APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Comments and questions about the APOD on the main view screen.
User avatar
APOD Robot
Otto Posterman
Posts: 5454
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:27 am

APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by APOD Robot » Thu Aug 03, 2023 4:06 am

Image The Falcon and the Redstone

Explanation: In a photo from the early hours of July 29 (UTC), a Redstone rocket and Mercury capsule are on display at Cape Canaveral Launch Complex 5. Beyond the Redstone, the 8 minute long exposure has captured the arcing launch streak of a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket. The Falcon's heavy communications satellite payload, at a record setting 9 metric tons, is bound for geosynchronous orbit some 22,000 miles above planet Earth. The historic launch of a Redstone rocket carried astronaut Alan Shepard on a suborbital spaceflight in May 1961 to an altitude of about 116 miles. Near the top of the frame, this Falcon rocket's two reusable side boosters separate and execute brief entry burns. They returned to land side by side at Canaveral's Landing Zone 1 and 2 in the distance.

<< Previous APOD This Day in APOD Next APOD >>

Roy

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by Roy » Thu Aug 03, 2023 12:48 pm

Reusable boosters! Reentry burns! Land side by side! Sci-fi made real.

User avatar
orin stepanek
Plutopian
Posts: 8200
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Nebraska

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by orin stepanek » Thu Aug 03, 2023 3:03 pm

20230728-FH-Streak-Michael.jpg
Launching Falcoln!
DSC_0022-Edit1024.jpg
Landing the boosters!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Orin

Smile today; tomorrow's another day!

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3015
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by johnnydeep » Thu Aug 03, 2023 3:33 pm

It's amazing to me that these SpaceX launches have become so routine now that they barely ever make the evening news. Except the manned ones of course. And the rare malfunctions. I long for the day when those too are equally routine.

PS - those flawless booster landings never fail to blow my mind. SpaceX has been doing yeoman's work for sure.
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18387
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by Chris Peterson » Thu Aug 03, 2023 3:34 pm

johnnydeep wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 3:33 pm It's amazing to me that these SpaceX launches have become so routine now that they barely ever make the evening news. Except the manned ones of course. And the rare malfunctions. I long for the day when those too are equally routine.

PS - those flawless booster landings never fail to blow my mind. SpaceX has been doing yeoman's work for sure.
Absent much if any use for manned flights, I hope they never become routine!
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3015
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by johnnydeep » Thu Aug 03, 2023 3:48 pm

Also, from the geosynchronous orbit in the text, we have:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/chapter5-1/ wrote:
Geosynchronous Orbits

A geosynchronous orbit (GEO) is a prograde, low inclination orbit about Earth having a period of 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds. A spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit appears to remain above Earth at a constant longitude, although it may seem to wander north and south. The spacecraft returns to the same point in the sky at the same time each day.

Geostationary Orbits

To achieve a geostationary orbit, a geosynchronous orbit is chosen with an eccentricity of zero, and an inclination of either zero, right on the equator, or else low enough that the spacecraft can use propulsive means to constrain the spacecraft's apparent position so it hangs seemingly motionless above a point on Earth. (Any such maneuvering on orbit, or making other adjustments to maintain its orbit, is a process called station keeping.) The orbit can then be called geostationary. This orbit is ideal for certain kinds of communication satellites and meteorological satellites. The idea of a geosynchronous orbit for communications spacecraft was first popularised by science fiction author Sir Arthur C. Clarke in 1945, so it is sometimes called the Clarke orbit.
But I'm having a hard time understanding the subtleties here. Geostationary is a sub-class of geosynchronous, that's clear. But:

Are all these orbits at the same height? (No, I guess not since it depends on eccentricity?)

Would there be any advantages in using a retrograde instead of a prograde orbit?

What about high inclination orbits?

What about an orbit that passes over a (geographic) north or south pole (inclination = 90 degrees)?

Isn't an inclination of zero identical to being "right on the equator" (by definition)?

How eccentric could an orbit be and still be either geosynchronous or geostationary?
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3015
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by johnnydeep » Thu Aug 03, 2023 3:52 pm

The Falcon and the Winder Soldier - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9208876/

The Falcon and the Snowman - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087231/
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}

User avatar
Rauf
Science Officer
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:47 pm

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by Rauf » Thu Aug 03, 2023 5:10 pm

johnnydeep wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 3:48 pm Also, from the geosynchronous orbit in the text, we have:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/chapter5-1/ wrote:
Geosynchronous Orbits

A geosynchronous orbit (GEO) is a prograde, low inclination orbit about Earth having a period of 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds. A spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit appears to remain above Earth at a constant longitude, although it may seem to wander north and south. The spacecraft returns to the same point in the sky at the same time each day.

Geostationary Orbits

To achieve a geostationary orbit, a geosynchronous orbit is chosen with an eccentricity of zero, and an inclination of either zero, right on the equator, or else low enough that the spacecraft can use propulsive means to constrain the spacecraft's apparent position so it hangs seemingly motionless above a point on Earth. (Any such maneuvering on orbit, or making other adjustments to maintain its orbit, is a process called station keeping.) The orbit can then be called geostationary. This orbit is ideal for certain kinds of communication satellites and meteorological satellites. The idea of a geosynchronous orbit for communications spacecraft was first popularised by science fiction author Sir Arthur C. Clarke in 1945, so it is sometimes called the Clarke orbit.
But I'm having a hard time understanding the subtleties here. Geostationary is a sub-class of geosynchronous, that's clear. But:

Are all these orbits at the same height? (No, I guess not since it depends on eccentricity?)

Would there be any advantages in using a retrograde instead of a prograde orbit?

What about high inclination orbits?

What about an orbit that passes over a (geographic) north or south pole (inclination = 90 degrees)?

Isn't an inclination of zero identical to being "right on the equator" (by definition)?

How eccentric could an orbit be and still be either geosynchronous or geostationary?
A retrograde GSO? Is that even possible?

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18387
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by Chris Peterson » Thu Aug 03, 2023 5:39 pm

johnnydeep wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 3:48 pm Also, from the geosynchronous orbit in the text, we have:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/chapter5-1/ wrote:
Geosynchronous Orbits

A geosynchronous orbit (GEO) is a prograde, low inclination orbit about Earth having a period of 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds. A spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit appears to remain above Earth at a constant longitude, although it may seem to wander north and south. The spacecraft returns to the same point in the sky at the same time each day.

Geostationary Orbits

To achieve a geostationary orbit, a geosynchronous orbit is chosen with an eccentricity of zero, and an inclination of either zero, right on the equator, or else low enough that the spacecraft can use propulsive means to constrain the spacecraft's apparent position so it hangs seemingly motionless above a point on Earth. (Any such maneuvering on orbit, or making other adjustments to maintain its orbit, is a process called station keeping.) The orbit can then be called geostationary. This orbit is ideal for certain kinds of communication satellites and meteorological satellites. The idea of a geosynchronous orbit for communications spacecraft was first popularised by science fiction author Sir Arthur C. Clarke in 1945, so it is sometimes called the Clarke orbit.
But I'm having a hard time understanding the subtleties here. Geostationary is a sub-class of geosynchronous, that's clear. But:

Are all these orbits at the same height? (No, I guess not since it depends on eccentricity?)
Right. Unless the eccentricity is zero, the height varies.
Would there be any advantages in using a retrograde instead of a prograde orbit?
I believe satellites have occasionally been launched to the west to prevent launch debris from coming down over populated areas. But in general, no.
What about high inclination orbits?

What about an orbit that passes over a (geographic) north or south pole (inclination = 90 degrees)?
What about them? They are common, of course. Polar orbits in particular are popular for Earth observation satellites.
Isn't an inclination of zero identical to being "right on the equator" (by definition)?
Yes.
How eccentric could an orbit be and still be either geosynchronous or geostationary?
There is no limit on eccentricity for a geosynchronous orbit (theoretically... there are certainly practical limits). A geostationary orbit must have an eccentricity of zero.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3015
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by johnnydeep » Thu Aug 03, 2023 6:07 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 3:34 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 3:33 pm It's amazing to me that these SpaceX launches have become so routine now that they barely ever make the evening news. Except the manned ones of course. And the rare malfunctions. I long for the day when those too are equally routine.

PS - those flawless booster landings never fail to blow my mind. SpaceX has been doing yeoman's work for sure.
Absent much if any use for manned flights, I hope they never become routine!
I knew you'd say that. :ssmile: But besides employing manned space missions whose sole purpose is scientific discovery (best done robotically as you often state), there is also space tourism and long term colonization, with destinations of Earth orbiting space stations, and Lunar and Martian exclaves.
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3015
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by johnnydeep » Thu Aug 03, 2023 6:16 pm

Rauf wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 5:10 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 3:48 pm Also, from the geosynchronous orbit in the text, we have:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/chapter5-1/ wrote:
Geosynchronous Orbits

A geosynchronous orbit (GEO) is a prograde, low inclination orbit about Earth having a period of 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds. A spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit appears to remain above Earth at a constant longitude, although it may seem to wander north and south. The spacecraft returns to the same point in the sky at the same time each day.

Geostationary Orbits

To achieve a geostationary orbit, a geosynchronous orbit is chosen with an eccentricity of zero, and an inclination of either zero, right on the equator, or else low enough that the spacecraft can use propulsive means to constrain the spacecraft's apparent position so it hangs seemingly motionless above a point on Earth. (Any such maneuvering on orbit, or making other adjustments to maintain its orbit, is a process called station keeping.) The orbit can then be called geostationary. This orbit is ideal for certain kinds of communication satellites and meteorological satellites. The idea of a geosynchronous orbit for communications spacecraft was first popularised by science fiction author Sir Arthur C. Clarke in 1945, so it is sometimes called the Clarke orbit.
But I'm having a hard time understanding the subtleties here. Geostationary is a sub-class of geosynchronous, that's clear. But:

Are all these orbits at the same height? (No, I guess not since it depends on eccentricity?)

Would there be any advantages in using a retrograde instead of a prograde orbit?

What about high inclination orbits?

What about an orbit that passes over a (geographic) north or south pole (inclination = 90 degrees)?

Isn't an inclination of zero identical to being "right on the equator" (by definition)?

How eccentric could an orbit be and still be either geosynchronous or geostationary?
A retrograde GSO? Is that even possible?
By the definition I quoted, I guess not, since a retrograde GSO, would return to the same point in the sky more often (or less often???) than once per Earth rotation. Hmm, in the simplest case of zero eccentricity and zero inclination, what would the path of such an object be as seen from the ground and how often would it return to the same position in the sky (relative to the stars)?
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3015
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by johnnydeep » Thu Aug 03, 2023 6:24 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 5:39 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 3:48 pm Also, from the geosynchronous orbit in the text, we have:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/chapter5-1/ wrote:
Geosynchronous Orbits

A geosynchronous orbit (GEO) is a prograde, low inclination orbit about Earth having a period of 23 hours 56 minutes 4 seconds. A spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit appears to remain above Earth at a constant longitude, although it may seem to wander north and south. The spacecraft returns to the same point in the sky at the same time each day.

Geostationary Orbits

To achieve a geostationary orbit, a geosynchronous orbit is chosen with an eccentricity of zero, and an inclination of either zero, right on the equator, or else low enough that the spacecraft can use propulsive means to constrain the spacecraft's apparent position so it hangs seemingly motionless above a point on Earth. (Any such maneuvering on orbit, or making other adjustments to maintain its orbit, is a process called station keeping.) The orbit can then be called geostationary. This orbit is ideal for certain kinds of communication satellites and meteorological satellites. The idea of a geosynchronous orbit for communications spacecraft was first popularised by science fiction author Sir Arthur C. Clarke in 1945, so it is sometimes called the Clarke orbit.
But I'm having a hard time understanding the subtleties here. Geostationary is a sub-class of geosynchronous, that's clear. But:

Are all these orbits at the same height? (No, I guess not since it depends on eccentricity?)
Right. Unless the eccentricity is zero, the height varies.
Would there be any advantages in using a retrograde instead of a prograde orbit?
I believe satellites have occasionally been launched to the west to prevent launch debris from coming down over populated areas. But in general, no.
What about high inclination orbits?

What about an orbit that passes over a (geographic) north or south pole (inclination = 90 degrees)?
What about them? They are common, of course. Polar orbits in particular are popular for Earth observation satellites.
I know those exist, but by definition then, they wouldn't be either geosynchronous (because inclination = 90 degrees) or geostationary (obviously), when naively, I'd say they should be geosynchronous.
Isn't an inclination of zero identical to being "right on the equator" (by definition)?
Yes.
How eccentric could an orbit be and still be either geosynchronous or geostationary?
There is no limit on eccentricity for a geosynchronous orbit (theoretically... there are certainly practical limits). A geostationary orbit must have an eccentricity of zero.
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}

User avatar
VictorBorun
Captain
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2020 10:25 pm

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by VictorBorun » Thu Aug 03, 2023 9:56 pm

johnnydeep wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 6:16 pm a retrograde GSO, would return to the same point in the sky more often (or less often???) than once per Earth rotation. Hmm, in the simplest case of zero eccentricity and zero inclination, what would the path of such an object be as seen from the ground and how often would it return to the same position in the sky (relative to the stars)?
there are 2 ways to return a satellite to the same point in the sky every 12 hours:
1) make its orbit lower that the geostationary
2) make its orbit retrograde but keep the same radius

something like (1) is in fact used by the GPS crowd but the orbits are not equatorial.

That incline has no effect for the orbit period though; the only effect for the point in the sky is that the visits, every 12 hours, are not in the equatorial plane. Which is welcome by GPS users in high latitudes

ErasmusRoterodamus

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by ErasmusRoterodamus » Thu Aug 03, 2023 11:05 pm

Magnificent what man can accomplish with a disciplined mind; frightening what we can't do without the discipline!!

User avatar
Rauf
Science Officer
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:47 pm

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by Rauf » Fri Aug 04, 2023 8:21 am

VictorBorun wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 9:56 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 6:16 pm a retrograde GSO, would return to the same point in the sky more often (or less often???) than once per Earth rotation. Hmm, in the simplest case of zero eccentricity and zero inclination, what would the path of such an object be as seen from the ground and how often would it return to the same position in the sky (relative to the stars)?
there are 2 ways to return a satellite to the same point in the sky every 12 hours:
1) make its orbit lower that the geostationary
2) make its orbit retrograde but keep the same radius

something like (1) is in fact used by the GPS crowd but the orbits are not equatorial.

That incline has no effect for the orbit period though; the only effect for the point in the sky is that the visits, every 12 hours, are not in the equatorial plane. Which is welcome by GPS users in high latitudes
I am wondering if it's possible to be in a similar orbit around the moon. I am not sure what it's called, Lunar Stationary orbit? If my calculator is correct, an orbit around 86700 km above the lunar surface with 0 eccentricity and inclination has an orbital period equivalent to one lunar sidereal day.
But achieving that orbit, is it possible? I mean with Earth so close, will the satellite gets affected by Earth's gravity?

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3015
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by johnnydeep » Fri Aug 04, 2023 1:30 pm

Rauf wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 8:21 am
VictorBorun wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 9:56 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 6:16 pm a retrograde GSO, would return to the same point in the sky more often (or less often???) than once per Earth rotation. Hmm, in the simplest case of zero eccentricity and zero inclination, what would the path of such an object be as seen from the ground and how often would it return to the same position in the sky (relative to the stars)?
there are 2 ways to return a satellite to the same point in the sky every 12 hours:
1) make its orbit lower that the geostationary
2) make its orbit retrograde but keep the same radius

something like (1) is in fact used by the GPS crowd but the orbits are not equatorial.

That incline has no effect for the orbit period though; the only effect for the point in the sky is that the visits, every 12 hours, are not in the equatorial plane. Which is welcome by GPS users in high latitudes
I am wondering if it's possible to be in a similar orbit around the moon. I am not sure what it's called, Lunar Stationary orbit? If my calculator is correct, an orbit around 86700 km above the lunar surface with 0 eccentricity and inclination has an orbital period equivalent to one lunar sidereal day.
But achieving that orbit, is it possible? I mean with Earth so close, will the satellite gets affected by Earth's gravity?
I didn't check your 86700 km figure, but if accurate, it would seem that such a satellite of the moon would get too close to the earth at some points in its orbit, at which the Earth's pull would exceed the Moon's, judging by the long detailed discussion here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... to-the-moo

A short and likely far too simplistic a synopsis is:
Earth is about 100x more massive than the moon, and since F∝M/r2
, the distance from Earth to the astronaut would have to be about sqrt(100)
= 10x further than from the moon to the astronaut. Therefore, the astronaut falls "up" about 90% of the way to the moon.
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18387
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by Chris Peterson » Fri Aug 04, 2023 2:29 pm

johnnydeep wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 1:30 pm
Rauf wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 8:21 am
VictorBorun wrote: Thu Aug 03, 2023 9:56 pm

there are 2 ways to return a satellite to the same point in the sky every 12 hours:
1) make its orbit lower that the geostationary
2) make its orbit retrograde but keep the same radius

something like (1) is in fact used by the GPS crowd but the orbits are not equatorial.

That incline has no effect for the orbit period though; the only effect for the point in the sky is that the visits, every 12 hours, are not in the equatorial plane. Which is welcome by GPS users in high latitudes
I am wondering if it's possible to be in a similar orbit around the moon. I am not sure what it's called, Lunar Stationary orbit? If my calculator is correct, an orbit around 86700 km above the lunar surface with 0 eccentricity and inclination has an orbital period equivalent to one lunar sidereal day.
But achieving that orbit, is it possible? I mean with Earth so close, will the satellite gets affected by Earth's gravity?
I didn't check your 86700 km figure, but if accurate, it would seem that such a satellite of the moon would get too close to the earth at some points in its orbit, at which the Earth's pull would exceed the Moon's, judging by the long detailed discussion here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... to-the-moo

A short and likely far too simplistic a synopsis is:
Earth is about 100x more massive than the moon, and since F∝M/r2
, the distance from Earth to the astronaut would have to be about sqrt(100)
= 10x further than from the moon to the astronaut. Therefore, the astronaut falls "up" about 90% of the way to the moon.
Consider that outside of a few very specially constructed cases, any three-body system is, at best, metastable.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3015
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by johnnydeep » Fri Aug 04, 2023 3:58 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 2:29 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 1:30 pm
Rauf wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 8:21 am

I am wondering if it's possible to be in a similar orbit around the moon. I am not sure what it's called, Lunar Stationary orbit? If my calculator is correct, an orbit around 86700 km above the lunar surface with 0 eccentricity and inclination has an orbital period equivalent to one lunar sidereal day.
But achieving that orbit, is it possible? I mean with Earth so close, will the satellite gets affected by Earth's gravity?
I didn't check your 86700 km figure, but if accurate, it would seem that such a satellite of the moon would get too close to the earth at some points in its orbit, at which the Earth's pull would exceed the Moon's, judging by the long detailed discussion here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... to-the-moo

A short and likely far too simplistic a synopsis is:
Earth is about 100x more massive than the moon, and since F∝M/r2
, the distance from Earth to the astronaut would have to be about sqrt(100)
= 10x further than from the moon to the astronaut. Therefore, the astronaut falls "up" about 90% of the way to the moon.
Consider that outside of a few very specially constructed cases, any three-body system is, at best, metastable.
From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability wrote:In chemistry and physics, metastability denotes an intermediate energetic state within a dynamical system other than the system's state of least energy. A ball resting in a hollow on a slope is a simple example of metastability. If the ball is only slightly pushed, it will settle back into its hollow, but a stronger push may start the ball rolling down the slope. Bowling pins show similar metastability by either merely wobbling for a moment or tipping over completely.
So, a three-body orbital system is "metastable" in that it can continue to exist indefinitely in isolation, but any sufficiently strong perturbation will cause it to deteriorate?
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18387
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by Chris Peterson » Fri Aug 04, 2023 4:37 pm

johnnydeep wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 3:58 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 2:29 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 1:30 pm

I didn't check your 86700 km figure, but if accurate, it would seem that such a satellite of the moon would get too close to the earth at some points in its orbit, at which the Earth's pull would exceed the Moon's, judging by the long detailed discussion here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... to-the-moo

A short and likely far too simplistic a synopsis is:

Consider that outside of a few very specially constructed cases, any three-body system is, at best, metastable.
From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability wrote:In chemistry and physics, metastability denotes an intermediate energetic state within a dynamical system other than the system's state of least energy. A ball resting in a hollow on a slope is a simple example of metastability. If the ball is only slightly pushed, it will settle back into its hollow, but a stronger push may start the ball rolling down the slope. Bowling pins show similar metastability by either merely wobbling for a moment or tipping over completely.
So, a three-body orbital system is "metastable" in that it can continue to exist indefinitely in isolation, but any sufficiently strong perturbation will cause it to deteriorate?
No, it self-perturbs. Even in isolation it is not stable.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3015
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by johnnydeep » Fri Aug 04, 2023 6:43 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 4:37 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 3:58 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 2:29 pm

Consider that outside of a few very specially constructed cases, any three-body system is, at best, metastable.
From Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metastability wrote:In chemistry and physics, metastability denotes an intermediate energetic state within a dynamical system other than the system's state of least energy. A ball resting in a hollow on a slope is a simple example of metastability. If the ball is only slightly pushed, it will settle back into its hollow, but a stronger push may start the ball rolling down the slope. Bowling pins show similar metastability by either merely wobbling for a moment or tipping over completely.
So, a three-body orbital system is "metastable" in that it can continue to exist indefinitely in isolation, but any sufficiently strong perturbation will cause it to deteriorate?
No, it self-perturbs. Even in isolation it is not stable.
Alright. So, "autometastable" perhaps. Or just "chaotic".
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 18387
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by Chris Peterson » Sat Aug 05, 2023 4:42 am

johnnydeep wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 6:43 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 4:37 pm
johnnydeep wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 3:58 pm

From Wikipedia:



So, a three-body orbital system is "metastable" in that it can continue to exist indefinitely in isolation, but any sufficiently strong perturbation will cause it to deteriorate?
No, it self-perturbs. Even in isolation it is not stable.
Alright. So, "autometastable" perhaps. Or just "chaotic".
Metastability and chaos are closely related. Mathematically, all physically realized n-body systems where n>2 are chaotic.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
johnnydeep
Commodore
Posts: 3015
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: APOD: The Falcon and the Redstone (2023 Aug 03)

Post by johnnydeep » Sat Aug 05, 2023 1:48 pm

Chris Peterson wrote: Sat Aug 05, 2023 4:42 am
johnnydeep wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 6:43 pm
Chris Peterson wrote: Fri Aug 04, 2023 4:37 pm

No, it self-perturbs. Even in isolation it is not stable.
Alright. So, "autometastable" perhaps. Or just "chaotic".
Metastability and chaos are closely related. Mathematically, all physically realized n-body systems where n>2 are chaotic.
:idea:
--
"To B̬̻̋̚o̞̮̚̚l̘̲̀᷾d̫͓᷅ͩḷ̯᷁ͮȳ͙᷊͠ Go......Beyond The F͇̤i̙̖e̤̟l̡͓d͈̹s̙͚ We Know."{ʲₒʰₙNYᵈₑᵉₚ}