Astrodynamics Question: Derivation of Sp. Orbital Energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of specific orbital energy in astrodynamics, particularly focusing on the application of vector dot products in the context of orbital mechanics. Participants are examining the mathematical steps involved in transforming vector equations into scalar forms, questioning the validity of certain assumptions and interpretations related to angles between vectors.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the transition from vector equations to scalar forms, expressing confusion over the dot product and the components of the vectors involved.
  • Another participant asserts that the sign in the derived equation is incorrect, noting that the vectors involved point in opposite directions and providing reasoning based on the angle between them.
  • A later reply challenges the initial claim about the angle, suggesting that the angle is only pi/2 for circular orbits and that the formulas discussed are applicable in a more general context.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of the angle between the vectors, with one participant arguing that if the vectors are orthogonal, the dot product should yield zero, while another emphasizes the need to consider the general case rather than just circular orbits.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the correctness of the derived equations and the interpretation of the angles between vectors. There is no consensus on the validity of the steps taken in the derivation or the assumptions made about the vectors involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the assumptions made about the angles and the specific cases being considered, indicating that the discussion may depend on the context of circular versus elliptical orbits.

AdrianGriff
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
So this should be coming easily, but for some reason I can't seem to grasp why or how this is being done:

So say we have equation:
0 = a + (μ/r3) r , where μ = G(M+m) or ≈ GM and M >> m.

According to this book, the first step to finding ξ, the Specific Mechanical/Orbital Energy they dot multiplied the vector v through the equation above like so:

v ⋅ a + v ⋅ (μ/r3) r = 0

And just below that, there is:

va + (μ/r3) rv = 0

So basically, my question is:
Why do all the vectors turn into scalars, considering that the dot product cannot actually be performed because we do not know the components of those variable vectors?

Should it not just stay as the equation with vectors?
Or why does a ⋅ v not equal a1v1 + a2v2?

Thank you!
- Adrian
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The sign in the last equation is wrong.

a and r point in opposite directions. You know ##\vec v \cdot \vec a = v a \cos(theta)## where ##\theta## is the angle between them. For v and r the corresponding angle is ##\pi - \theta##, and ##\cos(\pi-\theta) = -\cos(\theta)##.
 
mfb said:
The sign in the last equation is wrong.

a and r point in opposite directions. You know ##\vec v \cdot \vec a = v a \cos(theta)## where ##\theta## is the angle between them. For v and r the corresponding angle is ##\pi - \theta##, and ##\cos(\pi-\theta) = -\cos(\theta)##.
I assure you that my equations are true to the text, perhaps the text is incorrect? It happens.

Nevertheless, if ##\vec v \cdot \vec a = v a \cos(\theta)##, does it not follow that ##\cos(\theta) = 0## because ##\theta = \pi/2##, where the vectors are orthogonal as velocity is tangent, and acceleration is towards the center of the orbit? And thus ##||a||||b||## will conclude to zero as well?

Also the same result arises with ##\pi - \theta## where ##\theta = \pi/2## and ##\pi - \pi/2 = \pi/2## again.
 
The angle is pi/2 only for circular orbits. The formulas here are more general.
In this special case the last equation is true, of course, but adding zero twice is not very interesting.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 84 ·
3
Replies
84
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K