Calculating Rocket Energy in Satellite Orbit Problem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Abtinnn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rocket Rocket problem
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the energy dynamics of a satellite in a circular orbit around the Earth, particularly focusing on the role of a rocket engine that assists the satellite in maintaining its orbit. Participants explore the implications of the rocket's thrust, the work done by the rocket, and the nature of the orbit under varying conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the work done by the rocket is zero because its thrust is perpendicular to the satellite's trajectory, while others challenge this claim, suggesting that the rocket does perform work on the fuel, which indirectly affects the satellite.
  • There is a contention regarding the nature of the satellite's orbit, with some arguing that if the gravitational force is insufficient, the trajectory cannot be circular, while others propose that the rocket's thrust can maintain a circular motion by counteracting gravity.
  • A later reply suggests that once the rocket has done enough work to circularize the orbit, it can be shut off, implying that continuous thrust alters the orbit's shape.
  • Participants discuss the implications of a rapid burn and how it could introduce eccentricity to the orbit, potentially leading to a non-circular trajectory.
  • Some participants propose a simplified scenario where the rocket hovers in place, which aligns more closely with the original post's premise, while others argue that continuous thrust changes the orbit's characteristics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing views on the nature of work done by the rocket, the conditions for maintaining a circular orbit, and the implications of continuous thrust on the satellite's trajectory.

Contextual Notes

Participants express differing interpretations of the conditions under which a satellite can maintain a circular orbit and the role of the rocket's thrust, leading to a complex interplay of ideas regarding energy, force, and orbital mechanics.

Abtinnn
Messages
58
Reaction score
7
Assume that a satellite(mass m) is orbiting the Earth(mass M) at radius R and speed V (the orbit is circular). The satellite is in a position such that the force of gravity exerted on it by the planet is not enough to keep it in orbit. Therefore, the satellite has an engine, which always points at the centre of Earth. The rocket, when ignited, exerts an additional force on the satellite, enough to keep it in orbit with the help of Earth's gravity. Now the work done by the rocket is zero because it always points perpendicular to the trajectory and the total energy of the system stays constant. However, the rocket eventually runs out of fuel, meaning that some energy has been put in the rocket-satellite system. That energy goes into keeping the satellite in orbit, but is there a way to calculate it in terms of V,R,M and m?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Abtinnn said:
That energy goes into keeping the satellite in orbit
No, it goes into accelerating the fuel.
 
A.T. said:
No, it goes into accelerating the fuel.
But the reaction force of that keeps the satellite in orbit, right?
 
Abtinnn said:
But the reaction force of that keeps the satellite in orbit, right?
Yes, force and energy are different things.
 
A.T. said:
Yes, force and energy are different things.
So you're saying that the rocket does no work on the satellite, but does work on the fuel by accelerating it?
 
Abtinnn said:
So you're saying that the rocket does no work on the satellite, but does work on the fuel by accelerating it?
Yes.
 
Oh alright.
Thanks a lot!
 
Abtinnn said:
Assume that a satellite(mass m) is orbiting the Earth(mass M) at radius R and speed V (the orbit is circular). The satellite is in a position such that the force of gravity exerted on it by the planet is not enough to keep it in orbit. Therefore, the satellite has an engine, which always points at the centre of Earth. The rocket, when ignited, exerts an additional force on the satellite, enough to keep it in orbit with the help of Earth's gravity. Now the work done by the rocket is zero because it always points perpendicular to the trajectory and the total energy of the system stays constant. However, the rocket eventually runs out of fuel, meaning that some energy has been put in the rocket-satellite system. That energy goes into keeping the satellite in orbit, but is there a way to calculate it in terms of V,R,M and m?

A couple of things... The work done by the rocket cannot be zero. And, a trajectory for which there is not enough attraction to stay in orbit cannot be circular - it would be parabolic or hyperbolic. Once the rocket has done enough work to circularize the orbit, you can shut it off and the satellite will stay in that orbit. In fact, you MUST shut it off at that time or the orbit will continue to change into something else - ellipse, parabola, hyperbola. The orbit continues to change as long as the rocket is firing.
 
tfr000 said:
A couple of things... The work done by the rocket cannot be zero. And, a trajectory for which there is not enough attraction to stay in orbit cannot be circular - it would be parabolic or hyperbolic. Once the rocket has done enough work to circularize the orbit, you can shut it off and the satellite will stay in that orbit. In fact, you MUST shut it off at that time or the orbit will continue to change into something else - ellipse, parabola, hyperbola. The orbit continues to change as long as the rocket is firing.
While accelerating the satellite until its speed is large enough for a circular orbit would be the sensible thing to do for a satellite operator, here the rocket is pointing towards earth, keeping it in a circular orbit by countering the gravity directly and reducing the acceleration towards Earth until it's just small enough for a circular orbit. Because the force of the rocket is perpendicular to the velocity, no work is done on the satellite.
 
  • #10
tfr000 said:
The work done by the rocket cannot be zero.
Of course it can, just like the work done by gravity is zero, for a constant speed circular orbit.

tfr000 said:
The orbit continues to change as long as the rocket is firing.
I think you should read the OP more carefully.
 
  • #11
Abtinnn said:
Assume that a satellite(mass m) is orbiting the Earth(mass M) at radius R and speed V (the orbit is circular). The satellite is in a position such that the force of gravity exerted on it by the planet is not enough to keep it in orbit.
If the satellite is in circular orbit, then the force exerted on it by the planet is enough to keep it in orbit.
Therefore, the satellite has an engine, which always points at the centre of Earth. The rocket, when ignited, exerts an additional force on the satellite, enough to keep it in orbit with the help of Earth's gravity. Now the work done by the rocket is zero because it always points perpendicular to the trajectory and the total energy of the system stays constant.
Initially, the work is 0, until the rocket gains some radial velocity as a result of the burn. Then you will have a component of the force in the direction of travel.

If you make a really fast burn you can have a large delta V in a negligible distance. In that case, the change in energy of the orbit is 0. This would still affect the orbit. It would introduce eccentricity. Your orbit is no longer round. Its semi-major axis may still be the same, but its perigee may now be subterranean, whether you fired the engine towards or away from the Earth.
 
  • #12
tony873004 said:
If the satellite is in circular orbit, then the force exerted on it by the planet is enough to keep it in orbit.

Sorry I may have used the wrong wording. What I meant is that the satellite cannot orbit the Earth in a circular trajectory with that V and R, and because of that a rocket it helping it stay in an orbit by exerting a force directed towards the centre of the Earth. So the satellite is not initially in a circular orbit, but with the help of the rocket it is.
 
  • #13
We can reduce it to an easier setup: the rocket is not moving at all (Earth-centered inertial reference frame), it simply hovers in place by using its engines.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Abtinnn
  • #14
mfb said:
We can reduce it to an easier setup: the rocket is not moving at all (Earth-centered inertial reference frame), it simply hovers in place by using its engines.
That would actually work something like the original post, unlike the rest of this... You can't continuously fire a rocket to maintain an orbit - you are changing the shape of the orbit by firing the rocket, and the shape continues to change until you stop. Probably it changes into something you don't want - like an escape orbit, or one that intersects the Earth.
 
  • #15
tfr000 said:
You can't continuously fire a rocket to maintain an orbit
Okay, skip the word "orbit" if that causes too much confusion.
You can continuously fire a rocket to maintain a circular motion at constant speed around an object. The thrust has to be radial, and the speed has to be slower or faster than the orbital speed at this radius.
 
  • #16
mfb said:
Okay, skip the word "orbit" if that causes too much confusion.
You can continuously fire a rocket to maintain a circular motion at constant speed around an object. The thrust has to be radial, and the speed has to be slower or faster than the orbital speed at this radius.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Rephrasing the original post:
Assume that a satellite(mass m) is orbiting the Earth(mass M) at radius R and speed V in a circular orbit. The satellite has an engine, which always points at the centre of Earth. The rocket, when ignited, exerts an additional force on the satellite, enough to counteract part of Earth's gravity. Now the work done by the rocket is zero because it always points perpendicular to the trajectory and the total energy of the system stays constant. However, the rocket eventually runs out of fuel, meaning that some energy has been put in the rocket-satellite system. That energy goes into keeping the satellite in an orbit which is different than that it would have without the rocket - as if the Earth were less massive. Is there a way to calculate it in terms of V,R,M and m?
 
  • #17
tfr000 said:
Now we're getting somewhere.
Rephrasing the original post:
The rocket, when ignited, exerts an additional force on the satellite, enough to counteract part of Earth's gravity.

That's not what I originally meant. What you're saying is that the speed of the satellite is too low to stay at orbit at R, and because of that a rocket pointing away from Earth exerts an outward radial force on the satellite to keep it in orbit.

What I meant is the exact opposite. The satellite is in an R such that its V is too high for it to stay in an orbit at that R.
 
  • #18
tfr000 said:
However, the rocket eventually runs out of fuel, meaning that some energy has been put in the rocket-satellite system.
No, it has been put in the rocket-satellite-exhaust system.
It has been used to accelerate the fuel downwards. You don't even need a rocket in space, you can run the engine in a lab, with the same result.
tfr000 said:
s there a way to calculate it in terms of V,R,M and m?
Sure, calculate the required force from thrust. Multiply by the exhaust velocity to get power.

Abtinnn said:
What I meant is the exact opposite. The satellite is in an R such that its V is too high for it to stay in an orbit at that R.
Okay, doesn't change the result.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Abtinnn
  • #19
The question in the OP was completely and correctly answered in post #2, why is the thread still running?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
10K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K