How Can You Find the Mass of a Satellite Without a Given Radius?

AI Thread Summary
To find the mass of a satellite without a given radius, the gravitational potential energy equation U=-(G*m_e*m)/r can be analyzed alongside the force exerted by the satellite. The force (F) acting on the satellite can be expressed using Newton's law of gravitation, which relates mass and distance. With the known values of gravitational potential energy, the gravitational constant (G), and Earth's mass (m_e), the relationship between force and gravitational potential energy can be utilized to derive equations that allow for solving both mass (m) and radius (r). By combining the equations for force and potential energy, it is possible to isolate and calculate the satellite's mass. This approach effectively leverages the additional information provided by the force to resolve the problem.
Lemmy
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
Okay I understand somewhat of this topic of grav potential energy but i got stumped on this one question. I am to find the mass of a satellite orbiting Earth with the given variables of (F)(units: kN) which is the force the sattelite attracts the earth, and given the gravitational potential energy (-U). You are also givin the gravitational constant (G), and the Earth (m_e)

How could you find the mass (m) of the sattelite without a given radius in the equation U=-(G*m_e*m)/r ?

How would i rewrite this equation

any help would be great thanks
lemmy
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Lemmy,

You are correct that if you were given only gravitational potential energy (and the mass of the Earth and G) then you couldn't figure out m or r separately but only in the combination m/r. However, you have an extra piece of information: you know the force. Write out what the force is and see if you can find a way to solve for m and r using both F and U.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top