Mass of a planet using a satellite

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the mass of a planet based on the orbital characteristics of a satellite. The satellite orbits planet X with a period of 99 minutes at an altitude of 530 km above the planet's surface, which has a radius of 5.78 x 10^6 m. The original poster expresses difficulty with gravitational concepts and the application of relevant equations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to manipulate the gravitational equation to find the mass of the planet but is uncertain about incorporating the altitude of the satellite into the radius. Some participants question the understanding of the underlying physics and the significance of the gravitational formula used.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging in clarifying the concepts of gravitational force and centripetal motion. There is a focus on understanding the derivation of the equations involved and the importance of the distance between the satellite and the planet's center. Some guidance has been offered regarding the relationship between the satellite's orbit and the gravitational force acting on it.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted confusion regarding the correct application of the radius in the gravitational formula, particularly in relation to the satellite's altitude. The original poster is also grappling with the broader concepts of universal gravitation.

cruisx
Messages
37
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A satellite circles planet X once every 99 min at a mean altitude of 530km. Calculate the mass of the Planet, if its radius is 5.78 * 10^6

So this is the Question i am having trouble with, these gravity questions are really killing me.

Homework Equations




4 pi2R2/ T2 = GM/R


The Attempt at a Solution



So i changed that equation in the following

4 pi2R3/ G T2 = M

and then i change the 99 minuets into seconds and then i change the 530Km into M . Now this is where a friend told me that i need to at 530 000m in the the given radius of 5.78 * 10^6. I couldn't understand why he said that though. So going on with what i was told i plugged everything into the equation and i got

5.246804357 * 1017Kg as the mass of the planet.

Now i have doubts about this because i didn't quite know what to do with the 530 000m. I hope someone can correct my mistakes and show me the right solution. These gravitational questions are really giving me a tough time today.

thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
cruisx said:
Now this is where a friend told me that i need to at 530 000m in the the given radius of 5.78 * 10^6. I couldn't understand why he said that though. So going on with what i was told i plugged everything into the equation and i got

If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the problem, and you are basically just manipulating formulas without understanding what those formulas mean. That would be very unfortunate. Physics is not about blindly applying formulas to calculate things. Physics is about understanding concepts and expressing them mathematically. Let me ask you something cruisx: Do you *understand* the main concept behind this problem? Do you know why the equality 4π2r2 / T2 = GM/R is true in this situation?

I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm only asking because, if you don't understand the actual physics, then I am willing to do my best to try and explain.
 
cepheid said:
If you don't understand that, then you don't understand the problem, and you are basically just manipulating formulas without understanding what those formulas mean. That would be very unfortunate. Physics is not about blindly applying formulas to calculate things. Physics is about understanding concepts and expressing them mathematically. Let me ask you something cruisx: Do you *understand* the main concept behind this problem? Do you know why the equality 4π2r2 / T2 = GM/R is true in this situation?

I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm only asking because, if you don't understand the actual physics, then I am willing to do my best to try and explain.


No, cepheid i am not fully understanding the actual physics behind that formula, i am have a bit of a hard time with Universal gravitation. Could you please explain to me if you have time?
 
Newton's law of gravitation states that if you have two masses m and M, separated by a distance r, then the strength of the gravitational force between them is given by the relationship:

F = \frac{GmM}{r^2}​

where r is the distance between the centres of the two masses. This is an important point that will come up later.

Now, if you have an object moving on a circular path, you can show (and I won't give the derivation here -- it is probably in your book) using entirely geometric arguments that that object must have an acceleration that always (at any instant) points towards the centre of the circular path. (That's what 'centripetal' means -- pointing towards the centre). You can also show that if the object moves with a constant speed v and its circular path has radius r, then the magnitude of this centripetal acceleration is given by a = v2/r. If the object has mass m, then Newton's 2nd law says that F = ma, and therefore the magnitude of the centripetal force is F = mv2/r. Now I want to point out that this is a kinematic requirement -- i.e. a centripetal force of this magnitude is required for any sort of uniform circular motion, but the equation doesn't tell you anything about what is causing that centripetal force. It could be because the object is tied to a string, or maybe it's under the influence of gravity, or maybe it is charged and experiencing an electrostatic force, or maybe there's friction, or...

In our situation, gravity is what is providing the centripetal force. The satellite moves in a circular path because the planet's gravity is constantly pulling on the satellite. This pull is in a direction towards the centre of the planet (and therefore towards the centre of the circular orbit). It is an example of a centripetal force. Now, if the satellite has mass m, then the centripetal force must have magnitude mv2/r. However, since the force is also the gravitational force of attraction between the planet and satellite, then Newton's Law of Gravitation says that its magnitude is given by GmM/r2. Since the centripetal force IS gravity in this situation, these magnitudes must be equal:

F_{\textrm{cent}} = F_{\textrm{grav}}

\frac{mv^2}{r} = \frac{GmM}{r^2}​

The mass of the satellite, m, cancels from both sides of the equation (which means that the properties of the orbit don't depend upon how big the satellite is!). We are left with:

\frac{v^2}{r} = \frac{GM}{r^2}​

Multiplying both sides of the equation by r, we get:

v^2 = \frac{GM}{r}​

How can we figure out the speed, v, of the satellite? We know how much time the satellite takes to go around in its orbit (which is the orbital period, T). This is given in the problem. Speed = distance/time. So if we can just figure out how much distance is covered in one orbit, we can calculate the speed by dividing that distance by T. Well, the orbit is a circle of radius r. Therefore, from basic geometry, the distance around the orbit is given by 2πr. Speed = distance/time, which means that v =2πr/T. Plugging this expression for the velocity into the previous equation, the result is:

\left(\frac{2\pi r}{T}\right)^2 = \frac{GM}{r}​

\frac{4\pi^2 r^2}{T^2}= \frac{GM}{r}​

THAT's why this equation is applicable to the problem. Now we just have to solve for M, the planet's mass. We need to calculate r, the orbital radius. Here comes the important point. Remember that in Newton's law of gravitation, the distance r, between the two masses, is the distance between their centres. Therefore, r is the distance between the satellite and the centre of the planet. THAT is why r is given by:

r = radius of planet + height of orbit.

I hope that that clears things up.
 
Last edited:
cepheid said:
Newton's law of gravitation states that if you have two masses m and M, separated by a distance r, then the strength of the gravitational force between them is given by the relationship:

F = \frac{GmM}{r^2}​

where r is the distance between the centres of the two masses. This is an important point that will come up later.

Now, if you have an object moving on a circular path, you can show (and I won't give the derivation here -- it is probably in your book) using entirely geometric arguments that that object must have an acceleration that always (at any instant) points towards the centre of the circular path. (That's what 'centripetal' means -- pointing towards the centre). You can also show that if the object moves with a constant speed v and its circular path has radius r, then the magnitude of this centripetal acceleration is given by a = v2/r. If the object has mass m, then Newton's 2nd law says that F = ma, and therefore the magnitude of the centripetal force is F = mv2/r. Now I want to point out that this is a kinematic requirement -- i.e. a centripetal force of this magnitude is required for any sort of uniform circular motion, but the equation doesn't tell you anything about what is causing that centripetal force. It could be because the object is tied to a string, or maybe it's under the influence of gravity, or maybe it is charged and experiencing an electrostatic force, or maybe there's friction, or...

In our situation, gravity is what is providing the centripetal force. The satellite moves in a circular path because the planet's gravity is constantly pulling on the satellite. This pull is in a direction towards the centre of the planet (and therefore towards the centre of the circular orbit). It is an example of a centripetal force. Now, if the satellite has mass m, then the centripetal force must have magnitude mv2/r. However, since the force is also the gravitational force of attraction between the planet and satellite, then Newton's Law of Gravitation says that its magnitude is given by GmM/r2. Since the centripetal force IS gravity in this situation, these magnitudes must be equal:

F_{\textrm{cent}} = F_{\textrm{grav}}

\frac{mv^2}{r} = \frac{GmM}{r^2}​

The mass of the satellite, m, cancels from both sides of the equation (which means that the properties of the orbit don't depend upon how big the satellite is!). We are left with:

\frac{v^2}{r} = \frac{GM}{r^2}​

Multiplying both sides of the equation by r, we get:

v^2 = \frac{GM}{r}​

How can we figure out the speed, v, of the satellite? We know how much time the satellite takes to go around in its orbit (which is the orbital period, T). This is given in the problem. Speed = distance/time. So if we can just figure out how much distance is covered in one orbit, we can calculate the speed by dividing that distance by T. Well, the orbit is a circle of radius r. Therefore, from basic geometry, the distance around the orbit is given by 2πr. Speed = distance/time, which means that v =2πr/T. Plugging this expression for the velocity into the previous equation, the result is:

\left(\frac{2\pi r}{T}\right)^2 = \frac{GM}{r}​

\frac{4\pi^2 r^2}{T^2}= \frac{GM}{r}​

THAT's why this equation is applicable to the problem. Now we just have to solve for r, the orbital radius. Here comes the important point. Remember that in Newton's law of gravitation, the distance r, between the two masses, is the distance between their centres. Therefore, r is the distance between the satellite and the centre of the planet. THAT is why r is given by:

r = radius of planet + height of orbit.

I hope that that clears things up.


Yes that makes much more sense, thanks for the explanation. So you are saying that r is the distance between their centers so something liek this?

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/709/gravl.jpg

Thanks, i am going to check over my solution one more time and see if i can come up with the correct answer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cruisx said:
Yes that makes much more sense, thanks for the explanation. So you are saying that r is the distance between their centers so something liek this?

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/709/gravl.jpg
[/URL]

Yeah.

cruisx said:
Thanks, i am going to check over my solution one more time and see if i can come up with the correct answer.

Well, good luck. Once you have the concepts down, it's just algebra from there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K