Eccentricity of orbits and gravitational energy

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between the eccentricity of orbits and gravitational energy, particularly in the context of a satellite's velocity in orbit. Participants explore how to derive the ratio of maximum to minimum distances in an elliptical orbit when given a specific velocity relative to the circular orbital speed.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant introduces a scenario where a satellite is in orbit with a velocity of 1.2 times the circular orbital speed and seeks to relate eccentricity to this velocity.
  • Another participant outlines a method involving conservation of energy and angular momentum to derive the ratio of maximum to minimum distances, suggesting a formula based on the initial conditions.
  • Several participants question the assumptions made regarding the direction of the satellite's velocity, particularly whether it is tangential, and express confusion over the implications of these assumptions on the calculations.
  • One participant argues that the question lacks sufficient information to yield a unique answer and emphasizes the need for reasonable assumptions to determine the apogee of the orbit.
  • Another participant clarifies that the vis viva equation can be used to find the semi-major axis without needing to know the direction of the velocity vector.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the assumptions made about the satellite's velocity direction and the implications for the calculations. There is no consensus on the correct approach or the interpretation of the problem, as some believe the question is poorly framed and lacks clarity.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the problem statement, including ambiguous wording and insufficient information to definitively solve for the orbit's characteristics. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of the same problem, highlighting the complexity of orbital mechanics.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in orbital mechanics, particularly those exploring the relationships between velocity, eccentricity, and gravitational energy in satellite orbits.

sk9
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
hello. i recently came across this question in which a satellite is put into orbit at a point around a planet with velocity 1.2V, where V is the speed for a circular orbit at that point and they ask for ratio of max to min distance. [Ans. 2.57]
what i want to know is how do we relate eccentricity to the velocity in these type of cases
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Let the initial radius and velocity be r1, v1 (assume tangential only).
Let the max radius and corresponding velocity be r2, v2.
The gravitational potential at radius r is -g/r, some constant g.
You can write the down the total energy at min and max radius in terms of the above, since r' = 0 at r1 and r2, and by conservation of energy equate them.
By conservation of angular momentum, r1v1 = r2v2.
If v is the speed for circular orbit at radius r1 then the centripetal force v^2/r1 = g/(r1^2).
We are told v1 = K.v where K = 1.2.

From the above equations you should obtain
r2/r1 = K^2/(1-K^2) = 2.57...
 
two things
1) what is r' = 0
2)i understand tha r1 is the initial radius, but in last step you have used it for min distance which it cannot be becauseat min distance all its velocity must be perpendicular.

Thanks btw!
 
sk9 said:
two things
1) what is r' = 0
2)i understand tha r1 is the initial radius, but in last step you have used it for min distance which it cannot be becauseat min distance all its velocity must be perpendicular.

Thanks btw!
If you don't make that assumption the question is not answerable.

haruspex said:
We are told v1 = K.v where K = 1.2.

From the above equations you should obtain
r2/r1 = K^2/(1-K^2) = 2.57...
That obviously isn't correct. With K=1.2, K^2/(1-K^2) = -3.27.

The correct result is [itex]r_2/r_1 = K^2/(2-K^2)[/itex] .
 
D H said:
If you don't make that assumption the question is not answerable.


That obviously isn't correct. With K=1.2, K^2/(1-K^2) = -3.27.

The correct result is [itex]r_2/r_1 = K^2/(2-K^2)[/itex] .

Yes, sorry, typo.
 
sk9 said:
two things
1) what is r' = 0
2)i understand tha r1 is the initial radius, but in last step you have used it for min distance which it cannot be becauseat min distance all its velocity must be perpendicular.

Thanks btw!

I wrote r' for dr/dt because I couldn't be bothered to switch to equation mode.
You didn't say which direction the initial speed is in, but you have to assume a direction or there's not enough info. I hazarded that the original question specified tangential but that you had omitted that in stating it.
 
Okay i found the question
7974172.jpg


it does not say anything about the direction of velocity to be tangential or otherwise, so WHY are we taking it as tangential i have tried taking it at theta but it just didn't solve.

and sorry it has been a while since i used r' notations.
 
Welcome to the world of poorly written questions. This is the rest of your life. If only the real world was as clear as the ambiguity in this question.

The question as written does not have a unique answer. The question does provide enough information to determine the semi major axis of the orbit, but that is not what was asked for. You need to make some reasonable assumptions to be able to determine the apogee, and the obvious assumption is that the satellite is at perigee at the point in question.
 
D H said:
Welcome to the world of poorly written questions. This is the rest of your life. If only the real world was as clear as the ambiguity in this question.

The question as written does not have a unique answer. The question does provide enough information to determine the semi major axis of the orbit, but that is not what was asked for. You need to make some reasonable assumptions to be able to determine the apogee, and the obvious assumption is that the satellite is at perigee at the point in question.

I am not going to start an argument but
1) i never asked to solve the question, my interest was in the approach ,which i thankfully got and was also the reason that i didn't bother about (2-K^2) part. It was just an eg. to indicate what was my topic.

2) i was writing it from my memory and so i agree it was not properly put up by me.

3) though as dumb as i may seem to you , please explain me that what gives you this idea about semi major axis. let me point out that it has SPEED 1.2V where V is also a SPEED, it does not give any indication to me about its direction.

Thanks for your rudeness and knowledge.
 
  • #10
sk9 said:
i was writing it from my memory and so i agree it was not properly put up by me.
You misunderstood my last post. The question as written in the book does not provide enough information to give a definitive answer. It only provide enough information to say that the ratio is 2.57 or greater. The ratio is 2.57 if the satellite is at the periapsis point but is greater than 2.57 otherwise.

please explain me that what gives you this idea about semi major axis. let me point out that it has SPEED 1.2V where V is also a SPEED, it does not give any indication to me about its direction.
You don't need to know the direction of the velocity vector to determine the semi major axis. The vis viva equation, [itex]v^2 = GM(2/r - 1/a)[/itex] , can be used to solve for the semi major axis a. This equation is essentially conservation of energy for an elliptical orbit.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K