Planetoid formation, spherical or not.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter anorlunda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formation Spherical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formation of planetoids, specifically focusing on the minimum size required for a rocky planetoid to achieve a spherical shape and the influence of initial temperature on this process. Participants explore concepts related to hydrostatic equilibrium, the cooling rates of lunar ejecta, and the implications of these factors on planetoid morphology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the minimum size of a rocky planetoid necessary to become spherical, linking this to the initial temperature and the state of the material (liquid or plastic).
  • Another participant suggests searching for 'hydrostatic equilibrium' and 'dwarf planet' for relevant literature, mentioning a specific paper that discusses minimum size thresholds for dwarf planets.
  • A participant reiterates concerns about the cooling rate of lunar ejecta in space, noting that heat dissipation in a vacuum occurs much slower than in other environments, although they do not provide a specific cooling time frame.
  • One participant comments on the actual shape of Earth, stating it is not a perfect oblate spheroid but rather a slightly pear-shaped form, which may imply complexities in planetoid shape formation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the factors influencing planetoid formation, including size, temperature, and cooling rates. There is no consensus on the specific minimum size or the cooling duration of lunar ejecta, indicating ongoing debate and uncertainty.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the need for accessible articles on planetoid formation, indicating a potential gap in layman-friendly resources. The discussion also highlights the complexities of heat dissipation in space, which may affect the understanding of planetoid morphology.

anorlunda
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
11,326
Reaction score
8,755
I am interested in the minimum size of a rocky planetoid needed to "crush" it into spherical shape. I'm also interested in its initial temperature because liquid or plastic masses obviously need much less crushing.

The Wikipedia article "Giant Impact Hypothesis" says,

In 2007, researchers from the California Institute of Technology showed that the likelihood of Theia having an identical isotopic signature as the Earth was very small (less than 1 percent).[19] They proposed that in the aftermath of the giant impact, while the Earth and the proto-lunar disk were molten and vaporized, the two reservoirs were connected by a common silicate vapour atmosphere, and that the Earth–Moon system became homogenized by convective stirring while the system existed in the form of a continuous fluid. Such an "equilibration" between the post-impact Earth and the proto-lunar disk is the only scenario capable of explaining the isotopic similarities of the Apollo rocks with rocks from the Earth's interior. For this scenario to be viable, however, the proto-lunar disk must exist for a time period of about 100 years.

That makes me wonder about the ambient temperature around Earth orbit at that time and the rate of cooling of the initial Lunar ejecta. Ejecta staying molten for 100 years sounds like a long time in cold cold space.

Are there articles for laymen about solid spherical vs non-spherical vs rubble pile planetoid formation?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Try looking for keywords 'hydrostatic equilibrium' together with 'dwarf planet'. You should get some good hits.

Here's one good paper by Lineweaver and Norman:
The Potato Radius: a Lower Minimum Size for Dwarf Planets

It's relatively conversational and accessible for laymen.

And for the absolute laziest alternative: the answer is about 250 km give or take maybe a hundred, depending on composition.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: |Glitch| and anorlunda
anorlunda said:
That makes me wonder about the ambient temperature around Earth orbit at that time and the rate of cooling of the initial Lunar ejecta. Ejecta staying molten for 100 years sounds like a long time in cold cold space.

In a near-perfect vacuum like space, the only way to get rid of heat is to radiate it away. This process takes MUCH longer than convection and conduction for the same difference in temperature between the hot and cold reservoirs. So while it may be cold in space, it's actually pretty difficult for an object to quickly get rid of heat.

Unfortunately I don't know how long it would take for the ejecta to cool.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: anorlunda
Earth is not the ideal oblate spheroid which it *should* be.
It's actually more of a slightly off-center pear shaped thing, (more land above sea level in North hemisphere right now.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: anorlunda

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K