ACCURACY OF ORBITS OF SMALL CELESTIAL BODIES OBTAINED USING DIFFERENT SOFTWARE
Section: CELESTIAL MECHANICS AND ASTROMETRY
Authors:
1.
Institute of Applied Astronomy of the Russian Academy of Sciences
2.
Institute of Applied Astronomy, Russian Academy of Sciences
3.
Tomsk State University
4.
Tomsk State University
Type:
Сonference article
Published:
27.12.2024
Subject area:
UDK 52 Астрономия. Геодезия
UDK 53 Физика
UDK 520 Инструменты, приборы и методы астрономических наблюдений, измерений и анализа
UDK 521 Теоретическая астрономия. Небесная механика. Фундаментальная астрономия. Теория динамической и позиционной астрономии
UDK 523 Солнечная система
UDK 524 Звезды и звездные системы. Вселенная Солнце и Солнечная система
UDK 52-1 Метод изучения
UDK 52-6 Излучение и связанные с ним процессы
GRNTI 41.00 АСТРОНОМИЯ
GRNTI 29.35 Радиофизика. Физические основы электроники
GRNTI 29.31 Оптика
GRNTI 29.33 Лазерная физика
GRNTI 29.27 Физика плазмы
GRNTI 29.05 Физика элементарных частиц. Теория полей. Физика высоких энергий
OKSO 03.06.01 Физика и астрономия
OKSO 03.05.01 Астрономия
OKSO 03.04.03 Радиофизика
BBK 2 ЕСТЕСТВЕННЫЕ НАУКИ
BBK 223 Физика
TBK 614 Астрономия
TBK 6135 Оптика
BISAC SCI004000 Astronomy
BISAC SCI005000 Physics / Astrophysics
UDK 53 Физика
UDK 520 Инструменты, приборы и методы астрономических наблюдений, измерений и анализа
UDK 521 Теоретическая астрономия. Небесная механика. Фундаментальная астрономия. Теория динамической и позиционной астрономии
UDK 523 Солнечная система
UDK 524 Звезды и звездные системы. Вселенная Солнце и Солнечная система
UDK 52-1 Метод изучения
UDK 52-6 Излучение и связанные с ним процессы
GRNTI 41.00 АСТРОНОМИЯ
GRNTI 29.35 Радиофизика. Физические основы электроники
GRNTI 29.31 Оптика
GRNTI 29.33 Лазерная физика
GRNTI 29.27 Физика плазмы
GRNTI 29.05 Физика элементарных частиц. Теория полей. Физика высоких энергий
OKSO 03.06.01 Физика и астрономия
OKSO 03.05.01 Астрономия
OKSO 03.04.03 Радиофизика
BBK 2 ЕСТЕСТВЕННЫЕ НАУКИ
BBK 223 Физика
TBK 614 Астрономия
TBK 6135 Оптика
BISAC SCI004000 Astronomy
BISAC SCI005000 Physics / Astrophysics
Language:
English
Keywords:
small celestial bodies; dynamics; orbit improvement; asteroid/comet hazard
Abstract (English):
The threat of a collision with a potentially hazardous object (PHO) and smaller asteroids requires the ability to reliably calculate the orbits of celestial bodies. The quality of the determined orbit depends on both the accuracy and intervals of observations and on the method of their processing: the completeness of the dynamic model, the method of numerical integration, calculation errors, etc. The practical implementation of the orbit determination algorithm is associated with the peculiarities of taking into account the above factors. To assess the accuracy of motion prediction using orbits obtained with the help of different software packages, we compared the deviations in observed and calculated values of observations, i.e. $O$–$C$, that were not included in the orbit improvement. The $O$–$C$ comparison was carried out for orbits obtained using software developed in leading Russian scientific organizations with teams working on asteroid-comet dynamics: Pulkovo, Tomsk State University (TSU) and Institute of Applied Astronomy of RAS (IAA), as well as orbits presented on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) Horizons website. The asteroids Apophis and Phaethon were chosen as objects for which the $O$–$C$ comparison was performed. Observations of each asteroid were divided into two samples by time. The asteroid's orbit was improved using the earlier sample, and the later sample was used to access the accuracy of the prediction. The $O$–$C$ distribution profile for orbits obtained using different software turned out to be very similar, indicating the proximity of predictions. The most accurate orbits were obtained using the Improvement and IDA software developed at the IAA and TSU, respectively.
The threat of a collision with a potentially hazardous object (PHO) and smaller asteroids requires the ability to reliably calculate the orbits of celestial bodies. The quality of the determined orbit depends on both the accuracy and intervals of observations and on the method of their processing: the completeness of the dynamic model, the method of numerical integration, calculation errors, etc. The practical implementation of the orbit determination algorithm is associated with the peculiarities of taking into account the above factors. To assess the accuracy of motion prediction using orbits obtained with the help of different software packages, we compared the deviations in observed and calculated values of observations, i.e. $O$–$C$, that were not included in the orbit improvement. The $O$–$C$ comparison was carried out for orbits obtained using software developed in leading Russian scientific organizations with teams working on asteroid-comet dynamics: Pulkovo, Tomsk State University (TSU) and Institute of Applied Astronomy of RAS (IAA), as well as orbits presented on the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) Horizons website. The asteroids Apophis and Phaethon were chosen as objects for which the $O$–$C$ comparison was performed. Observations of each asteroid were divided into two samples by time. The asteroid's orbit was improved using the earlier sample, and the later sample was used to access the accuracy of the prediction. The $O$–$C$ distribution profile for orbits obtained using different software turned out to be very similar, indicating the proximity of predictions. The most accurate orbits were obtained using the Improvement and IDA software developed at the IAA and TSU, respectively.
Keywords:
small celestial bodies; dynamics; orbit improvement; asteroid/comet hazard
small celestial bodies; dynamics; orbit improvement; asteroid/comet hazard
1. Galushina T., Letner O., 2021, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, 32., 4, p. 355
2. Gehrels T., 1994, Tucson: University of Arizona Press
3. Moyer T., 1971, Technical Report 32-1527, NASA/JPL
4. Reddy V., Kelley M., Benner L., et al., 2024, Planetary Science Journal, 5, p. 141
