Is this the approximate gravity of Mars?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating the gravitational force on Mars, which is approximately 38% of Earth's gravity. A 100 lbs object weighs about 38 lbs on Mars, translating to 17.237 kg. The calculations presented initially led to a force of gravity of approximately 0.10204876 Newtons, but this was later corrected. The correct gravitational field strength on Mars is derived using the formula g = GM/R², resulting in a value of about 3.71 N/kg. The conversation emphasizes the distinction between mass and weight, noting that mass remains constant while weight varies with gravitational pull.
.:Endeavour:.
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
I've found this site that states: "The surface gravity on Mars is only about 38% of the surface gravity on Earth." So a 100 lbs object will weigh about 38 lbs or a 45.359 kg will be on Mars 17.237 kg (converting 38 lbs in kg). So to find the Fg of Mars, I did this kind of equation:
<br /> \frac{45.359 kg}{444.518 N} = \frac{17.237 kg}{X}<br />

(444.518)(17.237) = (45.359)(X)

7662.156766 = 45.359X

<br /> \frac{7662.156766}{45.359} = X<br />

168.9225 N = X
-----------------------------------
Now that we know the weight of the object in Newtons on Mars' surface, then:

17.237 kg ÷ X = 168.9225 N

X = 0.10204876 N

Fgravity = 0.10204876 N

So the force of gravity on Mars surface is approximately 0.10204876 Newtons, right? The site that I found the information at is: [URL]http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/mars_gravity.shtml[/ur].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
.:Endeavour:. said:
I've found this site that states: "The surface gravity on Mars is only about 38% of the surface gravity on Earth." So a 100 lbs object will weigh about 38 lbs or a 45.359 kg will be on Mars 17.237 kg (converting 38 lbs in kg). So to find the Fg of Mars, I did this kind of equation:
<br /> \frac{45.359 kg}{444.518 N} = \frac{17.237 kg}{X}<br />

(444.518)(17.237) = (45.359)(X)

7662.156766 = 45.359X

<br /> \frac{7662.156766}{45.359} = X<br />

168.9225 N = X
-----------------------------------
Now that we know the weight of the object in Newtons on Mars' surface, then:

17.237 kg ÷ X = 168.9225 N

X = 0.10204876 N

Fgravity = 0.10204876 N

So the force of gravity on Mars surface is approximately 0.10204876 Newtons, right? The site that I found the information at is: [URL]http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/mars_gravity.shtml[/ur].[/QUOTE]

I don't understand what you're trying to do. You're trying to find the gravitational field strength at the surface of mars? Is that what you mean by Fg?

If so, you are given: FgMars=.38*FgEarth Which solve the problem for you considering you know the field strength of Earth is 9.8N/kg...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The formula for finding g is:
g = GM / R2

Where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the object (Mars), and R is the radius of the object. For Mars this would be:

g = \frac{(6.67300 * 10^{-11}) * (6.4191 * 10^{23})}{3,397,000^{2}}

g = \frac{42834654300000}{11539609000000}

g = 3.71

Google’s calculator is great.
http://www.google.com/search?q=(G+*+mass+of+mars)+%2F+radius+of+mars+^+2
 
Thank you for your help. It started to look wrong like I did it now that I'm looking it over. It was 17.237 kg that would trow everything off where you have to find what is 0.38 on Mars' surface times its Fg. Because mass is constant and doesn't changes with the gravitational pull, but only weight does change, right? Thank you for your corrections.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Back
Top