Abstract
The effect of inclined third-body perturbation on the perturbed body’s inclination evolution has been investigated extensively. However, under various initial orbital elements, the exact effect of the \(J_2\) perturbation and the inclined third-body perturbation on perturbed body’s inclination is still an open problem. In this paper, we use a simplified model for long-term orbital variations to analyze the free and forced inclinations for almost circular orbits with low inclinations. We analyze the influence of the \(J_2\) perturbation on the inclination evolution under various initial orbital elements. The results show that the \(J_2\) perturbation consistently decreases the maximum value of the inclination. Besides, the \(J_2\) perturbation either decreases the amplitude of the inclination’s oscillation, or enables the perturbed body to orbit closer to the equator of the central body. These effects enable the objects with initially low inclinations to maintain their orbits near the equator of the central body for a long time. The results of the study are applied to circum-Jovian orbits and the triple asteroid system 87 Sylvia.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The data underlying this paper are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Broucke, R.A.: Long-term third-body effects via double averaging. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 26(1), 27–32 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5041
Cinelli, M., Ortore, E., Circi, C.: Long lifetime orbits for the observation of Europa. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 42(1), 123–135 (2019). https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G003652
Cinelli, M., Lei, H., Ortore, E., Circi, C.: Probe lifetime around natural satellites with obliquity. Astrodynamics 6(4), 429–439 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42064-022-0145-1
Curtis, H.D.: Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (Fourth Edition), pp. 479–542. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (2020)
Delhaise, F., Morbidelli, A.: Luni/solar effects of geosynchronous orbits at the critical inclination. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 57(1–2), 155–173 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00692471
Domingos, R.C., Moraes, R.V., De Almeida Prado, A.F.B.: Third-body perturbation in the case of elliptic orbits for the disturbing body. Math. Prob. Eng. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/763654
Downey, B.G., Nimmo, F., Matsuyama, I.: Inclination damping on Callisto. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 499(1), 40–51 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa2802
Ford, E.B., Kozinsky, B., Rasio, F.A.: Secular evolution of hierarchical triple star systems. Astrophys. J. 535(1), 385 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1086/308815
Fu, T., Wang, Y., Hu, W.: Semi-analytical orbital model around an oblate body with an inclined eccentric perturber. Front. Astron. Space Sci. (2023). https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2023.1125386
Gkolias, I., Lara, M., Colombo, C.: An ecliptic perspective for analytical satellite theories. Adv. Astronaut. Sci. 167, 337–351 (2018)
Iess, L., Folkner, W.M., Durante, D., Parisi, M., Kaspi, Y., Galanti, E., Guillot, T., Hubbard, W.B., Stevenson, D.J., Anderson, J.D., Buccino, D.R., Casajus, L.G., Milani, A., Park, R., Racioppa, P., Serra, D., Tortora, P., Zannoni, M., Cao, H., Helled, R., Lunine, J.I., Miguel, Y., Militzer, B., Wahl, S., Connerney, J.E.P., Levin, S.M., Bolton, S.J.: Measurement of Jupiter’s asymmetric gravity field. Nature 555(7695), 220–222 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25776
Kinoshita, H., Nakai, H.: Secular perturbations of fictitious satellites of Uranus. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 52(3), 293–303 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00048489
Kozai, Y.: Secular perturbations of asteroids with high inclination and eccentricity. Astron. J. 67, 591–598 (1962). https://doi.org/10.1086/108790
Lara, M.: On perturbation solutions in the restricted three-body problem dynamics. Acta Astronaut. 195, 596–604 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.01.022
Lara, M., San-Juan, J.F., López-Ochoa, L.M., Cefola, P.: Long-term evolution of Galileo operational orbits by canonical perturbation theory. Acta Astronaut. 94(2), 646–655 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2013.09.008
Lara, M.: Hamiltonian Perturbation Solutions for Spacecraft Orbit Prediction: The Method of Lie Transforms. De Gruyter, Berlin, Boston (2021). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110668513
Lidov, M.L.: The evolution of orbits of artificial satellites of planets under the action of gravitational perturbations of external bodies. Planet. Space Sci. 9(10), 719–759 (1962). https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0
Lithwick, Y., Naoz, S.: The eccentric Kozai mechanism for a test particle. Astrophys. J. 742(2), 94 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/742/2/94
Liu, X., Baoyin, H., Ma, X.: Long-term perturbations due to a disturbing body in elliptic inclined orbit. Astrophys. Space Sci 339(2), 295–304 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-012-1015-8
Marchis, F., Descamps, P., Hestroffer, D., Berthier, J.: Discovery of the triple asteroidal system 87 sylvia. Nature 436, 822–824 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04018
Murray, C.D., Dermott, S.F.: Solar System Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999)
Naoz, S., Farr, W.M., Lithwick, Y., Rasio, F.A., Teyssandier, J.: Hot Jupiters from secular planet–planet interactions. Nature 473(7346), 187–189 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10076
Naoz, S., Farr, W.M., Lithwick, Y., Rasio, F.A., Teyssandier, J.: Secular dynamics in hierarchical three-body systems. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 431(3), 2155–2171 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt302
Nie, T., Gurfil, P.: Long-term evolution of orbital inclination due to third-body inclination. Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-020-09997-x
Prado, A.F.B.: Third-body perturbation in orbits around natural satellites. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 26(1), 33–40 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2514/2.5042
Veras, D., Armitage, P.J.: The dynamics of two massive planets on inclined orbits. Icarus 172(2), 349–371 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2004.06.012
Winter, O.C., Boldrin, L.A.G., Vieira Neto, E., Vieira Martins, R., Giuliatti Winter, S.M., Gomes, R.S., Marchis, F., Descamps, P.: On the stability of the satellites of asteroid 87 Sylvia. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 395(1), 218–227 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14564.x
Yokoyama, T.: Dynamics of some fictitious satellites of Venus and Mars. Planet. Space Sci. 47(5), 619–627 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-0633(98)00110-X
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 12311530055, 12002397 and 62388101), the National Key R &D Program of China (No. 2020YFC2201202 and 2020YFC2201101), and the Shenzhen Science and Technology Program (Grant No. ZDSYS20210623091808026).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Proof of inequality \({I}_{\text {1max}, {{J}_{2}}=0} \ge {I}_{\text {1max}, {{J}_{2}}\ne 0}\) for \(0<\gamma <1\)
Proof of inequality \({I}_{\text {1max}, {{J}_{2}}=0} \ge {I}_{\text {1max}, {{J}_{2}}\ne 0}\) for \(0<\gamma <1\)
We aim to prove that the inequality \({I}_{\text {1max} ,{{J}_{2}}=0}\ge {I}_{\text {1max} ,{{J}_{2}}\ne 0}\) holds for \(0<\gamma <1\).
Step 1: Start with the given inequality Eqs. (32 and 39):
Step 2: Add \(\sqrt{I_{10}^{2}+{{\gamma }^{2}}I_{20}^{2}-2\gamma {{I}_{10}}{{I}_{20}}\cos \Delta \Omega }\) on both sides:
Step 3: Square both sides and simplify:
Step 4: Since \(1-\gamma >0\), divide both sides by \((1-\gamma )/2\) and simplify:
Step 5: Classified discussion:
If \({{I}_{10}}\cos \Delta \Omega -{{I}_{20}}<0\). Inequality (A4) holds, which implies that inequality \({I}_{\text {1max} ,{{J}_{2}}=0}\ge {I}_{\text {1max} ,{{J}_{2}}\ne 0}\) holds for \(0<\gamma <1\).
If \({{I}_{10}}\cos \Delta \Omega -{{I}_{20}}\ge 0\), square both sides of inequality (A4) and simplify. The derived inequality is:
which holds for all real numbers. This implies that inequality \({I}_{\text {1max} ,{{J}_{2}}=0}\ge {I}_{\text {1max} ,{{J}_{2}}\ne 0}\) holds for \(0<\gamma <1\).
More generally, consider two particles A and B, where \(\gamma =\gamma _1\) for A and \(\gamma =\gamma _2\) for B, and \(\gamma _1<\gamma _2\). Other initial conditions are the same for A and B. Then we have:
We omit the proof for Eq. (A6) here, since this process is similar to the one described above.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zeng, Q., Jiang, Y., Nie, T. et al. Free and forced inclinations of orbits perturbed by the central body’s oblateness and an inclined third body. Celest Mech Dyn Astron 136, 16 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-024-10187-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10569-024-10187-2