|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sedna, space probes?, colonies? what's next? | TKalbfus | Policy | 265 | July 13th 04 12:00 AM |
The New NASA Mission Has Been Grossly Mischaracterized. | Dan Hanson | Policy | 25 | January 26th 04 07:42 PM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |