|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Do satellites affect planetary rotational inertia?
I know that a rigid body's rotational inertia increases as its density
decreases (for example, if I stretch my arms out while whirling on a swivel chair, I spin slower). Does this effect occur when an artificial satellite launches into orbit and thereby spreads out the rotating terrestrial mass? A satellite does not have much mass compared to the planet's mass, but we are mathematicians, so we know that we will eventually have to cope with the problem of "limit of rotational inertia as satellite mass approaches planetary mass." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Do satellites affect planetary rotational inertia?
[Mod. note: top-posting fixed. Please don't top-post -- mjh]
Josh Sorkin wrote: I know that a rigid body's rotational inertia increases as its density decreases (for example, if I stretch my arms out while whirling on a swivel chair, I spin slower). Does this effect occur when an artificial satellite launches into orbit and thereby spreads out the rotating terrestrial mass? Josh, A body's (or a system's) _angular momentum_ is conserved, so if the mass distribution, in toto, moves further from the center of rotation, the speed of rotation will slow, and vice versa. (That's often illustrated by the ice skater spinning and pulling in their arms with their spin speeding up.) So taking the matter gravitationally bound to the Earth as the whole Earth system, yes, moving things outward slows the system's rotation. But keep in mind that the orbital angular velocity change (from the one revolution per day that characterizes anything fixed to the Earth's surface) that applies to all artificial satellites other than the geosynchronous ones must be taken into account, too. Since we have few (any?) orbiting satellites beyond the geosynchronous range, this means that launching satellites slows the Earth's rotation even more than would be the case in the ice skater illustration (assuming the satellite has a non-zero orbital component in the same direction as the Earth's rotation--the satellite would slow the Earth if it orbits in the opposite direction). Any polar component of the satellite's orbit will end up causing some rotation in the Earth system in the opposite direction as the orbit. Note, too, that pretty much all of the momentum transfer that gets satellites into orbit is balanced by momentum transferred to rocket exhaust, which becomes part of the atmosphere and not (immediately) the planet per se. So keep in mind that you have to take into account the motion of the atmosphere, too--it all contributes to the net angular momentum of the Earth system. Lastly, mass that was not formerly gravitationally bound to the Earth is falling into the Earth system all the time, so the amount of gravitationally bound mass in the Earth system is steadily increasing. Depending on the trajectory on which it falls in, it could either increase or decrease the magnitude Earth system's net angular momentum and will typically change its direction somewhat. (But that of the Solar system would remain constant, apart from any mass that enters our system and becomes gravitationally bound to it.) I seem to recall reading a few years ago that very precise measurements of the Earths rotational rate have disclosed the effects of large dams holding more mass (the water they contain) at a greater distance from the Earth's center than was the case before those dams were built. Assuming that was an accurate report, it's the same phenomenon. Randall Schulz |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Do satellites affect planetary rotational inertia?
[Mod. note: top-posting fixed. Please don't top-post -- mjh]
Josh Sorkin wrote: I know that a rigid body's rotational inertia increases as its density decreases (for example, if I stretch my arms out while whirling on a swivel chair, I spin slower). Does this effect occur when an artificial satellite launches into orbit and thereby spreads out the rotating terrestrial mass? Josh, A body's (or a system's) _angular momentum_ is conserved, so if the mass distribution, in toto, moves further from the center of rotation, the speed of rotation will slow, and vice versa. (That's often illustrated by the ice skater spinning and pulling in their arms with their spin speeding up.) So taking the matter gravitationally bound to the Earth as the whole Earth system, yes, moving things outward slows the system's rotation. But keep in mind that the orbital angular velocity change (from the one revolution per day that characterizes anything fixed to the Earth's surface) that applies to all artificial satellites other than the geosynchronous ones must be taken into account, too. Since we have few (any?) orbiting satellites beyond the geosynchronous range, this means that launching satellites slows the Earth's rotation even more than would be the case in the ice skater illustration (assuming the satellite has a non-zero orbital component in the same direction as the Earth's rotation--the satellite would slow the Earth if it orbits in the opposite direction). Any polar component of the satellite's orbit will end up causing some rotation in the Earth system in the opposite direction as the orbit. Note, too, that pretty much all of the momentum transfer that gets satellites into orbit is balanced by momentum transferred to rocket exhaust, which becomes part of the atmosphere and not (immediately) the planet per se. So keep in mind that you have to take into account the motion of the atmosphere, too--it all contributes to the net angular momentum of the Earth system. Lastly, mass that was not formerly gravitationally bound to the Earth is falling into the Earth system all the time, so the amount of gravitationally bound mass in the Earth system is steadily increasing. Depending on the trajectory on which it falls in, it could either increase or decrease the magnitude Earth system's net angular momentum and will typically change its direction somewhat. (But that of the Solar system would remain constant, apart from any mass that enters our system and becomes gravitationally bound to it.) I seem to recall reading a few years ago that very precise measurements of the Earths rotational rate have disclosed the effects of large dams holding more mass (the water they contain) at a greater distance from the Earth's center than was the case before those dams were built. Assuming that was an accurate report, it's the same phenomenon. Randall Schulz |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Do satellites affect planetary rotational inertia?
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Any polar component of the satellite's orbit will end up causing some rotation in the Earth system in the opposite direction as the orbit. What does "polar" mean in this context? Does it refer to polar coordinates or a component in the direction of the planet's poles? Note, too, that pretty much all of the momentum transfer that gets satellites into orbit is balanced by momentum transferred to rocket exhaust, which becomes part of the atmosphere and not (immediately) the planet per se. How does the problem change in the case of a body without atmosphere, such as the Moon? Lastly, mass that was not formerly gravitationally bound to the Earth is falling into the Earth system all the time, so the amount of gravitationally bound mass in the Earth system is steadily increasing. Does the rate of satellite mass increase exceed the rate of extraterrestrial mass arrival? Since I first posted, I've thought about decaying orbits that bring the matter back to the planet; I wonder if enough re-entry occurs to counteract the effect of orbitally stretching the planet. But if the effect nevertheless occurs (however damped), can we exploit it to gain control of the rotation period? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Do satellites affect planetary rotational inertia?
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Any polar component of the satellite's orbit will end up causing some rotation in the Earth system in the opposite direction as the orbit. What does "polar" mean in this context? Does it refer to polar coordinates or a component in the direction of the planet's poles? Note, too, that pretty much all of the momentum transfer that gets satellites into orbit is balanced by momentum transferred to rocket exhaust, which becomes part of the atmosphere and not (immediately) the planet per se. How does the problem change in the case of a body without atmosphere, such as the Moon? Lastly, mass that was not formerly gravitationally bound to the Earth is falling into the Earth system all the time, so the amount of gravitationally bound mass in the Earth system is steadily increasing. Does the rate of satellite mass increase exceed the rate of extraterrestrial mass arrival? Since I first posted, I've thought about decaying orbits that bring the matter back to the planet; I wonder if enough re-entry occurs to counteract the effect of orbitally stretching the planet. But if the effect nevertheless occurs (however damped), can we exploit it to gain control of the rotation period? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Do satellites affect planetary rotational inertia?
Josh,
Josh Sorkin wrote: Randall R Schulz wrote: Any polar component of the satellite's orbit will end up causing some rotation in the Earth system in the opposite direction as the orbit. What does "polar" mean in this context? Does it refer to polar coordinates or a component in the direction of the planet's poles? It means an orbit inclined to the equator. If it was inclined 90 degrees, it would be a purely polar orbit. If it was inclined 0 degrees, it would be a purely equatorial orbit. Note, too, that pretty much all of the momentum transfer that gets satellites into orbit is balanced by momentum transferred to rocket exhaust, which becomes part of the atmosphere and not (immediately) the planet per se. How does the problem change in the case of a body without atmosphere, such as the Moon? Possibly not at all. If the rocket exhaust has enough velocity to escape, then the body from which the satellite is being launched is not affected since the particles and molecules of the exhaust gas are no longer part of that body and any matter gravitationally bound to it. If the exhaust gases do not have escape velocity, then they'll repeatedly strike the surface and rebound and each such even will cause momentum transfer and so the analysis is the same as the atmospheric case (in effect, those gases are or are part of the planet's atmosphere, even if it's extremely tenuous). It's similar if the exhaust gases become bound to the surface, just that the momentum transfer is slightly different. Lastly, mass that was not formerly gravitationally bound to the Earth is falling into the Earth system all the time, so the amount of gravitationally bound mass in the Earth system is steadily increasing. Does the rate of satellite mass increase exceed the rate of extraterrestrial mass arrival? Not even close. The first estimate I could find in a cursory Google search stated that the Earth gains 40,000 metric tons every year. Since I first posted, I've thought about decaying orbits that bring the matter back to the planet; I wonder if enough re-entry occurs to counteract the effect of orbitally stretching the planet. Well, a satellite that comes back down leaves the whole system the way it was when it left (ignoring the mass gain from extraterrestrial infall, anyway). If you want to get very persnickety about it, you'd have to consider what happens to the expelled exhaust gases used for orbital and attitude control and other station-keeping operations required by satellites that are to remain in long-term orbits. If any of those gases escape the Earth (probably unlikely, but that's just my offhand intuition), then once the satellite was de-orbited, there'd be a little "unrecovered" momentum. What do you mean by "orbitally stretching the planet?" You're planning ahead for the sun's increase in output as it ages towards its future as a red giant? It's hard to see how that's a priority problem, right now. But if the effect nevertheless occurs (however damped), can we exploit it to gain control of the rotation period? Eh? Control the Earth's rotational period? The Earth may be an insignificant speck of the overall solar system, it's pretty damn heavy. The business about rotational period changes from water in dams and changes in the wind patterns (both vastly more significant than anything we have or could hope to do in terms of moving mass into orbit) is still measured in mere milliseconds. Besides, what's the point in changing the Earth's rotational rate? You want to create permanent jet-lag among all diurnal species? Randall Schulz |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Do satellites affect planetary rotational inertia?
Josh,
Josh Sorkin wrote: Randall R Schulz wrote: Any polar component of the satellite's orbit will end up causing some rotation in the Earth system in the opposite direction as the orbit. What does "polar" mean in this context? Does it refer to polar coordinates or a component in the direction of the planet's poles? It means an orbit inclined to the equator. If it was inclined 90 degrees, it would be a purely polar orbit. If it was inclined 0 degrees, it would be a purely equatorial orbit. Note, too, that pretty much all of the momentum transfer that gets satellites into orbit is balanced by momentum transferred to rocket exhaust, which becomes part of the atmosphere and not (immediately) the planet per se. How does the problem change in the case of a body without atmosphere, such as the Moon? Possibly not at all. If the rocket exhaust has enough velocity to escape, then the body from which the satellite is being launched is not affected since the particles and molecules of the exhaust gas are no longer part of that body and any matter gravitationally bound to it. If the exhaust gases do not have escape velocity, then they'll repeatedly strike the surface and rebound and each such even will cause momentum transfer and so the analysis is the same as the atmospheric case (in effect, those gases are or are part of the planet's atmosphere, even if it's extremely tenuous). It's similar if the exhaust gases become bound to the surface, just that the momentum transfer is slightly different. Lastly, mass that was not formerly gravitationally bound to the Earth is falling into the Earth system all the time, so the amount of gravitationally bound mass in the Earth system is steadily increasing. Does the rate of satellite mass increase exceed the rate of extraterrestrial mass arrival? Not even close. The first estimate I could find in a cursory Google search stated that the Earth gains 40,000 metric tons every year. Since I first posted, I've thought about decaying orbits that bring the matter back to the planet; I wonder if enough re-entry occurs to counteract the effect of orbitally stretching the planet. Well, a satellite that comes back down leaves the whole system the way it was when it left (ignoring the mass gain from extraterrestrial infall, anyway). If you want to get very persnickety about it, you'd have to consider what happens to the expelled exhaust gases used for orbital and attitude control and other station-keeping operations required by satellites that are to remain in long-term orbits. If any of those gases escape the Earth (probably unlikely, but that's just my offhand intuition), then once the satellite was de-orbited, there'd be a little "unrecovered" momentum. What do you mean by "orbitally stretching the planet?" You're planning ahead for the sun's increase in output as it ages towards its future as a red giant? It's hard to see how that's a priority problem, right now. But if the effect nevertheless occurs (however damped), can we exploit it to gain control of the rotation period? Eh? Control the Earth's rotational period? The Earth may be an insignificant speck of the overall solar system, it's pretty damn heavy. The business about rotational period changes from water in dams and changes in the wind patterns (both vastly more significant than anything we have or could hope to do in terms of moving mass into orbit) is still measured in mere milliseconds. Besides, what's the point in changing the Earth's rotational rate? You want to create permanent jet-lag among all diurnal species? Randall Schulz |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Do satellites affect planetary rotational inertia?
Randall R Schulz wrote:
What do you mean by "orbitally stretching the planet?" You're planning ahead for the sun's increase in output as it ages towards its future as a red giant? It's hard to see how that's a priority problem, right now. I used the term "orbital stretch" incorrectly, I think; I've since seen it refer to the time interval of a planet's revolution about a star. I wanted to describe the launch-caused decrease in density. If the planet has a greater volume (because more pieces of it are farther from the center, it also has a greater surface area. This permits lower population density (assuming we can make habitable satellites), which addresses the relatively urgent problem of overcrowding. But if the effect nevertheless occurs (however damped), can we exploit it to gain control of the rotation period? [snip] what's the point in changing the Earth's rotational rate? You want to create permanent jet-lag among all diurnal species? In general, science seems to progress as we gain the ability to modify values of a system. We will make better astrophysics if we can compare a rotating world to a non-rotating one. Moreover, the planet's angular motion suggests the analogy of a gear. Can we make it do work in the same way we harness smaller gears? Lastly, changing spin rates generally produces interesting consequences, as shown by playing a "33 rpm" record at 45 revolutions per minute. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Do satellites affect planetary rotational inertia?
Randall R Schulz wrote:
What do you mean by "orbitally stretching the planet?" You're planning ahead for the sun's increase in output as it ages towards its future as a red giant? It's hard to see how that's a priority problem, right now. I used the term "orbital stretch" incorrectly, I think; I've since seen it refer to the time interval of a planet's revolution about a star. I wanted to describe the launch-caused decrease in density. If the planet has a greater volume (because more pieces of it are farther from the center, it also has a greater surface area. This permits lower population density (assuming we can make habitable satellites), which addresses the relatively urgent problem of overcrowding. But if the effect nevertheless occurs (however damped), can we exploit it to gain control of the rotation period? [snip] what's the point in changing the Earth's rotational rate? You want to create permanent jet-lag among all diurnal species? In general, science seems to progress as we gain the ability to modify values of a system. We will make better astrophysics if we can compare a rotating world to a non-rotating one. Moreover, the planet's angular motion suggests the analogy of a gear. Can we make it do work in the same way we harness smaller gears? Lastly, changing spin rates generally produces interesting consequences, as shown by playing a "33 rpm" record at 45 revolutions per minute. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Planetary Systems With Habitable Earths? | Rodney Kelp | Policy | 6 | April 2nd 04 02:32 PM |
PDF (Planetary Distance Formula) explains DW 2004 / Quaoar and Kuiper Belt | hermesnines | Astronomy Misc | 10 | February 27th 04 02:14 AM |
Majority of Planetary Nebulae May Arise from Binary Systems (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 9th 04 05:02 AM |
NASA To Host Annual Planetary Sciences Meeting | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | August 28th 03 07:25 PM |
Chiral gravity of the Solar system | Aleksandr Timofeev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 13th 03 04:14 PM |