Make solar eclipses exceedingly rare, but still have new moons The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat are the parameters of a planet having multiple moons?Timekeeping Systems on a Habitable MoonI'm building a fantasy world like Earth but it has two moons adjacent to each other in a co-orbital configuration and need helpVolcanic winter related to moons?Moon orbit perpendicular to planet orbit - possible?Could 2 eclipses be visible simultaneously in the same area?How can I lengthen a total solar eclipse on an earth-like planet?Solar Eclipses on Planet Tidally Locked with Its MoonHow to create an annual celestial event for a worldHow to calculate hour angle of a moon?

what's the use of '% to gdp' type of variables?

What CSS properties can the br tag have?

A question about free fall, velocity, and the height of an object.

Purpose of level-shifter with same in and out voltages

What does "shotgun unity" refer to here in this sentence?

Does destroying a Lich's phylactery destroy the soul within it?

Strange use of "whether ... than ..." in official text

Traveling with my 5 year old daughter (as the father) without the mother from Germany to Mexico

What can the phrase “is embedded in a whale of a bill” mean?

Players Circumventing the limitations of Wish

Calculate the Mean mean of two numbers

Is French Guiana a (hard) EU border?

Yu-Gi-Oh cards in Python 3

Audio Conversion With ADS1243

TikZ: How to fill area with a special pattern?

Graph of the history of databases

Is there a difference between "Fahrstuhl" and "Aufzug"?

Does the Idaho Potato Commission associate potato skins with healthy eating?

Airplane gently rocking its wings during whole flight

How to find image of a complex function with given constraints?

Getting Stale Gas Out of a Gas Tank w/out Dropping the Tank

Traduction de « Life is a roller coaster »

Physiological effects of huge anime eyes

IC has pull-down resistors on SMBus lines?



Make solar eclipses exceedingly rare, but still have new moons



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhat are the parameters of a planet having multiple moons?Timekeeping Systems on a Habitable MoonI'm building a fantasy world like Earth but it has two moons adjacent to each other in a co-orbital configuration and need helpVolcanic winter related to moons?Moon orbit perpendicular to planet orbit - possible?Could 2 eclipses be visible simultaneously in the same area?How can I lengthen a total solar eclipse on an earth-like planet?Solar Eclipses on Planet Tidally Locked with Its MoonHow to create an annual celestial event for a worldHow to calculate hour angle of a moon?










12












$begingroup$


Given a system similar to the Earth/Moon/Sun system, how would one go about making solar eclipses rarer than they are here on earth, but keep new moons similar to how they currently are (or at least similar)?



At first I thought that increasing the lunar tilt from 5 degrees to, say, 10 degrees would help, but there would still always be two "nodes" indicating where solar eclipses could happen on the planet. Even at a 90 degree angle, twice a year, the planet would see solar eclipses. at 10 degrees, new moons would still be relatively as frequent, though at 90 degrees, I don't think there would ever be a new moon.




Is there a way to make total solar eclipses happen infrequently, while keeping new moons frequent? And if so, what variable(s) need to change to make that happen?.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    If "exceedingly rare" includes the case of "never", then having a slightly smaller moon would be an obvious and trivial solution. If "exceedingly rare" means regularly, say every 2000 years (à la Asimov's "Nightfall"), that's a much more difficult question.
    $endgroup$
    – Ray Butterworth
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just to point out: Total solar eclipses for any given location aren't common. The path of totality is a few hundred km wide, and a few thousand long. Partial eclipses aren't very noticeable, even if 70% or so of the sun is covered. Over my life, I've seen 1 annular eclipse and 3 partials over 60 years. Lunar eclipses are more common, with usually at least two partials (some of the moon in the umbra) per year. It think it's possible with the right geometry to have 2 totals per year.
    $endgroup$
    – Sherwood Botsford
    yesterday















12












$begingroup$


Given a system similar to the Earth/Moon/Sun system, how would one go about making solar eclipses rarer than they are here on earth, but keep new moons similar to how they currently are (or at least similar)?



At first I thought that increasing the lunar tilt from 5 degrees to, say, 10 degrees would help, but there would still always be two "nodes" indicating where solar eclipses could happen on the planet. Even at a 90 degree angle, twice a year, the planet would see solar eclipses. at 10 degrees, new moons would still be relatively as frequent, though at 90 degrees, I don't think there would ever be a new moon.




Is there a way to make total solar eclipses happen infrequently, while keeping new moons frequent? And if so, what variable(s) need to change to make that happen?.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    If "exceedingly rare" includes the case of "never", then having a slightly smaller moon would be an obvious and trivial solution. If "exceedingly rare" means regularly, say every 2000 years (à la Asimov's "Nightfall"), that's a much more difficult question.
    $endgroup$
    – Ray Butterworth
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just to point out: Total solar eclipses for any given location aren't common. The path of totality is a few hundred km wide, and a few thousand long. Partial eclipses aren't very noticeable, even if 70% or so of the sun is covered. Over my life, I've seen 1 annular eclipse and 3 partials over 60 years. Lunar eclipses are more common, with usually at least two partials (some of the moon in the umbra) per year. It think it's possible with the right geometry to have 2 totals per year.
    $endgroup$
    – Sherwood Botsford
    yesterday













12












12








12


2



$begingroup$


Given a system similar to the Earth/Moon/Sun system, how would one go about making solar eclipses rarer than they are here on earth, but keep new moons similar to how they currently are (or at least similar)?



At first I thought that increasing the lunar tilt from 5 degrees to, say, 10 degrees would help, but there would still always be two "nodes" indicating where solar eclipses could happen on the planet. Even at a 90 degree angle, twice a year, the planet would see solar eclipses. at 10 degrees, new moons would still be relatively as frequent, though at 90 degrees, I don't think there would ever be a new moon.




Is there a way to make total solar eclipses happen infrequently, while keeping new moons frequent? And if so, what variable(s) need to change to make that happen?.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




Given a system similar to the Earth/Moon/Sun system, how would one go about making solar eclipses rarer than they are here on earth, but keep new moons similar to how they currently are (or at least similar)?



At first I thought that increasing the lunar tilt from 5 degrees to, say, 10 degrees would help, but there would still always be two "nodes" indicating where solar eclipses could happen on the planet. Even at a 90 degree angle, twice a year, the planet would see solar eclipses. at 10 degrees, new moons would still be relatively as frequent, though at 90 degrees, I don't think there would ever be a new moon.




Is there a way to make total solar eclipses happen infrequently, while keeping new moons frequent? And if so, what variable(s) need to change to make that happen?.







science-based orbital-mechanics solar-system eclipses






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 2 days ago







Cristian C.

















asked 2 days ago









Cristian C.Cristian C.

24811




24811











  • $begingroup$
    If "exceedingly rare" includes the case of "never", then having a slightly smaller moon would be an obvious and trivial solution. If "exceedingly rare" means regularly, say every 2000 years (à la Asimov's "Nightfall"), that's a much more difficult question.
    $endgroup$
    – Ray Butterworth
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just to point out: Total solar eclipses for any given location aren't common. The path of totality is a few hundred km wide, and a few thousand long. Partial eclipses aren't very noticeable, even if 70% or so of the sun is covered. Over my life, I've seen 1 annular eclipse and 3 partials over 60 years. Lunar eclipses are more common, with usually at least two partials (some of the moon in the umbra) per year. It think it's possible with the right geometry to have 2 totals per year.
    $endgroup$
    – Sherwood Botsford
    yesterday
















  • $begingroup$
    If "exceedingly rare" includes the case of "never", then having a slightly smaller moon would be an obvious and trivial solution. If "exceedingly rare" means regularly, say every 2000 years (à la Asimov's "Nightfall"), that's a much more difficult question.
    $endgroup$
    – Ray Butterworth
    yesterday






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just to point out: Total solar eclipses for any given location aren't common. The path of totality is a few hundred km wide, and a few thousand long. Partial eclipses aren't very noticeable, even if 70% or so of the sun is covered. Over my life, I've seen 1 annular eclipse and 3 partials over 60 years. Lunar eclipses are more common, with usually at least two partials (some of the moon in the umbra) per year. It think it's possible with the right geometry to have 2 totals per year.
    $endgroup$
    – Sherwood Botsford
    yesterday















$begingroup$
If "exceedingly rare" includes the case of "never", then having a slightly smaller moon would be an obvious and trivial solution. If "exceedingly rare" means regularly, say every 2000 years (à la Asimov's "Nightfall"), that's a much more difficult question.
$endgroup$
– Ray Butterworth
yesterday




$begingroup$
If "exceedingly rare" includes the case of "never", then having a slightly smaller moon would be an obvious and trivial solution. If "exceedingly rare" means regularly, say every 2000 years (à la Asimov's "Nightfall"), that's a much more difficult question.
$endgroup$
– Ray Butterworth
yesterday




2




2




$begingroup$
Just to point out: Total solar eclipses for any given location aren't common. The path of totality is a few hundred km wide, and a few thousand long. Partial eclipses aren't very noticeable, even if 70% or so of the sun is covered. Over my life, I've seen 1 annular eclipse and 3 partials over 60 years. Lunar eclipses are more common, with usually at least two partials (some of the moon in the umbra) per year. It think it's possible with the right geometry to have 2 totals per year.
$endgroup$
– Sherwood Botsford
yesterday




$begingroup$
Just to point out: Total solar eclipses for any given location aren't common. The path of totality is a few hundred km wide, and a few thousand long. Partial eclipses aren't very noticeable, even if 70% or so of the sun is covered. Over my life, I've seen 1 annular eclipse and 3 partials over 60 years. Lunar eclipses are more common, with usually at least two partials (some of the moon in the umbra) per year. It think it's possible with the right geometry to have 2 totals per year.
$endgroup$
– Sherwood Botsford
yesterday










8 Answers
8






active

oldest

votes


















18












$begingroup$

Just shrink the moon by 6%, and there will never be another total solar eclipse, but new moons will still happen as normal. The moon will be too small to fully cover the sun, so there will be partial and annular eclipses, but no total ones. If you still want the occasional total eclipse, make the moon slightly bigger again, so that eclipses are total if and only if it happens to be at the closest point to the Earth in its orbit at the time of the eclipse. We’d still get the same number of eclipses at the same time, but hardly any of them would be total.



Since both the moon and the Earth are in elliptical orbits, the apparent angular sizes of the moon and sun vary. Specifically, the moon varies between 29' 26" and 33' 30" while the sun varies between 31' 36" and 32' 42". You want the moon’s maximum to be just larger than the sun’s minimum, so that there are very occasional total eclipses if we happen to get an eclipse when the moon is at its closest and the sun is at its furthest. So to reduce the moon’s maximum angular size to 31’ 40” you need to make it 5.5% smaller without changing its orbit.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    @CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What year will it be when our moon has receded enough to appear 6% smaller? And is that anywhere close to beginning the sun's Red Dwarf stage?
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    2 days ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Mazura About 600 million years, well before the sun leaves the main sequence. space.com/…
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    yesterday


















8












$begingroup$

Keep sun and moon sizes, make the orbit of the Earth around the sun more excentric and with a smaller mean distance.



The new moon is unnafected, but full solar eclipses will only happen if the eclipse happens together with the Earth's apoapsis, or close to it. And that will only happen during a few specific days of the year. Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial.



That also implies shorter years and a whole different set of conditions on the planet that might not be compatible with life as we know it, though.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
    $endgroup$
    – NeutronStar
    2 days ago










  • $begingroup$
    @NeutronStar: True; I suspect he reasoned it out w/o knowing that kind has another name.
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua
    22 hours ago


















5












$begingroup$

Why not make the moon's orbit precess? If the precession chases the sun (from the perspective of earth) while staying a bit off from it, you could keep new moons as common as always and eliminate solar eclipses altogether.



If you made the presession not quite at the same rate as the sun, you could also cause large periods without a single solar eclipse, followed by a period where a solar eclipse happened every month (which, from a story perspective, could be interesting).



Alternatively, if you had the moon precess in the opposite direction of the earth's movement around the sun (and depending on the length of your lunar month vs solar year), it may be possible to have the moon 'miss' a solar eclipse except for once every few hundreds of years.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago


















4












$begingroup$

Resonance. Pick a ratio of the lunar orbital period to the solar orbital period such that the moon normally in the wrong part of it's orbit when it's both directly sunward and in the plane of the ecliptic. The bigger numbers you need to use to express the ratio the longer it will be between eclipses.



Unlike normal planetary resonance orbits no force will maintain this or cause it to come into being but as the moon slowly spirals out there will be a time that it happens naturally. You'll have to adjust the size of the moon so it provides a total eclipse at that distance from the Earth.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago


















2












$begingroup$

At 90 degree inclination, you could still get new moons near the nodes where the inclination of the moon's orbit with respect to the line from the planet to the sun is low.



The presence of nodes in the planet's orbit where the inclined orbital path of the moon intersects a line pointing towards the sun, however, is not itself problematic, because it is not itself sufficient to cause eclipses. And that's a good thing for you, because it's a simple geometric fact that you can't avoid them. In order to get an eclipse, the moon also has to actually pass through that intersection point during the brief period when it exists every half-year. As such, a very simple solution to avoid ever having an eclipse presents itself: just tweak the moon's orbital period so that it forms a simple integer ratio with the year, such that the moon is always in the same phase on the same date every year--and then just declare that the phases are such that you never have things line up for an eclipse.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago


















2












$begingroup$

Instead of one moon which is just big enough and close enough to cause a total eclipse whenever it intersects between our planet and our sun, why not have several moons which are each either smaller or more distant such that no single moon can produce a full eclipse.
New moons would still happen and would actually be much more common than Earth standard, but total eclipses would only occur when all of the moons simultaneously entered the intersection point, each blocking a portion of the available sunshine and collectively blocking it all.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago


















2












$begingroup$

Another way to make total solar eclipses rarer would be to have a double sun. The planet would orbit both stars in a circumbinary orbit. Perhaps each of the stars and the moon have about the same apparent diameter as seen from the planet. So in a typical eclipse the moon might eclipse only one of the stars and leave the other one unblocked or maybe pass between the two stars as seen from the planet and not eclipse either star.



The two stars would orbit around each other several times during each year of the planet, and the moon would orbit the planet several times during each year of the planet, and the three periods might not have a simple relationship.



Also the three planes - the one in which the two stars orbit, the one in which the planet orbits the center of gravity of the stars, and the one in which the moon obits the planet, might not be the same plane but might be tilted in relation to each other.



Thus there would only be a total eclipse of the two stars when one of the stars is in front of the other one, hiding it as seen from the planet, at the exact moment when the moon is passing in front of the nearer star, hiding it as seen from the planet. And it is possible such such a moment might happen only once in ten years, or once in a hundred years, or once in a thousand years, when everything aligns just right.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    1












    $begingroup$

    Have a moon with a high eccentricity orbit. Have the sizes such that only close it it's perigee (point of closest approach to the earth) is it large enough to get a total solar eclipse. At other points in the orbit it is further away and thus appears smaller in the sky than the sun. Also helped by the fact that orbiting objects move faster at the times of closest approach (due to conservation of energy), so the time spent in the eclipse zone is even smaller.



    The more enteric the orbit, the faster the moon shrinks in the sky after each perigee, so the less chance of a total eclipse. The flip side is that more of your new moons will occur when the moon is pretty small in the sky.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    PhillS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
      $endgroup$
      – JBH
      yesterday











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "579"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142780%2fmake-solar-eclipses-exceedingly-rare-but-still-have-new-moons%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    8 Answers
    8






    active

    oldest

    votes








    8 Answers
    8






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    18












    $begingroup$

    Just shrink the moon by 6%, and there will never be another total solar eclipse, but new moons will still happen as normal. The moon will be too small to fully cover the sun, so there will be partial and annular eclipses, but no total ones. If you still want the occasional total eclipse, make the moon slightly bigger again, so that eclipses are total if and only if it happens to be at the closest point to the Earth in its orbit at the time of the eclipse. We’d still get the same number of eclipses at the same time, but hardly any of them would be total.



    Since both the moon and the Earth are in elliptical orbits, the apparent angular sizes of the moon and sun vary. Specifically, the moon varies between 29' 26" and 33' 30" while the sun varies between 31' 36" and 32' 42". You want the moon’s maximum to be just larger than the sun’s minimum, so that there are very occasional total eclipses if we happen to get an eclipse when the moon is at its closest and the sun is at its furthest. So to reduce the moon’s maximum angular size to 31’ 40” you need to make it 5.5% smaller without changing its orbit.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
      $endgroup$
      – Mike Scott
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      What year will it be when our moon has receded enough to appear 6% smaller? And is that anywhere close to beginning the sun's Red Dwarf stage?
      $endgroup$
      – Mazura
      2 days ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Mazura About 600 million years, well before the sun leaves the main sequence. space.com/…
      $endgroup$
      – Mike Scott
      yesterday















    18












    $begingroup$

    Just shrink the moon by 6%, and there will never be another total solar eclipse, but new moons will still happen as normal. The moon will be too small to fully cover the sun, so there will be partial and annular eclipses, but no total ones. If you still want the occasional total eclipse, make the moon slightly bigger again, so that eclipses are total if and only if it happens to be at the closest point to the Earth in its orbit at the time of the eclipse. We’d still get the same number of eclipses at the same time, but hardly any of them would be total.



    Since both the moon and the Earth are in elliptical orbits, the apparent angular sizes of the moon and sun vary. Specifically, the moon varies between 29' 26" and 33' 30" while the sun varies between 31' 36" and 32' 42". You want the moon’s maximum to be just larger than the sun’s minimum, so that there are very occasional total eclipses if we happen to get an eclipse when the moon is at its closest and the sun is at its furthest. So to reduce the moon’s maximum angular size to 31’ 40” you need to make it 5.5% smaller without changing its orbit.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
      $endgroup$
      – Mike Scott
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      What year will it be when our moon has receded enough to appear 6% smaller? And is that anywhere close to beginning the sun's Red Dwarf stage?
      $endgroup$
      – Mazura
      2 days ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Mazura About 600 million years, well before the sun leaves the main sequence. space.com/…
      $endgroup$
      – Mike Scott
      yesterday













    18












    18








    18





    $begingroup$

    Just shrink the moon by 6%, and there will never be another total solar eclipse, but new moons will still happen as normal. The moon will be too small to fully cover the sun, so there will be partial and annular eclipses, but no total ones. If you still want the occasional total eclipse, make the moon slightly bigger again, so that eclipses are total if and only if it happens to be at the closest point to the Earth in its orbit at the time of the eclipse. We’d still get the same number of eclipses at the same time, but hardly any of them would be total.



    Since both the moon and the Earth are in elliptical orbits, the apparent angular sizes of the moon and sun vary. Specifically, the moon varies between 29' 26" and 33' 30" while the sun varies between 31' 36" and 32' 42". You want the moon’s maximum to be just larger than the sun’s minimum, so that there are very occasional total eclipses if we happen to get an eclipse when the moon is at its closest and the sun is at its furthest. So to reduce the moon’s maximum angular size to 31’ 40” you need to make it 5.5% smaller without changing its orbit.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Just shrink the moon by 6%, and there will never be another total solar eclipse, but new moons will still happen as normal. The moon will be too small to fully cover the sun, so there will be partial and annular eclipses, but no total ones. If you still want the occasional total eclipse, make the moon slightly bigger again, so that eclipses are total if and only if it happens to be at the closest point to the Earth in its orbit at the time of the eclipse. We’d still get the same number of eclipses at the same time, but hardly any of them would be total.



    Since both the moon and the Earth are in elliptical orbits, the apparent angular sizes of the moon and sun vary. Specifically, the moon varies between 29' 26" and 33' 30" while the sun varies between 31' 36" and 32' 42". You want the moon’s maximum to be just larger than the sun’s minimum, so that there are very occasional total eclipses if we happen to get an eclipse when the moon is at its closest and the sun is at its furthest. So to reduce the moon’s maximum angular size to 31’ 40” you need to make it 5.5% smaller without changing its orbit.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago

























    answered 2 days ago









    Mike ScottMike Scott

    11.5k32350




    11.5k32350











    • $begingroup$
      After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
      $endgroup$
      – Mike Scott
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      What year will it be when our moon has receded enough to appear 6% smaller? And is that anywhere close to beginning the sun's Red Dwarf stage?
      $endgroup$
      – Mazura
      2 days ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Mazura About 600 million years, well before the sun leaves the main sequence. space.com/…
      $endgroup$
      – Mike Scott
      yesterday
















    • $begingroup$
      After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      @CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
      $endgroup$
      – Mike Scott
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      What year will it be when our moon has receded enough to appear 6% smaller? And is that anywhere close to beginning the sun's Red Dwarf stage?
      $endgroup$
      – Mazura
      2 days ago






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Mazura About 600 million years, well before the sun leaves the main sequence. space.com/…
      $endgroup$
      – Mike Scott
      yesterday















    $begingroup$
    After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    After the edit, this fits what I need. Could you explain further what the size of the moon would need to be for the total eclipses to happen ? Are you saying to make the moon's orbit more elliptical while also shrinking the size of the moon a little bit? Doesn't that still equate to two nodes where eclipses can happen, ergo twice a year?
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago




    7




    7




    $begingroup$
    @CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @CristianC.: Total solar eclipses happen because, purely by accident, the angular size of the Moon is just big enough to cover the Sun. A very slightly smaller Moon, or a very slightly larger radius of Moon's orbit, or a very slightly smaller radius of the Earth's orbit would make total solar eclipses impossible.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    2 days ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @CristianC. Have edited to answer your queries.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    2 days ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    What year will it be when our moon has receded enough to appear 6% smaller? And is that anywhere close to beginning the sun's Red Dwarf stage?
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    What year will it be when our moon has receded enough to appear 6% smaller? And is that anywhere close to beginning the sun's Red Dwarf stage?
    $endgroup$
    – Mazura
    2 days ago




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @Mazura About 600 million years, well before the sun leaves the main sequence. space.com/…
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    yesterday




    $begingroup$
    @Mazura About 600 million years, well before the sun leaves the main sequence. space.com/…
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    yesterday











    8












    $begingroup$

    Keep sun and moon sizes, make the orbit of the Earth around the sun more excentric and with a smaller mean distance.



    The new moon is unnafected, but full solar eclipses will only happen if the eclipse happens together with the Earth's apoapsis, or close to it. And that will only happen during a few specific days of the year. Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial.



    That also implies shorter years and a whole different set of conditions on the planet that might not be compatible with life as we know it, though.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      "Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
      $endgroup$
      – NeutronStar
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @NeutronStar: True; I suspect he reasoned it out w/o knowing that kind has another name.
      $endgroup$
      – Joshua
      22 hours ago















    8












    $begingroup$

    Keep sun and moon sizes, make the orbit of the Earth around the sun more excentric and with a smaller mean distance.



    The new moon is unnafected, but full solar eclipses will only happen if the eclipse happens together with the Earth's apoapsis, or close to it. And that will only happen during a few specific days of the year. Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial.



    That also implies shorter years and a whole different set of conditions on the planet that might not be compatible with life as we know it, though.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      "Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
      $endgroup$
      – NeutronStar
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @NeutronStar: True; I suspect he reasoned it out w/o knowing that kind has another name.
      $endgroup$
      – Joshua
      22 hours ago













    8












    8








    8





    $begingroup$

    Keep sun and moon sizes, make the orbit of the Earth around the sun more excentric and with a smaller mean distance.



    The new moon is unnafected, but full solar eclipses will only happen if the eclipse happens together with the Earth's apoapsis, or close to it. And that will only happen during a few specific days of the year. Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial.



    That also implies shorter years and a whole different set of conditions on the planet that might not be compatible with life as we know it, though.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Keep sun and moon sizes, make the orbit of the Earth around the sun more excentric and with a smaller mean distance.



    The new moon is unnafected, but full solar eclipses will only happen if the eclipse happens together with the Earth's apoapsis, or close to it. And that will only happen during a few specific days of the year. Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial.



    That also implies shorter years and a whole different set of conditions on the planet that might not be compatible with life as we know it, though.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago

























    answered 2 days ago









    RenanRenan

    51.8k15119258




    51.8k15119258







    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      "Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
      $endgroup$
      – NeutronStar
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @NeutronStar: True; I suspect he reasoned it out w/o knowing that kind has another name.
      $endgroup$
      – Joshua
      22 hours ago












    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      "Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
      $endgroup$
      – NeutronStar
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      @NeutronStar: True; I suspect he reasoned it out w/o knowing that kind has another name.
      $endgroup$
      – Joshua
      22 hours ago







    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    Yeah I would have to keep the orbit well within not just the Goldilocks zone, but within our human threshold of said zone. But your answer is fair, and technically answers my question haha.
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    "Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
    $endgroup$
    – NeutronStar
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    "Any solar eclipse far from the apoapsis will be partial" or annular.
    $endgroup$
    – NeutronStar
    2 days ago












    $begingroup$
    @NeutronStar: True; I suspect he reasoned it out w/o knowing that kind has another name.
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua
    22 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @NeutronStar: True; I suspect he reasoned it out w/o knowing that kind has another name.
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua
    22 hours ago











    5












    $begingroup$

    Why not make the moon's orbit precess? If the precession chases the sun (from the perspective of earth) while staying a bit off from it, you could keep new moons as common as always and eliminate solar eclipses altogether.



    If you made the presession not quite at the same rate as the sun, you could also cause large periods without a single solar eclipse, followed by a period where a solar eclipse happened every month (which, from a story perspective, could be interesting).



    Alternatively, if you had the moon precess in the opposite direction of the earth's movement around the sun (and depending on the length of your lunar month vs solar year), it may be possible to have the moon 'miss' a solar eclipse except for once every few hundreds of years.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago















    5












    $begingroup$

    Why not make the moon's orbit precess? If the precession chases the sun (from the perspective of earth) while staying a bit off from it, you could keep new moons as common as always and eliminate solar eclipses altogether.



    If you made the presession not quite at the same rate as the sun, you could also cause large periods without a single solar eclipse, followed by a period where a solar eclipse happened every month (which, from a story perspective, could be interesting).



    Alternatively, if you had the moon precess in the opposite direction of the earth's movement around the sun (and depending on the length of your lunar month vs solar year), it may be possible to have the moon 'miss' a solar eclipse except for once every few hundreds of years.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago













    5












    5








    5





    $begingroup$

    Why not make the moon's orbit precess? If the precession chases the sun (from the perspective of earth) while staying a bit off from it, you could keep new moons as common as always and eliminate solar eclipses altogether.



    If you made the presession not quite at the same rate as the sun, you could also cause large periods without a single solar eclipse, followed by a period where a solar eclipse happened every month (which, from a story perspective, could be interesting).



    Alternatively, if you had the moon precess in the opposite direction of the earth's movement around the sun (and depending on the length of your lunar month vs solar year), it may be possible to have the moon 'miss' a solar eclipse except for once every few hundreds of years.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Why not make the moon's orbit precess? If the precession chases the sun (from the perspective of earth) while staying a bit off from it, you could keep new moons as common as always and eliminate solar eclipses altogether.



    If you made the presession not quite at the same rate as the sun, you could also cause large periods without a single solar eclipse, followed by a period where a solar eclipse happened every month (which, from a story perspective, could be interesting).



    Alternatively, if you had the moon precess in the opposite direction of the earth's movement around the sun (and depending on the length of your lunar month vs solar year), it may be possible to have the moon 'miss' a solar eclipse except for once every few hundreds of years.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    Elliot SchrockElliot Schrock

    2,328615




    2,328615











    • $begingroup$
      Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago
















    • $begingroup$
      Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago















    $begingroup$
    Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    Oh man this is very exciting stuff. This might be a really elegant solution to the problem. I'll need to do some research into how this may affect other aspects of the planet, but thats beyond the scope of this question. Thanks for this.
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago











    4












    $begingroup$

    Resonance. Pick a ratio of the lunar orbital period to the solar orbital period such that the moon normally in the wrong part of it's orbit when it's both directly sunward and in the plane of the ecliptic. The bigger numbers you need to use to express the ratio the longer it will be between eclipses.



    Unlike normal planetary resonance orbits no force will maintain this or cause it to come into being but as the moon slowly spirals out there will be a time that it happens naturally. You'll have to adjust the size of the moon so it provides a total eclipse at that distance from the Earth.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago















    4












    $begingroup$

    Resonance. Pick a ratio of the lunar orbital period to the solar orbital period such that the moon normally in the wrong part of it's orbit when it's both directly sunward and in the plane of the ecliptic. The bigger numbers you need to use to express the ratio the longer it will be between eclipses.



    Unlike normal planetary resonance orbits no force will maintain this or cause it to come into being but as the moon slowly spirals out there will be a time that it happens naturally. You'll have to adjust the size of the moon so it provides a total eclipse at that distance from the Earth.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago













    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    Resonance. Pick a ratio of the lunar orbital period to the solar orbital period such that the moon normally in the wrong part of it's orbit when it's both directly sunward and in the plane of the ecliptic. The bigger numbers you need to use to express the ratio the longer it will be between eclipses.



    Unlike normal planetary resonance orbits no force will maintain this or cause it to come into being but as the moon slowly spirals out there will be a time that it happens naturally. You'll have to adjust the size of the moon so it provides a total eclipse at that distance from the Earth.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Resonance. Pick a ratio of the lunar orbital period to the solar orbital period such that the moon normally in the wrong part of it's orbit when it's both directly sunward and in the plane of the ecliptic. The bigger numbers you need to use to express the ratio the longer it will be between eclipses.



    Unlike normal planetary resonance orbits no force will maintain this or cause it to come into being but as the moon slowly spirals out there will be a time that it happens naturally. You'll have to adjust the size of the moon so it provides a total eclipse at that distance from the Earth.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    Loren PechtelLoren Pechtel

    19.9k2262




    19.9k2262











    • $begingroup$
      Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago
















    • $begingroup$
      Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago















    $begingroup$
    Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    Sounds very reasonable! I will need to do some research but thanks for the starting point!
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago











    2












    $begingroup$

    At 90 degree inclination, you could still get new moons near the nodes where the inclination of the moon's orbit with respect to the line from the planet to the sun is low.



    The presence of nodes in the planet's orbit where the inclined orbital path of the moon intersects a line pointing towards the sun, however, is not itself problematic, because it is not itself sufficient to cause eclipses. And that's a good thing for you, because it's a simple geometric fact that you can't avoid them. In order to get an eclipse, the moon also has to actually pass through that intersection point during the brief period when it exists every half-year. As such, a very simple solution to avoid ever having an eclipse presents itself: just tweak the moon's orbital period so that it forms a simple integer ratio with the year, such that the moon is always in the same phase on the same date every year--and then just declare that the phases are such that you never have things line up for an eclipse.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago















    2












    $begingroup$

    At 90 degree inclination, you could still get new moons near the nodes where the inclination of the moon's orbit with respect to the line from the planet to the sun is low.



    The presence of nodes in the planet's orbit where the inclined orbital path of the moon intersects a line pointing towards the sun, however, is not itself problematic, because it is not itself sufficient to cause eclipses. And that's a good thing for you, because it's a simple geometric fact that you can't avoid them. In order to get an eclipse, the moon also has to actually pass through that intersection point during the brief period when it exists every half-year. As such, a very simple solution to avoid ever having an eclipse presents itself: just tweak the moon's orbital period so that it forms a simple integer ratio with the year, such that the moon is always in the same phase on the same date every year--and then just declare that the phases are such that you never have things line up for an eclipse.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago













    2












    2








    2





    $begingroup$

    At 90 degree inclination, you could still get new moons near the nodes where the inclination of the moon's orbit with respect to the line from the planet to the sun is low.



    The presence of nodes in the planet's orbit where the inclined orbital path of the moon intersects a line pointing towards the sun, however, is not itself problematic, because it is not itself sufficient to cause eclipses. And that's a good thing for you, because it's a simple geometric fact that you can't avoid them. In order to get an eclipse, the moon also has to actually pass through that intersection point during the brief period when it exists every half-year. As such, a very simple solution to avoid ever having an eclipse presents itself: just tweak the moon's orbital period so that it forms a simple integer ratio with the year, such that the moon is always in the same phase on the same date every year--and then just declare that the phases are such that you never have things line up for an eclipse.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    At 90 degree inclination, you could still get new moons near the nodes where the inclination of the moon's orbit with respect to the line from the planet to the sun is low.



    The presence of nodes in the planet's orbit where the inclined orbital path of the moon intersects a line pointing towards the sun, however, is not itself problematic, because it is not itself sufficient to cause eclipses. And that's a good thing for you, because it's a simple geometric fact that you can't avoid them. In order to get an eclipse, the moon also has to actually pass through that intersection point during the brief period when it exists every half-year. As such, a very simple solution to avoid ever having an eclipse presents itself: just tweak the moon's orbital period so that it forms a simple integer ratio with the year, such that the moon is always in the same phase on the same date every year--and then just declare that the phases are such that you never have things line up for an eclipse.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    Logan R. KearsleyLogan R. Kearsley

    11.4k13157




    11.4k13157











    • $begingroup$
      Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago
















    • $begingroup$
      Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago















    $begingroup$
    Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    Great mathematical explanation. That being said, I don't need eclipses be nonexistent, just rarer, though i suspect this is a harder thing to do than i initially thought.
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago











    2












    $begingroup$

    Instead of one moon which is just big enough and close enough to cause a total eclipse whenever it intersects between our planet and our sun, why not have several moons which are each either smaller or more distant such that no single moon can produce a full eclipse.
    New moons would still happen and would actually be much more common than Earth standard, but total eclipses would only occur when all of the moons simultaneously entered the intersection point, each blocking a portion of the available sunshine and collectively blocking it all.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago















    2












    $begingroup$

    Instead of one moon which is just big enough and close enough to cause a total eclipse whenever it intersects between our planet and our sun, why not have several moons which are each either smaller or more distant such that no single moon can produce a full eclipse.
    New moons would still happen and would actually be much more common than Earth standard, but total eclipses would only occur when all of the moons simultaneously entered the intersection point, each blocking a portion of the available sunshine and collectively blocking it all.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago













    2












    2








    2





    $begingroup$

    Instead of one moon which is just big enough and close enough to cause a total eclipse whenever it intersects between our planet and our sun, why not have several moons which are each either smaller or more distant such that no single moon can produce a full eclipse.
    New moons would still happen and would actually be much more common than Earth standard, but total eclipses would only occur when all of the moons simultaneously entered the intersection point, each blocking a portion of the available sunshine and collectively blocking it all.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Instead of one moon which is just big enough and close enough to cause a total eclipse whenever it intersects between our planet and our sun, why not have several moons which are each either smaller or more distant such that no single moon can produce a full eclipse.
    New moons would still happen and would actually be much more common than Earth standard, but total eclipses would only occur when all of the moons simultaneously entered the intersection point, each blocking a portion of the available sunshine and collectively blocking it all.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    Henry TaylorHenry Taylor

    46.5k872168




    46.5k872168











    • $begingroup$
      That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago
















    • $begingroup$
      That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
      $endgroup$
      – Cristian C.
      2 days ago















    $begingroup$
    That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    That's a very creative answer. It would warrant a lot of thinking and tinkering on my part, but technically does answer my question!
    $endgroup$
    – Cristian C.
    2 days ago











    2












    $begingroup$

    Another way to make total solar eclipses rarer would be to have a double sun. The planet would orbit both stars in a circumbinary orbit. Perhaps each of the stars and the moon have about the same apparent diameter as seen from the planet. So in a typical eclipse the moon might eclipse only one of the stars and leave the other one unblocked or maybe pass between the two stars as seen from the planet and not eclipse either star.



    The two stars would orbit around each other several times during each year of the planet, and the moon would orbit the planet several times during each year of the planet, and the three periods might not have a simple relationship.



    Also the three planes - the one in which the two stars orbit, the one in which the planet orbits the center of gravity of the stars, and the one in which the moon obits the planet, might not be the same plane but might be tilted in relation to each other.



    Thus there would only be a total eclipse of the two stars when one of the stars is in front of the other one, hiding it as seen from the planet, at the exact moment when the moon is passing in front of the nearer star, hiding it as seen from the planet. And it is possible such such a moment might happen only once in ten years, or once in a hundred years, or once in a thousand years, when everything aligns just right.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      2












      $begingroup$

      Another way to make total solar eclipses rarer would be to have a double sun. The planet would orbit both stars in a circumbinary orbit. Perhaps each of the stars and the moon have about the same apparent diameter as seen from the planet. So in a typical eclipse the moon might eclipse only one of the stars and leave the other one unblocked or maybe pass between the two stars as seen from the planet and not eclipse either star.



      The two stars would orbit around each other several times during each year of the planet, and the moon would orbit the planet several times during each year of the planet, and the three periods might not have a simple relationship.



      Also the three planes - the one in which the two stars orbit, the one in which the planet orbits the center of gravity of the stars, and the one in which the moon obits the planet, might not be the same plane but might be tilted in relation to each other.



      Thus there would only be a total eclipse of the two stars when one of the stars is in front of the other one, hiding it as seen from the planet, at the exact moment when the moon is passing in front of the nearer star, hiding it as seen from the planet. And it is possible such such a moment might happen only once in ten years, or once in a hundred years, or once in a thousand years, when everything aligns just right.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        Another way to make total solar eclipses rarer would be to have a double sun. The planet would orbit both stars in a circumbinary orbit. Perhaps each of the stars and the moon have about the same apparent diameter as seen from the planet. So in a typical eclipse the moon might eclipse only one of the stars and leave the other one unblocked or maybe pass between the two stars as seen from the planet and not eclipse either star.



        The two stars would orbit around each other several times during each year of the planet, and the moon would orbit the planet several times during each year of the planet, and the three periods might not have a simple relationship.



        Also the three planes - the one in which the two stars orbit, the one in which the planet orbits the center of gravity of the stars, and the one in which the moon obits the planet, might not be the same plane but might be tilted in relation to each other.



        Thus there would only be a total eclipse of the two stars when one of the stars is in front of the other one, hiding it as seen from the planet, at the exact moment when the moon is passing in front of the nearer star, hiding it as seen from the planet. And it is possible such such a moment might happen only once in ten years, or once in a hundred years, or once in a thousand years, when everything aligns just right.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        Another way to make total solar eclipses rarer would be to have a double sun. The planet would orbit both stars in a circumbinary orbit. Perhaps each of the stars and the moon have about the same apparent diameter as seen from the planet. So in a typical eclipse the moon might eclipse only one of the stars and leave the other one unblocked or maybe pass between the two stars as seen from the planet and not eclipse either star.



        The two stars would orbit around each other several times during each year of the planet, and the moon would orbit the planet several times during each year of the planet, and the three periods might not have a simple relationship.



        Also the three planes - the one in which the two stars orbit, the one in which the planet orbits the center of gravity of the stars, and the one in which the moon obits the planet, might not be the same plane but might be tilted in relation to each other.



        Thus there would only be a total eclipse of the two stars when one of the stars is in front of the other one, hiding it as seen from the planet, at the exact moment when the moon is passing in front of the nearer star, hiding it as seen from the planet. And it is possible such such a moment might happen only once in ten years, or once in a hundred years, or once in a thousand years, when everything aligns just right.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered yesterday









        M. A. GoldingM. A. Golding

        9,329526




        9,329526





















            1












            $begingroup$

            Have a moon with a high eccentricity orbit. Have the sizes such that only close it it's perigee (point of closest approach to the earth) is it large enough to get a total solar eclipse. At other points in the orbit it is further away and thus appears smaller in the sky than the sun. Also helped by the fact that orbiting objects move faster at the times of closest approach (due to conservation of energy), so the time spent in the eclipse zone is even smaller.



            The more enteric the orbit, the faster the moon shrinks in the sky after each perigee, so the less chance of a total eclipse. The flip side is that more of your new moons will occur when the moon is pretty small in the sky.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            PhillS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
              $endgroup$
              – JBH
              yesterday















            1












            $begingroup$

            Have a moon with a high eccentricity orbit. Have the sizes such that only close it it's perigee (point of closest approach to the earth) is it large enough to get a total solar eclipse. At other points in the orbit it is further away and thus appears smaller in the sky than the sun. Also helped by the fact that orbiting objects move faster at the times of closest approach (due to conservation of energy), so the time spent in the eclipse zone is even smaller.



            The more enteric the orbit, the faster the moon shrinks in the sky after each perigee, so the less chance of a total eclipse. The flip side is that more of your new moons will occur when the moon is pretty small in the sky.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            PhillS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
              $endgroup$
              – JBH
              yesterday













            1












            1








            1





            $begingroup$

            Have a moon with a high eccentricity orbit. Have the sizes such that only close it it's perigee (point of closest approach to the earth) is it large enough to get a total solar eclipse. At other points in the orbit it is further away and thus appears smaller in the sky than the sun. Also helped by the fact that orbiting objects move faster at the times of closest approach (due to conservation of energy), so the time spent in the eclipse zone is even smaller.



            The more enteric the orbit, the faster the moon shrinks in the sky after each perigee, so the less chance of a total eclipse. The flip side is that more of your new moons will occur when the moon is pretty small in the sky.






            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            PhillS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$



            Have a moon with a high eccentricity orbit. Have the sizes such that only close it it's perigee (point of closest approach to the earth) is it large enough to get a total solar eclipse. At other points in the orbit it is further away and thus appears smaller in the sky than the sun. Also helped by the fact that orbiting objects move faster at the times of closest approach (due to conservation of energy), so the time spent in the eclipse zone is even smaller.



            The more enteric the orbit, the faster the moon shrinks in the sky after each perigee, so the less chance of a total eclipse. The flip side is that more of your new moons will occur when the moon is pretty small in the sky.







            share|improve this answer








            New contributor




            PhillS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer






            New contributor




            PhillS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.









            answered yesterday









            PhillSPhillS

            1111




            1111




            New contributor




            PhillS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.





            New contributor





            PhillS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            PhillS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.











            • $begingroup$
              Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
              $endgroup$
              – JBH
              yesterday
















            • $begingroup$
              Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
              $endgroup$
              – JBH
              yesterday















            $begingroup$
            Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
            $endgroup$
            – JBH
            yesterday




            $begingroup$
            Welcome to Worldbuilding.SE! We're glad you could join us! When you have a moment, please click here to learn more about our culture and take our tour. Thanks!
            $endgroup$
            – JBH
            yesterday

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142780%2fmake-solar-eclipses-exceedingly-rare-but-still-have-new-moons%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            រឿង រ៉ូមេអូ និង ហ្ស៊ុយលីយេ សង្ខេបរឿង តួអង្គ បញ្ជីណែនាំ

            QGIS export composer to PDF scale the map [closed] Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Print Composer QGIS 2.6, how to export image?QGIS 2.8.1 print composer won't export all OpenCycleMap base layer tilesSave Print/Map QGIS composer view as PNG/PDF using Python (without changing anything in visible layout)?Export QGIS Print Composer PDF with searchable text labelsQGIS Print Composer does not change from landscape to portrait orientation?How can I avoid map size and scale changes in print composer?Fuzzy PDF export in QGIS running on macSierra OSExport the legend into its 100% size using Print ComposerScale-dependent rendering in QGIS PDF output

            PDF-ში გადმოწერა სანავიგაციო მენიუproject page