Optimal exit: Solar escape as a restricted three-body problem

Nicholas Johann Harmon, Christine Leidel, and John F. Lindnera)

Department of Physics, The College of Wooster, Wooster, Ohio 44691

Received 27 August 2002; accepted 10 January 2003

We analyze solar escape as a special case of the restricted three-body problem. We systematically
vary the parameters of our model solar system to show how the optimal launch angle and minimum
escape speed depend on the mass and size of the earth. In some cases, it is best to launch near the
direction of the earths motion, but slightly outward; in other cases, it is best to launch near the
perpendicular to the earths motion, but inward toward the sun so as to obtain a solar gravity assist.
Between direct escapes for high launch speeds and trapped trajectories for low launch speeds is an
irregular band of chaotic orbits that reveals some of the complexity of solar escape and the
three-body problem. 2003 American Association of Physics Teachers.
DOI: 10.1119/1.1557304

I. INTRODUCTION
The motion of two point masses interacting gravitationally
according to Newtons laws is simple: the bodies revolve in
ellipses about their common center of mass. The motion of
three such bodies is surprisingly complex. Even when two of
the bodies are constrained to orbit each other in circles at
constant speed and a third is restricted to the plane of their
orbits, the dynamics can be arbitrarily complicated. The famous analysis of this restricted three-body problem by
Poincare1 in 188990 led to the discovery of dynamical
chaos generations before the advent of digital computers and
underscored the futility of seeking a general solution in terms
of a finite number of known functions. Still, by 1912, Sundman had discovered an infinite series solution.2 Unfortunately, it converged too slowly to be practical and was too
unwieldy to be insightful. By 1967, Szebehely and others
adopted a statistical perspective, and concluded that the generic solution of the unrestricted three-body problem is the
escape of one of the three bodies.3 For almost all initial
conditions, as kinetic energy shuffles back and forth among
the bodies, one body eventually gains sufficient energy to
enter an unbounded hyperbolic orbit, while the other two
lose energy and enter the bounded elliptical orbits of a binary
system.
In the 1980s, a controversy arose concerning a seemingly
elementary special case of the three-body problem: What is
the minimum speed needed to escape from the solar system
envisioned as a three-body problem involving the earth, sun,
and a projectile? Hendel4 pointed out that many of the standard textbook solutions to this problem were incorrect. His
own approximate solution was later criticized by some5 and
defended by others.6 Hendel and Longo7 subsequently presented a computer simulation that bypassed the previous
mathematical approximations and vindicated Hendels earlier
work. Scudder significantly elaborated these results.8
We revisit solar escape in the context of the restricted
three-body problem and elucidate some of its features using
both theoretical and computational techniques. We consider a
solar system of two bodies of arbitrary mass and size, which
we still call earth and sun. This model places the special case of our actual earth and sun in a broader context. We
neglect the rotation, but not the revolution, of the earth.
Section II introduces the restricted three-body problem in
stages, derives the equations of motion, integrates them to
find a famous constant of the motion, and uses the constant
871

Am. J. Phys. 71 9, September 2003

to derive a lower bound on the escape speeds. Section III

employs the independent escapes approximation to derive
a prediction for the optimal direct escape at any launch
angle, for any mass or size of the earth. Section IV describes
a simulation that numerically integrates the differential equations of motion and searches for optimal escapes. We also
compare theory and simulation and generate an initial velocity space image that demonstrates the complexity of optimizing solar escape. Section V concludes by considering various
relaxations of our restrictions and generalizations of our escape scenarios.
II. RESTRICTED THREE-BODY PROBLEM
A. A finite and an infinitesimal mass
To establish a technique for future work, we first recall the
elementary problem of a small mass m orbiting a large
spherically symmetric mass M m. According to Newtons
laws, the equation of motion of the small mass is
ma F G

Mm
r

r G

Mm
r3

r ,

where r x 2 y 2 is its distance from the large mass. In

inertial center-of-mass coordinates x,y, Eq. 1 becomes
x
y

GM
r3
GM
r3

x,

2a

y,

2b

where a dot denotes time differentiation. We multiply Eq.

2a by x and Eq. 2b by y and add and integrate with respect to time to find
E
1 2 GM

C ,
2
r
m

where x 2 y 2 is the speed of the small mass and the

integration constant C is the systems energy per unit mass.
B. Two finite masses
Next, we consider two spherically symmetric bodies revolving about their common center of mass in circular orbits,

http://ojps.aip.org/ajp/

2003 American Association of Physics Teachers

871

ma F G

M Em
d E2

d E G

M Sm
d 2S

d S .

In inertial coordinates x,y, the equations of motion explicitly depend on time,

x
y

GM E
d E3
GM E
d E3

GM S

xr E cos t
yr E sin t

xr S cos t , 7a

d 3S
GM S
d 3S

yr S sin t . 7b

In rotating coordinates (x R ,y R ), the earth and sun are stationary and the equations of motion do not explicitly depend
on time. In fact, by substituting the rotation transformation of
Eq. 5 into Eq. 7a and equating the coefficients of cos t
and sin t, we obtain
Fig. 1. Geometry of the three-body problem. The large masses M E and M S
move in concentric circles at constant speed. They attract, but do not react
to, the tiny mass m.

as in Fig. 1. Their masses are M E and M S , and the total mass

of the system is M S M E M . The distances from the center
of mass to the earth and sun are r E and r S , and the total
distance between them is r S r E r. According to Newtons
laws, the magnitude of the force on the earth is
M E r E 2 M E

2
EC
M EM S
F E G
,
rE
r2

where 2 /T and T is the period of revolution. Equation

4 implies that GM S r E 2 r 2 and similarly GM E
r S 2 r 2 . If we add these two relations, we obtain Keplers
third law GM 2 r 3 ; if we divide the latter by each of these
two relations, we obtain r E rM S /M and r S rM E /M .
Equation 4 also implies that the speed of the earth with
respect to the center of mass of the system is EC
GM S r E /r 2 .

It will be convenient to introduce a reference frame that

rotates with the two finite masses. Let the rotating coordinates (x R ,y R ) be related to the inertial center-of-mass coordinates x,y by
xx R cos ty R sin t,

5a

yx R sin ty R cos t,

5b

so that the rotating coordinates of the earth and sun are

(r E ,0) and (r S ,0) and the inertial coordinates are
(r E cos t,rE sin t) and (r S cos t,rS sin t).
D. Two finite masses and an infinitesimal mass
Finally, we add a third mass, mM E , M S and, by its
initial conditions, confine its motion to the plane containing
the circular orbits of the earth and the sun. The tiny third
mass, the projectile, feels the gravity of the larger masses,
but not vice versa. The distances of the projectile from the
earth and sun are d E and d S . Its equation of motion is
Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 9, September 2003

y R 2 x R 2 y R

GM E
d E3
GM E
d E3

x R r E

y R

GM S
d 3S

GM S
d 3S

x R r S ,

8a
8b

yR .

The two extra terms on the left-hand side of Eq. 8 represent

the Coriolis and centrifugal pseudoforces per unit mass.

E. Constant of motion
As in the derivation of Eq. 3, we multiply Eq. 8a by
x R , Eq. 8b by y R , add the two equations, and integrate
with respect to time to find

R2 x R2 y R2 2 x R2 y R2 2G

ME MS

C,
dE
dS

where R is the speed of the projectile with respect to the

rotating coordinates, and the constant of integration C is
known as the Jacobi constant.9 We define the constant

GM E GM S
3 1
1

C x R2 y R2
2
2 2
dE
dS

C. Rotating reference frame

872

x R 2 y R 2 x R

12 2 x R2 y R2 23

10

to be the pseudoenergy per unit mass. It is the sum of the

kinetic and potential energies per unit mass, the centrifugal
pseudoenergy per unit mass, and a constant 3/2 that conveniently adjusts the energy reference level.

F. Escape speed lower bound

If is positive or slightly negative, infinite space is accessible to the projectile. If is very negative, the projectile is
confined to the solar system and escape is impossible. To see
this behavior, we set R2 x R2 y R2 0 in Eq. 9 to implicitly
define a family of zero-velocity curves that bound the motion
of the projectile in space. Figure 2 top illustrates these
curves for three values of .
For each mass fraction f M E /M , there exists a critical
value of below which the projectile is trapped near the
earth, and another slightly larger energy below which the
Harmon, Leidel, and Lindner

872

Fig. 2. Zero-velocity curves top for three different pseudoenergies at a

mass fraction of f 0.3. At low energies left top, the projectile is tightly
bound to the earth. At intermediate energies middle top, the projectile can
wander between the earth and the sun. Above a critical trapping energy T
right top, the projectile can escape to large distances. The trapping energy
depends only weakly on the mass fraction bottom.

projectile is trapped near the earth and the sun. The latter
numerically computed10 trapping energy is plotted in Fig. 2
bottom versus f. Each such energy corresponds to a speed
below which escape is impossible. We refer to these lower
limit speeds as trapping speeds.
III. INDEPENDENT ESCAPES
A. Mixed formula
We can approximate the minimum escape speed for the
projectile as a function of launch angle using the technique
of Hendel.4 We will assume that the radius of the earth is
much less than the distance between the earth and the sun,
R E r. We can then effectively divide the escape into two
parts: an escape from the earth alone, followed by an escape
from the sun alone. With respect to the earth, energy conservation implies that
GM E m 1
1
2
m PE
,
m 2PE
2
RE
2

11

where PE is the speed of the projectile with respect to the

earth at launch, and PE is the speed of the projectile with
respect to the earth after it has escaped the earth alone but
before it has escaped the sun. With respect to the sun, energy
conservation then implies that
GM S m
1
2
m PC
0,

2
r

12

where PC V S is the escape speed from the sun alone at the

distance r. The two separate escapes, with respect to two
different reference frames, are related by the Galilean transformation

PC PE EC ,

13

where EC is the velocity of the earth with respect to the

center of mass of the solar system.
We can solve Eqs. 1113 simultaneously for the initial
speed of the projectile with respect to the earth
873

Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 9, September 2003

Fig. 3. Rectangular top and polar bottom plots of the minimum escape
speeds in the independent escapes approximation, with respect to the earth
dashed lines and with respect to the solar system center of mass solid
lines. The minimum escape speeds in the earth frame are largest in the
backward direction and smallest in the forward direction. To magnify the
angular variations, the center of the polar plot corresponds to a normalized
speed of /V E 0.9.
2
PE V E2 V 2S EC
2V S EC cos C ,

14

where V E 2GM E /R E is the escape speed from the earth

alone, V S 2GM S /r is the escape speed from the sun
alone launching from the earths orbit, and C is the angle
between the earths velocity and the projectile initial velocity
in the center of mass reference frame.
B. Center of mass formula
Equation 14 is an awkward expression because the projectiles speed is measured with respect to the earth, but its
launch angle is measured with respect to the center of mass.
Squaring PE PC EC results in a quadratic equation that
we can solve for PC and combine with Eq. 14 to obtain

PC EC cos C EC cos C V S 2 V E2 ,

15

where now everything is measured with respect to the center

of mass.
The solid curves in Fig. 3 represent the escape speed of
Eq. 15; comparable expressions in the earths reference
frame are more complicated but are represented by the
dashed curves. Unsurprisingly, the minimum escape speeds
in the earth frame are largest in the backward direction and
smallest in the forward direction.
Harmon, Leidel, and Lindner

873

C. Qualifications
The independent escapes approximation should be used
with a couple of caveats. In the unrestricted three-body problem, even with this approximation, as the projectile leaves
the earth, it slows down and the earth speeds up due to their
mutual gravitational attraction.4 However, in the restricted
three-body problem, the earth is assumed to move at constant
speed. Furthermore, the approximation assumes energy is
conserved, but in the restricted problem only the pseudoenergy of Eq. 10 is conserved. Nevertheless, as we shall see
below, the approximation is reasonably good at reproducing
the coarse features of the escape speeds variations with
angle.
IV. SIMULATION
A. The

ESCAPE

program

As Poincare demonstrated, the restricted three-body problem exhibits extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, a phenomenon that is now known as chaos. Exact solutions are
rare and numerical integration is an invaluable tool. Consequently, we created a computer simulation called ESCAPE11 to
further investigate the escape problem.
ESCAPE numerically integrates the differential equations of
motion using a fourth-order RungeKutta algorithm with a
variable time step dt. Guided by Keplers third law, we let

dt
d
k
T
r

3/2

16

where d d E d S is the geometrical mean of the distances

from the projectile to the earth and the sun, and the parameter k controls the integration accuracy. Equation 16 has the
effect of reducing the time step and increasing the accuracy
of the numerical integration when the projectile is near the
earth or sun and moving quickly. Conversely, Eq. 16 increases the time step when the projectile is far from the earth
and sun and moving slowly, thereby increasing the computational speed without compromising accuracy. Typically, k
107 , so that when the geometrical mean of the distances
from the projectile to the primaries is r, the integration time
step is dtT/107 , a tiny fraction of a year.
One way we checked the accuracy of the simulation was
by computing the relative changes in the pseudoenergy ,
which should be a constant of the motion. In practice, we
typically never allowed to change by more than 1%, and
most changes were much smaller. However, a constant is a
necessary but not a sufficient condition for accurate integration. Consequently, we also checked our integration by increasing the accuracy decreasing the parameter k in Eq.
16 and looking for convergence of the solution, and by
substituting different integration algorithms in our program
and looking for any changes. For selected escape trajectories,
we also compared our results to those of the NDSolve function of MATHEMATICA.10
B. Dimensionless expressions
We defined a reference speed by 0 GM /r and a reference acceleration by g 0 GM /r 2 . We chose units in which
GM and r are numerically equal to 1, thereby causing 0 and
g 0 to also be numerically equal to 1. In terms of these units,
EC 0 (M S /M )(r E /r) is the speed of the earth with re874

Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 9, September 2003

Fig. 4. Each of our solar system models can be characterized by the earths
mass and radius, which corresponds to a point in the parameter space
(M E ,R E ). In this space, solar systems with the same earth-alone escape
speed V E lie along lines of slope 1, while solar systems with the same earth
surface gravity g lie along lines of slope 1/2.

spect to the center of mass, V E 0 2(M E /M )(r/R E ) is the

escape speed from the earth alone, V S 0 2(M S /M ) is the
escape speed from the sun alone launching from the earths
orbit, and gg 0 (M E /M )(r/R E ) 2 is the acceleration due to
the earths gravity at launch. Furthermore, it is convenient to
express the approximate escape speed of Eq. 15 as

PC / 0 1 f cos C
1 f cos C 2 1 f 2 V E / 0 2 ,
17
where the mass fraction f M E /M implies 1 f M S /M .
Note that if the escape speed from the earth alone is high, so
that V E 0 , then Eq. 17 implies PC V E .
C. Parameter space
We first have to choose the mass and size of the earth. We
did this systematically in several ways as illustrated in Fig. 4.
One technique was to adjust the radius of the earth so that
the escape speed from the earth alone was a constant, say
V E 20 0 600 km/s. Because R E /r2(M E /M )( 0 /V E ) 2
f 1 , varying the mass of the earth at constant V E traces out
a straight line of slope one in the loglog plot of Fig. 4.
Another technique was to adjust the radius of the earth so
that the acceleration due to gravity at the earths surface was
a constant, say g1650g 0 9.8 m/s2 . Because R E /r
(M E /M )(g 0 /g) f 1/2, varying the mass of the earth at
constant g traces out a straight line of slope 1/2 in the log
log plot.
We obtained similar results for both strategies. Here we
present our data for constant V E 20 0 . Our actual solar
system has V E 0.37 0 , but this relation cannot be extrapolated to high mass fractions without the earth and the sun
overlapping.
D. Direct escapes
We first used the simulation to investigate direct escapes.
Direct means leaving the earth and exiting the solar sysHarmon, Leidel, and Lindner

874

Fig. 5. Computed minimum direct escape speeds as a function of angle for

three different mass fractions and a constant earth-alone escape speed of
V E / 0 20. At small nonzero angles there is a slight dip invisible at this
magnification and at large angles there is a discontinuity that reflects close
encounters with the sun. For mass fractions greater than f 0.3, the largeangle gravity-assist minimum is less than the small-angle minimum.

tem without falling back. We took escape to mean exceeding a distance that is large compared to the size of the solar
system. In practice, we chose the escape distance to be
1000r. We ran copies of the program concurrently on clusters of small computers, each copy investigating a different
range of angles for a given mass fraction. The program used
a binary search algorithm to bracket the true minimum escape speed to any desired accuracy.
Figure 5 illustrates the minimum direct escape speeds as a
function of angle for three mass fractions. Launching at an
angle of zero corresponds to launching in the direction of the
earths motion tangent to its orbit. We noticed two interest-

Fig. 7. Rectangular top and polar bottom plots of trapping speed, numerically computed escape speeds, and independent escapes approximation
speeds, for a mass fraction of f 0.3. As in Fig. 3, the polar plot magnifies
the angular variations.

ing effects. At small nonzero angles there is a slight dip in

the escape speed curve, and at large angles there is a large
discontinuity.
The top graph in Fig. 6 gives the direction of the dip,
while the bottom graph shows its depth, both as a function of
the mass fraction. The deepest dip occurs at a mass fraction
of f 0.4. Physically, the angle of the deepest dip represents
a compromise between tangential escapes that fully exploit
the earths motion, and radial escapes that move directly
away from the systems center of mass. Hendel and Longo7
noted such an effect for the actual earthsun system.
The second effect, the large discontinuity at large angles
on average around 250, reflects close encounters with the
sun. Projectiles that pass directly behind the suns motion
receive a gravity assist, gaining speed like a ball bouncing
off an oncoming car, while projectiles that pass directly in
front of the suns motion lose speed. The former phenomenon is the familiar gravitational slingshot effect used
spectacularly by space probes, including the Voyager grand
tour12 of the outer planets. Our results show that at large
mass fractions above f 0.3), the large-angle slingshot escape requires less initial speed than the small-angle dip escape, while at small mass fractions the dip escape is preferable.
Figure 7 compares theory and computation for f 0.3. The
trapping speeds of Fig. 2 provide a fairly good lower bound
on the computed minimum escape speeds. The independent
escapes approximation reproduces the general shape of the
escape curve. Note that at small angles near the dip and at
large angles near the gravity assist, the minimum escape
speed from the solar system is slightly less than the minimum escape speed from the earth alone. This reflects the
advantage of launching from a moving earth.
E. Chaos in the Escape Set

Fig. 6. Magnified plot of minimum direct escapes at small angles as a

function of mass fraction, optimal angle top, and minimum speed
bottom.
875

Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 9, September 2003

Initial speeds between the trapping speed and the direct

escape speed typically result in complicated trajectories.
Harmon, Leidel, and Lindner

875

Fig. 9. Two diverging orbits, with nearby initial conditions from the chaotic
region of the Escape Set, in an inertial reference frame.

Fig. 8. Rectangular top and polar bottom plots of the Escape Set.
Gradations correspond to the distance of the projectile from the center of
mass of the solar system after 5 years, for various initial speeds and angles.
At low speeds the projectile is trapped in the solar system. At large speeds,
the projectile easily escapes. At intermediate speeds above the trapping
speed and below the minimum direct escape speed, the projectile typically
executes intricate chaotic orbits with many returns and close encounters, but
also arbitrarily large excursions.

Such trajectories experience multiple close encounters with

the earth and the sun and explore large unbounded regions of
space. Most of these chaotic orbits eventually get arbitrarily
far away.
The initial velocity space image of Fig. 8 summarizes the
situation for f 0.3. The gradations correspond to the distance of the projectile from the center of mass of the solar
system at a time t5T after launch for various initial speeds
and angles. At low speeds, the projectile is trapped in the
solar system. At large speeds, the projectile easily escapes.
At intermediate speeds above the trapping speed and below
the minimum direct escape speed, the projectile undergoes
intricate chaotic orbits with many returns and close encounters, as well as arbitrarily large excursions. The chaos is revealed by the abrupt changes in the intermediate region,
where slight alterations in the initial conditions lead to dramatic changes in the outcome. Figure 9 is an example of two
trajectories, begun with similar initial conditions in the chaotic intermediate region, which dramatically diverge. This
extreme sensitivity to initial conditions is the hallmark of
chaos. The chaos emerges from multiple knife-edge close
encounters between the projectile and the point masses of the
earth and the sun, where minute changes can repeatedly
cause the projectile to deflect one way or the other.
The Escape Set of Fig. 8 illustrates the chaos in the threebody problem similar to the way that the Mandelbrot set13
illustrates the complexity implicit in even the simplest nonlinear map. The Escape Set also recalls the three-body chaotic scattering simulations of Boyd and McMillan.14
876

Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 9, September 2003

V. CONCLUSIONS
We have investigated the optimal escape of a projectile
launched from the solar system within the context of the
restricted three-body problem. Noteworthy features include
the minimum escape speeds at small nonzero angles, the observation that larger angle escapes utilizing gravity assists
are more effective at large mass fractions, and the visualization of the chaotic region between the direct escape and
trapped orbits.
We have assumed that the projectile is confined to the
plane of the orbits of the earth and the sun, which move at
constant speed in concentric circles. Future work may relax
some of these restrictions. Because the generic solution of
the unrestricted three-body problem is the escape of one of
the three bodies from the other two, relaxing our constraints
to allow nonplanar motion or primaries with noncircular orbits or a projectile with noninfinitesimal mass should increase the number of possible escape scenarios. Initial conditions that trap the projectile under the restricted three-body
problem might free the projectile for the general three-body
problem. The motion of the projectile could cause the primaries to move together, decreasing their mutual gravitational
potential energy, and thereby freeing more kinetic energy for
the projectile. Interesting effects might also be obtained by
including the earths spin, by launching the projectile out of
the plane of the earth and the sun, or by modeling the earth
and the sun as solid spheres with which the projectile might
collide.
Escape problems in the Newtonian N-body problem are
currently of practical concern in other contexts, such as estimating the rate at which Earth-crossing asteroids escape
from the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.15 From a
theoretical point of view, Xia has recently rigorously demonstrated a noncollision singularity in the Newtonian five-body
problem.16 His scenario involves one point mass shuttling
back and forth between two binary systems and being ejected
to infinity in a finite time. Although Painleve proved that the
three-body problem is free of such singularities,17 Xias sceHarmon, Leidel, and Lindner

876

nario suggests the possibility of escaping an idealized solar

system with arbitrarily small initial speeds, provided one is
allowed to launch multiple projectiles.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported in part by NSF Grant No.
DMR-99-87850 and The College of Wooster. We thank the
Colleges Academic Computing Services for the use of one
of its computer laboratories.
a

Electronic mail: jlindner@wooster.edu

Henri Poincare, Sur le proble`m des trois corps et les equations de la
dynamique On the problem of three bodies and the equations of dynamics, Acta Math. 13, 1270 1890.
2
Karl E. Sundman, Memoire sur le proble`m des trois corps Memoir on
the problem of three bodies, Acta Math. 36, 105179 1912.
3
V. Szebehely, Recent advances in the problem of three bodies, in Recent
Advances in Dynamical Astronomy, edited by B. D. Tapley and V. Szebehely Reidel, Dordrecht, 1973. More accessible is V. Szebehely, Theory of
Orbits: The Restricted Problem of Three Bodies Academic, New York,
1967.
4
A. Z. Hendel, Solar escape, Am. J. Phys. 51, 746 748 1983.
5
V. J. Menon and D. C. Agrawal, Solar escape revisited, Am. J. Phys. 54,
752753 1986.
6
Alfonso Daz-Jimenez and A. P. French, A Note on Solar escape revisited, Am. J. Phys. 56, 85 86 1988.
1

A. Z. Hendel and Michael J. Longo, Comparing solutions for the solar

escape problem, Am. J. Phys. 56, 82 85 1988.
8
John G. Scudder, Escape! A computer solution to the restricted threebody problem, unpublished senior thesis, The College of Wooster, 1989.
9
J. M. A. Danby, Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics Willmann-Bell,
Richmond, VA, 1989, 2nd ed.
10
For this calculation, we used MATHEMATICA, http://www.wolfram.com.
11
ESCAPE runs under the Macintosh operating system and is freely available
at http://www.wooster.edu/physics/software.
12
For information about the Voyager grand tour and its continuing interstellar mission, visit http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov.
13
Benoit Mandelbrot, Fractal Geometry of Nature Freeman, New York,
1989.
14
P. T. Boyd and S. L. W. McMillan, Parameter space structure in irregular
gravitational scattering, Phys. Rev. A 46, 6277 6287 1992; Chaotic
scattering in the gravitational three-body problem, Chaos 3, 507523
1993.
15
Charles Jaffe, Shane D. Ross, Martin W. Lo, Jerrold Marsden, David Farrelly, and T. Uzer, Statistical theory of asteroid escape rates, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 89, 011101 4 2002.
16
Z. Xia, The existence of non-collision singularities in Newtonian systems, Ann. Math. 135, 411 468 1992. For an overview, see D. G. Saari
and Z. Xia, Off to infinity in finite time, Not. Am. Math. Soc. 42 5,
538 546 1995.
17
P. Painleve, Lecons sur la Theorie Analytic des Equations Differentielles
(Lessons on the Analytic Theory of Differential Equations) Hermann,
Paris, 1897.

Reflection of Particles. From the 1881 catalogue of James W. Queen of Philadelphia: Apparatus to Illustrate the Reflexion of Motion. Consisting of a
semicircular table of cherry, a marble slab for reflector, a spring pistol, ivory ball, and pocket to catch the ball after the rebound. Edge of table graduated to
show the relation between the angles of incidence and reflexion. ...$20.00. Two similar pieces of apparatus exist: John Tyndalls demonstration to show the
specular reflection of visible light, and his apparatus for showing the specular reflection of sound. It seems that when introducing students to specular
reflection, a particle model describes the situation well. Newton thought so, too. Photograph and notes by Thomas B. Greenslade, Jr., Kenyon College

877

Am. J. Phys., Vol. 71, No. 9, September 2003

Harmon, Leidel, and Lindner

877