slowest crash on the Moon?How to calculate Delta V for lunar flybyCan astronauts hear sounds during space walks for repairs?Have there been any documented mini-moons since 2006 RH120?Could Cassini crash land on Mercury?How accurate is the patched conic approximation when performing a Hohmann interplanetary transfer?Mars Orbit Upon InterceptWhy did NASA intentionally crash the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) on the moon?When you shoot for the moon and miss, where do you end up?How feasible is the Moonspike mission?Could the crash sites of the Apollo 11 and 16 LMs be seen by the LRO?

What percentage of the mass/energy of the universe is in the form of electromagnetic waves?

Sum of Infinite series with a Geometric series in multiply

How to deal with an incompetent collaborator

Is it safe for a student to give negative feedback in student evaluations?

Why don't they build airplanes from 3D printer plastic?

To which country did MiGs in Top Gun belong?

In chocolate terminology, what is the name of thinly sliced leaf-shaped toppings made from hot, smooth chocolate, used to form flower petals?

How do you get the angle of the lid from the CLI?

Map a function that takes arguments in different levels of a list

Meaning of "educating the ice"

How do I stop making people jump at home and at work?

Are there photos of the Apollo LM showing disturbed lunar soil resulting from descent engine exhaust?

How do you manage to study and have a balance in your life at the same time?

'Hard work never hurt anyone' Why not 'hurts'?

Does the size of capers influence their taste?

What is the significance of 104%?

How is total raw calculated for Science Pack 2?

Initializing a std::array with a constant value

exam: Macros for printing the values of labelwidth and labelsep for question/part

What exactly is a softlock?

Importance of electrolytic capacitor size

Some questions about Lightning and Tor

What is a "fat pointer" in Rust?

Can a Simulacrum reproduce?



slowest crash on the Moon?


How to calculate Delta V for lunar flybyCan astronauts hear sounds during space walks for repairs?Have there been any documented mini-moons since 2006 RH120?Could Cassini crash land on Mercury?How accurate is the patched conic approximation when performing a Hohmann interplanetary transfer?Mars Orbit Upon InterceptWhy did NASA intentionally crash the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) on the moon?When you shoot for the moon and miss, where do you end up?How feasible is the Moonspike mission?Could the crash sites of the Apollo 11 and 16 LMs be seen by the LRO?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








2












$begingroup$


Let's say I launched something into lunar orbit with minimal of propellant - just enough for trajectory corrections and then a final push to de-orbit.



What is the slowest crash landing speed (both tangential and vertical)?



Sources?



Edit 1: I would like a crash trajectory be at the most 30 degrees from vertical.



Edit 2: Wikipedia describes "Hohmann transfer orbit" :



The orbital maneuver to perform the Hohmann transfer uses two engine impulses, one to move a spacecraft onto the transfer orbit and a second to move off it.



Any way to end up on the moon without a 2nd burn? If yes, what would be the
collision speed.



BTW, If this is really too vague of a question I have no problem deleting it.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What do you mean by deorbit? A burn that completely cancels the horizontal component of velocity, a burn that changes a circular orbit into an elliptical one whose perilune just barely intersects the Moon's surface, or something else?
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is there a way to just "shoot for the moon" without planning for the de-orbit burn? Or setting up orbit's apogee so that the Moon crashes into the launched object?
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @gene I think you have to put more detail in your question. It is unclear what you are asking. Using the example in my comment above, a spacecraft might impact at 200 m/s and another at 20 m/s. It depends on the space craft (eg, amount of fuel, thrust of thrusters, specific impulse, etc). I suggest editing it. Thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – StarMan
    7 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Related: space.stackexchange.com/q/2103/32284
    $endgroup$
    – StarMan
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidHammen I just wrote this, so now I'm curious what those ways might be!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    5 hours ago

















2












$begingroup$


Let's say I launched something into lunar orbit with minimal of propellant - just enough for trajectory corrections and then a final push to de-orbit.



What is the slowest crash landing speed (both tangential and vertical)?



Sources?



Edit 1: I would like a crash trajectory be at the most 30 degrees from vertical.



Edit 2: Wikipedia describes "Hohmann transfer orbit" :



The orbital maneuver to perform the Hohmann transfer uses two engine impulses, one to move a spacecraft onto the transfer orbit and a second to move off it.



Any way to end up on the moon without a 2nd burn? If yes, what would be the
collision speed.



BTW, If this is really too vague of a question I have no problem deleting it.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What do you mean by deorbit? A burn that completely cancels the horizontal component of velocity, a burn that changes a circular orbit into an elliptical one whose perilune just barely intersects the Moon's surface, or something else?
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is there a way to just "shoot for the moon" without planning for the de-orbit burn? Or setting up orbit's apogee so that the Moon crashes into the launched object?
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @gene I think you have to put more detail in your question. It is unclear what you are asking. Using the example in my comment above, a spacecraft might impact at 200 m/s and another at 20 m/s. It depends on the space craft (eg, amount of fuel, thrust of thrusters, specific impulse, etc). I suggest editing it. Thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – StarMan
    7 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Related: space.stackexchange.com/q/2103/32284
    $endgroup$
    – StarMan
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidHammen I just wrote this, so now I'm curious what those ways might be!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    5 hours ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$


Let's say I launched something into lunar orbit with minimal of propellant - just enough for trajectory corrections and then a final push to de-orbit.



What is the slowest crash landing speed (both tangential and vertical)?



Sources?



Edit 1: I would like a crash trajectory be at the most 30 degrees from vertical.



Edit 2: Wikipedia describes "Hohmann transfer orbit" :



The orbital maneuver to perform the Hohmann transfer uses two engine impulses, one to move a spacecraft onto the transfer orbit and a second to move off it.



Any way to end up on the moon without a 2nd burn? If yes, what would be the
collision speed.



BTW, If this is really too vague of a question I have no problem deleting it.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Let's say I launched something into lunar orbit with minimal of propellant - just enough for trajectory corrections and then a final push to de-orbit.



What is the slowest crash landing speed (both tangential and vertical)?



Sources?



Edit 1: I would like a crash trajectory be at the most 30 degrees from vertical.



Edit 2: Wikipedia describes "Hohmann transfer orbit" :



The orbital maneuver to perform the Hohmann transfer uses two engine impulses, one to move a spacecraft onto the transfer orbit and a second to move off it.



Any way to end up on the moon without a 2nd burn? If yes, what would be the
collision speed.



BTW, If this is really too vague of a question I have no problem deleting it.







orbital-mechanics the-moon






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago







gene

















asked 9 hours ago









genegene

464 bronze badges




464 bronze badges










  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What do you mean by deorbit? A burn that completely cancels the horizontal component of velocity, a burn that changes a circular orbit into an elliptical one whose perilune just barely intersects the Moon's surface, or something else?
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is there a way to just "shoot for the moon" without planning for the de-orbit burn? Or setting up orbit's apogee so that the Moon crashes into the launched object?
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @gene I think you have to put more detail in your question. It is unclear what you are asking. Using the example in my comment above, a spacecraft might impact at 200 m/s and another at 20 m/s. It depends on the space craft (eg, amount of fuel, thrust of thrusters, specific impulse, etc). I suggest editing it. Thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – StarMan
    7 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Related: space.stackexchange.com/q/2103/32284
    $endgroup$
    – StarMan
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidHammen I just wrote this, so now I'm curious what those ways might be!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    5 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What do you mean by deorbit? A burn that completely cancels the horizontal component of velocity, a burn that changes a circular orbit into an elliptical one whose perilune just barely intersects the Moon's surface, or something else?
    $endgroup$
    – David Hammen
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is there a way to just "shoot for the moon" without planning for the de-orbit burn? Or setting up orbit's apogee so that the Moon crashes into the launched object?
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @gene I think you have to put more detail in your question. It is unclear what you are asking. Using the example in my comment above, a spacecraft might impact at 200 m/s and another at 20 m/s. It depends on the space craft (eg, amount of fuel, thrust of thrusters, specific impulse, etc). I suggest editing it. Thanks :)
    $endgroup$
    – StarMan
    7 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Related: space.stackexchange.com/q/2103/32284
    $endgroup$
    – StarMan
    5 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidHammen I just wrote this, so now I'm curious what those ways might be!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    5 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
What do you mean by deorbit? A burn that completely cancels the horizontal component of velocity, a burn that changes a circular orbit into an elliptical one whose perilune just barely intersects the Moon's surface, or something else?
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
What do you mean by deorbit? A burn that completely cancels the horizontal component of velocity, a burn that changes a circular orbit into an elliptical one whose perilune just barely intersects the Moon's surface, or something else?
$endgroup$
– David Hammen
8 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Is there a way to just "shoot for the moon" without planning for the de-orbit burn? Or setting up orbit's apogee so that the Moon crashes into the launched object?
$endgroup$
– gene
8 hours ago





$begingroup$
Is there a way to just "shoot for the moon" without planning for the de-orbit burn? Or setting up orbit's apogee so that the Moon crashes into the launched object?
$endgroup$
– gene
8 hours ago





1




1




$begingroup$
@gene I think you have to put more detail in your question. It is unclear what you are asking. Using the example in my comment above, a spacecraft might impact at 200 m/s and another at 20 m/s. It depends on the space craft (eg, amount of fuel, thrust of thrusters, specific impulse, etc). I suggest editing it. Thanks :)
$endgroup$
– StarMan
7 hours ago





$begingroup$
@gene I think you have to put more detail in your question. It is unclear what you are asking. Using the example in my comment above, a spacecraft might impact at 200 m/s and another at 20 m/s. It depends on the space craft (eg, amount of fuel, thrust of thrusters, specific impulse, etc). I suggest editing it. Thanks :)
$endgroup$
– StarMan
7 hours ago





1




1




$begingroup$
Related: space.stackexchange.com/q/2103/32284
$endgroup$
– StarMan
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
Related: space.stackexchange.com/q/2103/32284
$endgroup$
– StarMan
5 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@DavidHammen I just wrote this, so now I'm curious what those ways might be!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
@DavidHammen I just wrote this, so now I'm curious what those ways might be!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
5 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















6













$begingroup$

tl;dr: I don't think there is any scenario where you can strike the Moon with low velocity by using a small impulse to leave orbit. You can hit sideways with an orbital velocity of about 1680 m/s, or vertically with escape velocity the square root of 2 larger at 2376 m/s.





Let's say I launched something into lunar orbit with minimal of propellant - just enough for trajectory corrections and then a final push to de-orbit.




From low lunar orbit



When in orbit around Earth, say at 400 km, "a final push to de-orbit" would be a small impulse to lower the perigee to about 100 or a little higher. Then each time the spacecraft passed near perigee it would loose a little more velocity due to drag, slowly circularizing near perigee. After that, it would spiral due to drag and eventually reenter the main part of the atmosphere and quickly either burn up, or fall to the ground if it had proper heat shielding and aerodynamics.



But the Moon is tricky. If it were a nearly perfect gravitational sphere, then your burn would lower the perilune to just above the average lunar surface where it would strike whatever boulder or crater rim might be sticking up. This would happen at the lunar orbital velocity given by the vis-viva equation



$$v= sqrtGM/a.$$



The standard gravitational parameter of the Moon $GM$ is 4.905E+12 m^3/s^2 and the semimajor axis $a$ would be the lunar radius 1.737E+06 meters. That puts the velocity at about 1680 m/s.



Since the Moon has quite a lumpy gravity field all you need to do is to bring the spacecraft to a very low orbit and just wait. Due to gravitational perturbations, or those from the Earth and Sun, eventually its constantly changing orbit will bring it into contact with the surface.



There are no small orbital corrections from a low lunar orbit that can bring it down within 30 degrees of vertical. You'd have to do a major burn to loose most of that 1680 m/s of orbital velocity very quickly, so that it would just "fall straight down".



From high lunar orbit



If the Moon were all alone in space, you could put yourself in an absurdly high lunar orbit, let's say 1 million kilometers. At that altitude your orbital velocity would be only 70 m/s and a delta-v equal to that would stop you in your tracks. However, then you'd fall towards the Moon and accelerate.



Your velocity at impact dropping from an altitude $a$ to the lunar radius $R$ would then be



$$v= sqrt2 GMleft(frac1R - frac1aright).$$



If you plot those versus the starting semi-major axis, you can see that the delta-v you'd need to fall out of orbit, which is the orbital velocity, drops with increasing altitude, but the resulting impact velocity due to acceleration towards the Moon rapidly rises.



There's no gentle delta-v followed by a gentle impact.



enter image description here



What about a clever 3-body orbit?



But what if I know about the chaotic 3-body orbits of minimoons that uses both the gravity of the Earth and the Moon, and I wanted to look for a crazy orbit that starts near a stable orbit, but "goes chaotic" and eventually touches down on the surface of the Moon, or slows very close to it?



  • Have there been any documented mini-moons since 2006 RH120?

  • How would a small TCO (temporarily captured orbiter) or other natural Earth satellite most likely be detected?

This doesn't happen. I think there is a good Stack Exchange Q&A on this somewhere in Space Exploration, Astronomy, or Physics, but I can't find it.



The argument goes like this: orbits work just as well forwards and backwards in time. So if such an orbit existed, then the backwards scenario would also have to be possible; you'd be able to hold a rock near the surface of the moon, give it only a slight nudge, and it would mysteriously start flying away from the Moon and end up in a high orbit.



That doesn't happen, it just falls to the surface with a silent but none-the-less perceived thud.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I really like the "orbits work just as well forwards and backwards in time." logic.
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @gene thanks, but I can't take credit for thinking of it first; I read it elsewhere in SE. I'll keep looking for the original post. Great question by the way!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    what if your spacecraft was in a low lunar orbit? If you were just a short distance above the surface when you did your delta-v maneouvre, you would not accelerate much due to gravity as you fall. Taken to the limits, I think I would call this a "landing".
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    8 mins ago


















1













$begingroup$

Yes, you can hit the Moon with a spacecraft much in the way you can hit somebody in the head with a snowball even when they're running, and it's been done a couple of times. Some of the earliest US and Soviet lunar missions were effectively snowballs that we threw at the Moon, of which the first was the Soviet Luna 2 probe, which you can read about here.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    My question is "what is the slowest collision speed" - whatever the variables are? The very nice link you provided mentions "impacting the moon at about 3.3 km/s ". Nice to know they left some titanium and aluminum that no longer needs to be refined. :-)
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @gene Without a dedicated landing engine, there’s no way to reach the moon at less than 2.3km/s no matter what initial trajectory you approach on.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    If you can provide a reference - I'll accept that as an answer.
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    wait, you hit somebody in the head with a snowball "a couple of times"?
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    6 hours ago













Your Answer








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
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38514%2fslowest-crash-on-the-moon%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









6













$begingroup$

tl;dr: I don't think there is any scenario where you can strike the Moon with low velocity by using a small impulse to leave orbit. You can hit sideways with an orbital velocity of about 1680 m/s, or vertically with escape velocity the square root of 2 larger at 2376 m/s.





Let's say I launched something into lunar orbit with minimal of propellant - just enough for trajectory corrections and then a final push to de-orbit.




From low lunar orbit



When in orbit around Earth, say at 400 km, "a final push to de-orbit" would be a small impulse to lower the perigee to about 100 or a little higher. Then each time the spacecraft passed near perigee it would loose a little more velocity due to drag, slowly circularizing near perigee. After that, it would spiral due to drag and eventually reenter the main part of the atmosphere and quickly either burn up, or fall to the ground if it had proper heat shielding and aerodynamics.



But the Moon is tricky. If it were a nearly perfect gravitational sphere, then your burn would lower the perilune to just above the average lunar surface where it would strike whatever boulder or crater rim might be sticking up. This would happen at the lunar orbital velocity given by the vis-viva equation



$$v= sqrtGM/a.$$



The standard gravitational parameter of the Moon $GM$ is 4.905E+12 m^3/s^2 and the semimajor axis $a$ would be the lunar radius 1.737E+06 meters. That puts the velocity at about 1680 m/s.



Since the Moon has quite a lumpy gravity field all you need to do is to bring the spacecraft to a very low orbit and just wait. Due to gravitational perturbations, or those from the Earth and Sun, eventually its constantly changing orbit will bring it into contact with the surface.



There are no small orbital corrections from a low lunar orbit that can bring it down within 30 degrees of vertical. You'd have to do a major burn to loose most of that 1680 m/s of orbital velocity very quickly, so that it would just "fall straight down".



From high lunar orbit



If the Moon were all alone in space, you could put yourself in an absurdly high lunar orbit, let's say 1 million kilometers. At that altitude your orbital velocity would be only 70 m/s and a delta-v equal to that would stop you in your tracks. However, then you'd fall towards the Moon and accelerate.



Your velocity at impact dropping from an altitude $a$ to the lunar radius $R$ would then be



$$v= sqrt2 GMleft(frac1R - frac1aright).$$



If you plot those versus the starting semi-major axis, you can see that the delta-v you'd need to fall out of orbit, which is the orbital velocity, drops with increasing altitude, but the resulting impact velocity due to acceleration towards the Moon rapidly rises.



There's no gentle delta-v followed by a gentle impact.



enter image description here



What about a clever 3-body orbit?



But what if I know about the chaotic 3-body orbits of minimoons that uses both the gravity of the Earth and the Moon, and I wanted to look for a crazy orbit that starts near a stable orbit, but "goes chaotic" and eventually touches down on the surface of the Moon, or slows very close to it?



  • Have there been any documented mini-moons since 2006 RH120?

  • How would a small TCO (temporarily captured orbiter) or other natural Earth satellite most likely be detected?

This doesn't happen. I think there is a good Stack Exchange Q&A on this somewhere in Space Exploration, Astronomy, or Physics, but I can't find it.



The argument goes like this: orbits work just as well forwards and backwards in time. So if such an orbit existed, then the backwards scenario would also have to be possible; you'd be able to hold a rock near the surface of the moon, give it only a slight nudge, and it would mysteriously start flying away from the Moon and end up in a high orbit.



That doesn't happen, it just falls to the surface with a silent but none-the-less perceived thud.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I really like the "orbits work just as well forwards and backwards in time." logic.
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @gene thanks, but I can't take credit for thinking of it first; I read it elsewhere in SE. I'll keep looking for the original post. Great question by the way!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    what if your spacecraft was in a low lunar orbit? If you were just a short distance above the surface when you did your delta-v maneouvre, you would not accelerate much due to gravity as you fall. Taken to the limits, I think I would call this a "landing".
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    8 mins ago















6













$begingroup$

tl;dr: I don't think there is any scenario where you can strike the Moon with low velocity by using a small impulse to leave orbit. You can hit sideways with an orbital velocity of about 1680 m/s, or vertically with escape velocity the square root of 2 larger at 2376 m/s.





Let's say I launched something into lunar orbit with minimal of propellant - just enough for trajectory corrections and then a final push to de-orbit.




From low lunar orbit



When in orbit around Earth, say at 400 km, "a final push to de-orbit" would be a small impulse to lower the perigee to about 100 or a little higher. Then each time the spacecraft passed near perigee it would loose a little more velocity due to drag, slowly circularizing near perigee. After that, it would spiral due to drag and eventually reenter the main part of the atmosphere and quickly either burn up, or fall to the ground if it had proper heat shielding and aerodynamics.



But the Moon is tricky. If it were a nearly perfect gravitational sphere, then your burn would lower the perilune to just above the average lunar surface where it would strike whatever boulder or crater rim might be sticking up. This would happen at the lunar orbital velocity given by the vis-viva equation



$$v= sqrtGM/a.$$



The standard gravitational parameter of the Moon $GM$ is 4.905E+12 m^3/s^2 and the semimajor axis $a$ would be the lunar radius 1.737E+06 meters. That puts the velocity at about 1680 m/s.



Since the Moon has quite a lumpy gravity field all you need to do is to bring the spacecraft to a very low orbit and just wait. Due to gravitational perturbations, or those from the Earth and Sun, eventually its constantly changing orbit will bring it into contact with the surface.



There are no small orbital corrections from a low lunar orbit that can bring it down within 30 degrees of vertical. You'd have to do a major burn to loose most of that 1680 m/s of orbital velocity very quickly, so that it would just "fall straight down".



From high lunar orbit



If the Moon were all alone in space, you could put yourself in an absurdly high lunar orbit, let's say 1 million kilometers. At that altitude your orbital velocity would be only 70 m/s and a delta-v equal to that would stop you in your tracks. However, then you'd fall towards the Moon and accelerate.



Your velocity at impact dropping from an altitude $a$ to the lunar radius $R$ would then be



$$v= sqrt2 GMleft(frac1R - frac1aright).$$



If you plot those versus the starting semi-major axis, you can see that the delta-v you'd need to fall out of orbit, which is the orbital velocity, drops with increasing altitude, but the resulting impact velocity due to acceleration towards the Moon rapidly rises.



There's no gentle delta-v followed by a gentle impact.



enter image description here



What about a clever 3-body orbit?



But what if I know about the chaotic 3-body orbits of minimoons that uses both the gravity of the Earth and the Moon, and I wanted to look for a crazy orbit that starts near a stable orbit, but "goes chaotic" and eventually touches down on the surface of the Moon, or slows very close to it?



  • Have there been any documented mini-moons since 2006 RH120?

  • How would a small TCO (temporarily captured orbiter) or other natural Earth satellite most likely be detected?

This doesn't happen. I think there is a good Stack Exchange Q&A on this somewhere in Space Exploration, Astronomy, or Physics, but I can't find it.



The argument goes like this: orbits work just as well forwards and backwards in time. So if such an orbit existed, then the backwards scenario would also have to be possible; you'd be able to hold a rock near the surface of the moon, give it only a slight nudge, and it would mysteriously start flying away from the Moon and end up in a high orbit.



That doesn't happen, it just falls to the surface with a silent but none-the-less perceived thud.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I really like the "orbits work just as well forwards and backwards in time." logic.
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @gene thanks, but I can't take credit for thinking of it first; I read it elsewhere in SE. I'll keep looking for the original post. Great question by the way!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    what if your spacecraft was in a low lunar orbit? If you were just a short distance above the surface when you did your delta-v maneouvre, you would not accelerate much due to gravity as you fall. Taken to the limits, I think I would call this a "landing".
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    8 mins ago













6














6










6







$begingroup$

tl;dr: I don't think there is any scenario where you can strike the Moon with low velocity by using a small impulse to leave orbit. You can hit sideways with an orbital velocity of about 1680 m/s, or vertically with escape velocity the square root of 2 larger at 2376 m/s.





Let's say I launched something into lunar orbit with minimal of propellant - just enough for trajectory corrections and then a final push to de-orbit.




From low lunar orbit



When in orbit around Earth, say at 400 km, "a final push to de-orbit" would be a small impulse to lower the perigee to about 100 or a little higher. Then each time the spacecraft passed near perigee it would loose a little more velocity due to drag, slowly circularizing near perigee. After that, it would spiral due to drag and eventually reenter the main part of the atmosphere and quickly either burn up, or fall to the ground if it had proper heat shielding and aerodynamics.



But the Moon is tricky. If it were a nearly perfect gravitational sphere, then your burn would lower the perilune to just above the average lunar surface where it would strike whatever boulder or crater rim might be sticking up. This would happen at the lunar orbital velocity given by the vis-viva equation



$$v= sqrtGM/a.$$



The standard gravitational parameter of the Moon $GM$ is 4.905E+12 m^3/s^2 and the semimajor axis $a$ would be the lunar radius 1.737E+06 meters. That puts the velocity at about 1680 m/s.



Since the Moon has quite a lumpy gravity field all you need to do is to bring the spacecraft to a very low orbit and just wait. Due to gravitational perturbations, or those from the Earth and Sun, eventually its constantly changing orbit will bring it into contact with the surface.



There are no small orbital corrections from a low lunar orbit that can bring it down within 30 degrees of vertical. You'd have to do a major burn to loose most of that 1680 m/s of orbital velocity very quickly, so that it would just "fall straight down".



From high lunar orbit



If the Moon were all alone in space, you could put yourself in an absurdly high lunar orbit, let's say 1 million kilometers. At that altitude your orbital velocity would be only 70 m/s and a delta-v equal to that would stop you in your tracks. However, then you'd fall towards the Moon and accelerate.



Your velocity at impact dropping from an altitude $a$ to the lunar radius $R$ would then be



$$v= sqrt2 GMleft(frac1R - frac1aright).$$



If you plot those versus the starting semi-major axis, you can see that the delta-v you'd need to fall out of orbit, which is the orbital velocity, drops with increasing altitude, but the resulting impact velocity due to acceleration towards the Moon rapidly rises.



There's no gentle delta-v followed by a gentle impact.



enter image description here



What about a clever 3-body orbit?



But what if I know about the chaotic 3-body orbits of minimoons that uses both the gravity of the Earth and the Moon, and I wanted to look for a crazy orbit that starts near a stable orbit, but "goes chaotic" and eventually touches down on the surface of the Moon, or slows very close to it?



  • Have there been any documented mini-moons since 2006 RH120?

  • How would a small TCO (temporarily captured orbiter) or other natural Earth satellite most likely be detected?

This doesn't happen. I think there is a good Stack Exchange Q&A on this somewhere in Space Exploration, Astronomy, or Physics, but I can't find it.



The argument goes like this: orbits work just as well forwards and backwards in time. So if such an orbit existed, then the backwards scenario would also have to be possible; you'd be able to hold a rock near the surface of the moon, give it only a slight nudge, and it would mysteriously start flying away from the Moon and end up in a high orbit.



That doesn't happen, it just falls to the surface with a silent but none-the-less perceived thud.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



tl;dr: I don't think there is any scenario where you can strike the Moon with low velocity by using a small impulse to leave orbit. You can hit sideways with an orbital velocity of about 1680 m/s, or vertically with escape velocity the square root of 2 larger at 2376 m/s.





Let's say I launched something into lunar orbit with minimal of propellant - just enough for trajectory corrections and then a final push to de-orbit.




From low lunar orbit



When in orbit around Earth, say at 400 km, "a final push to de-orbit" would be a small impulse to lower the perigee to about 100 or a little higher. Then each time the spacecraft passed near perigee it would loose a little more velocity due to drag, slowly circularizing near perigee. After that, it would spiral due to drag and eventually reenter the main part of the atmosphere and quickly either burn up, or fall to the ground if it had proper heat shielding and aerodynamics.



But the Moon is tricky. If it were a nearly perfect gravitational sphere, then your burn would lower the perilune to just above the average lunar surface where it would strike whatever boulder or crater rim might be sticking up. This would happen at the lunar orbital velocity given by the vis-viva equation



$$v= sqrtGM/a.$$



The standard gravitational parameter of the Moon $GM$ is 4.905E+12 m^3/s^2 and the semimajor axis $a$ would be the lunar radius 1.737E+06 meters. That puts the velocity at about 1680 m/s.



Since the Moon has quite a lumpy gravity field all you need to do is to bring the spacecraft to a very low orbit and just wait. Due to gravitational perturbations, or those from the Earth and Sun, eventually its constantly changing orbit will bring it into contact with the surface.



There are no small orbital corrections from a low lunar orbit that can bring it down within 30 degrees of vertical. You'd have to do a major burn to loose most of that 1680 m/s of orbital velocity very quickly, so that it would just "fall straight down".



From high lunar orbit



If the Moon were all alone in space, you could put yourself in an absurdly high lunar orbit, let's say 1 million kilometers. At that altitude your orbital velocity would be only 70 m/s and a delta-v equal to that would stop you in your tracks. However, then you'd fall towards the Moon and accelerate.



Your velocity at impact dropping from an altitude $a$ to the lunar radius $R$ would then be



$$v= sqrt2 GMleft(frac1R - frac1aright).$$



If you plot those versus the starting semi-major axis, you can see that the delta-v you'd need to fall out of orbit, which is the orbital velocity, drops with increasing altitude, but the resulting impact velocity due to acceleration towards the Moon rapidly rises.



There's no gentle delta-v followed by a gentle impact.



enter image description here



What about a clever 3-body orbit?



But what if I know about the chaotic 3-body orbits of minimoons that uses both the gravity of the Earth and the Moon, and I wanted to look for a crazy orbit that starts near a stable orbit, but "goes chaotic" and eventually touches down on the surface of the Moon, or slows very close to it?



  • Have there been any documented mini-moons since 2006 RH120?

  • How would a small TCO (temporarily captured orbiter) or other natural Earth satellite most likely be detected?

This doesn't happen. I think there is a good Stack Exchange Q&A on this somewhere in Space Exploration, Astronomy, or Physics, but I can't find it.



The argument goes like this: orbits work just as well forwards and backwards in time. So if such an orbit existed, then the backwards scenario would also have to be possible; you'd be able to hold a rock near the surface of the moon, give it only a slight nudge, and it would mysteriously start flying away from the Moon and end up in a high orbit.



That doesn't happen, it just falls to the surface with a silent but none-the-less perceived thud.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 5 hours ago









uhohuhoh

51.7k23 gold badges202 silver badges661 bronze badges




51.7k23 gold badges202 silver badges661 bronze badges










  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I really like the "orbits work just as well forwards and backwards in time." logic.
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @gene thanks, but I can't take credit for thinking of it first; I read it elsewhere in SE. I'll keep looking for the original post. Great question by the way!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    what if your spacecraft was in a low lunar orbit? If you were just a short distance above the surface when you did your delta-v maneouvre, you would not accelerate much due to gravity as you fall. Taken to the limits, I think I would call this a "landing".
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    8 mins ago












  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I really like the "orbits work just as well forwards and backwards in time." logic.
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @gene thanks, but I can't take credit for thinking of it first; I read it elsewhere in SE. I'll keep looking for the original post. Great question by the way!
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    what if your spacecraft was in a low lunar orbit? If you were just a short distance above the surface when you did your delta-v maneouvre, you would not accelerate much due to gravity as you fall. Taken to the limits, I think I would call this a "landing".
    $endgroup$
    – craq
    8 mins ago







3




3




$begingroup$
I really like the "orbits work just as well forwards and backwards in time." logic.
$endgroup$
– gene
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
I really like the "orbits work just as well forwards and backwards in time." logic.
$endgroup$
– gene
4 hours ago












$begingroup$
@gene thanks, but I can't take credit for thinking of it first; I read it elsewhere in SE. I'll keep looking for the original post. Great question by the way!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
4 hours ago





$begingroup$
@gene thanks, but I can't take credit for thinking of it first; I read it elsewhere in SE. I'll keep looking for the original post. Great question by the way!
$endgroup$
– uhoh
4 hours ago













$begingroup$
what if your spacecraft was in a low lunar orbit? If you were just a short distance above the surface when you did your delta-v maneouvre, you would not accelerate much due to gravity as you fall. Taken to the limits, I think I would call this a "landing".
$endgroup$
– craq
8 mins ago




$begingroup$
what if your spacecraft was in a low lunar orbit? If you were just a short distance above the surface when you did your delta-v maneouvre, you would not accelerate much due to gravity as you fall. Taken to the limits, I think I would call this a "landing".
$endgroup$
– craq
8 mins ago













1













$begingroup$

Yes, you can hit the Moon with a spacecraft much in the way you can hit somebody in the head with a snowball even when they're running, and it's been done a couple of times. Some of the earliest US and Soviet lunar missions were effectively snowballs that we threw at the Moon, of which the first was the Soviet Luna 2 probe, which you can read about here.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    My question is "what is the slowest collision speed" - whatever the variables are? The very nice link you provided mentions "impacting the moon at about 3.3 km/s ". Nice to know they left some titanium and aluminum that no longer needs to be refined. :-)
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @gene Without a dedicated landing engine, there’s no way to reach the moon at less than 2.3km/s no matter what initial trajectory you approach on.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    If you can provide a reference - I'll accept that as an answer.
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    wait, you hit somebody in the head with a snowball "a couple of times"?
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    6 hours ago















1













$begingroup$

Yes, you can hit the Moon with a spacecraft much in the way you can hit somebody in the head with a snowball even when they're running, and it's been done a couple of times. Some of the earliest US and Soviet lunar missions were effectively snowballs that we threw at the Moon, of which the first was the Soviet Luna 2 probe, which you can read about here.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    My question is "what is the slowest collision speed" - whatever the variables are? The very nice link you provided mentions "impacting the moon at about 3.3 km/s ". Nice to know they left some titanium and aluminum that no longer needs to be refined. :-)
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @gene Without a dedicated landing engine, there’s no way to reach the moon at less than 2.3km/s no matter what initial trajectory you approach on.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    If you can provide a reference - I'll accept that as an answer.
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    wait, you hit somebody in the head with a snowball "a couple of times"?
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    6 hours ago













1














1










1







$begingroup$

Yes, you can hit the Moon with a spacecraft much in the way you can hit somebody in the head with a snowball even when they're running, and it's been done a couple of times. Some of the earliest US and Soviet lunar missions were effectively snowballs that we threw at the Moon, of which the first was the Soviet Luna 2 probe, which you can read about here.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Yes, you can hit the Moon with a spacecraft much in the way you can hit somebody in the head with a snowball even when they're running, and it's been done a couple of times. Some of the earliest US and Soviet lunar missions were effectively snowballs that we threw at the Moon, of which the first was the Soviet Luna 2 probe, which you can read about here.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 8 hours ago









Happy KoalaHappy Koala

4433 silver badges10 bronze badges




4433 silver badges10 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    My question is "what is the slowest collision speed" - whatever the variables are? The very nice link you provided mentions "impacting the moon at about 3.3 km/s ". Nice to know they left some titanium and aluminum that no longer needs to be refined. :-)
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @gene Without a dedicated landing engine, there’s no way to reach the moon at less than 2.3km/s no matter what initial trajectory you approach on.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    If you can provide a reference - I'll accept that as an answer.
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    wait, you hit somebody in the head with a snowball "a couple of times"?
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    6 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    My question is "what is the slowest collision speed" - whatever the variables are? The very nice link you provided mentions "impacting the moon at about 3.3 km/s ". Nice to know they left some titanium and aluminum that no longer needs to be refined. :-)
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @gene Without a dedicated landing engine, there’s no way to reach the moon at less than 2.3km/s no matter what initial trajectory you approach on.
    $endgroup$
    – Russell Borogove
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    If you can provide a reference - I'll accept that as an answer.
    $endgroup$
    – gene
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    wait, you hit somebody in the head with a snowball "a couple of times"?
    $endgroup$
    – uhoh
    6 hours ago















$begingroup$
My question is "what is the slowest collision speed" - whatever the variables are? The very nice link you provided mentions "impacting the moon at about 3.3 km/s ". Nice to know they left some titanium and aluminum that no longer needs to be refined. :-)
$endgroup$
– gene
8 hours ago





$begingroup$
My question is "what is the slowest collision speed" - whatever the variables are? The very nice link you provided mentions "impacting the moon at about 3.3 km/s ". Nice to know they left some titanium and aluminum that no longer needs to be refined. :-)
$endgroup$
– gene
8 hours ago





1




1




$begingroup$
@gene Without a dedicated landing engine, there’s no way to reach the moon at less than 2.3km/s no matter what initial trajectory you approach on.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
7 hours ago





$begingroup$
@gene Without a dedicated landing engine, there’s no way to reach the moon at less than 2.3km/s no matter what initial trajectory you approach on.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
7 hours ago













$begingroup$
If you can provide a reference - I'll accept that as an answer.
$endgroup$
– gene
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
If you can provide a reference - I'll accept that as an answer.
$endgroup$
– gene
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
wait, you hit somebody in the head with a snowball "a couple of times"?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
wait, you hit somebody in the head with a snowball "a couple of times"?
$endgroup$
– uhoh
6 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38514%2fslowest-crash-on-the-moon%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

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







Popular posts from this blog

ParseJSON using SSJSUsing AMPscript with SSJS ActivitiesHow to resubscribe a user in Marketing cloud using SSJS?Pulling Subscriber Status from Lists using SSJSRetrieving Emails using SSJSProblem in updating DE using SSJSUsing SSJS to send single email in Marketing CloudError adding EmailSendDefinition using SSJS

Кампала Садржај Географија Географија Историја Становништво Привреда Партнерски градови Референце Спољашње везе Мени за навигацију0°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.340°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.34МедијиПодациЗванични веб-сајту

19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу