1. Fundamentals
A celestial body usually orbits the sun in an elliptical orbit.
Perturbations from other planets causes small deviations from this
elliptical orbit, but an unperturbed elliptical orbit can be used as
a first approximation, and sometimes as the final approximation. If
the distance from the Sun to the planet always is the same, then the
planet follows a circular orbit. No planet does this, but the orbits
of Venus and Neptune are very close to circles. Among the planets,
Mercury and Pluto have orbits that deviate the most from a circle,
i.e. are the most eccentric. Many asteroids have even more eccentric
orbits, but the most eccentric orbits are to be found among the
comets. Halley's comet, for instance, is closer to the Sun than
Venus at perihelion, but farther away from the Sun than Neptune at
aphelion. Some comets have even more eccentric orbits that are
best approximated as a parabola. These orbits are not closed - a
comet following a parabolic orbit passes the Sun only once, never
to return. In reality these orbits are extremely elongated ellipses
though, and these comets will eventually return, sometimes after
many millennia.
The perihelion and aphelion are the points in the orbit
when the planet is closest to and most distant from the Sun. A
parabolic orbit only has a perihemium of course.
The perigee and apogee are points in the Moon's orbit
(or the orbit of an artificial Earth satellite) which are closest to
and most distant from the Earth.
The celestial sphere is an imaginary sphere around the
observer, at an arbitrary distance.
The celestial equator is the Earth's equatorial plane
projected on the celestial sphere.
The ecliptic is the plane of the Earth's orbit. This is also
the plane of the Sun's yearly apparent motion. The ecliptic is
inclined by approximately 23.4_deg to the celestial equator. The
ecliptic intersects the celestial equator at two points: The Vernal
Point (or "the first point of Aries"), and the Autumnal Point. The
Vernal Point is the point of origin for two different commonly used
celestial coordinates: equatorial coordinates and ecliptic
coordinates.
Right Ascension and Declination are equatorial
coordinates using the celestial equator as a fundamental plane. At
the Vernal Point both the Right Ascension and the Declination are
zero. The Right Ascension is usually measured in hours and minutes,
where one revolution is 24 hours (which means 1 hour equals 15
degrees). It's counted countersunwise along the celestial equator.
The Declination goes from +90 to -90 degrees, and it's positive north
of, and negative south of, the celestial equator.
Longitude and Latitude are ecliptic coordinates, which
use the ecliptic as a fundamental plane. Both are measured in
degrees, and these coorinates too are both zero at the Vernal Point.
The Longitude is counted countersunwise along the ecliptic. The
Latitude is positive north of the ecliptic. Of course longitude and
latitude are also used as terrestial coordinates, to measure a
position of a point on the surface of the Earth.
Heliocentric, Geocentric, Topocentric. A
position relative to the Sun is heliocentric. If the position is
relative to the center of the Earth, then it's geocentric. A
topocentric position is relative to an observer on the surface of the
Earth. Within the aim of our accuracy of 1-2 arc minutes, the
difference between geocentric and topocentric position is negligible
for all celestial bodies except the Moon (and some occasional
asteroid which happens to pass very close to the Earth).
The orbital elements consist of 6 quantities which completely
define a circular, elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic orbit. Three of
these quantities describe the shape and size of the orbit, and the
position of the planet in the orbit:
a Mean distance, or semi-major axis
e Eccentricity
T Time at perihelion
A cirular orbit has zero eccentricity. An elliptical orbit has an
eccentricity between zero and one. A parabolic orbit has an
eccentricity of exactly one. Finally, a hyperbolic orbit has an
eccentricity larger than one. A parabolic orbit has an infinite
semi-major axis, a, therefore one instead gives the perihelion
distance, q, for a parabolic orbit:
q Perihelion distance = a * (1 - e)
It is customary to give q instead of a also for hyperbolic orbit,
and for elliptical orbits with eccentricity close to one.
The three remaining orbital elements define the orientation of
the orbit in space:
i Inclination, i.e. the "tilt" of the orbit relative to the
ecliptic. The inclination varies from 0 to 180 degrees. If
the inclination is larger than 90 degrees, the planet is in
a retrogade orbit, i.e. it moves "backwards". The most
well-known celestial body with retrogade motion is Comet Halley.
N (usually written as "Capital Omega") Longitude of Ascending
Node. This is the angle, along the ecliptic, from the Vernal
Point to the Ascending Node, which is the intersection between
the orbit and the ecliptic, where the planet moves from south
of to north of the ecliptic, i.e. from negative to positive
latitudes.
w (usually written as "small Omega") The angle from the Ascending
node to the Perihelion, along the orbit.
These are the primary orbital elements. From these many secondary orbital
elements can be computed:
q Perihelion distance = a * (1 - e)
Q Aphelion distance = a * (1 + e)
P Orbital period = 365.256898326 * a**1.5/sqrt(1+m) days,
where m = the mass of the planet in solar masses (0 for
comets and asteroids). sqrt() is the square root function.
n Daily motion = 360_deg / P degrees/day
t Some epoch as a day count, e.g. Julian Day Number. The Time
at Perihelion, T, should then be expressed as the same day count.
t - T Time since Perihelion, usually in days
M Mean Anomaly = n * (t - T) = (t - T) * 360_deg / P
Mean Anomaly is 0 at perihelion and 180 degrees at aphelion
L Mean Longitude = M + w + N
E Eccentric anomaly, defined by Kepler's equation: M = E - e * sin(E)
An auxiliary angle to compute the position in an elliptic orbit
v True anomaly: the angle from perihelion to the planet, as seen
from the Sun
r Heliocentric distance: the planet's distance from the Sun.
This relation is valid for an elliptic orbit:
r * cos(v) = a * (cos(E) - e)
r * sin(v) = a * sqrt(1 - e*e) * sin(E)
x,y,z Rectangular coordinates. Used e.g. when a heliocentric
position (seen from the Sun) should be converted to a
corresponding geocentric position (seen from the Earth).
3. Rectangular and spherical coordinates
The position of a planet can be given in one of several ways. Two
different ways that we'll use are rectangular and spherical coordinates.
Suppose a planet is situated at some RA, Decl and r, where RA is
the Right Ascension, Decl the declination, and r the distance in some
length unit. If r is unknown or irrelevant, set r = 1. Let's convert
this to rectangular coordinates, x,y,z:
x = r * cos(RA) * cos(Decl)
y = r * sin(RA) * cos(Decl)
z = r * sin(Decl)
(before we compute the sine/cosine of RA, we must first convert RA
from hours/minutes/seconds to hours + decimals. Then the hours are
converted to degrees by multiplying by 15)
If we know the rectangular coordinates, we can convert to spherical
coordinates by the formulae below:
r = sqrt( x*x + y*y + z*z )
RA = atan2( y, x )
Decl = asin( z / r ) = atan2( z, sqrt( x*x + y*y ) )
At the north and south celestial poles, both x and y are zero. Since
atan2(0,0) is undefined, the RA is undefined too at the celestial
poles. The simplest way to handle this is to assign RA some
arbitrary value, e.g. zero. Close to the celestial poles the formula
asin(z/r) to compute the declination becomes sensitive to round-off
errors - here the formula atan2(z,sqrt(x*x+y*y)) is preferable.
Not only equatorial coordinates can be converted between spherical
and rectangular. These conversions can also be applied to ecliptic
and horizontal coordinates. Just exchange RA,Decl with long,lat
(ecliptic coordinates) or azimuth,altitude (horizontal coordinates).
A coordinate system can be rotated. If a rectangular coordinate
system is rotated around, say, the X axis, one can easily compute the
new x,y,z coordinates. As an example, let's consider rotating an
ecliptic x,y,z system to an equatorial x,y,z system. This rotation
is done around the X axis (which points to the Vernal Point, the
common point of origin in ecliptic and equatorial coordinates),
through an angle of oblecl (the obliquity of the ecliptic, which is
approximately 23.4 degrees):
xequat = xeclip
yequat = yeclip * cos(oblecl) - zeclip * sin(oblecl)
zequat = yeclip * sin(oblecl) + zeclip * cos(oblecl)
Now the x,y,z system is equatorial. It's easily rotated back to
ecliptic coordinates by simply switching sign on oblecl:
xeclip = xequat
yeclip = yequat * cos(-oblecl) - zequat * sin(-oblecl)
zeclip = yequat * sin(-oblecl) + zequat * cos(-oblecl)
When computing sin and cos of -oblecl, one can use the
identities:
cos(-x) = cos(x), sin(-x) = -sin(x)
Now let's put this together to convert directly from spherical
ecliptic coordinates (long, lat) to spherical equatorial coordinates
(RA, Decl). Since the distance r is irrelevant in this case, let's
set r=1 for simplicity.
Example: At the Summer Solstice the Sun's ecliptic longitude is 90
degrees. The Sun's ecliptic latitude is always very nearly zero.
Suppose the obliquity of the ecliptic is 23.4 degrees:
xeclip = cos(90_deg) * cos(0_deg) = 0.0000
yeclip = sin(90_deg) * cos(0_deg) = 1.0000
zeclip = sin(0_deg) = 0.0000
Rotate through oblecl = 23.4_deg:
xequat = 0.0000
yequat = 1.0000 * cos(23.4_deg) - 0.0000 * sin(23.4_deg)
zequat = 1.0000 * sin(23.4_deg) + 0.0000 * cos(23.4_deg)
Our equatorial rectangular coordinates become:
x = 0
y = cos(23.4_deg) = 0.9178
z = sin(23.4_deg) = 0.3971
The "distance", r, becomes: sqrt( 0.8423 + 0.1577 ) = 1.0000 i.e. unchanged
RA = atan2( 0.9178, 0 ) = 90_deg
Decl = asin( 0.3971 / 1.0000 ) = 23.40_deg
Alternatively:
Decl = atan2( 0.3971, sqrt( 0.8423 + 0.0000 ) ) = 23.40_deg
Here we immediately see how simple it is to compute RA, thanks to the
atan2() function: no need to consider in which quadrant it falls,
the atan2() function handles this.
5. The Sun's position.
Today most people know that the Earth orbits the Sun and not the other
way around. But below we'll pretend as if it was the other way
around. These orbital elements are thus valid for the Sun's (apparent)
orbit around the Earth. All angular values are expressed in degrees:
w = 282.9404_deg + 4.70935E-5_deg * d (longitude of perihelion)
a = 1.000000 (mean distance, a.u.)
e = 0.016709 - 1.151E-9 * d (eccentricity)
M = 356.0470_deg + 0.9856002585_deg * d (mean anomaly)
We also need the obliquity of the ecliptic, oblecl:
oblecl = 23.4393_deg - 3.563E-7_deg * d
and the Sun's mean longitude, L:
L = w + M
By definition the Sun is (apparently) moving in the plane of the
ecliptic. The inclination, i, is therefore zero, and the longitude
of the ascending node, N, becomes undefined. For simplicity we'll
assign the value zero to N, which means that w, the angle between
acending node and perihelion, becomes equal to the longitude of the
perihelion.
Now let's compute the Sun's position for our test date 19 april 1990.
Earlier we've computed d = -3543.0 which yields:
w = 282.7735_deg
a = 1.000000
e = 0.016713
M = -3135.9347_deg
We immediately notice that the mean anomaly, M, will get a large
negative value. We use our function rev() to reduce this value
to between 0 and 360 degrees. To do this, rev() will need to
add 9*360 = 3240 degrees to this angle:
M = 104.0653_deg
We also compute:
L = w + M = 386.8388_deg = 26.8388_deg
oblecl = 23.4406_deg
Let's go on computing an auxiliary angle, the eccentric anomaly.
Since the eccentricity of the Sun's (i.e. the Earth's) orbit is
so small, 0.017, a first approximation of E will be accurate
enough. Below E and M are in degrees:
E = M + (180/pi) * e * sin(M) * (1 + e * cos(M))
When we plug in M and e, we get:
E = 104.9904_deg
Now we compute the Sun's rectangular coordinates in the plane of
the ecliptic, where the X axis points towards the perihelion:
x = r * cos(v) = cos(E) - e
y = r * sin(v) = sin(E) * sqrt(1 - e*e)
We plug in E and get:
x = -0.275370
y = +0.965834
Convert to distance and true anomaly:
r = sqrt(x*x + y*y)
v = arctan2( y, x )
Numerically we get:
r = 1.004323
v = 105.9134_deg
Now we can compute the longitude of the Sun:
lon = v + w
lon = 105.9134_deg + 282.7735_deg = 388.6869_deg = 28.6869_deg
We're done!
How close did we get to the correct values? Let's compare with the
Astronomical Almanac:
Our results Astron. Almanac Difference
lon 28.6869_deg 28.6813_deg +0.0056_deg = 20"
r 1.004323 1.004311 +0.000012
The error in the Sun's longitude was 20 arc seconds, which is well
below our aim of an accuracy of one arc minute. The error in the
distance was about 1/3 Earth radius. Not bad!
Finally we'll compute the Sun's ecliptic rectangular coordinates,
rotate these to equatorial coordinates, and then compute the Sun's
RA and Decl:
x = r * cos(lon)
y = r * sin(lon)
z = 0.0
We plug in our longitude:
x = 0.881048
y = 0.482098
z = 0.0
We use oblecl = 23.4406 degrees, and rotate these coordinates:
xequat = 0.881048
yequat = 0.482098 * cos(23.4406_deg) + 0.0 * sin(23.4406_deg)
zequat = 0.482098 * sin(23.4406_deg) + 0.0 * cos(23.4406_deg)
which yields:
xequat = 0.881048
yequat = 0.442312
zequat = 0.191778
Convert to RA and Decl:
r = 1.004323 (unchanged)
RA = 26.6580_deg = 26.6580/15 h = 1.77720 h = 1h 46m 37.9s
Decl = +11.0084_deg = +11_deg 0' 30"
The Astronomical Almanac says:
RA = 1h 46m 36.0s Decl = +11_deg 0' 22"
6. Sidereal time and hour angle. Altitude and azimuth
The Sidereal Time tells the Right Ascension of the part of the sky
that's precisely south, i.e. in the meridian. Sidereal Time is a
local time, which can be computed from:
SIDTIME = GMST0 + UT + LON/15
where SIDTIME, GMST0 and UT are given in hours + decimals. GMST0 is
the Sidereal Time at the Greenwich meridian at 00:00 right now, and
UT is the same as Greenwich time. LON is the terrestial longitude in
degrees (western longitude is negative, eastern positive). To
"convert" the longitude from degrees to hours we divide it by 15.
If the Sidereal Time becomes negative, we add 24 hours, if it exceeds
24 hours we subtract 24 hours.
Now, how do we compute GMST0? Simple - we add (or subtract) 180
degrees to (from) L, the Sun's mean longitude, which we've already
computed earlier. Then we normalise the result to between 0 and
360 degrees, by applying the rev() function. Finally we divide by 15
to convert degrees to hours:
GMST0 = ( L + 180_deg ) / 15 = L/15 + 12h
We've already computed L = 26.8388_deg, which yields:
GMST0 = 26.8388_deg/15 + 12h = 13.78925 hours
Now let's compute the local Sidereal Time for the time meridian of
Central Europe (at 15 deg east longitude = +15 degrees long) on 19
april 1990 at 00:00 UT:
SIDTIME = GMST0 + UT + LON/15 = 13.78925h + 0 + 15_deg/15 = 14.78925 hours
SIDTIME = 14h 47m 21.3s
To compute the altitude and azimuth we also need to know the Hour
Angle, HA. The Hour Angle is zero when the clestial body is in the
meridian i.e. in the south (or, from the southern heimsphere, in the
north) - this is the moment when the celestial body is at its highest
above the horizon.
The Hour Angle increases with time (unless the object is moving
faster than the Earth rotates; this is the case for most artificial
satellites). It is computed from:
HA = SIDTIME - RA
Here SIDTIME and RA must be expressed in the same unit, hours or
degrees. We choose hours:
HA = 14.78925h - 1.77720h = 13.01205h = 195.1808_deg
If the Hour Angle is 180_deg the celestial body can be seen (or not
be seen, if it's below the horizon) in the north (or in the south,
from the southern hemisphere). We get HA = 195_deg for the Sun,
which seems OK since it's around 01:00 local time.
Now we'll convert the Sun's HA = 195.1808_deg and Decl = +11.0084_deg
to a rectangular (x,y,z) coordinate system where the X axis points
to the celestial equator in the south, the Y axis to the horizon in
the west, and the Z axis to the north celestial pole: The distance,
r, is here irrelevant so we set r=1 for simplicity:
x = cos(HA) * cos(Decl) = -0.947346
y = sin(HA) * cos(Decl) = -0.257047
z = sin(Decl) = +0.190953
Now we'll rotate this x,y,z system along an axis going east-west,
i.e. the Y axis, in such a way that the Z axis will point to the
zenith. At the North Pole the angle of rotation will be zero since
there the north celestial pole already is in the zenith. At other
latitudes the angle of rotation becomes 90_deg - latitude. This
yields:
xhor = x * cos(90_deg - lat) - z * sin(90_deg - lat)
yhor = y
zhor = x * sin(90_deg - lat) + z * cos(90_deg - lat)
Since sin(90_deg-lat) = cos(lat) (and reverse) we'll get:
xhor = x * sin(lat) - z * cos(lat)
yhor = y
zhor = x * cos(lat) + z * sin(lat)
Finally we compute our azimuth and altitude:
azimuth = atan2( yhor, xhor ) + 180_deg
altitude = asin( zhor ) = atan2( zhor, sqrt(xhor*xhor+yhor*yhor) )
Why did we add 180_deg to the azimuth? To adapt to the most common
way to specify azimuth: from North (0_deg) through East (90_deg),
South (180_deg), West (270_deg) and back to North. If we didn't add
180_deg the azimuth would be counted from South through West/etc
instead. If you want to use that kind of azimuth, then don't add
180_deg above.
We select some place in central Scandinavia: the longitude is as
before +15_deg (15_deg East), and the latitude is +60_deg (60_deg N):
xhor = -0.947346 * sin(60_deg) - (+0.190953) * cos(60_deg) = -0.915902
yhor = -0.257047 = -0.257047
zhor = -0.947346 * cos(60_deg) + (+0.190953) * sin(60_deg) = -0.308303
Now we've computed the horizontal coordinates in rectangular form. To
get azimuth and altitude we convert to spherical coordinates (r=1):
azimuth = atan2(-0.257047,-0.915902) + 180_deg = 375.6767_deg = 15.6767_deg
altitude = asin( -0.308303 ) = -17.9570_deg
Let's round the final result to two decimals:
azimuth = 15.68_deg, altitude = -17.96_deg.
The Sun is thus 17.96_deg below the horizon at this moment and place.
This is very close to astronomical twilight (18_deg below the horizon).
7. The Moon's position
Let's continue by computing the position of the Moon. The
computatons will become more complicated, since the Moon doesn't move
in the plane of the ecliptic, but in a plane inclined somewhat more
than 5 degrees to the ecliptic. Also, the Sun perturbs the Moon's
motion significantly, an effect we must account for.
The orbital elements of the Moon are:
N = 125.1228_deg - 0.0529538083_deg * d (Long asc. node)
i = 5.1454_deg (Inclination)
w = 318.0634_deg + 0.1643573223_deg * d (Arg. of perigee)
a = 60.2666 (Mean distance)
e = 0.054900 (Eccentricity)
M = 115.3654_deg + 13.0649929509_deg * d (Mean anomaly)
The Moon's ascending node is moving in a retrogade ("backwards")
direction one revolution in about 18.6 years. The Moon's perigee
(the point of the orbit closest to the Earth) moves in a "forwards"
direction one revolution in about 8.8 years. The Moon itself
moves one revolution in aboout 27.5 days. The mean distance, or
semi-major axis, is expressed in Earth equatorial radii).
Let's compute numerical values for the Moon's orbital elements on our
test date 19 april 1990 (d = -3543):
N = 312.7381_deg
i = 5.1454_deg
w = -264.2546_deg
a = 60.2666 (Earth equatorial radii)
e = 0.054900
M = -46173.9046_deg
Now the need for sufficient numerical accuracy becomes obvious. If
we would compute M with normal single precision, i.e. only 7 decimal
digits of accuracy, then the error in M would here be about 0.01
degrees. Had we selected a date around 1901 or 2099 then the error
in M would have been about 0.1 degrees, which is definitely worse
than our aim of a maximum error of one or two arc minutes. Therefore,
when computing the Moon's mean anomaly, M, it's important to use at
least 9 or 10 digits of accuracy.
(This was a real problem around 1980, when microcomputers were a
novelty. Around then, pocket calculators usually offered better
precision than microcomputers. But these days are long gone: nowadays
microcomputers routinely offer double precision (14-16 digits of
accuracy) support in hardware; all you need to do is to select a
compiler which really suports this.)
All angular elements should be normalized to within 0-360 degrees, by
calling the rev() function. We get:
N = 312.7381_deg
i = 5.1454_deg
w = 95.7454_deg
a = 60.2666 (Earth equatorial radii)
e = 0.054900
M = 266.0954_deg
To normalize M we had to add 129*360 = 46440 degrees.
Next, we compute E, the eccentric anomaly. We start with a first
approximation (E0 and M in degrees):
E0 = M + (180_deg/pi) * e * sin(M) * (1 + e * cos(M))
The eccentricity of the Moon's orbit is larger than of the Earth's
orbit. This means that our first approximation will have a bigger
error - it'll be close to the limit of what we can tolerate within
our accuracy aim. If you want to be careful, you should therefore
use the iteration formula below: set E0 to our first approximation,
compute E1, then set E0 to E1 and compute a new E1, until the
difference between E0 and E1 becomes small enough, i.e. smaller
than about 0.005 degrees. Then use the last E1 as the final value.
In the formula below, E0, E1 and M are in degrees:
E1 = E0 - (E0 - (180_deg/pi) * e * sin(E0) - M) / (1 - e * cos(E0))
On our test date, the first approximation of E becomes: E=262.9689_deg
The iterations then yield: E = 262.9735_deg, 262.9735_deg ......
Now we've computed E - the next step is to compute the Moon's distance
and true anomaly. First we compute rectangular (x,y) coordinates
in the plane of the lunar orbit:
x = r * cos(v) = a * (cos(E) - e)
y = r * sin(v) = a * sqrt(1 - e*e) * sin(E)
Our test date yields:
x = -10.68095
y = -59.72377
Then we convert this to distance and true anonaly:
r = sqrt( x*x + y*y ) = 60.67134 Earth radii
v = atan2( y, x ) = 259.8605_deg
Now we know the Moon's position in the plane of the lunar orbit.
To compute the Moon's position in ecliptic coordinates, we apply
these formulae:
xeclip = r * ( cos(N) * cos(v+w) - sin(N) * sin(v+w) * cos(i) )
yeclip = r * ( sin(N) * cos(v+w) + cos(N) * sin(v+w) * cos(i) )
zeclip = r * sin(v+w) * sin(i)
Our test date yields:
xeclip = +37.65311
yeclip = -47.57180
zeclip = -0.41687
Convert to ecliptic longitude, latitude, and distance:
long = 308.3616_deg
lat = -0.3937_deg
r = 60.6713
According to the Astronomical Almanac, the Moon's position at this
moment is 306.94_deg, and the latitude is -0.55_deg. This differs
from our figures by 1.42_deg in longitude and 0.16_deg in latitude!!!
This difference is much larger than our aim of an error of max 1-2
arc minutes. Why is this so?
8. The Moon's position with higher accuracy. Perturbations
The big error in our computed lunar position is because we completely
ignored the perturbations on the Moon. Below we'll compute the most
important perturbation terms, and then add these as corrections to
our previous figures. This will cut down the error to 1-2 arc
minutes, or less.
First we need several fundamental arguments:
Sun's mean longitude: Ls (already computed)
Moon's mean longitude: Lm = N + w + M (for the Moon)
Sun's mean anomaly: Ms (already computed)
Moon's mean anomaly: Mm (already computed)
Moon's mean elongation: D = Lm - Ls
Moon's argument of latitude: F = Lm - N
Let's plug in the figures for our test date:
Ms = 104.0653_deg
Mm = 266.0954_deg
Ls = 26.8388_deg
Lm = 312.7381_deg + 95.7454_deg + 266.0954_deg = 674.5789_deg
= 314.5789_deg
D = 314.5789_deg - 26.8388_deg = 287.7401_deg
F = 314.5789_deg - 312.7381_deg = 1.8408_deg
Now it's time to compute and add up the 12 largest perturbation terms
in longitude, the 5 largest in latitude, and the 2 largest in distance.
These are all the perturbation terms with an amplitude larger than
0.01_deg in longitude resp latitude. In the lunar distance, only the
perturbation terms larger than 0.1 Earth radii has been included:
Perturbations in longitude (degrees):
-1.274_deg * sin(Mm - 2*D) (Evection)
+0.658_deg * sin(2*D) (Variation)
-0.186_deg * sin(Ms) (Yearly equation)
-0.059_deg * sin(2*Mm - 2*D)
-0.057_deg * sin(Mm - 2*D + Ms)
+0.053_deg * sin(Mm + 2*D)
+0.046_deg * sin(2*D - Ms)
+0.041_deg * sin(Mm - Ms)
-0.035_deg * sin(D) (Parallactic equation)
-0.031_deg * sin(Mm + Ms)
-0.015_deg * sin(2*F - 2*D)
+0.011_deg * sin(Mm - 4*D)
Perturbations in latitude (degrees):
-0.173_deg * sin(F - 2*D)
-0.055_deg * sin(Mm - F - 2*D)
-0.046_deg * sin(Mm + F - 2*D)
+0.033_deg * sin(F + 2*D)
+0.017_deg * sin(2*Mm + F)
Perturbations in lunar distance (Earth radii):
-0.58 * cos(Mm - 2*D)
-0.46 * cos(2*D)
Some of the largest perturbation terms in longitude even have received
individual names! The largest perturbation, the Evection, was discovered
already by Ptolemy (he made it one of the epicycles in his theory for
the Moon's motion). The two next largest perturbations, the Variation
and the Yearly equation, were discovered by Tycho Brahe.
If you don't need 1-2 arcmin accuracy, you don't need to compute all
these perturbation terms. If you only include the two largest terms
in longitude and the largest in latitude, the error in longitude
rarely becomes larger than 0.25_deg, and in latitude rarely larger
than 0.15_deg.
Let's compute these perturbation terms for our test date:
longitude: -0.9847 - 0.3819 - 0.1804 + 0.0405 - 0.0244 + 0.0452 +
0.0428 + 0.0126 - 0.0333 - 0.0055 - 0.0079 - 0.0029
= -1.4132_deg
latitude: -0.0958 - 0.0414 - 0.0365 - 0.0200 + 0.0018 = -0.1919_deg
distance: -0.3680 + 0.3745 = +0.0066 Earth radii
Add this to the ecliptic positions we earlier computed:
long = 308.3616_deg - 1.4132_deg = 306.9484_deg
lat = -0.3937_deg - 0.1919_deg = -0.5856_deg
dist = 60.6713 + 0.0066 = 60.6779 Earth radii
Let's compare with the Astronomical Almanac:
longitude 306.94_deg, latitude -0.55_deg, distance 60.793 Earth radii
Now the agreement is much better, right?
Let's continue by converting these ecliptic coordinates to Right
Ascension and Declination. We do as described earlier: convert the
ecliptic longitude/latitude to rectangular (x,y,z) coordinates,
rotate this x,y,z, system through an angle corresponding to the
obliquity of the ecliptic, then convert back to spherical
coordinates. The Moon's distance doesn't matter here, and one can
therefore set r=1.0. We get:
RA = 309.5011_deg
Decl = -19.1032_deg
According to the Astronomical Almanac:
RA = 309.4881_deg
Decl = -19.0741_deg
9. The Moon's topocentric position.
The Moon's position, as computed earlier, is geocentric, i.e. as seen
by an imaginary observer at the center of the Earth. Real observers
dwell on the surface of the Earth, though, and they will see a
different position - the topocentric position. This position can
differ by more than one degree from the geocentric position. To
compute the topocentric positions, we must add a correction to the
geocentric position.
Let's start by computing the Moon's parallax, i.e. the apparent
size of the (equatorial) radius of the Earth, as seen from the Moon:
mpar = asin( 1/r )
where r is the Moon's distance in Earth radii. It's simplest to apply
the correction in horizontal coordinates (azimuth and altitude):
within our accuracy aim of 1-2 arc minutes, no correction need to be
applied to the azimuth. One need only apply a correction to the
altitude above the horizon:
alt_topoc = alt_geoc - mpar * cos(alt_geoc)
Sometimes one needs to correct for topocentric position directly in
equatorial coordinates though, e.g. if one wants to draw on a star
map how the Moon passes in front of the Pleiades, as seen from some
specific location. Then we need to know the Moon's geocentric
Right Ascension and Declination (RA, Decl), the Local Sidereal
Time (LST), and our latitude (lat).
Our astronomical latitude (lat) must first be converted to a
geocentric latitude (gclat) and distance from the center of the Earth
(rho) in Earth equatorial radii. If we only want an approximate
topocentric position, it's simplest to pretend that the Earth is
a perfect sphere, and simply set:
gclat = lat, rho = 1.0
However, if we do wish to account for the flattening of the Earth,
we instead compute:
gclat = lat - 0.1924_deg * sin(2*lat)
rho = 0.99833 + 0.00167 * cos(2*lat)
Next we compute the Moon's geocentric Hour Angle (HA):
HA = LST - RA
We also need an auxiliary angle, g:
g = atan( tan(gclat) / cos(HA) )
Now we're ready to convert the geocentric Right Ascention and
Declination (RA, Decl) to their topocentric values (topRA, topDecl):
topRA = RA - mpar * rho * cos(gclat) * sin(HA) / cos(Decl)
topDecl = Decl - mpar * rho * sin(gclat) * sin(g - Decl) / sin(g)
Let's do this correction for our test date and for the geographical
position 15 deg E longitude (= +15_deg) and 60 deg N latitude (=
+60_deg). Earlier we computed the Local Sidereal Time as LST = SIDTIME =
14.78925 hours. Multiply by 15 to get degrees: LST = 221.8388_deg
The Moon's Hour Angle becomes:
HA = LST - RA = -87.6623_deg = 272.3377_deg
Our latitude +60_deg yields the following geocentric latitude and
distance from the Earth's center:
gclat = 59.83_deg rho = 0.9975
We've already computed the Moon's distance as 60.6779 Earth radii,
which means the Moon's parallax is:
mpar = 0.9443_deg
The auxiliary angle g becomes:
g = 88.642
And finally the Moon's topocentric position becomes:
topRA = 309.5011_deg - (-0.5006_deg) = 310.0017_deg
topDecl = -19.1032_deg - (+0.7758_deg) = -19.8790_deg
This correction to topocentric position can also be applied to the
Sun and the planets. But since they're much farther away, the
correction becomes much smaller. It's largest for Venus at inferior
conjunction, when Venus' parallax is somewhat larger than 32 arc
seconds. Within our aim of obtaining a final accuracy of 1-2 arc
minutes, it might barely be justified to correct to topocentric
position when Venus is close to inferior conjunction, and perhaps
also when Mars is at a favourable opposition. But in all other cases
this correction can safely be ignored within our accuracy aim. We
only need to worry about the Moon in this case.
If you want to compute topocentric coordinates for the planets anyway,
you do it the same way as for the Moon, with one exception: the
parallax of the planet (ppar) is computed from this formula:
ppar = (8.794/3600)_deg / r
where r is the distance of the planet from the Earth, in astronomical
units.
10. The orbital elements of the planets
To compute the positions of the major planets, we first must compute
their orbital elements:
Mercury:
N = 48.3313_deg + 3.24587E-5_deg * d (Long of asc. node)
i = 7.0047_deg + 5.00E-8_deg * d (Inclination)
w = 29.1241_deg + 1.01444E-5_deg * d (Argument of perihelion)
a = 0.387098 (Semi-major axis)
e = 0.205635 + 5.59E-10 * d (Eccentricity)
M = 168.6562_deg + 4.0923344368_deg * d (Mean anonaly)
Venus:
N = 76.6799_deg + 2.46590E-5_deg * d
i = 3.3946_deg + 2.75E-8_deg * d
w = 54.8910_deg + 1.38374E-5_deg * d
a = 0.723330
e = 0.006773 - 1.302E-9 * d
M = 48.0052_deg + 1.6021302244_deg * d
Mars:
N = 49.5574_deg + 2.11081E-5_deg * d
i = 1.8497_deg - 1.78E-8_deg * d
w = 286.5016_deg + 2.92961E-5_deg * d
a = 1.523688
e = 0.093405 + 2.516E-9 * d
M = 18.6021_deg + 0.5240207766_deg * d
Jupiter:
N = 100.4542_deg + 2.76854E-5_deg * d
i = 1.3030_deg - 1.557E-7_deg * d
w = 273.8777_deg + 1.64505E-5_deg * d
a = 5.20256
e = 0.048498 + 4.469E-9 * d
M = 19.8950_deg + 0.0830853001_deg * d
Saturn:
N = 113.6634_deg + 2.38980E-5_deg * d
i = 2.4886_deg - 1.081E-7_deg * d
w = 339.3939_deg + 2.97661E-5_deg * d
a = 9.55475
e = 0.055546 - 9.499E-9 * d
M = 316.9670_deg + 0.0334442282_deg * d
Uranus:
N = 74.0005_deg + 1.3978E-5_deg * d
i = 0.7733_deg + 1.9E-8_deg * d
w = 96.6612_deg + 3.0565E-5_deg * d
a = 19.18171 - 1.55E-8 * d
e = 0.047318 + 7.45E-9 * d
M = 142.5905_deg + 0.011725806_deg * d
Neptune:
N = 131.7806_deg + 3.0173E-5_deg * d
i = 1.7700_deg - 2.55E-7_deg * d
w = 272.8461_deg - 6.027E-6_deg * d
a = 30.05826 + 3.313E-8 * d
e = 0.008606 + 2.15E-9 * d
M = 260.2471_deg + 0.005995147_deg * d
Let's compute all these elements for our test date, 19 april 1990 0h
UT:
N i w a e M
deg deg deg a.e. deg
Mercury 48.2163 7.0045 29.0882 0.387098 0.205633 69.5153
Venus 76.5925 3.3945 54.8420 0.723330 0.006778 131.6578
Mars 49.4826 1.8498 286.3978 1.523688 0.093396 321.9965
Jupiter 100.3561 1.3036 273.8194 5.20256 0.048482 85.5238
Saturn 113.5787 2.4890 339.2884 9.55475 0.055580 198.4741
Uranus 73.9510 0.7732 96.5529 19.18176 0.047292 101.0460
Neptune 131.6737 1.7709 272.8675 30.05814 0.008598 239.0063
11. The heliocentric positions of the planets
The heliocentric ecliptic coordinates of the planets are computed in
the same way as we computed the geocentric ecliptic coordinates of
the Moon: first we compute E, the eccentric anomaly. Several
planetary orbits have quite high eccentricities, which means we must
use the iteration formula to obtain an accurate value of E. When we
know E, we compute, as earlier, the distance r ("radius vector") and
the true anomaly, v. Then we compute ecliptic rectangular (x,y,z)
coordinates as we did for the Moon. Since the Moon orbits the Earth,
this position of the Moon was geocentric. The planets though orbit
the Sun, which means we get heliocentric positions instead. Also
the semi-major axis, a, and the distance, r, which was given in Earth
radii for the Moon, are given in astronomical units for the planets,
where one astronomical unit is 149.6 million kilometers.
Let's do this for Mercury on our test date: the first approximation
of E is 81.3464_deg, and following iterations yield 81.1572_deg,
81.1572_deg .... From this we find:
r = 0.374862
v = 93.0727_deg
Mercury's heliocentric ecliptic rectangular coordinates become:
x = -0.367821
y = +0.061084
z = +0.038699
Convert to spherical coordinates:
lon = 170.5709_deg
lat = +5.9255_deg
r = 0.374862
The Astronomical Almanac gives these figures:
lon = 170.5701_deg
lat = +5.9258_deg
r = 0.374856
The agreement is almost perfect! The discrepancy is only a few
arc seconds. This is because it's quite easy to get an accurate
position for Mercury: it's close to the Sun where the Sun's
gravitational field is strongest, and therefore perturbations
from the other planets will be smallest for Mercury.
If we compute the heliocentric longitude, latitude and distance
for the other planets from their orbital elements, we get:
Heliocentric
longitude latitude distance
lon lat r
Mercury 170.5709_deg +5.9255_deg 0.374862
Venus 263.6570_deg -0.4180_deg 0.726607
Mars 290.6297_deg -1.6203_deg 1.417194
Jupiter 105.2543_deg +0.1113_deg 5.19508
Saturn 289.4523_deg +0.1792_deg 10.06118
Uranus 276.7999_deg -0.3003_deg 19.39628
Neptune 282.7192_deg +0.8575_deg 30.19284
For e.g. Saturn, the Astronomical Almanac says:
lon = 289.3864_deg
lat = +0.1816_deg
r = 10.01850
The difference is here much larger! For Mercury our discrepancy was
only a few arc seconds, but for Saturn it's up to four arc minutes!
And still we've been lucky, since sometimes the discrepancy can be up
to one full degree for Saturn. This is the planet that's perturbed
most severely, mostly by Jupiter.
12. Higher accuracy - perturbations
To reach our aim of a final accuracy of 1-2 arc minutes, we must
compute Jupiter's and Saturn's perturbations on each other, and their
perturbations on Uranus. The perturbations on, and by, other planets
can be ignored, with our aim for 1-2 arcmin accuracy.
First we need three fundamental arguments:
Jupiters mean anomaly: Mj
Saturn mean anomaly: Ms
Uranus mean anomaly: Mu
Then these terms should be added to Jupiter's heliocentric longitude:
-0.332_deg * sin(2*Mj - 5*Ms - 67.6_deg)
-0.056_deg * sin(2*Mj - 2*Ms + 21_deg)
+0.042_deg * sin(3*Mj - 5*Ms + 21_deg)
-0.036_deg * sin(Mj - 2*Ms)
+0.022_deg * cos(Mj - Ms)
+0.023_deg * sin(2*Mj - 3*Ms + 52_deg)
-0.016_deg * sin(Mj - 5*Ms - 69_deg)
For Saturn we must correct both the longitude and latitude.
Add this to Saturn's heliocentric longitude:
+0.812_deg * sin(2*Mj - 5*Ms - 67.6_deg)
-0.229_deg * cos(2*Mj - 4*Ms - 2_deg)
+0.119_deg * sin(Mj - 2*Ms - 3_deg)
+0.046_deg * sin(2*Mj - 6*Ms - 69_deg)
+0.014_deg * sin(Mj - 3*Ms + 32_deg)
and to Saturn's heliocentric latitude these terms should be added:
-0.020_deg * cos(2*Mj - 4*Ms - 2_deg)
+0.018_deg * sin(2*Mj - 6*Ms - 49_deg)
Finally, add this to Uranus heliocentric longitude:
+0.040_deg * sin(Ms - 2*Mu + 6_deg)
+0.035_deg * sin(Ms - 3*Mu + 33_deg)
-0.015_deg * sin(Mj - Mu + 20_deg)
The perturbation terms above are all terms having an amplitude of
0.01 degrees or more. We ignore all perturbations in the distances
of the planets, since a modest perturbation in distance won't affect
the apparent position very much.
The largest perturbation term, "the grand Jupiter-Saturn term" is the
perturbation in longitude with the largest amplitude in both Jupiter
and Saturn. Its period is 918 years, and its amplitude is a large
part of a degree for both Jupiter and Saturn. There is also a "grand
Saturn-Uranus term", which has a period of 560 years and an amplitude
of 0.035 degrees for Uranus, but less than 0.01 degrees for Saturn.
Other included terms have periods between 14 and 100 years. Finally
we should mention the "grand Uranus-Neptune term", which has a period
if 4200 years and an amplitude of almost one degree. It's not
included in our perturbation terms here, instead its effects have
been included in the orbital elements for Uranus and Neptune. This
is why the mean distances of Uranus and Neptune are varying.
If we compute the perturbations for our test date, we get:
Mj = 85.5238_deg Ms = 198.4741_deg Mu = 101.0460:
Perturbations in Jupiter's longitude:
+ 0.0637_deg - 0.0236_deg + 0.0038_deg - 0.0270_deg - 0.0086_deg
- 0.0049_deg - 0.0155_deg = -0.0120_deg
Jupiter's heliocentric longitude, with perturbations: 105.2423_deg
The Astronomical Almanac says: 105.2603_deg
Perturbations in Saturn's longitude:
-0.1560_deg + 0.0206_deg + 0.0850_deg - 0.0070_deg - 0.0124_deg
= - 0.0699_deg
Perturbations in Saturn's latitude:
+0.0018_deg + 0.0035_deg = +0.0053_deg
Saturns position, with perturbations: 289.3824_deg +0.1845_deg
The Astronomical Almanac says: 289.3864_deg +0.1816_deg
Perturbations in Uranus' longitude:
+0.0017_deg - 0.0332_deg - 0.0012_deg = -0.0327_deg
Uranus heliocentric longitude, with perturbations: 276.7672_deg
The Astronomical Almanac says: 276.7706_deg
15. The elongation and physical ephemerides of the planets
When we finally have completed our computation of the heliocentric
and geocentric coordinates of the planets, it could also be
interesting to know what the planet will look like. How large will
it appear? What are its phase and magnitude (brightness)? These
computations are much simpler than the computations of the
positions.
Let's start by computing the apparent diameter of the planet:
d = d0 / R
R is the planet's geocentric distance in astronomical units, and
d is the planet's apparent diameter at a distance of 1 astronomical
unit. d0 is of course different for each planet. The values
below are given in seconds of arc. Some planets have different
equatorial and polar diameters:
Mercury 6.74"
Venus 16.92"
Earth 17.59" equ 17.53" pol
Mars 9.36" equ 9.28" pol
Jupiter 196.94" equ 185.08" pol
Saturn 165.6" equ 150.8" pol
Uranus 65.8" equ 62.1" pol
Neptune 62.2" equ 60.9" pol
The Sun's apparent diameter at 1 astronomical unit is 1919.26". The
Moon's apparent diameter is:
d = 1873.7" * 60 / r
where r is the Moon's distance in Earth radii.
Two other quantities we'd like to know are the phase angle and the
elongation.
The phase angle tells us the phase: if it's zero the planet appears
"full", if it's 90 degrees it appears "half", and if it's 180 degrees
it appears "new". Only the Moon and the inferior planets (i.e.
Mercury and Venus) can have phase angles exceeding about 50 degrees.
The elongation is the apparent angular distance of the planet from
the Sun. If the elongation is smaller than ca 20 degrees, the planet
is hard to observe, and if it's smaller than ca 10 degrees it's
usually not possible to observe the planet.
To compute phase angle and elongation we need to know the planet's
heliocentric distance, r, its geocentric distance, R, and the
distance to the Sun, s. Now we can compute the phase angle, FV,
and the elongation, elong:
elong = acos( ( s*s + R*R - r*r ) / (2*s*R) )
FV = acos( ( r*r + R*R - s*s ) / (2*r*R) )
When we know the phase angle, we can easily compute the phase:
phase = ( 1 + cos(FV) ) / 2 = hav(180_deg - FV)
hav(FV) is the "haversine" of the phase angle. The "haversine" (or
"half versine") is an old and now obsolete trigonometric function;
it's defined as:
hav(x) = ( 1 - cos(x) ) / 2 = sin^2 (x/2)
As usual we must use a different procedure for the Moon. Since the
Moon is so close to the Earth, the procedure above would introduce
too big errors. Instead we use the Moon's ecliptic longitude and
latitude, mlon and mlat, and the Sun's ecliptic longitude, mlon, to
compute first the elongation, then the phase angle, of the Moon:
elong = acos( cos(slon - mlon) * cos(mlat) )
FV = 180_deg - elong
Finally we'll compute the magnitude (or brightness) of the planets.
Here we need to use a formula that's different for each planet.
The phase angle, FV, is in degrees:
Mercury: -0.36 + 5*log10(r*R) + 0.027 * FV + 2.2E-13 * FV**6
Venus: -4.34 + 5*log10(r*R) + 0.013 * FV + 4.2E-7 * FV**3
Mars: -1.51 + 5*log10(r*R) + 0.016 * FV
Jupiter: -9.25 + 5*log10(r*R) + 0.014 * FV
Saturn: -9.0 + 5*log10(r*R) + 0.044 * FV + ring_magn
Uranus: -7.15 + 5*log10(r*R) + 0.001 * FV
Neptune: -6.90 + 5*log10(r*R) + 0.001 * FV
** is the power operator, thus FV**6 is the phase angle (in degrees)
raised to the sixth power. If FV is 150 degrees, then FV**6 becomes
ca 1.14E+13, which is a quite large number.
Saturn needs special treatment due to its rings: when Saturn's
rings are "open" then Saturn will appear much brighter than when
we view Saturn's rings edgewise. We'll compute ring_mang like
this:
ring_magn = -2.6 * sin(abs(B)) + 1.2 * (sin(B))**2
Here B is the tilt of Saturn's rings which we also need to compute.
Then we start with Saturn's geocentric ecliptic longitude and
latitude (los, las) which we've already computed. We also need the
tilt of the rings to the ecliptic, ir, and the "ascending node" of
the plane of the rings, Nr:
ir = 28.06_deg
Nr = 169.51_deg + 3.82E-5_deg * d
Here d is our "day number" which we've used so many times before. For
our test date d = -3543. Now let's compute the tilt of the rings:
B = asin( sin(las) * cos(ir) - cos(las) * sin(ir) * sin(los-Nr) )
This concludes our computation of the magnitudes of the planets.
16. The positions of comets. Comet Encke and Levy.
If you want to compute the position of a comet or an asteroid,
you must have access to orbital elements that still are valid.
One set of orbital elements isn't valid forever. For instance
if you try to use the 1986 orbital elements of comet Halley to
compute its appearance in either 1910 or 2061, you'll get very
large errors in your computed positions - sometimes the
errors will be 90 degrees or more.
Comets will usually have a new set of orbital elements computed for
each perihelion. The comets are perturbed most severely when they're
close to aphelion, far away from the gravity of the Sun but maybe
much closer to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or Neptune. When the comet is
passing through the inner solar system, the perturbations are usually
so small that the same set of orbital elements can be used for the
entire apparition.
Orbital elements for an asteroid should preferably not be more than
about one year old. If your accuracy requirements are lower, you can
of course use older elements. If you use orbital elements that are
five years old for a main-belt asteroid, then your computed positions
can be several degrees in error. If the orbital elements are less
than one year old, the errors usually stay below approximately one
arc minute, for a main-belt asteroid.
If you have access to valid orbital elements for a comet or an
asteroid, proceed as below to compute its position at some date:
1. If necessary, precess the angular elements N,w,i to the epoch of
today. The simples way to do this is to add the precession angle to
N, the longitude of the ascending node. This method is approximate,
but it's good enough for our accuracy aim of 1-2 arc minutes.
2. Compute the day number for the time or perihelion, call it D.
Then compute the number of days since perihelion, d - D (before
perihelion this number is of course negative).
3. If the orbit is elliptical, compute the Mean Anomaly, M. Then
compute r, the heliocentric distance, and v, the true anomaly.
4. If the orbit is a parabola, or close to a parabola (the
eccentricity is 1.0 or nearly 1.0), then the algorithms for
elliptical orbits will break down. Then use another algorithm,
presented below, to compute r, the heliocentric distance, and v, the
true anomaly, for near-parabolic orbits.
5. When you know r and v, proceed as with the planets: compute first
the heliocentric, then the geocentric, position.
6. If needed, precess the final position to the desired epoch, e.g.
2000.0
A quantity we'll encounter here is Gauss' gravitational constant, k.
This constant links the Sun's mass with our time unit (the day) and
the length unit (the astronomical unit). The EXACT value of Gauss'
gravitational constant k is:
k = 0.01720209895 (exactly!)
If the orbit is elliptical, and if the perihelion distance, q, is
given instead of the mean distance, a, we start by computing the mean
distance a from the perihelion distance q and the eccentricity e:
a = q / (1 - e)
Now we compute the Mean Anomaly, M:
M = (180_deg/pi) * (d - D) * k / (a ** 1.5)
a ** 1.5 is most easily computed as: sqrt(a*a*a)
Now we know the Mean Anomaly, M. We proceed as for a planetary orbit
by computing E, the eccentric anomaly. Since comet and asteroid
orbits often have high eccentricities, we must use the iteration
formula given earlier, and be sure to iterate until we get
convergence for the value of E.
The orbital period for a comet or an asteroid in elliptic orbit
is (P in days):
P = 2 * pi * (a ** 1.5) / k
If the comet's orbit is a parabola, the algorithm for elliptic orbits
will break down: the semi-major axis and the orbital period will be
infinite, and the Mean Anomaly will be zero. Then we must proceed
in a different way. For a parabolic orbit we start by computing
the quantities a, b and w (where a is not at all related to a for
an elliptic orbit):
a = 1.5 * (d - D) * k / sqrt(2 * q*q*q)
b = sqrt( 1 + a*a )
w = cbrt(b + a) - cbrt(b - a)
cbrt is the Cubic Root function. Finally we compute the true
anomaly, v, and the heliocentric distiance, r:
v = 2 * atan(w)
r = q * ( 1 + w*w )
From here we can proceed as usual.
Finally we have the case that's most common for newly discovered
comets: the orbit isn't an exact parabola, but very nearly so.
It's eccentricity is slightly below, or slightly above, one.
The algorithm presented here can be used for eccentricities between
about 0.98 and 1.02. If the eccentricity is smaller than 0.98
the elliptic algorithm should be used instead. No known comet has
an eccentricity exceeding 1.02.
As for the purely parabolic orbit, we start by computing the time
since perihelion in days, d - D, and the perihelion distance, q.
We also need to know the eccentricity, e. Then we can proceed as:
a = 0.75 * (d - D) * k * sqrt( (1 + e) / (q*q*q) )
b = sqrt( 1 + a*a )
W = cbrt(b + a) - cbrt(b - a)
c = 1 + 1/(W*W)
f = (1 - e) / (1 + e)
g = f / (c*c)
a1 = (2/3) + (2/5) * W*W
a2 = (7/5) + (33/35) * W*W + (37/175) * W**4
a3 = W*W * ( (432/175) + (956/1125) * W*W + (84/1575) * W**4 )
w = W * ( 1 + g * c * ( a1 + a2*g + a3*g*g ) )
v = 2 * atan(w)
r = q * ( 1 + w*w ) / ( 1 + w*w * f )
This algorithm yields the true anomaly, v, and the heliocentric
distance, r, for a nearly-parabolic orbit.
Now it's time for a practical example. Let's select two of the
comets that were seen in the autumn of 1990: Comet Encke, a well-known
periodic comet, and comet Levy, which was easily seen towards a dark
sky in the autumn of 1990. When passing the inner solar system, the
orbit of comet Levy was slightly hyperbolic.
According the the Handbook of the British Astronomical Association
the orbital elements for comet Encke in 1990 are:
T = 1990 Oct 28.54502 TDT
e = 0.8502196
q = 0.3308858
w = 186.24444_deg
N = 334.04096_deg 1950.0
i = 11.93911_deg
The orbital elements for comet Levy are (BAA Circular 704):
T = 1990 Oct 24.6954 ET
e = 1.000270
q = 0.93858
w = 242.6797_deg
N = 138.6637_deg 1950.0
i = 131.5856_deg
Let's also choose another test date, when both these comets were
visible: 1990 Aug 22, 0t UT, which yields a "day number" d = -3418.0
Now we compute the day numbers at perihelion for these two comets.
We get for comet Encke:
D = -3350.45498 d - D = -67.54502
and for comet Levy:
D = -3354.3046 d - D = -63.6954
We'll continue by computing the Mean Anomaly for comet Encke:
M = -20.2751_deg = 339.7249_deg
The first approximation plus successive approximation for the
Eccentric anomaly, E, becomes (degrees):
E = 309.3811 293.5105 295.8474 295.9061 295.9061_deg ....
Here we clearly see the great need for iteration: the initial
approximation differs from the final value by 14 degrees. Finally we
compute the true anomaly, v, and heliocentric distance, r, for comet
Encke:
v = 228.8837_deg
r = 1.3885
Now it's time for comet Levy: we'll compute the true anomaly, v, and
the heliocentric distance, r, for Levy in two different ways. First
we'll pretend that the orbit of Levy is an exact parabola. We get:
a = -1.2780823 b = 1.6228045 w = -0.7250189
v = -71.8856_deg
r = 1.431947
Then we repeat the computation but accounts for the fact that Levy's
orbit deviates slightly from a parabola. We get:
a = -1.2781686 b = 1.6228724 W = -0.7250566
c = 2.9022000 f = -1.3498E-4 g = -1.60258E-5
a1= 0.8769495 a2= 1.9540987 a3= 1.5495702
w = -0.7250270
v = -71.8863_deg
r = 1.432059
The difference is small in this case - only 0.0007 degrees or 2.5 arc
seconds in true anomaly, and 0.000112 a.u. in heliocentric distance.
Here it would have been sufficient to treat Levy's orbit as an
exact parabola.
Now we know the true anomaly, v, and the heliocentric distance, r,
for both Encke and Levy. Next we proceed by precessing N, the
longitude of the ascending node, from 1950.0 to the "epoch of the
day". Let's compute the precession angle from 1950.0 to 1990 Aug 22:
prec = 3.82394E-5_deg * ( 365.2422 * ( 1950.0 - 2000.0 ) - (-3418) )
prec = -0.5676_deg
To precess from 1990 Aug 22 to 1950.0, we should add this angle to N.
But now we want to do the opposite: precess from 1950.0 to 1990 Aug 22,
therefore we must instead subtract this angle:
For comet Encke we get:
N = 334.04096_deg - (-0.5676_deg) = 334.60856_deg
and for comet Levy we get:
N = 138.6637_deg - (-0.5676_deg) = 139.2313_deg
Using this modified value for N we proceed just like for the planets.
I won't repeat the details, but merely state some intermediate and
final results:
Sun's position: x = -0.863890 y = +0.526123
Heliocentric: Encke Levy
x +1.195087 +1.169908
y +0.666455 -0.807922
z +0.235663 +0.171375
Geoc., eclipt.: Encke Levy
x +0.331197 +0.306018
y +1.192579 -0.281799
z +0.235663 +0.171375
Geoc., equat.: Encke Levy
x +0.331197 +0.306018
y +1.000414 -0.326716
z +0.690619 +0.045133
RA 71.6824_deg 313.1264_deg
Decl +33.2390_deg +5.7572_deg
R 1.259950 0.449919
These positions are for the "epoch of the day". If you want
positions for some standard epoch, e.g. 2000.0, these positions must
be precessed to that epoch.
Finally some notes about computing the magnitude of a comet. To
accurately predict a comet's magnitude is usually hard and sometimes
impossible. It's fairly common that a magnitude prediction is off
by 1-2 magnitudes or even more. For comet Levy the magnitude formula
looked like this:
m = 4.0 * 5*log10(R) + 10*log10(r)
where R is the geocentric distance and r the heliocentric distance.
The general case is:
m = G * 5*log10(R) + H*log10(r)
where H usually is around 10. If H is unknown, it's usually assumed
to be 10. Each comet has it's own G and H.
Some comets have a different magnitude formula. One good example
is comet Encke, where the magnitude formula looks like this:
m1 = 10.8 + 5*log10(R) + 3.55 * ( r**1.8 - 1 )
"m1" refers to the total magnitude of the comet. There is another
cometary magnitude, "m2", which refers to the magnitude of the
nucleus of the comet. The magnitude formula for Encke's m2 magnitude
looks like this:
m2 = 14.5 + 5*log10(R) + 5*log10(r) + 0.03*FV
Here FV is the phase angle. This kind of magnitude formula looks very
much like the magnitude formula of asteroids, for a very good reason:
when a comet is far away form the Sun, no gases are evaporated from
the surface of the comet. Then the comet has no tail (of course) and
no coma, only a nucleus. Which means the comet then behaves much like
an asteroid.
During the last few years it's become increasingly obvious that comets
and asteroids often are similar kinds of solar-system objects. The
asteroid (2060) Chiron has displayed cometary activity and is now also
considered a comet. And in some cases comets that have "disappeared"
have been re-discovered as asteroids! Apparently they "ran out of gas"
and what remains of the former comet is only rock, i.e. an asteroid.