Potential Energy and raising a satellite from Earth into a Circular Orbit

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy associated with raising a satellite from Earth's surface to a circular orbit at an altitude of 200 km. The subject area includes gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy, and orbital mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to calculate gravitational potential energy at different heights and questions the correctness of negative values. They also explore the energy required to move a satellite and the relationship between kinetic and potential energy. Some participants suggest using algebraic manipulation to avoid significant errors in calculations.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the calculations, questioning assumptions, and providing suggestions for improvement. There is acknowledgment of the need for clarity in deriving formulas and potential errors in large number calculations. Some participants express gratitude for the guidance received.

Contextual Notes

There are discussions about the appropriateness of units used in calculations and the specific conditions under which certain values, like kinetic energy, are considered. The conversation also touches on the accuracy of calculations involving gravitational potential energy differences.

AN630078
Messages
242
Reaction score
25
Homework Statement
Hello, I have quite a lengthy, but assuredly related question where each section leads onto the next. I have been trying to better understand potential energy and the mechanisms of circular orbits when I came across the problems below. Would anyone be able to scrutinise my calculations and evaluate my workings, to perhaps suggest a preferable approach. For instance in hindsight would it have been better if I had applied Newton's Second Law, ΣF = ma,
which becomes GmM/r2 = mv2/r. Then continued to derive formula in terms of potential and kinetic energy? Thank you to anyone who replies, apologies for the length, although they are related questions, ie to find the kinetic energy one must first establish the value of the orbital velocity. 😁

The radius of the Earth is 6.4 x 10^6 m and its mass is 6.0 x 10^24 kg.

Question 1:
a.What is the gravitational potential at the surface of the Earth?
b.What is the gravitational potential 200 km above the Earth’s surface?
c. How much energy would be needed to move a satellite of mass 3000 kg from the Earth’s surface to a height of 200 km?
d. At what speed would a satellite 200 km above the Earth’s surface be moving?
e. If its mass were 3000 kg how much kinetic energy would it have?
f. What total energy is needed to set a satellite of mass 3000 kg in orbit 200 km above the Earth?
Relevant Equations
V grav= -GM/r
E=U+K
v=√GM/r
a. V=-GM/r
V=-6.67*10^-11*6.0 x 10^24/6.4 x 10^6
V grav = -62531250 ~ -62.5M Jkg^-1

b. To find the gravitational potential 200 km above the surface of the Earth;
r=6.4 x 10^6 +2*10^5 m=6.6*10^6
V grav=-6.67*10^-11*6.0 x 10^24/6.6*10^6
V grav= -60636363 ~ -60.6 M Jkg^-1

Can I check that it is correct that these values are negative?

c. To find the energy required to move a satellite to a height of 200km above the surface of the Earth find the difference in the gravitational potential;
ΔU=Uorbit−UEarth

U Earth = -GMm/r
U Earth = - 6.67*10^-11*6.0 x 10^24*3000/ 6.4 x 10^6
U Earth = -1.8759375 * 10^11 J~ -1.87* 10^11 J

U orbit = -GMm/r + 2.0*10^5 m
U orbit = - 6.67*10^-11*6.0 x 10^24*3000/ 6.6 x 10^6
U orbit = -1.819090 *10^11 J ~ -1.82 *10^11 J

ΔU=( -1.82 *10^11)-( -1.8759375 * 10^11)
ΔU=5684659091 ~ 5700000000 J = 5700 MJ

Are units of J or MJ suitable her or should it be Jkg^-1?

d. To find the orbital velocity use the formula;
v orbit = GM/r
v orbit = 6.67*10^-11*6*10^24/6.6*10^6
v orbit =7786.935446 ~ 7790 ms^-1 to 3.s.f

e.The kinetic energy of the satellite on the surface of the Earth is 0 J.
The kinetic energy of the satellite 200 km above the Earth's surface is;
K orbit = 1/2mv^2
K orbit = 1/2 * 3000*7790^2
K orbit = 9.1 * 10 ^10 J to 2.s.f
KE total = K Earth + K orbit
KE total = 0 J + 9.1 * 10 ^10 J=9.1 * 10 ^10 J

This can be verified by subtracting the change in potential energy from the total energy.

f. E total=K1+U1=K2+U2
The total energy required is the difference in the satellite's energy in orbit and that at Earth’s surface.
E orbit = K orbit + U orbit
E orbit= 9.1 * 10 ^10 + (-1.819 *10^11)= -9.1 * 10^10 J

E surface = K Earth + U Earth
E surface = 0 + (-1.87* 10^11)=-1.87* 10^11 J

Δ𝐸= E orbit - E surface
Δ𝐸=-9.1 * 10^10-(-1.87* 10^11)
Δ𝐸=9.66392 * 10^10 ~ 9.66 *10^10 J
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Re b), calculating the additional GPE of GPE200km-GPE0 by taking the difference of those two large numbers tends to produce a significant error in the answer. To avoid keeping lots of digits, it is better to do a bit of algebra first:
##\frac{GMm}{r_{200}}-\frac{GMm}{r_0}=-GMm(\frac{1}{r_{0}}-\frac{1}{r_{200}})=-\frac{GMm}{r_0r_{200}}200##
 
haruspex said:
Re b), calculating the additional GPE of GPE200km-GPE0 by taking the difference of those two large numbers tends to produce a significant error in the answer. To avoid keeping lots of digits, it is better to do a bit of algebra first:
##\frac{GMm}{r_{200}}-\frac{GMm}{r_0}=-GMm(\frac{1}{r_{0}}-\frac{1}{r_{200}})=-\frac{GMm}{r_0r_{200}}200##
Thank you for your reply. Yes I have seen this formula before but I was unsure how to derive it. Thank you for the suggestion👍 Are there any other improvements I could make?
 
AN630078 said:
The kinetic energy of the satellite on the surface of the Earth is 0 J.
Only at the poles.
 
haruspex said:
Only at the poles.
Thank you again so would the rest of my workings be correct also? I will use the formula you suggested in b also, thank you again for providing that 😁
 
AN630078 said:
Thank you again so would the rest of my workings be correct also? I will use the formula you suggested in b also, thank you again for providing that 😁
Yes, it's fine.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K