![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:17:58 -0800, Eric wrote:
I see articles where they have taken 2 pics of an object,(eg a comet or asteroid) and the movement from pic 1 to pic 2 is only a part of an inch as measured on the photos. How do they calculate the orbit of an object with so little information? I'm not looking for too much math, mostly just a high level explanation maybe a drawing or two. Seems like you'd have to have a lot more info before you could say where the object was and where it was going. You can't normally determine an orbit from just two observations; the minimum is three. That's because an orbit is characterized by six parameters. If they are all unknown (which is usually the case), you need six independent known values to solve for them. Each observation provides two (typically a right ascension and declination). Once you have your data points, there are a variety of methods that can be used to actually solve for the orbital parameters. The most common are variations on a method developed by Gauss. These are typically modified by iterative, least-squares optimizations, especially when more than three data points are available. It doesn't matter if the orbit is parabolic (as are many comets), hyperbolic, or elliptical- the Gaussian methods are general for all of these. There are also a number of modern, purely numerical approaches that lend themselves well to computers. It should be noted that the observational data is normally reduced in a way that compensates for topocentric position and velocity. It is also assumed that the orbit is purely described in Keplerian terms as a simple two-body system. One body is the unknown, the other is usually either the Sun or the Earth, although it doesn't need to be. Compensating for perturbations introduced by other bodies considerably complicates things, and requires many more observations. I don't know any way to really describe in any more detail how to calculate an orbit without giving the math (which is moderately complex, but not really difficult). You might try some Internet searches, looking specifically at "orbit determination" and "method of Gauss" or "method of Laplace". _________________________________________________ Chris L Peterson Cloudbait Observatory http://www.cloudbait.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt | hermesnines | Astronomy Misc | 10 | February 27th 04 02:14 AM |
New Solar System Model that explains DW 2004 / Quaoar / Kuiper Belt and Pluto | hermesnines | Misc | 0 | February 24th 04 08:49 PM |