F=mv^2/r and Geosynchronouse orbits

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elder
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbits
AI Thread Summary
Geostationary satellites maintain their position due to the balance between gravitational force and centripetal force, which is derived from the formula F=mv^2/r. At a radius of 42,168 kilometers, the gravitational force acting on a satellite must equal the centripetal force to keep it in orbit. When calculations are done using consistent units, the force on a 1-kilogram satellite is approximately 0.223 Newtons, aligning with gravitational force equations. The discussion emphasizes the importance of unit conversion and correct application of formulas to understand satellite motion. This understanding is crucial for grasping why satellites do not fall out of the sky or change orbits.
Elder
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
F=mv^2/r and Geosynchronouse orbits? Help Guys!

I’m having a mental block in understanding why geostationary satellites stay in the same place and don’t change orbits or simply fall out of the sky.

I may be using inaccurate information so please vet any and all suppositions I make here.

Using the formulas I found at this web site

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/orbmech/formulas.html

I begin with determining the radius for a circular geosynchronous orbit the semi-major axis is given and it turns out to be 42168 Kilometers.

Now, I am assuming that if I calculate the Centrifugal Force on an object in geosynchronous orbit at this distance from the Center of the Earth it should equate to the Gravitational force the Earth exerts on it.

The formula I remember for Centrifugal force is F=mv^2/r

F= force
m= Mass
v=velocity
r=Radius

so an arbitrary 1 kilogram mass orbiting at r=42168 kilometer distance from the center of the Earth traveling at 2(PI)r/24= 11039.56 kilometers /hour around the Earth should have a gravitational force equal to the centrifugal force imposed on it by its orbit. Using the above formula F=mv^2/r, is equal to 2890.15 kilograms!

Does the Earth impose a gravitational force of over 2890 kilograms on a 1 kilogram object at 42168 kilometers away? I must be doing something or many things wrong! Maybe the formulas or even the premise of the question is wrong.

Please guys help me out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
I think the biggest problem you are having is with units. First convert everything to meters, kilograms and seconds, and then do the math. You will find that you get an answer of .223 Newtons for the force on the satellite.

Do the same with the formula F_g = \frac{G \mu m}{r^2}, and you will get the same answer (within rounding error).
 
Last edited:
You can also get the formula given in the website by assuming that the gravitational force and centripetal force needed to hold the satellite in orbit are equal thusly.

For circular orbit centripetal force is:
F_c = \frac{mv^2}{r}

The force due to gravity is:
F_g = \frac{GMm}{r^2}

Now, GM = \mu where M is the mass of the Earth, so:

F_g = \frac{\mu m}{r^2}

We are assuming that Fg=Fc, so

\frac{\mu m}{r^2} = \frac{mv^2}{r}

\frac{\mu }{r} = v^2

\sqrt{\frac{\mu }{r}} =v

The period is therefore:

T=\frac{2 \pi r}{\sqrt{\frac{\mu }{r}}}

T=\frac{2 \pi r \sqrt{r}}{\sqrt{\mu }}

T=\frac{2 \pi \sqrt{r^3}}{\sqrt{\mu }}

T=2 \pi \sqrt{\frac{r^3}{\mu }}
 
Last edited:
Thanks!

Thanks Janus

Very much!


As to your closing signature quote from Bertrand Russell, I thought Hum, interesting but something has been nawing at me since I read it.
Actually the problem is too many of us are arrogant enough to think we know the difference between fool, fanatic, and the wise. :smile:
 
Last edited:
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
178
Back
Top