Max Fagin 🚀🔴🌐☄🌘 Profile picture
Jul 9 9 tweets 3 min read Read on X
I encountered a delightful little astrodynamics proof last week when an astronaut casually stated it as a fact, and when I looked skeptical, he just smiled and said, "Check it yourself."

Here's the statement:

"It takes 2 hours to orbit at the surface of any object made of rock"
My first thought was that it couldn't be right since Low Earth Orbit period isn't 2 hours; it's 1.5. But of course,🌎isn't a rock; 🌎has an iron core that bumps our density up to ~twice that of rock, (and actually makes Earth the densest planet in the solar system) Image
My second thought was that ~2 hrs did seem like a surprisingly good approximation for the low orbit periods of the rocky objects I could call to mind.

🌎: 1.5 hrs
🌔: 2.0 hrs
🔴: 1.8 hrs

3 different sized ~rocky objects, each ~2 hr low orbit periods.

So what's going on here?
Turns out, if you take the relation between a sphere's density, mass and volume and use it to expand the equation for the period of a low circular orbit to be in terms of R (instead of the more familiar equation expressed in terms of both R and M) then all of the R terms cancel! Image
To put that another way: The radius and mass of an object *don't independently matter* for its low orbit period; it's only the density that matters. And if you plug in the density of a typical rock (~2700 kg/m3), you get almost exactly 2 hours! Image
As soon as I finished this check, I remembered ~2 hrs from a paper somewhere. I found it later: The distribution of asteroid rotation speeds vs size from 10.1093/mnras/stab412.

Notice the cutoff? Above a certain size, there are no asteroids that spin faster than once every 2 hrs Image
Is that a coincidence? Nope! Same physics. Most asteroids are mostly rock, and once they get big enough to be held together by their own gravity, if they *were* spinning faster than once every 2 hours, then parts of them would (by definition) be in orbit.
Material would get thrown off their equator until the asteroid shrank/spun down to the 2 hrs period limit. I remember seeing this figure in grad school, but I hadn't connected it to the general conclusion that "all rocky objects have low orbit periods of ~2 hours". Very cool!
Addendum: Nothing special about rock either, we can generalize this statement to orbits around objects made of other stuff:

Metal (~7000 kg/m3): 1.2 hrs
Gas giants (~1400 kg/m3): 2.8 hrs
Ice/water (~1000 kg/m3): 3.3 hrs

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Max Fagin 🚀🔴🌐☄🌘

Max Fagin 🚀🔴🌐☄🌘 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MaxFagin

Jul 2, 2022
I am where I am in my career today because of hard work, support from friends and family, and luck. But today, I ran into a former SpaceX colleague who reminded me of a factor I often forget: I am where I am today because I did theater in school to fulfill a sports credit.🧵
The first space job I ever had was in '10 where I was fortunate to be one of 14 students from a pool of +1000 candidates for the @NASAAmesAcademy. I worked in the @NASAAmes director’s office with Gen. Pete Worden. Still the most insightful 3 months I’ve had into how NASA works.
At one of our tagups, after General "Call me Pete" Worden talked me through the org chart on his whiteboard (I still have the notes!) he mentioned that the thing that had made my resume stand out from the pile was... that I’d listed my student theater experience on my resume😳
Read 15 tweets
Aug 31, 2019
Oh! I am *so* glad you asked that question! Thread incoming:
1/ If you want to make an experimental astronomer cringe, here are two good ways to do it:

1) Touch an eyepiece with your bare finger.

2) Say the words "flat field".
2/ Every digital camera (including the ones used in telescopes) is composed of a grid of millions of pixels. These pixels are, fundamentally, just semiconductor devices for turning light (photons) into an electric signal (electrons) that a computer can read.
Read 20 tweets
Jul 7, 2019
Hey! It's been weeks since I raved about how awesome #SpaceElevators are. That's too long. Here is my take on 5 portrayals of space elevators that I've seen in science fiction (Not definitive, and limiting myself to visual media).
#5) The planet Drill from Star Trek 2009. Completely impractical, and only exists because it's a fun setting for a 23rd-century sword fight. But not a complete loss because it correctly shows how space elevators are deployed (lowered down from orbit, not built up from the ground) Image
4) Ace Combat 7, The Lighthouse. In game, it's built to enable space-based solar power, which is accurate! Space-based solar power isn't really competitive with ground-based solar power unless launch costs to geosynch fall to <$1000/kg (Space elevators would operate at ~$500/kg) Image
Read 8 tweets
Dec 21, 2018
3... 2... 1... 22:23 GMT! Happy #WinterSoltice Earth!

I'm going to let you in on a little trade secret: There is script astronomers are supposed to follow today when explaining what the solstice is, and that script goes something like this:
1) Construct a strawman who mistakenly thinks winter is because Earth has gotten further from the sun.

2) Ask the strawman "Ah! But if that *were* the cause of winter, then why is it summer in the southern hemisphere right now?"
3) Pivot to a discussion of the tilt of the Earth's axis (the real reason for the seasons).

4) Bonus Points: Use the words "obliquity", "eccentricity" and "precession" as much as possible to give your audience some impressive words to drop at their holiday parties.
Read 13 tweets
Nov 1, 2018
November is here, and that means a massive shift is coming. And by "massive" I am of course referring to the redefinition of the kilogram unit of mass that the world has been building up to for more than 100 years. Let me explain:
1/ I've had an unhealthy fascination with metrology (the study of measurement) ever since my 2nd year as a physics major when I took a class devoted to duplicating historic physics experiments, so please indulge me for going into heavy detail (get it?) about the kilogram.
2/ So what actually *defines* a unit of measurement? If you're American, you probably know a mile is 5280 feet and a foot is 12 inches and an inch is 2.54 centimeters etc. But where does this chain of definitions end? Is it turtles all the way down?
Read 22 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(