Is the usual Escape Velocity eqn an approximation?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the escape velocity equation, v² = 2GM/r, which is typically presented in textbooks. It is argued that this equation is only an approximation, particularly when the mass of the projectile (m) is much smaller than the mass of the body (M). The correct formulation, derived from energy considerations, suggests that the escape velocity should account for both masses, leading to v² = (2GM²)/(M+m)r. This reflects that in a two-body problem, M and m should only appear in the combined form of M+m. The approximation is minor, as the difference in velocity calculations is negligible when the projectile is significantly less massive than the body.
David Baker
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Text books ordinarily give the escape velocity of a mass-M body (in the center of mass frame of the system of the body and the escaping projectile, whose mass I'll label m) as

(*) v2 = 2GM/r

where r is the distance between the body and the escaping projectile.

it doesn’t seem to me that (*) can be right except as an approximation when M>>m. For let w be the escape velocity of the mass-M body in the center-of-mass coordinate system. w is
-(m/M)v,
so this would give
w2 = 2Gm2/Mr, which isn’t of the same form as (*). Am I making a mistake here?

When I try to derive the escape velocity equation, what I get is put most naturally just using the variable r. Letting z be the rate of change of r, I get

(a) z2 = 2G(M+m)/r.

Put in terms of the mixed variables, that’s

(b) v2 = (2GM2)/(M+m)r.

It is (b) (and hence (a)) rather than (*) that the energy argument seems to yield. The kinetic energy at escape velocity is half of mv2 + Mw2, i.e. half of mv2 + M(mv/M)2, i.e. half of v2 times (M+m)m/M. This must be the negative of the potential energy, i.e. GMm/r. This yields (b), hence its equivalent (a).

Another reason for suspecting that it’s (a)/(b) rather than (*) that’s correct is that in the r formulation M and m should appear only in the combination M+m. For the 2-body problem is equivalent to a 1-body problem with reduced mass Mm/(M+m):

[Mm/(M+m)]dz/dt = -GMm/r2,

i.e. dz/dt = -G(M+m)/r2.

So in the variable r, there’s no separate role of M and m besides in M+m.

Is this right? I've tried checking some orbital mechanics books, and none of them mention that the escape velocity equation is an approximation. But I really don't think I'm making a mistake here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
David Baker said:
(b) v2 = (2GM2)/(M+m)r.

That looks right for the velocity of one mass in the original rest frame of the two bodies.

The usual escape velocity equation is a very minor approximation based on the assumption that the larger body does not move. How much does the Earth move if a space probe is launched?
 
PeroK said:
The usual escape velocity equation is a very minor approximation based on the assumption that the larger body does not move.

Minor indeed! The ratio of the two velocities differs from 1 by only 1 part in 1016 when considering the escape velocity of a rocket 1000 times more massive than the Saturn V.
 
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?
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Back
Top