50

Is there a stable geostationary orbit around the Moon?

My feeling is, that the orbit would collide with Earth, because of the Moon's slow rotation.

Bad Chad
  • 1
  • 6
Christian
  • 673
  • 1
  • 5
  • 10
  • Instead of "feeling,' why not calculate the orbital radius for a body with the mass of the Moon and a rotational period of 28 days -- i.e. pretend Earth doesn't exist? – Carl Witthoft Mar 22 '17 at 12:55
  • 1
    because the math I didn't check out. I'll try again later – Christian Mar 22 '17 at 12:59
  • 1
    Here's Adamo giving a pretty practical and accessible talk on the stability of Lunar orbits. There does not appear to exist any stable Lunar centric orbit. The Moon is pretty choosy. She prefers taking another hit rather than hanging out regularly with anyone but Earth. – LocalFluff Mar 22 '17 at 13:05
  • Your result with cube root kg does not make sense because you forgot the units on mass. If you do this right you will have obtained a value of 88470 km, which is outside of the Moon's sphere of influence. – David Hammen Mar 22 '17 at 14:46
  • 1
    Just to remark on your Wolfram Alpha result, you didn't tell it the units for the mass of the Moon. You just left it a raw number so of course Alpha didn't know to cancel the $kg$ in $G$. If you throw in these units, you get a number with the correct unit output. – zephyr Mar 22 '17 at 15:54
  • 4
    Yes thanks. I feel kinda stupid, but the answers still told me new things about Hill spheres and that the moon does not have a stable orbit at all. So the question was worth asking – Christian Mar 22 '17 at 16:56
  • A geostationary orbit means that the object always remains above the same point on the earth, in other words it appears to be stationary. This is useful for communication satellites because the antenna does not need to track the satellite. The antenna is just pointed at the satellite and since the satellite does not move, the antenna does not need to move. The moon moves with respect to the earth, therefore it is not in a geostationary orbit. – Tyler Durden Mar 22 '17 at 20:18
  • 1
    @TylerDurden that answers a different question – Christian Mar 22 '17 at 20:41
  • @Christian: No, that answers the question that was ASKED - whether the moon is in a geostationary orbit. Obviously it's not. Now maybe you really intended to ask whether there are any stable SELENOSTATIONARY orbits, in which case you need to re-write the question and title. – jamesqf Mar 22 '17 at 22:22
  • 3
    Well, obviously the earth is in a lunastationary orbit, since it is always in line with a point in the centre of the "visible side" of the moon. So any object orbiting above the equator of the moon at the same distance as the earth would also be lunastationary, if it weren't for the presence of the earth. The problem becomes dealing with the earth's pull on such an object, in addition to the moon's pull. It's not a two-body problem any more. – Dawood ibn Kareem Mar 22 '17 at 23:36
  • 1
    @TylerDurden - when reading the title on the HNQ I too took it to mean "is the moon in a geostationary orbit." And the answer was obviously no so I clicked to see how folks would answer. I was surprised to see what the question was really getting at. – Tracy Cramer Mar 23 '17 at 02:08
  • Can someone think of an improved wording for the title? I had the same response as Tracy - "No, of course the moon isn't in a geostationary orbit". – Toby Speight Mar 23 '17 at 11:34
  • 1
    Well if I put lunar stationary. Does everyone know what that is? – Christian Mar 23 '17 at 12:01
  • I removed the math from the question, as the answer already covers it. – Christian Mar 23 '17 at 12:03
  • @Christian "selenostationary" or such would be more appropriate (since geo- is from the greek ge) but even less intuitive. I think the title should use "luna-stationary" in quotes. Ah, I didn't even look at the first answer -- zephyr is right. – Peter - Reinstate Monica Mar 23 '17 at 20:41
  • 1
    The correct term for an arbitrary body seems to be "synchronous". If you never talk about it, play KSP more. – Joshua Mar 24 '17 at 03:55
  • So if the earth is in selenostationary orbit around the moon, it would seem like you could place an object in selenostationary orbit on the other side of the moon from the earth. It would then technically be orbiting the moon and the earth like a double pendulum which isn't hinging. – Joshua Mar 24 '17 at 13:21
  • Okay .. here's a related thought. When I saw this question I thought, "Lunar Space Elevators". I see that even though L1 and L2 are unstable, that spacecraft can do small "halo" orbits around these Lagrangian points. I wonder if a space elevator "quasi-selenostationary" station would work in these "halo" orbits. – Jack R. Woods Mar 27 '17 at 23:50
  • @JackR.Woods That's how we got to the question over lunch – Christian Mar 28 '17 at 07:23
  • The Earth's Moon is truly a massive Body unto itself so of course moving beyond being a purely natural phenomenon the answer to this question is yes with good station keeping. The question that would need answering is "does the Moon have any Trojans?" and proceed from an evidence based approach to getting a reality based answer. – Doctor Zhivago May 23 '21 at 20:55

3 Answers3

77

First off, such an orbit wouldn't be a geostationary orbit since geo- refers to the Earth. A more appropriate name would be lunarstationary or selenostationary. I'm not sure if there is an officially accepted term since you rarely hear people talk about such an orbit.

You can calculate the orbital distance of a selenostationary orbit using Kepler's law:

$$a = \left(\frac{P^2GM_{\text{Moon}}}{4\pi^2}\right)^{1/3}$$

In this case, $a$ is your orbital distance of interest, $P$ is the orbital period (which we know to be 27.321 days or 2360534 seconds), $G$ is just the gravitational constant, and hopefully it is obvious that $M_{\text{Moon}}$ is the mass of the Moon. All we have to do is plug in numbers. I find that

$$a = 88,417\:\mathrm{km}=0.23\:\mathrm{Earth\mathit{-}Moon\:Distance}$$

So I at least match your calculation pretty well. I think you were just relying on Wolfram Alpha a bit too much to get the units right. The units do work out right though.

If you want to determine if this orbit can exist however, you need to do a bit more work. As a first step, calculate the Moon's Hill Sphere. This is the radius at which the Moon still maintains control over it's satellite, without the Earth causing problems. The equation for this radius is given by

$$r \approx a_{\text{Moon}}(1-e_{\text{Moon}})\sqrt[3]{\frac{M_{\text{Moon}}}{3M_{\text{Earth}}}}$$

In this equation, $a_{\text{Moon}} = 348,399\:\mathrm{km}$ is the Moon's semi-major axis around the Earth and $e_{\text{Moon}} = 0.0549$ is the Moon's orbital eccentricity. I'm sure you can figure out that the $M$'s are the masses of the respective bodies. Just plug and chug and you get

$$r \approx 52,700\:\mathrm{km}$$

A more careful calculation, including the effects of the Sun is slightly more optimistic and provides a Hill radius of $r = 58,050\:\mathrm{km}$. In either case though, hopefully you can see that the radius for a selenostationary orbit is much farther than the Hill radius, meaning that no stable orbit can be achieved as it would be too much perturbed by the Earth and/or the Sun.

One final, semi-related point. It turns out almost no orbits around the Moon are stable, even if they're inside the Hill radius. This is primarily to do with mass concentrations (or mascons) in the Moon's crust and mantle which make the gravitational field non-uniform and act to degrade orbits. There are only a handful of "stable" orbits and these are only achieved by orbiting in such a way as to miss passing over these mascons.

zephyr
  • 15,017
  • 1
  • 37
  • 58
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – called2voyage Mar 26 '17 at 02:26
  • They will eventually need to place some satellites at this distance so as to serve as a communications relay for future Lunar exploration on the 'dark side' of the Moon...eventually they could also serve to provide Location data for Drones or Astronauts during activities on the Lunar surface. – Nicolas Nov 22 '22 at 06:00
66

As the answer by zephyr describes very well, there are very few stable orbits around the moon, and none of them are stationary.

But the moon is tidally locked to Earth. That means that all of the Lagrangian points of the Earth-Moon system are stationary relative to the Moon surface.

Philipp
  • 845
  • 5
  • 11
  • 2
    That's a nice shortcut answer to this question, and it applies to all tidally locked moons or planets. – userLTK Mar 22 '17 at 18:24
  • 5
    Earth itself is in lunarstationary, up to liberation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration (Edit pending) – Grimaldi Mar 23 '17 at 21:58
  • 2
    The Lagrangian points are stationary, as they're defined geometrically (or should that be geo-selenometrically?), but they are not stable due to the perturbative effect of the Sun's gravity, and an object at such a point would require an occasional boost to maintain its position. Hence no natural objects found at the Earth-Moon Lagrangians. – Chappo Hasn't Forgotten Mar 23 '17 at 22:39
  • 1
    @Chappo: I've heard that Kordylewski clouds are natural objects found at the Earth-Moon Lagrangians. – David Cary Mar 24 '17 at 13:35
  • 1
    @DavidCary: the existence of the Kordylewski clouds, at the L4 and L5 Lagrangian points, is disputed. One of the objectives of Japan's Hiten space probe was to find evidence for the clouds. To quote NASA, Hiten was "put into a looping orbit which passed through the L4 and L5 stable libration points to look for trapped dust particles. No obvious increase was found." – Chappo Hasn't Forgotten Mar 24 '17 at 22:11
  • @Phillip .. Would you say then that a lunar "space elevator" pointing directly at the Earth would work? – Jack R. Woods Feb 12 '19 at 18:22
  • @JackR.Woods Do you mean a space elevator which connects earth and moon directly? As in a tether from the surface of Earth to the surface of the moon? – Philipp Feb 12 '19 at 18:35
  • @Phillip .. No, I was just thinking about a space elevator to go from lunar orbit to the surface. After thinking about it now though, I guess it would have to go all the way to the Earth to be "lunar synchronous" since the moon is tidally locked. – Jack R. Woods Feb 13 '19 at 14:22
  • @JackR.Woods It would be possible to build a space elevator from the surface of the Moon to the L1 point of the Earth/Moon system (where "possible" has the usual meaning when it comes to megastructures in space: Possible in theory but impossible in practice because we neither have all the required technology nor the required economic resources). – Philipp Feb 13 '19 at 14:54
  • @JackR.Woods a space elevator from the moon's surface to the distance of Earth's geostationary orbit is the subject of a recent paper. One catch, possibly among many: the velocities are violently mismatched between the end of the elevator and geostationary satellites. – Bob Stein Sep 19 '19 at 18:57
  • There is - of course - a what-if from xkcd https://what-if.xkcd.com/157/ – Christian Sep 26 '19 at 20:41
  • @ChappoHasn'tForgottenMonica Their presence was confirmed since your comment (ref) – Asteroids With Wings Dec 08 '20 at 15:21
7

All of the other answers in this thread are completely correct, however I think there's a point missed by focusing only on the Moon-Earth system. Any tidally locked moon will always have its synchronous orbital radius outside of its Hill Sphere. That is to say, no tidally locked moon can have a satellite with the same orbital period as its rotational period.

As Zephyr said, the orbital distance of a selenostationary (using that term to refer to any moon, not just the Moon) orbit is:

$$a_{\text{SL}} = \left(\frac{P^2GM_{\text{Moon}}}{4\pi^2}\right)^{1/3}$$

Where $a_{\text{SL}}$ is the selenostationary orbital distance, $P$ is the moon's orbital period, $G$ is the gravitational constant, and $M_{\text{Moon}}$ is the mass of the moon.

Substituting the formula for the orbital period $P$ into the equation yields:

$$a_{\text{SL}} = \left(\frac{(2\pi\sqrt{a^3\over GM_{\text{Planet}} })^2GM_{\text{Moon}}}{4\pi^2}\right)^{1/3} = \left(\frac{4\pi^2a^3GM_{\text{Moon}}\over GM_{\text{Planet}}}{4\pi^2} \right)^{1/3} $$

Where $a$ is the moon's semi-major axis, and $M_{\text{Planet}}$ is the planet's mass.

Simplifying further results in:

$$a_{\text{SL}} = a\sqrt[3]{\frac{M_{\text{Moon}}}{M_{\text{Planet}} }}$$

Looks familiar? This is the exact same as the formula for the moon's Hill Sphere, with the only difference being the 3 in the denominator. This means that the ratio of any tidally locked moon's selenostationary orbital radius to its Hill Sphere is:

$${\frac{a_{\text{SL}}}{r_{\text{H}} }} = {\frac{a\sqrt[3]{\frac{M_{\text{Moon}}}{M_{\text{Planet}} }}} {a\sqrt[3]{\frac{M_{\text{Moon}}}{3M_{\text{Planet}} }}}} = \sqrt[3]{3}$$

In other words, not only will the selenostationary orbital distance for any tidally locked moon always be outside its Hill Sphere, it will be exactly $\sqrt[3]{3}$ or approximately $1.4422$ times it.

user267545
  • 958
  • 5
  • 9
  • 3
    I honestly was not expecting to get such an interesting answer 6 years later. Thank you :) – Christian Nov 30 '23 at 21:41
  • 2
    @Christian No problem! I only learned this very recently and just had to share it. – user267545 Dec 01 '23 at 00:21
  • 1
    @user267545 Thank you for this interesting observation. If I got it right, we cannot have a stable setting with a planet synchronised both with its star and its moon. If a moon synchronises its orbital motion with the planet's rotation, then such a moon will be outside the planet's Hill sphere. Correct? – Michael_1812 Dec 11 '23 at 19:07
  • 1
    @Michael_1812 Correct. In any 3 body system where an intermediate body (i.e. a planet) orbits around a massive body (i.e. a star) and is tidally locked to it, then all satellites of the intermediate body will necessarily orbit faster than the body rotates around its axis. In other words, any moons orbiting planets of red dwarfs (which are highly likely to be tidally locked) will necessarily orbit faster than their planet rotates. This would lead to tidal deceleration and on long timscales, cause the satellites to crash into the planet or break up once they enter the Roche limit. – user267545 Dec 12 '23 at 06:40
  • @user267545 Good observation. What makes you think that the planets of red dwarfs are tidally locked? I am asking because I am aware of one yellow dwarf, WASP-12, and one subgiant, Kepler-1658, whose inner planets are almost certainly nonsynchronised. – Michael_1812 Dec 13 '23 at 03:10
  • 1
    @Michael_1812 I'm a bit confused as to the examples you presented. Not only are both of those not red dwarfs, they're even larger and more massive than the Sun. However the reason planets orbiting around red dwarfs are more likely to be tidally locked is that the smaller, less massive, and cooler a star is, the more tidal forces a planet experiences. And it scales exponentially. Check out the answer to this (https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/40746) question for further info. Habitable planets around red dwarfs (class M) experience >100x the amount of tidal forces as Earth does. – user267545 Dec 13 '23 at 07:24
  • @user267545 Thank you for the link. I agree that the stronger the tidal force the more likely synchronisation -- but only under the condition that no external perturbation sustains a finite eccentricity value (lest the planet shares our Mercury's lot). – Michael_1812 Dec 13 '23 at 13:10