Gravitational acceleration

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the gravitational acceleration experienced by a satellite positioned 300 km above the Earth's surface. Participants explore the calculations of gravitational forces and accelerations, considering both the Earth and the Sun's influences on the satellite. The conversation includes theoretical and mathematical reasoning related to gravitational interactions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that the gravitational force on a satellite can be expressed using the formula $$\mathbf{F} = \frac{GM_{e}m_s}{r^2}$$ and questions if this is correct.
  • Another participant provides a detailed derivation of the gravitational force and acceleration acting on the satellite, emphasizing the need to consider the radius vector from the Earth to the satellite.
  • Some participants note that the gravitational acceleration of $$-9.8\,\text{m/s}^2$$ applies only near the Earth's surface and that it decreases with altitude according to the inverse square law.
  • One participant suggests a formula for gravitational acceleration at the satellite's altitude, indicating it would be a fraction of $$9.8\,\text{m/s}^2$$ based on the Earth's radius.
  • Several participants discuss how to account for the Sun's gravitational influence on the satellite, noting that it varies with the satellite's position relative to both the Earth and the Sun.
  • There is a proposal to calculate the gravitational force from the Sun similarly to that from the Earth, but with considerations for varying distances.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about comparing the gravitational accelerations from the Earth and the Sun without numerical values.
  • Another participant mentions that the gravitational constant $$G$$ is a known value, providing its approximate numerical value.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the gravitational acceleration experienced by the satellite, particularly regarding the influence of altitude and the Sun's gravitational force. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on the calculations and influences involved.

Contextual Notes

Some calculations depend on specific assumptions about distances and positions, particularly regarding the satellite's altitude and its relationship to both the Earth and the Sun. There are unresolved mathematical steps related to comparing gravitational influences.

Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
A satellite 300km above the Earth's radius would have the same gravitational acceleration magnitude?
$$
\mathbf{F} = \frac{GM_{e}m_s}{r^2}\approx \frac{GM_e}{r^2}
$$
Correct?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I would write that

$$\mathbf{F}_{es}=-G\frac{M_{e}M_{s}}{|\mathbf{r}_{es}|^{2}}\, \hat{\mathbf{r}}_{es}.$$

Here $\mathbf{F}_{es}$ is the force exerted on the satellite due to the earth, and $\mathbf{r}_{es}$ is the radius vector from the Earth to the satellite. Therefore, by Newton's Second Law, we have that
$$\mathbf{F}_{es}=M_{s}\mathbf{a}_{s},$$
and hence
$$\mathbf{a}_{s}=-G\frac{M_{e}}{|\mathbf{r}_{es}|^{2}}\, \hat{\mathbf{r}}_{es}.$$
 
Ackbach said:
I would write that

$$\mathbf{F}_{es}=-G\frac{M_{e}M_{s}}{|\mathbf{r}_{es}|^{2}}\, \hat{\mathbf{r}}_{es}.$$

Here $\mathbf{F}_{es}$ is the force exerted on the satellite due to the earth, and $\mathbf{r}_{es}$ is the radius vector from the Earth to the satellite. Therefore, by Newton's Second Law, we have that
$$\mathbf{F}_{es}=M_{s}\mathbf{a}_{s},$$
and hence
$$\mathbf{a}_{s}=-G\frac{M_{e}}{|\mathbf{r}_{es}|^{2}}\, \hat{\mathbf{r}}_{es}.$$

So $\mathbf{a} = -9.8m/sec^2$?
 
dwsmith said:
So $\mathbf{a} = -9.8m/sec^2$?

No. $|\mathbf{a}_{g}|=9.8\,\text{m/s}^{2}$ only near the Earth's surface. That is, only where the radius vector's length is approximately the radius of the earth. A satellite is going to be much farther away from the Earth's center than that. Expect this acceleration to be much lower, in accordance with the inverse square law.
 
I believe we would have:

$\displaystyle \mathbf{a}\approx-9.8\left(\frac{r}{r+300} \right)^2\frac{\text{m}}{\text{s}^2}$

where $r$ is the radius of the Earth in km.
 
How does one account for the sun by finding the magnitude of the gravitational disturbance caused by the Sun?
 
dwsmith said:
How does one account for the sun by finding the magnitude of the gravitational disturbance caused by the Sun?

It would vary greatly depending on the relative alignment of the Earth and the sun compared to the satellite. The total gravitational force on the satellite is just the vector sum of the gravitational forces due to the Earth and the sun. I think you'll find that the sun's influence is much less than the Earth's despite the sun's immensely greater mass.
 
The same way you would for the Earth (and find the sum of the forces), except you would have to account for the varying distance of the satellite from the center of the sun since the satellite is orbiting the Earth, and also you would have to account for the varying distance of the Earth from the Sun.

While the size of the region around the Earth in which the Earth's gravity is dominant over that of the sun is very small relative to the solar system, it is large compared to the region in which we place artificial satellites.
 
So the equation would be:
$$
\mathbf{F}_s = -\frac{GM_sm_s}{r_s^2}\hat{\mathbf{r_s}}
$$
where the Earth is located at $\theta = \pi$ from the sun and the satellite is at $\beta = \frac{3\pi}{2}$ from the earth.
This force would be positive since it is moving away from earth?
$$
\mathbf{a} = \frac{\mathbf{F}_{\text{sunsat}}}{m_{sat}} = -\frac{GM_{\text{sun}}}{r^2_{\text{sunsat}}}\hat{ \mathbf{r}}_{\text{sunsat}}
$$
Then $r_s = \sqrt{d_{es}^2 + 300^2}$
Correct?
How do I compare these two(earth and sun on sat) accelerations since I have nothing to compare?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
dwsmith said:
So the equation would be:
$$
\mathbf{F}_s = -\frac{GM_sm_s}{r_s^2}\hat{\mathbf{r_s}}
$$
where the Earth is located at $\theta = \pi$ from the sun and the satellite is at $\beta = \frac{3\pi}{2}$ from the earth.
This force would be positive since it is moving away from earth?
$$
\mathbf{a} = \frac{\mathbf{F}_{\text{sunsat}}}{m_{sat}} = -\frac{GM_{\text{sun}}}{r^2_{\text{sunsat}}}\hat{ \mathbf{r}}_{\text{sunsat}}
$$
Then $r_s = \sqrt{d_{es}^2 + 300^2}$
Correct?
How do I compare these two(earth and sun on sat) accelerations since I have nothing to compare?
Are you studying this as a class assignment? If so then we need to know of any specifications that your instructor would want. (ie. does your instructor expect you to answer in terms of the angle the Earths's gravitational force on the satellite makes with that of the Sun?)

If not then I would recommend that you pick the satellite at its closest point to the Sun (The satellite is between the Earth and Sun) and at its furthest point (The Earth is between the satellite and the Sun.) I don't know the exact figures, but I'll bet that you can average these two numbers. (They should be about the same amount anyway.)

-Dan
 
  • #11
topsquark said:
Are you studying this as a class assignment? If so then we need to know of any specifications that your instructor would want. (ie. does your instructor expect you to answer in terms of the angle the Earths's gravitational force on the satellite makes with that of the Sun?)

If not then I would recommend that you pick the satellite at its closest point to the Sun (The satellite is between the Earth and Sun) and at its furthest point (The Earth is between the satellite and the Sun.) I don't know the exact figures, but I'll bet that you can average these two numbers. (They should be about the same amount anyway.)

-Dan

The picture shows it here:
Code:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-4cm,0) -- (4cm,0);
\draw (-4cm,0) circle (1.5cm);
\draw (-4cm,-1.5cm) -- (4cm,-.2cm);
\filldraw[blue] (-4cm,0) circle (.5cm);
\filldraw[orange] (4cm,0) circle (1cm);
\draw[thick] (-4cm,0) node {Earth};
\draw[thick] (4cm,0) node {Sun};
\filldraw[gray] (-4cm,-1.5cm) circle (.1cm) node[below = 1pt] {Satellite};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
 
  • #12
dwsmith said:
The picture shows it here:
Code:
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (-4cm,0) -- (4cm,0);
\draw (-4cm,0) circle (1.5cm);
\draw (-4cm,-1.5cm) -- (4cm,-.2cm);
\filldraw[blue] (-4cm,0) circle (.5cm);
\filldraw[orange] (4cm,0) circle (1cm);
\draw[thick] (-4cm,0) node {Earth};
\draw[thick] (4cm,0) node {Sun};
\filldraw[gray] (-4cm,-1.5cm) circle (.1cm) node[below = 1pt] {Satellite};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
(Ahem) Is there any other way you can post that? I don't even know how to run the script. (Doh)

-Dan
 
  • #13
topsquark said:
(Ahem) Is there any other way you can post that? I don't even know how to run the script. (Doh)

-Dan

 
  • #14
Okay so you know how to calculate the gravitational force on the satellite from the Earth.

F = \frac{GM_Em}{r^2}

The force from the Sun will be the same idea:

F = \frac{GM_Sm}{r^2}

To get the net result, both forces act in the direction of the objects, toward the Earth or toward the Sun.

One simplification if you want to go down this road: The distance the satellite is from the Earth is practically negligible so feel free to use the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

-Dan
 
  • #15
topsquark said:
Okay so you know how to calculate the gravitational force on the satellite from the Earth.

F = \frac{GM_Em}{r^2}

The force from the Sun will be the same idea:

F = \frac{GM_Sm}{r^2}

To get the net result, both forces act in the direction of the objects, toward the Earth or toward the Sun.

One simplification if you want to go down this road: The distance the satellite is from the Earth is practically negligible so feel free to use the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

-Dan

I have that but how does one compare the two accelerations since I don't have actual numbers?
 
  • #16
dwsmith said:
I have that but how does one compare the two accelerations since I don't have actual numbers?
I can't figure out a way to do it without putting numbers in. Sorry!

-Dan
 
  • #17
topsquark said:
I can't figure out a way to do it without putting numbers in. Sorry!

-Dan

I can never figure this out since G has so many means in my book. Is G a known constant in this equation?
 
  • #18
Yes, $G$ is Newton's universal gravitational constant, which is given by Wikipedia as:

$\displaystyle G\approx6.674\,\times\,10^{-11}\,\frac{\text{N}\cdot\text{m}^2}{\text{kg}^2}$
 
  • #19
topsquark said:
Okay so you know how to calculate the gravitational force on the satellite from the Earth.

F = \frac{GM_Em}{r^2}

The force from the Sun will be the same idea:

F = \frac{GM_Sm}{r^2}

To get the net result, both forces act in the direction of the objects, toward the Earth or toward the Sun.

One simplification if you want to go down this road: The distance the satellite is from the Earth is practically negligible so feel free to use the distance from the Earth to the Sun.

-Dan

those should be different $r$'s, yes?
 
  • #20
Deveno said:
those should be different $r$'s, yes?
Yes. The first r will be the distance from the center of the Earth to the satellite and the second r is the distance from the Sun. (No point in worrying about the radius of the Sun, it's very small compared to the distance between the satellite to the Sun.)

-Dan
 
  • #21
well. correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this depend on where Earth is in its elliptical orbit (aphelion vs. perihelion)?
 
  • #22
Deveno said:
well. correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this depend on where Earth is in its elliptical orbit (aphelion vs. perihelion)?
Yes, but given that the distance between the Sun and the satellite is so much larger than the change between aphelion and perihelion it is something that can be ignored if you wish.

-Dan
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
899
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K