How many times has Earth orbited the sun?

An illustration of the solar system and the planet's orbits around the sun
The orbital period of the solar system's planets varies widely. (Image credit: Getty Images)

When you're standing on Earth's surface, it's easy to forget that our planet is hurtling around the sun at more than 67,000 mph (107,800 km/h). And it's even easier to forget that there are seven other planets also making their way around our home star at similar breakneck speeds, or that all eight have been ceaselessly circling the solar system for billions of years. 

But what might really blow your mind is finding out how many trips around the sun each planet has under its belt. This may seem like a tricky thing to calculate, but because the planets' orbits have remained largely unaltered for most of their existence, all it takes is a bit of basic math.

Related: What's the maximum number of planets that could orbit the sun?

The solar system was born around 4.6 billion years ago, when the sun began to form from a cloud of dust left behind by prior stellar explosions. Around 4.59 billion years ago, the giant planets — Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune — were born. And around 4.5 billion years ago, the smaller, rocky planets — Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars — took shape, according to The Planetary Society.

But when the planets were born, their orbits around the sun were not the same as they are today (especially those of the giant planets). For around 100 million years after the first planets formed, there was a "dynamical instability" among them, which resulted in a gravitational tug-of-war between these large bodies and caused the rest of the outer solar system's planetary material, and even some emerging protoplanets, to be catapulted out of the solar system, Sean Raymond, an astronomer at the Bordeaux Astrophysics Laboratory in France and an expert on planetary systems, told Live Science in an email. 

However, once all of the planets had emerged and finished jostling with one another for their positions, they settled into consistent, stable orbits that haven't changed much since.

"For 98% to 99% of the solar system's lifetime, the planets' orbits have been nice and stable," Raymond said. As a result, you can use the planets' current orbital dynamics to make a pretty accurate guess at how many trips they have made around the sun, he added.

Take Earth, for example. Our planet takes a year to orbit the sun and has existed for 4.5 billion years, so it has taken roughly 4.5 billion trips around the solar system. 

However, the number of total orbits varies greatly among the other planets because their years are either shorter or longer than Earth's.

Earth has made roughly 4.5 billion trips around the sun since it was created. (Image credit: Getty Images)

Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, takes only 88 days (or roughly 0.24 years, based on a year with 365.25 days) to travel around the sun once. So, over the past 4.5 billion years, it has completed around 18.7 billion solar orbits. But Neptune, the farthest planet from the sun, takes around 60,190 days (or 164.7 years) to complete an orbit, which means it has managed only about 27.9 million trips around the sun during its 4.59 billion years of existence. That means Mercury has orbited the sun around 18.7 billion times more than Neptune has.

Here is the full list of the planets, their year length and their total number of trips around the sun:

Swipe to scroll horizontally
PlanetAge (in billions of years)Orbital period (in days)Number of total orbits
Mercury4.58818.7 billion
Venus4.52257.3 billion
Earth4.5365.254.5 billion
Mars4.56872.4 billion
Jupiter4.594,333386.9 million
Saturn4.5910,759155.8 million
Uranus4.5930.68754.6 million
Neptune4.5960,19027.9 million

These sound like impressive numbers (and they are) but most of the planets could potentially double their number of orbits in their remaining lifetimes. 

In around 4.5 billion years, the sun will have swollen outward to reach Earth's orbit and transition into a red dwarf star, which will destroy Mercury, Venus and Earth. The other planets may live on for a time if they are not burned up but their orbits will likely be majorly altered.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Harry Baker
Live Science Staff Writer

Harry is a U.K.-based staff writer at Live Science. He studied Marine Biology at the University of Exeter (Penryn campus) and after graduating started his own blog site "Marine Madness," which he continues to run with other ocean enthusiasts. He is also interested in evolution, climate change, robots, space exploration, environmental conservation and anything that's been fossilized. When not at work he can be found watching sci-fi films, playing old Pokemon games or running (probably slower than he'd like). 

  • George²
    That means Mercury has orbited the sun around 18.7 billion times more than Neptune has.
    Something is much wrong with author's algebra.
    Reply
  • billslugg
    The Solar system is 4.5 billion years old.
    Mercury orbits once per 88 days or .24 year
    Mercury has orbited 18.7 billion times.

    Neptune orbits once per 60,190 days or once per 165 years.
    Neptune has orbited 27 million times.

    18.7 billion minus 27 million is 18.67 billion.

    I do not see an error.
    Reply
  • George²
    billslugg said:
    The Solar system is 4.5 billion years old.
    Mercury orbits once per 88 days or .24 year
    Mercury has orbited 18.7 billion times.

    Neptune orbits once per 60,190 days or once per 165 years.
    Neptune has orbited 27 million times.

    18.7 billion minus 27 million is 18.67 billion.

    I do not see an error.
    Difference is ~670X
    Reply
  • billslugg
    The problem is imprecise phrasing. The article says "18.7 billion times more".
    This can be interprted as a difference, in which case we subtract the number of Neptune orbits from the number of Mercury orbits.

    It can also be interpreted as you have, which is a ratio of the number of orbits.

    Both are correct but the phrasing is wrong since it is imprecise.
    Reply
  • George²
    billslugg said:
    The problem is imprecise phrasing
    Yes, the correct comparison is the ratio, which is calculated by dividing the two numbers, not subtracting.
    Reply
  • billslugg
    Comparing the ratios is valid. Comparing the difference is also valid. One must simply state which one they are referring to. The original phrasing can be interpreted either way.
    Reply
  • George²
    billslugg said:
    Comparing the ratios is valid. Comparing the difference is also valid. One must simply state which one they are referring to. The original phrasing can be interpreted either way.
    I do not agree. When a "times" difference is mentioned, the only action allowed is ratio. Here there is no free will of the individual to interpret and act as he himself decides. It's math, math has logic and rules that apply.
    Reply
  • Helio
    Given their assumption, the ratios are logical.

    The assumption, however, is that these orbits existed after the first 100 million years, but this is not likely a fair assumption. No model exists that explains all the planetary orbits, as well as, inclinations. Some models have Jupiter starting at 3 AU, migrating to 1.5 AU, then moving out to 5AU. Saturn being in tow during these migrations.
    Reply
  • billslugg
    We are confusing two different meanings of the same word, "times".
    It can refer to "multiplying one thing times another" or it can refer to a difference in how many times some "thing" has happened.
    In this case, the original phrasing is imprecise. Either answer is correct. This is a bad situation and the fault is entirely that of the writer.
    Reply
  • rod
    FYI, Helio post #9 is accurate based upon my on studies and readings about the solar nebula and formation of the solar system using that model. The space.com article does present jostling around taking place when the planets, including our gas giants started to settle down and evolve into more stable orbits. However, such statements about the beginning of our solar system can be compared to other, extrasolar systems known today.

    The exoplanet.eu site shows 888 star systems with multiple planets ranging from 2-8 exoplanets.

    https://exoplanet.eu/catalog/
    The NASA archive site shows 946 such systems.

    https://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/index.html
    Some interesting examples are the 7 exoplanet system at TRAPPIST-1 or the recent report of a six exoplanet solar system with super-earths. There are examples of solar systems where the known multiple planets all orbit closer than where we see Venus or Mercury today.

    The TESS-Keck Survey XVII: Precise Mass Measurements in a Young, High Multiplicity Transiting Planet System using Radial Velocities and Transit Timing Variations, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.04635
    Presently I do not see any of these multiple planet systems that look like the configuration in our solar system and no examples or analogs of moons formed via a giant impact scenario. There is plenty to chew on in exoplanet studies now and how we look at the beginning for our solar system and scenarios for planet migration or jostling around for a good position around the Sun :)
    Reply