You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter jedidia
- Start date

- Joined
- Mar 21, 2008

- Messages
- 1,923

- Reaction score
- 310

- Points
- 83

- Location
- Biddeford ME

- Website
- www.adabsurdumpublishing.com

Relative inclination is the angle between the two normals of the plains in which each orbit coïncides, as @GLS said.

In the image above, you can see that the planet-relative position vector, and the velocity vector both lie in the orbital plane, so the norm of the right handed cross product between**r** and *v* would be your normal vector. Get these for both vessels and use the dot product to find the angle between them.

Doing it with just two inclinations and two LaNs, is more of a geometry problem than my brain can do this late, but consider the case where the inclinations are equal and you sweep LaN through 360 degrees while leaving inclination the same. Rinc should go from 0 up to 180°+Inc and then back to 0.

In the image above, you can see that the planet-relative position vector, and the velocity vector both lie in the orbital plane, so the norm of the right handed cross product between

Doing it with just two inclinations and two LaNs, is more of a geometry problem than my brain can do this late, but consider the case where the inclinations are equal and you sweep LaN through 360 degrees while leaving inclination the same. Rinc should go from 0 up to 180°+Inc and then back to 0.

Last edited:

Wait, why would it go 180 + Inc? Somehow that looks different in my head... If I have two inclinations at 10 degrees, and I rotate one by 180, wouldn't the relative inclination between them (i.e. the angle by which you'd have to change your plane to match) be 20 degrees?Rinc should go from 0 up to 180°+Inc and then back to 0.

- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008

- Messages
- 4,328

- Reaction score
- 543

- Points
- 138

Yes.Wait, why would it go 180 + Inc? Somehow that looks different in my head... If I have two inclinations at 10 degrees, and I rotate one by 180, wouldn't the relative inclination between them (i.e. the angle by which you'd have to change your plane to match) be 20 degrees?

\[ \vec{n} = \left[ -\sin i \cos \Omega, -\sin i \sin \Omega, \cos i \right], \]

where \(i\) is the inclination and \(\Omega\) is the longitude of ascending node.

If you know the equation for angle between two vectors, and have two ships 1 and 2 with elements \(i_1\), \(\Omega_1\) and \(i_2\), \(\Omega_2\), the relative inclination \(\theta\) between the two orbits is given by

\[\theta = \arccos \left( \sin i_1 \sin i_2 \cos \left[\Omega_1 - \Omega_2\right] + \cos i_1 \cos i_2 \right). \].

Sources: none, but I tested it with the readout in Align planes MFD.

- Joined
- Mar 21, 2008

- Messages
- 1,923

- Reaction score
- 310

- Points
- 83

- Location
- Biddeford ME

- Website
- www.adabsurdumpublishing.com

Yep. Whoops. I knew I should've grabbed the whiteboard..Wait, why would it go 180 + Inc? Somehow that looks different in my head... If I have two inclinations at 10 degrees, and I rotate one by 180, wouldn't the relative inclination between them (i.e. the angle by which you'd have to change your plane to match) be 20 degrees?

- Joined
- Aug 13, 2017

- Messages
- 125

- Reaction score
- 11

- Points
- 18

If you know the equation for angle between two vectors, and have two ships 1 and 2 with elements \(i_1\), \(\Omega_1\) and \(i_2\), \(\Omega_2\), the relative inclination \(\theta\) between the two orbits is given by

\[\theta = \arccos \left( \sin i_1 \sin i_2 \cos \left[\Omega_1 - \Omega_2\right] + \cos i_1 \cos i_2 \right). \].

Sources: none, but I tested it with the readout in Align planes MFD.

Yes, this is the correct expression for the relative inclination.

Explicitly, what does this notation mean?

I know what Omega1 and 2 are, but this is not a difference, this is some kind of product, right?[Ω1−Ω2]

I know what Omega1 and 2 are, but this is not a difference, this is some kind of product, right?

I'm certainly no math expert but it looks like an honest difference to me. I think the most difficult thing, as often, is to get all the operations in the right order. You already have a parenthesis (...) so the brackets [...] indicate a "second level".

Ahhhh... silly me. I only ever look at math in code, so I completely forgot about that convention...

I'm certainly no math expert but it looks like an honest difference to me. I think the most difficult thing, as often, is to get all the operations in the right order. You already have a parenthesis (...) so the brackets [...] indicate a "second level".

Yes, that is the notation I use for writing nested parentheses.

I've noticed that it's unusual. Most people start with parentheses on the "inside", and then alternate outward, e.g.

\[ [(2+2)+3]*4 = 28 \]

While I prefer starting with parentheses outside, and alternate inward, e.g.

\[ ([2+2]+3)*4 = 28 \]

Programming languages simply use parentheses everywhere, so in code:

C++:

`double relativeInclination = acos(sin(inc1) * sin(inc2) * cos(LAN1 - LAN2) + cos(inc1) * cos(inc2));`

Last edited: