2

If the look angles for a pair of satellites are $Az_1, El_1$ and $Az_2, El_2$, what would be the angular separation between them? An associated problem is how do we determine whether and when the two satellites, in slightly different orbits, i.e. slightly different COE (Clasical Orbital Elements), are in radio frequency interference with respect to a given ground antenna. Again a way to determine their angular separation is through the angle of their respective topocentric vectors

user169145
  • 41
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
    Possible duplicate of https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/2542/calculating-angular-distance –  Jun 21 '17 at 15:34
  • It's a spherical triangle. You know two points, the third point could be the zenith, or the origin of your AzEl coordinate system (0, 0). Have you used spherical trigonometry or the law of cosines before or is this all new? – uhoh Jun 21 '17 at 15:37
  • 1
    @uhoh Actually, since there are only two points on the sphere (the other point is the center of the sphere), I think this is just a great circle arc, not a spherical triangle. –  Jun 21 '17 at 16:23
  • @barrycarter show me the money! or in this case, the math. Otherwise many things can sound plausible in comments. You could do a coordinate transform to cartesian for example, then do a dot product, but won't it be just a different version of the law of cosines? There can't be two fundamentally different answers, only different approaches. If you have a solution different than that shown in your linked answer in astronomy SE, please post it as an answer here and we can see if it is in fact any different. – uhoh Jun 21 '17 at 17:06
  • 1
    @uhoh I was only objecting to your use of the phrase "spherical triangle". In this case, there are only two points on the surface of the sphere, not 3. –  Jun 22 '17 at 02:50
  • @barrycarter the origin is always an ever-present third point. El, Az values don't mean anything without the origin. "You know two points, the third point could be the zenith, or the origin of your AzEl coordinate system (0, 0)." – uhoh Jun 22 '17 at 03:58
  • 1
    @uhoh Actually, as i noted above, "the other point is the center of the sphere" aka the origin. The other point isn't on the surface of the sphere. In a spherical triangle, all three points are on the surface of the sphere. Not sure it's really worth arguing over though. –  Jun 22 '17 at 14:29
  • 1
    @uhoh I believe you have changed the meaning of the original question with your edit. The OP originally asked about "look angles", and made no mention of altitude. My interpretation is that he/she just wants the angular separation between the two satellites, as viewed from a single point on Earth. You would not need the altitude to calculate this. Of course, OP should clarify this when he/she returns. – Arthur Dent Jun 22 '17 at 19:42
  • @ArthurDent In this context AltAz or altitude/azimuth refer to two angles. The first angle is the elevation angle above the horizon, and unfortunately uses the same name "altitude" as a vertical distance above Earth's surface, so there is no meaning change here. But you are right I should change it to "elevation". The word elevation is not devoid of ambiguity either, but ya it's probably a better choice. The change was done because of your question about "look angle" being related to R.A./Dec. Thanks! – uhoh Jun 22 '17 at 23:13
  • 2
    "My interpretation is that he/she just wants the angular separation between the two satellites, as viewed from a single point on Earth. You would not need the altitude to calculate this" This is the correct interpretation. We have a single point on Earth, antenna, (known lat, lon, and height above datum) and we want the angular separation of two satellites, on different orbits, as looked at by the antenna with given look angles. (El, Az). One way to do this would be to compute the topocentric vector from the antenna to each of the satellites and then compute the angle between them. – user169145 Jun 23 '17 at 20:09
  • The spherical triangle would work if we consider the satellites' subpoints as two points and the third point the antenna. All coordinates are known. – user169145 Jun 23 '17 at 20:12
  • Look angles are defined as the azimuth and elevation to the satellite with respect to the ground station – user169145 Jun 23 '17 at 20:13

2 Answers2

6

From "Practical Astronomy with your Calculator or Spreadsheet" by Peter Duffett-Smith, Jonathan Zwart:

Sometimes it is of interest to know what is the angle between two objects in the sky, and this can be calculated very easily provided their equatorial coordinates ($\alpha$,$\delta$) or ecliptic coordinates ($\lambda, \beta$) are known. The formulae are:
cos $d$ = sin $\delta_1$ sin $\delta_2$ + cos $\delta_1$ cos $\delta_2$ cos ($\alpha_1 - \alpha_2$),
or
cos $d$ = sin $\beta_1$ sin $\beta_2$ + cos $\beta_1$ cos $\beta_2$ cos ($\lambda_1 - \lambda_2$),
where $d$ is the angle between the objects whose coordinates are $\alpha_1, \delta_1$ (or $\lambda_1, \beta_1$) and $\alpha_2, \delta_2$ (or $\lambda_2, \beta_2$). Those formulae are exact and mathematically correct for any values of $\alpha, \delta$ or $\lambda, \beta$. However, when $d$ becomes either very small, or close to 180 degrees, your calculator may not have enough precision to return the correct answer, in which case better expressions are
$ d = \sqrt{cos^{2}\delta * \Delta \alpha^{2} + \Delta\delta^2} $
or
$ d = \sqrt{cos^{2}\beta* \Delta \lambda^{2} + \Delta\beta^2} $
where $\Delta\alpha, \Delta\delta$ (or $\Delta\lambda, \Delta\beta$) are the differences in the two coordinates (i.e. $\Delta\alpha = \alpha_1 - \alpha_2$, etc.). These expressions may be used for values of $d$ within about 10 arcminutes of 0 degrees or 180 degrees. Both $\Delta\alpha$ $(\Delta\lambda) $ and $\Delta\delta$ $(\Delta\beta)$ must be expressed in the same units (e.g. arcseconds) and $d$ will then be returned in those units.

The $\beta$ in the $cos^{2}\beta$ above can be either $\beta_1$ or $\beta_2$. It makes little difference, since this formula applies only when d is nearly 0, or nearly 180. Eg, the two points are either very close together, or almost antipodal.

This method should work for RA/Declination, Elev/Azimuth, Lat/Lon, or any similar coordinate system with north and south "poles." (unsure of the general term for these)

I believe this is what you are asking for, as it's generally the most useful in astronomy, attitude determination, etc.

Arthur Dent
  • 1,135
  • 11
  • 14
  • This is a really good answer, pointing out the perils of finite precision calculations. – uhoh Jun 23 '17 at 00:30
  • 1
    @uhoh Thanks, I've actually dealt with that issue in my work, and it's very easy to use the wrong equations. – Arthur Dent Jun 26 '17 at 13:09
5

Indeed, the solution to the problem is found in solving a spherical triangle, as @uhoh states.

Consider this diagram for a general spherical triangle:

enter image description here

In this problem, $C$ is the zenith, and the two points are $A$ and $B$; the co-altitudes of the two points are the arc-lengths $A-C$ and $B-C$. The difference in the two azimuths is the angle $ACB$, and the desired value is the arc-length $A-B$. The sphere portrayed is the celestial sphere; the observer is on the tiny, invisible terrestrial sphere, located at the centre of the celestial sphere, down where the three straight lines $A-A'$, $B-B'$ and $C-C'$ intersect.

So you use the Law of Cosines for spherical triangles...

EDIT as suggested by @Uhoh

If we use lower-case letters to denote the arc-length of the sides of the spherical triangles, and Greek letters to denote the angles at each vertex of the spherical triangle, the Law of Cosines gives: $$\cos(c)=\cos(a)\times \cos(b)+\sin(a) \times \sin(b) \times \cos(\gamma)$$Note: error correctd!

The co-altitude of a point is the altitude measured down from the zenith, rather than up from the horizon. The co-altitude is just 90 degrees minus the altitude..

So:

  1. Find $b$ and $c$ by subtracting the altitudes of each point from $90$ degrees
  2. Find $\gamma$ by subtracting the smaller azimuth from the larger.( If $\gamma$ is bigger than 180 degrees, then use 360-$\gamma$)

  3. Substitute these values into the right-hand -side of the formula above to find $\cos(c)$

  4. Take the inverse cosine (arcos) of this value to find $c$, the angular separation of the two points

EDITED AGAIN

Writing a small Excel spreadsheet to demonstrate an example:

enter image description here

All the angles are in degrees. Excel's trig functions insist on radians, so the RADIANS function changes degrees to radians, and the DEGREES function, naturally, changes radians to degrees.

Here's the actual values for one case:

enter image description here

You can mimic all of these calculations with a scientific calculator (and even skip the degrees/radians conversions.

DJohnM
  • 1,361
  • 6
  • 11
  • I think for this to be a good SE answer, you need to show the OP explicitly how the law of cosines should be used. With two $(El, Az)$ points, where do those numbers go in the law of cosines, and how to get the answer as an angle rather than another cosine? – uhoh Jun 22 '17 at 04:03
  • Downvote: not a spherical triangle-- origin is center of sphere, not on surface of sphere. –  Jun 22 '17 at 14:30
  • @barrycarter points $A, B, C$ are on the sphere. Angles $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ are on the sphere. Triangle $ABC$ is a classic spherical triangle. This is really standard stuff. The origin of the sphere is shown for the benefit of us human viewers, who live in three-space. The triangle exists within the two-space of the sphere's surface. Your comment is wrong and misleading. If you have an answer, please post as an answer where you can use mathematics to explain your point, and others can vote on your statements! – uhoh Jun 22 '17 at 15:15
  • @uhoh Well, I've provided a link to the correct answer, a link to wikipedia, and offered to discuss it real time. The problem here isn't a mathematical formula: it's understanding what the question is asking. We're talking about the celestial sphere here, not the planetary Earth sphere. It's like finding the angular distance between two stars. If the diagrammed sphere above was the Earth, the satellites would be on its surface. I'll let this sit for a couple days, and hope someone else comes up w/ a better clarification. –  Jun 22 '17 at 16:28
  • @barrycarter once you have only $(Az, El)$ coordinates, you loose 3 dimensions. There are no physical dimensions or length, only a 2D mathematical surface where distances are measured in degrees. The center of this mathematical sphere has no specific use anymore. Yes, in the real world, satellites are in orbits, but that's not the case for this question. It's a mathematical 2D problem on a sphere, a spherical triangle problem, specifically because the only information you have are angles. Free yourself of the burdens of the real world and embrace non-Euclidian 2D geometry ;) – uhoh Jun 22 '17 at 17:12
  • +1 I've up voted to cancel the down vote because the stated reason for the down vote is not correct. However, I hope we get some explicit math added to this answer, right now it doesn't actually show how to solve the OP's problem yet. – uhoh Jun 22 '17 at 17:27
  • Nice addition, really nice explanation and walk-through of spherical trig. For anyone interested in reading further or seeing the formalisms, Get Smart! – uhoh Jun 23 '17 at 00:40
  • What 2D sphere do you mean? The satellites are in slightly different orbits and tracked by a ground station antenna. The look angles consist of two coordinates, Azimuth and Elevation from the viewpoint of the antenna to the satellite – user169145 Jun 23 '17 at 20:20