Is the moon leaving, or are we shrinking by 38 mm/year

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:rHTub.19859$vJ6.15193@fed1read05...
Dear Brad Guth:

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:ovzub.12009$vJ6.10338@fed1read05...
Dear Brad Guth:

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
om...
Obviously there's tidal gravitational forces continuously at work, as
otherwise something as massive as the Earth/Moon union would become
one.

A real sidelight, but I don't think they would "become one". I think
that
in the existing system, there is enough angular momentum that there is
no
way a single "partially liquid" body wouldn't spin out one or more
lobes.
You might jam the two together, but I don't think they'd stay together.

That's certainly a good thing to know about.

Any better notion upon my village idiot efforts at obtaining the
kinetic energy requirement for just sustaining the lunar orbit?

Zero additional energy should do OK. The solar wind boosts one side, and
retards the other. The earth would have to freeze solid for all eternity,
of course. All the way down to the core. Might as well tidally lock it as
well.

Otherwise, it'll just continue to gain angular momentum from the Earth.

Should pretty much stop the recession...

David A. Smith

I agree about the solar wind being a given "zero".

From: MLuttgens )
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e... site%3Dgroups

"To calculate the effects of the deceleration on the orbit
of planets (or satellites)"

"According to LLR data, the Moon is receding from Earth at a rate of
about 3.8 centimeters per year. Such increase of orbital distance,
attributed to tidal effects on Earth, could mask the present small
decrease of 1.87 cm/year."

Unless I've misunderstood as usual, this above page seems to be
indicating that the coefficient of lunar orbital friction is actually
quite a fair percentage upon the overall scheme of things, as 1.87
cm/year is nearly half of the 3.8 cm of reported recession, thereby
the overall energy necessary in order to impose the 3.8 cm/year
recession may in fact become a factor of 3.8 + 1.87 = 5.67 cm/year,
which in turn might further suggest 6 terawatts worth instead of my
initial guestimate of 5 terawatts that was based upon adding one
terawatt to what Marvin ) specified as to his
calculations being 4 terawatts worth of recession energy (excluding
matters of friction) that was capable of inducing the 3.8 cm/year.

A satellite of the rough area of the moon, cutting through at the very
least viscosity of 6e6 atoms/m3 at 1.025 km/s (more likely density
6e9/m3) will require some portion of said tidal energy just for
sustaining the status quo. If it were not for the tidal gravity doing
its thing, seems like an orbit degrade of 1.87 cm/year is sufficiently
reasonable (nothing is forever).

Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS