Since the angle $\widehat{AOX}$ is proportional to the length of the shortest path (geodetic) between $A$ and $X$ on the sphere, the point $X$ is the spherical analogue of Fermat's point. The euclidean construction of the Fermat point just relies on the properties of geodetics and their interactions with isometries, so, in order to find $X$, one is tempted to follow these steps:
- Let $B'$ be the image of $C$ under a counter-clockwise rotation around $A$ with amplitude $60^\circ$;
- Let $A'$ be the image of $B$ under a counter-clockwise rotation around $C$ with amplitude $60^\circ$;
- $X$ is ($\color{red}{\large ?}$) given by the intersection between the $BB'$ geodetic and the $AA'$ geodetic.
However, this approach does not really work, because if $X_A$ is the image of $X$ under a counter-clockwise rotation around $A$ with amplitude $60^\circ$, while the geodetic distance between $A$ and $X$ is the same as the geodetic distance between $A$ and $X_A$, the geodetic distance between $X$ and $X_A$ may be different: in spherical geometry an isosceles triangle with a vertex angle of $60^\circ$ is not always a equilateral triangle, and that is a key point of the Fermat-Torricelli construction.
I do not even expect some straightforward work-arounds, since
- Due to different Gaussian curvatures, there is no isometric embedding in the plane of a spherical triangle;
- The locus of points $P$ on a sphere such that the sum between the geodetic distances $PA,PB$ is constant is a quite complicated object.
At the very least, we have a negative answer to Q2: our problem is not completely equivalent to its euclidean analogue. Anyway, it was recently solved through Lagrange's multipliers: for sufficiently small spherical triangles $ABC$, the spherical Fermat point $X$ is the point such that the angles $\widehat{AXB},\widehat{BXC},\widehat{CXA}$, intended as angles between geodetics, all equal $120^\circ$: that property is shared also by the euclidean Fermat point.