Traveling through the asteriod belt?What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt?How much of a problem...
Why publish a research paper when a blog post or a lecture slide can have more citation count than a journal paper?
Intern applicant asking for compensation equivalent to that of permanent employee
Does paint affect EMI ability of enclosure?
Why do stocks necessarily drop during a recession?
Citing paywalled articles accessed via illegal web sharing
Why Normality assumption in linear regression
Why zero tolerance on nudity in space?
How can I deliver in-universe written lore to players without it being dry exposition?
Finding a mistake using Mayer-Vietoris
How to solve a large system of linear algebra?
Can an insurance company drop you after receiving a bill and refusing to pay?
Caruana vs Carlsen game 10 (WCC) why not 18...Nxb6?
Are there any modern advantages of a fire piston?
Can I become debt free or should I file bankruptcy ? How to manage my debt and finances?
Pronunciation of umlaut vowels in the history of German
Can I write a book of my D&D game?
My cat mixes up the floors in my building. How can I help him?
Do authors have to be politically correct in article-writing?
Why has the mole been redefined for 2019?
Cookies - Should the toggles be on?
Why did other German political parties disband so fast when Hitler was appointed chancellor?
Blindfold battle as a gladiatorial spectacle - what are the tactics and communication methods?
How to remove lines through the legend markers in ListPlot?
How would an AI self awareness kill switch work?
Traveling through the asteriod belt?
What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt?How much of a problem is space junk, and how can we clean it up?Does cosmic dust pose a problem for long-term satellites, telescopes and probes?Over time, would I exert less effort mining a large asteroid or collecting small asteroids, assuming both have similar compositions?Method to estimate asteroid density based on spectral typeWhat would be the delta-v of rendezvousing with temporarily captured asteroids in Sun-Earth L-points?How useful is the Interplanetary Transport Network?Could a cloud of dense gas, such as xenon, deflect a hazardous asteroid?How much of the asteroid belt is discovered?Timing shadows from the Kuiper belt! Any news? Did it work?Can we destroy an asteroid by spinning it?Can small asteroids in the asteroid belt be detected on the fly and how much of a threat do they represent for a human manned space mission there?
$begingroup$
The question What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt? is about the density of objects in the asteroid belt.
As a follow up related question and what I am interested in:
When we send spacecraft through the asteroid belt how much finger crossing is going on? Is it better to travel over the solar system rather than through it?
probe trajectory asteroid interplanetary
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt? is about the density of objects in the asteroid belt.
As a follow up related question and what I am interested in:
When we send spacecraft through the asteroid belt how much finger crossing is going on? Is it better to travel over the solar system rather than through it?
probe trajectory asteroid interplanetary
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt?
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
20 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
voting to leave open since the other question is only about density and does not offer much in terms of the OP's question on collision probability.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
19 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
<insert obligatory hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy quote about space being big, really really big>
$endgroup$
– David Grinberg
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I would have said that one could possibly follow this up, in its turn, with a question about how much finger-crossing goes on just getting a spacecraft away from Earth orbit … except that it is question #19. (-:
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JdeBP Welcome to Space.SE and look forward to your answer!
$endgroup$
– Muze
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The question What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt? is about the density of objects in the asteroid belt.
As a follow up related question and what I am interested in:
When we send spacecraft through the asteroid belt how much finger crossing is going on? Is it better to travel over the solar system rather than through it?
probe trajectory asteroid interplanetary
$endgroup$
The question What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt? is about the density of objects in the asteroid belt.
As a follow up related question and what I am interested in:
When we send spacecraft through the asteroid belt how much finger crossing is going on? Is it better to travel over the solar system rather than through it?
probe trajectory asteroid interplanetary
probe trajectory asteroid interplanetary
edited 5 hours ago
Muze
asked yesterday
MuzeMuze
1,3941262
1,3941262
1
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt?
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
20 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
voting to leave open since the other question is only about density and does not offer much in terms of the OP's question on collision probability.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
19 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
<insert obligatory hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy quote about space being big, really really big>
$endgroup$
– David Grinberg
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I would have said that one could possibly follow this up, in its turn, with a question about how much finger-crossing goes on just getting a spacecraft away from Earth orbit … except that it is question #19. (-:
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JdeBP Welcome to Space.SE and look forward to your answer!
$endgroup$
– Muze
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt?
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
20 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
voting to leave open since the other question is only about density and does not offer much in terms of the OP's question on collision probability.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
19 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
<insert obligatory hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy quote about space being big, really really big>
$endgroup$
– David Grinberg
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I would have said that one could possibly follow this up, in its turn, with a question about how much finger-crossing goes on just getting a spacecraft away from Earth orbit … except that it is question #19. (-:
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JdeBP Welcome to Space.SE and look forward to your answer!
$endgroup$
– Muze
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt?
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
20 hours ago
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt?
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
20 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
voting to leave open since the other question is only about density and does not offer much in terms of the OP's question on collision probability.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
19 hours ago
$begingroup$
voting to leave open since the other question is only about density and does not offer much in terms of the OP's question on collision probability.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
19 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
<insert obligatory hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy quote about space being big, really really big>
$endgroup$
– David Grinberg
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
<insert obligatory hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy quote about space being big, really really big>
$endgroup$
– David Grinberg
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I would have said that one could possibly follow this up, in its turn, with a question about how much finger-crossing goes on just getting a spacecraft away from Earth orbit … except that it is question #19. (-:
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I would have said that one could possibly follow this up, in its turn, with a question about how much finger-crossing goes on just getting a spacecraft away from Earth orbit … except that it is question #19. (-:
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JdeBP Welcome to Space.SE and look forward to your answer!
$endgroup$
– Muze
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JdeBP Welcome to Space.SE and look forward to your answer!
$endgroup$
– Muze
5 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The asteroid belt isn't nearly as dense as popular media makes it out to be.
An answer from the Dawn Mission's FAQ, specifically "What is the average distance between individual asteroids? (6/13/10)", helps here.
Asteroids are not distributed uniformly in the asteroid belt, but
could be approximated to be evenly spaced in a region from 2.2 AU (1
AU is 93 million miles, or the average distance between Earth and the
Sun) to 3.2 AU from the Sun and extending 0.5 AU above and below the
ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit, which is a convenient reference
for the solar system). That yields a volume of roughly 16 cubic AU, or
about 13 trillion trillion cubic miles. (Note: space is big!)
If there were 2 million asteroids 1 mile or larger in that volume,
each asteroid would have 6.7 million trillion cubic miles to itself,
so the average distance between individual asteroids 1 mile in
diameter or larger would be about 1.9 million miles. That is nearly 8
times the distance between Earth and the Moon.
Just for something interesting, it looks like your gif only covers the Jupiter trojans, which are the asteroids that Jupiter shepherds around the solar system at its Lagrange points. A more accurate image is available on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The asteroid belt is roughly 6 Astronomical Units wide, and so when it is drawn only 600 pixels wide with each asteroid a handful of pixels wide, you end up with each asteroid being five times bigger than the Sun!
I've borrowed a small piece of the image used in @jos' excellent answer to show what I mean.
As pointed out in this answer, Wikipedia says:
Contrary to popular imagery, the asteroid belt is mostly empty. The asteroids are spread over such a large volume that it would be improbable to reach an asteroid without aiming carefully.
The Exposing PseudoAstronomy blogpost Asteroid Belts – Proximity of Rocks and Why Navigation Is Not Dangerous (Sorry, Han Solo) says:
How Many Asteroids of What Size?
In terms of what is known, there are about 20,000 asteroids between 2-3 km, which is about the smallest that we likely have a complete sampling of. What that statement means is that, while we have identified asteroids that are smaller, our detection technology is not good enough to have found all of the asteroids that are smaller.
If we extrapolate, assuming a -3 power low, down to, say, 100-meter asteroids, there are probably ~82 million asteroids that are ~100-200-meters across. If we extrapolate further, down to 1-meter asteroids, then we really have a gargantuan number of objects – about 1014 (100 quadrillion) objects of that size. That’s quite a lot.
What Does this Mean for Navigation?
If we add up all of those objects, we have about 1.2×1014 asteroids larger than 1 meter. Now, let’s look at the asteroid belt. It stretches from 1.8 to 3.3 A.U., which is a distance of 1.5 A.U., or about 225,000,000 km. That’s a fairly large distance (that’s actually about the distance between the Sun and Mars).
The area of a disk that size, however, is gargantuan: A = π · r2 = π · ((3.3 A.U.)2 – (1.8 A.U.)2) = π · (1.7·1017 km2) = 5.4·1017 km2. That is a huge area. Simple division shows that each asteroid, regardless of its own size, could have 4,500 km2 all to itself – a little bit more than the entire U.S. state of Rhode Island.
And that’s if they were all just in one plane. In reality, they occupy a volume of space, some orbiting “above” or “below” others (where those terms are relative to the plane that the Earth’s orbit makes).
Even if we cut the size of asteroids in half again, and were interested in all asteroids larger than half a meter (1.5 ft) in size, then we have 8 times as many asteroids, but each one still has over 500 km2 all to itself, and even more space if we consider the vertical component.
What does this mean for navigation? It’s easy! In fact, you really have to try to hit an asteroid, at least in our own belt. And so, the next time you see a tiny ship careening through an asteroid field in a TV show or movie, remember that in real life, asteroid belts really aren’t that dangerous for navigation.
@AlanSE's answer to the related but different question What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt? shows an illustration of the power law behavior of size at large, observable scale. Unfortunately the link to the source (dated 2001) is now broken.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
It looks so much better now, but there is a 1014 and a km2 left for edit. Exponents typed as superscripts are a pleasure to the eyes.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Uwe either you have good eyes, or I have bad eyes, or perhaps both, thanks again!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
18 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
It's a good start, but the notion that a space probe will shrug off hitting a 49cm asteroid at 20km/s is a bit optimistic. You probably want to integrate down to micron-size objects.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It might be worth noting that there is a place in the solar system that may at least somewhat resemble those fanciful densely packed asteroid belts seen in movies etc: the rings of Saturn. Unfortunately, we still know far less than we'd like about what the rings look like from close up, because we've only sent a few probes out to Saturn, and nobody's been crazy enough to risk flying any of them too close to the rings. Even the best of Cassini's images, gorgeous and intriguing as they are, don't really resolve individual ring particles.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Xerxes I did think about that but finding data, or even a solid theory about how the behavior would scale for another five orders of magnitude is a big project. There are spacecraft that have passed through of course, and it's possible they have some data on collisions with micrometeorites. I know some spacecraft somewhere have a variety of detectors for micrometeorite collisions, so this might be a fertile question.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34505%2ftraveling-through-the-asteriod-belt%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The asteroid belt isn't nearly as dense as popular media makes it out to be.
An answer from the Dawn Mission's FAQ, specifically "What is the average distance between individual asteroids? (6/13/10)", helps here.
Asteroids are not distributed uniformly in the asteroid belt, but
could be approximated to be evenly spaced in a region from 2.2 AU (1
AU is 93 million miles, or the average distance between Earth and the
Sun) to 3.2 AU from the Sun and extending 0.5 AU above and below the
ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit, which is a convenient reference
for the solar system). That yields a volume of roughly 16 cubic AU, or
about 13 trillion trillion cubic miles. (Note: space is big!)
If there were 2 million asteroids 1 mile or larger in that volume,
each asteroid would have 6.7 million trillion cubic miles to itself,
so the average distance between individual asteroids 1 mile in
diameter or larger would be about 1.9 million miles. That is nearly 8
times the distance between Earth and the Moon.
Just for something interesting, it looks like your gif only covers the Jupiter trojans, which are the asteroids that Jupiter shepherds around the solar system at its Lagrange points. A more accurate image is available on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The asteroid belt isn't nearly as dense as popular media makes it out to be.
An answer from the Dawn Mission's FAQ, specifically "What is the average distance between individual asteroids? (6/13/10)", helps here.
Asteroids are not distributed uniformly in the asteroid belt, but
could be approximated to be evenly spaced in a region from 2.2 AU (1
AU is 93 million miles, or the average distance between Earth and the
Sun) to 3.2 AU from the Sun and extending 0.5 AU above and below the
ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit, which is a convenient reference
for the solar system). That yields a volume of roughly 16 cubic AU, or
about 13 trillion trillion cubic miles. (Note: space is big!)
If there were 2 million asteroids 1 mile or larger in that volume,
each asteroid would have 6.7 million trillion cubic miles to itself,
so the average distance between individual asteroids 1 mile in
diameter or larger would be about 1.9 million miles. That is nearly 8
times the distance between Earth and the Moon.
Just for something interesting, it looks like your gif only covers the Jupiter trojans, which are the asteroids that Jupiter shepherds around the solar system at its Lagrange points. A more accurate image is available on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The asteroid belt isn't nearly as dense as popular media makes it out to be.
An answer from the Dawn Mission's FAQ, specifically "What is the average distance between individual asteroids? (6/13/10)", helps here.
Asteroids are not distributed uniformly in the asteroid belt, but
could be approximated to be evenly spaced in a region from 2.2 AU (1
AU is 93 million miles, or the average distance between Earth and the
Sun) to 3.2 AU from the Sun and extending 0.5 AU above and below the
ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit, which is a convenient reference
for the solar system). That yields a volume of roughly 16 cubic AU, or
about 13 trillion trillion cubic miles. (Note: space is big!)
If there were 2 million asteroids 1 mile or larger in that volume,
each asteroid would have 6.7 million trillion cubic miles to itself,
so the average distance between individual asteroids 1 mile in
diameter or larger would be about 1.9 million miles. That is nearly 8
times the distance between Earth and the Moon.
Just for something interesting, it looks like your gif only covers the Jupiter trojans, which are the asteroids that Jupiter shepherds around the solar system at its Lagrange points. A more accurate image is available on Wikipedia.
$endgroup$
The asteroid belt isn't nearly as dense as popular media makes it out to be.
An answer from the Dawn Mission's FAQ, specifically "What is the average distance between individual asteroids? (6/13/10)", helps here.
Asteroids are not distributed uniformly in the asteroid belt, but
could be approximated to be evenly spaced in a region from 2.2 AU (1
AU is 93 million miles, or the average distance between Earth and the
Sun) to 3.2 AU from the Sun and extending 0.5 AU above and below the
ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit, which is a convenient reference
for the solar system). That yields a volume of roughly 16 cubic AU, or
about 13 trillion trillion cubic miles. (Note: space is big!)
If there were 2 million asteroids 1 mile or larger in that volume,
each asteroid would have 6.7 million trillion cubic miles to itself,
so the average distance between individual asteroids 1 mile in
diameter or larger would be about 1.9 million miles. That is nearly 8
times the distance between Earth and the Moon.
Just for something interesting, it looks like your gif only covers the Jupiter trojans, which are the asteroids that Jupiter shepherds around the solar system at its Lagrange points. A more accurate image is available on Wikipedia.
edited 15 hours ago
answered 23 hours ago
josjos
403111
403111
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The asteroid belt is roughly 6 Astronomical Units wide, and so when it is drawn only 600 pixels wide with each asteroid a handful of pixels wide, you end up with each asteroid being five times bigger than the Sun!
I've borrowed a small piece of the image used in @jos' excellent answer to show what I mean.
As pointed out in this answer, Wikipedia says:
Contrary to popular imagery, the asteroid belt is mostly empty. The asteroids are spread over such a large volume that it would be improbable to reach an asteroid without aiming carefully.
The Exposing PseudoAstronomy blogpost Asteroid Belts – Proximity of Rocks and Why Navigation Is Not Dangerous (Sorry, Han Solo) says:
How Many Asteroids of What Size?
In terms of what is known, there are about 20,000 asteroids between 2-3 km, which is about the smallest that we likely have a complete sampling of. What that statement means is that, while we have identified asteroids that are smaller, our detection technology is not good enough to have found all of the asteroids that are smaller.
If we extrapolate, assuming a -3 power low, down to, say, 100-meter asteroids, there are probably ~82 million asteroids that are ~100-200-meters across. If we extrapolate further, down to 1-meter asteroids, then we really have a gargantuan number of objects – about 1014 (100 quadrillion) objects of that size. That’s quite a lot.
What Does this Mean for Navigation?
If we add up all of those objects, we have about 1.2×1014 asteroids larger than 1 meter. Now, let’s look at the asteroid belt. It stretches from 1.8 to 3.3 A.U., which is a distance of 1.5 A.U., or about 225,000,000 km. That’s a fairly large distance (that’s actually about the distance between the Sun and Mars).
The area of a disk that size, however, is gargantuan: A = π · r2 = π · ((3.3 A.U.)2 – (1.8 A.U.)2) = π · (1.7·1017 km2) = 5.4·1017 km2. That is a huge area. Simple division shows that each asteroid, regardless of its own size, could have 4,500 km2 all to itself – a little bit more than the entire U.S. state of Rhode Island.
And that’s if they were all just in one plane. In reality, they occupy a volume of space, some orbiting “above” or “below” others (where those terms are relative to the plane that the Earth’s orbit makes).
Even if we cut the size of asteroids in half again, and were interested in all asteroids larger than half a meter (1.5 ft) in size, then we have 8 times as many asteroids, but each one still has over 500 km2 all to itself, and even more space if we consider the vertical component.
What does this mean for navigation? It’s easy! In fact, you really have to try to hit an asteroid, at least in our own belt. And so, the next time you see a tiny ship careening through an asteroid field in a TV show or movie, remember that in real life, asteroid belts really aren’t that dangerous for navigation.
@AlanSE's answer to the related but different question What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt? shows an illustration of the power law behavior of size at large, observable scale. Unfortunately the link to the source (dated 2001) is now broken.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
It looks so much better now, but there is a 1014 and a km2 left for edit. Exponents typed as superscripts are a pleasure to the eyes.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Uwe either you have good eyes, or I have bad eyes, or perhaps both, thanks again!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
18 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
It's a good start, but the notion that a space probe will shrug off hitting a 49cm asteroid at 20km/s is a bit optimistic. You probably want to integrate down to micron-size objects.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It might be worth noting that there is a place in the solar system that may at least somewhat resemble those fanciful densely packed asteroid belts seen in movies etc: the rings of Saturn. Unfortunately, we still know far less than we'd like about what the rings look like from close up, because we've only sent a few probes out to Saturn, and nobody's been crazy enough to risk flying any of them too close to the rings. Even the best of Cassini's images, gorgeous and intriguing as they are, don't really resolve individual ring particles.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Xerxes I did think about that but finding data, or even a solid theory about how the behavior would scale for another five orders of magnitude is a big project. There are spacecraft that have passed through of course, and it's possible they have some data on collisions with micrometeorites. I know some spacecraft somewhere have a variety of detectors for micrometeorite collisions, so this might be a fertile question.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The asteroid belt is roughly 6 Astronomical Units wide, and so when it is drawn only 600 pixels wide with each asteroid a handful of pixels wide, you end up with each asteroid being five times bigger than the Sun!
I've borrowed a small piece of the image used in @jos' excellent answer to show what I mean.
As pointed out in this answer, Wikipedia says:
Contrary to popular imagery, the asteroid belt is mostly empty. The asteroids are spread over such a large volume that it would be improbable to reach an asteroid without aiming carefully.
The Exposing PseudoAstronomy blogpost Asteroid Belts – Proximity of Rocks and Why Navigation Is Not Dangerous (Sorry, Han Solo) says:
How Many Asteroids of What Size?
In terms of what is known, there are about 20,000 asteroids between 2-3 km, which is about the smallest that we likely have a complete sampling of. What that statement means is that, while we have identified asteroids that are smaller, our detection technology is not good enough to have found all of the asteroids that are smaller.
If we extrapolate, assuming a -3 power low, down to, say, 100-meter asteroids, there are probably ~82 million asteroids that are ~100-200-meters across. If we extrapolate further, down to 1-meter asteroids, then we really have a gargantuan number of objects – about 1014 (100 quadrillion) objects of that size. That’s quite a lot.
What Does this Mean for Navigation?
If we add up all of those objects, we have about 1.2×1014 asteroids larger than 1 meter. Now, let’s look at the asteroid belt. It stretches from 1.8 to 3.3 A.U., which is a distance of 1.5 A.U., or about 225,000,000 km. That’s a fairly large distance (that’s actually about the distance between the Sun and Mars).
The area of a disk that size, however, is gargantuan: A = π · r2 = π · ((3.3 A.U.)2 – (1.8 A.U.)2) = π · (1.7·1017 km2) = 5.4·1017 km2. That is a huge area. Simple division shows that each asteroid, regardless of its own size, could have 4,500 km2 all to itself – a little bit more than the entire U.S. state of Rhode Island.
And that’s if they were all just in one plane. In reality, they occupy a volume of space, some orbiting “above” or “below” others (where those terms are relative to the plane that the Earth’s orbit makes).
Even if we cut the size of asteroids in half again, and were interested in all asteroids larger than half a meter (1.5 ft) in size, then we have 8 times as many asteroids, but each one still has over 500 km2 all to itself, and even more space if we consider the vertical component.
What does this mean for navigation? It’s easy! In fact, you really have to try to hit an asteroid, at least in our own belt. And so, the next time you see a tiny ship careening through an asteroid field in a TV show or movie, remember that in real life, asteroid belts really aren’t that dangerous for navigation.
@AlanSE's answer to the related but different question What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt? shows an illustration of the power law behavior of size at large, observable scale. Unfortunately the link to the source (dated 2001) is now broken.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
It looks so much better now, but there is a 1014 and a km2 left for edit. Exponents typed as superscripts are a pleasure to the eyes.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Uwe either you have good eyes, or I have bad eyes, or perhaps both, thanks again!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
18 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
It's a good start, but the notion that a space probe will shrug off hitting a 49cm asteroid at 20km/s is a bit optimistic. You probably want to integrate down to micron-size objects.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It might be worth noting that there is a place in the solar system that may at least somewhat resemble those fanciful densely packed asteroid belts seen in movies etc: the rings of Saturn. Unfortunately, we still know far less than we'd like about what the rings look like from close up, because we've only sent a few probes out to Saturn, and nobody's been crazy enough to risk flying any of them too close to the rings. Even the best of Cassini's images, gorgeous and intriguing as they are, don't really resolve individual ring particles.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Xerxes I did think about that but finding data, or even a solid theory about how the behavior would scale for another five orders of magnitude is a big project. There are spacecraft that have passed through of course, and it's possible they have some data on collisions with micrometeorites. I know some spacecraft somewhere have a variety of detectors for micrometeorite collisions, so this might be a fertile question.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The asteroid belt is roughly 6 Astronomical Units wide, and so when it is drawn only 600 pixels wide with each asteroid a handful of pixels wide, you end up with each asteroid being five times bigger than the Sun!
I've borrowed a small piece of the image used in @jos' excellent answer to show what I mean.
As pointed out in this answer, Wikipedia says:
Contrary to popular imagery, the asteroid belt is mostly empty. The asteroids are spread over such a large volume that it would be improbable to reach an asteroid without aiming carefully.
The Exposing PseudoAstronomy blogpost Asteroid Belts – Proximity of Rocks and Why Navigation Is Not Dangerous (Sorry, Han Solo) says:
How Many Asteroids of What Size?
In terms of what is known, there are about 20,000 asteroids between 2-3 km, which is about the smallest that we likely have a complete sampling of. What that statement means is that, while we have identified asteroids that are smaller, our detection technology is not good enough to have found all of the asteroids that are smaller.
If we extrapolate, assuming a -3 power low, down to, say, 100-meter asteroids, there are probably ~82 million asteroids that are ~100-200-meters across. If we extrapolate further, down to 1-meter asteroids, then we really have a gargantuan number of objects – about 1014 (100 quadrillion) objects of that size. That’s quite a lot.
What Does this Mean for Navigation?
If we add up all of those objects, we have about 1.2×1014 asteroids larger than 1 meter. Now, let’s look at the asteroid belt. It stretches from 1.8 to 3.3 A.U., which is a distance of 1.5 A.U., or about 225,000,000 km. That’s a fairly large distance (that’s actually about the distance between the Sun and Mars).
The area of a disk that size, however, is gargantuan: A = π · r2 = π · ((3.3 A.U.)2 – (1.8 A.U.)2) = π · (1.7·1017 km2) = 5.4·1017 km2. That is a huge area. Simple division shows that each asteroid, regardless of its own size, could have 4,500 km2 all to itself – a little bit more than the entire U.S. state of Rhode Island.
And that’s if they were all just in one plane. In reality, they occupy a volume of space, some orbiting “above” or “below” others (where those terms are relative to the plane that the Earth’s orbit makes).
Even if we cut the size of asteroids in half again, and were interested in all asteroids larger than half a meter (1.5 ft) in size, then we have 8 times as many asteroids, but each one still has over 500 km2 all to itself, and even more space if we consider the vertical component.
What does this mean for navigation? It’s easy! In fact, you really have to try to hit an asteroid, at least in our own belt. And so, the next time you see a tiny ship careening through an asteroid field in a TV show or movie, remember that in real life, asteroid belts really aren’t that dangerous for navigation.
@AlanSE's answer to the related but different question What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt? shows an illustration of the power law behavior of size at large, observable scale. Unfortunately the link to the source (dated 2001) is now broken.
$endgroup$
The asteroid belt is roughly 6 Astronomical Units wide, and so when it is drawn only 600 pixels wide with each asteroid a handful of pixels wide, you end up with each asteroid being five times bigger than the Sun!
I've borrowed a small piece of the image used in @jos' excellent answer to show what I mean.
As pointed out in this answer, Wikipedia says:
Contrary to popular imagery, the asteroid belt is mostly empty. The asteroids are spread over such a large volume that it would be improbable to reach an asteroid without aiming carefully.
The Exposing PseudoAstronomy blogpost Asteroid Belts – Proximity of Rocks and Why Navigation Is Not Dangerous (Sorry, Han Solo) says:
How Many Asteroids of What Size?
In terms of what is known, there are about 20,000 asteroids between 2-3 km, which is about the smallest that we likely have a complete sampling of. What that statement means is that, while we have identified asteroids that are smaller, our detection technology is not good enough to have found all of the asteroids that are smaller.
If we extrapolate, assuming a -3 power low, down to, say, 100-meter asteroids, there are probably ~82 million asteroids that are ~100-200-meters across. If we extrapolate further, down to 1-meter asteroids, then we really have a gargantuan number of objects – about 1014 (100 quadrillion) objects of that size. That’s quite a lot.
What Does this Mean for Navigation?
If we add up all of those objects, we have about 1.2×1014 asteroids larger than 1 meter. Now, let’s look at the asteroid belt. It stretches from 1.8 to 3.3 A.U., which is a distance of 1.5 A.U., or about 225,000,000 km. That’s a fairly large distance (that’s actually about the distance between the Sun and Mars).
The area of a disk that size, however, is gargantuan: A = π · r2 = π · ((3.3 A.U.)2 – (1.8 A.U.)2) = π · (1.7·1017 km2) = 5.4·1017 km2. That is a huge area. Simple division shows that each asteroid, regardless of its own size, could have 4,500 km2 all to itself – a little bit more than the entire U.S. state of Rhode Island.
And that’s if they were all just in one plane. In reality, they occupy a volume of space, some orbiting “above” or “below” others (where those terms are relative to the plane that the Earth’s orbit makes).
Even if we cut the size of asteroids in half again, and were interested in all asteroids larger than half a meter (1.5 ft) in size, then we have 8 times as many asteroids, but each one still has over 500 km2 all to itself, and even more space if we consider the vertical component.
What does this mean for navigation? It’s easy! In fact, you really have to try to hit an asteroid, at least in our own belt. And so, the next time you see a tiny ship careening through an asteroid field in a TV show or movie, remember that in real life, asteroid belts really aren’t that dangerous for navigation.
@AlanSE's answer to the related but different question What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt? shows an illustration of the power law behavior of size at large, observable scale. Unfortunately the link to the source (dated 2001) is now broken.
edited 18 hours ago
answered 19 hours ago
uhohuhoh
37.1k18133473
37.1k18133473
1
$begingroup$
It looks so much better now, but there is a 1014 and a km2 left for edit. Exponents typed as superscripts are a pleasure to the eyes.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Uwe either you have good eyes, or I have bad eyes, or perhaps both, thanks again!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
18 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
It's a good start, but the notion that a space probe will shrug off hitting a 49cm asteroid at 20km/s is a bit optimistic. You probably want to integrate down to micron-size objects.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It might be worth noting that there is a place in the solar system that may at least somewhat resemble those fanciful densely packed asteroid belts seen in movies etc: the rings of Saturn. Unfortunately, we still know far less than we'd like about what the rings look like from close up, because we've only sent a few probes out to Saturn, and nobody's been crazy enough to risk flying any of them too close to the rings. Even the best of Cassini's images, gorgeous and intriguing as they are, don't really resolve individual ring particles.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Xerxes I did think about that but finding data, or even a solid theory about how the behavior would scale for another five orders of magnitude is a big project. There are spacecraft that have passed through of course, and it's possible they have some data on collisions with micrometeorites. I know some spacecraft somewhere have a variety of detectors for micrometeorite collisions, so this might be a fertile question.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
It looks so much better now, but there is a 1014 and a km2 left for edit. Exponents typed as superscripts are a pleasure to the eyes.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Uwe either you have good eyes, or I have bad eyes, or perhaps both, thanks again!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
18 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
It's a good start, but the notion that a space probe will shrug off hitting a 49cm asteroid at 20km/s is a bit optimistic. You probably want to integrate down to micron-size objects.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It might be worth noting that there is a place in the solar system that may at least somewhat resemble those fanciful densely packed asteroid belts seen in movies etc: the rings of Saturn. Unfortunately, we still know far less than we'd like about what the rings look like from close up, because we've only sent a few probes out to Saturn, and nobody's been crazy enough to risk flying any of them too close to the rings. Even the best of Cassini's images, gorgeous and intriguing as they are, don't really resolve individual ring particles.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
14 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@Xerxes I did think about that but finding data, or even a solid theory about how the behavior would scale for another five orders of magnitude is a big project. There are spacecraft that have passed through of course, and it's possible they have some data on collisions with micrometeorites. I know some spacecraft somewhere have a variety of detectors for micrometeorite collisions, so this might be a fertile question.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
It looks so much better now, but there is a 1014 and a km2 left for edit. Exponents typed as superscripts are a pleasure to the eyes.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
It looks so much better now, but there is a 1014 and a km2 left for edit. Exponents typed as superscripts are a pleasure to the eyes.
$endgroup$
– Uwe
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Uwe either you have good eyes, or I have bad eyes, or perhaps both, thanks again!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
18 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Uwe either you have good eyes, or I have bad eyes, or perhaps both, thanks again!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
18 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
It's a good start, but the notion that a space probe will shrug off hitting a 49cm asteroid at 20km/s is a bit optimistic. You probably want to integrate down to micron-size objects.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
$begingroup$
It's a good start, but the notion that a space probe will shrug off hitting a 49cm asteroid at 20km/s is a bit optimistic. You probably want to integrate down to micron-size objects.
$endgroup$
– Xerxes
15 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
It might be worth noting that there is a place in the solar system that may at least somewhat resemble those fanciful densely packed asteroid belts seen in movies etc: the rings of Saturn. Unfortunately, we still know far less than we'd like about what the rings look like from close up, because we've only sent a few probes out to Saturn, and nobody's been crazy enough to risk flying any of them too close to the rings. Even the best of Cassini's images, gorgeous and intriguing as they are, don't really resolve individual ring particles.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
It might be worth noting that there is a place in the solar system that may at least somewhat resemble those fanciful densely packed asteroid belts seen in movies etc: the rings of Saturn. Unfortunately, we still know far less than we'd like about what the rings look like from close up, because we've only sent a few probes out to Saturn, and nobody's been crazy enough to risk flying any of them too close to the rings. Even the best of Cassini's images, gorgeous and intriguing as they are, don't really resolve individual ring particles.
$endgroup$
– Ilmari Karonen
14 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@Xerxes I did think about that but finding data, or even a solid theory about how the behavior would scale for another five orders of magnitude is a big project. There are spacecraft that have passed through of course, and it's possible they have some data on collisions with micrometeorites. I know some spacecraft somewhere have a variety of detectors for micrometeorite collisions, so this might be a fertile question.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Xerxes I did think about that but finding data, or even a solid theory about how the behavior would scale for another five orders of magnitude is a big project. There are spacecraft that have passed through of course, and it's possible they have some data on collisions with micrometeorites. I know some spacecraft somewhere have a variety of detectors for micrometeorite collisions, so this might be a fertile question.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
14 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34505%2ftraveling-through-the-asteriod-belt%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of What's the (particle) density of the asteroid belt?
$endgroup$
– Hobbes
20 hours ago
5
$begingroup$
voting to leave open since the other question is only about density and does not offer much in terms of the OP's question on collision probability.
$endgroup$
– uhoh
19 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
<insert obligatory hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy quote about space being big, really really big>
$endgroup$
– David Grinberg
8 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I would have said that one could possibly follow this up, in its turn, with a question about how much finger-crossing goes on just getting a spacecraft away from Earth orbit … except that it is question #19. (-:
$endgroup$
– JdeBP
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@JdeBP Welcome to Space.SE and look forward to your answer!
$endgroup$
– Muze
5 hours ago