Astrodynamics https://doi.org/10.

1007/s42064-020-0071-z

Impact of radiation pressure and circumstellar dust on motion of a test

particle in Manev’s field

Jagadish Singh1 , Solomon Okpanachi Omale2 (
), Lawrence O. Inumoh2 , and Felix Ale2

1. Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Physical Sciences, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria
2. Engineering and Space Systems Department, National Space Research and Development Agency (NASRDA), Obasanjo
Space Centre, Abuja, Nigeria

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In this paper, we present a study on the impact of radiation pressure and circumstellar Manev potential
dust on the motion of a test particle in the framework of the restricted four-body problem circumstellar dust
under the Manev’s field. We show that the distribution of equilibrium points on the plane Lyapunov characteristic
of motion is slightly different from that of the classical Newtonian problem. With the aid exponents (LCEs)
of the Lyapunov characteristic exponents, we show that the system is sensitive to changes stability
in initial conditions; hence, the orbit of the system is found to be chaotic in the phase chaos
space for the given initial conditions. Furthermore, a numerical application of this model basins of attraction
to a stellar system (Gliese 667C) is considered, which validates the dependence of the
Research Article
equilibrium points on the mass parameter. We show that the non-collinear equilibrium
Received: 28 September 2019
points of this stellar system are distributed symmetrically about the x-axis, and five of
Accepted: 5 March 2020
them are linearly stable. The basins of attraction of the system show that the equilibrium
© Tsinghua University Press
points have irregular boundaries, and we use the energy integral and the Manev parameter
2020
to illustrate the zero-velocity curves showing the permissible region of motion of the test
particle with respect to the Jacobi constant.

1 Introduction that some of the discovered exoplanet systems have dust

The restricted four-body problem (RFBP) is an emerging
area of research in celestial mechanics owing to the vistas
of insights that it offers in both theoretical modeling and
practical applications in spheres such as astrophysics, as-
tronomy and space science, and molecular sciences. Over
the years, various researchers in the scientific community
have been vigorously committed to pursuing in-depth un-
derstanding and discoveries of the universe. Frequently,
the RFBP is used as either a benchmark model where
new dynamical theories can be verified, or as a simplified
model of more complex planetary systems.
The RFBP has received significant research attention,
resulting in several applications such as the Sun–Jupiter
and Saturn system [1]; saving fuel and time in the tra-
jectory transfers in the RFBP [2]; a star, two massive
planets, and a massless Trojan [3]; a star, brown dwarf,
gas giant, and a massless Trojan [4]. It has been shown
disks that are regarded as the young analogues of the
Kuiper belt. For example, the dust ring around a nearby
star, E Eradani [5] and a warped disk around the β Pic-
toris planetary system, and the impact of the planet can
be accounted for this warped disk [6]. The effect of disks
on planetary orbits was studied [7], and it was concluded
that the planets might prefer to be closer to the inner
part of the disk than to the outer part.
The RFBP is a model in celestial mechanics that de-
scribes the motion of a point mass moving under the
gravitational influence of three finite bodies (called the
primaries) moving in circular orbits around their barycen-
ter, which is fixed at the origin of the coordinate system.
The problem is restricted in the sense that the mass of the
infinitesimal body is considered so small that its gravi-
tational effect on three finite masses is negligible, but its
motion is governed by them. The generalization of the

solomondavidson1203@gmail.com
2 J. Singh, S. O. Omale, L. O. Inumoh, et al.
restricted four-body problem involves the study of various
types of effects such as the effect of Poynting–Robertson
drag, radiation pressure force, Yarkovsky effect, Stokes
drag, Coriolis and centrifugal forces, variation of masses,
oblateness of bodies, etc. Several authors have studied the
existence of equilibrium points and their linear stability
in the frame of the restricted four-body problem [8–16].
Following the current research trends in celestial me-
chanics, it can be observed that there are shortcomings in
using the classical Newton’s law of gravitation to explain
certain natural phenomena such as the orbit of the moon
around the earth and the perihelion advances of mercury
in solar dynamics. These lapses motivated Newton to
study a central-force problem governed by a potential
of type Ar + rB2 . The general relativity theory succeeded
in enumerating such occurrences in perihelion advances
using both quantitative and qualitative approaches, but
with the limitations of not being able to formulate a
meaningful relativistic n-body problem, as discussed in a
previous study [17].
In the 1920s, George Manev obtained a similar model
and proposed an alternative substitute for the relativity
theory [18–21]. In the corresponding central force pro-
blem with the unit mass of the satellite, the Manev’s
2 tion of Lagrange, where they are always set at the vertices
potential indicates A = µ and B = 3µ 2c2 , where µ is the
gravitational parameter of the two-body and c is the
speed of light. The Manev’s model explains the solar-
system phenomena with the same accuracy as relativity,
but without leaving the domain of classical mechanics
and establishes a connection between the classical me-
chanics and general relativity. Recently, the researchers
have developed an interest in investigating the RFBP
using the Manev-type forces. Balga worked on the pre-
cessing orbits, central forces, and Manev potential [22];
Ivaov and Pradanov studied the Manev potential and
general relativity [23]; Haranas and Mioc investigated
the Manev potential and satellite orbits [24]; Kirk et al.
examined satellite motion in the Manev potential with
drag [25]. Balga considered circular orbits, Lyapunov
stability, and Manev-type forces [26]. Barrabés et al.
studied the spatial collinear restricted four-body pro-
blem using the repulsive Manev potential by considering


a quasi-homogeneous potential of the form − ar + re2 ,
where a and e are real constants, and r is the distance
between the particles [27].
In this study, our aim is to investigate the motion of
a test particle in the Manev gravitational field of three
primaries having the Lagrangian configuration under the
radiation pressure of the bigger primary and circumstel-
lar dust. The work is arranged as follows. In Section
2, we present the governing equations of the motion for
the system. The equilibrium points and linear stability
are studied in Sections 3 and 4, respectively. The appli-
cation of the model to a stellar system, Gliese 667C, is
explained in Section 5. The dynamical behavior of the
system to determine its chaos is described in Section 6;
this is very important because Wisdom showed that the
3:1 Kirkwood gap in the asteroid belt might be associated
with the chaotic region of the system [28]. In Section 7,
the basins of attraction for the equilibrium points of the
system are identified. The zero-velocity curves, and the
summary and conclusion are presented in Sections 8 and
9, respectively.
2 Mathematical formulation of the pro-
blem
2.1 Model formulation
Let us consider three primaries of point mass m1 , m2 , and
m3 moving in circles around their center of mass fixed at
the origin of the coordinate system according to the solu-
of an equilateral triangle. Our aim is to find the governing
equations for the motion of the fourth infinitesimal par-
ticle m moving in the same plane under the gravitational
influences of the above-mentioned three primaries with
the orientation of the triangle of masses such that m1
lies along the positive x-axis, and m2 , and m3 are as-
sumed to have equal mass positioning symmetrically with
respect to the x-axis. Let the coordinates of the infinites-
imal mass be (x, y) and those of m1 , m2 , and m3 be
y
m
m2
m3
m1
x
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the model.
Impact of radiation pressure and circumstellar dust on motion of a test particle in Manev’s field 3

√  √   √ 
( 3µ, 0), − 23 (1 − 2µ), 12 , and − 23 (1 − 2µ), − 12 , 2.5 Equations of motion
m2 m3 1
respectively, where µ = m1 +m2 +m3 = m1 +m2 +m3 < 2 is We normalize the units with the assumption that the
the mass parameter. sum of the masses and distances between the primaries
both be unity, and the unit of time is chosen such that
2.2 Manev potential
the gravitational constant G is unity. In the view of
According to Manev [18–21], the force that acts on a Sections 2.1–2.4, and following Balga [26] and Singh and
particle of mass m, moving in the static gravitational Taura [30], the equations of motion of the infinitesimal
field produced by a bigger mass m1 is expressed as follows: mass in the rotating coordinate system are expressed as
 
Gm1 m 3G(m1 + m) follows:
FM (R) = − 1+ (1) 
R2 c2 R ẍ − 2nẏ = Ωx
(5)
where R is the distance between m and m1 , G is the ÿ + 2nẋ = Ωy
gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.
with

2.3 Potential from the disk/belt n2 2 2 1 3m1

Ω= (x + y ) + m1 q1 + 2 2
2 r1 2c r
Considering that the motion described in Section 2.1
1

1 3m2 1 3m3
occurs within a ring of dust or cluster materials (e.g., gas + m2 + 2 2 + m3 + 2 2
r2 2c r2 r3 2c r3
cloud, space debris), Miyamoto and Nagai proposed the
Mb
analytic disk potential [29], otherwise recognized as the + 1/2
(r2 + T 2 )
potential due to the material cluster, as follows:
Mb Following the assumptions that m1 + m2 + m3 = 1 and
V (r, z) = −  √ (2) m2 = m3 = µ,
2
r2 + (a + z 2 + b2 )  
n2 2 1 3(1 − 2µ)
Ω= (x + y 2 ) + (1 − 2µ)q1 +
where Mb is the total mass of the belt, r2 = x2 + y 2 , a 2 r1 2c2 r12

and b are parameters that quantify the density profile of 1 3µ 1 3µ

+µ + 2 2 +µ + 2 2
the disk. The parameter a is called the flatness parameter r2 2c r2 r3 2c r3
that determines the flatness of the profile, and b is the Mb
+ 1/2
(6)
core parameter that controls the size of the core of the (r2 + T 2 )
density profile. Suppose a = b = 0, and then the potential
with
becomes that of a point mass. Confining to the xy-plane, 
√ 2
we set z = 0 and define T = a + b. Consequently, Eq. (2) r1 = (x − 3µ) + y 2
becomes  2
1√ 1 2
Mb r2 = x+ 3(1 − 2µ) + (y − )
V (r, 0) = − √ (3) 2 2
r2 + T 2  2
1√ 1 2
2.4 Mass reduction factor r3 = x+ 3(1 − 2µ) + (y + )
2 2

The mass reduction factor (q) gives the relationship be-
tween the force exerted by a primary due to its radiation
pressure and the gravitational force.
Fp
q =1−β =1−
Fg
F
with 0 < Fpg  1, where β is the ratio of the radiation
pressure Fp and the gravitational force Fg . It is observed
that an increase in radiation pressure at constant gravi-
tational force results in a decrease in the mass reduction
factor.
r = x2 + y 2
2Mb rc
n2 = 1 + 3/2
(rc2 + T 2 )
(4) The subscripts x and y indicate the partial derivatives
of the potential function Ω with respect to x- and y-
axes, respectively, n is the mean motion, q1 is the mass
reduction parameter of the bigger primary, c is the speed
of light, rc is the radial distance of the test particle, r1 , r2 ,
and r3 are the distances of the infinitesimal particles from
the primaries m1 , m2 , and m3 , respectively. Following the
4 J. Singh, S. O. Omale, L. O. Inumoh, et al.

concept of Dubeibe et al. [31], we use a transformation Mb y

− 3/2
=0 (9)
that will allow us to have a translation between the (r2 + T 2 )
classical Newtonian potential and the generalized Manev The solutions of Eqs. (8) and (9) are the points of
potential as follows: intersection of the curves in the xy-plane. As proposed
1 1 by Routh that the criterion for linear stability of the
→σ 2
c2 c Lagrange configuration is satisfied in the interval µ ∈
where σ is the Manev parameter. Equation (6) becomes [0, 0.0190636 . . .] [32], and demonstrated by Baltagiannis
  and Papadakis that primaries moving in linearly stable
n2 2 2 1 3σ(1 − 2µ)
Ω= (x + y ) + (1 − 2µ)q1 + circular orbits must have a value of mass parameter
2 r1 2r2


1 less than but approximately equal to the Routh’s critical
1 3σµ 1 3σµ
+µ + 2 +µ + 2 value [11], we solve Eqs. (8) and (9) numerically by taking
r2 2r2 r3 2r3
the mass parameter µ = 0.0190 and a large enough value
Mb
+ 1/2
, σ ∈ [0, 1] (7) for the Manev parameter σ = 0.8. We consider two cases:
(r + T 2 )
2
the effect of radiation pressure, and the combined effect
If σ = 0, then the problem reduces to one governed by of the radiation pressure and circumstellar dust.
the Newtonian potential, and for σ ∈ (0, 1], we have the Table 3 shows that when the material cluster around
Manev potential case. We will use the potential function the primaries is considered in the model, there are signi-
(7) throughout this study. ficant decreases in the position of the equilibrium points.
For instance, on the x-coordinate, L1 and L2 decrease
3 Existence and location of equilibrium inward by 0.81%, L6 and L7 decrease by 0.56%, and L8
points and L9 moved inward by 0.37%. In space applications,
assuming a cubesat or a nanosatellite as the test particle
It is imperative to find the equilibrium points of the sys- that loses its altitude in this manner, there would be a
tem because it provides us with the vantage points to need for periodic station keeping; otherwise it will fail in
investigate the dynamic behavior of the system. The equi- its mission because of its poor orientation and access to
librium points represent the positions where the gravi- the sampled primaries. On a more serious note, it is even
tational force and centrifugal force associated with the possible for some of the electro-mechanical components to
rotation of the synodic reference frame are equal, imply- be compromised because the orbit of the cubesat shrinks
ing that a test particle (say, a cubesat or a dust grain) inward towards the highly luminous primaries.
placed at one of these points will remain stationary in In both cases, the number of equilibrium points re-
the synodic frame. Therefore, at the equilibrium points, mains the same (there exist eight equilibrium points in
both the velocity and acceleration components of the test both cases as shown in Tables 1 and 2, and Figs. 2 and
particle vanish, i.e., ẋ = ẏ = ẍ = ÿ = 0. It thus follows 3). However, Table 3 shows that there is a conspicuous
from Eqs. (5) and (7) that the equilibrium points are the difference in the coordinates of the equilibrium points.
solutions of the following: The addition of the potential from the belt causes the
 
√ 1 3σ(1 − 2µ) equilibrium points to move towards the axes, implying
n2 x − q1 (1 − 2µ)(x − 3µ) 3 + that there is a decrease in both x and y coordinates.
r1 r4
 
1  Figures 4 and 5 show that for a fixed value of Mb = 0.01
1√ 1 3σµ
−µ x+ 3(1 − 2µ) + 4 −µ x
2 r23 r2 and an increasing value of radiation pressure, the collinear


1√ 1 3σµ Mb x points move towards the origin, whereas the non-collinear

+ 3(1 − 2µ) + − = 0 (8)
2 r33 r34 (r + T 2 )
2 3/2 points shift towards the axes.

and
  4 Linear stability of the equilibrium
2 1 3σ(1 − 2µ) points
n y − q1 (1 − 2µ)y 3 +
r1 r14


Referring to the study by Papadouris and Papadakis [33],
1 1 3σµ 1 1 3σµ
− µ(y − ) + 4 − µ(y + ) + 4
2 r23 r2 2 r33 r3 we consider the motion of the infinitesimal body when
Impact of radiation pressure and circumstellar dust on motion of a test particle in Manev’s field 5

Table 1 Eight equilibrium points under the effect of radiation pressure when σ = 0.8, µ = 0.0190, Mb = 0.0
q1 = 0.95 q1 = 0.90 q1 = 0.85
L1 1.37841, 0 1.35847, 0 1.33773, 0
L2 −1.34482, 0 −1.32517, 0 −1.30471, 0
L4 −0.75069, 0.452305 −0.748561, 0.451065 −0.746232, 0.449707
L5 −0.75069, −0.452305 −0.748561, −0.451065 −0.746232, −0.449707
L6 −1.1606, 0.733299 −1.15003, 0.719463 −1.13877, 0.706325
L7 −1.1606, −0.733299 −1.15003, −0.719463 −1.13877, −0.706325
L8 −0.591855, 1.21369 −0.559953, 1.206900 −0.528244, 1.198600,
L9 −0.591855, −1.21369 −0.559953, −1.206900 −0.528244, −1.198600
q1 = 0.80 q1 = 0.75 q1 = 0.70
L1 1.3161, 0 1.2935, 0 1.26981, 0
L2 −1.28335, 0 −1.26098, 0 −1.23747, 0
L4 −0.743668, 0.448211 −0.740828, 0.446551 −0.737659, 0.444698
L5 −0.743668, −0.448211 −0.740828, −0.446551 −0.737659, −0.444698
L6 −1.12693, 0.693832 −1.11461, 0.681948 −1.10193, 0.670649
L7 −1.12693, −0.693832 −1.11461, −0.681948 −1.10193, −0.670649
L8 −0.496656, 1.188760 −0.465119, 1.177310 −0.433568, 1.164180
L9 −0.496656, −1.188760 −0.465119, −1.177310 −0.433568, −1.164180

Table 2 Eight equilibrium points under the combined effect of radiation pressure and circumstellar when dust σ = 0.8,
µ = 0.0190, Mb = 0.01
q1 = 0.95 q1 = 0.90 q1 = 0.85
L1 1.3703, 0 1.35055, 0 1.330000, 0
L2 −1.33664, 0 −1.31716, 0 −1.29689, 0
L4 −0.750592, 0.452255 −0.748457, 0.451011 −0.746121, 0.449649
L5 −0.750592, −0.452255 −0.748457, −0.451011 −0.746121, −0.449649
L6 −1.15492, 0.728394 −1.14443, 0.714932 −1.13329, 0.702141
L7 −1.15492, −0.728394 −1.14443, −0.714932 −1.13329, −0.702141
L8 −0.588165, 1.206470 −0.556878, 1.199590 −0.525762, 1.191250
L9 −0.588165, −1.206470 −0.556878, −1.199590 −0.525762, −1.191250
q1 = 0.80 q1 = 0.75 q1 = 0.70
L1 1.30859, 0 1.28621, 0 1.26275, 0
L2 −1.27572, 0 −1.25356, 0 −1.23027, 0
L4 −0.743549, 0.448148 −0.740699, 0.446484 −0.737519, 0.444625
L5 −0.743549, −0.448148 −0.740699, −0.446484 −0.737519, −0.444625
L6 −1.1216, 0.689975 −1.10948, 0.678400 −1.09704, 0.667397
L7 −1.1216, −0.689975 −1.10948, −0.678400 −1.09704, −0.667397
L8 −0.494745, 1.18141 −0.463761, 1.170000 −0.432745, 1.15695
L9 −0.494745, −1.18141 −0.463761, -1.170000 −0.432745, −1.15695

Table 3 Absolute difference in the coordinates of equilibrium points when q1 = 0.95 and Mb = 0.01
X q1 Xq1 ,Mb |Xq1 − Xq1 ,Mb | Yq1 Yq1 ,Mb |Yq1 − Yq1 ,Mb |
L1 1.37841 1.3703 0.00811 0 0 0
L2 −1.34482 −1.33664 0.00818 0 0 0
L4 −0.75069 −0.750592 9.8E−05 0.452255 0.452305 5E−05
L5 −0.75069 −0.750592 9.8E−05 −0.45226 −0.45231 5E−05
L6 −1.1606 −1.15492 0.00568 0.728394 0.733299 0.00491
L7 −1.1606 −1.15492 0.00568 −0.72839 −0.7333 0.004905
L8 −0.591855 −0.588165 0.00369 1.20647 1.21369 0.00722
L9 −0.591855 −0.588165 0.00369 −1.20647 −1.21369 0.00722

the coordinates of a particular equilibrium point (x0 , y0 ) displacements in the coordinates such that x = x0 + ξ
is given small displacements. Let ξ and η be these small and y = y0 + η. Consequently, Eq. (5) possesses the
6 J. Singh, S. O. Omale, L. O. Inumoh, et al.

Table 4 Eigen values of all equilibrium points when σ = 0.8, µ = 0.0190, Mb = 0.01, q1 = 0.95
Equilibrium points λ1,2 λ3,4 Stability of motion
L1 1.3703, 0 ± 0.408272 ± 0.71413i Unstable
L2 −1.33664, 0 −0.492533 ± 0.654777i 0.492533 ± 0.654777i Unstable
L4 −0.750592, 0.452255 ± 9.24 ± 6.07949i Unstable
L5 −0.750592, −0.452255 ± 9.24 ± 6.07949i Unstable
L6 −1.15492, 0.728394 ± 0.917619 ± 1.02073i Unstable
L7 −1.15492, −0.728394 ± 0.917619 ± 1.02073i Unstable
L8 −0.588165, 1.206470 −0.374945 ± 0.57595i 0.374945 ± 0.57595i Unstable
L9 −0.588165, −1.206470 −0.374945 ± 0.57595i 0.374945 ± 0.57595i Unstable

yíD[LV 1.4
1.5
1.38

1.36
1.0 L8
1.34
L6
1.32
0.5
L4,M2 1.3 L1
M1
L1
0.0 xíD[LV 1.28
L2
1.26
L5
í0.5 1.24
M3
L7 1.22
Radiaon pressure
í1.0
1.2
L9 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7

í1.5 Fig. 4 Position of L1 decreases with increasing radiation

í1.5 í1.0 í0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 pressure.
Fig. 2 Trajectories of motion and equilibrium points under
í1.18
radiation pressures when (q1 = 0.80, q1 = 0.70)σ = 0.8, µ = 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7
0.0190, Mb = 0.0. í1.2 Radiaon pressure
í1.22
yíD[LV
1.5 í1.24
í1.26
L8
1.0
í1.28
L6 í1.3 L2
0.5
L4,M2
í1.32
M1 L1
0.0
L2
xíD[LV í1.34
L5 í1.36
í0.5
M3 Fig. 5 Position of L2 increases with increasing radiation
L7
pressure.
í1.0
L9
the terms of second and higher powers of ξ and η. We
í1.5 take Eq. (11) as the trial solution of Eq. (10):
í1.5 í1.0 í0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

Fig. 3 Trajectories of motion and equilibrium points under ξ = χeλt , η = Θeλt (11)
combined effect of circumstellar dust when σ = 0.8, µ =
0.0190, Mb = 0.01, q1 = 0.70. with χ, Θ as constants and λ as a parameter. Next, the
variational equations of motion as expressed in Eq. (10): characteristic equation of the system (10) is derived as
 follows:
0 0
ξ¨ − 2nη̇ = ξ(Ω xx ) + η(Ω xy )
0 0 (10) λ4 + aλ2 + b = 0 (12)
η̈ + 2nξ˙ = ξ(Ω yx ) + η(Ω yy )
where the dots are the derivatives with respect to the with
actual time t, the subscripts depict the second partial a = 4n2 − Ωxx
0 0
− Ωyy
derivatives, and superscript 0 indicates that the values are 0 0 0 2
b = Ωxx Ωyy − (Ω xy )
evaluated at the equilibrium point (x0 , y0 ). We neglect
Impact of radiation pressure and circumstellar dust on motion of a test particle in Manev’s field 7

 √ 2  2
2
0
Ωxx 2
= n + q1 (1 − 2µ) − 3 +
1 3(x0 − 3µ) 1√ 1
r10 5
r10 r30 = x0 + 3(1 − 2µ) + y0 +
2 2
√ 2 
3σ(1 − 2µ) 12σ(1 − 2µ)(x0 − 3µ) r0 = x 0 2 + y0 2
− 4 + 6
r10 r10 0
 √ 2 Because Ωxy = 0 in the collinear case, the characteristic
1 3 x0 + 12 3(1 − 2µ) 3σµ equation for the stability of the collinear equilibrium
+µ − 3 + 5 − 4
r20 r20 r20 points becomes
 1
√ 2 
12σµ x0 + 2 3(1 − 2µ)
+ 6
λ4 + (4n2 − Ωxx
0 0
− Ωyy )λ2 + Ωxx
0 0
Ωyy =0 (16)
r20
 √ 2 If Eq. (12) has four pure imaginary roots or four com-
1 3 x0 + 12 3(1 − 2µ) 3σµ
+µ − 3 + 5 − 4 plex roots, all of which have negative real parts, then the
r30 r30 r30
 √ 2  equilibrium point is termed stable, and this occurs if the
1
12σµ x0 + 2 3(1 − 2µ) following conditions are all fulfilled [13, 33].
+ 6
r30 
 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Mb 3Mb x20 R = (4n − Ωxx − Ωyy ) − 4(Ωxx Ωyy − Ωxy ) > 0
− 3/2
+ 5/2
(13) P = (4n2 − Ωxx 0 0
− Ωyy )>0
(r2 + T 2 ) (r2 + T 2 ) 
 0 0 0 2
 Q = (Ωxx Ωyy − Ωxy ) > 0
1 3y 2 3σ(1 − 2µ)
0
Ωyy = n + q1 (1 − 2µ) − 3 + 50 −
2
4 (17)
r10 r10 r10
  2
12σ(1 − 2µ)y02 1 3(− 12 + y0 )
+ 6 + µ − 3 + 5
r10 r20 r20 5 Numerical applications of model to a
2  physical system
3σµ 12σµ(− 12 + y0 ) 1
− 4 + 6 + µ − 3
r20 r20 r30 The equilibrium points are numerically computed for the

2
2  motion of a dust grain having infinitesimal mass in the
3 12 + y0 3σµ 12σµ 12 + y0
+ 5 − 4 + 6 neighborhood of Gliese 667C (also known as GJ667C),
r30 r30 r30
Gliese 667Cf, and Gliese 667Ce. The primary star Gliese
Mb 3Mb y02
− 3/2
+ 5/2
(14) 667C has mass of 0.31Msun and bolometric luminosity
(r2 + T 2 ) (r2 + T 2 )
 √ of 0.0137Lsun . The other secondary stars Gliese 667Cf
0 0 3y0 (x0 − 3µ) and Gliese 667Ce constitute a binary system that orbit
Ωxy = Ωyx = q1 (1 − 2µ)
r5 the primary star and have the same mass of 8.108108 ×
√ 10 
12σ(1 − 2µ)y0 (x0 − 3µ) 10−6 Msun . Thus, the mass parameter µ of the system
+ 6
r10 is 0.00002615382. Following Zheng and Yu [34], we set
 √  AκL
3(− 12 + y0 ) x0 + 12 3(1 − 2µ) q = 1− aρM , where M and L are the mass and luminosity
+µ
r5 of a star, respectively, a and ρ are the radius and density

1   20 1 √ 
12σµ − 2 + y0 x0 + 2 3(1 − 2µ) of the test particle, respectively, A = 2.9838 × 10−5 in the
+ C.G.S system, and κ is the radiation pressure efficiency
r6

1   20 1 √  factor of a star, which is considered unity according to
3 2 + y0 x0 + 2 3(1 − 2µ)
+µ the Stefan–Boltzmann’s law. Now, considering that a
r5

1   30 1 √  dust grain has radius a = 2 × 10−2 cm and density
12σµ 2 + y0 x0 + 2 3(1 − 2µ)
+ 6
ρ = 1.4 g·cm−3 , then q = 0.99995575 and σ = 0.8. Using
r30
these parameters, we find the positions of the equilibrium
3Mb x0 y0
+ 5/2
(15) points and the state of motion of the infinitesimal mass,
(r2 + T 2 ) as shown in Table 5. There are 14 equilibrium points for
with the system, some of which are very close to each other

√ 2 and well-ordered along the orbit, as shown in Fig. 6. The
r10 = (x0 − 3µ) + y0 2
 motion of the test particle within the neighborhood of
2
2
1√ 1 each of the equilibrium points of L2 , L12,13,14,15 is linearly
r20 = x0 + 3(1 − 2µ) + y0 −
2 2 stable because the eigenvalues are purely imaginary.
8 J. Singh, S. O. Omale, L. O. Inumoh, et al.

Table 5 Equilibrium points and linear stability of motion of a test particle in the vicinity of Gliese 667C
Equilibrium points ±λ1,2 ±λ3,4 Stability of motion
L1 1.38704, 0 0.018933 0.61516i Unstable
L2 −1.38699, 0 0.0367313i 0.61381i Stable
L4 −1.25357, 0.593414 0.0660376 0.617976i Unstable
L5 −1.25357, −0.593414 0.0660376 0.617976i Unstable
L6 −1.21613, 0.666804 0.0707266 0.618493i Unstable
L7 −1.21613, −0.666804 0.0707266 0.618493i Unstable
L8 −1.18043, 0.728316 0.0505388 0.616855i Unstable
L9 −1.18043, −0.728316 0.0505388 0.616855i Unstable
L10 −1.13274, 0.800448 0.0453337 0.616424i Unstable
L11 −1.13274, −0.800448 0.0453337 0.616424i Unstable
L12 −0.694956, 1.20034 0.0286513i 0.614261i Stable
L13 −0.694956, −1.20034 0.0286513i 0.614261i Stable
L14 −0.813175, 1.12362 0.0296268i 0.614192i Stable
L15 −0.813175, −1.12362 0.0296268i 0.614192i Stable

1.5
Consider a dynamical system governed by n equations,
L1214
dyi
1.0 L
46810 = fi (y1 , y2 , · · · , yn ) (18)
dt
M2
0.5 where i = 1, · · · , n, and the system possesses n linearized
M1 L1
equations as follows:
L2
0.0
dwi
= Jf w i (19)
dt
í0.5
M3 with the initial condition wi (0) = êi , where Jf is the
L57911
í1.0 Jacobian matrix of fi and it is apparent that the Jacobian
L1315 matrix depends on yi for i = 1, · · · , n, wi = [w1+n(i−1) ,
í1.5 w2+n(i−1) , · · · , wn+n(i−1) ], and êi is a unit vector that is
í1.5 í1.0 í0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Fig. 6 Equilibrium points for a test p article in the vicinity 1 in the ith element and 0 otherwise.
of Gliese 667C Stellar System. The Lyapunov characteristic exponent is calculated
when numerically the systems (18) and (19) are solved si-
6 Lyapunov characteristic exponents multaneously with a choice of initial condition. The step
(LCEs) size ∆t is taken, and whenever t/∆t is a positive integer,
the length vector w1 is noted. The Gram–Schmidt or-
Is it possible for two points that are initially very close thonormalization procedure is employed on wi to get the
in the phase space of a dynamical system to remain close derivative wi (t). The length vector w1 (t) is proportional
to each other as the motion of the system proceeds with to 2λ1 t , where λ1 is the maximum LCE at this stage.
alterations in the initial conditions? To investigate the Therefore,
chaos of a dynamical system is an attempt to answer this ln w1 (t)
λ(t) = (20)
very important question. The dynamical system descri- tln 2
bing the restricted four-body problem is complicated, and Equation (20) is the LCE. The vectors wi (t) is used
it is a herculean task for one to provide a rigorous prove as a new set of initial conditions for the system (19).
in the qualitative study of the system. Hence, we use a Systems (18) and (19) are again integrated, and the
numerical tool such as the LCEs to study the sensitivity process continues repeatedly until the next step size.
of the system to initial conditions. This is an advent to The above process is repeated until t approaches a large
lim
state whether the orbits are chaotic or not. Wolf et al. number because Lyapunov exponent γ = t −−→ ∞χ(t).
presented a general procedure to estimate the Lyapunov If γ > 0, then the system is termed chaotic or irregular,
characteristic exponent as summarized below [35]: otherwise it is called regular. Using the equations of
Impact of radiation pressure and circumstellar dust on motion of a test particle in Manev’s field
the region for permissible motion opened up for a lower
Manev parameter and a lower energy integral, whereas a
higher value of the Manev parameter and a higher energy
integral restrict greatly the region of motion of the test
particle. This implies that the Manev parameter drives
the evolution of the region of motion.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for
their useful insights, suggestions, and comments that
helped improve the content of this article.
References
[1] Robutel, P., Gabern, F. The resonant structure of
Jupiter’s Trojan asteroids - I. Long-term stability and
diffusion. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 2006, 372(4): 1463–1482.
[2] Machuy, A. L., Prado, A. F. B. A., Stuchi, T. J. Nu-
merical study of the time required for the gravitational
capture in the bi-circular four-body problem. Advances
in Space Research, 2007, 40(1): 118–124.
[3] Schwarz, R., Süli, A., Dvorak, R. Dynamics of possible
Trojan planets in binary systems. Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society, 2009, 398(4): 2085–2090.
[4] Schwarz, R., Süli, A., Dvorak, R., Pilat-Lohinger, E.
Stability of Trojan planets in multi-planetary systems.
Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 2009,
104(1–2): 69–84.
[5] Greaves, J. S., Hollland W. S., Moriarty-Schieven G.,
Jenness T., Dent W. R., et al. A dust ring around ep-
silon Eridani: Analog to the young solar system. The
Astrophysical Journal Letters, 1998, 506(2): L133–L137.
[6] Augereau, J. C., Nelson, R. P., Lagrange, A. M., Pa-
paloizou, J. C. B., Mouillet, D. Dynamical modeling
of large scale asymmetries in the β Picto ris dust disk.
Astronomy & Astrophysics, 2001, 370(2): 447–455.
[7] Jiang, I. G., Yeh, L. C. Bifurcation for dynamical sys-
tems of planet–belt interaction. International Journal of
Bifurcation and Chaos, 2003, 13(3): 617–630.
[8] Hadjidemetriou, J. D. The restricted planetary 4-body
problem. Celestial Mechanics, 1980, 21(1): 63–71.
[9] Michalodimitrakis, M. The circular restricted four-body
problem. Astrophysics and Space Science, 1981, 75(2):
289–305.
[10] Elipe, A., Arribas, M., Kalvouridis, T. J. Periodic solu-
tions in the planar (n+1) ring problem with oblateness.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2007,
30(6): 1640–1648.
11
[11] Baltagiannis, A. N., Papadakis, K. E. Equilibrium points
and their stability in the restricted four-body problem.
International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 2011,
21(8): 2179–2193.
[12] Kumari, R., Kushvah, B. S. Stability regions of equilib-
rium points in restricted four-body problem with oblate-
ness effects. Astrophysics and Space Science, 2014, 349:
693–704.
[13] Singh, J., Vincent, A. E. Effect of perturbations in the
Coriolis and centrifugal forces on the stability of equi-
librium points in the restricted four-body problem. Few-
Body Systems, 2015, 56(10): 713–723.
[14] Ansari, A. The photogravitational circular restricted
four-body problem with variable masses. Journal of En-
gineering and Applied Science 2016, 3(2): 30–38.
[15] Jain, M., Aggarwal R. A study of non-collinear libra-
tion points in restricted three body problem with stokes
drag effect when smaller primary is oblate spheroid.
Astrophysics and Space Science, 2015, 358: 51.
[16] Singh, J., Omale, S. O. Combined effect of Stokes drag,
oblateness and radiation pressure on the existence and
stability of equilibrium points in the restricted four-body
problem. Astrophysics and Space Science, 2019, 364: 6.
[17] Diacu, F. N. Near-collision dynamics for particle systems
with quasihomogeneous potentials. Journal of Differen-
tial Equations, 1996, 128(1): 58–77.
[18] Maneff, G. La gravitation et le principe de l’égalié de
l’action et de la réaction. Comptes Rendus, 1924, 178:
2159–2161.
[19] Maneff, G. Die Gravitation und das Prinzip von Wirkung
und Gegenwirkung. Zeitschrift Für Physik, 1925, 31(1):
786–802.
[20] Maneff, G. Die Masse der Feldenergie und Die Gravita-
tion. Astronomische Nachrichten, 1929, 236(24): 401–
406.
[21] Maneff, G. La gravitation et l’énergie au zero. Comptes
Rendus, 1930, 190: 1374–1377.
[22] Balga, C. Processing orbits, central forces and Manev
potential, In: Prof. G. Manev’s Legacy in Contemporary
Aspects of Astronomy, Theoretical and Gravitational
Physics, Gerdjikov, V., Tsetkov, M., Eds. Sofia: Henon
Press Ltd., 2005: 134–139.
[23] Ivanov, R., Prodanov, E. Manev potential and general
relativity. In: Prof. G. Manev’s Legacy in Contemporary
Aspects of Astronomy, Theoretical and Gravitational
Physics, Gerdjikov, V., Tsetkov, M., Eds. Sofia: Henon
Press Ltd., 2005: 148–154.
[24] Haranas, I., Mioc, V. Manev potential and satellite or-
bits. Romanian Astronomical Journal, 2009, 19: 153–
166.
12
[25] Kirk, S., Haranas, I., Gkigkitzis, I. Satellite motion in
a Manev potential with drag. Astrophysics and Space
Science, 2013, 344(2): 313–320.
[26] Blaga, C. Stability in sense of Lyapunov of circu-
lar orbits in Manev potential. arXiv preprint, 2015,
arXiv:1512.08192[gr-qc].
[27] Barrabés, E., Cors, J. M., Vidal, C. Spatial collinear
restricted four-body problem with repulsive Manev po-
tential. Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy,
2017, 129(1–2): 153–176.
[28] Wisdom, J. Chaotic behavior and the origin of the 31
Kirkwood gap. Icarus, 1983, 56(1): 51–74.
[29] Miyamoto, M., Nagai, R. Three-dimensional models for
the distribution of mass in galaxies. Publications of the
Astronomical Society of Japan, 1975, 27: 533–543.
[30] Singh, J., Taura, J. J. Stability of triangular equilib-
rium points in the photogravitational restricted three-
body problem with oblateness and potential from a belt.
Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 2014, 35(2):
107–119.
[31] Dubeibe, F. L., Lora-Clavijo, F. D., Guillermo, A. G.
Pseudo-Newtonian planar circular restricted 3-body pro-
blem. Physics Letters A, 2017, 381(6): 563–567.
[32] Routh, E. J. On Laplace’s three particles, with a supple-
ment on the stability of steady motion. Proceedings of
the London Mathematical Society, 1874, s1–6(1): 86–97.
[33] Papadouris, J. P., Papadakis, K. E. Equilibrium points
in the photogravitational restricted four-body problem.
Astrophysics and Space Science, 2013, 344(1): 21–38.
[34] Zheng, X. T., Yu, L. Z. Photogravitationally restricted
three-body problem and coplanar libration point. Chi-
nese Physics Letters, 1993, 10(1): 61–64. (in Chinese)
[35] Wolf, A., Swift, J. B., Swinney, H. L., Vastano, J. A.
Determining Lyapunov exponents from a time series.
Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 1985, 16(3): 285–
317.
[36] Sandri, M. Numerical calculation of Lyapunov exponents.
The Mathematica Journal, 1996, 6(3): 78–84.
[37] Strogatz, S., Friedman, M., Mallinckrodt, A. J., McKay,
S. Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: With applications to
physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering. Computers
in Physics, 1994, 8(5): 532.
[38] Dubeibe, F. L., Bermúdez-Almanza, L. D. Optimal con-
ditions for the numerical calculation of the largest Lya-
punov exponent for systems of ordinary differential equa-
tions. International Journal of Modern Physics C, 2014,
25(7): 1450024.
[39] Zotos, E. E. Fractal basins of attraction in the planar
circular restricted three-body problem with oblateness
and radiation pressure. Astrophysics and Space Science,
2016, 361(6): 181.
J. Singh, S. O. Omale, L. O. Inumoh, et al.
[40] Zotos, E. E. Fractal basin boundaries and escape dy-
namics in a multiwell potential. Nonlinear Dynamics,
2016, 85(3): 1613–1633.
[41] Falaye, B. J. Effect of oblateness, radiation and a circular
cluster of material points on the stability of equilibrium
points in the restricted four-body problem. Few-Body
Systems, 2015, 56(1): 29–40.
Jagadish Singh is currently a distin-
guished professor of mathematics with
the Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria.
He received his Ph.D. degree in 1985
and D.Sc. degree in mathematics in
2003 from B.R.A Bihar University, In-
dia. He worked as a research associate
at the Department of Mathematics,
B.R.A Bihar University, under DST project, Govern-
ment of India. He is a member of Bihar Mathematical
Society. His research interests are in the areas of celestial
mechanics, astrodynamics, and space science. E-mail:
jgds2004@yahoo.com.
Solomon Okpanachi Omale re-
ceived his M.Sc. degree in mathema-
tics from University of Ibadan, Nige-
ria, in 2016. He joined the National
Space Research and Development
Agency, Nigeria, in 2015 as a re-
search scientist. He is currently a
Ph.D. student in the Department
of Mathematics, Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria.
His research interests cut across dynamical systems,
mathematical modeling and scientific computation,
astrodynamics, and attitude and orbit control. E-mail:
solomondavidson1203@gmail.com.
Lawrence O. Inumoh received his
M.Sc. degree in satellite engineering
and Ph.D. degree in engineering (con-
trol systems) from the University of
Surrey, UK. He is currently the head
of Satellite Systems Development Di-
vision of National Space Research
and Development Agency (NASRDA),
Nigeria. He is also an assistant professor with the Insti-
tute of Space Science and Engineering (ISSE), Nigeria.
He is a member of AIAA, IEEE, IET, and COREN. His
current research area is satellite systems miniaturization
and development for all space missions. E-mail: dejinu-
moh@yahoo.com.
Impact of radiation pressure and circumstellar dust on motion of a test particle in Manev’s field 13

Ale Felix received his Ph.D. degree
in systems engineering in 2014 from
the University of Lagos, Nigeria.
He obtained his B.Sc. (in 1998) and
M.Sc. (in 2005) degrees in computer
engineering and computer science,
respectively from Obafemi Awolowo
University, Ile-Ife. He is an assistant
director with the National Space Research and Deve-
lopment Agency. He undertakes joint research between
the academia and the industry in areas of parallel
computing, software engineering, artificial intelligence,
and satellite on-board data handling. He is also an
assistant professor with the Institute of Space Science
and Engineering, Nigeria. E-mail: facosoft@yahoo.com.