Timeline for Could you stably orbit around a square (cubic) body? Would the orbit destabilize automatically if not corrected by input?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2017 at 11:32 | answer | added | uhoh | timeline score: 9 | |
| Dec 9, 2017 at 9:08 | comment | added | uhoh | Just found this earlier treatment by authors at Griffith University research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/… @Antzi that's remarkable! :-) | |
| S Dec 8, 2017 at 16:15 | history | suggested | user10509 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added 'around' - avoid confusion with the cube orbiting
|
| Dec 8, 2017 at 8:28 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Dec 8, 2017 at 16:15 | |||||
| Dec 8, 2017 at 5:21 | comment | added | Antzi | Funfact: Poincaré can read as "square point" in french. He had a very fitting name :p | |
| Dec 7, 2017 at 23:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 8, 2017 at 8:27 | |||||
| Jun 30, 2017 at 18:27 | comment | added | honeste_vivere | Ignoring gravity affecting the cube, if you are far enough away, I think the higher order moments would diminish sufficiently that it would be just like any other Gauss' law problem, would it not? | |
| Apr 3, 2017 at 15:35 | comment | added | Uwe | Cubic bodies of planet size could not exist long, the gravitational forces will reform them to a sphere or a rotational ellipsoid. But if the orbit was stable when the cubic shape existed, will it be stable during transformation and final shape? | |
| Apr 3, 2017 at 1:56 | comment | added | uhoh | Yep, that's how I feel too! It may take a little time but we'll get there. There may be write-ups of this research in popular science or math news sites or journals, I'll take a look. | |
| Apr 2, 2017 at 21:09 | comment | added | Keith DGuy | Thank you very much! Now down to the work of understanding it. :) | |
| Apr 2, 2017 at 14:07 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 3, 2017 at 10:32 | |||||
| Apr 2, 2017 at 4:16 | comment | added | uhoh | Figures, 7 through 9 of the first paper do show example plots of three families of orbits (A, B, C). Note that the $x_2, y_2, z_2$ axes in Figure 8 are fixed to the non-symmetric plane, not the original cube axes. | |
| Apr 1, 2017 at 23:06 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSpaceExp/status/848310723046494208 | ||
| Apr 1, 2017 at 18:28 | comment | added | uhoh | While both papers have many fascinating looking plots, most are either plots of energy, invariant manifolds, or Poincaré maps. I don't have time right now to post a quality answer, but I'm sure there are other people who can. Excellent question!! | |
| Apr 1, 2017 at 18:23 | comment | added | uhoh | I downloaded these last year and planned on plotting some of the orbits. The first paper deals with a non-rotating cube, and finds there exist stable orbits both in the x, y, and z=0 planes, as well as other out-of-plane orbits. The second paper deals with orbits around a rotating cube - the rotating lumpy gravity field makes for an exciting ride. I believe they find stable orbits, some of which "hover" or orbit around a certain region above the rotating cube, like a geosynchronous orbit would. | |
| Apr 1, 2017 at 17:43 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 1, 2017 at 18:29 | |||||
| Apr 1, 2017 at 17:42 | history | asked | Keith DGuy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |