[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Planetary Rings around Earth

Hi Ron and List,

I knew I had to have something wrong.   Thanks for the clarification.  But
if, as you comment, we have more space junk up there than we care to admit,
and since it seems that junk will be escalating (how many satellites are up
there now -2500?), how about we further investigate Louis Frank's small
comet theory.  If it is true, then we can eliminate communications
satellites and go back to the old fashioned, 'no space junk' method of
relaying radio signals around the curvature of the Earth - by bouncing them
off comet tails:-)

A natural, back- to- basics thought.   I know, what are the chances that
will ever happen??  I guess we'll just have to have more natural space
stations like the moon and possibly at the L4 and L5? Langrangian points:-)

Too weird?
Best,
Julia
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Baalke <BAALKE@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>
To: meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com
<meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Monday, March 22, 1999 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Planetary Rings around Earth


|>|http://cnn.com/TECH/space/9902/26/lunar.chip/index.html
|>
|>In an attempt to kill two birds with one stone:-) I correlated these two
|>recent discoveries.
|>Ron posted the above Chip Off the Old Moon message on March 1, 1999 and it
|>turns out they named it Asteroid 3753.
|
|No, sorry, these are not the same objects.  Asteroid 3753 Cruithne does
|have an orbit similar to Earth's, but is it larger and has a different
|orbit from the object mentioned in the CNN article.  The object in the CNN
|article matches the orbit of an Atlas-Agena upper stage that was used
|to launch Ranger 6 in 1964.
|
|>The existence of this alone may suggest that
|>it is a reminent from a ring and there may be more lurkers out there.
|
|Its existence just means we have more space junk up there than we care to
|admit.
|
|>I recall asking the list why it
|>was assumed that all asteroids approach
|>Earth at super high velocity.
|
|Because they originate from the asteroid belt.
|
|>I used the example of a pool
|>ball just barely dropping into the pocket.  I don't have the message and
|>it's probably in the missing archives, but I wonder if that is the
|>explanation for how this proposed catching of an asteroid and subsequent
|>breaking up happened or is there another explanation?
|
|Orbit capture requires the object to be slowed down near its closest
approach
|to another body.  This can happen either by a collision with another
|satellite or the main body itself.  If there is no slowdown, the object
|will just continue to flyby the Earth.   We've done orbit capture with
|spacecraft, but it requires precise timing and placement, and
|happens very rarely on its own in the solar system.  Over the span
|of 4.5 billion years, there are only about 8 satellites that may have been
|captured in orbit around a planet, so it is a very rare event.
|
|----------
|Archives located at:
|http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html
|
|For help, FAQ's and sub. info. visit:
|http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing_list.html
|----------
|



----------
Archives located at:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/list_best.html

For help, FAQ's and sub. info. visit:
http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing_list.html
----------