Calculating Internal Energy Loss from Friction in Satellite Fall

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the internal energy loss due to friction as a satellite falls from a circular orbit to the Earth's surface. The satellite has a mass of 575 kg and is initially at an altitude of 550 km, impacting the ground at a speed of 2.10 km/s.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the initial and final mechanical energy of the satellite, considering gravitational potential energy (PE) and kinetic energy (KE). There are questions about the correct equations for calculating these energies and the implications of potential energy being zero at ground level.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively exploring the calculations needed for initial and final energies, with some guidance provided on the equations to use. There is an ongoing examination of the assumptions regarding potential energy and whether the initial energy should be negative.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of gravitational potential energy and its reference point, as well as the implications of energy transformations during the satellite's fall.

brunie
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
A 575 kg satellite is in a circular orbit at an altitude of 550 km above the Earth's surface. Because of air friction, the satellite eventually falls to the Earth's surface, where it hits the ground with a speed of 2.10 km/s. How much energy was transformed to internal energy by means of friction?

ok so

575kg at 550km
falls at 2100 m/s

so the internal energy lost should be the difference between the energy it had in orbit minus the energy it has when it crashes

so for final energy upon crash
Ek = 0.5 * 575 * 2100^2
= 1267875000

so whatever energies it has in orbit (gravitational, potenential, centripetal ?) it loses the internal energy due to friction and then ends up with the Ek when it crashes

not too sure if I am attepting this properly, help would be appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When in orbit, the satellite will have some gravitational PE and KE. (You'll need to figure those out!) That will be its initial total mechanical energy. When it reaches the ground it will have some final gravitational PE (figure that out) and some final KE (you are given the speed). The total mechanical energy upon landing (figure that out) will be equal to its initial mechanical energy less the amount of energy transformed to internal energy.
 
ok so for initial energy i can use the equation for total energy

-GMm/2(Re+h)
-(6.67x10^-11)(5.97x10^24)(575) / 2(6378100 + 550000)
-1.65 x 10^10

so this answer minus the final kinetic and final potential should b the energy loss

Ek = 0.5 * 575 * 2100^2
= 1.27 x 10^9

but I am not sure what equation to use for the final potential energy at crash
because if the satellite hits the Earth's surface wouldn't potential be zero?
also is it right to have the initial energy negative?
 
brunie said:
ok so for initial energy i can use the equation for total energy

-GMm/2(Re+h)
-(6.67x10^-11)(5.97x10^24)(575) / 2(6378100 + 550000)
-1.65 x 10^10
Realize that that equation for total energy is derived by adding PE plus KE. What's the formula for PE by itself? (Look it up if you need to.)

so this answer minus the final kinetic and final potential should b the energy loss

Ek = 0.5 * 575 * 2100^2
= 1.27 x 10^9

but I am not sure what equation to use for the final potential energy at crash
because if the satellite hits the Earth's surface wouldn't potential be zero?
No. The standard expressions for gravitational PE between objects (as used in arriving at the equation for total energy) have infinity as the PE = 0 reference. Read this: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/gravpe.html#c1"
also is it right to have the initial energy negative?
Sure.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ok great, thank u for all ur help
it was really appreciated
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K