Did space missions use Newton's Theory of Gravity

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter neerajsu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Space Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the use of Newton's Theory of Gravity versus Einstein's Theory of General Relativity in space missions, particularly focusing on historical missions like Apollo and current missions. Participants explore the practical applications of both theories in calculating gravitational effects and the implications for space travel.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that Apollo missions primarily utilized Newton's Theory of Gravity, while others question the relevance of General Relativity for current missions, suggesting it is only necessary for missions to Mercury.
  • It is noted that for most space missions, including those to the Moon, Newtonian mechanics are sufficient due to the small errors introduced by neglecting relativistic effects.
  • One participant highlights that NASA employs General Relativity for computing planetary ephemerides due to the long time spans involved, but asserts that space missions are typically short enough that Newtonian mechanics suffices.
  • There is discussion about the calculation of Earth's mass, with some participants explaining that the gravitational parameter μe can be observed through satellite orbits, while the value of G is less precisely known.
  • Participants mention the Cavendish experiment as a method for determining G, which is fundamental for calculating the mass of the Earth.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that Newton's Theory of Gravity is predominantly used in practical applications for space missions, with some exceptions noted for specific cases like missions to Mercury. However, there is no consensus on the extent to which General Relativity is applied across different missions, leading to ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the practical methods for calculating gravitational pull and the historical development of the constant G. The discussion reveals limitations in the precision of G compared to the gravitational parameter μe.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and enthusiasts of physics, particularly those curious about the application of gravitational theories in space exploration and the historical context of gravitational measurements.

neerajsu
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Did Apollo space missions use Newton's Theory of Gravity or Einstein's theory of general relativity?

What about current space missions?? Also, I heard from my friends that nowadays people no longer use Newton's theory of gravity for the current space missions. How true is this?

And which one of these is majorly in practical use. Einsteins general relativity or Newton's Theory of Gravity??

In my school I was taught only about Newtons Theory of Gravity and I'm definitely not very well versed in Einstein's general relativity.. but I would like to get some expert opinions on this.

Another question.
I was explaining to my friend about calculating Earth's mass. I came to a suggestion that Earth mass could be calculated, but only with the knowledge of G, by say tossing a ball onto the ground and using Free fall acceleration(g) in Newtons theory of gravity equation. But without the knowledge of G how did they come to know about Earth's mass? How did they compute value of G in the first place? Cause I don't see a practical/empirical way to compute Gravitational pull between two objects.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is not quite an "either or" proposition. In practical applications Einstein's theory will manifest as small corrections to Newtonian predictions. If these are smaller than the level of precision for the application then they can be neglected.

For getting to the moon and landing on it, Newton's theory is sufficient. The precision of e.g. thrust and rocket motor on/off timing is too low for the application of Einstein's corrections to matter. The Newtonian course is plotted, and aimed at and any errors are measured and remediated via correction thrusts. (Note such issues as venting gasses affect trajectory more than relativistic factors.)

Now the GPS system needs to take Einstein's theory into account since they must measure time to very high precision over a long span of time. (To get a GPS guided bomb to land within 1 meter of the target requires better than 3 nano-second precision in time keeping.)
 
neerajsu said:
Did Apollo space missions use Newton's Theory of Gravity or Einstein's theory of general relativity?
They used Newtonian gravity.

What about current space missions?? Also, I heard from my friends that nowadays people no longer use Newton's theory of gravity for the current space missions. How true is this?
Except for missions to Mercury, there's no real reason to use general relativity. The errors resulting from using Newtonian gravity instead of general relativity are quite small. These errors build up over time, eventually becoming observable after a long period of time has passed. NASA does use general relativity to compute planetary ephemerides, but that's because the time spans are long. Space missions are short. For missions to the Moon such as the two satellites just sent into lunar orbit to better measure the Moon's gravity field, NASA still uses Newtonian mechanics.

Another question.
I was explaining to my friend about calculating Earth's mass. I came to a suggestion that Earth mass could be calculated, but only with the knowledge of G, by say tossing a ball onto the ground and using Free fall acceleration(g) in Newtons theory of gravity equation. But without the knowledge of G how did they come to know about Earth's mass? How did they compute value of G in the first place? Cause I don't see a practical/empirical way to compute Gravitational pull between two objects.

Thanks
The mass of the Earth cannot be assessed directly. What can be assessed directly is the product μe=G*Me. The standard gravitational parameter μe is very observable by looking at satellite orbits. This value is known to about 8 decimal places of accuracy. Compare that to G, which is known to only 4 places or so. G is one of the least well known of the fundamental constants. The Earth's mass is obtained by dividing μe by G. The uncertainty in the Earth's mass is almost entirely attributable to the uncertainty in G.

With regard to how G itself is assessed, that's typically done with a modernized variation of the Cavendish experiment.
 
D H said:
Except for missions to Mercury, there's no real reason to use general relativity. The errors resulting from using Newtonian gravity instead of general relativity are quite small. These errors build up over time, eventually becoming observable after a long period of time has passed. NASA does use general relativity to compute planetary ephemerides, but that's because the time spans are long. Space missions are short. For missions to the Moon such as the two satellites just sent into lunar orbit to better measure the Moon's gravity field, NASA still uses Newtonian mechanics.

What does this mean for missions like Voyager? If NASA uses GR to compute planetary positions, then I'd assume that they'd use it for these longer missions, but you've also stated that they wouldn't use it unless they were going to Mercury... unless there's a difference between using GR to figure out where you're going and to figure out the gravitational pull on the spacecraft on the way...
 
neerajsu said:
Did Apollo space missions use Newton's Theory of Gravity or Einstein's theory of general relativity?

What about current space missions?? Also, I heard from my friends that nowadays people no longer use Newton's theory of gravity for the current space missions. How true is this?

And which one of these is majorly in practical use. Einsteins general relativity or Newton's Theory of Gravity??

In my school I was taught only about Newtons Theory of Gravity and I'm definitely not very well versed in Einstein's general relativity.. but I would like to get some expert opinions on this.

Another question.
I was explaining to my friend about calculating Earth's mass. I came to a suggestion that Earth mass could be calculated, but only with the knowledge of G, by say tossing a ball onto the ground and using Free fall acceleration(g) in Newtons theory of gravity equation. But without the knowledge of G how did they come to know about Earth's mass? How did they compute value of G in the first place? Cause I don't see a practical/empirical way to compute Gravitational pull between two objects.

Thanks

These are two really excellent questions, neerajsu.
It is so 'handy' to use Newton for calculations and then to make appropriate corrections later.

Your question about gravity really shows what a problem Scientists have. In many ways, Science has to 'pull itself up by its own bootstraps', building one measurement on a previous one. It's interesting to wonder what a civilisation near another, different star would do about measuring its environment. How many of their actual 'numbers' would turn out to be the same as ours. Obviously e and ∏ would be the same but what of the others - c, for instance?
 
Thank you for your answers guys. Cleared my doubts.
 
As you said, once you know G, you can calculate the mass of the Earth by measuring the acceleration of an object at the Earth's surface. For this reason, the Cavendish experiment, which measured G for the first time, is sometimes referred to as "weighing the Earth".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K