Fuel conservation near a Schwarzschild black hole

In summary: For ##r<2.5M## the only real result is ##v=0##. For ##v>=2.5M## the square root solutions are real and local minimums and the ##v=0## solution is now a local maximum.At radii greater than 3M the optimal tangential velocity is greater than c according to the above equation, so the equation is not valid in that region. The optimal in that region is of course the geodesic orbital velocity (where no fuel is required) which is given by:##v = \sqrt{\frac{M}{r - 2M} }##It is easy to see that the above equation goes to ##
  • #1
yuiop
3,962
20
In another thread we determined that the proper total force acting on an orbiting object in the Schwarzschild metric, is given by:

##f_{total} = \frac{Mm}{r^2\sqrt{1-2M/r}} - \frac{mv^2}{r}\left(\frac{1-3M/r}{(1 - v^2)\sqrt{1-M/r}}\right)##

One interesting aspect of the equation is that when ##r=3M## the force becomes independent of the instantaneous local orbital tangential velocity measured by a stationary observer at r. This means the thrust required by a rocket to maintain an orbital radius of ##r=3M## is also independent of the tangential velocity. It also means the consumption of fuel, in litres per hour for example, is independent of the tangential velocity. However, this is the fuel consumption as measured by an observer on the rocket.

Now consider the following scenario. We have two identical rockets and one is hovering at ##r=3M## and the other is orbiting with a tangential velocity of v. If when they initially pass each other they have equal fuel loads, then on the next pass, the orbiting rocket will have more fuel left in its tank than the hovering rocket. This is basically due to time dilation. In this sense the hovering rocket is using more fuel than the orbiting rocket. If the number of litres per hour of fuel per unit thrust is denoted by K, then the fuel consumption (in Schwarzschild coordinate time) can be quantified by multiplying the thrust by the time dilation factor ##\sqrt{(1-v^2)(1-2M/r)}## and K to obtain:

## \frac{mK(M-v^2(r-2M))}{r^2\sqrt{1-v^2}}##

For a hovering observer, we can asymptotically approach the event horizon as close as we like and the fuel consumption, in coordinate time, will asymptotically approach ##K\frac{Mm}{r^2}##, in line with the Newtonian expectation and does not increase without bound as you might expect it to. Interestingly the quantity ##\frac{Mm}{r^2}## is the surface gravity of the black hole that is often referred to in connection with Hawking radiation.

The last term of the equation at the top of this post is the centrifugal acceleration and reverses direction at ##r=3M## and starts acting inwards. However, there is still some benefit in having orbital velocity, as far as conserving fuel is concerned, if the orbit is larger than 2.5M. This critical radius can be calculated by taking the derivative wrt v of the equation above to obtain the gradient and then solve for v when the derivative is zero to find the turning points. There are 3 solutions:

##v=0## and

##v = \pm \sqrt{\frac{2r - 5M}{r-2M}}##

This is the optimal tangential velocity to maximise coordinate time at a given radius with a given fuel load. For ##r<2.5M## the only real result is ##v=0##. For ##v>=2.5M## the square root solutions are real and local minimums and the ##v=0## solution is now a local maximum.

At radii greater than 3M the optimal tangential velocity is greater than c according to the above equation, so the equation is not valid in that region. The optimal in that region is of course the geodesic orbital velocity (where no fuel is required) which is given by:

##v = \sqrt{\frac{M}{r - 2M} }##

It is easy to see that the above equation goes to ##v=1## when ##r=3M## and below that radius the result is imaginary and invalid, so we revert to the equation detailed above.

All the above assumes we are trying to maximise coordinate time, but if the objective is to maximise proper time at a given radius for a given fuel load, then for any radius ##r<=3M## the optimal fuel efficiency is to hover and not orbit. To use a black hole as time machine (maximise time dilation) the best path would seem to be just outside the photon orbit radius at the maximum achievable orbital velocity in a geodesic orbit.

Comments/criticisms/corrections welcome ;)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
hi yuiop! :smile:
yuiop said:
In another thread we determined that the proper total force acting on an orbiting object in the Schwarzschild metric, is given by:

##f_{total} = \frac{Mm}{r^2\sqrt{1-2M/r}} - \frac{mv^2}{r}\left(\frac{1-3M/r}{(1 - v^2)\sqrt{1-M/r}}\right)##

One interesting aspect of the equation is that when ##r=3M## the force becomes independent of the instantaneous local orbital tangential velocity measured by a stationary observer at r. This means the thrust required by a rocket to maintain an orbital radius of ##r=3M## is also independent of the tangential velocity. It also means the consumption of fuel, in litres per hour for example, is independent of the tangential velocity. However, this is the fuel consumption as measured by an observer on the rocket.

Now consider the following scenario. We have two identical rockets and one is hovering at ##r=3M## …

r = 3M is the photon sphere, at which photons (light) can orbit forever (at the speed of light, of course)

i think anything with mass would also have to orbit at the speed of light … which it can't :wink:
 
  • #3
I assumed OP meant circular, powered, trajectory rather than orbit (else the whole post was not sensible, as noted). In that case, there is nothing preventing circular, powered trajectory at 3M at any speed between (0,c).
 
  • #4
PAllen said:
I assumed OP meant circular, powered, trajectory rather than orbit (else the whole post was not sensible, as noted). In that case, there is nothing preventing circular, powered trajectory at 3M at any speed between (0,c).
Yes, that is what I meant. The required proper thrust is quantified by the first equation and is the same for any orbital velocity (0,c) at r=3M. The fact that any mass cannot orbit at c is the reason fuel is required to keep any massive object in a circular orbit at r=3m.
 
  • #5
yuiop said:
Yes, that is what I meant. The required proper thrust is quantified by the first equation and is the same for any orbital velocity (0,c) at r=3M. The fact that any mass cannot orbit at c is the reason fuel is required to keep any massive object in a circular orbit at r=3m.

Then please stop calling it orbit. It confuses people. Orbit means a free fall trajectory. I guessed your meaning, but all confusion would be avoided by saying powered circular trajectory.
 
  • #6
One interesting aspect of the equation is that when r=3M the force becomes independent of the instantaneous local orbital tangential velocity measured by a stationary observer at r. This means the thrust required by a rocket to maintain an orbital radius of r=3M is also independent of the tangential velocity. It also means the consumption of fuel, in litres per hour for example, is independent of the tangential velocity. However, this is the fuel consumption as measured by an observer on the rocket.

I agree with this. If a friendly passing ship gives your rocket a tangential bump and also a torque so that it rotates with angular velocity ω=1/T, (T being the time taken for a complete circle) then the ship will always be pointing its thrust away from the centre ( ie radially) and should continue in a circular path until the fuel runs out.

Calculating which rocket runs out of fuel first looks non-trivial so I'll pass on that for now.
 

1. How does gravity affect fuel conservation near a Schwarzschild black hole?

Gravity near a Schwarzschild black hole is extremely strong, which means that objects in its vicinity experience significant gravitational pull. This can affect fuel conservation in several ways. For example, a spacecraft trying to orbit the black hole will need to expend more fuel to counteract the strong gravitational pull. Additionally, the intense gravity can also cause fuel to be pulled towards the black hole, making it difficult to efficiently use fuel for propulsion.

2. Can fuel be conserved near a Schwarzschild black hole?

Yes, fuel conservation is still possible near a Schwarzschild black hole. While the strong gravitational pull can make it challenging, there are several strategies that can be used to conserve fuel. These include carefully planning trajectories and using gravitational slingshot maneuvers to minimize fuel usage.

3. How does time dilation near a Schwarzschild black hole affect fuel conservation?

Near a Schwarzschild black hole, time is significantly dilated due to the intense gravity. This means that time passes slower for objects in the vicinity of the black hole compared to those further away. This can impact fuel conservation as spacecraft may need to expend more fuel to maintain a stable orbit due to the slower passage of time.

4. What are some potential challenges for fuel conservation near a Schwarzschild black hole?

Aside from the strong gravitational pull and time dilation, there are other challenges for fuel conservation near a Schwarzschild black hole. These include the extreme conditions such as high levels of radiation and intense tidal forces, which can affect the spacecraft's ability to function properly and use fuel efficiently.

5. How can we use black holes to conserve fuel?

While black holes present challenges for fuel conservation, they can also be used to our advantage. Gravitational slingshot maneuvers, where a spacecraft uses the black hole's gravitational pull to gain speed and conserve fuel, have been successfully utilized by space missions. Additionally, black holes can also act as natural fuel reserves, as they contain large amounts of matter that can potentially be used as fuel for future space travel.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
9
Views
997
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
858
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Views
1K
Back
Top