Total energy of a geosynchronous satellite

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the total energy of a geosynchronous satellite, specifically focusing on its mass, orbital height, and speed. The problem involves concepts from gravitational physics and energy calculations.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore different methods for calculating gravitational force and potential energy, questioning the appropriateness of using specific formulas based on the satellite's altitude.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided calculations and expressed confusion regarding the results, particularly concerning the potential energy values and their implications. There is an ongoing examination of the assumptions behind the formulas used, with no clear consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the use of mgh for potential energy may not be suitable at larger heights, and there is discussion about the reference point for potential energy calculations, which affects the interpretation of results.

JamesW
Messages
6
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Calculate the total energy of a geosynchronous satellite (one that orbits over a fixed spot)
with a mass of 1.5 x 10^3 kg, orbiting Earth st a height of 325 km with an orbital speed of 5.0 x 10^3 m/s.


Homework Equations


Ek = 1/2 mv^2
Ep = mgh
Fg = Gm1m2/r^2
or
PE = -Gm1m2/r

The Attempt at a Solution


Im wondering if a should find the force of gravity using Fg = Gm1m2/r^2 of the satellite and then plug that into Ep = mgh and add Ek = 1/2mv^2 (Ep + Ek = Et). OR if i need to use PE = -Gm1m2/r
 
Physics news on Phys.org
im wondering because i get different answers for potential energy

Fg=Gm1m2/r^2
=((6.67e-11 N(m^2)/kg)(5.98e24 kg)(1.5e3 kg))/(6.705e6)^2
= 13308.24 N
Ep= mgh
= (13308.24 N)(325000 m)
=4.325e9 J
Ek=1/2mv^2
=1/2(1.5e3kg)(5.0e3 m/s)^2
= 1.875e10 J <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< wondering about these units here
Et= 4.325e9 J + 1.875e10 J
= 2.3075e10 J

This is how i answered. Is this correct?
 
mgh for potential energy only applies for h << rearth, that is, for objects close to the surface of the Earth. You should use the Newton's Law form for potential energy for larger separations.
 
using the Fg = Gm1m2/r^2 i have basically found gravity at around 8.87 N at 325000 m and then used this for the Ep=mgh calculation. This will not work, I could understand this. When i use the PE = -Gm1m2/r i get such a large negative number the sum of PE & Ek is negative i don't understand this ?
 
Last edited:
JamesW said:
using the Fg = Gm1m2/r^2 i have basically found gravity at around 8.87 N at 325000 m and then used this for the Ep=mgh calculation. This will not work, I could understand this. When i use the PE = -Gm1m2/r i get such a large negative number the sum of PE & Ek is negative i don't understand this ?

Potential energy represents work required to bring an object from some arbitrary reference point to a given location. The formula -G\frac{M}{r} carries the assumption that the arbitrary reference point is at infinity. When we do mechanics near the surface of the Earth we tend to choose a reference point for convenience, often the surface of the Earth itself. In this case the work required to bring an object from the reference point to a higher elevation than the reference height is positive, and thus we say that the potential energy is positive.

Just keep in mind that potential energy is always measured with respect to some arbitrary reference point or height.

For this problem, if you wish to make your potential energy reference point the surface of the Earth when using the Newton formula, simply take the difference between the potential at the surface of the Earth (at radius r0) and the desired location:

PE = GMm \left[ \frac{1}{r_0} - \frac{1}{r}\right]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
13K