News flash: Earth has a "second moon."

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

telfrow

Guest
<i>Asteroid 2003 YN107 is looping around our planet once a year. Measuring only 20 meters across, the asteroid is too small to see with the unaided eye—but it is there. This news, believe it or not, is seven years old.<br /><br />"2003 YN107 arrived in 1999," says Paul Chodas of NASA's Near Earth Object Program at JPL, "and it's been corkscrewing around Earth ever since." Because the asteroid is so small and poses no threat, it has attracted little public attention. But Chodas and other experts have been monitoring it. "It's a very curious object," he says.<br /><br />Most near-Earth asteroids, when they approach Earth, simply fly by. They come and they go, occasionally making news around the date of closest approach. 2003 YN107 is different: It came and it stayed.<br /><br />"We believe 2003 YN107 is one of a whole population of near-Earth asteroids that don't just fly by Earth. They pause and corkscrew in our vicinity for years before moving along."</i><br /><br />Link to full story.<br /> <br />Photo Caption: "The typical corkscrew path of an Earth Coorbital Asteroid." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
If I was a little more savy running my scanner, I would post the corresponding diagram for Toro.<br /><br />It's a little wacky 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>
 
B

bonzelite

Guest
that news is crazy! i had no idea. why is this not discussed further? does something like this have to pose a "threat" for it to be widely known? (i guess so). i wonder how many of these type of encounters have happened without our knowledge? maybe thousands.
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
Seems it is more common than we might think. The rest of the story goes on to talk about that fact. They consider them mere "curiosities". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
I think part of the reason they aren't commonly discussed in the mass media (they do come up in more specialized information sources; certainly astronomers like to talk about them) is that in addition to not being a threat to the Earth, they aren't permanent moons (or in most cases, aren't technically moons at all, or are difficult to class), they're very small and thus uninteresting to the average Joe Schmoe, and last of all, explaining them in detail tends to get into some of the more complicated areas of orbital mechanics -- Joe Schmoe's eyes tend to glaze over at that point.<br /><br />I think they're very cool, though. Cruithne is another interesting one, although it is more clearly not an Earth satellite. <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>
 
S

superluminal

Guest
I think they're very cool, though. Cruithne is another interesting one, although it is more clearly not an Earth satellite. <br />Hi Calli, as usual, you're so right ... These moons are so cool.<br />But here's my question?<br /><br />Imagine for a moment it's the future.<br />For a nation that has the leadership role in human and robotic exploration,<br /><br />Wouldn't one of these moons suffice excellently as a super defensive military base, and also a fuel supply storage depot?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>
 
P

pioneer0333

Guest
Off the top of my head, we could use these "mini" asteroids as target practice for when the real thing comes. They may be small, but that would only improve our accurancy for when targeting future asteroids. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />Wouldn't one of these moons suffice excellently as a super defensive military base, and also a fuel supply storage depot? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Quite possibily. This was in fact a major motivating factor in the moon race. Oh sure, there was national pride at stake, but no country spends that many billions on pride alone. There was a military factor. Any military strategist knows that if you wish to dominate, you must capture the high ground. (Technically, it is possible to win without it, but it's a heck of a lot harder.) In the 1960s, the Moon represented the ultimate high ground, so it was imperative that the two superpowers attempt to demonstrate the capability of landing on it, as this would be the first step towards actually capturing, securing, and exploiting that high ground. Today, we still don't have a specific way of exploiting that high ground in a military fashion. The Moon is simply too far away to be useful as high ground. (LEO through GEO have become increasingly important, however, in a tactical sense.) Theoretically, it would be useful for weapons such as mass drivers, and of course it would be important if we began colonizing or mining offworld. But that hasn't happened yet. I have no doubt that it will happen; it just hasn't happened yet. In some ways, Apollo was ahead of its times. But because Apollo succeeded, the Soviets lost interest in the Moon, and so the Americans did too. As soon as somebody got to it first, it ceased to be important. An oddity of the cold war. That will change someday.<br /><br />Anyhoo, yes, I would say that such objects may become very important in the near future. I'm not sure how useful they'll be as a defensive base, although they may be useful for hiding futuristic bunkers and superweapons. And they may be useful for mining and/or as fuel depots someday. It's more a question of "when" than "if", in my opinion. <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>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Does anyone know how long it will spend orbiting the earth? It is intriguing how it's orbit is inclined so steeply to the ecliptic. What would be the dV needed to make a return trip? And how long would it take?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
T

tony873004

Guest
Its orbit is not steeply inclined to the ecliptic. It's inclination is only about 4 degrees. It simply looks steeply inclined it that diagram because the image employs a rotating frame of reference that keeps Earth stationary.<br /><br />This object does not actually orbit the Earth either. It simply appears to do so in a rotating frame of reference.<br /><br />It just left its "quasi-orbit" with Earth a few weeks ago. It was in this "quasi-orbit" since 1996 or 1997.<br /><br />The higher the delta V, the quicker the round trip. It would probably take less delta V to make a round trip to this asteroid than to make a round trip to the Moon. <br /><br />To go to the Moon you need to accelerate to almost Earth escape velocity. Then you have the Moon's large gravity well to break into, and escape from. <br /><br />To go to this asteroid, you need to accelerate beyond Earth escape velocity, but when you approach the asteroid, its almost non-existent gravity well will require almost no additional delta V to overcome.
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
Thanks for that. It clarified it quite a bit. Pity it's on the move again, otherwise it might have been reachable by the CEV. Do we know how fast it is spinning. Many small asteroids spin very fast. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
A

alokmohan

Guest
Space war was result of cold war.When ussr SENT VOTOK 1 TO SPACE THER WAS SHOCK WAVE IN USA.There was series of shoks until Gagarin reached space..The US acted in 1962 President Kennedy convinced legislatures on fund issue ,who agreed.We got appoloss
 
B

Boris_Badenov

Guest
Asteroids in these oddball orbits are relatively common. They are probably good candidates for my favorite drumbeat, capture & relocation. The delta-v needed to move it to Lunar L5 might be in the range we could do in the next 25 years. If it’s not too big. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
Martin Lo's "Interplanetary Superhighway" concept could be exploited to good effect on such a project. He designed the trajectory for Genesis, which was mathematically complex but dazzlingly simple in execution. His Superhighway concept is an extension of his work on Genesis. You can slip between various orbits with little or no effort if you take advantage of Lagrange points. It does mean fiendishly precise timing and very complicated math in working out the trajectory. It also tends to be slow. But in theory, the concept could be used to move masses too large to be usefully relocated by current propulsion technology, or, as he was proposing, to send spacecraft through the solar system very cheaply (in terms of propellant, anyway). <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>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts