B How Has the Calculation of Solar System Body SGPs Evolved Over Time?

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the historical evolution of calculating the standard gravity parameters (SGPs) of solar system bodies, particularly Jupiter. Early estimates of Jupiter's SGP likely emerged from observations of its moons, influenced by Newtonian theory and possibly even by Galilean observations from 1610. The gravitational constant was first semi-accurately measured during the Schiehallion experiment in 1774, which determined Earth's density, leading to further calculations of planetary masses. George Biddell Airy's 1833 article highlights the discrepancies in earlier measurements of Jupiter's mass, emphasizing the challenges in reconciling these values. The conversation concludes with the understanding that while the gravitational constant is hard to measure accurately, the orbits of celestial bodies can provide precise data for calculating their gravitational effects.
GregM
Messages
18
Reaction score
4
TL;DR
history of standard gravity parameter measurements
does anyone have a good reference on the history of calculating the standard gravity parameters of solar system bodies? My guess is a rough estimate of Jupiter's SGP can be gained from observing the motion of its moons, in which case the first estimates could have been made soon after Newtonian theory had made SGPs pertinent to astronomy. Or maybe the estimates were already there in an rearrangement in the numbers gained from Galilean observations around 1610.

R.jpg
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
It's likely that scientists first determined the gravitational constant and then used that to determine the mass of the Sun, Moon, and planets. From those two values you can get the SGP by multiplying them together. As far as I am aware, the first semi-accurate measurement to determine the gravitational constant (actually the density of the Earth, from which you can get the constant) was the Schiehallion experiment of 1774. This found the density of the Earth to be about 4500 kg/m3, about 20% off from the modern value of 5515 kg/m3.

Jupiter's mass was calculated at various times afterward. Here is George Biddell Airy's article from 1833 in the Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 6, p.83 in which he determines the mass of Jupiter by observing the orbit of its 4th satellite. He seems somewhat aghast that various measurements had differed widely up to that point and that no one had lately tried to reconcile them properly. I'm not actually certain what value he obtained, as he states it in a way I've never seen before. Something about a logarithm of the mass.
 
GM is known far better for the planets than G or M. (Indeed, M is essentially unknown directly - it's actually (GM)/G )
 
Vanadium 50 said:
GM is known far better for the planets than G or M. (Indeed, M is essentially unknown directly - it's actually (GM)/G )
Ah I wasn't aware of this. A little more reading of the wiki article gives me this:
Thus only the product of G and M is needed to predict the motion of the smaller body. Conversely, measurements of the smaller body's orbit only provide information on the product, μ, not G and M separately. The gravitational constant, G, is difficult to measure with high accuracy,[12] while orbits, at least in the solar system, can be measured with great precision and used to determine μ with similar precision.

Very interesting.
 
"Pop III stars are thought to be composed entirely of helium and hydrogen with trace amounts of lithium, the ingredients left over after the Big Bang. They formed early on, around 200 million years after the universe began. These stars are extremely rare because they died out long ago, although scientists have hoped that the faint light from these distant, ancient objects would be detectable. Previous Population III candidates have been ruled out because they didn't meet the three main...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
15K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K