Why is a satellite's orbit period independent of its mass?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cyberdiver
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mass Period Satellite
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the independence of a satellite's orbital period from its mass, exploring the underlying principles and intuitions behind this phenomenon. Participants examine the mathematical and conceptual aspects of orbital mechanics, including the roles of mass and distance in determining orbital characteristics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why a satellite's mass does not affect its orbital period, suggesting that a greater mass would imply a greater gravitational pull and thus a different required orbital velocity.
  • Another participant clarifies that the orbital period is determined by the combined mass of both the satellite and the primary body, noting that changes in the mass of a satellite alone do not significantly affect the overall mass in typical scenarios.
  • Several participants express confusion about the equations governing orbital mechanics, particularly why they seem to focus solely on the mass of the primary body when both masses are involved.
  • It is mentioned that the equations often assume the secondary body (satellite) has negligible mass compared to the primary body, which simplifies the calculations.
  • One participant indicates that the equations they learned differ from those discussed in the thread, suggesting a need for further investigation into the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of mass in determining orbital periods, with some agreeing that the mass of the satellite does not significantly impact the period, while others remain uncertain or contest this understanding. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the intuitive understanding of the principles involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in their understanding of the equations and assumptions involved, particularly regarding the mass ratios of the bodies in orbit. There is also mention of differing educational backgrounds, which may affect interpretations of the equations.

cyberdiver
Messages
23
Reaction score
3
Why is the period of a satellite's orbit independent of its mass? I understand that its mass cancels out mathematically, but I don't understand it intuitively. The way I'm seeing this, if a satellite has a greater mass, it would have a greater pull on the body it is orbiting, and hence would require a greater orbital velocity to counter centripetal force.

I find it difficult to comprehend that an asteroid and a neutron star would orbit a planet with the same period, especially as it would be more accurate to say that the planet would be orbiting the neutron star.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The way you are seeing it is correct. Mass does affect orbital period. But it's not just the mass of the satellite, it's the combined mass of both bodies that determine the orbital period (and the distance between them). So if you're talking about a man made satellite in Earth orbit, then doubling the mass of the satellite alone isn't going to make any noticeable difference in the combined mass of the satellite and the Earth together. So there would be no detectable difference in the satellite's orbit. But if you doubled the mass of the moon, now that would make a noticeable difference in the orbital period. Does that help you understand it intuitively? By the way there is another thread about this subject: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/orbital-velocity.836915/
 
I just looked through the thread. Why does the equation only take into account the mass of the primary body if it is affected by both the primary and the satellite masses?
 
cyberdiver said:
... if a satellite has a greater mass, it would have a greater pull on the body it is orbiting, and hence would require a greater orbital velocity to counter centripetal force.
That greater mass also means it takes a greater force to get it moving at the same speed.
 
cyberdiver said:
I just looked through the thread. Why does the equation only take into account the mass of the primary body if it is affected by both the primary and the satellite masses?
That's because the equation you are talking about is assuming that the primary body is much more massive than the sattellite. The equation you are looking for is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_period#Two_bodies_orbiting_each_other
 
cyberdiver said:
I just looked through the thread. Why does the equation only take into account the mass of the primary body if it is affected by both the primary and the satellite masses?
Because usually you are considering a secondary body that has a negligible mass compared to the primary body.
It is effectively zero.

[EDIT] Boy, for a turtle, you sure are fleet-of-finger. :wink:
 
The equations I was taught in class are completely different. I will need to investigate this more thoroughly.
 
cyberdiver said:
The equations I was taught in class are completely different. I will need to investigate this more thoroughly.
Well, the equation I linked to is the most accurate. But it's really unnecessary when the satellite is not a planetary body.

DaveC426913 said:
[EDIT] Boy, for a turtle, you sure are fleet-of-finger. :wink:
Well, that was very uncharacteristic of me. I think I've had too much caffeine.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
11K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K