Planetary Orbits

  • Oliver Montenbruck
  • Thomas Pfleger

Abstract

Excluding Mercury and Pluto, the major planets are very similar in the low eccentricities and low inclinations of their orbits relative to the ecliptic. Cometary orbits, by contrast, are distributed at random in space and have very varied shapes. The near-circular orbits of the planets are so widely separated that they never come close to one another.

Keywords

Mercury Eosine Dinates 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [23]
    P. Bretagnon, J.-L. Simon; Tables for the motion of the sun and the five bright planets from -4000 to +2800; Tables for the motion of Uranus and Neptune from +1600 to +2800; Willmann-Bell; Richmond, Virginia (1986). Series expansions and programs, with which the motion of the inner planets during historical times can be calculated with sufficient accuracy. The coordinates of the outer planets are represented by polynomials.Google Scholar
  2. [24]
    T. C. van Flandern, K. F. Pulkkinen; Low precision formulae for planetary positions; Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, vol. 41, p. 391; (1979). Series expansions for the calculation of low-accuracy (ca. 1;) heliocentric and geocentric planetary coordinates.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [25]
    E. Goffin, J. Meeus, C. Steyaert; An accurate representation of the motion of Pluto; Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 155, p. 323; (1986). Representation of Pluto’s orbit by a trigonometric series, which was obtained by fitting a numerically integrated ephemeris.ADSMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [26]
    G. W. Hill; Tables of Jupiter, Tables of Saturn; Astronomical Papers of the American Ephemeris, vol. VII, part 1–2; Washington (1898). Analytical series expansions of the motions of Jupiter and Saturn.Google Scholar
  5. [27]
    M. P. Jarnagin, jr.; Expansions in elliptic motion; Astronomical Papers of the American Ephemeris, vol. XVIII; Washington(1965). Series expansions for the equation of the centre and radius, as well as other coordinates in the non-perturbed Kepler problem to high orders of eccentricity.Google Scholar
  6. [28]
    S. Newcomb; Tables of the motion of the Earth, Tables of the heliocentric motion of Mercury, Tables of the heliocentric motion of Venus, Tables of the heliocentric motion of Mars; Astronomical Papers of the American Ephemeris, vol. VI, part 1–4; Washington (1898). Analytical series expansions for the motions of the inner planets.Google Scholar
  7. [29]
    S. Newcomb; Tables of the heliocentric motion of Uranus, Tables of the heliocentric motion of Neptune; Astronomical Papers of the American Ephemeris, vol. VII, part 3–4; Washington (1898). Series expansions of Uranus and Neptune coordinatesGoogle Scholar
  8. [30]
    X. X. Newhall, E. M. Standish Jr., J. G. Williams; DE102: a numerically integrated ephemeris of the moon and planets spanning forty-four centuries; Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 125, pp. 150–167 (1983); The description of what is currently the best ephemeris over a period of several thousand years.ADSMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [31]
    F. E. Ross; New Elements of Mars; Astronomical Papers of the American Ephemeris, vol. IX, part 2; Washington (1917). Improvement of the orbital elements in Newcomb’s tables of the martian orbit.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver Montenbruck
    • 1
  • Thomas Pfleger
    • 2
  1. 1.DLR-GSOCWeßlingGermany
  2. 2.HennefGermany

Personalised recommendations