quiet cones in the anti-Earth and anti-Sun sides of the Moon. In the science phase, the DARE satellite passes through the Earth-quiet cone on every orbit (designated Secondary Science) and simultaneously through the Sun shadow for 0 to 100% of every pass (Prime Science observations).
    [Show full text]
  • Orbital Mechanics
    Danish Space Research Institute Danish Small Satellite Programme DTU Satellite Systems and Design Course Orbital Mechanics Flemming Hansen MScEE, PhD Technology Manager Danish Small Satellite Programme Danish Space Research Institute Phone: 3532 5721 E-mail: [email protected] Slide # 1 FH 2001-09-16 Orbital_Mechanics.ppt Danish Space Research Institute Danish Small Satellite Programme Planetary and Satellite Orbits Johannes Kepler (1571 - 1630) 1st Law • Discovered by the precision mesurements of Tycho Brahe that the Moon and the Periapsis - Apoapsis - planets moves around in elliptical orbits Perihelion Aphelion • Harmonia Mundi 1609, Kepler’s 1st og 2nd law of planetary motion: st • 1 Law: The orbit of a planet ia an ellipse nd with the sun in one focal point. 2 Law • 2nd Law: A line connecting the sun and a planet sweeps equal areas in equal time intervals. 3rd Law • 1619 came Keplers 3rd law: • 3rd Law: The square of the planet’s orbit period is proportional to the mean distance to the sun to the third power. Slide # 2 FH 2001-09-16 Orbital_Mechanics.ppt Danish Space Research Institute Danish Small Satellite Programme Newton’s Laws Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727) • Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica 1687 • 1st Law: The law of inertia • 2nd Law: Force = mass x acceleration • 3rd Law: Action og reaction • The law of gravity: = GMm F Gravitational force between two bodies F 2 G The universal gravitational constant: G = 6.670 • 10-11 Nm2kg-2 r M Mass af one body, e.g. the Earth or the Sun m Mass af the other body, e.g. the satellite r Separation between the bodies G is difficult to determine precisely enough for precision orbit calculations.
    [Show full text]
  • Orbital Mechanics Course Notes
    Orbital Mechanics Course Notes David J. Westpfahl Professor of Astrophysics, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology March 31, 2011 2 These are notes for a course in orbital mechanics catalogued as Aerospace Engineering 313 at New Mexico Tech and Aerospace Engineering 362 at New Mexico State University. This course uses the text “Fundamentals of Astrodynamics” by R.R. Bate, D. D. Muller, and J. E. White, published by Dover Publications, New York, copyright 1971. The notes do not follow the book exclusively. Additional material is included when I believe that it is needed for clarity, understanding, historical perspective, or personal whim. We will cover the material recommended by the authors for a one-semester course: all of Chapter 1, sections 2.1 to 2.7 and 2.13 to 2.15 of Chapter 2, all of Chapter 3, sections 4.1 to 4.5 of Chapter 4, and as much of Chapters 6, 7, and 8 as time allows. Purpose The purpose of this course is to provide an introduction to orbital me- chanics. Students who complete the course successfully will be prepared to participate in basic space mission planning. By basic mission planning I mean the planning done with closed-form calculations and a calculator. Stu- dents will have to master additional material on numerical orbit calculation before they will be able to participate in detailed mission planning. There is a lot of unfamiliar material to be mastered in this course. This is one field of human endeavor where engineering meets astronomy and ce- lestial mechanics, two fields not usually included in an engineering curricu- lum.
    [Show full text]
  • A Delta-V Map of the Known Main Belt Asteroids
    Acta Astronautica 146 (2018) 73–82 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Acta Astronautica journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro A Delta-V map of the known Main Belt Asteroids Anthony Taylor *, Jonathan C. McDowell, Martin Elvis Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: With the lowered costs of rocket technology and the commercialization of the space industry, asteroid mining is Asteroid mining becoming both feasible and potentially profitable. Although the first targets for mining will be the most accessible Main belt near Earth objects (NEOs), the Main Belt contains 106 times more material by mass. The large scale expansion of NEO this new asteroid mining industry is contingent on being able to rendezvous with Main Belt asteroids (MBAs), and Delta-v so on the velocity change required of mining spacecraft (delta-v). This paper develops two different flight burn Shoemaker-Helin schemes, both starting from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and ending with a successful MBA rendezvous. These methods are then applied to the 700,000 asteroids in the Minor Planet Center (MPC) database with well-determined orbits to find low delta-v mining targets among the MBAs. There are 3986 potential MBA targets with a delta- v < 8kmsÀ1, but the distribution is steep and reduces to just 4 with delta-v < 7kms-1. The two burn methods are compared and the orbital parameters of low delta-v MBAs are explored. 1. Introduction [2]. A running tabulation of the accessibility of NEOs is maintained on- line by Lance Benner3 and identifies 65 NEOs with delta-v< 4:5kms-1.A For decades, asteroid mining and exploration has been largely dis- separate database based on intensive numerical trajectory calculations is missed as infeasible and unprofitable.
    [Show full text]
  • Analytical Low-Thrust Trajectory Design Using the Simplified General Perturbations Model J
    Analytical Low-Thrust Trajectory Design using the Simplified General Perturbations model J. G. P. de Jong November 2018 - Technische Universiteit Delft - Master Thesis Analytical Low-Thrust Trajectory Design using the Simplified General Perturbations model by J. G. P. de Jong to obtain the degree of Master of Science at the Delft University of Technology. to be defended publicly on Thursday December 20, 2018 at 13:00. Student number: 4001532 Project duration: November 29, 2017 - November 26, 2018 Supervisor: Ir. R. Noomen Thesis committee: Dr. Ir. E.J.O. Schrama TU Delft Ir. R. Noomen TU Delft Dr. S. Speretta TU Delft November 26, 2018 An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/. Frontpage picture: NASA. Preface Ever since I was a little girl, I knew I was going to study in Delft. Which study exactly remained unknown until the day before my high school graduation. There I was, reading a flyer about aerospace engineering and suddenly I realized: I was going to study aerospace engineering. During the bachelor it soon became clear that space is the best part of the word aerospace and thus the space flight master was chosen. Looking back this should have been clear already years ago: all those books about space I have read when growing up... After quite some time I have come to the end of my studies. Especially the last years were not an easy journey, but I pulled through and made it to the end. This was not possible without a lot of people and I would like this opportunity to thank them here.
    [Show full text]
  • Retrograde-Rotating Exoplanets Experience Obliquity Excitations in an Eccentricity- Enabled Resonance
    The Planetary Science Journal, 1:8 (15pp), 2020 June https://doi.org/10.3847/PSJ/ab8198 © 2020. The Author(s). Published by the American Astronomical Society. Retrograde-rotating Exoplanets Experience Obliquity Excitations in an Eccentricity- enabled Resonance Steven M. Kreyche1 , Jason W. Barnes1 , Billy L. Quarles2 , Jack J. Lissauer3 , John E. Chambers4, and Matthew M. Hedman1 1 Department of Physics, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA; [email protected] 2 Center for Relativistic Astrophysics, School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA 3 Space Science and Astrobiology Division, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, USA 4 Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC, USA Received 2019 December 2; revised 2020 February 28; accepted 2020 March 18; published 2020 April 14 Abstract Previous studies have shown that planets that rotate retrograde (backward with respect to their orbital motion) generally experience less severe obliquity variations than those that rotate prograde (the same direction as their orbital motion). Here, we examine retrograde-rotating planets on eccentric orbits and find a previously unknown secular spin–orbit resonance that can drive significant obliquity variations. This resonance occurs when the frequency of the planet’s rotation axis precession becomes commensurate with an orbital eigenfrequency of the planetary system. The planet’s eccentricity enables a participating orbital frequency through an interaction in which the apsidal precession of the planet’s orbit causes a cyclic nutation of the planet’s orbital angular momentum vector. The resulting orbital frequency follows the relationship f =-W2v , where v and W are the rates of the planet’s changing longitude of periapsis and longitude of ascending node, respectively.
    [Show full text]