D.E. Littlewood's comments about escape velocity

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

D.E. Littlewood's assertion in "The Skeleton Key of Mathematics" that a one-ton projectile requires a velocity of 44 miles per second to reach a height of 1000 miles is mathematically challenged. Using the conservation of energy formula, the escape velocity is calculated to be approximately 7 miles per second, indicating that Littlewood's figure is significantly overestimated. The mass of the projectile does not influence the height calculation, and air resistance must be considered for practical launches. The discussion highlights the impracticality of such a launch due to atmospheric disturbances and energy loss.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of conservation of energy principles
  • Familiarity with gravitational constants and formulas
  • Basic knowledge of projectile motion
  • Awareness of atmospheric effects on high-velocity objects
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of escape velocity in astrophysics
  • Learn about the effects of air resistance on projectiles
  • Explore the physics of atmospheric re-entry for spacecraft
  • Investigate the historical context and outcomes of space missions like Challenger
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, aerospace engineers, and anyone interested in the dynamics of projectile motion and space travel.

Geofleur
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
426
Reaction score
177
I have been reading D.E. Littlewood's book "The Skeleton Key of Mathematics", and near the beginning he says that if a projectile weighing one (long) ton were given a velocity of 44 miles a second, this would be "sufficient to raise it to a height of 1000 miles above the Earth's surface."

Naturally, I wanted to reproduce this number for myself, so I started with conservation of energy:

## \frac{1}{2}M_P V^2 - \frac{GM_P M_E}{R_E} = -\frac{GM_P M_E}{R_E+h} ##,

where ## M_E ## is the mass of the Earth, ## M_P ## that of the projectile, ## h ## is the height of the projectile above the surface, ## G ## is the gravitation constant, and ## V ## is the projectile's speed. Solving for the height gives

## h = \frac{R_E}{\frac{2GM_E}{V^2 R_E}-1} ##.

First, note that the mass of the projectile does not appear in this formula. It appears, then, irrelevant that the projectile weighs a ton. Second, as the denominator approaches zero, ## h \rightarrow \infty ##; setting the denominator to zero and solving for ## V = V_{esc} ## yields

## V_{esc} = \sqrt{2G M_E / R} \approx 7 \frac{mi}{s} ##.

Thus, 44 mi/s seems like way more than you would need to lift the projectile 1000 miles above the surface. I didn't account for energy lost to air resistance in these calculations, but launching an object through the atmosphere into space like that seems unfeasible - wouldn't it just burn up? Am I missing something or is Littlewood's calculation off?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well done - if you google "escape velocity in miles per second" what do you get?
 
Well, Google didn't give me what I expected, but Wolfram Alpha did - about 7 mi/s. For some reason, I always have a hard time believing that books could be wrong about things like this. I always think I must be missing something. Thanks!
 
Geofleur said:
<snip> I didn't account for energy lost to air resistance in these calculations, but launching an object through the atmosphere into space like that seems unfeasible - wouldn't it just burn up?

Uh... yeah. A 1-ton projectile launched at Mach 208 is going to create significant atmospheric disturbances. Spacecraft coast to Earth at a relatively plodding Mach 25, and how'd that work out for Challenger? Even slender little bullets lose most of their kinetic energy after a few hundred yards:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient#/media/File:Effect_of_BC_on_Energy_Retained.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Geofleur

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
24K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K