Gravitational Fields - is this the right way to solve it?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the mass and radius of a newly discovered planet based on its moon's orbital characteristics and surface gravity. The initial calculations for the planet's mass yielded 2.04 x 10^11 kg, using the gravitational formula but overlooked the importance of the distance in the gravitational equation. It was emphasized that the period of the moon's rotation must be factored in to accurately determine the planet's mass, assuming the planet's mass is significantly greater than that of the moon. The correct approach requires using both the gravitational force and the orbital mechanics to derive the planet's radius. Overall, the method needs adjustment to incorporate the correct application of gravitational principles.
fabbo
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I've completed this question and have an answer but I am unsure if my method is correct. The question reads:

A space exploration mission has discovered a new planet with a single moon. The distance between the centres of the planet and its moon is found to be 250000km and the period of rotation of the moon around the planet is 200 hours. On the surface of the planet one experiment shows that an object projected upwards at 20m/s just reaches a height of 14.7m. Taking G to be 6.67 x 10^-11Nm^2/Kg^2 calculate

a) the mass of the planet

I did:

mgh = 1/2 x m x v^2

so g x 14.7 = 1/2 x 20^2

g = 13.6N/kg

I know g = G x (m/r^2) so g is proportional to m

g = Gm so 13.6/6.67 x 10^-11 = m

m = 2.04 x 10^11kg

b) the radius of the planet

i was going to calculate this by T^2 being proportional to r^3.

T = m x r^3

200 x 60 x 60 = 2.04 x 10^11 x r^3

however this gave me an r for the moon as 0.0152m which can't be right...

Is this the right method or have I gone about it in the wrong way?

Any advice would be much appreciated

Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sorry to be a pain but if there's anyone who can help with this question it would be great
 
fabbo said:
I know g = G x (m/r^2) so g is proportional to m

g = Gm so 13.6/6.67 x 10^-11 = m
How did you get from g = Gm/r^2 to g = Gm ?
 
fabbo said:
I've completed this question and have an answer but I am unsure if my method is correct. The question reads:

A space exploration mission has discovered a new planet with a single moon. The distance between the centres of the planet and its moon is found to be 250000km and the period of rotation of the moon around the planet is 200 hours. On the surface of the planet one experiment shows that an object projected upwards at 20m/s just reaches a height of 14.7m. Taking G to be 6.67 x 10^-11Nm^2/Kg^2 calculate

a) the mass of the planet


b) the radius of the planet
As Doc Al has pointed out, you cannot ignore the r^2 term.

You have to use the period of rotation of the moon around the planet to determine the mass of the planet (and assume that the mass of the planet is much larger than its moon so the orbit radius about the centre of mass is approximately the separation between their centres - otherwise it gets rather more difficult to solve).

Then use the mass of the planet and the acceleration at its surface to determine its surface radius.

AM
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Correct statement about a reservoir with outlet pipe'
The answer to this question is statements (ii) and (iv) are correct. (i) This is FALSE because the speed of water in the tap is greater than speed at the water surface (ii) I don't even understand this statement. What does the "seal" part have to do with water flowing out? Won't the water still flow out through the tap until the tank is empty whether the reservoir is sealed or not? (iii) In my opinion, this statement would be correct. Increasing the gravitational potential energy of the...
Back
Top