5 ms·
I'm not a physicist, but it's irritating to me that this article is using weight and mass interchangeably. I doubt they'd ever allow this, but the "simple" solu
by rmrfrmrf 13y ago
I'm not a physicist, but it's irritating to me that this article is using weight and mass interchangeably. I doubt they'd ever allow this, but the "simple" solution is to bring the weight aboard the ISS and capture its mass on an inertial balance.
- ISL 13y agoNobody can build a kilogram-scale inertial balance of sufficient absolute precision. If we knew how, we'd be doing it. Also, the ISS is a tricky place to work for a precision measurement. It's electrically, seismically, and gravitationally noisy (and huge gradients). Precision gravitational measurements are generally carried out in dedicated spacecraft with careful attention to those concerns, if they can't be done on the ground.
- rmrfrmrf 13y agoServes me right for acting like a know-it-all. Kinda glad I did, though, because you gave me a lot of good information. Thanks!
- CamperBob2 13y agoMost people don't realize that the gravity on ISS is almost as strong as it is on the surface of the Earth. They're continuously falling toward Earth, going just fast enough to miss the ground.
- ronaldx 13y agoGravitational acceleration is approx 10% less? Based on the radius of the earth and the radial distance of the ISS. Some nice discussion: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29929/gravity-on-the-international-space-station http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29929/gravity-on-...
- clubhi 13y agoThe simple solution involves space travel?
- rmrfrmrf 13y agohence the quotes ;)
- jamesjguthrie 13y ago> it's irritating to me that this article is using weight and mass interchangeably. The article doesn't mention mass at all and it is true that if a stationary object is losing mass it is also losing weight.
- keevie 13y agokg is a unit of mass, not weight. Not that it matters, really.