The origin of any orbit has been traced to vacuum fluctuations which define the spin connection of ECE2 relativity in for example Eq.(16) of Note 402(4), and in UFT401 it has been shown by Horst Eckardt that there can be retrograde as well as forward precession, depending on the sign of the spin connection. This goes far in advance of the obsolete Einstein theory, which cannot produce retrograde precession, and is completely riddled with errors of all kinds (it has been refuted in almost a hundred different ways in the UFT series and Stephen Crothers has refuted it in many more ways). So if clean data on orbital precession can be found, the orbit can be explained by changing the mean square vacuum fluctuation so that the precession at the perihelion is explained exactly. In the solar system, orbital precession is badly affected by the influence of other planets as is well known. Myles Mathis (online) has argued convincingly that the astronomers do not account for this influence correctly. They use Newtonian theory for the planetary influence on the precession of a given planet, but use Einsteinian theory for the tiny part that is claimed to be due to EGR. However in some systems the precession is that of one object around another, and presumably is accurately known. The analytical orbit can be found from the relativistic Binet equation as in Note 402(7). From Eq. (35) of this note it is clear that the orbit depends on the orbital velocity contained in the Lorentz factor. So if the orbital velocity is used as an input parameter the orbit will be changed. So I will proceed to write up Sections 1 and 2 of UFT402. It would be very interesting to produce graphics in Section three ilustrating how the mean square fluctuation of the vacuum affects the precession at the perihelion, and how the orbital velocity affects the precession at the perihelion.