Questions related to Uranus
What would happen if Earth was tilted at 33 degrees and what if Earth was tilted like Uranus and has the world's axis shifted?
I cannot find any paper that deals with this question. There seem to be three schools of thought none seeming based on anything more than speculation.
- the energy received from the Sun is balanced by radiation emitted by the Earth abet at longer wavelengths
- the Earth releases slightly less energy than received as a consequence of global climate change.
- Earth is radiating more heat energy than it receives from the Sun as it cools, a very slow process from the hot Earth interior.
As mentioned in the question the gas and ice planet's energy balance is somewhat mysterious. For example, Neptune is farther from the sun than Uranus but is either the same temperature or slightly warmer.. As a result of processes not fully understood, Neptune emits more than twice the energy that it receives from the Sun 2.6.as does Jupiter (almost twice as much as received and Saturn 2.3 times the energy from sunlight is radiated into space. It is odd that Uranus while it does generate more heat than it receives, much less than the other three aforementioned planets, it also has another energy puzzle both its polar regions have the same temperature even though one of the two is in total darkness. It appears to me that in this age of climate change comparative planetology is a useful tool to understand our planet as well.
This started in another discussion where this was introduced as a side issue, and I provided the following answer. Others might prefer to discuss this. My previous answer was:
First, why is rotation usually prograde? In my ebook "Planetary Formation and Biogenesis" I outline a mechanism that involves essentially monarchic growth for the giants, and probably for other planets. The mechanism avoids the plethora of planetesimals because over 80 years nobody has a clue how they could form - I proposed that the initiation is chemical, and bodies have special zones that favour very rapid growth. In the absence of major collisions, what happens is the biggest body moves towards Keplerian velocity, which is faster than the gas stream. That leads to a greater pressure on the leading face, and as the gas is also falling starwards it applies a torque to the leading face that provides prograde spin. (What happens next also gives the body an increase in angular momentum, and hence lift.)
Uranus and Neptune are problems because they effectively state on their side and somewhat retrograde. Pluto's rotation is almost certainly affected by whatever formed its moon system - presumably a collision - and I assume something like that must have happened for the Ice Giants. The planets Mercury and Venus originated in zones where there would be more rocky bodies formed, and thy would be bombarded randomly so there would be little rotation. Mercury seems to have got itself into some sort of resonance with the sun. Venus has a retrograde rotation, and the most interesting explanation I have seen for that is that thermal tides in the atmosphere lead to that in planets inside the so-called habitable zone. What happens is the hottest part of the atmosphere is about 3 pm, and that leads to atmospheric currents that apply the retrograde torque. Venus is actually limited here because it has so much atmosphere and therefore so much thermal inertia. If it had a bit less it would rotate faster retrogradely - if that theory is correct.
As Voyager headed into interstellar space in August 2012, having been launched by NASA on September 5, 1977, to explore and photograph Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, discovering volcanic activity on one of its moons, Cornell's legendary Carl Sagan asked the U.S. government to photograph the solar system from the perspective of its outer rim. Scientists were taken by surprise to observe Earth swaddled in a thick ray of light emitted from the Sun, extending like a radius to the circumference. Is this discovery early signs of a pivotal moment in the Sun's development spanning billions of years, progressing from the main sequence toward the next phase in the life of the Solar System? --------------------------------------------
The Farthest -- Voyager in Space
Special | 1h 37m 13s
Launched in 1977, NASA’s epic Voyager missions revolutionized our understanding of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and their spectacular moons and rings. In 2012, Voyager 1 left our solar system and ushered humanity into the interstellar age.
At the end of "The Farthest - Voyager in Space," Carl Sagan points to the photograph of Earth as viewed from Neptune and tells his lecture audience he is indicating "Earth in a sunbeam" and to indicate he knows they are unable to see the image, he adds, "We live on a blue dot." Photographs Moon Solar System Sun
"Once upon a time, we soared into the solar system for a few years, then we hurried back. Why? What happened? What was Apollo really about?" - Carl Sagan.
I researched this question. Funding, politics and technological difficulties were the answers I found.
I am curious, are there any other reasons why the U.S. or any other nation or nations that are capable have not returned?
And will it not be easier for these countries to work together.
The Sagan Series - Gift of Apollo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xtly-dpBeA
Business Insider - Astronauts explain why nobody has visited the moon in more than 45 years — and the reasons are depressing https://www.businessinsider.com/moon-missions-why-astronauts-have-not-returned-2018-7?IR=T
Space.com 40 Years After Moon Landing: Why Is It So Hard to Go Back? https://www.space.com/7015-40-years-moon-landing-hard.html
@Parviz Parvin - Why did NASA abandon the lunar exploration? Why has NASA never come back moon since 40 years ago? https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_did_NASA_abandon_the_lunar_exploration_Why_has_NASA_never_come_back_moon_since_40_years_ago