Go Back   Science Forums > Physical Sciences Forums > Astronomy and Cosmology
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-06-2006   #1 (permalink)
Janus's Avatar
Understanding


 



Not Ranked  0 score     
Hill spheres, Roche limits and Periods, OH MY!

Over in the Space Voyage thread I mentioned that it was not possible to place satellites in selenostationary orbits around the moon. I went on to say that this was true for any tidally locked body (any body that rotates with the same period as its revolution.) I thought that here I would show how this is determined to be true

First we'll start with the formula for the radius of the Hill sphere.



Where a is the distance between our two main bodies.
m is the mass of the body that we are finding the Hill sphere for.
M is the mass of the body that the smaller body is orbiting.

Now we take the formula for the period of a satellite:



If we substitute R from the first equation for r in in the second, we get an equation that gives the period for a satellite orbiting at the edge of the Hill sphere. Since no satellite can exist outside the Hill sphere, this is also the longest period a satellite can have around the body:







Now we compare this period with the rotation of our satellite, which is equal to the orbital period of that satellite in a tidal lock situation:



Comparing the two, we get:









Which shows that the longest period our satellite can have will always be shorter than the orbital period of the body it is orbiting, and by extension, shorter than that of the rotational period of that body if it is tidally locked.


Now let's look at the other extreme for satellite orbits; the Roche limit. The Roche limit is the point where tidal forces become great enough to tear the body apart. (one small caveat: The Roche limit only effects satellites large enough that the tidal forces can overcome the tensile strength of the satellite.)

Often you will see the Roche Limit expressed as



Where R is the radius of the body our satellite is orbiting.

This expression is somewhat vague as it makes two assumptions. One is that the satellite and main body are of equal density, and the other is that the bdy is "fluid" in nature. (not rigid, which is more descriptive of most moons)

Correcting for these assumptions we get the following relation:



Where and are the densities of the primary and satellite respectively.

Now we can determine the period of a satellite orbiting at the Roche limit by inserting this equation into the orbital period equation as we did above:







Now we're going to get a little sneaky.

The density of a body is equal to its mass divided by its volume, and since the volume of a sphere is expressed as:



we can express the density of the primary as



If we now insert this expression into our orbital period equation, we get:



After canceling and simplifying, we get:



Since and G are constants, the only variable left is .

This means that the minimum period for a moon that is subject to break up from passing within the Roche Limit is determined by the density of the moon alone and no other factor.

DISCLAIMER
The above works under the following conditions: That the moon is much less massive than the planet it revolves around and that the planet is nearly spherical and not too much of an oblate spheroid.

Last edited by Janus; 06-07-2009 at 04:00 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2006   #2 (permalink)
Mercedes Benzene's Avatar
Student

Moderator
Editor

Location:
Montgomery County, Maryland
Latest blog entry:
 
Mercedes Benzene has a reputation beyond reputeMercedes Benzene has a reputation beyond reputeMercedes Benzene has a reputation beyond reputeMercedes Benzene has a reputation beyond reputeMercedes Benzene has a reputation beyond reputeMercedes Benzene has a reputation beyond reputeMercedes Benzene has a reputation beyond reputeMercedes Benzene has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Mercedes Benzene
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
Re: Hill spheres, Roche limits and Periods, OH MY!

OH dear!

That is way too many equations in one post, for me.
haha.


----------------
My Hypo-blog.

"No power in the 'verse can stop me."

Moderator -- Chemistry, Biology, Watercooler, Competitions, Architecture.
Join our Facebook group
Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2006   #3 (permalink)
CraigD's Avatar
Creating

Administrator
Editor

Location:
Silver Spring, MD, USA
 
CraigD has a reputation beyond reputeCraigD has a reputation beyond reputeCraigD has a reputation beyond reputeCraigD has a reputation beyond reputeCraigD has a reputation beyond reputeCraigD has a reputation beyond reputeCraigD has a reputation beyond reputeCraigD has a reputation beyond reputeCraigD has a reputation beyond reputeCraigD has a reputation beyond reputeCraigD has a reputation beyond repute
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
Post Lagrangian points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus
Over in the Space Voyage thread I mentioned that it was not possible to place satellites in selenostationary orbits around the moon. I went on to say that this was true for any tidally locked body (any body that rotates with the same period as its revolution.) I thought that here I would show how this is determined to be true …
My confidence in Janus’s reputation for sound, rigorous mechanics, is enough for me to just enjoy reading his demonstration, without any attempt at criticism. I applaud you, Janus!

To play the devil’s advocate, though, the L1 and L2 Earth-Moon Lagrangian points, located by definition at points on the Moon’s Hill sphere, are effectively selenostationary. Objects placed in these points would appear stationary from the Moon’s surface.


----------------
Moderator: Computers and Technology; Medical Science; Science Projects and Homework; Philosophy of Science; Physics and Mathematics; Environmental Studies
Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2006   #4 (permalink)
coldcreation's Avatar
Resident Bright


Location:
Barcelona and CT
 
coldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud of
Send a message via AIM to coldcreation Send a message via Skype™ to coldcreation
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
Re: Hill spheres, Roche limits and Periods, OH MY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus
Over in the Space Voyage thread I mentioned that it was not possible to place satellites in selenostationary orbits around the moon. I went on to say that this was true for any tidally locked body (any body that rotates with the same period as its revolution.) I thought that here I would show how this is determined to be true
Wow, that was a tremendous post.
Question: why are you interested in showing the impossibility of placing satellites in selenostationary orbits around the moon?
CC


----------------
Coldcreation
Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2006   #5 (permalink)
Janus's Avatar
Understanding


 



Not Ranked  0 score     
Re: Lagrangian points

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigD

To play the devil’s advocate, though, the L1 and L2 Earth-Moon Lagrangian points, located by definition at points on the Moon’s Hill sphere, are effectively selenostationary. Objects placed in these points would appear stationary from the Moon’s surface.
And to play the devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, actually, they are not selenostationary, but selenosychronous. They will trace out a 12 degree arc as seen from the Moon's surface. This is due the Moon's libration.

While the Moon's orbital and rotational periods are the same, they do not always share the same angular velocity. The Moon rotates at a steady rate, however, since the Moon's orbit is elliptical, is orbital velocity changes over the course of its orbit. As a result, the Moon's rotation alternately lags behind and and pulls ahead of its orbit. The Moon therefore "wobbles" with respect to its orbital radial (The line running through both the Moon's and Earth's center) Since the L1 and L2 point lay on that line, the Moon also "wobbles" with respect to these points and they will not be stationary with respect to the surface of the Moon.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2006   #6 (permalink)
Nootropic's Avatar
Questioning


Location:
A noncommutative noetherian ring
 
Nootropic is just really niceNootropic is just really niceNootropic is just really niceNootropic is just really nice
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
Re: Hill spheres, Roche limits and Periods, OH MY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus
DISCLAIMER
The above works under the following conditions: That the moon is much less massive than the planet it revolves around and that the planet is nearly spherical and not too much of an oblate spheroid.

So what exactly happens then? Much more complicated? I would attempt to look it up, but I'm currently taking a break from my math project and getting even more distracted is not a good thing for me...

And what's the largest ratio of moon to planet discovered?
Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2006   #7 (permalink)
coldcreation's Avatar
Resident Bright


Location:
Barcelona and CT
 
coldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud of
Send a message via AIM to coldcreation Send a message via Skype™ to coldcreation
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
Re: Lagrangian points

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus
And to play the devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, actually, they are not selenostationary, but selenosychronous. They will trace out a 12 degree arc as seen from the Moon's surface. This is due the Moon's libration.

While the Moon's orbital and rotational periods are the same, they do not always share the same angular velocity. The Moon rotates at a steady rate, however, since the Moon's orbit is elliptical, is orbital velocity changes over the course of its orbit. As a result, the Moon's rotation alternately lags behind and and pulls ahead of its orbit. The Moon therefore "wobbles" with respect to its orbital radial (The line running through both the Moon's and Earth's center) Since the L1 and L2 point lay on that line, the Moon also "wobbles" with respect to these points and they will not be stationary with respect to the surface of the Moon.
Question: why are you interested in showing the impossibility of placing satellites in selenostationary orbits around the moon?

Forgive me if it's a personal question, but I would like to know, before I jump in...
CC


----------------
Coldcreation
Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2006   #8 (permalink)
Janus's Avatar
Understanding


 



Not Ranked  0 score     
Re: Lagrangian points

Quote:
Originally Posted by coldcreation
Question: why are you interested in showing the impossibility of placing satellites in selenostationary orbits around the moon?

Forgive me if it's a personal question, but I would like to know, before I jump in...
CC
The reason that I brought the subject up was that in the Space Voyage thread, mention was made of using such oribts for communication satellites.

As to extending the argument to the more general case: This was something I discovered some time back while indulging my own intellectual curousity and I found it interesting.

The reason I posted it here was that I thought that others would find it interesting.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2006   #9 (permalink)
Janus's Avatar
Understanding


 



Not Ranked  0 score     
Re: Hill spheres, Roche limits and Periods, OH MY!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nootropic
So what exactly happens then? Much more complicated? I would attempt to look it up, but I'm currently taking a break from my math project and getting even more distracted is not a good thing for me...

And what's the largest ratio of moon to planet discovered?
Well, for one thing, if the Moon is massive enough, then the equation for the orbital period is more accurately stated as:

and thus the mass of the Moon becomes a factor in determining the orbital period.

As for the oblate spheroid, the equation for volume becomes:



Where is the oblateness of the planet.

If you use this equation for in our substituition for the planet density as we did above, the oblateness does not cancel out and also becomes a factor in determining the period of the orbit.

At present the moon that is closest to its planet in mass is Charon, the moon of Pluto.
Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2006   #10 (permalink)
coldcreation's Avatar
Resident Bright


Location:
Barcelona and CT
 
coldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud ofcoldcreation has much to be proud of
Send a message via AIM to coldcreation Send a message via Skype™ to coldcreation
 



Not Ranked  0 score     
Lagrangian Points: Local and Global Stability

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus
And to play the devil's advocate to your devil's advocate, actually, they are not selenostationary, but selenosychronous. They will trace out a 12 degree arc as seen from the Moon's surface. This is due the Moon's libration.

While the Moon's orbital and rotational periods are the same, they do not always share the same angular velocity. The Moon rotates at a steady rate, however, since the Moon's orbit is elliptical, is orbital velocity changes over the course of its orbit. As a result, the Moon's rotation alternately lags behind and and pulls ahead of its orbit. The Moon therefore "wobbles" with respect to its orbital radial (The line running through both the Moon's and Earth's center) Since the L1 and L2 point lay on that line, the Moon also "wobbles" with respect to these points and they will not be stationary with respect to the surface of the Moon.
And to play the devil's advocate to your devil's advocate to CraigD's devil's advocate, I would go even further with a fundamental generalization...

The necessary stability conditions for real systems to exist is attained through gravitational interactions leading to periodic recurrences of resonance patterns, which in turn lead to symmetries in the mean motion of objects and ensuring repetition of certain geometrical configurations. And, the existence of special areas and points in space positioned in conspicuous locations within and around the intrinsic and combined gravitational fields of massive bodies__providing a basic mechanism for long-term stability__is present in a wide variety of dynamical systems and on all scales.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the Lagrange discovery. Not only does it confine the number of possible structures that can exist, it demonstrates a regularity and pattern among those systems that do exist.

The Lagrange system reveals how interacting gravitational fields of massive bodies generate periodicity, just as the Pauli principle generates the periodicity among atomic elements in the case of electrons orbiting atomic nuclei__as in the Mendeleev periodic table of elements__and the systematic pattern among quark clusters that represent the subsistence of a profound layer of reality on the smallest scales. (The forces that cluster quarks together are not yet fully understood but some of the patterns and features have already been identified).

Our ability to recognize that nature forms regular patterns at all scales (from quarks to superclusters) and limits the number of available structures, rather than giving way to disorganized chaos, is essential if we are to make any progress at all in cosmology.

In Théorie des fonctions analytiques (1796), more than one hundred years before Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski, Joseph-Louis Lagrange referred to dynamics as a “four-dimensional geometry.” Without doubt, such illustrations aimed at their audiences, with physical intent, were certainly not geometric in any ordinary sense; but unquestionably they were geometric in their concern with planimetric space of gravitating systems, and in the fundamentals of their relationship with matter.

I can (and should elaborate) if the above is yet unclear.

From mechanics (for starters), it is thought that the existence of stable orbits depends on the distance, the mass, and the angular momentum of given bodies (stemming from some ad hoc initial condition); where centrifugal energy (or force) exactly counters the tendency of gravitational attraction. A stable state is possible only if the velocity of a massive body (e.g., a planet) is precisely adjusted. For example, if the velocity of the earth were any different it would either crash into the sun or break away from the solar system. In the absence of the existence of this dependence, conditions for the stability of motion are not satisfied.

Note, in passing, a similar problem occurs when contemplating the expansion of the universe (where a fine-tuning problem exists between the pull of gravity and the expansive tendency due to lambda, quintessence, dark energy or other; you choose).

CC


----------------
Coldcreation
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scientists Narrow the Time Limits for the Human and Chimpanzee Split C1ay Science News 3 01-03-2006 08:24 AM
theoretical limits to tunnel strength tolworthy Chemistry 9 10-10-2005 10:18 AM
Physicists Measure Tiny Force That Limits How Far Machines Can Shrink C1ay Science News 0 09-26-2005 04:38 AM
Stem Cell Research Limits Buffy Political sciences 9 05-25-2005 11:50 AM

» Advertisement
» Current Poll
Who's the sexiest man alive? Johnny Depp or Robert Pattinson?
Johnny Depp - 27.27%
3 Votes
Robert Pattinson - 0%
0 Votes
Someone else (please specify) - 45.45%
5 Votes
I'm too macho to think a guy is sexy - 27.27%
3 Votes
Total Votes: 11
You may not vote on this poll.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:42 PM.

Hypography?

Hypography [n.]: A combination of "hyperlink" and "bibliography" - ie, a list of links to electronic documents. Comparable to discography and bibliography, but not cartography.

We have been online since May 2000, and aim to be the best place to find and share science-related content of all kinds.

Share the love!

Please add more science to your life. Use our RSS feeds on your blog, your portal, or your favorite feedreader!


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2
Copyright © 2000-2009 Hypography
Part of the Hypography - Science for Everyone Network