Failed rocket problem (momentum conservation, Kleppner 4-4)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the complexities of a rocket problem related to momentum conservation. Participants highlight that the initial movement of the rocket is not free fall, complicating the trajectory analysis. It is noted that if the rocket maintains powered flight until the top of its trajectory, the horizontal velocity before an explosion remains unknown, leading to unpredictable landing distances. The consensus is that assuming the rocket burns out quickly and follows a parabolic free fall is necessary for a consistent solution. This approach allows for a clearer understanding of the rocket's landing position.
Michael Korobov
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
An instrument-carrying rocket accidentally explodes at the top of its trajectory. The horizontal distance between the launch point and the point of explosion is L. The rocket breaks into two pieces that fly apart horizontally. The larger piece has three times the mass of the smaller piece. To the surprise of the scientist in charge, the smaller piece returns to Earth at the launching station. How far away does the larger piece land? Neglect air resistance and effects due to the Earth’s curvature.
Relevant Equations
Momentum conserved
Kinematics equations
Hi,
Can anyone hint me if there is issue in the problem statement?
Consistent answer can be obtained if one presumes that the trajectory of center mass is parabolic.
Assuming this, the CM will land at distance L right to the axis of symmetry of parabola.
But the problem tells about a rocket, therefore first part of rocket movement is not free fall and thus the horizontal distance of falling after the top of trajectory is not necessarily L.
Is it deduction correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Michael Korobov said:
But the problem tells about a rocket, therefore first part of rocket movement is not free fall and thus the horizontal distance of falling after the top of trajectory is not necessarily L.
Is it deduction correct?
Yes, it is not necessarily L. That's why the scientist in charge was surprised when it landed there.
 
  • Haha
Likes Michael Korobov
Michael Korobov said:
But the problem tells about a rocket, therefore first part of rocket movement is not free fall and thus the horizontal distance of falling after the top of trajectory is not necessarily L.
Is it deduction correct?
If we assume powered flight all the way to the top of the trajectory then we have, in principle, no way to know the horizontal velocity of the rocket just prior to the explosion.

It is possible, for instance, that the rocket reverses course, that the "explosion" is a mere fizzle and that both rocket pieces land together at the launch site.

Accordingly, one assumes, as you did in your solution, that the rocket burns out almost immediately after launch and then carries on in a parabolic free fall trajectory. Otherwise, there is no way to a solution.
 
jbriggs444 said:
If we assume powered flight all the way to the top of the trajectory then we have, in principle, no way to know the horizontal velocity of the rocket just prior to the explosion.

It is possible, for instance, that the rocket reverses course, that the "explosion" is a mere fizzle and that both rocket pieces land together at the launch site.

Accordingly, one assumes, as you did in your solution, that the rocket burns out almost immediately after launch and then carries on in a parabolic free fall trajectory. Otherwise, there is no way to a solution.
Indeed, this was the only way to get consistent solution.
Thanks!
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top