Comments on: Objects in Space

Objects in Space

Artw — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 01:44:06 -0800

Do gravity holes harbour planetary assassins?

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:47:44 -0800

"If we see a big asteroid there, it might be worth taking it out pre-emptively," says Gott, "and by that I mean blowing it to pieces." Radioactive debris seems like one of the less interesting things we might park in L4 or L5 (assuming they're not filled with crap already).

By: multivalent

multivalent — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:52:23 -0800

Do gravity holes harbour planetary assassins? Like the death star? That'd be a no from me.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:43:09 -0800

Christ, what an assassin hole.

By: Lipstick Thespian

Lipstick Thespian — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:02:04 -0800

Hey, so that's where all the TARP money went! (first shoe hits the stage) Woah, so that's where my luggage is! (second shoe flies past the drummer) Well, whatever's up there can't be worse than my mother-in-law visiting us! (concussion)

By: 7segment

7segment — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:02:37 -0800

Does New Scientist harbor responsible writing? no.

By: woodway

woodway — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:05:15 -0800

Does "Finding Jupiter's L4 point" give it pleasure?

By: sfts2

sfts2 — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:08:28 -0800

"Some have even speculated that alien spacecraft are watching us from the Lagrangian points, looking for signs of intelligence." I'd think they be getting pretty certain of the results of that by now.

By: BrotherCaine

BrotherCaine — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:13:12 -0800

Gravity hole seems like a horrible misnomer, but I don't want to be the pedant who complicates the explanation.

By: AppleSeed

AppleSeed — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:20:01 -0800

Off-topic, but reading this was slightly odd - I know two of the astronomers mentioned in the article.

By: Nelson

Nelson — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:29:56 -0800

Shame on science reporting that thinks science is only fun if it involves alien intelligence and blowing shit up. The Wikipedia article on Lagrangian points is surprisingly good, particularly the diagram.

By: aubilenon

aubilenon — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 08:33:48 -0800

I was hoping this was going to be a link to one of those single-serving sites, where the whole page is the word "No" in big letters. Also "Gravity canceling out so it is truly weightless" is also wrong. If that were accurate, things there wouldn't orbit the sun, they'd fly off in whatever direction they were going! The Lagrange points are just other places in or around a planet's orbit where other stuff can orbit in lock-step with earth too. L4 and L5 are actually stable, like a marble in a valley. L1, L2, & L3 are unstable, like a marble balanced on the top of a hill. So L4 & L5 is where the space-marbles will tend to accumulate. I think a powered spacecraft could stay at L1, L2, or L3 with minimal energy expeditures.

By: Lipstick Thespian

Lipstick Thespian — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:06:11 -0800

I think I need much, much more talk about space-marbles from Aubilenon. *runs off to get listening mat and juice box*

By: Electric Dragon

Electric Dragon — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:12:14 -0800

aubilenon: as the article points out, the L1 and L2 points already are used for spacecraft: among others SOHO is at L1 and WMAP is at L2. L3, IIRC, is particularly unstable.

By: Enron Hubbard

Enron Hubbard — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:15:14 -0800

Earth/Luna Lagrange points L4 and L5 are often used in science fiction stories as places to park space colonies. The Wikipedia article mentions that things orbit along the lines of the equipotential surfaces. Doesn't this imply 3D surfaces that extend above and below the orbital plane? Metafilter : where the space-marbles will tend to accumulate.

By: nax

nax — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:26:21 -0800

Everyone knows that Gor is at L3.

By: fatbird

fatbird — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:07:13 -0800

Does "Finding Jupiter's L4 point" give it pleasure? Only if your probe has a dolphin or rabbit sticking out the side with ears at the right angle.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:53:49 -0800

Mind-numbing writing.

By: jamjam

jamjam — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:51:09 -0800

L1, L2, & L3 are unstable, like a marble balanced on the top of a hill. This is how I thought of them too, until Nelson's excellent diagram showed me they are actually saddlepoints, and therefore unstable like a marble on the lowest point on a ridge between two hills.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:29:32 -0800

What a bizarre, over-the-top, article.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:19:45 -0800

"If we see a big asteroid there, it might be worth taking it out pre-emptively," says Gott, "and by that I mean blowing it to pieces." wouldn't these pieces be more likely to hit the earth, then? - and some of those pieces would not be insignificant

By: dhartung

dhartung — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:46:22 -0800

Everyone knows that Gor is at L3. Be that as it may, the GoreSat is destined for L₁. I don't know where Al is right now.

By: Pronoiac

Pronoiac — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:00:59 -0800

Well, sure, if by "gravity hole" you mean "black hole," & by "planetary assassin," you mean "Darkseid." I thought you of all people would already know this, Artw.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:21:20 -0800

"wouldn't these pieces be more likely to hit the earth, then? - and some of those pieces would not be insignificant" Possibly. But it's a lot better to be hit by several smaller pieces than one big piece. Ideally we'd just monitor the dangerous pieces and then launch a blow'em up mission IFF one starts deviating towards us.

By: Halloween Jack

Halloween Jack — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:33:59 -0800

I think that this article was planted by the Yellowstone supervolcano as a diversion. Eternal vigilance &c.