Does the angle at which an object is fired affect its escape velocity?

AI Thread Summary
The escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for an object to leave Earth's gravitational field without further propulsion, calculated using the formula v = √(2GM/R). When fired radially outward, an object will reach "infinity," while if fired downward, it will spiral back to Earth. Firing at an upward angle still allows the object to reach infinity due to energy conservation, as energy is scalar. The trajectory of an object fired at a downward angle can be described as a parabola, and if it does not intersect the Earth, it will also reach infinity. A rigorous proof involves conservation of energy, demonstrating that an object launched at escape velocity will reach infinity regardless of the launch angle.
Bipolarity
Messages
773
Reaction score
2
The escape velocity of an object on the surface of the Earth is the minimum speed required for it to "break free" from the Earth's gravitational field without requiring further propulsion.

Its value is mathematically determined to be v = \sqrt{\frac{2GM}{R}} with M being the mass of the Earth and R being the Earth's radius.

If the object is fired pointing radially away from the Earth, then it will travel in a straight line and certainly reach "infinity".

If the object is fired pointing radially towards the Earth, it will travel in a straight line and simply accelerate towards the Earth.

My question is what happens if the object is fired at some angle (with the escape speed of course). Most sources say that if it is fired with some upward angle, it will still reach out to "infinity" because of energy considerations, and the fact that energy is scalar.

But if the object is fired with some downward angle, it will not reach out to "infinity" and simply spiral towards the Earth.

What if the object is fired perpendicular to the radial line?

And how can we prove these results using a rigorous approach, rather than a merely observation that energy is a scalar? I am more of a mathematician, so would prefer a very rigorous attempt to address this question.

All help is appreciated. Thanks!

BiP
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Bipolarity! :smile:
Bipolarity said:
If the object is fired pointing radially towards the Earth, it will travel in a straight line and simply accelerate towards the Earth.

But if the object is fired with some downward angle, it will not reach out to "infinity" and simply spiral towards the Earth.

No, it will follow a parabola.

If the parabola intersects the earth, of course the object will stop!

If the parabola doesn't intersect the earth, the object will "reach infinity" exactly as if it had been fired outward.
And how can we prove these results using a rigorous approach, rather than a merely observation that energy is a scalar?

That is rigorous. :redface:

Energy shows perfectly rigorously that an object launched at escape velocity will "reach infinity at zero speed", no matter what the angle of launch.
 
tiny-tim said:
Hi Bipolarity! :smile:No, it will follow a parabola.

If the parabola intersects the earth, of course the object will stop!

If the parabola doesn't intersect the earth, the object will "reach infinity" exactly as if it had been fired outward.That is rigorous. :redface:

Energy shows perfectly rigorously that an object launched at escape velocity will "reach infinity at zero speed", no matter what the angle of launch.

Thanks tim, but I don't understand how these claims are rigorous. How can you prove them? Suppose I wanted to prove it without using energy...

BiP
 
As you get further from the earth, you get closer and closer to flying directly away from it regardless of what angle you started from.
 
Energy Proof (simple)

This is basically the proof that's given on Wikipedia, very simple and very easy. I' can't prove the parabola thing that tiny-tim wrote about, so you'll have to figure that one out some other way. However, since energy is scalar, as long as you don't run into the planet (like tiny tim said) the energy is conserved as shown.

We start with conservation of energy.

(KE + PE)_1 = (KE + PE)_2

Initial kinetic energy is some velocity, we'll call it ve for escape velocity. Likewise, its potential energy is whatever it is on the surface, at radius r from the planet center. As we go to infinity, the potential energy goes to zero as r goes to infinity, and we'll pretend the kinetic energy goes to zero at the point where r goes to infinity.

Additional notes: m is mass of escaping object, M mass of planet, G gravitational constant.

(1/2)mv_e^2 + (-GMm/r) = 0 + 0

So, we're then left with:

v_e = \sqrt{2GM/r}

Another additional note: I'm not sure why they defined the potential energy the way they did, but that's how they showed it.
 
Last edited:
the "parabola thing" is easy

a small body near an isolated mass must follow an ellipse (eccentricity < 1) a parabola (eccentricity = 1) or a hyperbola (eccentricity > 1)

as you increase the speed (for a fixed direction at a fixed position), you increase the eccentricity

if it's an ellipse, the body will never "reach infinity"

the smallest value of eccentricity, and therefore the smallest speed, for which the body can "reach infinity" is when the path is a parabola :smile:
 
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