Which Celestial Body in the Solar System Allows a Probe to Orbit Fastest?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining which celestial body in the solar system allows a probe to complete an orbit the fastest, emphasizing bodies with a diameter greater than 1000 km. It highlights that a smaller celestial body, like Tethys, is likely to provide a faster orbital period due to its reduced circumference. The conversation clarifies that the orbital period equation can be simplified by considering the probe's height above the surface as negligible. Participants suggest using gravitational and centripetal force equations to derive the orbital speed, which is essential for understanding the relationship between the radius of the celestial body and the orbital period. Ultimately, the discussion aims to identify the optimal celestial body for rapid orbital cycles based on these calculations.
Numeriprimi
Messages
135
Reaction score
0
Hello.
In my book with examples of astronomy, I found this: Calculate, around which the known celestial bodies in the solar system (with a diameter greater than 1000 km) do a probe one complete cycle fastest (without the use of engines). Other movements of these bodies is negligible.

If cycle must be fast, it must be a celestial body with small diameter (but greater than 1000 km). It is Tethys (1060 km) or something smaller?

It is true that the circulation period is equal to:

2 * π * (radius of celestial body + height probe above the surface) / speed the probe

It is good?

Sorry for my bad English.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
This would probably fit better in the homework section, even though it's not exactly homework. You might try asking this kind of questions there in the future.


I assume you mean to calculate orbital velocity at minimal height - that is, as if the satellite were orbiting just above the surface, with no atmospheric drag, or mountains to worry about.
You want minimal height, because that's where the orbit is the fastest.

You want to find out how the orbital period changes with radius of the planet the probe is orbiting.

The equation for the period you've provided is indeed good, but you can drop the "height above surface" part, since we're trying to imagine it going around the planet/moon at zero height.

You still need to find out what is the speed, as it will not be the same for all bodies.

To do so, look up the force of gravity, and the centripetal force, and write an equation that compares them:
FG=Fc

solve for velocity.
The important bit is to express mass of the central body in terms of volume of a sphere and density.

Plug in the velocity to the equation for the period, and tell us what do you think it now tells you about the relationship between the radius and the period.
 
Smaller objects have a smaller circumference, but they also have a lower mass.

There is a nice relation between the time for an orbit and one specific, single parameter of the object. This allows to find the "best" one in our solar system.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top