Are there any man-made orbits more stable than God created?

[newtonian]

Saiph - That is certainly wrong as some moons and planets are decaying in orbit rather than receeding.<br /><br />And, of course, man-made orbits are far shorter in their stability - BTW, space junk is a problem.<br /><br />However, I am curious how you drew that conclusion. Did you have some source to back it up?<br /><br />I had heard one moon is definitely due to crash into its planet.<br /><br />I would be interested in estimated future changes in orbit for various planets and moons - or at least whether they are decaying or receeding and why.<br /><br />Also, a comparison of that center of gravity point - i.e. compard with other planet-moon systems.<br /><br />Why would the center of gravity being near the planetary crust make the moon's orbit more susceptible to perturbation - if I understand your post correctly.<br /><br />Thank you, as always, for your input.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>And, of course, man-made orbits are far shorter in their stability - BTW, space junk is a problem. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Manmade orbits are not less stable by virtue of being manmade. Matter follows the same rules whether it accreted in situ billions of years ago or whether manmade rockets place it there today. However, a very large preponderance of manmade orbits are in low-Earth orbit, that being a relatively inexpensive orbit to acheive, so I can see where you drew this conclusion. However, you are mistaken if you think that natural orbits are somehow different from "manmade" ones. They work exactly the same way.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I had heard one moon is definitely due to crash into its planet. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />You're probably thinking of Phobos, the innermost moon of Mars. It orbits so closely that it actually travels visibly across the sky! It is not going to crash in the immediate future, but it is approaching Mars constantly. Indeed, it is virtually certain that it did not form in orbit around Mars, but was a captured asteroid.<br /><br />There are other moons in unstable orbits. Any retrograde orbit counts. Many small Jovian satellites (probably captured asteroids) are retrograde. Most notably, Neptune's largest moon Triton orbits retrograde. It is commonly believed that Triton is a captured KBO or similarly icy minor planet. It seems to share a lot in common with Pluto. This process exerts enormous tidal strain on Triton. Not only is it losing orbital velocity (causing it to fall towards Neptune), but it is volcanically active, probably as a direct result of its retrograde motion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Calli - Thank you again. Very informative and interesting.<br /><br />I assume retrograde orbits are unstable because of tidal influence on orbital motion?<br /><br />I did not think man-made vs. God created orbits followed different rules or laws - of course.<br /><br />However, earth and moon's orbits do have additional factors contributing to stability which are not incorporated into man-made orbits - tidal influence is the most obvious.

 

[newtonian]

crazyeddie - I see you are prejudiced for a chance creation of universal motion - that's fine, just so you realize some astronomers believe God created this motion.<br /><br />My question is nonetheless valid - and I do not understand why the universe in perpetual motion is so different from a perpetual motion machine - can you explain why you feel this way?<br /><br />Also, why do you believe earth and moon will be incinerated at the sun's red giant phase. Note my thread on survival on earth during red giant phase - the model which has earth's survace reaching about 500C - well below the melting point of various refractory furnace linings and also well below the required temperature for Aluminum smelting and manufacture of various types of glass, ceramics, etc. including thermal tiles and glasses that could be used to protect mankind if such a future is allowed for planet earth.<br /><br />Interesting estimate on earth's future rotation rate. Thank you. Do you have a link or source to confirm that estimate?<br /><br />Also very interesting how our sun's orbit is unusually stable and safe for life. I understand you believe this allowed evolution of life while you no doubt understand that I believe our earth and sun were fine tuned (along with our universe) to allow the creation and sustaining of life.<br /><br />Crucial to determining the correct model is determining exactly how life was formed (created or evolved) from non-living matter - my research has led me to believe life's required molecules are far too informational (vs. statistical) to have been formed solely by chance input with no informational templates involved.<br /><br />I hope this thread does not have too elliptical an orbit from thread theme - what with way out tangents threatening to achieve escape velocity from thread theme!<br /><br />Thank you for the link, btw.<br /><br />Are you sure all of this is just coincidence? Why?

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I assume retrograde orbits are unstable because of tidal influence on orbital motion?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's it exactly. It's the same thing making the Moon recede from Earth. Satellites are almost never launched retrograde, but this is not because of the inherent instability of such an orbit. It's mostly because it's more expensive. (Retrograde orbits require more delta-vee.) Random factoid: the only nation to routinely launch retrograde is Israel; it's the only direction available to them, given the unlikelihood of their eastern neighbors permitting overflights of missiles.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>However, earth and moon's orbits do have additional factors contributing to stability which are not incorporated into man-made orbits - tidal influence is the most obvious.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Actually, there is tidal influence on manmade satellites too. It's just less significant. This is not because they are manmade. It's because they are small and puny. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> (Even the ISS has negligible mass compared to the Earth's enormous bulk.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

The earth/moon system is emitting gravitational radiation and eventually the moons orbit will start to contract and dissipate.<br /><br />(time scale for this is pretty huge, bazillions of years)<br /><br />Same for earth and sun. Not sure if earth nails the cold dead husk of the sun before the moon clobbers the earth.<br /><br />Probably a moot point considering the time scale . . . . . <br /><br /><br /> Odds of solar system being zorched by a black hole probably before the above happens.<br /><br />Also, the solar system is emitting gravitational radiation as it orbits the galaxy, so we get to look forward to eventully being agglomerated with the core of the galaxy too . . .<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

If you are telling people the Moon is getting closer to the Earth, please recheck your facts. Any object outside geostationary orbit will move **away** from the object it orbits. Furthermore, gravitation stresses will slow the rotation of the object it orbits (in the above case, Earth) down. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Will - correct.<br /><br />Btw, what is a good estimate for earth's rotation speed at red giant phase assuming this is 5 billion years from now.

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Unless we can physically move the Earth and Moon, it's likely that the two bodies will be engulfed by the <font color="red">Sun's atmosphere</font> in which case, shielding in the form of a soletta or some other mirror device will probably prove to be ineffective. However, moving the Earth by gravitation might be possible by repeated asteroid flybys over a period of many millions of years.....but we will have to move Mars as well to make room for Earth as it moves outward in it's orbit. I'm not sure it will be worth the trouble....migration would probably make more sense. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />By "Sun's atmosphere," do you mean the corona or the photosphere? There is definitely no technology at hand that would allow earth to survive entry into the photosphere. The corona, on the hand, we might be able to survive that. The keyword is "might". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

We are away from theological dicussions,thanks.

 

[willpittenger]

First, some of the shows I have seen had astronomers saying they "thought" the sun would not reach Earth's orbit. It helps that as the sun expands, Earth's orbit will move outwards. Yeah, it will still get cooked, but it may survive.<br /><br />As for the corona, solar eruptions of some very hot gas regularly get out there. That would be the toughest part of living in the corona. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[newtonian]

crazyeddie - Frist of all, we are way off thread theme.<br /><br />What I really want to know is how stable man-made orbits are - do we have any actual time estimates for stability of the various man-made satellites? Are any expected to be stable for billions of years? <br /><br />Which man-made satellite has the longest expected stable orbit (in time)?<br /><br />On your last post:<br /><br />Solar wind, however, is not considered part of the sun as it has achieved escape velocity from our sun.<br /><br />What influence will the pressure from the solar wind have on earth's orbit - do you have any link on the actual mathematical calculations of this effect?<br /><br />You posted:<br /><br /> The corona, on the other hand, is so rarifed that it contains very little actual heat.<br /><br />That is incorrect. The corona is extremely hot - much hotter than the solar surface. It is heated by numerous magnetic fields propagation from dynamoes deep within the sun - as these fields float towards the solar surface - some possilly from the core, whcih is why I doubt the standard model assumption of zero mixing from core to surface.<br /><br />I agree we could not protect ourselves if earth is engulfed within the solar surface. But this tangent belongs on my survival of red giant phase thread!

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Which man-made satellite has the longest expected stable orbit (in time)? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />My guess would be one of the ones in heliocentric orbit. Those could definitely persist for billions of years, assuming they don't run into anything. They may be perturbed during close passages by major planets, but they certainly won't fall into the Sun anytime soon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Calli - Thank you.<br /><br />Which satellites are in orbit about the sun (heliocentric)?<br /><br />Is there any source confirming this degree of orbital stability - or link?

 

[vogon13]

<b>eventually</b> <i>adv.</i> happening at an indefinite future time.<br /><br />I know we use many big words here, try to keep up.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Which satellites are in orbit about the sun (heliocentric)?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Ulysees is probably the most interesting of these. It is in a very high heliocentric orbit. What makes it markable is that it is in a heliocentric polar orbit, making its orbit unique among manmade objects. It takes 11 years to complete one orbit, during which it observes both of the Sun's poles. It is in a unique position to contribute to Sun research. In order to acheive the phenomenal plane shift to polar orbit, it made a flyby of Jupiter.<br /><br />Other probes in solar orbit include the vast majority of the early planetary missions. Mariner 4 is still out there, for instance. Their positions are not known; none of these spacecraft still communicate with Earth.<br /><br />Some Apollo hardware is believed to be in heliocentric orbit. One interesting tidbit there is the S-IVB from Apollo 12. It was recaptured by the Earth after wandering through the Sun-Earth L1 point. (I believe it has wandered back out again, but I'm not sure about that and am out of time to go check.)<br /><br />The biggest complicating factor in determining stability of these orbits is the fact that they are very small. Their mass is negligible compared to the major planets, so it doesn't take much to perturb them. Even erosion due to the solar wind will cause enough thrust to alter their course given enough time. I think the question of "how stable are these orbits?" is unfortunately dependent on how you define "stable", so it may not be possible to find a ready-made answer out there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Ulysees is probably the most interesting of these. It is in a very high heliocentric orbit. What makes it markable is that it is in a heliocentric polar orbit, making its orbit unique among manmade objects. It takes 11 years to complete one orbit, during which it observes both of the Sun's poles. It is in a unique position to contribute to Sun research. In order to acheive the phenomenal plane shift to polar orbit, it made a flyby of Jupiter. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Do you know the inclination of Ulysees? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Not off the top of my head, but I'll look it up. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Okay, occording to the Ulysses website, it's around about 80 degrees.<br /><br />I'm also mistaken -- it is already into its third orbit. It looks like the orbit is shorter than I thought -- more like five years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[nexium]

The most stable orbits in our solar system are already occupied by a planet, moon, asteroid, or comet, so none are left that would allow a million years in orbit likely. Neil

 

[sponge]

Since we are on the discussions of orbits and satellites can anyone tell me where to get maps of the darkside of the moon. I dont mean drawings either i mean real photographric e vidence or even radar images of such. It seems you can only get real detailed maps of the light side, does anyone have any infomation on this subject, because it seems proposterous that i cant get my hands on one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Post deleted by vogon13 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

My first one!<br /><br />If I crash the internet, my apologies.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[mvisvitae]

A few years back NASA showed the International Space Station launching pad that is on the Dark Side of the Moon - you can probably get pictures of the Dark Side of the Moon on the NASA website

 

[vogon13]

And now, after over 8000 posts, I understand how the width gets screwed up. <br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

Crazyeddie - You are now correct about the solar corona, and I already knew most of what you have now posted. Check the wording of your original post - you left the impression that the corona did not have much heat - which, as you apparently know, is incorrect.<br /><br />Thank you for the additional input - and understand that my question has many facets including the complex fine tuning due to intelligent design that causes our solar system and universe to work so wonderfully. I know you do not like discussing that facet - so feel free to ignore that aspect of my question. Or feel free to disagree and explain why - that's up to you.<br /><br />As you realize, orbits like earth's, sun's, moon's involve many fine tuned factors, including tidal interactions, which are not normally fine tuned in man-made satellites. I am learning on this thread about these factors - including Calli's reference to how low mass man-made satellites are especially susceptible to perturbation by the solar wind. <br /><br />Obviously we could fine tune these interactions to make man-made satellites more stable in orbit - imitating nature, if you prefer that wording.<br /><br />On perpetual motion machines - OK, I was not aware of that definition and therefore I understand why you disagreed with me.<br /><br />I had in mind the machine Isaac Newton constructed - a moving model of the solar system. That model, of course, would not remain in perpetual motion without input of energy.<br /><br />However, one reason Newton marveled at the real solar system as a creation of God was the perpetual motion involved in the real solar system. He recognized the superior intellect and power involved in the creation of the real solar system.<br /><br />Newton also recognized how impossible it would be either for his complex model of the solar system or the real solar system in motion to come about by chance without an intelligent Creator. <br /><br />Newton's beliefs, similar to mine, certainly did not detract fro