What would it take for an asteroid to get stuck in the Earth's

>>9070992
The right trajectory and speed. Nigga what kind of retarded ass question is that?

A miracle

>>9070992
It would have to pass by earth in a way that it doesn't hit it but also ends up with a relative velocity smaller than the escape velocity. There are any number of scenarios that could theoretically accomplish this but they're all pretty convoluted and highly improbable. Most of them involve hitting something already in orbit, because it's by no means easy to come up with a way to match the velocities of a highly elliptical orbit with a circular one without using rockets.

File: 1500616947549.jpg (21KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 320x320px

>>9071103

Like a moon with the exact same apparent diameter.

Like an asteroid that killed the most imposing representatives of the dominant species. A species belonging to reptiles (such as a certain serpent or a certain dragon) to give way to what will ultimately become the human being.

>>9071100
>>9071108
I'm writing a sci-fi novel. Basically, for plot reasons, I need a wrecked spacecraft to stay in a semi-stable orbit for a long period of time - decades, maybe.

Functionally, it may as well be an asteroid, or group of small asteroids.

Let's rephrase the question.

Would it be possible for a spacecraft (roughly the size of a skyscraper) that explodes near Earth to establish an unstable orbit, with pieces falling from time to time over the course of many years, but others staying in position?

File: PicES4_7.jpg (10KB, 292x201px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 292x201px

>>9071208
>I need a wrecked spacecraft to stay in a semi-stable orbit for a long period of time - decades, maybe.
The higher up the orbit, the longer the spacecraft can stay in the orbit. Without propulsion, ISS would fall down within weeks.

>
Would it be possible for a spacecraft (roughly the size of a skyscraper) that explodes near Earth to establish an unstable orbit, with pieces falling from time to time over the course of many years, but others staying in position?
Yes, if it was in a highly ellpitical orbit, like pic related

>>9071284
Would this elliptical orbit shift over time, or would the passing-close area stay over the same hemisphere?

Plot-wise, it's already a big coincidence if the separate impacts happen on the same continent. (I'm trying to make things as non-stupid as possible.)

If we were talking about an orbit that lasts longer than a century, how far out would it have to be to remain sustainable? Is it even possible with the kind of gravity Earth has?

File: Mars_Climate_Orbiter_-_aerobraking.png (78KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1000x1000px

>>9071320
>Would this elliptical orbit shift over time, or would the passing-close area stay over the same hemisphere?
the passing-close area must cut through the equator, so a part of both hemispheres would be covered. Though impacts closer to equator are more likely than those futher from it.

>If we were talking about an orbit that lasts longer than a century, how far out would it have to be to remain sustainable? Is it even possible with the kind of gravity Earth has?
Certanly, moon has stayed in earth orbit for billion of years. But if you wan't parts of the spaceship to fall to the ground, they need to fly through the upper atmosphere at the closest passing point, in order to get dragged down.

>>9071208
Definitely. Being a spacecraft actually makes a huge difference because it allows for a lot more possibilities - because spacecraft have propulsion. So what you describe could work, for example, with the craft suffering an engine failure during its orbital capture burn so it doesn't slow down all the way. So instead of ending up in a nice circular orbit, you could have it end up in a highly elliptical one, with all kinds of detached junk thrown on slightly different, possibly decaying orbits. You can come up with any number of such scenarios. Just play some kerbal space program.

>>9070992
A close and lucky pass by the Moon (currently the only object massive enough to have that kind of gravitational influence) such that its velocity would be less than Earth's escape velocity at that distance.

The resulting elliptical orbit would have either its perigee or apogee at the Moon's orbit (depending on the post-encounter velocity). This means there would be a possibility of another encounter with the Moon.

Timing of subsequent encounters would depend on the relative inclinations of the orbits and the resulting ellipticity.

>>9071208
Sure. If the explosion doesn't itself provide any significant propulsion to the aggregate mass, there will be components that move into a higher-energy orbit (elliptical, with the perigee at the point of explosion), and lower-energy (with the apogee at the same point). The bits with the higher energy will not (without further interaction) encounter Earth, but many of the lowered-energy obits can certainly encounter upper atmosphere and either have their orbits decay over time or go into reentry on the first pass.

>>9071284
>Would it be possible for a spacecraft (roughly the size of a skyscraper) that explodes near Earth to establish an unstable orbit,
Yes, and the explosion part is important. You need a few rounds into the upper atmosphere to dump delta v and then change the orbit by the explosion which acts like retro thrusters.

>with pieces falling from time to time over the course of many years, but others staying in position?
Sure, with more explosions at the rear of the spacecraft you will maintain orbit and also dump material into the atmosphere.

File: Ralph.png (58KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x500px

>>9073391
>And only if you diffuse the quadrant sector by the main stream velocity accelerator.
Wut?