38

Is the force of gravity less on an airliner at cruise speed and altitude? I'm not talking about a special reduced gravity flight with a parabolic flight path, just a typical long distance flight.

Seems to me there should be less as passengers are further away from the centre of the earth, and also possibly a tiny effect from the speed the plane as it travels round the curve of the earth (altitude remaining constant) but does anybody actually know how much less?

Ari Brodsky
  • 111
  • 4
Ralph
  • 483
  • 1
  • 4
  • 6
  • 18
    Welcome to Aviation.SE! This is really more of a Physics.SE type of question, since the answer is purely in the realm of physics and not aviation per-se. Yes, because you are farther from the center of the earth flying at 40,000' above sea level than you are on the ground, the effect of gravity will be minutely less. But for the distances involved, we're talking imperceptably slight, so much so that in practical terms, it's all the same. But not exactly the same. Physics guys will be a better source of the formulas, math, and numbers you're looking for. – Ralph J Mar 21 '16 at 14:07
  • 15
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on Physics.SE instead -- not about aviation, within the scope defined in the help center (aviation.stackexchange.com/help). – Ralph J Mar 21 '16 at 14:09
  • @RalphJ Is there a way of moving the question to physics SE instead of me having to retype it? – Ralph Mar 21 '16 at 14:10
  • 9
    Why would you retype it? Computers have had "Copy-n-Paste" for decades. – abelenky Mar 21 '16 at 14:11
  • I think the diamond moderators can do that. – Ralph J Mar 21 '16 at 14:11
  • 2
    Yes, @Ralph can "flag" the question for moderator attention and request migration to Physics SE. – user Mar 21 '16 at 15:08
  • 4
    I'd be more inclined to move it if we didn't already have 2 good answers. If y'all really want us to, though, go for it. – egid Mar 21 '16 at 15:16
  • The force of gravity is less and time passes faster. – user3344003 Mar 21 '16 at 18:03
  • 2
    Yes, gravity is less when you are flying. – Tyler Durden Mar 21 '16 at 19:18
  • 3
    The accepted answer is incorrect, as are all the others except for sweber's. (I'm a physicist.) –  Mar 21 '16 at 23:17
  • 5
    @egid [physics.SE] mod here: FWIW on Physics we'd want to see the asker of a question like this show some effort to work out the answer themselves, or at least research it a bit. Topic-wise, it's definitely within our scope, but if this question had been posted as-is over there, it probably would not have been received so well. Just in case you do consider migrating it. (Also, there is some ambiguity in how the question is posed, as shown by the discrepancy between sweber's and the other answers.) – David Z Mar 22 '16 at 14:25
  • @DavidZ Makes sense. – egid Mar 22 '16 at 19:37

7 Answers7

45

There is less gravitational force, but by how much? An insignificant amount. The gravitational force of attraction between two objects is given by,

$\displaystyle F_{\mathrm g} = \frac{G m_{1} m_{2}}{R^2}$,

where,

$G$ is the graviational constant,

$R$ is the distance between the object's centers, and

$m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$ are the masses of the objects.

Instead of finding the variation in force between the aircraft and earth, it would be be better to find the variation in the acceleration due to gravity, $g$ (as $F_{\mathrm g} = m_{\mathrm a} g$, with $m_{\mathrm a}$ being the mass of the airliner)

We have, on earth's surface,

$\displaystyle g = \frac{G m_{\mathrm e}}{R_{\mathrm e}^2}$

where,

$m_{\mathrm e}$ is the mass of the earth, and

$R_{\mathrm e}$ is the radius of the earth.

For the aircraft at an altitude $h$ above the surface of the earth, this becomes,

$\displaystyle g_{h} = \frac{G m_{\mathrm e}}{\left(R_{\mathrm e} + h\right)^2}$

Taking ratio, we get,

$\displaystyle \frac{g_{h}}{g} = \left(1 + \frac{h}{R_{e}}\right)^{-2}$

Plugging in numbers, we get, for an airliner cruising at 12 km,

$g_{h} = 9.773\ \mathrm{m\ s^{-2}}$,

or about 0.37 % less compared to the sea level value. This is quite small and would not be noticable to all but the sensitive instruments.

aeroalias
  • 100,255
  • 5
  • 278
  • 429
  • 18
    That's over a ton for a fully loaded A380 :) – Antzi Mar 21 '16 at 14:33
  • 17
    But a ton when you weigh 590 tons, is still pretty insignificant... – Jon Story Mar 21 '16 at 14:43
  • 6
    Most of those $R$'s should be $R^2$ instead. – Michael Seifert Mar 21 '16 at 16:35
  • 4
    The difference is big enough to be considered in A/C performance calculations, bigger than other effects that manufacturers spend significant amount of money (like parasitic drag of specific areas). However, is a data, a you can not do a lot to use it... bigger is the effect of air density. Relevant, but only for complex calculations. – Trebia Project. Mar 21 '16 at 16:50
  • 4
    If you count centrifugal forces, then you get another 0.11% decrease at 12km and 965km/hr!! By a = v^2/r –  Mar 21 '16 at 19:45
  • does this change the stall speed in an accellerated stall?! – rbp Mar 21 '16 at 20:04
  • 1
    @aidan.plenert.macdonald That depends on the direction, IE East/West. It could add perceived weight just as easily as remove it (by actually reducing it's overall rotational speed, up to the speed of the Earth's rotation at which point it would become negative again). – wedstrom Mar 21 '16 at 20:29
  • @wedstrom Ummm. I don't think you are right. My equations of motion in my accelerated frame (ie. the plane) are invariant of the rotation of the earth. They only depend on the absolute distance (ie 1/r) from the system's center of mass. In fact, for spherically symmetric uncharged bodies rotating in free space, it is impossible to tell what speed they rotate at. Spherical symmetry and free space assumptions will hold to high order for the earth plane system. –  Mar 21 '16 at 21:20
  • @wedstrom Actually, I am sure you are wrong. If you are using Newtonian Physics (which we are), then the gravity equation is the same for a point mass for which spin has no meaning. The gravity equation you are using is just the solution to Poisson's equation is a spherical and rotationally symmetric system. Meaning that by definition, rotations of our system must leave the equations of motion invariant. –  Mar 21 '16 at 21:31
  • @aidan.plenert.macdonald I'm afraid you are in fact wrong. You are trying to use a "fixed" Newtonian frame of reference, when in fact the correct frame of reference is to use the local frame of reference of the atmosphere, which we can approximate to a fluid that rotates around the earth once every 23.9 hours (a sidereal day). – Aron Mar 22 '16 at 10:04
  • My bathroom scales can tell me when my weight varies by 0.37%. I won't feel the difference, but when you say "sensitive instruments", it doesn't take special equipment to detect it. – Steve Jessop Mar 22 '16 at 10:23
  • @aidan.plenert.macdonald for a Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird it is about 1.53% (according to my calculations) – DarcyThomas Mar 22 '16 at 22:37
  • 2
    @SteveJessop: Please take your bathroom scales on your next flight and perform the test in the lav. I look forward to seeing your results. – JS. Mar 23 '16 at 17:52
  • The $\frac{g_h}{g}$ ratio is wrong. While $g$ is called "gravitational acceleration", it is actually defined as the total weight acceleration in the Earth frame of reference, i.e. including the centrifugal force due to own rotation of Earth. And since the centrifugal force increases with altitude, $g$ decreases faster than by that equation. Further complicated by the fact that aircraft speeds are significant compared to Earth rotation, so flying east or west does make a difference. – Jan Hudec Oct 20 '16 at 19:33
  • @Antzi a ton is a unit of mass. Mass is constant regardless of gravity. 1 ton at sea level = 1 ton at 35,000 feet = 1 ton on the moon – Steve Kuo Oct 21 '16 at 01:40
20

Gravity itself

@aeronalias is absolutely right. Given the gravitational acceleration of $g=9.81m/s^2$ on the ground, a perfect spherical earth of radius $R_E=6370km$ with homogenous (at least: radially symmetric) density, one can calculate the gravitational acceleration at an altitude of $h=12km$ by

$$g(h)=g\cdot\frac{R_E^2}{(h+R_E)^2}= 9.773 \rm{m}/s^2$$

Expressed in terms of $g$, the difference is

$$g_\rm{diff} = 0.0368565736 m/s^2 = 0.003757g$$

Centrifugal forces

The question also asks for the centrifugal effect on the aircraft as it travels round the curve of the earth, which has not yet been answered yet. The effect is considered small, but compared to the effect on gravity itself, it isn't always.

I got some heavy objections on my answer and I have to admit, I really don't see their point. Therefore, I've edited this section and hope this helps.

In general, an object moving on a circular path experiences a centrifugal acceleration, pointing away from the center of the circle:

$$a_c=\omega^2r=\frac{v^2}{r}$$

$\omega=\frac{\alpha}{t}$ is the angular speed, i.e. the angle $\alpha$ (in radians) the object travels in a given time $t$ (in seconds).

Now let's consider a "perfect" Earth as described above, plus no wind. A balloon hovering stationary over a point at the equator at 12km altitude will do one revolution ($\alpha=2\pi[=360°]$) in 24 hours. So it is $\omega=\frac{2\pi}{24\cdot60\cdot60s}$. Together with $r=R_e+h$, one gets for the balloon:

$$a_{cb}=0.03374061 m/s² = 0.0034394098 g$$

The circumference of the circle the balloon flies is $2\pi(R_e+h)=40099km$

Now consider an aircraft flying east along the equator at the same altitude at 250m/s (900km/h, 485kt) with respect to the surrounding air. (Keep in mind: no wind). In 24h, this aircraft travels a distance of 21600km, or 0.539 of the circumference. This means the aircraft does 1.539 revolutions of the circle in 24h, which means its angular speed is $\omega=1.539\cdot\frac{2\pi}{24\cdot60\cdot60s}$. Thus, the centrifugal force on the aircraft flying east is

$$a_\rm{ce} = 0.0799053814 m/s^2 = 0.0081452988 g$$

The same way, one can calculate what happens when the aircraft flies west: $\omega=(1-0.539)\cdot\frac{2\pi}{24\cdot60\cdot60s}$

$$a_\rm{cw} = 0.0071833292 m/s^2 = 0.0007322456 g$$

Comparison

Let's write the values together to compare them. I've also added how much lighter a 100kg (220lb) person would feel due to the effects:

                                             | "weight loss"
g_diff = 0.0368565736 m/s²  = 0.003757 g     | 376gram (0.829lb)
a_cb   = 0.03374061   m/s²  = 0.0034394098 g | 344gram (0.758lb)
a_ce   = 0.0799053814 m/s²  = 0.0081452988 g | 815gram (1.797lb)
a_cw   = 0.0071833292 m/s²  = 0.0007322456 g |  73gram (0.161lb)

Note: The 100kg is what a scale at the North Pole (i.e. without any centrifugal effect) shows. The person already feels 344g lighter on the ground at the equator. The balloon doesn't change this (much). But moving east/west has a larger effect on the weight than gravity alone. A person flying west feels even heavier than on ground!

Maybe another table, showing the weight of the person:

                                             kg      lb
1. Man at north pole                       100.00  220.46
2. Man at equator                           99.66  219.70
3. Man at equator, in balloon               99.28  218.88
4. Man at equator, in aircraft flying east  98.81  217.84
5. Man at equator, in aircraft flying west  99.55  219.47 <- More than 3.

The numbers shown are only valid at the equator and for flights east / west. In other cases, it becomes a little more complex.


EDIT: Being curious on how this depends on latitude, I created this plot about the absolute acceleration an aircraft experiences.

enter image description here

The radius in the equation of the centrifugal force is the distance of the aircraft to the axis of the Earth. It is clear that it decreases when moving away from the equator, and so does the acceleration.

The speed of the aircraft flying west will cancel out the speed of the earth at about 57° N / S, i.e. there is no centrifugal force. At larger latitude, the aircraft will fly in the opposite direction around the axis of the earth, building up a centrifugal force again.
Near the poles, both aircraft become centrifuges (theoretically). E.g. flying a circle of 500m radius gives an acceleration of 12.7g. This is why the data rises to infinity there.

(When doing the math, one has to keep in mind that gravity always points to the center of the earth, while the centrifugal force points away from the axis. You can't just add them)

sweber
  • 7,257
  • 1
  • 35
  • 51
  • 1
    This is wrong. You are computing the velocity's wrong. You can't use the ground velocity as reference because it too is an accelerated frame. Velocity is relative to the center of mass and the equation are totally invariant of direction. –  Mar 21 '16 at 21:33
  • 3
    @aidan.plenert.macdonald: I don't understand your argument. A resting observer in space sees that the earth has a tangential speed of 464m/s at the equator. An aircraft flying east with 250m/s has a total tangential speed of 714m/s, and an aircraft flying west has a total tangential speed of 214m/s. What's wrong with this? (a tangential speed of 250m/s at 12km does not equal 250m/s on ground, but this effect is really negligible) – sweber Mar 21 '16 at 21:51
  • @weber Sorry. I am a theorist. I see things more from the equations. Perhaps a good physical "thought experiment" is the following. Imagine a glass onion planet (ie a bunch of free rotating layers). The plane can be thought of just sitting on a very thin layer out far from the center. Imagine that an adversary that can control the rotation of the center shells. Under your model, I have to arbitrarily pick one of these shells as my reference for my velocity. You just happened to pick the surface of the earth. But why can't I pick the shell below as my reference (ie the mantle). –  Mar 21 '16 at 22:01
  • 3
    If the adversary changes the rotation of one of the inner shells, then under your theory, this only has an effect if I arbitrarily choose my reference to be that shell!!! This is ridiculous! Physics shouldn't depend on my choice of reference! Thus, the only thing is can actually depend on is the center of mass (which is invariant of my choice of reference), the distance between us, and my velocity direction. Thus no-change of velocity of the earth surface can effect my motion. –  Mar 21 '16 at 22:04
  • The question asks about the strength of the gravitational field at altitude so all these calculations of centrifugal acceleration are irrelevant. – David Richerby Mar 22 '16 at 01:56
  • 1
    @DavidRicherby: Second paragraph of question: and also possibly a tiny effect from the speed the plane as it travels round the curve of the earth (altitude remaining constant) but does anybody actually know how much less? – sweber Mar 22 '16 at 09:41
  • 1
    @aidan.plenert.macdonald: The speed of the air is roughly the speed of earths surface (plus wind). Absolute speed of an aircraft is therefore (vectorial) sum of air and (aircraft w.r.t. air). I've completely rewritten my answer and hope it becomes more clear. If you do not agree, please tell my what the angular speed of my balloon and aircraft is. (by the way: I'm experimental physicist, I'm trying to bring equations and reality together) – sweber Mar 22 '16 at 13:04
  • 1
    @aidan.plenert.macdonald: Ah, and as I said, traveling west makes the aircraft lighter! – sweber Mar 22 '16 at 13:07
  • Why are you calculating the angular velocity in such a complicated way? Angular velocity is velocity divided by radius. – Jan Hudec Mar 22 '16 at 14:39
  • @sweber Ah. I should have read better. Now I understand. I thought you were taking the absolute velocity (ie. with respect to the center of mass) and then adding the velocity due to the arbitrary choice of reference. The air velocity argument is correct. One slightly deceiving thing you wrote is that we are in space (ie no atmosphere), so our reference to air speed is a bit odd. Plus I believe I heard that winds in the upper atmosphere are different than the earth rotation. I am no expert in any of the empirical things. I mostly just do math. –  Mar 22 '16 at 14:39
  • @JanHudec The angular velocity is invariant of reference, and if he were using the absolute velocity, you would be right. But he is using the air speed (as opposed to land speed or center of mass speed). –  Mar 22 '16 at 14:42
  • Angular velocities can be added just like the linear ones. – Jan Hudec Mar 22 '16 at 14:53
  • 2
    just to clear things up (hopefully): for practical calculations, all rotational velocity should be measured relative to the background of stars. in this case, it is reasonable to measure relative to the surface of the earth since we are seeking a delta, rather than absolute value for centrifugal force. more detailed discusion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_rotation – teldon james turner Mar 22 '16 at 18:21
  • Do these curves assume the earth is a perfect sphere? The horizontal black lines seems to indicate so -- but actually the polar and equatorial radius of the earth differ by more than the cruising altitude of the aircraft. – hmakholm left over Monica May 14 '16 at 03:30
  • @HenningMakholm yes, I assumed a sphere, because it's easier to calculate. The gravitational field of an ellipsis is more complex. I can check this later. – sweber May 14 '16 at 07:05
  • @sweber: One could probably get away with approximating the field as that of a spherically symmetric point mass, but the fact that you're closer to that point mass the higher latitude you're at would certainly show up on those plots. (This is not just pure pedantry; I think that taking this into account would show that the range of effective gravity strengths you can experience standing at sea level intersects the range of effective gravity you can experience sitting in an airliner at cruise). – hmakholm left over Monica May 14 '16 at 08:00
  • (For actual pedantry, though, I think it would be fairer to model the east and west traveling airplanes not as following a small circle around the pole, but following a great circle that is merely momentarily perpendicular to the meridian -- or at least, for easier calculation, as having the uniform circular motion in inertial space that gives the desired momentary ground speed and direction.) – hmakholm left over Monica May 14 '16 at 08:06
4

You are correct that the force of gravity is slightly less the further you get from the earth. Airlines typically cruise around 30,000 - 35,000 feet. We can use as a proxy measurement the force of gravity on Mt. Everest, which is 29,000 ft.

The force of gravity on Everest is about 0.434% less than the standard 9.8N/kg. This means that one pound at Sea Level would weigh about 0.995 lbs. at 29,000 ft. Or, a typical 180 lb. human would weigh 179.1 lbs.

I don't consider the speed of the aircraft going around the earth to be significant. Any centripetal force would be extremely tiny.

abelenky
  • 30,696
  • 9
  • 92
  • 143
  • Do you have a source for your 0.434% figure? – fooot Mar 21 '16 at 15:28
  • I used a post on this link. Another source, cites 9.7639m/s-2, which is about 0.436%. So mutiple sources and values are coming in very similar. – abelenky Mar 21 '16 at 15:32
  • Yeah it sounds reasonable, just wondering where it came from. – fooot Mar 21 '16 at 15:50
  • "I don't consider the speed of the aircraft going around the earth to be significant. Any centripetal force would be extremely tiny." - unless you're travelling at Mach 10, in which case you're almost orbiting. In fact, can you do the math to see if the effect due to centrifugal forces could be larger than the effect due to altitude? My first guess says they'll be the same order of magnitude. – John Dvorak Mar 21 '16 at 17:03
  • The question was specifically about "airliners at cruise altitude", which are always sub-mach, and typically around 0.7 - 0.8 @ FL350. I am not aware of any (unclassified) aircraft that can do M990 within Class A space; They likely do not exist. – abelenky Mar 21 '16 at 17:08
  • 8
    I don't consider the speed of the aircraft going around the earth to be significant. Any centripetal force would be extremely tiny. Nope, this effect can be significantly larger! – sweber Mar 21 '16 at 19:40
  • @sweber: Prove it. – abelenky Mar 21 '16 at 19:41
  • 1
    @abelenky: Did it. (see my answer) – sweber Mar 21 '16 at 19:42
  • The largest delta-G from speed that you described is 0.008145. The delta-g I estimated from altitude is about 0.04275, or about 5x larger. The delta-g from altitude is less than 1 lbs per human, and the delta-g is from speed is 1/5 of that, or less than 3 ounces.
    I don't see how the speed-effect is significantly larger than the altitude effect.
    – abelenky Mar 21 '16 at 19:50
  • @abelenky 0.4% looks like a delta-g of 0.004 to me, not 0.04. What'm I missing? – Dewi Morgan Mar 21 '16 at 21:17
  • 2
    Standard G is 9.80665, minus G @ Everest of 9.7639, for a delta-G of 0.04275 m/s2. (And that is 0.434% of 9.8m/s2) – abelenky Mar 21 '16 at 21:29
  • 1
    @abelenky - The first source you quoted was Yahoo Answers, which is not exactly a reputable source. Your second source (New Scientist) quotes: "Mount Nevado Huascarán in Peru has the lowest gravitational acceleration, at 9.7639 m/s2". Mount Nevado Huascarán has an elevation of 22,205, well below that of Mt Everest (or typical airliner cruising altitude). – Johnny Mar 22 '16 at 00:55
  • "I don't consider the speed of the aircraft going around the earth to be significant. Any centripetal force would be extremely tiny." And irrelevant: the question is about the strength of the gravitational field, not about any other forces felt by the plane. – David Richerby Mar 22 '16 at 01:58
  • 1
    @DavidRicherby: The question read, "and also possibly a tiny effect from the speed the plane as it travels round the curve of the earth" – abelenky Mar 22 '16 at 02:02
  • @abelenky In Newtonian gravitation, which you're considering, the speed of the plane doesn't affect the gravitational force at all. – David Richerby Mar 22 '16 at 04:04
  • 1
    lbs describes mass not weight, so a 180 lbs man would still have a mass of 180 lbs on the Moon, even if the weight will be 6 time smaller. – vsz Mar 22 '16 at 07:40
  • 4
    @DavidRicherby: but the questioner says, "I'm not talking about a special reduced gravity flight with a parabolic flight path". To me this makes it clear that they are asking about perceived acceleration within a frame of reference fixed to the plane, not about the gravitational force on the plane observed in a frame of reference fixed to the earth. Because the latter is not "reduced" in a parabolic flight. Whether they should have called this "force of gravity" or not is a quibble you should raise on the question, not on answers. – Steve Jessop Mar 22 '16 at 10:30
2

Here's the Fermi Estimate version, in case the math in Aeroalias's answer is difficult to follow:

It's been said that the ISS experiences 0.9 G (90% of standard gravity at sea level), which is of course canceled out by their orbital velocity so the astronauts inside feel like they're in 0G.

Airplanes are said to fly a mile high, and the ISS is over 100 miles high--these are not particularly accurate numbers, but they're good enough for order-of-magnitude estimations.

Therefore, without any complicated math, we would expect an airplane to experience 99.9% of standard gravity. As Aeroalias's answer works out to 99.63%, this is a pretty good estimate.

Mason Wheeler
  • 617
  • 1
  • 7
  • 13
  • Pretty sure ISS is in a zero-gravity environment, otherwise they have a very elaborate cable system to make the astronauts float around... – Ron Beyer Mar 21 '16 at 18:23
  • 4
    @RonBeyer: If the ISS would not experience gravity, it would not orbit the earth. The centripetal force just cancles it out. – sweber Mar 21 '16 at 18:26
  • @RonBeyer: Their orbital velocity balances out the 90% gravity, but it's still there. (See Newton's Cannonball for the earliest formulation of this concept.) – Mason Wheeler Mar 21 '16 at 18:28
  • 1
    @RonBeyer You can think of the ISS and the astronauts as falling at the same speed. But there is surely still gravity- it is gravity that causes them to fall. – jejorda2 Mar 21 '16 at 18:28
  • I understand centripetal force and how steady-state orbits are achieved, the point I was making is you may want to clarify in the answer otherwise it sounds like there is "gravity" in the sense you feel 90% of earths gravity while being an observer on the station, which isn't quite right. – Ron Beyer Mar 21 '16 at 18:31
  • 1
    @RonBeyer Well you don't feel earths gravity when you are falling in a lift at ground level either. – JamesRyan Mar 21 '16 at 18:51
  • @RonBeyer Edited for clarity – Mason Wheeler Mar 21 '16 at 18:51
  • 1
    They do have a very elaborate cable system. The whole ISS is on a sound stage in Culver City! ;) – TomMcW Mar 21 '16 at 19:52
  • And this is why the terms "zero gravity" or "micro-gravity" so often applied to objects orbiting in free-fall are so damned annoying. 90% of normal isn't "micro", much less "zero". – Monty Harder Mar 21 '16 at 19:52
  • 5
    "Airplanes are said to fly a mile high" - Uh... *NO*. That would be about 5,000 feet. Planes actually cruise around 30,000 - 35,000 ft, or about 6 to 7 miles – abelenky Mar 21 '16 at 19:57
  • 1
    Came here to say that, @abelenky, leaving satisfied! – FreeMan Mar 21 '16 at 19:58
  • @abelenky: As noted: "these are not particularly accurate numbers, but they're good enough for order-of-magnitude estimations." – Mason Wheeler Mar 21 '16 at 19:58
  • 2
    @abelenky At DEN, planes taxi at a mile (and a hundred fifty feet) high. – Monty Harder Mar 21 '16 at 21:46
  • @MontyHarder At some airports, the cabin altitude descends after takeoff. :) – reirab Mar 21 '16 at 23:04
  • 2
    @sweber: For an object in circular orbit, gravity is the centripetal force. It doesn't cancel itself out! (However, in a frame that moves with the spacecraft there's a centrifugal force that cancels out gravity). – hmakholm left over Monica Mar 22 '16 at 11:58
  • @HenningMakholm: Yes, of course!!!! – sweber Mar 22 '16 at 13:07
  • I have to say, the feeling of zero gravity on the ISS has everything to do with how fast they're moving and almost nothing to do with their height. At the right speed, you could experience weightlessness at cruising altitude, or even at sea level (if there weren't air and continents and such to get in your way). So the fact that this estimate comes out with something close to the correct answer is entirely coincidence. – David Z Mar 22 '16 at 14:18
  • 1
    @DavidZ ...and this is why I originally didn't say anything about zero gravity in my answer: because it has nothing to do with what the astronauts feel inside the ISS and everything to do with what the actual force of gravity is that needs to be canceled out by their orbital velocity. But then someone complained about how of course they don't feel .9 G up there; they're in microgravity, so I edited the answer to account for that. And now you post this. *sigh* You just can't win some days... – Mason Wheeler Mar 22 '16 at 14:32
  • @MasonWheeler Ah, OK, I see. In that case I take back my previous conclusion, though I still think your answer isn't entirely clear about what it's calculating, or for that matter how it's calculating it. I suppose you took the 10% reduction in gravity on the ISS (compared to Earth's surface), divided that by 100 to account for airplanes being at 1/100th the altitude of the ISS, and then subtracted (10%/100) from 100% to get 99.9%? That wasn't easy to figure out from what you wrote. – David Z Mar 22 '16 at 15:01
2

Gravity decreases with altitude

See this table providing gravity at different altitudes:

enter image description here
Gravity field at different altitudes (source: The Engineering Toolbox)

At a height of 10 km, gravity is 9.776 against 9.807 at sea level. That's a variation of 0.32%, which I consider as significant from an aircraft design angle, as it allows to reduce the fuel consumption in a larger proportion.

Can we sense the gravity difference at the altitude of 10 km?

Such difference cannot be sensed by a human, a metering instrument is required. Sensing 0.3% difference just requires a scale. If you "weight" a mass of 100 kg, then at a height of 10 km, the scale will just display 99.7 kg.

Note: A gravity value of 9.78 m/s² already exists on Earth, e.g. in Mexico city and in Singapore, due to gravity anomalies.

How fast gravity decreases?

The center of the gravity field is near the center of the Earth. The surface of the Earth is at 6,400 km from the center and the value of gravity is 9.81 m/s² or g.

Each time the distance from the center doubles, the gravity value is divided by 4: At 12,800 km, the value is 1/4 g. This progression is said to be an inverse square law, which looks like this:

enter image description here
Curve of an inverse square law (source)

Many physical quantities are based on this same law (light intensity, sound intensity, radio signal intensity). As you can see after 3 or 4 Earth radius, the variation has slowed down a lot, but it continue to decrease and will never reach zero. it means any object in the universe has an impact on all other objects! (but a small one).

The gravity value decreases when climbing, but also decreases when going underground. Near the center of the Earth the gravity is null (at least that's what we believe, we are not going to be able to check until a very long time, it's easier to explore space than the depths of our planet). This is the complete picture of the gravity:

enter image description here
Gravity field according to the preliminary reference Earth model

Gravity is a puzzling force not yet understood. We know local effects of the gravity, but we ignore the reasons of such effects.

mins
  • 72,728
  • 27
  • 308
  • 441
  • 3
    Measuring gravity from the center of the Earth is a little misleading, as all mass has gravity - if you were in the center you would feel a roughly equivalent pull in all directions, not just "downward". (What "down" even means in the center is up for debate.) If you dug a really deep hole, you'd thus feel the affect of gravity from the ground below you, but also from the sides and all the mass that's above you. Thus, your overall downward pull would actually decrease the deeper you went. A bit pedantic, and not really relevant to aircraft (hopefully), but worth mentioning. – Darrel Hoffman Mar 22 '16 at 18:49
  • The maximum gravity value is near the center of the Earth (or can be seen as maximum near the center) are you sure that this is the case? Resulting force should zero out as you approach to the center, right? – Sebi Mar 22 '16 at 21:54
  • @Sebi, Yeah, that's what my comment above was getting at. It would be true if the Earth were treated as a point-source of gravity, but this is obviously a spherical-cows-in-a-vacuum type of oversimplification. The chart added afterwards clears this up a bit. – Darrel Hoffman Mar 23 '16 at 19:11
  • @DarrelHoffman: On the other hand isn't our current concept of gravity also oversimplified? Did we see the graviton recently? – mins Mar 23 '16 at 19:28
1

Most of questions deal with the gravity reduction due increased distance to the Earth but there is also centrifugal force caused by movement. This force allows spaceships to circle the Earth with no power applied and causes weightlessness inside - just increased distance would not be enough for these effects. An airplane is also flying around the Earth, same as a satellite does, just much slower.

This effect described here and may reduce the perceived weight (the aircraft feels lighter and everything inside is lighter) but can also increase it (depending on how the flight direction is related to the rotation of the Earth). The effect is somewhat about 0.3 % of mass at the speeds close to the speed of sound so comparable to the effect from the increased altitude.

h22
  • 12,100
  • 6
  • 49
  • 93
0

Most answers here are from a perspective of "at a height of X, you weigh Y". Lets turn this around.

At the altitude of the ISS, gravity is about 10% less. I doubt you'd notice 10% reduction in weight (double-blind, if such a thing were possible), without using measuring equipment. That's 400km up (250 miles), and well outside our atmosphere.

The only reason people are "weightless" on the ISS, is that they are in orbit.

Things in orbit are always weightless. The scales you are standing on is falling at the same speed you are. This can happen at any altitude - if you kick a ball, it is in orbit - an orbit that intersects with the surface of the earth, so it can't complete the orbit.