Is it more efficient to eject burnt fuel as reaction mass in rockets?

AI Thread Summary
Ejecting burnt fuel as reaction mass in rockets is more efficient than ejecting unburnt fuel, as the latter results in wasted energy and dead weight. The discussion highlights that maximizing the mass ejected is critical for energy efficiency, but practical rocket design focuses on minimizing mass loss while achieving maximum thrust. The example illustrates that throwing a larger object slower can be more energy-efficient than throwing a smaller object faster for the same momentum change. Additionally, using fuels with a high energy-to-mass ratio, like liquid hydrogen and oxygen, enhances overall efficiency. Ultimately, the key to rocket efficiency lies in optimizing fuel use and managing ejected mass effectively.
udtsith
Messages
53
Reaction score
1
Is it more energy efficient to throw a large object slower than a slower object faster? For example, suppose a 100kg person out in space threw a 10 kg object away from themselves at 1 m/s. that means that the 100 kg person would move in the opposite direction at .1 m/s. And this should take (.5*10kg*1^2) equals 5 Joules to throw the 10 kg object and send the astronaut traveling at .1m/s. Now if that astronaut threw a 1kg object away from themselves at 10m/s then this would also send the astronaut traveling away at .1m/s but... the energy to throw this smaller object faster would be (.5*1kg*10^2) equal to 50 Joules. So it would seem that it would take 10 times the energy for the astronaut to travel at the same speed? Is this correct? I understand that kinetic energy isn't conserved but momentum is conserved. I am just interested in terms of e.g. fuel efficiency.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct that from an energy efficiency perspective the way to maximize the change in momentum of the payload/rocket for a given amount of energy, one has to maximize the amount of mass that is ejected. But that is not practical for a rocket. With rockets, the critical issue is reducing the mass that is ejected rather than maximizing energy efficiency. Rockets are designed to give maximum thrust with a minimum of mass loss.

AM
 
  • Like
Likes Dale
Andrew Mason said:
You are correct that from an energy efficiency perspective the way to maximize the change in momentum of the payload/rocket for a given amount of energy, one has to maximize the amount of mass that is ejected. But that is not practical for a rocket. With rockets, the critical issue is reducing the mass that is ejected rather than maximizing energy efficiency. Rockets are designed to give maximum thrust with a minimum of mass loss.
If you burn fuel but do not eject that fuel as reaction mass, you end up carrying dead weight. That hurts efficiency. If you eject unburnt fuel as reaction mass, you end up wasting energy. That hurts efficiency. The obvious choice is to eject burnt fuel as your reaction mass. Which is what most rockets do.

It also pays dividends to use a fuel with a high energy/mass ratio, of course. [Better to burn liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen rather than shooting lead pellets powered by stretched rubber bands].
 
  • Like
Likes billy_joule
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