How (un)stable are the Lagrangian points 1, 2 and 3?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Lagrangian points L1, L2, and L3 are inherently unstable, requiring special Lissajous orbits and station-keeping maneuvers for spacecraft to maintain position. NASA indicates that these points exhibit instability on a time scale of approximately 23 days, meaning any object placed there, such as an asteroid or cosmic dust, will likely drift away within this timeframe. While it is theoretically possible for these points to temporarily capture passing objects, significant energy loss is necessary for stable capture. Gravitational deflection, rather than direct collision, can facilitate the capture of wandering objects into stable orbits.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of orbital mechanics and gravitational forces
  • Familiarity with Lagrangian points in celestial mechanics
  • Knowledge of Lissajous orbits and their applications
  • Basic principles of energy loss in gravitational interactions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the dynamics of Lissajous orbits around Lagrangian points
  • Study the stability characteristics of Lagrangian points L4 and L5
  • Explore methods for energy loss in celestial mechanics
  • Investigate the role of gravitational deflection in capturing celestial objects
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, aerospace engineers, and students of celestial mechanics will benefit from this discussion, particularly those interested in the dynamics of Lagrangian points and orbital stability.

xpell
Messages
139
Reaction score
16
A couple questions, please: I know that the Lagrangian points 1, 2 and 3 are unstable and special Lissajous orbits plus some station-keeping are required to place a spacecraft around them. But I was wondering if they are so totally unstable that they can't temporarily "capture" a passing natural object (let's say an asteroid or a cloud of cosmic dust, in a stationary way or entering some kind of not-very-stable orbit around them)? Or could they?

And if they were able to, how much time would (approximately) be required for this/these object(s) to go "off-orbit" and abandon the L(1,2,3) area? In the case of the cloud of cosmic dust, would it just slowly (or quickly) drift away, or would they be "launched" towards another direction or orbit?

Thanks in advance!

PS. NASA says that L(1,2) are unstable "on a time scale of approximately 23 days" and this book talks about 23 days too. But I'm not sure if I can understand this as L(1,2) being naturally able to capture an object during approximately 23 days before "losing it"...
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Capturing an object moving from far away will always require that the object loses energy by some means. Regardless of how stable the potential is at that point. The sun could not capture a spec of dust unless that spec of dust hit something else while in the solar system.
 
Orodruin said:
Capturing an object moving from far away will always require that the object loses energy by some means. Regardless of how stable the potential is at that point. The sun could not capture a spec of dust unless that spec of dust hit something else while in the solar system.
Thank you, Orodruin. Actually I was thinking in a cloud of dust just "wandering" out there. But if so, how did the Trojans end up in so many (more stable but not totally stable) points L(4,5) of the Solar System, please? Or, how could a wandering planet be captured into a solar system? Does it need some kind of collision? (I thought those were fully gravitational / orbital mechanics phenomena...)
 
You do not need an actual collision. It is sufficient with some gravitational deflection. Anything which changes the velocity of the object other than the background potential itself.

In a rotating coordinate system such as the one where the Lagrange points appear also makes it a bit more difficult to analyse due to the implied inertial forces.
 
Orodruin said:
You do not need an actual collision. It is sufficient with some gravitational deflection. Anything which changes the velocity of the object other than the background potential itself.

In a rotating coordinate system such as the one where the Lagrange points appear also makes it a bit more difficult to analyse due to the implied inertial forces.
Thank you again, Orodruin. :-) Unfortunately I'm still unsure about my original question. :-( Could an L(1,2,3) point capture some small asteroid or cloud of dust or gas and keep it there for some time? Is that what NASA is talking about when they mention the "23-day stability"?
 
They are talking about a typical time-scale on which the Lagrange points are unstable so that if you have an object placed there, the typical time taken to leave the Lagrange point would be of the order of that time.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoM-z14 Any photon with energy above 24.6 eV is going to ionize any atom. K, L X-rays would certainly ionize atoms. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/whats-the-most-distant-galaxy/ The James Webb Space Telescope has found the most distant galaxy ever seen, at the dawn of the cosmos. Again. https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/news/webb-mom-z14 A Cosmic Miracle: A Remarkably Luminous Galaxy at zspec = 14.44 Confirmed with JWST...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
15K
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K