What Is the Mass of a Planet Given Its Moon's Orbital Period and Radius?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the mass of a planet based on the orbital period and radius of its moon. The gravitational constant (G) is provided, and the user converts the orbital period from days to seconds and the radius from kilometers to meters. After calculating the moon's orbital velocity, they apply gravitational and centripetal force equations to derive the planet's mass. Initially, the user mistakenly calculated a mass comparable to the sun, but later realized the correct mass should be in the range of x10^24 kg, similar to Earth's mass. The conversation highlights the importance of unit conversion and careful application of formulas in astrophysical calculations.
Greywolfe1982
Messages
60
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Given: G = 6.67259 × 10^−11 Nm2/kg2
A small Moon of a planet has an orbital period of 2.08 days and an orbital radius of 5.04 × 10^5 km.
From these data, determine the mass of the planet. Answer in units of kg.

Homework Equations



FG=FC
FG=Gm1m2/r^2
FC=mv^2/r

The Attempt at a Solution



First step was to convert into meters/seconds:
2.08 days to 179712 seconds
5.04x10^5km to 5.04x10^8m

Use v=d/t (or v=2\pir/T) and get a velocity of 17621.1m/s. Use Fg=Fc and simplify to Gm/r=v^2, rearrange to v^2r/G=m. I crunched out the numbers and get a mass that's nearly as large as the sun. The problem states it's a planet, so I'm assuming I'm doing something wrong...what is it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't see any error in your calculation... What is your final number you get for mass? Note the mass of the sun is about 2*10^30 kg.
 
Doh, I guess I should have done half a second of research before I posted this topic.

For some reason I thought the Earth was ...x10^10, rather than x10^24. I got an answer of something (don't have the papers by me now)x10^27, which now seems fairly reasonable.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top