What is a plausible scientific sounding explanation for a work around of the Roche limit?

[Maximum7]

Spoiler

So this is the type of what I want to make for my planet. This planet is from Star Wars and the Roche Limit says it cannot exist. How could I explain it with fake science

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Brown Dwarf, Gas Giant binary, close-in tidally locked Water Moon around the planet?

Edit: oh wait... StarWars... Um.

Because?

Edited July 28, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Maximum7]

5 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Brown Dwarf, Gas Giant binary, close-in tidally locked Water Moon around the planet?

Edit: oh wait... StarWars... Um.

Because?

Because I love Star Wars despite its many scientific errors. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Just now, Maximum7 said:

Because I love Star Wars despite its many scientific errors. 

We all do.

I said, 'because'... because Star Wars.

[Scotius]

You can always say: "Aliens did it."

I've read a sci-fi novel, where sufficiently advanced descendants of humanity reorganized the spiral structure of our Galaxy. If you can do that, compressing a planetary system should be trivial.

[kerbiloid]

[Codraroll]

Throwaway lines tend to work well in sci-fi: "It fulfills three of the five conditions on Édouard's list of exceptions to the Amended Roche Theory, and can thus stay in a stable orbit" or something like that. Similar wording can even justify workarounds to the laws of thermodynamics. Just hint towards the discovery of exceptions, without going in greater detail of what those exceptions are all about.

I wrote something similar once, about a ship that hovered in place above the far side of the Moon, at a distance way too close for any orbital mechanics to make sense. The exchange between two characters went something like this:

"What is the deal with our orbit?" Jonas asked. "I didn't think a ship could stay up here without going sideways really fast, but we're not moving relative to the surface."

Seth frowned, trying to remember the explanation he was given when he asked about the same once. "Imagine the gravitational field of the Moon is like a river, streaming towards the surface. The ship like a stone in the river. The stream splits before it, goes along it and reforms on the other side, but does not drag it along. In other words, we are not affected by gravity."

Jonas looked puzzled. "But what keeps the stone, er, ship, fixed in place to the riverbed?"

"That's where the analogy breaks down, and things get a little complicated. I won't even pretend to understand it."

Edited July 28, 2022 by Codraroll

[KSK]

5 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

We all do.

I said, 'because'... because Star Wars.

A Sith Lord did it and ran away?

[Piscator]

Couldn't you basically cover the planet (or at least the tidally challenged parts) with subterranean  artificial gravity generators to keep the water from falling into the sky?

PS Would be possibly quite interesting to have a planet that would naturally self-destruct if there was ever a major power outage.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Piscator
Post scriptum

[sevenperforce]

You can always massage the Roche limit equations. If the primary is not very dense and the moon is extremely dense then the Roche limit is lower.

[Admiral Fluffy]

6 hours ago, KSK said:

A Sith Lord did it and ran away?

I do think that is actually part of Mustafar's lore, so maybe?

[cubinator]

Star Wars doesn't need realistic planets. Just look at Utapau, or Naboo.

[StrandedonEarth]

I’m guessing a solid metal body should be strong enough to resist Roche disintegration. Dunno about surface liquids though…

[Terwin]

A non-spinning moon would have a lower Roache limit, as would a more diffuse/lighter planet or a denser/heavier moon

Might also be a matter of perspective, like how the moon always looks closer to the naked eye than to a camera.

If a body is held together by something other than it's own gravity, it can ignore the Roache limit as well.

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

24 minutes ago, Terwin said:

how the moon always looks closer to the naked eye than to a camera

Yeah, the 'near the horizon' effect.  

Planet and star look larger b/c of perspective with horizon vs at zenith.

Although - just checked: Jupiter from Io would appear 39 times larger than Earth's moon does from... here.

 

So I suspect the perspective is REALLY forced in the artwork above.

Or... the water moon is on a straight-line collision course and seconds from being shredded

Edited July 28, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Maximum7]

30 minutes ago, Terwin said:

A non-spinning moon would have a lower Roache limit, as would a more diffuse/lighter planet or a denser/heavier moon

Might also be a matter of perspective, like how the moon always looks closer to the naked eye than to a camera.

If a body is held together by something other than it's own gravity, it can ignore the Roache limit as well.

 

I like that! What could it be held together with besides gravity. 

[StrandedonEarth]

Bubblegum and baling wire? With a healthy dose of duct tape, of course

Or as I said earlier, a solid, strong structure. A solid metal or crystal is not reliant on gravity the way a loose (or compacted) pile of dirt, sand, and gravel is.

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, Maximum7 said:

What could it be held together with besides gravity. 

Quote

“It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” Obi-Wan Kenobi introduced Luke Skywalker and most of us to the Force for the first time in Star Wars: A New Hope.

 

It binds the galaxy together.

Should do that to moons, too.

Edited July 29, 2022 by kerbiloid

[Terwin]

13 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Bubblegum and baling wire? With a healthy dose of duct tape, of course

Or as I said earlier, a solid, strong structure. A solid metal or crystal is not reliant on gravity the way a loose (or compacted) pile of dirt, sand, and gravel is.

It does get a lot harder to have surface water however, unless you have something like a force-field or gravity generator just for the lake. (Liquid water by itself tends not to have a high structural strength)