COMBINED EFFECTS OF PERTURBATIONS, RADIATION, AND OBLATENESS ON THE STABILITY

OF EQUILIBRIUM POINTS IN THE RESTRICTED THREE-BODY PROBLEM

AbdulRazaq AbdulRaheem
1
and Jagadish Singh
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria; raz11ng@yahoo.com
Received 2005 January 25; accepted 2005 October 30
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the stability of equilibrium points under the inuence of small perturbations in the Coriolis
and the centrifugal forces, together with the effects of oblateness and radiation pressures of the primaries. It is found
that collinear points remain unstable. It is also seen that triangular points are stable for 0 j < j
c
and unstable for
j
c
j
1
2
, where jis the critical mass parameter and depends on the above parameters. It is further observed that the
Coriolis force has a stabilizing tendency, while the centrifugal force, radiation, and oblateness of the primaries have de-
stabilizing effects; the presence of any one or more of the latter makes weak the stabilizing ability of the former. There-
fore, the overall effect is that the range of stability of the triangular points decreases.
Key words: celestial mechanics methods: n-body simulations
1. INTRODUCTION
The restricted three-body problem possesses ve equilibrium
points, two triangular and three collinear. In the linear sense, the
collinear points L
1
, L
2
, and L
3
are unstable for any value of the
mass ratio j, and the triangular points L
4
and L
5
are stable if
the mass ratio j of the nite body is less than j
0
0.03852 . . .
(Szebehely 1967b), where j is the ratio of the mass of the smaller
primary to the total mass of the primaries and 0 j
1
2
. Wintner
(1941) showed that the stability of the two triangular points is
due to the existence of the Coriolis terms in the equations of mo-
tion expressed in a synodic coordinate system. When Szebehely
(1967a) considered the effect of a small perturbationof the Coriolis
force on the stability of the equilibrium points, keeping the cen-
trifugal force constant, he established that the collinear points re-
main unstable. He obtained for the stability of the triangular points
a relationship between the critical value of the mass parameter j
c
and the change c in the Coriolis force:
j
c
j
0

16c
3

69
p .
Then he concluded that the Coriolis force is a stabilizing force.
Subbarao & Sharma (1975) considered the same problem with
one of the primaries as an oblate spheroid and its equatorial plane
coinciding with the plane of motion, and showed that the oblate-
ness of the primary resulted in an increase in both the Coriolis
and the centrifugal force. They established further that the range
of linear stability of the triangular points decreases, thereby con-
cluding that the Coriolis force is not always a stabilizing force.
Bhatnagar & Hallan (1978) extended the work of Szebehely by
considering the effect of perturbations c and c
0
in the Coriolis and
the centrifugal forces, respectively, and found that collinear points
remain unstable; for the triangular points they obtained the relation
j
c
j
0

4 36c 19c
0

27

69
p .
They inferred that the range of stability increases or decreases
depending on whether the point (c, c
0
) lies in one or the other of
the two parts in which the (c, c
0
)-plane is divided by the line
36c 19c
0
0. Sharma (1982) studied the linear stability of the
triangular equilibrium points of the restricted three-body problem
when the more massive primary is a source of radiation and is an
oblate spheroid as well. He found that the eccentricity of the con-
ditional retrograde elliptic periodic orbits around the triangular
points at the critical mass j
0
increases with an increase in the ob-
lateness coefcient and the radiation force and becomes unity
when j
c
0. Simmons et al. (1985) obtained a complete solu-
tion of the restricted three-body problem. They discussed the ex-
istence and linear stability of the equilibriumpoints for all values
of radiation pressures of both luminous bodies and all values of
mass ratios. Dankowicz (2002) took account of gravitational in-
teractions with asteroids and the Sun and the radiation pressure
from the Sun. Kunitsyn (2000, 2001) studied the stability of the
triangular and collinear points inthe photogravitational three-body
problem.
In this paper we study the combined effects of perturbations in
the Coriolis and centrifugal forces, oblateness, and radiation of
the primaries on the stability of the equilibrium points in the re-
stricted problem. The participating bodies in the classical restricted
three-body problem are strictly spherical in shape, but in actual
situations we nd that several heavenly bodies, such as Saturn
and Jupiter, are sufciently oblate. The minor planets and mete-
oroids have irregular shapes. In these cases, on account of the
small dimensions of the bodies in comparison with their distances
fromthe primaries, they are considered to be point masses, but in
many cases the dimensions of the bodies are larger than the dis-
tances from their respective primaries. Thus, the above assump-
tion is not justied, and the results obtained are far froma realistic
approach. The lack of sphericity, or the oblateness, of the planet
causes large perturbations from a two-body orbit. The motions
of articial Earth satellites are examples. This enables many re-
searchers to study the restricted problem by taking into account
the shapes of the bodies.
We use A
i
(i 1, 2) for the oblateness coefcients of the
bigger and smaller primaries, respectively, such that 0 < A
i
T1
( McCuskey 1963) and
A
1

AE
2
1
AP
2
1
5R
2
. A
2

AE
2
2
AP
2
2
5R
2
.
1
Corresponding author.
1880
The Astronomical Journal, 131:18801885, 2006 March
# 2006. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.
where AE
1
and AE
2
are the equatorial radii and AP
1
and AP
2
the
polar radii of the bigger and smaller primaries, respectively. Since
the solar radiation pressure force F
p
changes with distance by the
same lawas the gravitational attraction force F
q
and acts opposite
to it, it is possible that this force will lead to a reduction of the
effective mass of the massive particle. And since this reduction
depends on the properties of the particle, it is acceptable to speak
about a reduced mass. Thus, the resulting force on the particle is
F F
q
F
p
F
q
1
F
p
F
q
_ _
qF
q
.
where q 1 F
p
/F
q
, a constant for a given particle, is the mass
reduction factor. We denote the radiation factors as q
i
(i 1, 2)
for the bigger and smaller primaries, respectively, and these are
given by F
p
i
F
q
(1 q
i
) such that 0 < 1 q
i
T1.
2. EQUATIONS OF MOTION
Let m
1
and m
2
be the masses of the bigger and smaller pri-
maries, respectively, and mthe mass of the innitesimal body. We
assume that both primaries are oblate spheroids and radiating
as well. Let A
1
and A
2
denote the oblateness coefcients of the
bigger and smaller primaries, respectively, such that 0 < A
i
T1
(i 1, 2).
We introduce a synodic coordinate system(O, X, Y, Z) with the
origin at the center of mass of the primaries, in which the axes
rotate relative to the inertial space with angular velocity n about
the z-axis. Let (x, y) be the coordinates of the innitesimal body
in the orbital plane. Its kinetic energy is given by
T
1
2
mn
2
x
2
y
2
_ _
mn x y xy
1
2
m x
2
y
2
_ _
T
0
T
1
T
2
and the potential energy by
V Gm m
1
q
1
r
1

A
1
q
1
2r
3
1
_ _
m
2
q
2
r
2

A
2
q
2
2r
3
2
_ _ _ _
. 1
where
r
2
1
x x
1

2
y
2
. r
2
2
x 1 j
2
y
2
. 2
Here r
1
and r
2
are distances of the mass m from m
1
and m
2
,
respectively. The coordinates of m
1
and m
2
are (x
1
, 0) and (x
2
, 0),
respectively. The Lagrangian is given by
L T
1
T
2

U. with

U V T
0
.
Then the equations of motion of the innitesimal body are
x 2n y
1
m
0

U
0x
. y 2n x
1
m
0

U
0y
. 3
In the dimensionless synodic coordinate system, we choose the
unit of mass to be the sumof the masses of the primaries. For this
we take m
1
1 j and m
2
j. The unit of length is taken as
equal to the distance between the primaries, and the unit is cho-
sen so that the gravitational constant Gis unity. Equations (3) can
be written as (Subbarao & Sharma 1975)
x 2n y U
x
. y 2n x U
y
. 4
with
U
n
2
2
x
2
y
2
_ _

1 j
r
1
q
1

j
r
2
q
2

1 j
2r
3
1
A
1
q
1

j
2r
3
2
A
2
q
2
.
5
where
r
2
1
x j
2
y
2
. r
2
2
x 1 j
2
y
2
. 6
and n is the mean motion, given by
n
2
1
3
2
A
1
A
2
. 7
We introduce small perturbations c and c
0
in the Coriolis and the
centrifugal forces using the parameters and , respectively,
such that 1 c, jcjT1, and 1 c
0
, jc
0
jT1. Hence,
equations (4) become
x 2n y n
2
x F
x
. y 2n x n
2
y F
y
. 8
where
F
1 j
r
1
q
1

j
r
2
q
2

1 j
2r
3
1
A
1
q
1

j
2r
3
2
A
2
q
2
.
Then equations (8) can take the form
x 2n y
x
. y 2n x
y
.
where

1
2
n
2
x
2
y
2
_ _

1j
r
1
q
1

j
r
2
q
2

1j
2r
3
1
A
1
q
1

j
2r
3
2
A
2
q
2
.
9
3. LOCATION OF EQUILIBRIUM POINTS
The equilibrium points are the solutions of the equations

x
0.
y
0. 10
3.1. Location of Trianqular Points
The triangular points are the solutions of the equations
x
0,

y
0, and y 6 0. Solving equations (6) for x and y, we get
x j
1
2

r
2
2
r
2
1
2
. y
r
2
1
r
2
2
2

1
4

r
2
2
r
2
1
2
_ _
2
_ _
1,2
.
11
From
x
0,
y
0, and y 6 0 we obtain
n
2

q
1
r
3
1

3
2
A
1
q
1
r
5
1
0 . n
2

q
2
r
3
2

3
2
A
2
q
2
r
5
2
0. 12
We can easily nd r
1
and r
2
from equations (12). When the pri-
maries are neither radiating nor oblate, r
i

1/3
(i 1, 2).
Therefore, we can assume the solutions of equations (12) to be
r
i

1

1,3
c
i
. 13
where jc
i
jT1 (i 1, 2) are very small.
EQUILIBRIUM POINTS IN THREE-BODY PROBLEM 1881
Restricting ourselves to only linear terms in A
i
and 1 q
i
,
where A
i
and 1 q
i
are very small, we obtain
c
1

1
3
1,3

3
2
A
1
A
2
1 q
1

3
2
A
1

2,3
_ _
.
c
2

1
3
1,3

3
2
A
1
A
2
1 q
2

3
2
A
2

2,3
_ _
. 14
Putting the values of r
1
and r
2
into equations (11) we obtain
x j
1
2

2,3
1
3
1q
1

1
3
1 q
2

1
2
A
1
A
2

2,3
_ _
.
15
y

4
2,3
_
2
1,3
_
1
2
4
2,3
_
A
1
A
2

1
3
1 q
1

1
3
1 q
2

1
2
A
1
A
2

2,3
_
_
.
These points are denoted by L
4
and L
5
and are known as the tri-
angular equilibrium points.
3.2. Location of Collinear Points
The collinear points are the solutions of

x
0.
y
0 . y 0.
That is, the collinear points lie on the line joining the primaries.
To obtain the abscissa, we denote the expression
x

y0
by f (x).
There are only three roots of the equation f (x) 0, with one ly-
ing in each of the open intervals ( j 2, j 1), ( j 1, 0), and
( j, j 1). These three roots correspond to the three collinear
points L
1
, L
2
, and L
3
.
4. STABILITY OF EQUILIBRIUM POINTS
We denote the equilibrium points and their positions as L(x
0
,
y
0
). Let a small displacement in (x
0
, y
0
) be (, j). Then we write
x x
0
and y y
0
j. Substituting these values in equa-
tions (9), we obtain the variational equations

2n j
xx
x
0
. y
0

xy
x
0
. y
0
j.
j 2n

xy
x
0
. y
0

yy
x
0
. y
0
j.
Their characteristic equation is
k
4

0
xx

0
yy
4n
2

2
_ _
k
2

0
xx

0
yy

0
xy
_ _
2
0. 16
where the superscript 0 indicates that the partial derivatives are
evaluated at the equilibrium points (x
0
, y
0
).
4.1. Stability of Trianqular Points
In the case of the triangular solutions, we have

0
xx

5,3
3
4
a
1
jb
1
_ _
.

0
yy

3
4
4
2,3
_ _
a
2
jb
2
_ _
.

0
xy

5,3

4
2,3
_

3
4
a
3
j
3
2
b
3
_ _ _ _
.
where
a
1

1
4
_
15
2
A
1
A
2

2

2,3

2,3
2
_ _
1 q
1

2,3
1 q
2
6 A
1
A
2

_
.
b
1

1
4
_
2

2,3
4
2,3
_ _
1 q
1

2,3
4
2,3
_ _
1 q
2
12 A
2
A
1

_
.
a
2

1
4
_
18
15
2

2,3
_ _
A
1
A
2
2 2
2,3
_ _
1 q
1

4 1 q
2
6 A
1
A
2

2,3
_
.
b
2

1
4
2 4
2,3
_ _
1 q
2
2 4
2,3
_ _
1 q
1

_ _
.
a
3

1
4 4
2,3

_
15
2

2,3
24
_ _
A
1
A
2

8
2,3
2 4
2,3
_ _ _ _
1 q
1

4
2,3
2
2,3
_ _
1q
2
12A
1
6
2,3
2
_ _
A
2
_
.
b
3

1
4 4
2,3

_
48 15
2,3
_ _
A
1
A
2

2 2
2,3
_ _
1 q
1
2 2
2,3
_ _
1 q
2

6 A
1
A
2

2,3
_
. 17
Each of |a
i
|, |b
i
| is very small, since jA
i
jT1, j1 q
i
jT1 (i 1,
2, 3). Then equation (16) becomes
k
4

_
b
1

5,3
b
2

_ _
j 3 4
2
a
1

5,3
a
2

6 A
1
A
2

2
_
k
2

8,5
4
4
2,3
_ _
;
_
3 34b
3
j
2
9 3b
1

3
4
2,3
b
2
6b
3
12a
3
_ _
j
3a
1

3
4
2,3
a
2
6a
3
_ _
_
0. 18
Its roots are
k
2

1
2
_
b
1

5,3
b
2

_ _
j 3 4
2
a
1

5,3
a
2
6 A
1
A
2

2

p
_
. 19
ABDULRAHEEM & SINGH 1882 Vol. 131
The roots of the characteristic equation depend on the value of
the mass parameter j and are controlled by the discriminant
3
8,3
4
2,3
_ _
3 4b
3
j
2

_
6
8,3
8
5,3

2
3
8,3
4
2,3
_ _ _ _
b
1
6
2
8
2
8
8,3
_ _
b
2
6
8,3
4
2,3
_ _
b
3
12
8,3
4
2,3
_ _
a
3
9
8,3
4
2,3
_ _
_
j
34
2
_ _
2
6
8,3
8
5,3

2
3
8,3
4
2,3
_ _ _ _
a
1
6
2
8
2
3
8,3
_ _
a
2
6
8,3
4
2,3
_ _
a
3
48
4
36
2
_ _
A
1
A
2
. 20
Since ()
j0
and ()
j1/2
are of opposite signs, there is only
one value of j, e.g., j
c
, in the open interval (0,
1
2
) for which
vanishes. Therefore, we examine the three regions of 0 j <
j
c
, j
c
< j
1
2
, and j j
c
separately.
1. When 0 j < j
c
, is positive and the motion is bounded.
The four values of k are purely imaginary. Hence, the triangular
point is stable.
2. When j
c
< j
1
2
, is negative. The real parts of two of
the values of k are positive and equal. Therefore, the triangular
point is unstable.
3. When j j
c
, 0. The double roots give secular terms
in the solution of the variational equations of motion. Therefore,
the triangular point is unstable.
4.2. Critical Mass
The solution of the quadratic equation 0 for j gives the
critical mass value j
c
of the mass parameter. That is,
j
c

1
2
1

A 4B
A
_
_ _

1
2
6
8,3
8
5,3

2
3
8,3
4
2,3
_ _ _ _
b
1
2a
1

A A4B
_
b
1
A
_ _

1
2
6
2
8
2
3
8,3
_ _
b
2
2a
2

A A 4B
_
b
2
A
_ _

1
3
4B

A A 4B
_
2

A 4B
p

A
p

A
p

A 4B
p 1
_ _
b
3

2
3
a
3

48
4
36
2

A A 4B
_ A
1
A
2
. 21
where A 9
8/3
4
2/3
and B 3 4
2

2
.
For simplicity we substitute 1 c and 1 c
0
and re-
strict ourselves to linear terms in c and c
0
. Neglecting their prod-
ucts with A
i
and 1 q
i
in equation (21), we nd
j
c
j
0
j
br
j
p
. 22
where
j
0

1
2
1

23
27
_
_ _
.
j
br

2
27

69
p 1 q
1

1
9
1
13

69
p
_ _
A
1

2
27

69
p 1 q
2

1
9
1
13

69
p
_ _
A
2
.
j
p

4 36c 19c
0

27

69
p .
Clearly, j
c
represents the combined effects of perturbations, ra-
diation, and oblateness on the critical mass value of the restricted
problem. However, in the absence of perturbations, radiation pres-
sure, and oblateness of the primaries, the critical mass value j
c
becomes j
0
, which corresponds to the classical restrictedproblem.
But in the absence of perturbations only (i.e., j
p
0) in equa-
tions (22), j
c
reduces to the critical mass value of the restricted
problem with oblate spheroid and radiating primaries. This con-
rms the result of Singh & Ishwar (1999). In this case j
c
< j
0
,
which implies that the range of stability decreases. When the
primaries are nonradiating, nonoblate spheroids (i.e., j
br
0),
the critical mass value veries the results of Bhatnagar & Hallan
(1978). In this case j
c
j
0
, which implies that the range of sta-
bility increases. Here we conclude that in the absence of pertur-
bations in the Coriolis and centrifugal forces, the oblateness and
radiation pressures of the primaries have a destabilizing tendency.
We now consider perturbing effects on the whole problem in-
uenced by oblateness and radiation pressures. The graph of the
equation 36c 19c
0
0 is the straight line POQ ( Fig. 1), which
divides the plane (c, c
0
) into two parts,
1
and
2
. Standing at O
and looking toward P,
1
is on our right, and
2
is on the left.
For the points belonging to
1
, 36c 19c
0
0 and j
c
< j
0
.
This implies that the range of stability decreases. For the points
belonging to
2
, 36c 19c
0
< 0 and j
c
< j
0
. This also implies
that the range of stability decreases. For a point lying on the line,
36c 19c
0
0 and j
c
< j
0
. This again implies that the range of
stability decreases.
For points lying on the c-axis, c
0
0. That is, there is no per-
turbation in the centrifugal force. Then
j
c
j
0
j
br

16c
3

69
p . 23
Fig. 1.Two parts of the (c, c
0
)-plane.
EQUILIBRIUM POINTS IN THREE-BODY PROBLEM 1883 No. 3, 2006
Here we nd that j
c
< j
0
. If j
br
0 then j
c
j
0
. Thus, keep-
ing the centrifugal force constant in the absence of oblateness
and radiation, the Coriolis force remains a stabilizing force. But
in the presence of either or both of them, it is no longer a stabiliz-
ing force. This is contrary to Szebehelys (1967a) result but con-
rms Subbarao & Sharmas (1975) result.
For points lying on the c
0
-axis, c 0. That is, there is no per-
turbation in the Coriolis force. Then
j
c
j
0
j
br

76c
0
27

69
p . 24
Here we nd that j
c
< j
0
irrespective of when j
br
0. So,
keeping the Coriolis force constant and in the absence or pres-
ence of either or both the oblateness and radiation pressures, the
centrifugal force is always a destabilizing force. In this case it im-
plies that oblateness and radiation pressures increase the desta-
bilizing tendency of the centrifugal force.
Again we can see from equation (22) that the whole region of
the mass parameter j (0 < j
1
2
) is unstable for the points (c, c
0
)
lying on the line
4 36c 19c
0
27

69
p
j
0
j
br
0. 25
because j
c
0. Also, the whole region of the mass parameter
except for j
1
2
(0 < j
1
2
) is unstable for the points (c, c
0
)
lying on the line
4 36c 19c
0
27

69
p
j
0
j
br

1
2
_ _
0. 26
because j
c

1
2
.
4.3. Stability of Collinear Points
We rst consider the point corresponding to L
1
. Here, by using
r
1
j x. r
2
j. 27
we get

0
xx
n
2

2(1 j)(x j)
2
q
1
r
5
1

2j(x 1 j)
2
q
2
r
5
2

6(1 j)(x j)
2
A
1
q
1
r
7
1

6j(x 1 j)
2
A
2
q
2
r
7
2
0.

0
xy
0.

0
yy

jc
0
r
1

j
r
1
1
q
2
r
3
2
_ _

3j A
1
A
2
c
0
2r
1

3j
2r
i
A
1
A
2

A
2
q
2
r
5
2
_ _
.
Since j/r
1
1q
2
/r
3
2
_ _
<0, 3j/2r
1
A
1
A
2
A
2
q
2
/r
5
2
_ _
<0,
r
2
<1, 0 <A
1
, A
2
T1, jc
0
/r
1
j j < c
0
j j, 3j(A
1
A
2
)c
0
/2r
1
j j < c
00
j j,
and |c
0
| is a very small number, then
0
yy
< 0.
Then equation (16) becomes
k
4

0
xx

0
yy
4n
2

2
_ _
k
2

0
xx

0
yy
0. 28
Because
0
xx

0
yy
< 0, the discriminant is positive, and the four
roots of equation (16) can be written as
k
1
s. k
2
s. k
3
it. k
4
it. 29
where s and t are real. So, the solution is unstable. The same pro-
cedure shows that L
2
and L
3
are unstable. Therefore, we can con-
clude that the stability behavior of the collinear points does not
change due to perturbations in the Coriolis and centrifugal forces,
oblateness, or radiation pressure forces of the primaries. Hence,
they remain unstable.
5. DISCUSSION
The characteristic equation (16) differs from that obtained by
Singh & Ishwar (1999) due to the change in the Coriolis force. If
the primaries are neither oblate spheroids nor radiating and there
are no perturbations in the Coriolis and centrifugal forces, equa-
tion (16) corresponds to the classical restricted problem.
Equations (17) are also different from the ones obtained by
Singh & Ishwar (1999) due to the change in the centrifugal force
only. However, if the primaries are neither oblate nor radiating,
equations (17) are the same as those of the classical restricted
problem.
Under the inuence of the changes in the Coriolis and centrif-
ugal forces, as well as the effects of oblateness and radiation of
the primaries, the collinear points are unstable for any value of the
mass ratio j. However, the triangular points are stable for 0
j < j
c
and unstable for j
c
j
1
2
. This agrees with the results
of Subbarao & Sharma (1975), Szebehely (1967a), and Singh
& Ishwar (1999).
Equation (22) gives the critical value j
c
of the mass parameter.
It shows the combined effects of perturbations in the Coriolis and
centrifugal forces, oblateness, and radiation pressure forces of the
primaries on the critical mass value.
When the primaries are neither oblate nor radiating, equa-
tion (22) is the same as that of Bhatnagar & Hallan (1978). If in
addition there are no perturbations in the Coriolis and centrifugal
forces, then it corresponds to that of the classical restricted prob-
lem. In the absence of perturbations only, it veries the results of
Singh &Ishwar (1999). In this case, our result shows that oblate-
ness and radiation pressures have destabilizing tendencies.
By keeping the centrifugal force constant, equation (23) gives
the relationship of the critical mass value, oblateness, and radia-
tion coefcients to the change c in the Coriolis force. Here the sta-
bilizing ability of the Coriolis force is weaker than that obtained
by Bhatnagar & Hallan (1978) due to the presence of oblateness
and radiation pressures. This agrees with the result of Subbarao
& Sharma (1975).
Also, if the Coriolis force is kept constant, equation (24) pro-
vides the relationship of the critical mass value, oblateness, and
radiation coefcients to the change c
0
in the centrifugal force. It
leads to the fact that the centrifugal force is always a destabiliz-
ing force.
6. CONCLUSION
The stability of equilibrium points of the restricted problem
under the inuence of perturbations in the Coriolis and centrifu-
gal forces, together with the effects of the oblateness and radiation
of the primaries, have been studied. It was found that the stability
behavior of collinear points does not change despite the introduc-
tion of perturbations, oblateness, and radiation pressures. Hence,
they remain unstable. It was also seen that triangular points are
ABDULRAHEEM & SINGH 1884 Vol. 131
stable for 0 j < j
c
and unstable for j
c
j
1
2
, where j
c
is
the critical mass value, which depends on the joint effects of the
parameters.
It was further seen that oblateness and radiation coefcients
have destabilizing tendencies, and in the presence of either or
both of them, the stabilizing behavior of the Coriolis force be-
comes weak, while the destabilizing tendency of the centrifugal
force increases. The overall effect is that the range of stability of
the triangular points decreases.
The authors are extremely grateful to D. Singh, the head of the
Department of Mathematics at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria,
for his encouragement.
REFERENCES
Bhatnagar, K. B., & Hallan, P. P. 1978, Celest. Mech., 18, 105
. 2002, Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron., 84, 1
Kunitsyn, A. L. 2000, J. Appl. Mech., 64, 757
. 2001, J. Appl. Mech., 65, 703
McCuskey, S. W. 1963, Introduction to Celestial Mechanics ( New York:
Addison-Wesley)
Sharma, R. K. 1982, in Sun and Planetary System, ed. W. Fricke & G. Teleki
( Dordrecht: Reidel), 435
Simmons, J. F. L., McDonald, A. J. C., &Brown, J. C. 1985, Celest. Mech., 35, 145
Singh, J., & Ishwar, B. 1999, Bull. Astron. Soc. India, 27, 415
Subbarao, P. V., & Sharma, R. K. 1975, A&A, 43, 381
Szebehely, V. 1967a, AJ, 72, 7
Szebehely, V. G. 1967b, Theory of Orbits: The Restricted Problem of Three
Bodies ( New York: Academic)
Wintner, A. 1941, The Analytical Foundations of Celestial Mechanics ( Princeton:
Princeton Univ. Press)
EQUILIBRIUM POINTS IN THREE-BODY PROBLEM 1885 No. 3, 2006