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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the efficiency of ejecting burnt fuel as reaction mass in rocket propulsion. It establishes that maximizing the mass ejected is crucial for achieving optimal momentum change while minimizing energy expenditure. The consensus is that rockets should eject burnt fuel rather than unburnt fuel to avoid carrying dead weight and wasting energy. Additionally, utilizing fuels with a high energy-to-mass ratio, such as liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, enhances overall efficiency.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's laws of motion
  • Basic principles of kinetic energy and momentum conservation
  • Familiarity with rocket propulsion concepts
  • Knowledge of fuel types and their energy densities
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of rocket propulsion and thrust generation
  • Explore the energy-to-mass ratios of various rocket fuels
  • Study the effects of mass ejection on rocket efficiency
  • Learn about the design considerations for maximizing thrust in rockets
USEFUL FOR

Aerospace engineers, rocket scientists, students of physics, and anyone interested in optimizing rocket propulsion systems.

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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: billy_joule

Similar threads

  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K