/sci/ - Science & Math

Points L4 and L5 are stable. So why haven't moons developed at these points?
We know for example in the case of Jupiter that asteroids cluster here, but wouldn't this be a gathering place for matter to coalesce when the solar system was being formed? Shouldn't we expect small moons/planetoids to be located at these points? (and then of course those moons have their own lagrange points)

It would make sense that stellar "stuff" might accumulate in lagrange point 3 kinda like how plastic and trash accumulates in the giant garbage patch of the pacific ocean. However, if where were a sizable object, wouldn't we have been able to detect it by how it's gravity interacts with other celestial objects?

one question, would the L3 point be a good spot for harvesting deuterium and tritium?

You could have two moons in the same orbit if they were at each other's lagrange points

actually it could be kind of interesting, if one of the moons was a bit more massive than the other, it would cause the other one to orbit it's lagrange point and stutter in the sky instead of having a perfect predictable position

>>7276998
I'm the anon to whom you replied.

I didn't think that there would be any shade against the sun, except for at night, and even then you have to face the sun during the day.

I wasn't quite sure what was meant when tidal locking was mentioned, and just assumed that it would be for the constant shade.

Is that what was meant? That having a sunless base on Mercury would be ideal? I think that could work for mining operations, though I'm not sure if the planet has a great deal of valuable materials within it.

Or if we wanted to get more sci-fi about it, it could be a base during the construction of a dyson sphere.