Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5140/JASS.2011.28.1.037

The Comparison of the Classical Keplerian Orbit Elements, Non-Singular Orbital Elements (Equinoctial Elements), and the Cartesian State Variables in Lagrange Planetary Equations with J2 Perturbation: Part I  

Jo, Jung-Hyun (Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute)
Park, In-Kwan (Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute)
Choe, Nam-Mi (Korea Aerospace Research Institute)
Choi, Man-Soo (Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute)
Publication Information
Journal of Astronomy and Space Sciences / v.28, no.1, 2011 , pp. 37-54 More about this Journal
Abstract
Two semi-analytic solutions for a perturbed two-body problem known as Lagrange planetary equations (LPE) were compared to a numerical integration of the equation of motion with same perturbation force. To avoid the critical conditions inherited from the configuration of LPE, non-singular orbital elements (EOE) had been introduced. In this study, two types of orbital elements, classical Keplerian orbital elements (COE) and EOE were used for the solution of the LPE. The effectiveness of EOE and the discrepancy between EOE and COE were investigated by using several near critical conditions. The near one revolution, one day, and seven days evolutions of each orbital element described in LPE with COE and EOE were analyzed by comparing it with the directly converted orbital elements from the numerically integrated state vector in Cartesian coordinate. As a result, LPE with EOE has an advantage in long term calculation over LPE with COE in case of relatively small eccentricity.
Keywords
Lagrange planetary equation; equinoctial elements; $J_2$ perturbation; numerical integration;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Moulton FR, An introduction to celestial mechanics (MacMillan Company, New York, 1914), 387-425.
2 Nerem RS, Chao BF, Au AY, Chan JC, Klosko SM, et al., Temporal variations of the Earth's gravitational field from satellite laser ranging to Lageos, GeoRL 20, 595-598 (1993). doi: 10.1029/93GL00169   DOI
3 Taff LG, Celestial mechanics: a computational guide for the practitioner (Wiley, New York, 1985), 288-363.
4 Vallado DA, Fundamentals of astrodynamics and applications, 2nd ed. (Microcosm Press, El Segundo, CA, 2004), 491-674.
5 Walker MJH, Owens J, Ireland B, A set modified equinoctial orbit elements, CeMec, 36, 409-419 (1985). doi: 10.1007/BF01227493   DOI
6 Arsenault JL, Ford KC, Koskela PE, Orbit determination using analytic partial derivatives of perturbed motion, AIAAJ, 8, 4-12 (1970). doi: 10.2514/3.5597   DOI
7 Blitzer L, Handbook of orbital perturbation (University of Arizona Press, Tempe, 1975), 28-32.
8 Cohen CJ, Hubbard EC, A nonsingular set of orbit elements, AJ, 67, 10 (1962). doi: 10.1086/108597   DOI
9 Broucke RA, Cefola PJ, On the equinoctial orbit elements, CeMec, 5, 303-310 (1972). doi: 10.1007/BF01228432   DOI
10 Brouwer D, Clemence GM, Methods of celestial mechanics (Academic Press, New York, 1961), 273-307.
11 Jo JH, The comparison of numerical integration methods for the KASIOPEA, Part II, Bull Korean Space Sci Soc, 17, 26-27 (2008).
12 Kozai Y, The motion of a close earth satellite, AJ, 64, 367 (1959). doi: 10.1086/107957   DOI
13 Luthcke SB, Zelensky NP, Rowlands DD, Lemoine FG, Williams TA, The 1-centimeter Orbit: Jason-1 precision orbit determination using GPS, SLR, DORIS and altimeter data, Mar Geodes, 26, 399-421 (2003).   DOI