Can You Orbit an Asteroid by Running?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the conditions under which a person could theoretically launch themselves into orbit by running on an airless spherical asteroid with a specified density. The discussion centers around the forces at play, particularly the relationship between gravitational force and the forces exerted by the runner.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the nature of forces involved in running on a low-gravity surface, questioning how gravitational and normal forces interact. There are discussions about the implications of constant speed and the role of friction in propulsion.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants raising various conceptual questions and clarifying misunderstandings about the forces involved. Some suggest simplifying the scenario by treating the speed as provided by a rocket, while others emphasize the need to consider the mechanics of running and the effects of gravity.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating complex ideas about motion in low-gravity environments and the assumptions underlying the problem, including the uniform density of the asteroid and the nature of forces acting on the runner.

Bashyboy
Messages
1,419
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


Assume you are agile enough to run across a horizontal surface at 8.50 m/s, independently of the value of the gravitational field. What would be (a) the radius and (b) the mass of an airless spherical asteroid of uniform density 1.10 310 3kg/m3 on which you could launch yourself into orbit by running? (c) What would be your period? (d) Would your running significantly affect the rotation of
the asteroid? Explain.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I have a few conceptual questions that pertain to this problem. I have a belief that the force with which the person running exerts on the surface is equal and opposite to the gravitational force that the asteroid provides, and is the reason why this person is running at a constant speed. However, I am not sure of why I have this suspicion. Also, I know this is a very elementary question, but how is it possible for a person to run if the ground provides and equal and opposite force to the force that the person exerts on the surface with there foot?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Bashyboy! :smile:
Bashyboy said:
I have a belief that the force with which the person running exerts on the surface is equal and opposite to the gravitational force that the asteroid provides …

Why? One is horizontal and the other is vertical, so why should they cancel? :confused:
… how is it possible for a person to run if the ground provides and equal and opposite force to the force that the person exerts on the surface with there foot?

The only (horizontal) force on the person is the force from the ground.

Start again. For parts (a) (b) and (c), you can pretend the speed is supplied by a rocket.​
 
Bashyboy said:
the force with which the person running exerts on the surface is equal and opposite to the gravitational force that the asteroid provides
If they are equal and opposite, how are you able to keep running around the curve of the surface (instead of traveling in a straight line)?
tiny-tim said:
One is horizontal and the other is vertical, so why should they cancel? :confused:
Since speed is constant, both forces are vertical.
 
I think I am experiencing a little confusion myself. How is the force with which the runner pushes against the ground vertical?
 
Bashyboy said:
I think I am experiencing a little confusion myself. How is the force with which the runner pushes against the ground vertical?

the push force (using friction) is horizontal

i think haruspex is thinking of the normal reaction force
 
Okay, so the person pushes against the ground, and the ground provides friction that propels the person forward because there is no other force that keeps the person from not moving, right?
 
no other horizontal force, right :smile:
 
Hmm, well what does the speed being constant have to do with their being a normal force every instant that the person plants their foot on the ground and the gravitational force, the two vertical forces haruspex is speaking of.
 
tiny-tim said:
the push force (using friction) is horizontal
tiny-tim, I think you are misreading the question.
A steady speed is attained by some means. There is now no horizontal force; the tangential speed is constant. The only acceleration (while staying on the surface) is vertical (centripetal). There is no friction, no drag. The question is, what is the size of the sphere if 8.5m/s is just enough to start losing contact with the surface?
Bashyboy, it will only complicate matters unnecessarily if you consider actual bipedal motion. Simpler to treat it as bicycling.
 
  • #10
uhh??

the question was …
Bashyboy said:
… how is it possible for a person to run if the ground provides and equal and opposite force to the force that the person exerts on the surface with there foot?

if you're not exerting a horizontal force, you're not running
tiny-tim said:
The only (horizontal) force on the person is the force from the ground.

… you can pretend the speed is supplied by a rocket.
 
  • #11
tiny-tim said:
if you're not exerting a horizontal force, you're not running
That is not true. If there is no drag and you're not gaining or losing speed or changing direction then there cannot be a horizontal force. Your feet are hitting the ground merely to provide a vertical force. In practice, there will be small variations to the horizontal velocity of your mass centre, but they will average out to zero.
 
  • #12
haruspex said:
If there is no drag … Your feet are hitting the ground merely to provide a vertical force.

exactly … not running! :smile:

(more sort of rolling)
 
  • #13
tiny-tim said:
exactly … not running! :smile:

(more sort of rolling)
No, doesn't have to be rolling, though that would be a less confusing model with which to discuss the intended question.
Running/walking means placing feet in front of each other alternately in a manner that avoids falling over. The difference between them is that running swings the legs faster than their natural period. It normally entails a propulsive force because of resistance, but if running down a slight incline it is obvious that a propulsive force provided by friction on the ground need not be present. If it weren't for the inherent instability of our upright posture we could run some distance across ice, somewhat like a bouncing ball.
But let's get back to the OP. It is quite clear that the question is really asking what the radius of the asteroid is if 8.5m/s is just fast enough for a surface-level orbit.
 
  • #14
I still don't quite understand how the person is able to move forward--or is it the planet that is rolling backwards?
 
  • #15
if a stationary person wants to start moving forward, he uses his leg muscles to rotate at the knee, which makes the foot want to move backward relative to the body

since gravity results in a normal force between him and the planet, this movement produces a horizontal friction force

so instead of the body rotating slightly (but not moving forward), the whole body moves forard and the planet very slightly moves backward :smile:
 
  • #16
tiny-tim said:
if a stationary person wants to start moving forward, he uses his leg muscles to rotate at the knee, which makes the foot want to move backward relative to the body

since gravity results in a normal force between him and the planet, this movement produces a horizontal friction force

so instead of the body rotating slightly (but not moving forward), the whole body moves forard and the planet very slightly moves backward :smile:
Agreed. But for the purposes of the question we need not be concerned with how the speed of 8.5m/s was achieved. All that matters is that if it were just slightly faster you would take off.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K