Period of a satellite orbiting Earth

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the orbital period of a satellite orbiting Earth at a specified altitude. The context is centered around gravitational forces and circular motion in the field of astrophysics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to calculate the orbital period using gravitational acceleration and centripetal force equations. Some participants question the correctness of the textbook's answer, while others suggest using Kepler's laws for a potentially simpler solution.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants sharing their calculations and interpretations. There is a divergence in views regarding the accuracy of the textbook answer, and some guidance has been offered regarding alternative approaches.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working with specific values for the mass of Earth and its radius, as well as the altitude of the satellite. There is an acknowledgment of potential discrepancies between calculated results and textbook values.

fawk3s
Messages
341
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



A satellite is orbiting Earth 4200 km from Earth's surface. Considering the trajectory to be a circle, calculate the period of the orbiting satellite.

Homework Equations



a=v2/r
F=GmM/r2
c=2r*PI
v=l/t

The Attempt at a Solution



Well, the textbook gives the mass of the Earth to be M=5,98*1024 kg and the radius of Earth RE=6,38*106 m

So the radius of the orbit is R=RE+4200 km=10,58*106 m

Now off to find the gravitational acceleration for the satellite at the given distance (which is also the centripetal acceleration in this case)

F=GmM/R2
a=F/m

so

a=GM/R2
a=3,56 m/s2

a=v2/R => v=sqrt(a*R)
v=6,14*103 m/s

c=2R*PI
c=66,44*106

And now for the period

v=c/T => T=c/v
T=10820 s

The textbook says it ought to be 8300 s. Where did I go wrong? Have double checked the numbers, so don't think its a calculation error.

Thanks in advance,
fawk3s
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I get the same answer you do. The book's answer is wrong.
 
This post may be redundant, as I'm not sure exactly what you did on the second half, but...

If you use the Newtonian variation of Kepler's third law, the number pops out straight away!
 
Thanks guys.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K