Calculating Altitude for a Satellite in Synchronous Orbit with Saturn

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the altitude of a satellite in synchronous orbit with Saturn, utilizing the rotational period, radius, and mass of Saturn along with gravitational constants. Participants are exploring the application of Kepler's laws and gravitational equations in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various approaches to solving the problem, including direct calculations and the use of gravitational equations. Questions arise regarding the accuracy of constants used and the implications of density on orbital periods.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with some participants providing guidance on precision and unit usage. There is recognition of differing interpretations regarding the density of Saturn and its effect on orbital calculations. Multiple perspectives on the problem are being explored without a clear consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants note constraints such as the need for significant digits and the implications of using different constants. There is also a discussion about the nature of Saturn as a gaseous planet and its density relative to water, which influences the reasoning around orbital mechanics.

synchronous
Messages
17
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Satellite in synchronous orbit with equator of Saturn. Find altitude in km.

rotational period = 38826 s
radius of Saturn = 6.03E7 m
mass of Saturn = 5.68E26 kg
Gravity constant = 6.673E-11

Homework Equations



T^2 = (4pi^2)(r^3)/(Gm)

The Attempt at a Solution



I plugged and chugged and arrived at an answer of 113114516 m. Then I subtracted the planet's radius from this answer to find the altitude of 52797562 m. I then concluded that the synchronous orbit had to have an altitude of 5.28E4 km. I also solved the problem using F(g) = F(c) and arrived at the same solution. What am I doing wrong? Are my constants incorrect?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is an interesting version of Keplers law (the equation you have) based on the density of the body.
this is possible since you have r^3 and the mass in the equation anyway.
One interesting result of this is that the orbital period at the surface of a body only depends on the density - for water it's a period of 3.3hours.

What's also interesting about the density of Saturn?
 
synchronous said:
I plugged and chugged and arrived at an answer of 113114516 m. Then I subtracted the planet's radius from this answer to find the altitude of 52797562 m. I also solved the problem using F(g) = F(c) and arrived at the same solution. What am I doing wrong? Are my constants incorrect?
The only things you are doing wrong are (a) expressing your answer with too much precision, and (b) writing G without units (G is not just a number. Change your units and you get a different numerical value for the speed of light -- and for G.)

That said, your answers are correct. What makes you think you they are wrong?
 
Vol of sphere = 4/3\pir^{3}

so density of sphere = vol(mass)

Orbital period at surface? Isn't that just the rotational period?
 
My "incorrect" answer was actually correct. I switched the rotational period to 10.23 hrs and came up with an answer that the online homework accepted. I certainly wasn't using significant digits...thanks for the reminder! BTW, I just left out the units for G to ease the typing requirements...lazy on my part, my bad!

The density of Saturn should be less than water, right? It's a gaseous planet...
 
Sorry - I thought that for Saturn the geostationary orbit would be below the surface.
I had used GM for Earth (400,000km - a useful figure to know) and got an orbital radius of 24,000km - which is below the surface.

That was the reason for the point about density and water, I assumed that if the rotation speed at the surface of water is 3.3hr and Saturn is less dense than water it would be less, and so less than the 10hrs needed. I had the reasoning the wrong way around - sorry.
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K