Calculating Final Speed of Engine-less Space Capsule Launched from Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter r_swayze
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Orbits
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the final speed of an engine-less space capsule launched from Earth, initially traveling at 18,500 m/s, as it moves into space and experiences negligible gravitational force. The context includes concepts of conservation of energy and gravitational influences.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the conservation of energy principle and its implications for the problem. Questions arise regarding the nature of total energy in relation to gravitational influence and the need for mass in energy equations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations of energy conservation in the context of orbits and trajectories. Some guidance has been offered regarding the treatment of mass in calculations, and the concept of radial distance is being clarified.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted absence of the satellite's mass in the problem, which participants are addressing. The discussion also touches on the implications of reaching a point of negligible gravitational force from Earth.

r_swayze
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
You launch an engine-less space capsule from the surface of the Earth and it travels into space until it experiences essentially zero gravitational force from the Earth. The initial speed of the capsule is 18,500 m/s. What is its final speed? Assume no significant gravitational influence from other solar system bodies. The Earth's mass is 5.97×10^24 kg, and its radius is 6.38×10^6 m.

I have no idea where to start on this problem. Any help?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi r_swayze! :smile:

Conservation of energy. :wink:
 
but doesn't the total energy increase as the radius increases?
 
No, total energy remains constant …

why would it not do so?​
 
the textbook says it does:

"The total energy of a satellite increases with the radius (in the case of circular orbits) or the semimajor axis (in the case of elliptical orbits). Moving a satellite into a larger orbit requires energy; the source of that energy for a satellite might be the chemical energy present in its rocket fuel."

And don't I need the mass of the satellite to use the energy equations? mass is not given here.
 
r_swayze said:
the textbook says it does:

"The total energy of a satellite increases with the radius (in the case of circular orbits) or the semimajor axis (in the case of elliptical orbits). Moving a satellite into a larger orbit requires energy; the source of that energy for a satellite might be the chemical energy present in its rocket fuel."

ah … they're talking about the total energy for an orbit.

It stays constant throughout the orbit, but of course is different for different orbits.

Although it only talks about circular and elliptical orbits, the same applies to hyperbolic ones (though of course as a matter of English rather than physics, we would call them trajectories rather than orbits :wink:).

In this question, the capsule is following a single orbit (hyperbolic trajectory), and its total energy stays constant throughout. :smile:

(incidentally, even a falling object is following an orbit … one that is so elliptical it's just a straight line that goes back and forward though the centre of the Earth :wink:)
And don't I need the mass of the satellite to use the energy equations? mass is not given here.

No, just call the mass m … you'll find it cancels out in the end. :wink:
 
ok, but then how would I find the radius needed for that orbit? I can't just plug in 0 for F = GMm / r^2, right?
 
r_swayze said:
ok, but then how would I find the radius needed for that orbit? I can't just plug in 0 for F = GMm / r^2, right?

Stop talking about radius!

"radial distance", ok, or just "distance" or "r" :wink:

In the question, "until it experiences essentially zero gravitational force from the Earth" means "at r = ∞" … use that. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K