Amount of energy to get a spaceship to 99% C

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the energy requirements for accelerating a spaceship with a mass of 20,000 kg to 99% of the speed of light (approximately 296,794,533.42 m/s). Participants explore the implications of relativistic physics, particularly focusing on kinetic energy calculations and the challenges of using antimatter as a fuel source. The conversation includes theoretical considerations, mathematical formulations, and practical implications of such high-speed travel.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes the initial assumption of using classical kinetic energy formula KE = 1/2mv^2, but recognizes the need to account for relativistic effects, suggesting a differential equation approach due to changing mass with velocity.
  • Another participant provides the relativistic kinetic energy formula, KE = (\gamma - 1)mc^2, where γ is defined as 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), and emphasizes the use of invariant mass instead of relativistic mass.
  • A participant mentions that if the energy source is mounted on the rocket, the energy requirements increase significantly due to the need to accelerate both the ship and the fuel, referencing a formula from Wikipedia related to rocket propulsion.
  • One reply discusses the implications of needing fuel to decelerate, suggesting that calculations for total mass should account for both acceleration and deceleration phases.
  • Another participant calculates that with a 100% efficient total conversion rocket, one would need approximately 14 times the dry mass of the ship to accelerate to 0.99c, and around 200 times the mass to account for deceleration.
  • Concerns are raised about the non-linearity of relativistic equations and the inefficiencies in propulsion systems, with one participant referencing a hypothetical solar sail powered by a super laser.
  • Several participants critique a friend's earlier Newtonian calculation, indicating that it underestimates the mass of antimatter required, suggesting that the Newtonian kinetic energy would yield a value closer to 0.49mc^2.
  • One participant humorously suggests the need for fictional inertia-less drives to simplify the challenges of high-speed travel.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the calculations and implications of using Newtonian versus relativistic physics, with some agreeing on the inadequacies of the Newtonian approach while others emphasize the complexities introduced by relativistic effects. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the exact energy requirements and practical feasibility of the proposed methods.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the assumptions made in the calculations, the dependence on specific propulsion technologies, and the unresolved nature of the energy efficiency of various theoretical models. The discussion also highlights the challenges of accurately modeling high-speed travel and the implications of relativistic physics.

Kaura
Messages
122
Reaction score
22
So recently a friend and I were pondering how much energy would be required to get a 20,000kg spaceship to 99% the speed of light. This arose from us discussing the raw efficiency of antimatter and how much antimatter would be required to fuel a spaceship to 99% C or 296794533.42 m/s. At first this seem simple since we thought we could use KE = 1/2mv^2 but then we realized we would have to take the change in relativistic mass into account. If I am not mistaken this is a differential equation as the ship's mass at any given point would be a function of its velocity. I am not experienced with problems of this sort. If anyone is willing to work out this problem for the hell of it I would much appreciate it. Also please tell me if I am overlooking something.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The relativistic KE is given by:

##(\gamma - 1)mc^2##

Where ##\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}##
 
PeroK said:
The relativistic KE is given by:

##(\gamma - 1)mc^2##

Where ##\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}##
... and m is the invariant mass. The OP should take note that relativistic mass is a largely deprecated term.

Also, to OP, this is clearly not an A level thread. The thread tags are intended for indicating what level of explanation you are comfortable with. Using the A tag indicates that you have an understanding of the subject at the level of a physics graduate student and expect answers directed at that level. This is obviously not the case here. I am going to relabel the thread accordingly.
 
It's worth noting that the formula given above assumes that the energy source is not mounted on the rocket. If the energy source is mounted on a rocket, the number becomes truly depressing, because not only do you have to accelerate the ship but you have to accelerate the fuel, which means more fuel, which means more fuel to accelerate more fuel.

For a rocket which carries its own fuel, Wikipedia gives the formula: $$\Delta v=c \tanh\left(\frac{I_{sp}}{c}\ln\frac{m_0}{m_1}\right)$$ where ##m_1## is the mass of your ship, ##m_0## is the mass of your ship with fuel, ##c## is the speed of light, and ##I_{sp}## is the specific thrust. There's a table on Wikipedia with some values for that last one - in the case of a 100% efficient matter-antimatter rocket, ##I_{sp}/c## is 1. It's smaller (usually a lot smaller) in the case of a more plausible engine.

Note that you're going to need fuel to slow down again. Simply squaring the number you get out of the formula above will give you a ballpark figure for the total mass needed to accelerate and decelerate, but you can work it out longhand if you want.

In case you haven't come across it before, ##\tanh## is the hyperbolic tangent. A lot of scientific calculators have button marked HYP. Press it and then the TAN button to get the tangent, or HYP, then INV, then TAN to get the inverse hyperbolic tangent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dale
Orodruin said:
... and m is the invariant mass. The OP should take note that relativistic mass is a largely deprecated term.

Also, to OP, this is clearly not an A level thread. The thread tags are intended for indicating what level of explanation you are comfortable with. Using the A tag indicates that you have an understanding of the subject at the level of a physics graduate student and expect answers directed at that level. This is obviously not the case here. I am going to relabel the thread accordingly.
Thanks for the correction I will do this in the future
 
I was being lazy last night, but curiosity got the better of me. Note that:$$\tanh^{-1}x=\frac{1}{2}\ln\left(\frac{1+x}{1-x}\right)$$ if ##x<1## and is real. That means that the Wikipedia expression can be re-written as $$m_0 = m_1\left(\frac{1+\Delta v/c}{1-\Delta v/c}\right)^{1/(2I_{sp}/c)}$$You asked about accelerating to 0.99c. With a 100% efficient total conversion rocket, you need 14 times the "dry" mass of your ship to make that acceleration, so around 200 times the mass to accelerate and stop again. Wikipedia quotes ##I_{sp}/c=0.119## for a H→He fusion rocket; that gives you about four and a half billion times the dry mass to accelerate, or on the order of 1019 times if you want to stop again.

Told you it was depressing.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: m4r35n357
Ibix said:
I was being lazy last night, but curiosity got the better of me. Note that:$$\tanh^{-1}x=\frac{1}{2}\ln\left(\frac{1+x}{1-x}\right)$$ if ##x<1## and is real. That means that the Wikipedia expression can be re-written as $$m_0 = m_1\left(\frac{1+\Delta v/c}{1-\Delta v/c}\right)^{1/(2I_{sp}/c)}$$You asked about accelerating to 0.99c. With a 100% efficient total conversion rocket, you need 14 times the "dry" mass of your ship to make that acceleration, so around 200 times the mass to accelerate and stop again. Wikipedia quotes ##I_{sp}/c=0.119## for a H→He fusion rocket; that gives you about four and a half billion times the dry mass to accelerate, or on the order of 1019 times if you want to stop again.

Told you it was depressing.

Haha and a while ago my friend used Newtonian Physics and was convinced that it would only take 0.2 grams of antimatter
Thanks for working it out legitimately
I will have to tell him the bad news
 
Yeah. The non-linearity of relativistic equations can really come back to bite you at high velocities. Incidentally, using PeroK's approach (so a solar sail pushed by some kind of super laser based on Mercury, for example) you still need six times the mass of the ship in matter/antimatter to accelerate and the same to decelerate. That's before you get into inefficiencies in the system and the question of how to build a super laser at the destination before you get there.
 
Also your friend's Newtonian calculation has gone wrong somewhere. The Newtonian kinetic energy of something traveling at 0.99c would be something like ##0.49mc^2##. So the mass of matter and antimatter needed would be 0.49 times the mass of the ship.

The calculation isn't valid anyway, but that's not 0.2g unless your ship is the size of a thimble.
 
  • #10
Ibix said:
Also your friend's Newtonian calculation has gone wrong somewhere. The Newtonian kinetic energy of something traveling at 0.99c would be something like ##0.49mc^2##. So the mass of matter and antimatter needed would be 0.49 times the mass of the ship.

The calculation isn't valid anyway, but that's not 0.2g unless your ship is the size of a thimble.

Yeah I thought something was fishy when he told me he calculated it
 
  • #11
Ibix said:
I was being lazy last night, but curiosity got the better of me. Note that:$$\tanh^{-1}x=\frac{1}{2}\ln\left(\frac{1+x}{1-x}\right)$$ if ##x<1## and is real. That means that the Wikipedia expression can be re-written as $$m_0 = m_1\left(\frac{1+\Delta v/c}{1-\Delta v/c}\right)^{1/(2I_{sp}/c)}$$You asked about accelerating to 0.99c. With a 100% efficient total conversion rocket, you need 14 times the "dry" mass of your ship to make that acceleration, so around 200 times the mass to accelerate and stop again. Wikipedia quotes ##I_{sp}/c=0.119## for a H→He fusion rocket; that gives you about four and a half billion times the dry mass to accelerate, or on the order of 1019 times if you want to stop again.

Told you it was depressing.
You really need those sci-fi inertia-less drives. Just eliminate all inertia without eliminating the matter .. if only ...
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 130 ·
5
Replies
130
Views
16K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K