The GAIA spacecraft is currently mapping the stars in the Milky Way by parallax. It orbits in the Earth-Sun L2 lagrange point. The parallax observed from the spacecraft orbiting around the sun allows us to derive the distances to many stars in the milky way, as well as calculate their velocities.

Assuming no cost to placing such an observatory wherever we want around the sun, what would be the optimal orbit for optimal rate of science gains?

I apologise if this seems a big vague, let me elaborate.

If you imagine placing it in a smaller orbit, the parallax of distant stars (already very small) will be made even smaller. But information about the parallax will be returned quicker.

If you place the observatory in the orbit of Uranus, you'll have a much greater parallax and will be able to measure the distances of distant stars with much greater precision. However, it will take 80 years to complete an orbit, and the rate of distance measuring would be intolerably slow.

Intuitively, I feel like there is some obvious sweet spot that would produce measurements at an acceptable rate, though I also feel like my objective function here is ill-defined.

Would a highly eccentric orbit be preferred to a circular one? Would a particular orbit optimise the 'science gains' for one particular aspect at the expense of others (such as accuracy of nearby stars traded for accuracy of distant stars, or accuracy of stellar proper motion)? If there are multiple objectives to optimise, what would the tradeoffs be?


bumped to the homepage by Community yesterday

This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can there really be an optimum unless you know what you want to optimise? If you really need to know the parallax of a very distant object you are going to need a very long baseline and you have no choice but to wait. If you wanted to do a quick Gaia foillow-up and recheck the parallaxes of a lot of relatiuvely near stars to look for major changes, then Earth orbit is just fine. $\endgroup$ – Steve Linton Apr 15 at 9:33
  • $\begingroup$ One thing you could do is use multiple missions. If you sent two probes on diverging trajectories (say fast solar escape trajectories via Jupiter flypasts) you could get a very long baseline between then (at least in some directions) in a decade or so. $\endgroup$ – Steve Linton Apr 15 at 9:34
  • $\begingroup$ You need to set some parameters - principally, how quickly does the information need to be gathered? You also need to be clearer about what you want to measure. Just the astrometric parameters for single stars, or are you looking for photocentre motion to find binaries and planets? It's fine if you don't want to set these parameters but it might make people a bit wary of setting off writing what could be a very, very long answer indeed. And that's before we get onto the operational aspects of any planned mission. $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries Apr 15 at 10:56
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I might refactor this question in the next couple of days. It appears different science objectives will have different optimum orbits, and so the question becomes one of multi-objective optimisation, where the relative preference for certain scientific objectives is down to individual taste. I'm not saying such a question can't be answered, but I do understand it makes it harder. $\endgroup$ – Ingolifs Apr 16 at 8:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Ingolifs I think it's silly for comments to put the optimization criterion on you. It might be a good idea to refactor the question and ask for the tradeoffs between a heliocentric orbit at ~1 AU (which is what a Sun-Earth Lagrange orbit really is) and an orbit at some other distance from the Sun. Asking for tradeoffs can be answered unambiguously, and answers might also provide some insight into optimization. $\endgroup$ – uhoh 11 hours ago

There is several reasons why the L2 point is an optimum point for the satellite.

First you have a stable orbit with low gravitational perturbation and which is not too far away. So, you won't have a huge travel time. And the parallax is good for what the satellite is supposed to do. Secondly in a Lagrange point you can easily point out the same point. In orbit, you will have some grey area. Eventually, I think you are doing a mistake when you say : "Assuming no cost". In my opinion, if we are not sending a satellite like Gaia around another planet, it is because we want to avoid risks and sending the satellite, around Mars for example, adds a ton of risk.

That's why we use the L2 point to place a satellite in regards to all the parameters. But, you can choose another location if you want to maximize something in particular.

  • $\begingroup$ This is an interesting answer but I'm not sure I understand everything. Can you explain more what the following means? "...in a Lagrange point you can easily point out the same point. In orbit, you will have some grey area." Thanks! $\endgroup$ – uhoh Apr 16 at 1:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think they are trying to say that out at the L2 Lagrange point, it is much easier to achieve continuous observations without being interrupted by Earth/Moon eclipses $\endgroup$ – astrosnapper Apr 16 at 3:48
  • $\begingroup$ @astrosnapper oh! "grey area" → eclipse, got it, thanks! $\endgroup$ – uhoh Apr 16 at 4:10
  • $\begingroup$ But the observations made by Gaia don't stare at one point. $\endgroup$ – Rob Jeffries May 15 at 18:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.