Calculating Projectile Height Using Law of Gravitation

  • Thread starter Thread starter majormaaz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravitation Law
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves calculating the maximum height a projectile will reach when launched straight up at a speed of 8.1 km/s, using gravitational principles while ignoring air resistance and Earth's rotation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the conversion of kinetic energy to gravitational potential energy and explore the correct formulation of the equations involved. There is a focus on the relationship between the distance from the Earth's center and the height reached by the projectile.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided guidance on correcting the equations used and have pointed out missing components in the original poster's reasoning. Multiple interpretations of the energy equations are being explored, particularly regarding the use of gravitational potential energy in varying contexts.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the assumption of ignoring air resistance and the implications of using different forms of gravitational potential energy, particularly in relation to the constancy of gravitational acceleration.

majormaaz
Messages
61
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


At the Earth's surface a projectile is launched straight up at a speed of 8.1 km/s. To what height will it rise? Ignore air resistance and the rotation of the Earth.

Homework Equations


F = GMm/r2
Ug = -GM/r2
G = 6.67 e -11 whatever units it happens to be
That's all I'm 'given' for this problem.

The Attempt at a Solution


Well, I figured that the kinetic energy that the rocket/thing starts off with converts into gravitational energy.
1/2 mv2 = GM/x2
where x is the distance between the centers of the rocket and the earth.
So that would mean x = r + h?
So if we rearrange terms to solve for x, we get:
x = ±2GM/v2 - r
However, that doesn't seem to work, either sign for the potential energy.
Am I missing something?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your initial equation should be

½v2= GM/x


But in any event, you did the rearranging correctly. Why doesn't it work?
 
majormaaz said:
1/2 mv2 = GM/x2
That's not right, but you seem to have (almost) used the correct version below.
where x is the distance between the centers of the rocket and the earth.
So that would mean x = r + h?
So if we rearrange terms to solve for x, we get:
x = ±2GM/v2 - r
Looks like you originally had x2, but when you corrected it you forgot to get rid of the ±. And you've left out the PE it started with.
 
1/2 mv2 = GM/x2
That's not right, but you seem to have (almost) used the correct version below.
Terribly sorry about that. I used the formula U = -GMm/x for that, where x still is what I defined it to be previously.

And you've left out the PE it started with.
So you're saying that the equation looks like:
1/2 mv2 + GMm/r = GMm/x ...? where r is the radius of the earth?
Let me try this out... looks promising.
But here's another question.

A long long time ago I learned that there was kinetic energy and potential energy, mgΔh. This type of potential energy is gravitational and so is GMm/r, so would the problem also be solved by replacing GMm/r with mgΔh?
 
majormaaz said:
A long long time ago I learned that there was kinetic energy and potential energy, mgΔh. This type of potential energy is gravitational and so is GMm/r, so would the problem also be solved by replacing GMm/r with mgΔh?
No, that's only valid for constant g.
 
haruspex said:
No, that's only valid for constant g.
aahhh... makes sense. It's similar to the reason why we don't use kinematics for equations with velocities accelerating at increasing/decreasing rates.
 
Got it. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K