Talk:Lagrange point colonization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Spaceflight (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight 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.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


"Lagrange Points are the five points around the Sun where a third, smaller body placed at one of these points will remain in equilibrium with respect to the other two bodies. There are five of these points within the solar system."

And how many are there outside the solar system? Applejuicefool 17:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


This isn't colonization of the sun in the least, propose it be renamed to somethins that makes sense, like "Lagrange colonization" or something. --Golbez 04:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sun-Earth or Earth-moon?[edit]

The article seems to switch between the two at random. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Wrong Lagrange points?[edit]

Shouldn't the L4 and L5 point in the Earth-Moon system be the focus? The article is about colonization, not probes and satellites. L4 and L5 are more stable than the others points, don't require relay stations for communication with Moon and Earth and have much shorter eclipses than the others.Tadashi Ooshima 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just came to this article and was surprised it didn't mention them. I've now fixed it with a link to the L5 society page here as well, surprised that's not mentioned either. Robert Walker (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Stability of L4, L5 questioned[edit]

"Colonies at the L4 and L5 positions would have the advantage of being stable without any need for stationkeeping"

I believe that no Lagrange point is actually stable. Can anybody confirm my doubts and fix this, please? --FDominec (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The L4 and L5 points are stable provided the secondary body (e.g. the Moon) is at most 4% of the mass of the larger body (e.g. the Earth), more specifically m1 >= 24.9599 m2. [1] and [2]. I will add this to the article. Robert Walker (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


"Colonies at L1 (located between Earth and the Moon)..." This doesn't agree with the picture. L1 is not between the earth and moon. Kortoso (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

L5 inhabited by 2 dust clouds[edit]

Looks like L5 has two dust clouds ("Kordylewski clouds"). Someone with access to the original study should add this info (w/citation) to this Wiki page and the general "Lagrange point" Wiki page since it relates to both entries. Phantom in ca (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


@Rowan Forest: I was trying to copyedit the article since it was very repetitive, but in doing so I want to make sure I did not remove the intent of the words that were there before. Would you be interested in verifying I did not damage the article? I pinged you since it seems like you are interested in this topic area. It would be great if you had time to expand the article a little bit too. The first paragraph about stable Lagrange points does not make sense to me, since based on the criteria in the article they should all be stable. Presumably there is additional criteria not listed that would be good to include. If you do not have time to work on the article, no worries, I will try to get to it eventually! Kees08 (Talk) 08:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the part that confused me was discussed and added in February 2018, if that helps. Kees08 (Talk) 08:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I am not familiar with this subject and I am unaware of any advantage these points offer to colonization; I thought they were best for some types of dedicated observatories. Regarding the entries from February, they were done by a user that was banned mostly because of his prolific synthesis and misrepresentation of the references, so I recommend you verify the sources and context of his edits. Sorry I can't be useful here. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)