Does Time Move Differently on the Space Shuttle?

The topic is very interesting, but please start a new thread if you would like to continue the discussion. In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of time dilation in space, with a focus on the difference in clock speeds between the space shuttle and Earth. Some members suggest that the clocks on the shuttle run slower due to its speed and altitude, while others argue that the opposite is true. There is also a mention of the effect of gravity on time. Overall, the conversation highlights the interesting and complex nature of time in relation to space travel.
  • #1
sam1967
2
0
I just read that the clocks on board the space shuttle go more slowly than the clocks on earth.
does that mean time has speeded up for those on the shutte or slowed down ?
i reckon it means time has slowed down. if they stayed up for a year by their clocks then by our clocks more than a year will have passed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Is this a question, or statement?
 
  • #3
it was a question as I am really not sure.
 
  • #4
Originally posted by sam1967
it was a question as I am really not sure.
So maybe you would want to type in the words "time dilation" into the search feature, (in these forums) look in titles, or threads, and you will find some 'stuff' to help you start building knowledge towards understanding the how and why of that...stuff... O.K.?
 
  • #5
The speed of the space shuttle causes the clocks to slow down relative to a clock on earh. The altitude (reduced gravitational force) causes the clocks to speed up. The net effec is that the clocks (time) go faster in space than on earth.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by russ_watters
The speed of the space shuttle causes the clocks to slow down relative to a clock on earh. The altitude (reduced gravitational force) causes the clocks to speed up. The net effec is that the clocks (time) go faster in space than on earth.
And hence the relativisation of light's speed(?)
 
  • #7
Mr. Robin Parsons - Your second post was uncalled for. There was nothing wrong with the question. Yes, sam1967 could have used the search feature to find some similar topic...but give a new member a break. I'd rather see repeated discussions than rude responses.
 
  • #8
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And hence the relativisation of light's speed(?)

no, the relativisation of time
 
  • #9
Originally posted by Phobos
Mr. Robin Parsons - Your second post was uncalled for. There was nothing wrong with the question. Yes, sam1967 could have used the search feature to find some similar topic...but give a new member a break. I'd rather see repeated discussions than rude responses.
O.K. but I was trying something trying to see if I could help, the rude part, is, perhaps, not as much there, as you might think...But I would apologise to sam1967 if they were, what? "off-ended" by my, well, thought...Sorry sam1967, didn't intend, or mean to be 'rude' just wondered if newbies even looked in the search features, they are rich... My Opinion...
 
  • #10
thanks
 
  • #11
No Problemo
 
  • #12
You might be incorrect, the clocks on the shuttle are not your wind up clocks next to your bed.
They are digital and atomically. gravity does not effect the mechanics of the clock because there are no gears, weights,springs in it.
 
  • #13
You noticed, didn't you, that this thread was 7 years old?
 
  • #14
Lol. Space time even exists in forums.
 
  • #15
just board said:
You might be incorrect, the clocks on the shuttle are not your wind up clocks next to your bed.
They are digital and atomically. gravity does not effect the mechanics of the clock because there are no gears, weights,springs in it.

To observers on the shuttle, the clocks are running at their usual rate, irrespective of whether they are mechanical or digital. However, according to russ waters, to observers on the Earth's surface, the clocks on the shuttle are running faster than their own, and it is Earth surface clocks that are running at the usual rate.
 
  • #16
Chestermiller said:
However, according to russ waters, to observers on the Earth's surface, the clocks on the shuttle are running faster than their own, and it is Earth surface clocks that are running at the usual rate.

I don't think russ's statement was correct for the Space Shuttle. It is correct for satellites in high orbits, such as the GPS satellites, where the effect of altitude (speeding up clocks relative to those on the Earth's surface) outweighs the effect of orbital velocity (slowing down clocks relative to those on the Earth's surface). For satellites in low Earth orbit, such as the Shuttle, the velocity effect outweighs the altitude effect.

An approximate equation for the rate of time flow for an object in Earth's gravity field is

[tex]\frac{d\tau}{dt} = \sqrt{1 - \frac{2 G M}{c^{2} r} - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}[/tex]

For an object on Earth's surface, we can eliminate the v^2 term by using the poles as a reference; since the Earth's surface is (approximately) an equipotential surface, clocks on the surface all go at the same rate, and the rate at the poles is the easiest to calculate. The polar radius of the Earth is 6.36 x 10^6 meters according to Wikipedia. G is 6.67 x 10^-11, and M for the Earth is 5.97 x 10^24 kg. This gives a result of [itex]d\tau / dt = 1 - 6.97 * 10^{-10}[/itex].

For objects in orbit, since v^2 = GM/r for an object in a free-fall circular orbit (which we'll assume is a good enough approximation for this problem), we can rewrite the above more simply as

[tex]\frac{d\tau}{dt} = \sqrt{1 - \frac{3G M}{c^{2} r}}[/tex]

For the Space Shuttle, r is about 200 miles, or 3.2 x 10^5 m, above the Earth's surface. For the GPS satellites, r is about 4.2 Earth radii. The corresponding numbers are:

Shuttle: [itex]d\tau / dt = 1 - 9.95* 10^{-10}[/itex], which is slower than ground clocks by about 3 parts in 10^-10.

GPS satellite: [itex]d\tau / dt = 1 - 2.49 * 10^{-10}[/itex], which is faster than ground clocks by about 4.5 parts in 10^-10.
 
  • #17
HallsofIvy said:
You noticed, didn't you, that this thread was 7 years old?
And now it is over 8 years old.

Thread locked.
 

What is the purpose of clocks on the Space Shuttle?

Clocks on the Space Shuttle serve the same purpose as clocks on Earth- to keep track of time. However, in space, time is measured differently due to the absence of a day/night cycle. Therefore, precise clocks are essential for coordinating schedules and conducting experiments.

How do clocks on the Space Shuttle work?

Clocks on the Space Shuttle use an electronic timing system that is synchronized with the Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) on Earth. This system is highly accurate and can measure time to the millisecond.

Do clocks on the Space Shuttle experience any time dilation?

Yes, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, time dilation occurs in objects moving at high speeds. Since the Space Shuttle is traveling at a speed of about 17,500 miles per hour, clocks on board experience a slight time dilation compared to clocks on Earth.

How often are clocks on the Space Shuttle calibrated?

Clocks on the Space Shuttle are calibrated before each mission and are checked regularly during the mission to ensure their accuracy. This is crucial for coordinating activities and experiments on board the shuttle.

Are there any unique challenges in keeping time on the Space Shuttle?

Yes, there are a few unique challenges in keeping time on the Space Shuttle. One major challenge is the lack of a day/night cycle, which can make it difficult for astronauts to keep track of time. Additionally, the extreme conditions of space, such as radiation and microgravity, can affect the accuracy of clocks and require special measures to keep them functioning properly.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
58
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
23
Views
950
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
50
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
4
Replies
115
Views
5K
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
88
Views
3K
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
16
Views
576
  • Special and General Relativity
3
Replies
95
Views
4K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
773
Back
Top