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
30,080
Reaction score
7,377
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.
 
Today at about 4:30 am I saw the conjunction of Venus and Jupiter, where they were about the width of the full moon, or one half degree apart. Did anyone else see it? Edit: The moon is 2,200 miles in diameter and at a distance of 240,000 miles. Thereby it subtends an angle in radians of 2,200/240,000=.01 (approximately). With pi radians being 180 degrees, one radian is 57.3 degrees, so that .01 radians is about .50 degrees (angle subtended by the moon). (.57 to be more exact, but with...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top