Measuring the Moon's orbit using a hand-held camera

Benjamin Oostra

Citation: American Journal of Physics 82, 317 (2014); doi: 10.1119/1.4867968

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4867968
View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/82/4?ver=pdfcov
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers

Articles you may be interested in

An experiment to measure the instantaneous distance to the Moon
Am. J. Phys. 82, 311 (2014); 10.1119/1.4856566

The Impact of Stereo Display on Student Understanding of Phases of the Moon

AER 9, 010105 (2010); 10.3847/AER2009044

Determining the eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit without a telescope

Am. J. Phys. 78, 834 (2010); 10.1119/1.3369968

Moon Orbit
Phys. Teach. 44, 9 (2006); 10.1119/1.2150751

Interactive Visualization of a High-Resolution Reconstruction of the Moon

Comput. Sci. Eng. 4, 78 (2002); 10.1109/MCISE.2002.1046600

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
67.173.141.133 On: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 23:16:20
 Measuring the Moon’s orbit using a hand-held camera
Benjamin Oostraa)
Universidad de los Andes, Cra. 1 # 18 A 10, Bogot
a, Colombia
(Received 13 March 2013; accepted 22 February 2014)
This paper describes a way to measure the Moon’s distance and orbital eccentricity using a
digital camera. The method consists of taking photographs of the Moon and measuring the size
of the lunar disk in each picture. On a series of images taken on the same night, the effect of
the Earth’s size is evident and thus the distance to the Moon can be computed. A larger series
of images, covering several weeks, demonstrates that the Moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular.
C 2014 American Association of Physics Teachers.
V
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4867968]

I. INTRODUCTION an important target, and this project makes an excellent

When I found the right camera setting and started to get
reasonably sharp photographs of the Moon without a tele-
scope, I suspected the potential of such images—the Moon’s
diameter was large enough to expect the periodic change in
apparent size to be noticeable. Recalling that such an experi-
ment was presented more than three decades ago by Sarton1
as a project for students and convinced that his work merits a
digital update, I began to photograph the Moon systematically.
The results have surpassed my expectations, and I thought
that this would make a great project for students; after all, the
necessary camera and computer and very common nowadays.
It is important for students to grasp the way in which sci-
entific knowledge is gathered. Data are so easily found in the
literature that most people do not realize the amount of work
and difficulties involved in the process of gathering data.
Sarton1 mentioned this trouble already in 1980. Twenty-first
century science students must know where data come from,
and the best way to learn this is to go through the experience
themselves.
The Moon is a very suitable object for learning how sci-
ence is done. It is easy to see, it moves quickly, its appear-
ance changes dramatically, and its study is intriguing at any
desired level of profundity. In the 1990s several authors2–4
recommended moon watching as an assignment for students.
Others5,6 suggest indoor exercises using photographs, or
models and video cameras.7 More recently, Pedagogy in
Action8 includes several lunar observations as guided
discovery problems. Another current example is the World
Moon Project.9 Many such initiatives are aimed at grades 4
to 9 and focus on the comprehension of the lunar phases.
For more advanced students, several authors10,11 have
suggested more challenging experiments like comparing the
distances of the Sun and the Moon, or computing the Moon’s
distance from the relative angular sizes of the Moon and the
Earth’s shadow during a lunar eclipse, following Aristarchus’
method. Krisciunas12,13 has even shown that the Moon’s
orbital eccentricity can be estimated without using a telescope.
Today such experiments are made much easier by the
availability of digital cameras with built-in optical zoom and
computer-assisted image analysis programs. Here I show a
method that uses such modern and familiar equipment to
measure the Moon’s distance and eccentricity.
II. STUDENT ASSIGNMENT
This article is intended to inspire all who delight in per-
forming such experiments. But young science students are
assignment for high school or freshman students. In contrast
with other Moon projects designed for children, this one
requires careful measurements and calculations, likely to be
performed on a computer. To perform the experiment, a
good camera is needed to render a lunar diameter of several
hundred pixels.
The images for the “distance” experiment can be taken on
a single night. But for the “eccentricity” experiment the time
needed will probably lie between one and three months,
which should be planned in a season of clear skies. It might
be possible to do the project in teams of two or more stu-
dents, but members of a team should use the same camera. If
several teams work on this project simultaneously, it would
be interesting to compare the results of different teams using
different cameras.
In a large class, I would recommend that no more than
three or four teams work on this same assignment; more than
that would become tedious. Other groups might undertake
different projects of similar duration, like plotting the Moon
on a sky chart during one or several months, or tracking
Mars through its retrograde loop.
At the beginning of the project an instructor should check
the first few images in order to verify their quality. When the
project is complete, it would be useful for each team to pres-
ent their findings to their peers to promote a group discus-
sion. In addition to discussing aspects of the Moon’s orbit,
the procedures and uncertainties should be reviewed, and if
several methods have been used they should be compared.
III. TAKING THE IMAGES
I performed the experiment using a 12-megapixel, 12
optical zoom camera, which is quite modest by today’s
standards, in which the lunar disk had an average diameter
of 340 pixels. With exposure times being between 2 and
12 ms, a tripod was unnecessary; I would only steady my
hand against a wall or some other firm structure.
The exposure time deserves some attention. The image
must be bright but not overexposed. The optimal exposure
time depends on the phase of the Moon and will likely need
to be selected manually; using an automatic exposure setting
with the large dark sky around the Moon will probably cause
the camera to overexpose, leading to a saturated moon image
that will be blurry and too large to be useful.
Care must be taken that the camera’s zoom setting is
always exactly the same. I took all images at maximum mag-
nification, except one time when I forgot to check that detail,

317 Am. J. Phys. 82 (4), April 2014 http://aapt.org/ajp C 2014 American Association of Physics Teachers
V 317

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
67.173.141.133 On: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 23:16:20
 only to discover afterwards that these images were abnor-
mally small (and useless).
The camera’s focal length and the actual pixel size are not
needed; not even the moon’s angular size is needed. Of
course, calibrating the angular scale would in itself be a
worthwhile experiment.14

IV. MEASURING THE IMAGES

After taking the photographs, the first and most time-
consuming task is to carefully measure the diameter of the
Moon’s disk in each picture. The basic idea of this experi-
ment is that the moon’s distance is inversely proportional to
its angular size—in order to determine variations in distance,
we measure variations in apparent size.
There are several ways to measure the Moon’s angular di- Fig. 1. One of the Moon photographs for this experiment. The horizontal
line shows one of the “slices” along which the width is measured.
ameter on a photograph:
• Measure the diameter directly with a ruler on the computer 4. Choose an approximate tentative value y0 for the vertical
screen. While this might be the simplest method, it is reli- position of the center of the moon’s disk on the image.
able only at full moon because at any other phase no diam- a spreadsheet, compute the quantities rn
5. Onqffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
eter has both ends well illuminated. Additionally, images
may be distorted on a screen; the vertical-to-horizontal ¼ ðyn  y0 Þ2 þ ðwn =2Þ2 . These are the distances from
proportion may not be accurate. the (tentative) center to the rim points. If the value of y0 is
• Use Sarton’s method using analog equipment: Project correct, all the rn values will be equal and this will repre-
each image on a screen on which a large circle has been sent the radius of the circle. Plot rn against yn ; if y0 is cor-
drawn; then adjust the projector (or the screen distance) rect, the points will be distributed along a horizontal line.
until the moon image matches the circle; finally determine 6. If the rn vs yn plot is not horizontal, adjust y0 until the
the scale, projecting (with the same configuration) a stand- graph becomes as horizontal as possible (do not hesitate
ard image showing two stars at a known angular distance. to try fractional values). Of course there will always
This method may not be accurate enough with digital remain some dispersion, because there are measurement
images; video-beam pixels are too large. errors and the Moon’s rim is not a perfect circle; it has
• A digital version of the previous method is to view the mountains, valleys, and a slight equatorial bulge all on the
images using a software program capable of drawing sub-pixel level.
circles of a known size. Using the program, draw a circle 7. With the optimal value of y0 , take the average of all rn .
over the Moon’s image; when the two circles fit satisfacto- This is the Moon’s radius in pixels, and twice this value is
rily, read off the size of the drawn circle. For this method I the diameter d.
found that the Moon’s terminator, the limit between illu-
minated and dark parts, should preferably be oriented This procedure is a bit lengthy, but I prefer it for its accu-
roughly at 45 with respect to the camera axes. The uncer- racy of a fraction of a pixel. After some practice I could mea-
tainty of this technique is on the order of 1 pixel. sure each image in about 15 min, although I am sure some
• View the images using a software analysis program like software experts will find a faster way of doing it.
Iris.15 Take an intensity-versus-position profile along a
straight horizontal line through the center of the moon’s
disk (this is done easily in Iris with the “slice” function).
Measure the position of each end at half intensity level (up
to a fraction of a pixel); the difference of these positions is
the Moon’s diameter. The moon’s image should be as hori-
zontal as possible, i.e., aligned with the horizontal camera
axis. I found this method to be reliable only near Full Moon.
After trying several of these methods, I finally settled on
the following procedure:
1. When taking the pictures, be careful to have the Moon’s
terminator as horizontal as possible with respect to the
camera axes.
2. Using the software program Iris,15 trace a series of hori-
zontal slices through the illuminated half of the Moon,
at the values yn of the vertical coordinate. Each slice
produces an intensity-versus-position plot. I did this at
10-pixel intervals, obtaining some 15 slices for each Fig. 2. Brightness profile along the slice shown in Fig. 1. Tick marks show
image, but fewer slices may also do (see Fig. 1). the actual brightness of each pixel. Along the steep slopes corresponding to
3. On the intensity profiles, measure the width wn of the the Moon’s rim one can interpolate between tick marks, estimating half-
moon’s image at each of these yn values (see Fig. 2). intensity positions up to a tenth of a pixel.

318 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 82, No. 4, April 2014 Benjamin Oostra 318

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
67.173.141.133 On: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 23:16:20
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
With this tool at hand we proceed to measure the two D¼ D2 OBS þ R2 þ 2RDOBS sinðhÞ: (2)
most basic elements of the Moon’s orbit: Its size (or dis-
tance) and its shape (or eccentricity). The two tasks turn out However, the difference between (the squares) of these two
to be interdependent: the quest for the eccentricity will tell equations is R2 cos2 ðhÞ, which represents a fractional error
us when to do the distance experiment, and the measured dis- DD=D of less than 104. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity
tance will offer a correction useful for the eccentricity data. I use Eq. (1).
Now, because the Moon’s angular size is small—it spans
about half a degree, sufficiently small compared to 1
V. DETERMINING THE DISTANCE radian—the angular diameter d (in pixels) can be considered
to be inversely proportional to the Moon-observer distance
This experiment consists in taking about a dozen photo-
graphs of the Moon on a single night, covering a broad range K
of altitudes of the moon above the horizon. The photographs DOBS ¼ ; (3)
d
should be taken in a single night to minimize the effect of
the orbital eccentricity. The ideal date for this experiment is where K is the hypothetical distance to the Moon if its image
when the Moon is at perigee or apogee, when the distance is were to measure just one pixel. Combining Eqs. (1) and (3),
(very nearly) constant; these dates can be found on an alma- we get
nac, but it is more satisfactory to discover them for yourself
by performing the eccentricity experiment. 1 D R
¼  sinðhÞ: (4)
The Earth-Moon distance D can be measured in terms of d K K
the Earth’s radius R by noting that the Moon is slightly This equation gives the theoretical relation between the
smaller near the horizon. Many people believe that the moon observables d and h. Measuring these values for each picture
is bigger when it is close to the horizon, and smaller when it yields values for D=K and R=K; their quotient then gives D
is high up in the sky. This is the well-known Moon in terms of R.
Illusion16–18 and an issue frequently raised by students (a fact Figure 4 shows a plot of d vs h for a series of Moon
that in itself provides an incentive for this experiment). In images, and Fig. 5 shows a plot of 1=d vs sinðhÞ; a linear fit
reality, if you view the Moon at zenith, you are closer to it to these data gives
than any other observer on Earth, so its apparent size will be
larger. When the Moon is at the horizon, you are farther away D
from it; you can actually walk towards the Moon to get a bit ¼ 3:1249  103 63:6  106 ; (5a)
K
closer! This idea can be quantified with the aid of Fig. 3.
From Fig. 3 it can be readily seen that, if R is the Earth’s R
¼ 6:03  105 65:0  106 : (5b)
radius, D is the Moon’s distance from the Earth’s center, K
DOBS is the Moon’s distance from the observer, and h is the
Moon’s angular height (or altitude) above the observer’s Finally, dividing these two values gives the distance to the
horizon, then Moon in Earth radii:
D
D ¼ DOBS þ R sinðhÞ: (1) ¼ 51:964:3: (6)
R
This equation is actually an approximation, valid if the two The expected value is 60 (average) or 63 (at apogee, which
arrows pointing towards the Moon are parallel. The exact is when the measurement was made). Although this measure-
expression follows from the law of cosines applied to the ment is not the most accurate, it requires the least equipment.
Earth-observer-Moon triangle: Even still, it is rewarding to get the correct order of

Fig. 4. Observed size of the Moon as a function of angular altitude. The

Fig. 3. Comparison of the distances to the Moon from the observer and from effect of distance is evident. Note that the Moon has a smaller size when it is
the Earth’s center. near the horizon.

319 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 82, No. 4, April 2014 Benjamin Oostra 319

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
67.173.141.133 On: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 23:16:20

Fig. 5. Linear relationship between the inverse angular size of the Moon and
the sine of its angular altitude.
magnitude. The best way of measuring the Moon’s distance
is to use parallax, the variation of the Moon’s angular posi-
tion. But this is a more difficult experiment that requires a
fixed reference (such as a bright star close to the moon) for
the angular position on every photograph, or a properly
mounted telescope, which few people have. An additional
difficulty is the orbital motion of the Moon superimposed on
its parallactic motion. Thus, considering the simplicity of the
method used here, the result is satisfactory.
VI. DETERMINING THE ECCENTRICITY
In order to get a value for the lunar orbital eccentricity we
must take many photographs of the Moon (e.g., one each
day) over a time period of at least one month. It is possible
to get the necessary photographs during a single lunation,
but then the epoch should be carefully chosen. If possible,
one should thoroughly cover the passing of the Moon
through perigee and apogee, so it is essential that the Sun is
not close to either of these two positions. Ideally, the Sun
should be at right angles with the line of apsides. This occurs
every seven months (exactly every 206 days), not every six
months, because the lunar perigee moves eastward at the
considerable rate of 40 per year.
As before, the size of the lunar disk should be measured
on all images. To obtain the moon’s orbital eccentricity e we
start with the general equation of an ellipse in polar coordi-
nates ðr; uÞ, given by
að1  e2 Þ
r¼ ; (7)
1 þ e cosð/Þ
where a is the length of the semi-major axis. Comparing the
distances at apogee ð/ ¼ pÞ and perigee ð/ ¼ 0Þ we obtain
the ratio
max distance 1 þ e
¼ :
min distance 1  e
In a first approximation, it is not necessary to know the
actual distances; it suffices to know that distance is inversely
proportional to apparent size, so that
max size 1 þ e
¼ :
min size 1  e
320 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 82, No. 4, April 2014
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
67.173.141.133 On: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 23:16:20
But one correction might be made: Eq. (8) refers to the
geocentric distances D, while the angular sizes in Eq. (9)
depend on the observed distances DOBS . The corrections are
small but not difficult to make.
To perform the adequate adjustment, one should compute
the distances DOBS using a suitable value for K [see Eq. (3)]
and add to each of these the quantity RsinðhÞ, thus transform-
ing the distances from DOBS to D [see Eq. (1)]. For this rea-
son my results, shown in Fig. 6, are not expressed as angular
diameters but rather as distances in Earth radii. Here I used
K ¼ 20300 (Earth radii) in order to get the correct distance
scale; this gives a mean distance of 60.34 Earth radii, which
is about the accepted value.
After computing the geocentric distances, I interpolated
the data with a sine curve. A sine function is not ideal
because (due to Kepler’s second law) the Moon tarries lon-
ger near apogee than near perigee. Moreover, the lunar orbit
is not exactly an ellipse due to perturbations from the Sun.
Some of these subtleties can be seen as small systematic
deviations of the data points.
However, using a sinusoidal fit as a first approximation we
get the following parameters of the lunar orbit. The eccen-
tricity is computed using Eq. (8):
• Period (anomalistic month): 27.44 days
• Maximum distance: 63.18 R
• Minimum distance: 57.50 R
• Eccentricity: 0.047
The distances given here result not only from the data but
also from my choice of K; the measurements give only the
ratios. We could also use the scale factor obtained from the
“distance” experiment: Inverting Eq. (5b) gives K ¼ 16600
and the following distances:
• Mean distance: 49.34 R
• Maximum distance: 51.66 R
• Minimum distance: 47.02 R
• Eccentricity: 0.047
Note that the resulting value for the eccentricity is the same
as before, because it is affected by the choice of K only
through a relatively small correction. Note also that the
(8)
Fig. 6. Geocentric distances computed from the image diameters over two
complete lunations. The gap between days 39 and 46 corresponds to the
(9)
New Moon of February 10, 2013. The curve represents a sine fit to the data.
Benjamin Oostra 320

Fig. 7. Variation of the Earth-Moon distance for 2013 (data from the
Astronomical Almanac21).
maximum distance is consistent with the result from the
“distance” experiment [Eq. (6)].
At first glance it is puzzling to find such a small eccentric-
ity; the value quoted in the literature19 is e ¼ 0.0549. The
reason for this discrepancy is that Eq. (8) holds for an unper-
turbed, perfectly elliptical orbit, which is not true for the
Moon. The maximum and minimum distances are not always
the same, but oscillate on a cycle of 206 days,20 as can be
seen on Fig. 7, which plots the Earth-Moon distance for each
day during 2013; I made this plot using parallax data from
the Astronomical Almanac.21
Figure 7 shows that twice a year, around days 70 and 285
for 2013, the maximum and minimum distances draw closer
together. It is also noteworthy that the perigee distance varies
much more than the apogee distance. This variation of the
minimum distance is visible in my results in Fig. 6.
These effects are due to perturbation from the Sun. A
perfect ellipse is the solution to the interaction between two
bodies, but the Sun-Earth-Moon system is a three-body prob-
lem22 and an ellipse is at best a not-so-bad first approxima-
tion. However, the orbital plane exhibits a precession,
changing eclipse dates from year to year; the perihelion
rotates eastward at 40 per year, so the orbit isn’t even
closed; and the Earth-Moon distance varies more when the
Sun is aligned with the major axis of the orbit, and less when
it is at right angles with this line. My observations were
deliberately made at nearly right angles in order to have the
Moon clearly visible at perigee and apogee; this explains the
(relatively) small result.
VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS
With a hand-held digital camera and some perseverance it
is possible to measure the size and shape of the Moon’s orbit.
The results are not very accurate but are nevertheless appeal-
ing due to the simplicity of the method. This should be an
interesting project for science students and astronomy enthu-
siasts, who will gain valuable practice in skills like observa-
tion planning, field work, and image analysis and data
reduction; they might even fall in love with the fascinating
mysteries of celestial mechanics.
It would be interesting to extend this experiment to a
larger time scale. For example, measuring the Moon at
321 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 82, No. 4, April 2014
This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
67.173.141.133 On: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 23:16:20
apogee when the Sun is aligned with the perigee, and again
7 lunations later, when the positions are inverted.
Alternatively, photographing the Moon on every full Moon,
completing an entire cycle in 14 months. Such a long-term
project could engage several cohorts of students.
The accuracy of these results is about as far as one can go
while still considering the Moon a sphere. In the “distance”
experiment (Fig. 5), comparing the data with the linear
model, the measurements show a standard deviation of 0.41
pixels. In the “eccentricity” experiment (Fig. 6), the disper-
sion of the measured points around the sinusoidal fit,
expressed in pixels, is 0.35 pixels. As the average lunar di-
ameter is 340 pixels, the dispersion is just above 1/1000 of
the lunar diameter. This accuracy proved to be just enough
to measure a reasonable value of the Moon’s distance. But if
you want to do better, take note: the oblateness of the Moon
is 0.0012;21 and the lunar mountains, up to several kilo-
meters high, just reach about 1/1000 of the Moon’s diameter.
In a word, if one wants to improve the experiment, perhaps
by using a bigger camera, probably the lunar landscape and
non-spherical shape will become evident.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks the referees for their valuable com-
ments and suggestions.
a)
Electronic mail: boostra@uniandes.edu.co
1
E. J. Sarton, “Measuring the moon’s orbit,” Phys. Teach. 18, 504–509
(1980).
2
J. Hickman and M. B. Stewart, “The regression of the moon’s nodes: A
major project in introductory astronomy,” Phys. Teach. 29, 160–162
(1991).
3
W. P. Lovegrove, “Moon watching: An experiment in scientific observa-
tion,” Phys. Teach. 32, 126–127 (1994).
4
T. F. Slater, “Teaching the science of moon gazing,” Phys. Teach. 33,
186–187 (1995).
5
E. R. Cowley, “A classroom exercise to determine the Earth-Moon dis-
tance,” Am. J. Phys. 57, 351–352 (1989).
6
D. H. Bruning, “Determining the Earth-Moon distance,” Am. J. Phys. 59,
850 (1991).
7
L. A. Marschall, “Bringing the moon into the classroom,” Phys. Teach. 34,
360–361 (1996).
8
Pedagogy in Action <http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/guided_discovery/
examples.html/>.
9
World Moon Project <http://www.worldmoonproject.org/>.
10
D. H. DeVorkin, “Determining the distance to the moon,” Phys. Teach.
10, 40–43 (1972).
11
J. Hickman and N. L. Lark, “Daytime observations for astronomy students
III,” Phys. Teach. 29, 500–501 (1991).
12
K. Krisciunas, “Determining the eccentricity of the Moon’s orbit without a
telescope,” Am. J. Phys. 78, 834–838 (2010).
13
Kevin Krisciunas’ Moon website, <http://people.physics.tamu.edu/kris-
ciunas/moon_ang.html/>.
14
E. J. Sarton, “Diameter of the moon,” Phys. Teach. 18, 137–138 (1980).
15
Iris software by Christian Buil, <http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/iris/
iris.htm/>.
16
E. G. Boring, “The moon illusion,” Am. J. Phys. 11, 55–60 (1943).
17
H. M. Dadourian, “The moon illusion,” Am. J. Phys. 14, 65–66 (1946).
18
N. L. Lark, “Daytime observations for astronomy students I and II,” Phys.
Teach. 29, 459–460 (1991).
19
NASA Moon fact sheet by David R. Williams, <http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.
gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html/>.
20
NASA Eclipse website by Fred Espenak, <http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/
SEhelp/moonorbit.html/>.
21
Astronomical Almanac Online, <http://asa.usno.navy.mil/>.
22
M. C. Gutzwiller, “Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem,”
Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 589–639 (1998).
Benjamin Oostra 321