Total energy of a geosynchronous satellite

AI Thread Summary
To calculate the total energy of a geosynchronous satellite, it is essential to use the correct formulas for potential energy (PE) and kinetic energy (Ek). The gravitational force can be determined using Fg = Gm1m2/r^2, which is necessary for calculating PE at larger distances, rather than using mgh, which is only valid for small heights. The potential energy should be calculated using PE = -Gm1m2/r, with the understanding that this represents energy relative to an arbitrary reference point, typically taken as infinity. When combining potential and kinetic energy, the total energy (Et) can be found, ensuring that the signs of the energies are correctly accounted for. Understanding these principles is crucial for accurately solving problems related to satellite energy calculations.
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]
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top