Make solar eclipses exceedingly rare, but still have new moons
$begingroup$
Given a system similar to the Earth/Moon/Sun system, how would one go about making solar eclipses rarer than they are here on earth, but keep new moons similar to how they currently are (or at least similar)?
At first I thought that increasing the lunar tilt from 5 degrees to, say, 10 degrees would help, but there would still always be two "nodes" indicating where solar eclipses could happen on the planet. Even at a 90 degree angle, twice a year, the planet would see solar eclipses. at 10 degrees, new moons would still be relatively as frequent, though at 90 degrees, I don't think there would ever be a new moon.
Is there a way to make total solar eclipses happen infrequently, while keeping new moons frequent? And if so, what variable(s) need to change to make that happen?.
science-based orbital-mechanics solar-system eclipses
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Given a system similar to the Earth/Moon/Sun system, how would one go about making solar eclipses rarer than they are here on earth, but keep new moons similar to how they currently are (or at least similar)?
At first I thought that increasing the lunar tilt from 5 degrees to, say, 10 degrees would help, but there would still always be two "nodes" indicating where solar eclipses could happen on the planet. Even at a 90 degree angle, twice a year, the planet would see solar eclipses. at 10 degrees, new moons would still be relatively as frequent, though at 90 degrees, I don't think there would ever be a new moon.
Is there a way to make total solar eclipses happen infrequently, while keeping new moons frequent? And if so, what variable(s) need to change to make that happen?.
science-based orbital-mechanics solar-system eclipses
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Given a system similar to the Earth/Moon/Sun system, how would one go about making solar eclipses rarer than they are here on earth, but keep new moons similar to how they currently are (or at least similar)?
At first I thought that increasing the lunar tilt from 5 degrees to, say, 10 degrees would help, but there would still always be two "nodes" indicating where solar eclipses could happen on the planet. Even at a 90 degree angle, twice a year, the planet would see solar eclipses. at 10 degrees, new moons would still be relatively as frequent, though at 90 degrees, I don't think there would ever be a new moon.
Is there a way to make total solar eclipses happen infrequently, while keeping new moons frequent? And if so, what variable(s) need to change to make that happen?.
science-based orbital-mechanics solar-system eclipses
$endgroup$
Given a system similar to the Earth/Moon/Sun system, how would one go about making solar eclipses rarer than they are here on earth, but keep new moons similar to how they currently are (or at least similar)?
At first I thought that increasing the lunar tilt from 5 degrees to, say, 10 degrees would help, but there would still always be two "nodes" indicating where solar eclipses could happen on the planet. Even at a 90 degree angle, twice a year, the planet would see solar eclipses. at 10 degrees, new moons would still be relatively as frequent, though at 90 degrees, I don't think there would ever be a new moon.
Is there a way to make total solar eclipses happen infrequently, while keeping new moons frequent? And if so, what variable(s) need to change to make that happen?.
science-based orbital-mechanics solar-system eclipses
science-based orbital-mechanics solar-system eclipses
edited 53 mins ago
Cristian C.
asked 8 hours ago
Cristian C.Cristian C.
2239
2239
add a comment |
add a comment |
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Just shrink the moon by 6%, and there will never be another total solar eclipse, but new moons will still happen as normal. The moon will be too small to fully cover the sun, so there will be partial and annular eclipses, but no total ones. If you still want the occasional total eclipse, make the moon slightly bigger again, so that eclipses are total if and only if it happens to be at the closest point to the Earth in its orbit at the time of the eclipse. We’d still get the same number of eclipses at the same time, but hardly any of them would be total.
Since both the moon and the Earth are in elliptical orbits, the apparent angular sizes of the moon and sun vary. Specifically, the moon varies between 29' 26" and 33' 30" while the sun varies between 31' 36" and 32' 42". You want the moon’s maximum to be just larger than the sun’s minimum, so that there are very occasional total eclipses if we happen to get an eclipse when the moon is at its closest and the sun is at its furthest. So to reduce the moon’s maximum angular size to 31’ 40” you need to make it 5.5% smaller without changing its orbit.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AlexP to clarify, what I meant was to make the lunar perigee smaller while also shrinking the size of the moon. This keeps the relative size of the moon the same to an observer on the planet, and therefore would continue to create total solar eclipses. Though I don't think the frequency would be affected.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this hits the nail on the head!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Keep sun and moon sizes, make the orbit of the Earth around the sun more excentric and with a smaller mean distance.
The new moon is unnafected, but full solar eclipses will only happen if the eclipse happens together with the Earth's apoapsis, or close to it. And that will only happen during a few specific days of the year. Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial.
That also implies shorter years and a whole different set of conditions on the planet that might not be compatible with life as we know it, though.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
$endgroup$
– NeutronStar
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why not make the moon's orbit precess? If the precession chases the sun (from the perspective of earth) while staying a bit off from it, you could keep new moons as common as always and eliminate solar eclipses altogether.
If you made the presession not quite at the same rate as the sun, you could also cause large periods without a single solar eclipse, followed by a period where a solar eclipse happened every month (which, from a story perspective, could be interesting).
Alternatively, if you had the moon precess in the opposite direction of the earth's movement around the sun (and depending on the length of your lunar month vs solar year), it may be possible to have the moon 'miss' a solar eclipse except for once every few hundreds of years.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At 90 degree inclination, you could still get new moons near the nodes where the inclination of the moon's orbit with respect to the line from the planet to the sun is low.
The presence of nodes in the planet's orbit where the inclined orbital path of the moon intersects a line pointing towards the sun, however, is not itself problematic, because it is not itself sufficient to cause eclipses. And that's a good thing for you, because it's a simple geometric fact that you can't avoid them. In order to get an eclipse, the moon also has to actually pass through that intersection point during the brief period when it exists every half-year. As such, a very simple solution to avoid ever having an eclipse presents itself: just tweak the moon's orbital period so that it forms a simple integer ratio with the year, such that the moon is always in the same phase on the same date every year--and then just declare that the phases are such that you never have things line up for an eclipse.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Instead of one moon which is just big enough and close enough to cause a total eclipse whenever it intersects between our planet and our sun, why not have several moons which are each either smaller or more distant such that no single moon can produce a full eclipse.
New moons would still happen and would actually be much more common than Earth standard, but total eclipses would only occur when all of the moons simultaneously entered the intersection point, each blocking a portion of the available sunshine and collectively blocking it all.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Resonance. Pick a ratio of the lunar orbital period to the solar orbital period such that the moon normally in the wrong part of it's orbit when it's both directly sunward and in the plane of the ecliptic. The bigger numbers you need to use to express the ratio the longer it will be between eclipses.
Unlike normal planetary resonance orbits no force will maintain this or cause it to come into being but as the moon slowly spirals out there will be a time that it happens naturally. You'll have to adjust the size of the moon so it provides a total eclipse at that distance from the Earth.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
3 hours ago
add a 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: "579"
};
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%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142780%2fmake-solar-eclipses-exceedingly-rare-but-still-have-new-moons%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Just shrink the moon by 6%, and there will never be another total solar eclipse, but new moons will still happen as normal. The moon will be too small to fully cover the sun, so there will be partial and annular eclipses, but no total ones. If you still want the occasional total eclipse, make the moon slightly bigger again, so that eclipses are total if and only if it happens to be at the closest point to the Earth in its orbit at the time of the eclipse. We’d still get the same number of eclipses at the same time, but hardly any of them would be total.
Since both the moon and the Earth are in elliptical orbits, the apparent angular sizes of the moon and sun vary. Specifically, the moon varies between 29' 26" and 33' 30" while the sun varies between 31' 36" and 32' 42". You want the moon’s maximum to be just larger than the sun’s minimum, so that there are very occasional total eclipses if we happen to get an eclipse when the moon is at its closest and the sun is at its furthest. So to reduce the moon’s maximum angular size to 31’ 40” you need to make it 5.5% smaller without changing its orbit.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AlexP to clarify, what I meant was to make the lunar perigee smaller while also shrinking the size of the moon. This keeps the relative size of the moon the same to an observer on the planet, and therefore would continue to create total solar eclipses. Though I don't think the frequency would be affected.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this hits the nail on the head!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Just shrink the moon by 6%, and there will never be another total solar eclipse, but new moons will still happen as normal. The moon will be too small to fully cover the sun, so there will be partial and annular eclipses, but no total ones. If you still want the occasional total eclipse, make the moon slightly bigger again, so that eclipses are total if and only if it happens to be at the closest point to the Earth in its orbit at the time of the eclipse. We’d still get the same number of eclipses at the same time, but hardly any of them would be total.
Since both the moon and the Earth are in elliptical orbits, the apparent angular sizes of the moon and sun vary. Specifically, the moon varies between 29' 26" and 33' 30" while the sun varies between 31' 36" and 32' 42". You want the moon’s maximum to be just larger than the sun’s minimum, so that there are very occasional total eclipses if we happen to get an eclipse when the moon is at its closest and the sun is at its furthest. So to reduce the moon’s maximum angular size to 31’ 40” you need to make it 5.5% smaller without changing its orbit.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AlexP to clarify, what I meant was to make the lunar perigee smaller while also shrinking the size of the moon. This keeps the relative size of the moon the same to an observer on the planet, and therefore would continue to create total solar eclipses. Though I don't think the frequency would be affected.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this hits the nail on the head!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Just shrink the moon by 6%, and there will never be another total solar eclipse, but new moons will still happen as normal. The moon will be too small to fully cover the sun, so there will be partial and annular eclipses, but no total ones. If you still want the occasional total eclipse, make the moon slightly bigger again, so that eclipses are total if and only if it happens to be at the closest point to the Earth in its orbit at the time of the eclipse. We’d still get the same number of eclipses at the same time, but hardly any of them would be total.
Since both the moon and the Earth are in elliptical orbits, the apparent angular sizes of the moon and sun vary. Specifically, the moon varies between 29' 26" and 33' 30" while the sun varies between 31' 36" and 32' 42". You want the moon’s maximum to be just larger than the sun’s minimum, so that there are very occasional total eclipses if we happen to get an eclipse when the moon is at its closest and the sun is at its furthest. So to reduce the moon’s maximum angular size to 31’ 40” you need to make it 5.5% smaller without changing its orbit.
$endgroup$
Just shrink the moon by 6%, and there will never be another total solar eclipse, but new moons will still happen as normal. The moon will be too small to fully cover the sun, so there will be partial and annular eclipses, but no total ones. If you still want the occasional total eclipse, make the moon slightly bigger again, so that eclipses are total if and only if it happens to be at the closest point to the Earth in its orbit at the time of the eclipse. We’d still get the same number of eclipses at the same time, but hardly any of them would be total.
Since both the moon and the Earth are in elliptical orbits, the apparent angular sizes of the moon and sun vary. Specifically, the moon varies between 29' 26" and 33' 30" while the sun varies between 31' 36" and 32' 42". You want the moon’s maximum to be just larger than the sun’s minimum, so that there are very occasional total eclipses if we happen to get an eclipse when the moon is at its closest and the sun is at its furthest. So to reduce the moon’s maximum angular size to 31’ 40” you need to make it 5.5% smaller without changing its orbit.
edited 6 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
Mike ScottMike Scott
11.4k32349
11.4k32349
$begingroup$
After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AlexP to clarify, what I meant was to make the lunar perigee smaller while also shrinking the size of the moon. This keeps the relative size of the moon the same to an observer on the planet, and therefore would continue to create total solar eclipses. Though I don't think the frequency would be affected.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this hits the nail on the head!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AlexP to clarify, what I meant was to make the lunar perigee smaller while also shrinking the size of the moon. This keeps the relative size of the moon the same to an observer on the planet, and therefore would continue to create total solar eclipses. Though I don't think the frequency would be affected.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this hits the nail on the head!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
$endgroup$
– AlexP
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AlexP to clarify, what I meant was to make the lunar perigee smaller while also shrinking the size of the moon. This keeps the relative size of the moon the same to an observer on the planet, and therefore would continue to create total solar eclipses. Though I don't think the frequency would be affected.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@AlexP to clarify, what I meant was to make the lunar perigee smaller while also shrinking the size of the moon. This keeps the relative size of the moon the same to an observer on the planet, and therefore would continue to create total solar eclipses. Though I don't think the frequency would be affected.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this hits the nail on the head!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this hits the nail on the head!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Keep sun and moon sizes, make the orbit of the Earth around the sun more excentric and with a smaller mean distance.
The new moon is unnafected, but full solar eclipses will only happen if the eclipse happens together with the Earth's apoapsis, or close to it. And that will only happen during a few specific days of the year. Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial.
That also implies shorter years and a whole different set of conditions on the planet that might not be compatible with life as we know it, though.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
$endgroup$
– NeutronStar
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Keep sun and moon sizes, make the orbit of the Earth around the sun more excentric and with a smaller mean distance.
The new moon is unnafected, but full solar eclipses will only happen if the eclipse happens together with the Earth's apoapsis, or close to it. And that will only happen during a few specific days of the year. Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial.
That also implies shorter years and a whole different set of conditions on the planet that might not be compatible with life as we know it, though.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
$endgroup$
– NeutronStar
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Keep sun and moon sizes, make the orbit of the Earth around the sun more excentric and with a smaller mean distance.
The new moon is unnafected, but full solar eclipses will only happen if the eclipse happens together with the Earth's apoapsis, or close to it. And that will only happen during a few specific days of the year. Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial.
That also implies shorter years and a whole different set of conditions on the planet that might not be compatible with life as we know it, though.
$endgroup$
Keep sun and moon sizes, make the orbit of the Earth around the sun more excentric and with a smaller mean distance.
The new moon is unnafected, but full solar eclipses will only happen if the eclipse happens together with the Earth's apoapsis, or close to it. And that will only happen during a few specific days of the year. Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial.
That also implies shorter years and a whole different set of conditions on the planet that might not be compatible with life as we know it, though.
edited 7 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
RenanRenan
51.7k15119257
51.7k15119257
3
$begingroup$
Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
$endgroup$
– NeutronStar
4 hours ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
"Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
$endgroup$
– NeutronStar
4 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
7 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
"Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
$endgroup$
– NeutronStar
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
"Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
$endgroup$
– NeutronStar
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why not make the moon's orbit precess? If the precession chases the sun (from the perspective of earth) while staying a bit off from it, you could keep new moons as common as always and eliminate solar eclipses altogether.
If you made the presession not quite at the same rate as the sun, you could also cause large periods without a single solar eclipse, followed by a period where a solar eclipse happened every month (which, from a story perspective, could be interesting).
Alternatively, if you had the moon precess in the opposite direction of the earth's movement around the sun (and depending on the length of your lunar month vs solar year), it may be possible to have the moon 'miss' a solar eclipse except for once every few hundreds of years.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why not make the moon's orbit precess? If the precession chases the sun (from the perspective of earth) while staying a bit off from it, you could keep new moons as common as always and eliminate solar eclipses altogether.
If you made the presession not quite at the same rate as the sun, you could also cause large periods without a single solar eclipse, followed by a period where a solar eclipse happened every month (which, from a story perspective, could be interesting).
Alternatively, if you had the moon precess in the opposite direction of the earth's movement around the sun (and depending on the length of your lunar month vs solar year), it may be possible to have the moon 'miss' a solar eclipse except for once every few hundreds of years.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why not make the moon's orbit precess? If the precession chases the sun (from the perspective of earth) while staying a bit off from it, you could keep new moons as common as always and eliminate solar eclipses altogether.
If you made the presession not quite at the same rate as the sun, you could also cause large periods without a single solar eclipse, followed by a period where a solar eclipse happened every month (which, from a story perspective, could be interesting).
Alternatively, if you had the moon precess in the opposite direction of the earth's movement around the sun (and depending on the length of your lunar month vs solar year), it may be possible to have the moon 'miss' a solar eclipse except for once every few hundreds of years.
$endgroup$
Why not make the moon's orbit precess? If the precession chases the sun (from the perspective of earth) while staying a bit off from it, you could keep new moons as common as always and eliminate solar eclipses altogether.
If you made the presession not quite at the same rate as the sun, you could also cause large periods without a single solar eclipse, followed by a period where a solar eclipse happened every month (which, from a story perspective, could be interesting).
Alternatively, if you had the moon precess in the opposite direction of the earth's movement around the sun (and depending on the length of your lunar month vs solar year), it may be possible to have the moon 'miss' a solar eclipse except for once every few hundreds of years.
answered 5 hours ago
Elliot SchrockElliot Schrock
2,298615
2,298615
$begingroup$
Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At 90 degree inclination, you could still get new moons near the nodes where the inclination of the moon's orbit with respect to the line from the planet to the sun is low.
The presence of nodes in the planet's orbit where the inclined orbital path of the moon intersects a line pointing towards the sun, however, is not itself problematic, because it is not itself sufficient to cause eclipses. And that's a good thing for you, because it's a simple geometric fact that you can't avoid them. In order to get an eclipse, the moon also has to actually pass through that intersection point during the brief period when it exists every half-year. As such, a very simple solution to avoid ever having an eclipse presents itself: just tweak the moon's orbital period so that it forms a simple integer ratio with the year, such that the moon is always in the same phase on the same date every year--and then just declare that the phases are such that you never have things line up for an eclipse.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At 90 degree inclination, you could still get new moons near the nodes where the inclination of the moon's orbit with respect to the line from the planet to the sun is low.
The presence of nodes in the planet's orbit where the inclined orbital path of the moon intersects a line pointing towards the sun, however, is not itself problematic, because it is not itself sufficient to cause eclipses. And that's a good thing for you, because it's a simple geometric fact that you can't avoid them. In order to get an eclipse, the moon also has to actually pass through that intersection point during the brief period when it exists every half-year. As such, a very simple solution to avoid ever having an eclipse presents itself: just tweak the moon's orbital period so that it forms a simple integer ratio with the year, such that the moon is always in the same phase on the same date every year--and then just declare that the phases are such that you never have things line up for an eclipse.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
At 90 degree inclination, you could still get new moons near the nodes where the inclination of the moon's orbit with respect to the line from the planet to the sun is low.
The presence of nodes in the planet's orbit where the inclined orbital path of the moon intersects a line pointing towards the sun, however, is not itself problematic, because it is not itself sufficient to cause eclipses. And that's a good thing for you, because it's a simple geometric fact that you can't avoid them. In order to get an eclipse, the moon also has to actually pass through that intersection point during the brief period when it exists every half-year. As such, a very simple solution to avoid ever having an eclipse presents itself: just tweak the moon's orbital period so that it forms a simple integer ratio with the year, such that the moon is always in the same phase on the same date every year--and then just declare that the phases are such that you never have things line up for an eclipse.
$endgroup$
At 90 degree inclination, you could still get new moons near the nodes where the inclination of the moon's orbit with respect to the line from the planet to the sun is low.
The presence of nodes in the planet's orbit where the inclined orbital path of the moon intersects a line pointing towards the sun, however, is not itself problematic, because it is not itself sufficient to cause eclipses. And that's a good thing for you, because it's a simple geometric fact that you can't avoid them. In order to get an eclipse, the moon also has to actually pass through that intersection point during the brief period when it exists every half-year. As such, a very simple solution to avoid ever having an eclipse presents itself: just tweak the moon's orbital period so that it forms a simple integer ratio with the year, such that the moon is always in the same phase on the same date every year--and then just declare that the phases are such that you never have things line up for an eclipse.
answered 6 hours ago
Logan R. KearsleyLogan R. Kearsley
11.4k13157
11.4k13157
$begingroup$
Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
6 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Instead of one moon which is just big enough and close enough to cause a total eclipse whenever it intersects between our planet and our sun, why not have several moons which are each either smaller or more distant such that no single moon can produce a full eclipse.
New moons would still happen and would actually be much more common than Earth standard, but total eclipses would only occur when all of the moons simultaneously entered the intersection point, each blocking a portion of the available sunshine and collectively blocking it all.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Instead of one moon which is just big enough and close enough to cause a total eclipse whenever it intersects between our planet and our sun, why not have several moons which are each either smaller or more distant such that no single moon can produce a full eclipse.
New moons would still happen and would actually be much more common than Earth standard, but total eclipses would only occur when all of the moons simultaneously entered the intersection point, each blocking a portion of the available sunshine and collectively blocking it all.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Instead of one moon which is just big enough and close enough to cause a total eclipse whenever it intersects between our planet and our sun, why not have several moons which are each either smaller or more distant such that no single moon can produce a full eclipse.
New moons would still happen and would actually be much more common than Earth standard, but total eclipses would only occur when all of the moons simultaneously entered the intersection point, each blocking a portion of the available sunshine and collectively blocking it all.
$endgroup$
Instead of one moon which is just big enough and close enough to cause a total eclipse whenever it intersects between our planet and our sun, why not have several moons which are each either smaller or more distant such that no single moon can produce a full eclipse.
New moons would still happen and would actually be much more common than Earth standard, but total eclipses would only occur when all of the moons simultaneously entered the intersection point, each blocking a portion of the available sunshine and collectively blocking it all.
answered 5 hours ago
Henry TaylorHenry Taylor
46.5k872168
46.5k872168
$begingroup$
That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Resonance. Pick a ratio of the lunar orbital period to the solar orbital period such that the moon normally in the wrong part of it's orbit when it's both directly sunward and in the plane of the ecliptic. The bigger numbers you need to use to express the ratio the longer it will be between eclipses.
Unlike normal planetary resonance orbits no force will maintain this or cause it to come into being but as the moon slowly spirals out there will be a time that it happens naturally. You'll have to adjust the size of the moon so it provides a total eclipse at that distance from the Earth.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Resonance. Pick a ratio of the lunar orbital period to the solar orbital period such that the moon normally in the wrong part of it's orbit when it's both directly sunward and in the plane of the ecliptic. The bigger numbers you need to use to express the ratio the longer it will be between eclipses.
Unlike normal planetary resonance orbits no force will maintain this or cause it to come into being but as the moon slowly spirals out there will be a time that it happens naturally. You'll have to adjust the size of the moon so it provides a total eclipse at that distance from the Earth.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Resonance. Pick a ratio of the lunar orbital period to the solar orbital period such that the moon normally in the wrong part of it's orbit when it's both directly sunward and in the plane of the ecliptic. The bigger numbers you need to use to express the ratio the longer it will be between eclipses.
Unlike normal planetary resonance orbits no force will maintain this or cause it to come into being but as the moon slowly spirals out there will be a time that it happens naturally. You'll have to adjust the size of the moon so it provides a total eclipse at that distance from the Earth.
$endgroup$
Resonance. Pick a ratio of the lunar orbital period to the solar orbital period such that the moon normally in the wrong part of it's orbit when it's both directly sunward and in the plane of the ecliptic. The bigger numbers you need to use to express the ratio the longer it will be between eclipses.
Unlike normal planetary resonance orbits no force will maintain this or cause it to come into being but as the moon slowly spirals out there will be a time that it happens naturally. You'll have to adjust the size of the moon so it provides a total eclipse at that distance from the Earth.
answered 3 hours ago
Loren PechtelLoren Pechtel
19.8k2262
19.8k2262
$begingroup$
Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
$endgroup$
– Cristian C.
3 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding 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%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142780%2fmake-solar-eclipses-exceedingly-rare-but-still-have-new-moons%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