What Can You Actually See in the Asteroid Belt with the Naked Eye?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MonstersFromTheId
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Asteroid Belt
AI Thread Summary
Passing through the asteroid belt of our solar system would reveal little to the naked eye, primarily appearing as a starry sky with no visible planets or asteroids, aside from rare close encounters. The asteroid belt exists due to leftover material from the solar system's formation, stabilized in orbit between Mars and Jupiter, where Jupiter's gravitational influence has prevented the mass from coalescing into a planet. The belt is not remnants of a destroyed planet but rather a collection of smaller bodies, some of which may have originated from larger, differentiated objects that were shattered in collisions billions of years ago. Over time, the asteroid belt has lost mass and is not expected to form a planet in the future. Overall, it remains a vast expanse of mostly empty space, making navigation through it relatively straightforward for space missions.
MonstersFromTheId
Messages
142
Reaction score
1
If you were to pass through our system's asteroid belt, what would you be able to see with the naked eye?
We've all seen the Star Wars version, but that impresses me as more than a bit of dramatic hooey intended to provide excitement.
In the real world, if you were to pass through our system's asteroid belt, what would you see with the naked eye? Pretty much nuthin?
You wouldn't see planets would you, or Earth's moon, (as other than tiny specks of light) let alone any asteroids (barring statistically unlikely close passes)?



Why IS there an "asteroid belt" in our system?
Why isn't all that mass just another planet? What's kept that mass from congealing into another planet over the time it took Earth and the other planets to form?
Was the asteroid belt at one time a planet? One that was somehow smashed in some cataclysmic collision?
Is the asteroid belt just a planet that's taking a heck of a lot longer to form? I.e. will the asteroid belt form a planet at sometime in the distant future?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
If you were to pass through our system's asteroid belt, what would you be able to see with the naked eye?
We've all seen the Star Wars version, but that impresses me as more than a bit of dramatic hooey intended to provide excitement.
In the real world, if you were to pass through our system's asteroid belt, what would you see with the naked eye? Pretty much nuthin?
You wouldn't see planets would you, or Earth's moon, (as other than tiny specks of light) let alone any asteroids (barring statistically unlikely close passes)?
You are correct.



Why IS there an "asteroid belt" in our system?
The solar system was originally a coalescing disk of dust and debris.

Why isn't all that mass just another planet? What's kept that mass from congealing into another planet over the time it took Earth and the other planets to form?
1] There is not enough. Calculations of the mass of the enitre belt make for a very small Moon.
2] Theory purports that Jupiter's huge tides stopped it from forming.


Was the asteroid belt at one time a planet? One that was somehow smashed in some cataclysmic collision?
Nope.

Is the asteroid belt just a planet that's taking a heck of a lot longer to form? I.e. will the asteroid belt form a planet at sometime in the distant future?
Nope. See above.
 
Just to add to DaveC426913's responses...

MonstersFromTheId said:
In the real world, if you were to pass through our system's asteroid belt, what would you see with the naked eye? Pretty much nuthin?
You wouldn't see planets would you, or Earth's moon, (as other than tiny specks of light) let alone any asteroids (barring statistically unlikely close passes)?

Correct. It would look a lot like a starry sky from here on Earth (from a non-light polluted area).

When NASA sends space probes out beyond the asteroid belt, they barely have to pay attention (if at all) to navigate around the asteriods. It's mostly empty space.

Why IS there an "asteroid belt" in our system?

Leftover building blocks from the formation of the planets sitting in a stable orbit between Mars & Jupiter. As mentioned, Jupiter's gravitational effects seem to have prevented that material from further combining (a planet/moon that never was).
 
Was the asteroid belt at one time a planet? One that was somehow smashed in some cataclysmic collision?
To add a further refinement to the posts above ... some of the asteroids seem to have once been part of a larger body? How do we know? Because the material they are made of seems to be 'differentiated'. This means (roughly) there are chunks of iron (alloys), there are chunks of rock, and there are chunks of gunk and goop. We cannot figure out how there could be chunks of iron unless there was a body big enough to be molten, so the iron could all sink to the core. We reckon this means bodies bigger than the biggest asteroid we can see today. We know that there was a lot of colliding and smashing up going on ~4 billion years ago, so we reckon that there may have been one or more bigger objects that got shattered through collisions, leaving some chunks of iron (etc).
 
ive heard that in the beginning of the solar system, the asteroid belt was actually much more massive (enough for a planet if Jupiter didnt exist) and that it has steadily been losing mass over these few billion years
 
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 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