Calculating Energy for Circular Orbit to Launching Satellites

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The energy required to launch a satellite of mass m into a circular orbit at altitude h is calculated using the formula E = [(GMm)/R]*[(R+2h)/(2*(R+h))], where G is 6.67x10^-11, M is the mass of the Earth, and R is the radius of the Earth. The discussion emphasizes the importance of conservation of energy, specifically the changes in potential and kinetic energy during the launch. A common mistake identified was the incorrect assumption of initial kinetic energy at the Earth's surface, which should be considered zero. Correcting the signs in the energy equations led to the accurate calculation of the required energy.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy concepts
  • Familiarity with the conservation of energy principle
  • Basic knowledge of orbital mechanics
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic expressions and equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of gravitational potential energy in orbital mechanics
  • Learn about the principles of rocket propulsion and energy transfer
  • Explore the concept of escape velocity and its relation to orbital energy
  • Investigate the effects of altitude on satellite energy requirements
USEFUL FOR

Students in physics, aerospace engineers, and anyone interested in satellite launch mechanics and energy calculations for orbital insertion.

bray d
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
[SOLVED] energy for circular orbit

This one should be easy for you guys, I've been workin on it for a while and need pointed in the right direction. For starters, here's the question:

Neglecting Earth's rotation, show that the energy needed to launch a satellite of mass m into circular orbit at altitude h is [(GMm)/R]*[(R+2h)/(2*(R+h))]
where G is 6.67x10^-11, M=mass of the earth, R=radius of the earth

I believe the problem has to do with conservation of energy, so I found the change in potential energy between the surface of the Earth and height h. I think I need to find the change in kinetic energy from the surface and height h then add U and K to find the total energy. I did this and came up with an incorrect answer. Where am I going wrong?


P.S. nice site!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Last edited:
hmmm, welp that link confirms my thought process...right? anyways here's what I've been getting:

first I found the change in potential energy:

U= -GMm(1/r1-1/r2)
= -GMm(1/R-1/(R+h))
= -GMm/R+GMm/(R+h)

Then I tried to find the change in kinetic energy:

to find v^2 in K=(1/2)mv^2 I equated the gravitational force to rotational acceleration since the gravity is the force that causes the acceleration:

GMm/r^2=mv^2/r

solving for v^2 I got:

v^2 = GM/r

Plugging that into the kinetic energy equation I got:

K = (1/2)GMm/r

therefor the change in kinetic energy would be the kinetic energy at the surface minus the kinetic energy at height h:

K = GMm/2R - GMm/2(R+h)

then to find total energy I added U and K:

E = U + K
= GMm/(R+h) - GMm/R + GMm/2R - GMm/2(R+h)

I then simplified by creating common denominators and adding like terms:

E = (2GMm-GMm)/2(R+h)+(-2GMm+GMm)/2R
= GMm/2(R+h) - GMm/2R

wow, that was not fun to type lol
 
1) There is NO initial kinetic energy at the surface. It's not in orbit at the surface, it's just sitting there. 2) Check the signs on your changes in kinetic and potential energy. Both should be positive. Other than that, well done really.
 
Last edited:
that's what's confusing me. I initially thought there would be no initial kinetic energy, but then though about how it got to orbit. in order to get into orbit there must be some kind of kinetic energy right? so I figured there would have to be more initial kinetic energy then there was at orbit.

yep, don't know where that negative came from in the delta U equation. I'll rework it and give an update. thanks for the reply!
 
You aren't told how it would get to orbit. Presumably a rocket or something. The energy provided by that unknown thing is what you want to compute. Update fast, I'm fading. It worked ok for me though. I got the answer you were looking for.
 
ok, I understand. Yep, I corrected the sign in the delta U equation and took K = 0 at the surface. this gave me the correct answer after some algebraic manipulation. thanks again for the reply, it's greatly appreciated. have a nice night
 
You too. Nice work.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
37
Views
3K