The Rocket Equation: Unraveling the Mystery

adphysics
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
In deriving the rocket equation, there is one part I don't understand. The velocity of exhaust with respect to the body is assumed to be constant, where:

v(exhaust wrt body)=v(exhaust wrt inertial)-v(body wrt inertial)

So assuming a constant mass flow rate, the rocket propellant exerts a constant force on the rocket and hence in space, uniform acceleration. But how can an observer on the accelerating rocket observe the rocket propellant being ejected with a constant velocity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
adphysics said:
... the rocket propellant exerts a constant force on the rocket and hence in space, uniform acceleration.
This is not correct. The mass of the rocket decreases at a rate equal to the exhaust mass rate. The constant exhaust velocity should be w.r.t the rocket.
 
Oops. So assuming a constant mass flow rate the propellant exerts a constant force on the rocket so the rocket's acceleration increases as follows:

a(t)=F[1/m(t)] where F is a constant (until fuel runs out) where m(t) is the mass of the rocket at time t.

m(t)=m(initial)-bt where b is a constant (mass flow rate)

Hence v_rocket(t)=-Fln(m(t))/b assuming v(0)=0

But why would an observer in the rocket observe a constant propellant velocity?
 
adphysics said:
... why would an observer in the rocket observe a constant propellant velocity?
Because the propelling mechanism is in the rocket.
 
Oh, yeah. The engine is on the back of the rocket, so it accelerates with the rocket, so if an engine ejects exhaust at a velocity v, then this is what is observed from the rocket's point of view.

Now I feel somewhat embarrassed, but at least the rocket equation makes sense now.
 
adphysics said:
Now I feel somewhat embarrassed, ...
You should not. No one knows everything. You should only feel embarrassed if you refuse to ask a question out of fear of sounding stupid. Don't let your transient embarrasment prevent your permanent understanding:
adphysics said:
... the rocket equation makes sense now.
Have fun learning.
 
Hi, I had an exam and I completely messed up a problem. Especially one part which was necessary for the rest of the problem. Basically, I have a wormhole metric: $$(ds)^2 = -(dt)^2 + (dr)^2 + (r^2 + b^2)( (d\theta)^2 + sin^2 \theta (d\phi)^2 )$$ Where ##b=1## with an orbit only in the equatorial plane. We also know from the question that the orbit must satisfy this relationship: $$\varepsilon = \frac{1}{2} (\frac{dr}{d\tau})^2 + V_{eff}(r)$$ Ultimately, I was tasked to find the initial...
The value of H equals ## 10^{3}## in natural units, According to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units, ## t \sim 10^{-21} sec = 10^{21} Hz ##, and since ## \text{GeV} \sim 10^{24} \text{Hz } ##, ## GeV \sim 10^{24} \times 10^{-21} = 10^3 ## in natural units. So is this conversion correct? Also in the above formula, can I convert H to that natural units , since it’s a constant, while keeping k in Hz ?
Back
Top