Is a Helicopter on a Geostationary Orbit?

Click For Summary
A helicopter cannot be classified as being in a geostationary orbit because it does not follow the gravitational path defined by orbital mechanics. While both a helicopter and a satellite may appear to move in circular trajectories, a satellite is in free fall, whereas a helicopter relies on lift generated by its rotors. The discussion emphasizes that an orbit is solely a path influenced by gravity, and the additional forces acting on a helicopter prevent it from being in orbit. The conversation also touches on the concept of centripetal force, clarifying that for an object to maintain a circular path, there must be a net force acting on it. Ultimately, the distinction between a helicopter and a satellite lies in their interaction with gravitational forces and the nature of their motion.
  • #31
A.T. said:
No, they don't always act along the same line. The gravitational force is not perpendicular to the surface (except at the poles and equator). The rest of your argument is based on this misconception.

The force from the chair includes a static friction force that opposes any component of gravity or centripetal force that is tangent to the Earth's surface. The result is that the chair does exert a force exactly opposite to all other lateral forces on your body.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
FactChecker said:
The force from the chair includes a static friction force that opposes any component of gravity or centripetal force that is tangent to the Earth's surface. The result is that the chair does exert a force exactly opposite to all other lateral forces on your body.
No matter how you decompose them into components, the vector sum of gravity and chair force on you is not zero. If it was, you would move in a straight line in the inertial frame, but you move in a circle.

So no, the component of gravity tangent to the surface is not canceled by static friction. And neither is the component of gravity normal to the surface completely canceled by the normal force. These unbalanced components provide together the centripetal force to keep you on a circular trajectory.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
A.T. said:
So no, the component of gravity tangent to the surface is not canceled by static friction. And neither is the component of gravity normal to the surface completely canceled by the normal force. These unbalanced components provide together the centripetal force to keep you on a circular trajectory.

Regarding the lateral force: The reason a person does not slide laterally is that the static friction exactly cancels any lateral force. Static friction does that. I know. I have gotten it wrong in simulations and watched as the simulated object of interest slowly started to slide laterally.

Regarding the normal force: You are right about there being some acceleration. At no point does a person come closer to the center of the earth. The chair provides the exact force necessary to make that happen. All the forces are constantly rotating except at the geographical poles.
 
  • #34
A body in orbit is in free fall.
 
  • #35
FactChecker said:
The reason a person does not slide laterally is that the static friction exactly cancels any lateral force.
No, the component of gravity tangent to the surface is not exactly canceled by static friction.
 
  • #36
A.T. said:
No, the component of gravity tangent to the surface is not exactly canceled by static friction.

In a perfect world, the surface of the Earth is an equipotential surface where both gravity and centripetal force are take into account. In that case there is no lateral force component tangent to the surface. In a realistic world, there are small lateral forces but static friction stops things from sliding around. The force from static friction is the exact amount needed to counteract other forces that are too small to overcome the static friction. But this is digressing from the OP.
 
  • #37
Can we focus on the original question, please?
 
  • #38
I am surprised that no one has used Keplers law to compute the orbital period for a orbit at the Earth's surface.
 
  • #39
Vanadium 50 said:
Can we focus on the original question, please?
Since that apparently could not be done, thread closed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K