Computing the period of a meteor using two ways.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around computing the orbital period of a meteor using two different methods. Participants explore the implications of using different gravitational parameters and the importance of consistent units in calculations. The conversation includes both theoretical and practical aspects of orbital mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant computes the period of a meteor using a semi-major axis and finds a discrepancy between two methods of calculation.
  • Another participant points out that the gravitational parameter used was for Earth instead of the Sun, suggesting that this is a source of error.
  • It is proposed that converting units consistently is crucial for accurate calculations, with specific conversions provided for AU to kilometers.
  • A participant shares a Python program that outputs the period and notes that the computed period from the code is significantly different from the expected value.
  • Some participants discuss the validity of the relationship \( P^2/a^3 = 1 \) for objects orbiting the Sun, emphasizing its limitations and conditions of applicability.
  • Another participant questions the utility of the formula \( P = (2.0 \pi \sqrt{(a^3)/\mu}) \) and its relevance for different celestial bodies.
  • It is mentioned that the other formula can be applied to various orbital scenarios, including satellites around Earth or other celestial bodies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the importance of using the correct gravitational parameters and consistent units, but there is no consensus on the utility of the different formulas for calculating orbital periods, and some aspects of the discussion remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential limitations in the assumptions made regarding gravitational parameters and the conditions under which certain formulas are valid. There are unresolved mathematical steps and dependencies on definitions that may affect the conclusions drawn.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in orbital mechanics, astrophysics, or computational methods in physics may find this discussion relevant.

solarblast
Messages
146
Reaction score
2
Computing the period of a meteor using two ways.

I'm looking at code that computes the orbit found for a meteor. It computes the period of the meteor as:

a = 13.07 # semi-major axis in AU
P = m.sqrt(a*a*a) # From the program

which yields P = 47.2512586393 Years

If I use the "standard" approach

P = 2*pi*m.sqrt((a*a*a)/mu),

where mu (=GM) is the standard gravitational constant (G*M or GM).
3986004418.0 in km**3/sec**2,

then I get:

P = 703462.683141 # units?

They certainly don't look close. A source I'm looking at says 4*pi*pi/G = 1, but they are talking about solar masses.

So why the large discrepancy? Units?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It is always a good idea to use the right constants and consistent units.

You are using the gravitational parameter for the Earth, not the Sun. The solar gravitational parameter is 1.327124400180×1011 km3/s2. To have consistent units, you need to either convert that 13.07 AU to kilometers or convert the gravitational parameter to AU3/year2.

With the first technique, convert that 13.07 AU to 1.955244×109 km. Then
[itex]T = 2\pi\sqrt{a^3/\mu_{\odot}} \approx 1.49116\times10^9[/itex] seconds, or 47.25 sidereal years ( = 47.28 years).

With the second technique, it's very handy to fold that factor of 2*pi into the square root. With this, the sun's gravitational parameter divided by 4*pi^2 is [itex]u_{\odot}' = 0.999997054[/itex] AU3/sidereal year2. Note that this is numerically equal to one to six places. This is what let's you get away with using [itex]T=\sqrt{a<sup>3</sup>}[/itex].
 
Last edited:
D H said:
It is always a good idea to use the right constants and consistent units.

You are using the gravitational parameter for the Earth, not the Sun. The solar gravitational parameter is 1.327124400180×1011 km3/s2. To have consistent units, you need to either convert that 13.07 AU to kilometers or convert the gravitational parameter to AU3/year2.

With the first technique, convert that 13.07 AU to 1.955244×109 km. Then
[itex]T = 2\pi\sqrt{a^3/\mu_{\odot}} \approx 1.49116\times10^9[/itex] seconds, or 47.25 sidereal years ( = 47.28 years).

With the second technique, it's very handy to fold that factor of 2*pi into the square root. With this, the sun's gravitational parameter divided by 4*pi^2 is [itex]u_{\odot}' = 0.999997054[/itex] AU3/sidereal year2. Note that this is numerically equal to one to six places. This is what let's you get away with using [itex]T=\sqrt{a<sup>3</sup>}[/itex].

They certainly don't look close. A source I'm looking at says 4*pi*pi/G = 1, but they are talking about solar masses.

So why the large discrepancy? Units?[/QUOTE]

Well, your certainly right about the units and the earth. I was using material I found on the web, and often it was unit-less. The book the computer program on never mentions how to compute P, but it's certainly in the code.

Thanks very much.
 
Well, not all worked out. Something is wrong. Here's a Python program and output.

import math as m

GMsun = 13271244018.0 # km**3/sec**-2
Gsun = 6.67834*(10**-11)

GMearth = 398600.4418 # km**3/sec**-2
Rearth = 6378140.0 # radius of Earth in km
SunToEarth = 149597870.7 #km
EarthMass = GMearth = 3986004418.0 # km**3/sec**-2
EarthMass = 5.9742*10**24

sidereal_year = 31558149.8 # sec
AU = 149598000.0 # KM per AU

pi = 3.14152965


#
print "Meteor Period"

mu = GMsun/(4*pi*pi)

a = 13.07*AU
a1 =13.07
P = (2.0*pi*m.sqrt((a*a*a)/mu)) / sidereal_year # Web
Pbook = m.sqrt(a1*a1*a1) # Wray book
print "P: ", P, " and Book: ",Pbook

print "Check for mu_sun: ", mu

=================
Meteor Period
P: 938.808534723 and Book: 47.2512586393 <---P from code is way off
Check for mu_sun: 336178021.818
 
To put a close to this, I have no idea why P = (2.0*pi*m.sqrt((a*a*a)/mu)) is useful. As it happens p^2/a^3 = 1 for all objects in orbit around the sun, planets anyway. So once you have a, the period is determine by the sqrt of a^3.
 
solarblast said:
To put a close to this, I have no idea why P = (2.0*pi*m.sqrt((a*a*a)/mu)) is useful. As it happens p^2/a^3 = 1 for all objects in orbit around the sun, planets anyway. So once you have a, the period is determine by the sqrt of a^3.
The expression T^2 = A^3 is valid only for orbits around the Sun, only for objects much less massive than the Sun, and only if you express time in sidereal years, distance in AU, and only if you don't care that the result is only good to a few decimal places.
 
And the value of the other equation is what?
 
The other formula can be used to calculate the period of a satellite's orbit about the Earth. Or about Jupiter. Or the period of an exoplanet about some other star. And so on.
 
Ah, thanks. Why is that true though?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 80 ·
3
Replies
80
Views
10K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
2K