Atmospheric Burn-up During Re-Entry

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Rensslin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Atmospheric
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the phenomenon of atmospheric burn-up during re-entry, exploring the mechanics of heat generation due to air friction, the role of speed and atmospheric density, and the differences between various objects entering the atmosphere. Participants examine concepts from thermodynamics and the behavior of gases under compression, while also addressing misconceptions about heat conservation and the dynamics of objects in low Earth orbit.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the burn-up process resembles a "bellyflop" into the atmosphere, while others suggest it is more akin to being "sandblasted" by air molecules.
  • There is a discussion about the speed of objects entering the atmosphere, with some noting that objects in low Earth orbit travel at approximately 18,000 miles per hour, significantly faster than bullets.
  • One participant introduces a thermodynamic perspective, suggesting that gas compression at high speeds leads to increased temperature, contributing to heat generation during re-entry.
  • Another participant challenges the notion of "abrasive friction," arguing that the heat generated is due to the conversion of kinetic energy rather than friction alone.
  • Concerns are raised about the comparison of bullets and re-entering objects, with some arguing that bullets do not heat up significantly due to their short travel time through the air.
  • There is a correction regarding the concept of heat conservation, with one participant clarifying that heat is not conserved in the same way as energy, and that heat can be generated from other forms of energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the mechanisms of heat generation during atmospheric re-entry, with no consensus reached on the role of friction versus kinetic energy conversion. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the precise nature of the burn-up process and the implications of thermodynamic principles.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference complex formulas and concepts from thermodynamics and chemical engineering, but these are not fully resolved or agreed upon. The discussion includes various assumptions about the behavior of gases and the dynamics of objects in motion.

  • #61
jbriggs444 said:
This is not correct. If you reduce the volume but carefully avoid adding energy to the contents (draining as much in thermal energy as you are injecting by performing mechanical work) the result is an isothermal compression.

The same amount of thermal energy is in a smaller space, but the temperature is unchanged.

Did you not see the reference to gas laws? They don't involve bleeding off excess.

The OP believes that compressing a volume of gas will not raise its temperature. That is not true.

You can always complicate the experiment to obfuscate the principle being demonstrated if you want.
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
  • #62
DaveC426913 said:
Did you not see the reference to gas laws? They don't involve bleeding off excess.

The OP believes that compressing a volume of gas will not raise its temperature. That is not true.

You can always complicate the experiment to obfuscate the principle being demonstrated if you want.
Both your post and the point you were responding to were incorrect. It does little to help correct a misconception if you do so by promulgating a new one.
 
  • #63
jbriggs444 said:
Both your post and the point you were responding to were incorrect.
How is my drawing attention to the ideal gas laws incorrect? The OP seems not to be aware of them.

(OK, the first half of my post phrased it using the OP's terms, but the point is made that the ideal gas laws show that compressing a gas will raise its temperature - other factors being equal.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rensslin
  • #64
DaveC426913 said:
the point is made that the ideal gas laws show that compressing a gas will raise its temperature - other factors being equal.)
And that point is incorrect.

In fact, per the ideal gas law, PV=nRT, compressing a gas (reducing its volume) while holding pressure and amount of substance constant can only be achieved by reducing temperature. If you are planning to have all factors equal, you'd better spell out which ones you are holding constant and how.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rensslin and cjl
  • #65
Mister T said:
They are, however, always in the same place in the sky so that once you point your antenna at one it will stay pointed at it.
not quite ... they actually move in an oscillation north and south of the equator by a small amount
an example ...

satellite-inclination.gif
 
  • #66
cjl said:
Temperature isn't like "cats" in this analogy though. You have a box with 1 kg of air in it. You shrink the box. It still has 1 kg of air in it, but in the process of shrinking it, you had to apply force, so now the air that is in the box has more energy, and thus is at a higher temperature. The equivalent to the cats in your box is the quantity of air.
Got it: that makes sense. Thanks
 
  • #67
jbriggs444 said:
And that point is incorrect.

In fact, per the ideal gas law, PV=nRT, compressing a gas (reducing its volume) while holding pressure and amount of substance constant can only be achieved by reducing temperature. If you are planning to have all factors equal, you'd better spell out which ones you are holding constant and how.
< sidebar >
OK, I take full responsibility for not grokking this - after all, as a diver, I'm supposed to know the gas laws down pat.

Yes, it is obvious (even to me) that - if you plan to keep pressure constant - you'll have to reduce the temperature to get the volume to reduce. This I know.

But if you were to take a volume of gas, in a closed container - and compress it (reduce its volume) - both temperature and pressure will go up. After all, this is how diesel engines work. (Please tell me I'm right about this, or I'm going to set my laptop on fire, and go live in a shack in the woods)

So what am I missing? Is it simply that I didn't specify that pressure doesn't have to remain constant?

< /sidebar >
 
  • #68
DaveC426913 said:
But if you were to take a volume of gas, in a closed container - and compress it (reduce its volume) - both temperature and pressure will go up. After all, this is how diesel engines work. (Please tell me I'm right about this, or I'm going to set my laptop on fire, and go live in a shack in the woods)

Well, that is certainly one of the possibilities. In fact the quantity ##pT## must go up, but there are ways of doing that that will make ##p## or ##T## go down.
 
  • #69
@DaveC426913, I think what people are objecting to is the following statement you made:
DaveC426913 said:
"Amount of heat" is an absolute value, yes. But if you reduce the volume, the temperature will increase proportionally (because the same "amount of heat" is now in a smaller space).
When you compress a gas, the temperature does not increase because, "the same "amount of heat" is now in a smaller space". It increases because the act of compression does work on the gas and increases the "amount of heat" in the gas. The "amount of heat", also called the internal energy, goes up. If the internal energy is held constant, the temperature of the gas will not go up, even if it occupies a smaller volume
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444, DaveC426913, davenn and 1 other person
  • #70
Cool. I learned some new things today.

One of them is that I had a naive understanding of the source of the temperature rise when you compress a gas.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
12K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
8K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
14K
Replies
4
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K