5

I am interested in building a little world involving a very realistic asteroid pair, orbiting each other, and would really appreciate some help with numbers and science for this. I would like two largish asteroids orbiting each other as close as is feasible.. (ideally I'd like a distance of up to 15km between them) Can you please make suggestions for:

- Reasonable mass, diameters and distance for the asteroids

They should be similarly sized (+/- 50%). I would like them to exert as much of a gravitational attraction on each other as they can, without being exceptional... maybe a few kilometers in diameter.. and reasonably close together. Please teach me or provide some simple math so I can provide size and mass and calculate orbital (around barycenter) elements.

- Estimates for how they rotate on their own axes

Are there any rotational constraints between the pair (like tidal locking?) What are reasonable rotation rates around their own axis? I am having a hard time visualizing how they would rotate.. would each asteroid rotate around a single axis which is static relative to the stars? Where would you place docking ports on a rotating asteroid to simplify docking maneuvers?

Brythan
  • 25,284
  • 10
  • 52
  • 103
Innovine
  • 6,086
  • 16
  • 35
  • 2
    I like the question but have a reservation about it. See the discussion here: http://meta.worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/4062/does-this-question-have-too-many-questions-in-one – Tim B Nov 04 '16 at 16:19
  • This is an excellent hard science question, and one that I would love to attack with the program I used here. However it is much too broad. Perhaps you could split your three bolded bullet points into separate questions? As of now, I am voting to close. – kingledion Nov 04 '16 at 18:38
  • Is it really too broad? It is asking ONE question.. please provide numbers and suggestions. I then broke that down into the three things I want numbers and suggestions for: size/mass, rotation/movement, and Other. It just seems like useless duplication to split this into separate questions (which I'll gladly do if y'll decide it so) as I'd just be copy pasting the context three times with the bold bit added to each at the bottom... – Innovine Nov 04 '16 at 23:20
  • I have edited the question down in size and scope, is it better now? – Innovine Nov 05 '16 at 07:54
  • HS tag about info cite - Consider alternatively the science-based and reality-check tags. Avoid using this tag as the only tag on a question. Just to ensure you fully aware about the tag – MolbOrg Nov 05 '16 at 09:37
  • well, someone complained when i had another tag. Besides, "consider" and "avoid" are not the same as "don't". You're just being anal. – Innovine Nov 05 '16 at 12:48
  • @Innovine hard-science and science-fiction are conflicting tags. You should be looking for tags that better categorize what the question is asking. What kind of science? I added orbital-mechanics, as that seems to be the main thrust of the question. – Brythan Nov 06 '16 at 10:24
  • @Innovine sure it is your right to choose which tag to use, my goal is just ensure your aware about option and important details about HS. Yes, I'm very anal about HS tag, as it is misused a lot, by implying it to be not what it actually is. I see you have chosen it after thinking what is better for your question. Fair. One who will answer your question will need more defined information about your a little world, planets orbits, masses, star mass, star energy, how far this pair from planet's, how long this pair should be stable, desired compositions (M,C ...) try to improve that information – MolbOrg Nov 06 '16 at 11:08
  • The pair are in heliocentric orbit, and the mass of the star (our sun) and long term three body issues can be ignored. I am only interested in the two body motion, and stability on human timescales. – Innovine Nov 06 '16 at 11:17
  • @Innovine if you will not add my nick name as I did it, I will not get notification, You will get because you poster of that Q, as I'm just one of commentators and I will not. Add that information in to body of your question - so basically our system, ok. distance of the orbit, inclination. composition of those asteroids. I personally think you original Q was better formulated, but I see some problems and why ppl forced you in to edit. – MolbOrg Nov 06 '16 at 11:52
  • But I think solution for that problem should be not splitting, it have to be asked in 2-3 iteration, first as just SB question to determine and define parameters of the model, to choose some model. Second step is reality-check - to determine if chosen model is a real thing, and improve it. 3th HS question itself with models and improvements from first 2 stages. Such sequence probably could lead to useful results, if you really wish to use WB to answer that question. but if you define the system as the solar system there are more variety of places where you may ask. – MolbOrg Nov 06 '16 at 11:54

1 Answers1

7

All 2-body systems end up tidally locking each other. In fact, the Earth is slowly going into tidal locking with the Moon, it just takes a lot longer for the larger body to lock with the smaller one (the moon is of course already locked). In your case, it is expected that a binary system of asteroids would be tidally locked.

I simulated the asteroids orbiting the sun at one AU, where the sun has position {0,0,0} and a velocity which offsets that of the asteroids.

Let's assume our asteroids have an average density of $~1000\frac{kg}{m^3}$. Then the mass of asteroid of $3\left(km\right)$ diameter with a volume of $\frac{4}{3}\pi 1.5^3\left(km^3\right)\approx14\left(km^3\right)=14\times10^9\left(m^3\right)$ has a mass of $14\times10^{12}\left(kg\right)$

We can estimate the relative velocity by means of an idealized circular motion, in which case $a=\frac{v^2}{r}$. We also know that the acceleration due to asteroid 2 is $$G\frac{m}{r^2}=6.674\times10^{-11}\left(N \frac{m^2}{kg^2}\right)\frac{20\times10^{12}(kg)}{\left(1.5\times10^4\right)^2(m^2)}=5.93\times10^3\left(\frac{m}{s^2}\right)$$ And thus: $$v=\sqrt{ar}=\sqrt{1.5\times10^4(m)\times5.93\times10^3\left(\frac{m}{s^2}\right)}=0.3\left(\frac{m}{s}\right)$$

This gives us a good aprroximation, and with some testing, it turns out that $0.4\left(\frac{m}{s}\right)$ gives us a good orbit:

enter image description here

So, let's use the following statistics:

Asteroid 1

Mass: $14\times10^{12}$

Position:$\left(AU,0,0\right)$

Velocity:$\left(0.4\frac{m}{s},29780\frac{m}{s},0\right)$

Asteroid 2

Mass: $20\times10^{12}$

Position:$\left(AU,15\times10^3,0\right)$

Velocity:$\left(0,29780\frac{m}{s},0\right)$

Meaning they have an initial distance and velocity relative to eachother of $\Delta s=13\times10^3$,$\Delta v=0.4\frac{m}{s}$.

Behaviour

Our asteroids have a steady near circular orbit around the sun, the orbit takes about 390 Earth days:

enter image description here

The distance between the asteroids fluctuates slightly, both in the short as long term, this is more realistic than perfectly circular orbits. The long term fluctuation is due to the influence of the sun, this gives the distance between the asteroids over 2 earth years:

enter image description here

Tidal locking

The asteroids rotate very slowly around eachother, and will almost certainly be tidally locked.

Eccentricity and Stability

This configuration is stable over single digit years, the precise configuration needs to change for stability to be maintained over more years.

For decades long stability, the eccentricity actually seems to decrease, regardless of the initial situation, however when the orbit eccentricity becomes too low (the orbits become highly circular), the orbits become suddenly less stable, here is the plot over 200 years:

enter image description here

As you can see, after 70 years or so, the asteroids start to draw closer together. Increasing velocity accuracy, draws this out,

Let me know if you need anything else, I love this stuff.

My guess is this means it's really difficult to find a stable orbit between such two small objects, however by increasing the accuracy of the velocity, it should be possible for the orbit to be stable for a few thoasand years, though such a configuration would be highly unlikely to occur naturally.

Feyre
  • 2,098
  • 10
  • 16
  • nice. influence of other bodies in solar system maybe too ? )) just them self they will be pretty stable - we see that on earth-moon and others. what about Jupiter influence it pretty significantly influence our sun, saw that in my simulations) – MolbOrg Nov 06 '16 at 12:00
  • 1
    @MolbOrg I'll try adding Jupiter, and run a longer term simulation. – Feyre Nov 06 '16 at 12:03
  • Something must be seriously wrong in the numbers above. No small objects can orbit each other every few seconds at a distance of 15km. .. lets just have one stationary, and the other going around it.. thats a path of 90km, in 20 seconds? Thats close to escape velocity for a planet, not a small rock. You're off by many zeros somewhere. – Innovine Nov 06 '16 at 18:43
  • what size is each asteroid, in km, and what is the distance between them (in km), and the time taken to orbit each other (in seconds)? tip: they might be going around the sun at 15km/s, but certainly not each other. – Innovine Nov 06 '16 at 21:19
  • Your asteroid size is 10^6m.. thats insane, thats bigger than the largest known asteroid. I said maybe a few kilometers in diameter, not thousands of kilometers. I also never said 15000km anywhere, in any edit. Again, you're out by x1000. – Innovine Nov 06 '16 at 21:23
  • @feyre thanks :) something around 3km in size, with a few km between them – Innovine Nov 07 '16 at 06:06
  • @Innovine Ok, done, also expanded a bit on the maths. – Feyre Nov 07 '16 at 12:25
  • @feyre the position for asteroid 2 is listed as (AU, 15x10^6,0) but that should be (AU, 15000, 0)... The result of 0.4m/s seems reasonable, did you forget to update just that Position value? – Innovine Nov 07 '16 at 13:37
  • @Innovine Yes, that should be 15000(m), or 15km like you asked. – Feyre Nov 07 '16 at 13:41
  • @feyre I'm very curious about the long term stability, especially since there are many binary pairs known. I think the mass ratio plays a big role since my roughly equal asteroids are unusual. Can you run the long term simulation again using a bigger mass ratio, like 10:1 and see if that is more stable? – Innovine Nov 07 '16 at 13:42
  • @feyre "All 2-body systems end up tidally locking each other." Doesn't this depend on the rigidity of the objects? Would solid stone asteroids be flexible enough to tidally lock? I do not want to use rubble piles. Also, any idea how stability and tidal locking would be affected if the asteroids are not spherical, perhaps oval or elongated. – Innovine Nov 07 '16 at 13:45
  • @Mass differences certainly help. Asteroids can have a large difference in the mass-density. If I Increase the order of magnitude of the mass of one, I immediately get a stable orbit. Water isn't required for tidal locking, it works on solid granite too. I'm not sure if odd shapes impact this. – Feyre Nov 07 '16 at 13:52
  • @feyre on the scale of the moon and earth, then very small elasticity in rock allows it to deform enough to induce tidal locking. But for smaller bodies I am not sure it scales the same.. I also am instinctively expecting odd shapes to mess with this in a very severe way (since shape deformation is involved in establishing tidal locking, I am assuming it can create wobbly forces which impact the rotations.. i have no numbers to back this up though). – Innovine Nov 07 '16 at 14:15
  • @feyre one more question (and thanks for your patience so far!) would another body (such as a small spacecraft) remain stable at the barycenter? – Innovine Nov 07 '16 at 14:15
  • Well like I said I'm not sure, and as far as I can find, astronomers aren't sure either but tend to expect any binary system of asteroids to be tidally locked. You may find more info here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/736/1/L19/meta . Yes, the barycenter would be stable, an orbit however would be chaotic, and maybe impossible. – Feyre Nov 07 '16 at 14:25