Finding distance of a planet whose orbital period is 2x Earth

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the orbital distance of a planet with an orbital period twice that of Earth using Kepler's 3rd law of planetary motion. The formula applied is rp³ / rE³ = Tp² / TE², leading to the conclusion that the orbital radius rp is approximately 1,060,071,250 meters. Participants highlight the importance of correctly interpreting the relationship between orbital period and radius, noting that if the radius is doubled, the orbital velocity is √2 times greater. Suggestions for reducing the equation to minimize errors are also provided.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Kepler's 3rd law of planetary motion
  • Basic algebra for rearranging equations
  • Familiarity with orbital mechanics terminology
  • Knowledge of units of measurement in astronomy (e.g., meters)
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Kepler's laws on planetary motion
  • Learn about orbital velocity calculations in celestial mechanics
  • Explore methods for reducing complex equations in physics
  • Investigate the relationship between orbital period and distance in different celestial bodies
USEFUL FOR

Astronomy students, astrophysicists, and educators looking to deepen their understanding of planetary motion and orbital mechanics.

JohnGalt
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
A small planet has an orbital period that is twice that of Earth. What is the planet's orbital distance?

From Kepler's 3rd law of planetary motion, I can assume that:

rp3 / rE3 = Tp2 / TE2

where rp is the orbital radius of the planet and Tp is the orbital period of the planet

Therefore,

rp3 = (Tp2 / TE2) rE3

= [ (2 x TE)2 / TE2 ] rE3

Therefore,

rp = 3√ ([ (2 x TE)2 / TE2 ] rE3)

= 1 060 071 250 m

which differs from the given answer. What error have I made?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I imagine this is a shortcut but, if the period is 2x, isn't the radius simply √2x?

(No, it's other way round. If the radius is 2x, then the orbital velocity is √2x.)
 
The equation looks okay, did you use the right values?

Also, reducing the equation further might help as it reduces chances for math errors.

(hint: by some slight re-arranging, you can eliminate a variable from the equation.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K