Conservation of energy - rocket hovering above moon

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the conservation of energy in a scenario where a rocket hovers above the moon, burning fuel to maintain its height. Initially, the system's energy consists of gravitational potential energy and chemical energy from the fuel. As the rocket burns fuel, energy transforms into kinetic energy of the rocket and the exhaust, while the moon is also affected by gravitational forces. The key question raised is about the additional kinetic energy of the moon, which seems to create a contradiction in energy conservation equations. Ultimately, the analysis reveals that the mass of the rocket decreases as fuel is consumed, complicating the conservation calculations and highlighting the need to account for changes in mass in such scenarios.
bob900
Messages
40
Reaction score
0
Suppose a rocket is hovering above the moon at a constant height, burning just enough propellant to stay at that height, and not move upwards or downwards.

Viewed from an inertial frame, we have. Initial energy (just before ignition) :

1. Gravitational potential energy between rocket and the moon = I1
2. Chemical energy stored in fuel = I2


Assume kinetic energies of rocket and moon are both 0 initially.

----

Final energy:

1. Gravitational potential energy between rocket and the moon = F1
2. Kinetic energy (or heat) of the burning propellant = F2
3. Kinetic energy of the rocket = F3
4. Kinetic energy of the moon (it is gravitationally accelerated towards the rocket) = F4

If there is to be conservation of energy, (I1+I2) should equal (F1+F2+F3+F4).

But I2 = F2 + F3, because chemical energy of the fuel is converted into kinetic energy of the rocket and of the propellant. And since the rocket is still hovering at the same distance from the moon, I1 = F1.

So where does the additional term, F4 come from? Is energy conserved?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1,When the exhaust hits the surface of moon, it will prevent moon moving toward the rocket;
2,The mass of rocket continues to decrease, the lost part of fuel will lose its potential energy ;
3,Another better example similar:
A helicopter hovering aloft in the atmosphere of the Earth ,the airflow moving downwards will diffuse in the open air but not hit the surface of the earth.
It's sure the Earth will move towards the helicopter with a extremely tiny velocity.
Unfortunately analysts used to ignore this point.
 
Last edited:
bob900 said:
Suppose a rocket is hovering above the moon at a constant height, burning just enough propellant to stay at that height, and not move upwards or downwards.

Viewed from an inertial frame, we have. Initial energy (just before ignition) :

1. Gravitational potential energy between rocket and the moon = I1
2. Chemical energy stored in fuel = I2


Assume kinetic energies of rocket and moon are both 0 initially.

----

Final energy:

1. Gravitational potential energy between rocket and the moon = F1
2. Kinetic energy (or heat) of the burning propellant = F2
3. Kinetic energy of the rocket = F3
4. Kinetic energy of the moon (it is gravitationally accelerated towards the rocket) = F4

If there is to be conservation of energy, (I1+I2) should equal (F1+F2+F3+F4).

But I2 = F2 + F3, because chemical energy of the fuel is converted into kinetic energy of the rocket and of the propellant. And since the rocket is still hovering at the same distance from the moon, I1 = F1.

So where does the additional term, F4 come from? Is energy conserved?

If you manage to let the exhaust not hit the moon, then the kinetic energy of the moon comes from the fact that both the moon and the rocket start to move (the rocket is hovering at constant distance from the moon), so the kinetic energy of the exhaust will be less in the frame where the moon was initially at rest.
 
willem2 said:
If you manage to let the exhaust not hit the moon, then the kinetic energy of the moon comes from the fact that both the moon and the rocket start to move (the rocket is hovering at constant distance from the moon), so the kinetic energy of the exhaust will be less in the frame where the moon was initially at rest.

Right, viewed in the rest frame, both rocket and moon start to move with kinetic energies R and M respectively. There's also the kinetic energy of the exhaust, E.

After all the fuel has been burned, the Δkinetic energy = R+M+E, and Δpotential energy = -C where C is the potential energy of the fuel at the start. So by conservation of energy,

R+M+E = C (1)

But... Since the exhaust doesn't hit the moon, C is converted into only R and E, so

C = R+E (2)

So there's a contradiction, between (1) and (2). Seems like there should be an additional term on the right hand side of (1), equal to M. But where does it come from?
 
bob900 said:
I1 = F1.
This is wrong. The mass of the rocket has changed.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top