I Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt: differences

AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the differences between the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud, noting that the Kuiper Belt lies in a plane consistent with the solar system's formation, while the Oort Cloud is more spherical and theoretical. The Oort Cloud's distance and low density may contribute to a longer settling time for its objects compared to the Kuiper Belt. Participants speculate on the potential resources available in these regions for future expeditions, suggesting that colonization might involve adapting to zero gravity environments. The conversation touches on the implications of such adaptations for human descendants. Overall, the thread explores the mechanics and future possibilities of these distant solar system regions.
sophiecentaur
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
30,058
Reaction score
7,373
When I read about formation of solar systems it seems reasonable to me that most of the material would end up lying in a plane because the number of collisions and interactions would be least and the most stable situation in a common orbital plane in the long run. (Is this a far too simplistic notion?) The axis of this plane would, presumably be the axis of the net angular momentum vector of the original nebula from which the system was formed as any orbits away from that plane would have net zero angular momentum.

The Kuiper Belt seems to be part of this plane but the Oort Cloud seems to be more spherical. Why would this be? Is the Oort Cloud so far away and such low density that this sorting out mechanism would take much longer than 4 billion years, which was enough to give us our familiar solar system layout? The Oort Cloud is at least one hundred times further out than the Kuiper Belt so settling down time could be much longer as things must have very low orbital speeds out there.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Baluncore said:
The Oort clouds are "theoretical".
Right. Thanks - so the "theory" must imply something about the mechanics of very large orbits which allows objects to 'stay' or 'arrive' in non planet-style orbits. Sounds reasonable and not unlike the picture that arrived in my brain.

It seems like the Kuiper and Oort objects would have many of the materials that we could find use for in future big expeditions. Not quite such ridiculous timescales needed to get there as stellar trips. The only thing missing would appear to be useful amounts of sunlight but in the future, it may not be as important to humans.

And that suggests that realistic ideas about colonisation could well involve the race changing to zero g tolerance. Sounds a bit dreary to me but how our descendants might feel about it could be very different. B ut I digress - returning to the thread . . . .
 
sophiecentaur said:
... changing to zero g tolerance. Sounds a bit dreary to me but how our descendants ...
With zero g, there is no up nor down, so no descendants.
 
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...
Back
Top