New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Wayward Satellites Repurposed to Test General Relativity

Scientists will use wonky orbit to test Einstein’s theories

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Two satellites that were accidentally launched into the wrong orbit will be repurposed to make the most stringent test to date of a prediction made by Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity—that clocks run more slowly the closer they are to heavy objects.

The satellites, operated by the European Space Agency (ESA), were mislaunched last year by a Russian Soyuz rocket that put them into elliptical, rather than circular, orbits. This left them unfit for their intended use as part of a European global-navigation system called Galileo.

But the two crafts still have atomic clocks on board. According to general relativity, the clocks' 'ticking' should slow down as the satellites move closer to Earth in their wonky orbits, because the heavy planet’s gravity bends the fabric of space-time. The clocks should then speed up as the crafts recede.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


On November 9, ESA announced that teams at Germany's Center of Applied Space Technology and Microgravity (ZARM) in Bremen and the department of Time–Space Reference Systems at the Paris Observatory will now track this rise and fall. By comparing the speed of the clocks’ ticking with the crafts’ known altitudes—pinpointed within a few centimetres by monitoring stations on the ground, which bounce lasers off the satellites—the teams can test the accuracy of Einstein's theory.

Launching space experiments takes enormous time and money, so using the off-course Galileo satellites is "a brilliant idea", says Gerald Gwinner, a physicist at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Canada, who is not involved in the work. "Even a mishap can be turned into something useful and fascinating," he adds. "This is a classic case of 'When life gives you lemons, make lemonade'."

Take two
In 1976, NASA launched an atomic clock aboard Gravity Probe A from Earth's surface, 10,000 kilometres into space, to compare its ticking with an identical clock on the ground. But that probe stayed in the air for just shy of two hours. The Galileo satellites, by contrast, will conduct experiments for a year, climbing and falling by 8,500 kilometres twice each day.

The test is the first time that scientists have had the chance to improve on the 1976 measurement, says ESA. The agency's senior satnav adviser, Javier Ventura-Traveset, says that it will be the most accurate assessment ever conducted of how gravity affects the passing of time. (A 2010 experiment claimed a measurement 10,000 times more precise than Gravity Probe A, but the assertion is disputed)

ESA expects the results, which should arrive in around a year, to be four times more accurate than those of Gravity Probe A—enabling the agency to test whether theory agrees with reality to a precision of below 0.004 percent.

No one expects Einstein’s theory, published almost 100 years ago, to break down—it has passed every test thrown at it. But the results should nonetheless prove fascinating, says Gwinner. "While we don't know if and where relativity might break down, it is important to push the limits of our knowledge further and further, to eventually find hints of deviations. If this can be done as a money-saving opportunity, even better."

A future ESA experiment called the Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space, or ACES, is scheduled to fly on the International Space Station in 2017, and will push Einstein’s theory to even greater limits, with a precision that may reach 0.0002 percent.

In the meantime, the Galileo satellites might still find uses in navigation, adds Ventura-Traveset. Since the crafts' launch, a series of manoeuvres have gone some way to rectifying their errant orbits. This could potentially permit them to participate in the Galileo system in the future while simultaneously carrying out the relativity tests. But that has yet to be decided, he says.

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on November 12, 2015.

Elizabeth Gibney is a senior physics reporter for Nature magazine.

More by Elizabeth Gibney

First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.

More by Nature magazine

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe