2
$\begingroup$

For example, a geostationary satellite travels slower than the ISS. What is going on?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Have you considered looking at the force balance that keeps satellites in orbit? $\endgroup$ – AtmosphericPrisonEscape Apr 6 '17 at 0:43
  • $\begingroup$ @AtmosphericPrisonEscape That is a bit misleading, there is no force balance as the only force acting on the orbiting object is gravity. $\endgroup$ – Hohmannfan Apr 6 '17 at 7:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Hohmannfan: That doesn't matter. It doesn't seem to be a university-level question, and the most intuitive 'layman' way of understanding Keplerian orbits is through inertial forces. $\endgroup$ – AtmosphericPrisonEscape Apr 6 '17 at 14:48
6
$\begingroup$

Kepler's third law in this situation tells us that $$ \frac{R^3}{P^2} = \frac{GM}{4\pi^2}, $$ where $R$ is the orbital radius (or semi-major axis for an elliptical orbit), $P$ is the orbital period and $M$ is the mass of the Earth (actually, it is the mas of the Earth plus the mass of the satellite, but we can neglect the latter). Thus the orbital period $P \propto R^{3/2}$.

To calculate the orbital speed, we divide the orbital circumference by the orbital period $$ v = \frac{2\pi R}{P}. $$

Then substituting for $P$ from Kepler's third law, we get $$ v = \sqrt{\frac{GM}{R}}$$

Thus, the larger the orbital radius, the slower the orbital speed.

Or you can just use Newton's second law and equate the centripetal acceleration to the gravitational force: $$ m \frac{v^2}{R} = G\frac{Mm}{R^2},$$ where $m$ is the mass of the satellite, which leads directly to the same result.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.