Talk:Co-orbital configuration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Co-orbital configuration is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 
WikiProject Solar System (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.

illusion or montage?[edit]

I'm puzzled by this picture caption:

Epimetheus and Janus seen on 20 March 2006, two months after swapping orbits. The close proximity between the two moons is an illusion; they are actually being seen on opposite sides of their common orbit.

If they're on opposite sides of Saturn, they can't be seen like this! If "opposite sides" merely means above and below their average height, the sentence is non-sequitur; that is to be expected and does not preclude proximity. Does it really mean the picture is a composite of separate shots? —Tamfang (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the picture's description on its summary page, it says it is an illusion because Janus is actually 25,000 miles farther away than Epimetheus. The caption should probably just say that instead. I'll change it. Slim (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

co-orbital planets[edit]

Kepler, apparently, may have found co-orbital planets[1]. They are still in "candidate" phase, waiting for confirmation.

Do candidate planets count? If so, should this become the "co-orbital astronomical object" page? ("co-orbit"?) More curious than anything else.

68.183.80.244 (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Lagrange Points[edit]

The Lagrange Points L4 & L5 are not exactly in the orbit of the secondary, which means that the use of 60 degrees in the article is inexact. The triangle (L4/L5, primary, secondary) is exactly equiangular. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Retrograde and prograde[edit]

As currently written, the article says “(or 1:-1 if orbiting in opposite directions)”. My non-expert reading of some of the easier literature suggests that the mechanisms just don’t happen if the things are orbiting in opposite directions. If the dynamics still work, more needs to be said. If they don’t, as I suspect, then this phrase should be deleted. JDAWiseman (talk) 00:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added a ref for this. Astredita (talk) 02:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).