Falling Meteorite - Gravitation PE + KE

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a satellite in a circular orbit around the Earth that is impacted by a meteorite, resulting in a fragment falling to the ground. The task is to find the total work done by gravity on the satellite fragment, given specific parameters such as mass, speed before impact, and gravitational constants.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the relationship between potential energy and work, questioning the original poster's understanding of these concepts. There is an exploration of using the change in kinetic energy versus the change in potential energy to calculate work done by gravity.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering guidance on the correct application of energy principles. There is recognition that the calculated values for work done by gravity and change in kinetic energy yield different results, prompting further inquiry into the assumptions and conditions of the problem.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the fragment's fall through the atmosphere may affect energy conservation, suggesting that the work done by gravity does not account for energy lost to atmospheric friction, which complicates the calculations.

Faint
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A satellite in a circular orbit around the Earth with a radius 1.021 times the mean radius of the Earth is hit by an incoming meteorite. A large fragment (m = 65 kg) is ejected in the backwards direction so that it is stationary with respect to the Earth and falls directly to the ground. Its speed just before it hits the ground is 369 m/s. Find the total work done by gravity on the satellite fragment. RE 6.37 x 10^3 km; Mass of the earth= ME 5.98 x 10^24 kg.

Hint: The work done by gravity must equal the change of potential energy of the satellite fragment. Use the general formula for Gravitational Potential Energy, NOTe: PE = mgh, is only valid for small distances above the surface.

Homework Equations


PE = (-G*ME*m)/(r)
KE = 1/2 * m * v^2

The Attempt at a Solution


PEinitial + KEinitial = PEfinal +KEfinal - W

KEi = 0
PEf = 0

W = KEf - PEi

Work Done = (1/2 * (65) * (369)^2) - (-G*(5.98*10^24)*(65))/(1.021*6.37*10^3)
Work Done = 4425232.5 - (-3.9881408782 * 10^-9)
Work Done = 4425232.5 J

Not sure where I am going wrong for this problem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Faint! :smile:

(try using the X2 and X2 icons just above the Reply box :wink:)

hmm … you're very confused about potential energy and work (and the question isn't helping, by giving too much information)
Faint said:
PEinitial + KEinitial = PEfinal +KEfinal - W

W = KEf - PEi

No, PEi + KEi = PEf + KEf (or ∆KE + ∆PE = 0)

and W = -∆PE …

PE is defined as (minus) the work done by a conservative force (such as gravity).

(so PE can't be defined for a non-conservative force such as friction)

You can calculate W either as -∆PE or (in this case) as ∆KE (since for some reason they've given you the final speed :rolleyes:)

(you're probably being confused by problems such as the work done by friction on a rough slope … in that case, friction and gravity are, illogically, treated differently: friction as a force and gravity as a source of energy :wink:)
 
tiny-tim said:
You can calculate W either as -∆PE or (in this case) as ∆KE (since for some reason they've given you the final speed :rolleyes:)
I wouldn't use the ∆KE approach to answer this question.

I suspect the very next part of the question (omitted by the OP) is something along the lines of "Explain why your calculated value for work done by gravity differs from work calculated as change in kinetic energy".
 
tiny-tim said:
You can calculate W either as -∆PE or (in this case) as ∆KE (since for some reason they've given you the final speed :rolleyes:)

Thank you for your help so far. Another question though, if I calculate -∆PE and ∆KE I get the following:
-PE∆ = - (-G*(5.98*10^24)*(65))/(1.021*6.37*103)
-PE∆ = 3.9881408782 * 109 J

∆KE = (1/2 * 65 * 3692)
∆KE = 4425232.5 J

These are two very different answers, which leads me to believe that I am still missing something?

D H said:
I wouldn't use the ∆KE approach to answer this question.

I suspect the very next part of the question (omitted by the OP) is something along the lines of "Explain why your calculated value for work done by gravity differs from work calculated as change in kinetic energy".

This is the only part of this question I have.
 
Hi Faint! :smile:
Faint said:
These are two very different answers, which leads me to believe that I am still missing something?

No, as D H :smile: hinted at, they will give different answers.

One answer is ∆KE, and the other is -∆PE …

they will only be the same if ∆KE + ∆PE = 0, in other words if (mechanical) energy is conserved.

But this fragment had to fall through the atmosphere (not mentioned in the question!), so it lost some mechanical energy (and heated up instead).

So the ∆PE is only the work done by gravity, while the ∆KE is the total work done (including the work done by friction). :wink:

(And the question only asked for the work done by gravity … the final speed seems to be a red herring :rolleyes:)​
 
Faint said:
Thank you for your help so far. Another question though, if I calculate -∆PE and ∆KE I get the following:
-PE∆ = - (-G*(5.98*10^24)*(65))/(1.021*6.37*103)
-PE∆ = 3.9881408782 * 109 J

∆KE = (1/2 * 65 * 3692)
∆KE = 4425232.5 J

These are two very different answers, which leads me to believe that I am still missing something?
Yes, you are missing something. You are not calculating ∆PE. You are missing the potential energy at the surface of the Earth.
 
oops! I missed that! :redface:
 
Once again, thank you for the help. So would I be correct in saying:

-PE∆ = - (-G*(5.98*10^24)*(65))/(1.021*6.37*103) - (-G*(5.98*10^24)*(65))/(6.37*103)
-PE∆ = -(-3.9881408782 * 1012 - (-4.07189183673*1012))
-PE∆ = -83750958444.1 J
So...
W = 83750958444.1 J ?
 
Still off, by several orders of magnitude. Look at your units.
 
  • #10
Forgot to multiply the radius by 1000 to convert to meters. Got it now, thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K