Can Satellites Measure Earth's Geode Using Velocity Instead of Position?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of measuring Earth's geode using satellite velocity rather than position. It explores concepts of gravitational effects on spacecraft, the role of accelerometers, and the methodologies used in satellite measurements related to gravitational fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that occupants of a spaceship approaching a massive body would be in free fall and not experience crushing forces, assuming tidal forces are negligible.
  • Others argue that while free-fall is expected, tidal forces could still have an effect on a non-point spacecraft, though likely too small to measure in practical scenarios.
  • One participant agrees with a colleague's assertion that two satellites are needed to measure variations in orbits, suggesting this approach increases the observable effects of tidal forces.
  • Another participant counters that one satellite can suffice if its state, defined as its relative position over time, is measured accurately, rather than relying on another satellite for comparison.
  • It is noted that NASA's Deep Space Network effectively measures velocity, indicating that velocity data can be more reliable than position data for gravitational modeling.
  • A reference is made to the Lunar Prospector satellite, which utilized Doppler shifts to inform lunar gravity models, suggesting that velocity measurements can be critical in gravitational studies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of using one or two satellites for measuring gravitational variations. While some support the idea of needing two satellites, others argue that one satellite can provide sufficient data through velocity measurements. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal approach to measuring Earth's geode.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the importance of tidal forces and the definitions of free fall, which may depend on specific assumptions about the spacecraft's size and the gravitational environment. There are also references to existing methodologies and historical data that inform the current discussion.

dodo
Messages
695
Reaction score
2
Hello, layman question here.

Suppose a spaceship approaches a highly massive body, at great speed; it violently swings around the body and comes back in less than a minute. All in a free trajectory, with thrusters never applied.

The question is: would the occupants of the ship be crushed against the outward wall of the capsule? Or the centrifugal force would be perfectly balanced with the body's attraction, and thus the occupants be all the time in free-falling ingravity?

The issue came in the context of satellites measuring the Earth's geode, by detecting tiny variations in their own orbits. A colleague of mine argued that, since the satellite follows a geodesic, accelerometers on board would not pick anything; thus two satellites are needed, one closely following the other, and from measures of their relative distance, variations on their orbit can be indirectly deduced.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Dodo said:
The question is: would the occupants of the ship be crushed against the outward wall of the capsule? Or the centrifugal force would be perfectly balanced with the body's attraction, and thus the occupants be all the time in free-falling ingravity?
Assuming that the ship is small enough that tidal forces can be neglected then the occupants would be free-falling and would not detect anything and they would certainly not describe it as a "violent swing".
 
Dodo said:
The question is: would the occupants of the ship be crushed against the outward wall of the capsule? Or the centrifugal force would be perfectly balanced with the body's attraction, and thus the occupants be all the time in free-falling ingravity?
They are free-falling the whole time (as defined specifically in the problem, since you said no other forces are involved).

Since the spaceship isn't a point, there could be tidal forces on it (in Newtonian terms, the force of gravity isn't the same on all parts of the ship because it is of finite size). In realistic situations this would very very likely be too small to measure.

Dodo said:
The issue came in the context of satellites measuring the Earth's geode, by detecting tiny variations in their own orbits. A colleague of mine argued that, since the satellite follows a geodesic, accelerometers on board would not pick anything; thus two satellites are needed, one closely following the other, and from measures of their relative distance, variations on their orbit can be indirectly deduced.
I would agree with your colleague. Having two satellites is in essence a way to make the size of the satellite larger, to make the effects of the tidal forces more noticeable.
 
Dodo said:
The issue came in the context of satellites measuring the Earth's geode, by detecting tiny variations in their own orbits. A colleague of mine argued that, since the satellite follows a geodesic, accelerometers on board would not pick anything; thus two satellites are needed, one closely following the other, and from measures of their relative distance, variations on their orbit can be indirectly deduced.

That is essentially what the GRACE project does. That said, scientists had developed very good estimates of the Earth's gravitational field prior to GRACE. One satellite suffices coupled with measurements of the satellite's state as a function of time. The best models of the Moon's gravitational field, LP150Q, for example, was formed from measurements of just one satellite orbiting the Moon: the Lunar Prospector.
 
D H said:
One satellite suffices coupled with measurements of the satellite's state as a function of time.
To be explicit, the 'state' here is the relative position of the satellite. It is just relative to the body being orbitted, instead of relative to another satellite as the colleague suggested.
 
No necessarily position. Velocity works quite nicely. NASA's Deep Space Network does a much better job measuring velocity than position in general, and does an extremely good job of measuring range rate in particular. The lunar gravity model was formed based primarily on doppler shifts in the signal transmitted by the Lunar Prospector satellite. For more, read http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/printerready/science/newresults/dopp-ge.html.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
10K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
18K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K