2 ms·
The initial assumption was "no" due to the moon's gravity field having strong local variations that usually destabilize orbits and cause orbiting objects to cra
by tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
The initial assumption was "no" due to the moon's gravity field having strong local variations that usually destabilize orbits and cause orbiting objects to crash into the moon.
However, simulations based on original data and hundreds of variations to account for uncertainty show that there is a high likelihood that the orbit remained stable for at least 10 years (not sure if they actually simulated until today).
There are many other things that can influence an orbit and simulations aren't perfect, so it's a "maybe".
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoThank you, that's interesting and concise.
- dredmorbius 5y agoAdding to this: there are a few other conditions which apply. The initial orbital parameters may not be accurate (there are known major errors), there are volatiles which were onboard which may have outgassed (affecting trajectory) or exploded (affecting integrity). The orbital mechanics (and simulator) elements are quite informative and well done. But there's reasonably good odds much of the ascent stage is intact and in orbit. Other Apollo missions are mentioned. Apollo 10 (which executed a near-surface approach but no landing) executed a burn resulting in solar orbit insertion with a highly probably matching asteroid having recently been found. After Apollo 11, subsequent ascent stages were intentionally directed into lunar terrain as part of seismographic (selenographic?) studies. Manly does a good job of presenting significant credible information. I'm not an uncritical fan of video but this one rewards attention.