[HN Gopher] Lagrange points could become battlegrounds in a new ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Lagrange points could become battlegrounds in a new space race
        
       Author : elorant
       Score  : 23 points
       Date   : 2023-12-25 12:56 UTC (10 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.sciencealert.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencealert.com)
        
       | TooSmugToFail wrote:
       | How precisely you need to 'park' on a Lagrange point?
       | 
       | There's obviously a singular, ideal Lagrange point, but I would
       | assume there's something like a practically viable sphere around
       | it where you would benefit from the advantages.
       | 
       | Given the vast distances, I would assume that this viable sphere
       | is sufficiently large to accommodate more than enough man-made
       | space infrastructure.
        
         | PartiallyTyped wrote:
         | IIRC JWST is not actually at the Lagrange point, but it drifts
         | a bit, and occasionally fixes itself.
        
           | pests wrote:
           | A sibling comment to yours points out that it actually orbits
           | the L2 at the same distance the moon orbits the Earth and
           | takes 6 months to complete a revolution.
        
         | ano-ther wrote:
         | Seems to be quite roomy, at least at L2:
         | 
         | > Webb orbits around L2; it does not sit stationary precisely
         | at L2. Webb's orbit is represented in this screenshot from our
         | deployment video (below), roughly to scale; it is actually
         | similar in size to the Moon's orbit around the Earth! This
         | orbit (which takes Webb about 6 months to complete once) keeps
         | the telescope out of the shadows of both the Earth and Moon.
         | 
         | https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html
        
           | lostmsu wrote:
           | If L2 is unstable, how can you orbit around it? Is it a point
           | of attraction? If so, how is it not stable?
        
         | dexwiz wrote:
         | L2 is unstable, so you need some amount of active thrust to
         | stay in the orbit. The point is relatively close to the moon,
         | and changes enough to not collect natural bodies. Same with L1
         | and L3. Once the James Webb runs out of fuel it will leave the
         | point quickly, probably within 30 days.
         | 
         | L4 and L5 are way out from the Earth Moon system and are very
         | stable. They collect natural satellites, and once parked there
         | you would remain indefinitely.
         | 
         | The actual math is pretty complex, and has to do with mass
         | ratios of bodies involved, but all the major bodies in our
         | solar system have their own Lagrange points.
        
       | perihelions wrote:
       | There's no military value to the Lagrange Points. This is
       | posturing, and a pointless waste of public resources.
       | 
       | - _" ensuring the United States is the first country to
       | permanently station assets at all Lagrange Points"_
       | 
       | (I did look into the report to see if what reasoning they
       | offered, but the whole thing's juts three lines of the 53-page
       | document. I'm convinced this is some throwaway joke--I believe
       | zero intelligent thought went into this).
        
         | fred_is_fred wrote:
         | It's not a scientific document but a political one. By
         | mentioning china and military threat the House can build
         | support for funding defense contractor space spend.
        
         | jareklupinski wrote:
         | still looking forward to the Call of Duty objective:
         | 
         | "Hold the Lagrange Point until reinforcements arrive"
        
       | akgfab wrote:
       | Anyone who's played Civ 6 already knew this...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-12-25 23:01 UTC)