AU and the Circumstellar Habitable Zone

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hanne
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Habitable zone
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on simulating orbits within the Circumstellar Habitable Zone, which ranges from 0.725 AU to 3.0 AU. The original poster seeks clarification on whether this measurement refers to diameter or radius and struggles to maintain a stable orbit at 2.0 AU in their simulator. Responses suggest that the issue may stem from the simulator's settings, particularly the step size, which can lead to unbound orbits. It is emphasized that a planet can maintain a stable orbit regardless of its position in the habitable zone, as demonstrated by planets like Mercury and Neptune. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding orbital mechanics and simulator parameters for accurate modeling.
Hanne
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I'm an IB math student trying to begin my mathematics project and I just have a really basic question:

I'm trying to simulate some orbits within the Circumstellar Habitable Zone (the zone in which a planet can sustain liquid water) and I know that this zone exists from .725 AU to 3.0 AU. What I can't find, is if this is the "diameter" or "radius" of the orbit. I'm wondering, because if I extend the distance between my earth-like planet and the its to 2.0 AU, I cannot get it to maintain orbit on my orbit simulator. What am I doing wrong?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It's always radius.

How are you simulating the orbits? Very often, these simulators give unbound orbits because your step size is too large.

In any case, it doesn't matter if the planet is in the goldilocks zone or not, it still should maintain a stable orbit - think about it, neither Mercury nor Neptune are in the habitable zone, and they still have stable orbits.
 
What's wrong with the orbit? What kind of unstable are we talking about?
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This hypothesis of scientists about the origin of the mysterious signal WOW seems plausible only on a superficial examination. In fact, such a strong coherent radiation requires a powerful initiating factor, and the hydrogen atoms in the cloud themselves must be in an overexcited state in order to respond instantly. If the density of the initiating radiation is insufficient, then the atoms of the cloud will not receive it at once, some will receive it earlier, and some later. But then there...
Back
Top