The Lagrange Points: The Parking Spaces of Space

The Lagrange Points are places where the forces acting on an object are perfectly balanced so that its orbit does not change. The James Webb Space Telescope will be parked near the Earth's L2 point. There are thousands of asteroids near Jupiter's Lagrange points which are called the trojans.
This video has made use of data provided by the International Astronomical Union's Minor Planet Center.

[@ScienceAround]

They spent 1.5 hours back at school explaining the lagrange points and I still did not really understood them, but it's perfectly clear after just a 4 minute video. They should allow for more online courses :)

[@oldcountryman2795]

That's because smart people don't teach in schools.

[@MrFujinko]

honestly, perhaps it is you the slow one...

[@wilfredv1930]

@@oldcountryman2795 that's not necessarily true

[@metallicabillisg7]

F online courses. What about a better education system?

[@dusandragovic09srb]

wake up

[@LaunchPadAstronomy]

Nicely done explanation, and I'm really impressed with the visuals and editing. Well done sir!

[@NaturalMarvels]

Visuals are great - but the information is wrong.

[@ronanmaison6361]

I realize I'm kinda off topic but do anyone know a good website to stream new tv shows online ?

[@16_rafi44]

@@NaturalMarvels is there anything wrong with it?

[@dusandragovic09srb]

Wake up

[@thomaswijgerse723]

@@16_rafi44 objects do not drift towards or away from the sun. That is absolute nonsense. Also the notion that the sun would impart a centrifugal force on anything is absurd.

[@im_Dafox]

That striped sphere was by *far* the best visual explanation i've seen of LPs so far. Thanks a lot for sharing :]

[@anuraagchandra2548]

One of the most beautiful videos I have watched. Thank you very much❤.

[@StargazerFS128]

This was the best visualization of an L point I have seen, I watched three video before this one but no need to watch another, thanks!

[@infinitystem6565]

The best explanation I have found on KZbin so far! Excellent!

[@pottierkurt1702]

You need more subs. I actually learned about lagrange points the first time from Gundam 00

[@busterhikney6936]

FINALLY SOMEONE BRAVE ENOUGH TO DISCUSS FLAT EARTH @1:58

[@Ipergenio]

Complicated topic explained in the clearest way!

[@jmpaq51]

I have just awakened to Lagrange points, and the space fabric animation here is super!

[@NaturalMarvels]

This is a case of someone being able to create a nice video with graphics, without actually knowing the subject matter all that well. The information here is incorrect. Lagrange are actual gravity wells, that stabilize an objects within a location relative to the orbital speed of the mass creating the points, keeping them from being in a faster or slower "year" than would otherwise be the case, at that given distance from the sun. Objects do not require a Lagrange point to be in a stable orbit around the sun. They will not "spiral" into the sun as is shown here. Especially not without an acceleration force in the opposing direction of the orbit. That spiral into the sun isn't possible without something slowing the object down... like an atmosphere, a rocket or something. You're teaching misinformation. -Edit: btw Forgot to compliment you though. You did a terrific job on the graphics and stuff.

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

I did gloss over some things and perhaps should have added more caveats. The spiraling was just for illustration purposes. I never said objects would spiral into the Sun, just that they would move. The actual orbital mechanics of that 10-second animation are complicated. It should be a more complicated pattern which I worried would be confusing to follow over such a quick animation. I did cut some corners, but these animations take a lot of work.

[@markgoddard2560]

It’s fascinating how well balanced our system is. Magnificent design.

[@osmia]

Just came back to re-watch this after the JWT reached LaGrange 2. Thanks for doing this great explanation

[@benchang1022]

So that’s what it means when the James web telescope will go to L2. Thank you so much!

[@kentonyte]

Best explanation you can find on YT. Thx

[@juliocesarpereira4325]

I came here because of the launching of the James Webb telescope. Simply and well explained. I suggest you use a pop filter since every time you pronounce a plosive consonant, the speakers almost explode. Thanks a lot.

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

Thanks! You're right I'm a little embarrassed about the audio recording on this one. It was made a few years ago. I have a pop filter now and better recording practices.

[@SameBasicRiff]

this was a beyond good video! thanks!

[@gecomert]

Good explanation and visuals thank you

[@attiliobastosguarnieri5416]

Em três minutos eu entendi mais do que precisava sobre Lagrange . Viva ZZ top !

[@rsdevarapalli]

Impressive illustration 👌, excellent videos thanks for sharing 👍

[@saddyr214]

I was about to skip the video bcos of the slow narration. Good thing I didnt. The visualization and explanation makes it so easy to understand the Lagrange points compared to other YT videos.

[@glory6998]

Underrated channel

[@manishyeolekar]

How many people googled Lagrange Points, after reading about James Webb launch? This video made it real simple to understand the concept. Are there Lagrange points between Earth and Moon system?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

Yes, there are Lagrange points between the Earth and the Moon. They've even found concentrations of dust at these points: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kordylewski_cloud. However, it wouldn't be a good place to park the James Webb telescope as they want one side of the telescope to be always pointed away from the Sun.

[@mastervz4806]

Absolutely fascinating

[@siddhantvadan]

why is the gravitational plane not flat?

[@jarnovanderzee2469]

its not a "gravitational plane" its a graph that takes gravity AND centrifugal force into acount

[@sunk785]

Thanks to Euler & Lagrange .... May be solar system knows that in future humans will send satillight to study about sun and other planets thats the reason they arranged this parking points. 🙂😊☺️😇🇮🇳.. and even big thanks to channel..

[@AchwaqKhalid]

The best video to ever explain it ✅

[@hunter.1]

Amazing. i didnt knew this. really really very interesting.

[@SocksWithSandals]

Excellent explanation.

[@carlosponchio1869]

Webb Telescope will be parked at L2, considered an unstable parking lot..like those in LA.

[@MatteoCroceteknoraver]

I finally understood this. Thanks!

[@peterpeter287]

thanks for sharing the information, very well visualized!

[@red_ashcroft]

the UFO friggin startled me

[@docholliday7157]

Perfectly explained a difficult concept! Now can someone help me differentiate between "open" and "closed" vowel sounds in Italian?

[@DrewWestPress]

Had no clue this was a thing. Neat.

[@DragonPilot]

OK...even I understood that! Good job!

[@RippleReader124]

This is so cool. Thanks.

[@MegaTranquilla]

Sorry if I'm dumb but why exactly does an object in the sun's orbit drift closer or farther away from it while the planets don't. Are the planets also in an orbit where the forces cancel each other out and if so, are there more lagrange points were only the sun is a relative influencing factor?

[@ngiorgos]

I don't feel qualified to fully answer but here is my understanding. The frame of reference is rotating with the angular velocity of Earth around the Sun. That's why the Earth and the Sun are stationary in this ref. frame. Furthermore, anything that rotates around the Sun with the same angular velocity also appears stationary. That angular velocity is appropriate to orbit the Sun only from Earths distance. Get closer and you're too slow, get further away and you're too fast. That's why object that start stationary from different distances slowly drift away. The other planets orbit the Sun with different angular velocities, so in our ref. frame, they still appear to orbit the Sun in a circle. And that's why they don't drift away, they are never stationary (in this ref. frame). I think you can mathematically study all these things using the laws of motion, but since the ref. frame is rotating, besides the actual forces of gravity acting on an object, there's also the Centrifugal and the Coriollis force ΣF + Centrifugal + Coriollis = ma I hope this helps

[@MegaTranquilla]

@@ngiorgos thank you!!

[@kuyacargo7935]

Parking space of space is a peace sign

[@BurnabyAlex]

This was well explained! Good one

[@thipusulthan4878]

It's amezing work 👍👍👍❤️

[@oswynfaux]

And finally Webb is on it's way to L2

[@aldretaldret4310]

Very well explained. Between us, they can land on earth where they want. We have enough space here. As long as they pay their hours on the parking, … 🤗☺️

[@anopheles4417]

thankyou soo much sir.

[@mscir]

Why does the centrifugl force curve the outer edges of the map downwards as if there is a mass pulling it down?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

Because this is a rotating coordinate system. This assumes at each point you're traveling fast enough to orbit the sun at one orbit per year. If you're in the outer solar system that means you're moving very fast.

[@tntg5]

I assume there is a specific velocity at which you should arrive there otherwise you will just fly past those points isn't it?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

Yes, for Earth's L2 point, this assumes you are orbiting at roughly the same velocity as Earth.

[@RH126B]

This really made sense!

[@scottlapierre1773]

Thanks for this explanation. But the Webb will”orbit L2. How or why would something “orbit” around a massless point?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

It is orbiting that point in the sense that it is moving in a circle around that point. It is not orbiting because something at that point is pulling it in. It's orbiting that point because the gravity of the sun, earth, and the force of its thrusters keep it in a circle around that point.

[@mrwess1927]

How large of a mass must be parked at a lagrange point to causes the earth moon system to destabilize?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

Good question. I don't know, but I suspect pretty big like a sizeable chunk of the moon. It's known that as soon as you add a third body into your questions the orbital mechanics get a lot more complicated.

[@uncaboat2399]

*OK* it occurs to me ... if this is such a great "parking space" until it actually collects cosmic debris ... what are you gonna do when you get there to "park" and find it's already full up with space junk?

[@Simonjose7258]

Really good 👍

[@RetroAmateur1989]

So, in lagrange points, when you are stationary in space, do you still experience 0G?

[@bradweir6993]

You must,your in space.

[@scottfitzpatrick1939]

super video!

[@xxphoenixx8398]

Great explanation!!

[@bergfpv6486]

Just wondering. How big is one of those flat areas? Can I park both my mothership and my shuttle, or just one them?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

Technically speaking, there's only one perfectly flat point. That's an infinitesimally small point. But it's pretty flat around a pretty large region. NASA has several spacecraft parked at the same Lagrange point. The Trojan asteroids are spread out over a large region. You can park your mothership and shuttle and many other vehicles there no problem.

[@jfarinhote]

Can disturbances occur? If any meteorites or anything hit or come close, what will happen then?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

A comet or astroid could hit, but that's unlikely. Space is so big that it's unlikely.

[@markf5931]

Why is the James Webb Space Telescope at L2, which is unstable, instead of L4 or L5 which are stable? Is it because there are asteroids at L4 and L5 already that could collide with JWST? or L2 offers shorter distance for maintenance missions from earth?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

The telescope has thrusters and L2 is not highly unstable. I think the main reason is because L2 is so much easier for the telescope to get to. L2 is about 100 times closer than L4 and L5.

[@harixav]

@@ItsJustAstronomical The primary reason for putting the JWST on L2 is to keep the telescope under the shadow of the earth at all times so that it stays relatively cool which is essential for the telescope.

[@jeffchapman1632]

What's interesting is the model shows gravity pulling down. In space I didn't know there was an actual up or down?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

The model is showing the effective potential energy for every point on a 2D surface. You would need four dimensions to graph the potential energy for every point in 3D space. It actually makes a lot of sense to have down be the direction of lower potential energy since that's the normal situation on earth.

[@Knaeben]

If there is so much junk there, is it safe to park a fragile space vehicle there?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

@Kaeben First, there's a lot more junk around Jupiter's orbit than Earth's orbit. Second, I greatly exaggerated the size of the asteroids relative to the distance involved. In reality, the distances here are absolutely huge. If I were to show the asteroids at their true scale, they would be so tiny you couldn't see them. There's actually plenty of room for objects to be close to the Lagrange points without colliding.

[@martiant4333]

What if there's another earth on L3?

[@krabbypattified]

How are 4 and 5 stable? They look like saddles not bowls. Beautiful visualization btw

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

That part is very complicated. I can't really explain it without throwing a lot of math at you. Remember all the objects are in motion. If the objects are slightly off from L4 and L5 they move into a slightly elliptical orbit that is stable.

[@dustinparker9456]

Why is it that these points are on a 2 diminutional plane. The X axis and Y axis. Is there a point on the Z axis?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

How else would you display it? We're showing the effective potential energy at each point on the plane of the orbit. If you wanted to show a quantity for every point in a 3D space you would need 4 dimensions. 4D images don't make much sense to our brains.

[@skyeplus]

Man, you want to dock your ship at L1 for recharging, and it's always filled up.

[@troybaker4175]

0:09 Scotty,beam me up.

[@run369]

But why does Webb have to orbit L2? It is going to be parked in a halo orbit at L2, but it seems it wouldn't have to orbit the L2, but sit at the L2. Thanks.

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

They don't want it to be exactly at L2 because then the Earth and moon will cast a shadow on the solar panels. Since it has fuel they can have be in a halo orbit around L2.

[@swish007]

that's great until a comet or something comes out of nowhere and messes everything up

[@РодионСадыков-е2г]

Thanks for an interesting explanation! Hector was clearly a Trojan however🤠

[@UmVtCg]

Good explanation, only gravity is not a force. As your picture shows at 2:00

[@krashd]

3:31 Why is Hektor in the Greek camp? He was arguably the greatest Trojan hero.

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

The Hektor asteroid was discovered and named before the convention of the two camps was established. Consequentially, Hektor is now a spy in the Greek camp.

[@hyposlasher]

why will object starting at 1:52 drift away from the Sun? Shouldn't it be attracted to the sun by its gravity?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

This diagram is happening on a rotating coordinate frame. Meaning that frame is rotating at the same speed as the earth is orbiting. An object at that point is moving very fast, faster than the earth since it's farther than the sun. The gravity of the Sun is pulling it in, but it's moving fast enough to escape.

[@hyposlasher]

@@ItsJustAstronomical now I see. Thanks for explanation!

[@soumyadipmukherjee6627]

Wow youtube algorithm is coincidental this video was recommended just few days after aditya L1 launch nice 😂😅

[@mensly]

I accidentally left Arthur Dent’s teapot at L3

[@nicktheking12345]

Why does the sun have a centrifugal force on spacetime? I understand the first gravity well visualized directly around the sun, and then as you leave that well you reach a peak where the sun loses its influence right? Or some sort of peak. But then after that peak another? gravity well? bends spacetime around the sun again. Why are there two wells? I don't understand why the first gravity well doesn't lead to a peak, as it does, and then immediately flatten out back to flat spacetime again

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

The centrifugal force is a result of us using a rotating coordinate system here. The entire coordinate system is rotating along with the Earth's orbit so that in these coordinates the earth is stationary. This is basically saying that if you were orbital at one revolution per year that would not be fast enough to avoid falling towards the sun if you're close to the sun. If you're far away that would be too fast.

[@nicktheking12345]

@@ItsJustAstronomical Phenomenal response and now it seriously all makes sense to me. Thank you so much for the wonderfully informative video!

[@nicktheking12345]

@@ItsJustAstronomical Phenomenal response, it seriously all makes sense to me now. Thanks so much for the great video!

[@pbm767]

That is where i would have parked my spaceship Enterprise while on an Earth mission...

[@k1ngarthur290]

What’s a Lagrange?

[@idontthinkso2431]

but how big is that "point"?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

The spot where all the forces balance is a single infinitesimal point. But some of the points are stable and some are unstable. If you're near, but not at an unstable point you will very slowly continue drifting away. But if you're near, but not at a stable point. you will shift slightly so you're not in a perfectly circular orbit and then you'll stay in that new orbit. That's what stable means.

[@psychiatry-is-eugenics]

1:30 moon has no effect ?

[@claudiusdunclius2045]

The famous personage Euler's name is pronounced 'OILer', not 'YOUler'. Otherwise, well done.

[@robertkollar779]

Why is gravity always depicted in two dimensions? Are all galaxies and solar systems sitting on a bubble (as you depict), such that everything makes a dent into the universal bubble? Is that why everything in the universe appears to be moving away from everything else, because the bubble is still expanding from the Big Bang?

[@Doctor_Yuri]

Because depicting it in 3 dimensions would be computationally more difficult and harder for anyone to visualize or understand.

[@robertkollar779]

@@Doctor_Yuri, can you give me a little more? I’m actually interested in understanding this. To say that something is hard to depict doesn’t help my understanding. Thank you.

[@chasington5102]

@@robertkollar779 If you try to represent gravity/space time (not sure if which one) in 3d, you need a cubic grid overlay across the 3d space that warps towards objects that would only be able to easily be understood if you could see if falling into a 4th dimension. This is much more complicated than the intuitive 2d design that most gravity/space time diagrams use. The 3d dimension in the 2d graphs is used to represent the gravitational field. It usually works pretty well anyways as most of the planets try to align themselves onto a plane in a solar system

[@robertkollar779]

@@chasington5102 , thank you for that explanation. I’m not going to pretend that I now completely understand, but I do understand how the 2D model fails and the challenge of a 3D representation. You made a point about how planets in a solar system seek out a plane, why is that? Why don’t planets circle a sun the way electrons orbit an atom? On a planetary scale, I suspect that mass dictates the orbital path and somehow that ends up on relatively flat 2D plane, for reasons that my small brain may not be able to understand. I wish I had the capacity to understand the true depth of these concepts. It may be that I just have to settle for appreciating the simplified 2D representations.

[@CenobiteBeldar]

Me: Where can I park my Starship Enterprise E? NASA: Anywhere there’s a Lagrange point. Me: Lagrange? NASA: yep! Me: How, how, how? NASA: Did you just say the intro to ZZ Top’s LaGrange? Me: Yep! NASA: Far out.

[@luutas]

Where is the moon relative to this points?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

The moon is roughly four times closer to the earth than the L1 and L2 points. The other Lagrange points are much farther away. Also, the moon orbits the earth about once a month while the Lagrange points do not.

[@luutas]

@@ItsJustAstronomical Thank you so much, sir

[@TheArfdog]

Kind of a slow motion narration but decent.

[@adrianbooth438]

Patroclus was on the side of the Greeks, not the Trojans?

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

The Patroclus asteroid was named before the convention of the two camps was established. He is now a Greek spy hiding in the Trojan camp. There's a similar situation with Hektor.

[@edricklawrenceong7776]

Anyone else playing KSP with the Principia mod?

[@denijane89]

The video is very nice , but the inspiralling towards the Sun is just incorrect. I had to actually google it, because in first approximation, orbits should be stable and the drift is with respect to Earth, i.e. the objects get further away from Earth being in lower or higher orbit. Bbut it doesn't go anywhere with respect to the Sun - it's in Solar orbit and that's it. The drifting exists, it turns out, but it's due to a drag effect from the cosmos not being a perfect vacuum. But it doesn't apply to our Solar system where the stronger effect is drifting away from the Sun because of Sun's mass loss. But the effect of course is very small. So to my shock, the orbits really are not perfectly stable, but nowhere near what was shown on the video or towards the Sun.

[@ItsJustAstronomical]

The inspiraling is not physically accurate, but just intended to show motion away from the original point. The actual motion would be very complicated, the Earth's gravity would be interfering with the orbit, causing it to get more elliptical. The point is it's hard to find an orbit near the Earth's orbit where the orbit doesn't change.

[@xXilisminusXx]

Oh no he said euler like yooler

[@donaldklopper]

Centrifugal force. Ok then.

[@Metro498]

Park the ISS at L5 instead of de-orbit and burn up on reentry.

[@bonggojbihonggo991]

👌👌

[@vascobroma8907]

The name sounds like... spice... pure, unrefined... spice...

[@empyrean196]

Every since James Webb telescope launched. I’ve wondered how it could just be flung to a certain point without bypassing it. Now I understand. Really cool.

[@RamonCerrat]

exactly the same here !

[@williswild4586]

@@RamonCerrat same here also!

[@jp5125]

Was almost perfect until the pronunciation of Euler.

[@samuelgarrod8327]

Hence 87k subs. Learn to use English people.

[@ADESHKUMAR-yz2el]

Oil-lar 😂

[@chairpants]

Oiler

[@addyghaddy]

Aditya L1 from India is joining the party ❤️

[@rectorsquid]

"Euler" is actually pronounced "oiler"? But to be fair, I find "oiler" hard to say too! Great video. The gravity-well images make things so clear.

[@brontehauptmann4217]

gravity well

[@dmitry123456789012]

He was a bit oily guy, so they called him oiler

[@Liofa73]

Yeah but this guy is talking like a valley girl anyway... OH MY GOD... like... it's a Lagrange point!

[@brontehauptmann4217]

@@Liofa73 its valley girl sci -fi

[@thePronto]

Clear as mud.

[@Aengus42]

Great video! That was a splendid visualisation of the Lagrange points. The only thing that stood out for me was that I've never heard Euler's name pronounced like that. I've always heard it, amongst academics, as sounding like "Oiler" as in "a person who oils" but with a shorter last syllable. It's because he was Swiss & his native languages were German & French. Apart from that you've really helped my understanding. Thank you!

[@henrycgs]

Yes, "Oiler" is correct. He pronounced his name in an americanized way.

[@Aengus42]

@@henrycgs I think you did that my friend! 😆

[@johndrees5025]

Euler is pronounced "Oiler" not "You-ler"

[@SameBasicRiff]

I pronounce things how they are spelled. Except "homogeneous" which I also say wrongly as "home-ogenous" instead of (as my math teacher who was upset about euler pronunciations too would say) "homo-genius". Fight me.

[@martinzitter4551]

@@SameBasicRiff - Also KILO'METERS, not kalamaduhz. And distances are farther, not further.

[@BharCode09]

Wow.. just wow.. awesome explanation.. excellent visualization, especially the centrifugal and gravitational force demonstration on space time fabric.. listen with 1.25x speed if u find it too slow to follow.. thanks very much!! How I missed this channel!

[@asutoshghanto3419]

it wasn't any spacetime fabric just potential energy graph.

[@dusandragovic09srb]

wake up

[@almoni127]

Perfectly balanced, as all things should be...

[@tahanimyra3588]

Anyone else watching this to understand where the James Webb telescope is going? 🙋🏻‍♀

[@BloobleBonker]

Amazing graphical explanation.

[@BloobleBonker]

@S S Depends on how deep your awareness of the subject is. Try to find a better graphic explanation.