A rocket needs to hover stationary over the ground

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on calculating the time a rocket can hover stationary above the ground using the rocket equation. Given an exhaust velocity of 3000 m/s and a fuel mass fraction of approximately 0.10, the initial calculation yielded an unrealistic hover time of 704.15 seconds. After correcting for the direction of external forces and adjusting the final mass to m0 - λm0, the revised hover time was determined to be 32.22 seconds. This aligns more closely with realistic scenarios, such as the Apollo 11 landing, which required precise fuel management.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the rocket equation and thrust calculations
  • Familiarity with concepts of mass flow rate and fuel consumption in rocketry
  • Basic knowledge of gravitational forces and their impact on vertical motion
  • Ability to perform logarithmic calculations and integrate equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and applications of the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation
  • Learn about the impact of gravity on rocket trajectories and hover dynamics
  • Research fuel management strategies used in space missions like Apollo 11
  • Explore advanced topics in fluid dynamics as they relate to rocket propulsion
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, physics students, and anyone interested in the mechanics of rocket propulsion and fuel efficiency during vertical flight operations.

DanielA
Messages
27
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


A rocket (initial mass ##m_o##, constant exhaust velocity ##v_{ex}## needs to use its engines to hover stationary, just above the ground.
a) If it can afford to burn no more than a mass ##\lambda m_o## of its fuel (##\lambda \lt##), for how long can it hover?
b) If ##v_{ex} = 3000 m/s ~\text{and} \lambda \approx 0.10## for how long could the rocket hover just above the Earth's surface?

Homework Equations


The question didn't give any explicit equations, but the question should use $$\dot p = m dv + dm v_{ex} = F^{ext} dt $$ where ##dm v_{ext} = thrust##
which I believe is the rocket equation for a rocket moving vertically. I got it from my book, though they continued the example with no gravity or air ressitance so ##F^{ext} = 0##

The Attempt at a Solution


To begin, I believe I have a finished solution, but since I'm used to having a professor around to check my work, I'm not confident I'm doing it right as it seems too simple.
a)
Since there is no motion (and we haven't learned air resistance for a rocket) the only force ##F^{ext}## is gravity and ##F^{ext} = mg## where m is the mass of the rocket.

So, we want to solve for t. Let's use my equation above and integrate it .
$$
mgdt = mdv + dm v_{ex}
\\ \int_{v_0}^v dv = \int_0^t g\, dt - v_{ex} \int_{m_0}^m {\frac {dm} m}
\\ v-v_0 = gt - v_{ex} \ln {\frac m {m_0}}
\\ v = 0, v_0 = 0, m = \lambda m_0
\\ \text{since the rocket is motionless throughout all of this and the maximum mass loss is given in the question}
\\ t = \frac {v_{ex}} g \ln (\lambda)
$$
b)
This part is just plug and chug using the above equation. My answer is 704.15 seconds (g = -9.81 m/s), which seems excessively long to me, but I don't have any frame of reference on what is realistic for this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

DanielA said:
$$ v-v_0 = gt - v_{ex} \ln {\frac m {m_0}}$$
There is a sign problem here. The left side is zero. But the right side is positive overall since ##gt## is positive and ##-v_{ex} \ln {\frac m {m_0}}## is also positive. Did you take into account the direction of the external force?

Also, the final mass is not ##\lambda m_0##. Review how ##\lambda## is defined in the problem statement.
 
TSny said:
Welcome to PF!There is a sign problem here. The left side is zero. But the right side is positive overall since ##gt## is positive and ##-v_{ex} \ln {\frac m {m_0}}## is also positive. Did you take into account the direction of the external force?

Also, the final mass is not ##\lambda m_0##. Review how ##\lambda## is defined in the problem statement.
I now made ##F^{ext}## negative at the beginning (##F^{ext}## = -mg) to account for the negative direction and changed the final mass to ##m_0 - \lambda m_0## since that is the final mass of the rocket after losing ##\lambda m_0## fuel. My answer changed to $$t = \frac {-v_{ex}} g \ln{(1-\lambda)}$$
This gives a much more reasonable 32.22 seconds of hovering when fuel equal to 10% of the original rocket mass is used
 
Just a thought... The numbers might be available from the Apollo 11 moon landing. They had to "hover" a bit longer than expected and almost ran out of fuel.
 
DanielA said:
I now made ##F^{ext}## negative at the beginning (##F^{ext}## = -mg) to account for the negative direction and changed the final mass to ##m_0 - \lambda m_0## since that is the final mass of the rocket after losing ##\lambda m_0## fuel. My answer changed to $$t = \frac {-v_{ex}} g \ln{(1-\lambda)}$$
This gives a much more reasonable 32.22 seconds of hovering when fuel equal to 10% of the original rocket mass is used
All of this looks correct to me.
 
CWatters said:
Just a thought... The numbers might be available from the Apollo 11 moon landing. They had to "hover" a bit longer than expected and almost ran out of fuel.
The question actually had a bit about how a similar situation occurred to Apollo 11. However, he specifically said it was similar in the question. The landing in Apollo 11 took 90 seconds which is much longer than my answer here
 
TSny said:
All of this looks correct to me.
Thank you. I hope over time I'll gain more confidence in my ability. I'll end up having many more questions in the future though so look out for them
 
DanielA said:
Thank you. I hope over time I'll gain more confidence in my ability. I'll end up having many more questions in the future though so look out for them
Sounds good!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K