Comparing Satellite Energy in 160km and 144km Orbits

  • Thread starter Thread starter krypt0nite
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The total energy of a 2.00 kg satellite in a 160 km orbit is -6.09 x 107 J, while in a 144 km orbit, it is -6.12 x 107 J. The difference in total energy arises from the gravitational force variations due to the satellites' distances from the planet. The satellite in the 160 km orbit experiences weaker gravitational force, resulting in lower kinetic energy, but higher potential energy compared to the satellite in the 144 km orbit. Consequently, the higher potential energy in the 160 km orbit leads to a greater total energy despite its lower kinetic energy.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy
  • Familiarity with orbital mechanics and satellite dynamics
  • Knowledge of energy conservation principles in physics
  • Basic calculations involving energy in gravitational fields
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of gravitational potential energy and its formula
  • Learn about kinetic energy calculations for satellites in different orbits
  • Explore the effects of orbital altitude on satellite velocity and energy
  • Investigate the relationship between gravitational force and distance in orbital mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, aerospace engineering, and satellite technology who are interested in understanding the energy dynamics of satellites in varying orbits.

krypt0nite
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Which is larger - the total energy of the 2.00 kg satellite in its 160. km orbit or the total energy in its 144 km orbit. Explain why the two answers are different.

Ok the total energy of 2.00 satellite in 160km orbit is -6.09x10^7 J and the total energy of 2.00 satellite in 144km orbit is -6.12x10^7 J.

How do I do the explaining part? I dont' think its simple as just saying their at different distances. Why is the satellite in the 160km orbit have a greater Etotal than the satellite in the 144km orbit?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Can u show us the resoning (not necessarily the calcuations) that led to the 2 different answers?

Daniel.
 


The total energy of a satellite in orbit is determined by its position and velocity, which are affected by the gravitational force of the planet it is orbiting. As the distance between the satellite and the planet changes, the strength of the gravitational force also changes.

In this scenario, the satellite in the 160km orbit is further from the planet compared to the satellite in the 144km orbit. This means that the gravitational force acting on the satellite in the 160km orbit is weaker than the force acting on the satellite in the 144km orbit. As a result, the satellite in the 160km orbit has a lower velocity and therefore a lower kinetic energy compared to the satellite in the 144km orbit.

However, the potential energy of the satellite is directly proportional to its distance from the planet. This means that the satellite in the 160km orbit has a higher potential energy compared to the satellite in the 144km orbit. When these two energies (kinetic and potential) are combined, we get the total energy of the satellite.

Since the potential energy of the satellite in the 160km orbit is higher, it compensates for the lower kinetic energy, resulting in a higher total energy compared to the satellite in the 144km orbit. In other words, the satellite in the 160km orbit has a higher total energy because it is further from the planet and therefore has a higher potential energy.

In conclusion, the difference in total energy between the satellite in the 160km orbit and the satellite in the 144km orbit is due to the difference in their distances from the planet and the resulting difference in their potential energies.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K