I Is the classical ideal rocket thrust equation correct?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion critiques an article claiming the classical rocket thrust equation is incorrect due to changing mass, arguing that the author misunderstands Newton's second law. It emphasizes that the force on a rocket must account for both the rocket's mass and the momentum of the expelled fuel, leading to the correct formulation of thrust. The participants assert that the equation remains valid across different inertial frames, and the author's assertion that thrust can become negative contradicts real-world rocket functionality. Overall, the consensus is that the established rocket equation accurately reflects the physics involved. The article's claims are deemed unfounded and contradictory.
ObeseKangaroo
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Is classical ideal rocket thrust equation correct?
Hello!
I have recently found this fascinating article: https://zenodo.org/record/3596173#.YJ1ttV0o99B
The author claims that classical equation for rocket thrust in incorrect because F is not equal to ma for a changing mass.
Neither my professors nor me can see any errors.
Do you think this article is correct?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I realize that if we move into the frame which has speed υ, the same speed as the rocket has in this very moment, F would in fact equal ma. But what about other frames? The force should be invariant when it comes to inertial reference frames.
 
How can a self-contradictory paper be correct? The usual rocket equation is correct, and you have to take into account the full momentum balance of the body of the rocket and (!) the exhausted fuel (per unit time). Look at the moment ##t##.
$$\mathrm{d} p = \mathrm{d} t F = \mathrm{d} (m v) - \mathrm{d} t \dot{m} (v-v_{\text{rel}}),$$
where ##F## is the total force on the rocket (body of the rocket + the fuel still contained in it=total mass ##m=m(t)## at time ##t##). The first term is the change of the rocket's momentum during time increment ##\mathrm{d} t## and the 2nd term is the momentum transported away from the fuel, where ##v_{\text{rel}}## is the exhausted fuel's speed relative to the rocket. So finally you have
$$m \dot{v} + \dot{m} v_{\text{rel}}=F.$$
Close to Earth you can set ##F=-m g##.

The solution of this linear equation is found by first solving for the homogeneous equation,
$$m \dot{v}+\dot{m} v_{\text{rel}}=0.$$
For ##v_{\text{rel}}=\text{const}## the solution can be written, independently of the specific time dependence of ##m##:
$$\dot{v} =-v_{\text{rel}} \ln (m/m_0) \; \Rightarrow \; v=v_0 + \ln(m_0/m),$$
where ##v_0## is the velocity of the rocket at ##t=0## (with total mass of body + fuel ##m_0##).

For the solution of the equation including the gravitational force of the Earth you finally get
$$v(t)=v_0-g t + \ln \left (\frac{m_0}{m} \right).$$
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog, PeroK and Drakkith
On mobile, so forgive my short post.

The paper seems to be dependent entirely on the supposed fact that people aren't taking the changing mass of the rocket into account. Which is absurd.

Equation 2 on page one is: -vrel*dm/dt=ma
Which is just f=ma, obviously.
The claim is that since the mass term on the right is changing over time this isn't Newton's 2nd law on the rocket. Which is ridiculous. The author simply doesn't understand that this equation is true at any instantaneous moment.

Further into the paper the author claims that thrust eventually reaches zero and then goes negative, decelerating the rocket. Yet the author also appears to agree that rockets in real life work correctly, so I have no idea how they think the thrust could become negative and also think rockets actually work.

A conundrum of unexplained contradictions.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Bystander, sysprog and 1 other person
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top