Q/As about space

Rtyh-12

New member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
918
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Kraken Mare
This thread is for questions about space, like Q/A's about ISS and Q/A's FOR STS, but more general. I think it's better to have all questions in a single thread, to keep the forum organized.

To start, I've got a question myself: the definition of a planet is that (amongst other things) it has to clear the space around it of debris. Is there a clear line, that says 'here, the room is clear, but here it's cluttered'? And what if the asteroid belt was where Earth is now? (perhaps it would get absorbed? Ouch)
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,612
Reaction score
2,330
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
There is no hard definition of "what has cleared its orbit" really means. It is more the "best available evidence" situation. For the eight planets in the solar system, it is pretty easy, since each contains over 98% of the total mass in their orbital region, there is only 2% (or less) left that is not:

  • Inside the planet
  • A moon of the planet
  • At a lagrange point of this planet
 

Rtyh-12

New member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
918
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Kraken Mare
Urwumpe said:
There is no hard definition of "what has cleared its orbit" really means.
That's exactly what I meant, but...

Urwumpe said:
For the eight planets in the solar system, it is pretty easy, since each contains over 98% of the total mass in their orbital region,
...I guess you're right.
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,612
Reaction score
2,330
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
It is also maybe a bit like binary logic: If the planet has more than a unknown fraction of the mass concentrated in its system, it will pretty quickly (on a geological timescale) reach the >98% fraction because of its dominance, while smaller planets will be unable to "defend" their orbital regions from debris pushed away by the already established planets.

But how much mass would be needed, that is a matter of ongoing research, as far as I can tell.
 

N_Molson

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
9,283
Reaction score
3,251
Points
203
Location
Toulouse
Most of the asteroids or other debris (mostly ice - which doesn't mean water, you have carbonic ice etc...- ) in the Solar system are :

- In the rings of the giant planets.
- Between Mars and Jupiter orbits (probable remnants of an aborted planet).
- In the Kuiper Belt (beyond Pluto)
- Most of them are in the Oort cloud (expands to 1-2 lightyears from the Sun, when you're out of it you're halfway to Proxima Centauri)...

You also have the NEO (Near Earth Objects), which orbit around the Sun roughly at the same distance than Earth. That can be asteroids captured by Sun/Earth gravitational fields or remnants of the birth of the planet. Or Saturn-V stages...
 

Dambuster

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
790
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Location
UK
I've always wondered about this scenario: if you had a small object (perhaps a sphere with a diameter of 1 meter), and you ran it into a planet at near-light speed, what would the physical consequences be? I realise that you'd be releasing a massive amount of energy in a very short amount of time, but I have a hard time imagining a 1 meter object would being able to destroy a planet.

Also, if you had a spacecraft going at 0.9c, and it collided with a 1mm speck of paint (assuming it's not carrying Whipple shields) - would that be bye-bye spacecraft, or not?
 
Last edited:

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,612
Reaction score
2,330
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
I've always wondered about this scenario: if you had a small object (perhaps a sphere with a diameter of 1 meter), and you ran it into a planet at near-light speed, what would the physical consequences be? I realise that you'd be releasing a massive amount of energy in a very short amount of time, but I have a hard time imagining a 1 meter object would being able to destroy a planet.

Also, if you had a spacecraft going at 0.9c, and it collided with a 1mm speck of paint (assuming it's not carrying Whipple shields) - would that be bye-bye spacecraft, or not?

It is both essentially the same because of relativity - Earth runs into the small object just like your spacecraft into the paint flake.

If the impact happens at a multiple of the speed of sound of the materials of both colliding objects, the effects only scale by kinetic energy, a large slow impact causes as much damage as a fast small one.

The size of the objects doesn't really matter, A much smaller impactor as needed for the supersonic speed criteria will be instantly destroyed and vaporized on impact, just like a small part of the impacted object, but a large part of its energy travels on as shock waves inside the material of the bigger object. Only if the objects become similar in size, size starts to matter.

Lets choose 0.9c as example velocity in both cases:

That means a Lorentz factor of [math]\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-0.9^2}} = 2.294[/math].


That means the kinetic energy at impact (complete rest of the projectile) is:

[math]K = ( \gamma - 1) \cdot mc^2 = 1.294c^2 \cdot m = 1.165 \cdot 10^{17} \cdot m[/math]


If you have a 1m ball of iron, weighting about 4700 kg, would have the kinetic energy equivalent of 130.9 Gigaton TNT - that is more than the sum of all nuclear weapons on the world.

The approximate energy released when the largest fragment of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 impacted Jupiter was estimated to be equal to 6 million megatons (or 6 trillion tons) of TNT - still 50 times more.

The paint flake would weight about one gramm, resulting in an energy equivalent of 27.8 kiloton TNT - about Hiroshima.

And in both cases, a fair amount of the energy will be in form of X-Ray radiation, because of the extreme forces.

Such, any such small objects would be really deadly against any spacecraft hull, the only way to prevent their damage is to slow them down or deflect them long before they reach the spacecraft hull.
 
Last edited:

RisingFury

OBSP developer
Addon Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
6,427
Reaction score
492
Points
173
Location
Among bits and Bytes...
Most of the asteroids or other debris (mostly ice - which doesn't mean water, you have carbonic ice etc...- ) in the Solar system are :

- In the rings of the giant planets.
- Between Mars and Jupiter orbits (probable remnants of an aborted planet).
- In the Kuiper Belt (beyond Pluto)
- Most of them are in the Oort cloud (expands to 1-2 lightyears from the Sun, when you're out of it you're halfway to Proxima Centauri)...

You also have the NEO (Near Earth Objects), which orbit around the Sun roughly at the same distance than Earth. That can be asteroids captured by Sun/Earth gravitational fields or remnants of the birth of the planet. Or Saturn-V stages...


In the rings of giant planets? The total mass of all rings in the solar system is as much as a spit in the ocean.
 

Dambuster

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
790
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Location
UK
I was just watching this video:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYZK-QE3Wgk&feature=fvw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYZK-QE3Wgk&feature=fvw[/ame], and I'm finding it a bit confusing. Why are the plumes from the rocket exhaust going out so far to each side? I've seen videos of similar things (I'm especially thinking of Saturn 5 launches), but I'm confused as to what forces are acting on the plumes to drive them that far away from the flight path of the Space Shuttle. Any help or pointers to interesting related websites is much appreciated! :)
 
Last edited:

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,612
Reaction score
2,330
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Supersonic flow ;)

The rocket engines essentially produce thrust by ejecting gas at high pressure, that wants to expand. When the air around the engine gets thinner, the exhaust expands more. Next, rocket engines are not perfect nozzles, just really existing ones. There is a thin boundary layer between exhaust and wall, that permit a small bit of the exhaust to travel even a tiny bit forward of the rocket engine, before the atmosphere slowed it down. At high altitude, you essentially have a M-shaped cross section in the exhaust of a rocket engine.

Next, you also have the end shock of the rocket traveling at supersonic speed. When the rocket displaces the air at more than the speed of sound, it produces a shock cone, pushing the air away, the thing that produces the sonic boom. But that is not the only sonic boom, at the end of the rocket, you also have one, pushing the air into the void that your spacecraft is leaving - but you only hear two if the spacecraft is long enough, for example the Space Shuttle.

Since the rocket engine exhaust is usually faster than the local airflow, it produces its own expanding shock front and can expand along this end shock cone.
 
Last edited:

Dambuster

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
790
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Location
UK
Thanks! Which of those two things would probably be the dominant one?
 

Rtyh-12

New member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
918
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Kraken Mare
I was wondering...

If an object falling into a black hole seems to slow down, if I watch it from Earth for example, and never cross the event horizon, then how come matter does fall into the black hole and it gets bigger?
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,612
Reaction score
2,330
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
I was wondering...

If an object falling into a black hole seems to slow down, if I watch it from Earth for example, and never cross the event horizon, then how come matter does fall into the black hole and it gets bigger?

Well, from the view of the black hole... ;)
 

Fizyk

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
285
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Location
Warsaw
Website
ebvalaim.net
Rtyh-12 said:
I was wondering...

If an object falling into a black hole seems to slow down, if I watch it from Earth for example, and never cross the event horizon, then how come matter does fall into the black hole and it gets bigger?
It doesn't. From our point of view there are no black holes, only stars that are still collapsing, but slooooowly. The additional matter also falls slowly, but never crosses the horizon. But since it gets really close to the horizon, from our point of view it doesn't make much difference, it might as well have fallen inside, the gravitational pull will be the same.

Things look different though from the point of view for someone who is falling. The horizon is no border then, you will fall inside and not even notice it (well, not taking into account that you will be torn apart by tidal forces). After short time you will fall to the singularity and then... nobody knows what.
 

Rtyh-12

New member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
918
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Kraken Mare
Thanks!

Buuuuuut... there are black holes, from our point of view too. I hope...
 

Urwumpe

Not funny anymore
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
37,612
Reaction score
2,330
Points
203
Location
Wolfsburg
Preferred Pronouns
Sire
Thanks!

Buuuuuut... there are black holes, from our point of view too. I hope...

No, there are things that are as close to a black hole as possible from our point of view. So close, that we can tell that, beyond the veil of relativity, there has to be a real black hole already.
 

Jarvitä

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2008
Messages
2,030
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
Serface, Earth
No, there are things that are as close to a black hole as possible from our point of view. So close, that we can tell that, beyond the veil of relativity, there has to be a real black hole already.

But how does that fit into the current trend of describing everything from our point of view, eg the "50 year old black hole" that's millions of light years away?
 
Top