Talk:Perturbation (astronomy)

Untitled

alterations to an object's orbit caused by gravitational interactions with other bodies

The orbit as such is caused mainly "by gravitational interactions with other bodies". Andres 09:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. I have modified the article following your comment, as such: alterations to an object's orbit caused by gravitational interactions with bodies external to the system formed by the object and it parent body [. . .] CielProfond (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perturbation Equations

This article needs to feature the Lagrangian and Gaussian perturbation equations and perhaps some explanation of how they're applied and/or derived. This is essential to understanding the topic beyond a popular level. Ryan Hardy (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Presently "Orbital perturbation" redirects to "Perturbation (astronomy)". But I have added some stuff and plan to add some more that probably applies more directly to spacecraft orbit then to natural astronomical objects. Main difference is that spacecraft have a short orbital period and therefore have a rather constant environment for several successive orbits while the orbital periods of the different planets are of a similar magnitudes and the perturbation analysis for planets should therefore have a somewhat different characteristics.

Anyway, what had been put in the article until now was really thin!

I would like to revive "Orbital perturbation"! Or if astronomers prefer to have two articles, "Orbital perturbation (Astronomy)" and "Orbital perturbations (Spacecraft)". The latter with a lot of information of importance for "Orbit control" and "Mission design"

Opinions!? Stamcose (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I have solved the problem by starting a new article with the suitable name Orbital perturbation analysis (spacecraft)

- Should "Perturbation (astronomy)" be kept? I do not think there is much content in it! --Stamcose (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think it should be kept, at least until we see how the spacecraft article evolves. We still need a non-technical explanation, perhaps through examples, about how planetary perturbations occur in the Solar System. -- Kheider (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly Orbital perturbation analysis (spacecraft) now just redirects to Orbital perturbation analysis which has very little to do with spacecraft. - Rod57 (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

F.R. Moulton wrote a minimal-math chapter on perturbations in his An Introduction to Celestial Mechanics. I could attempt to condense it for this article, although it relies on heavy use of diagrams, and I don't know how to do that here! I would like to see this article fleshed out a little in the descriptions of general and special perturbations. Tfr000 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems we have no articles for Cowell's Method and Encke's Method. Maybe I'll write them. Tfr000 (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mercury perturbation comparison.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mercury perturbation comparison.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mercury perturbation comparison.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I nominated the image for deletion myself. I have put another version of it in Wikimedia Commons. Tfr000 (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Perturbation (astronomy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Orbital_perturbation_analysis

I am proposing merging the above article into this article, because of the significant overlap, seems like the exact same concept. I don't think an additional article is warranted solely for the analysis of perturbations, it should be a sub-section of this article. ~~The mergee article also does not contain any real content on specific analysis, only on the general concept of perturbations.~~ Closer inspection shows there is significant math content, but I believe is it better presented in this article. Adding merge tags to link to this talk point. Zerohourrct (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my view math content of Orbital perturbation analysis should be deleted straight away. The rest, if there is anything unique left, should be merged with this article. Wikipedia is no textbook. I wonder why this crap has survived for so many years. --AhmadLX (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the above, I've complete the merge, but it is little more than a redirect given the long-standing, one-source, contested, and too-technical arguments.