<p>Assuming all other parameters (like orbital period, distance from central mass, angular velocity of spinning on axis etc.) remain unchanged, how would the following systems rank in ascending order of time taken to achieve tidal locking?</p>
<ol>
<li>prograde orbit + prograde spin</li>
<li>prograde orbit + retrograde spin</li>
<li>retrograde orbit + prograde spin</li>
<li>retrograde orbit + retrograde spin</li>
</ol>
<p><strike>Clarifications: To ease complexity central mass can be assumed to be not spinning at all so that in all above scenarios 'spin' always refers to axial-rotation of the orbiting celestial body (like moon)</strike></p>
<p>UPDATE: (My bad) as correctly pointed out by @sno , the definitions of Prograde &amp; Retrogade orbit itself is based upon the spinning of central mass. Hence the above <strike>struck-through</strike> <code>Clarification</code> is incorrect+redundant</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-08T17:17:25.010Z
How do you define prograde and retrograde if the central mass is not spinning?
sno
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-11-08T18:30:13.617Z
Also (as I understand it) the rotation of both bodies is essential to tidal locking.
Beer Me
<orbital-mechanics><orbital-migration>
Time taken to achieve tidal locking in prograde vs retrograde motion
y2k-shubham
# Time taken to achieve tidal locking in prograde vs retrograde motion

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-11-08)

Assuming all other parameters (like orbital period, distance from central mass, angular velocity of spinning on axis etc.) remain unchanged, how would the following systems rank in ascending order of time taken to achieve tidal locking?

1. prograde orbit + prograde spin
2. prograde orbit + retrograde spin
3. retrograde orbit + prograde spin
4. retrograde orbit + retrograde spin

Clarifications: To ease complexity central mass can be assumed to be not spinning at all so that in all above scenarios 'spin' always refers to axial-rotation of the orbiting celestial body (like moon)

UPDATE: (My bad) as correctly pointed out by @sno , the definitions of Prograde & Retrogade orbit itself is based upon the spinning of central mass. Hence the above struck-through `Clarification` is incorrect+redundant

**Tags:** orbital-mechanics, orbital-migration
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: How do you define prograde and retrograde if the central mass is not spinning?  
> **username_2**: Also (as I understand it) the rotation of both bodies is essential to tidal locking.  

---

## 0 answers

