Is the usual Escape Velocity eqn an approximation?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The escape velocity equation, traditionally expressed as v² = 2GM/r, is an approximation that holds true primarily when the mass of the escaping projectile (m) is negligible compared to the mass of the celestial body (M). A more accurate formulation is v² = (2GM²)/(M+m)r, which accounts for the combined mass of both bodies. This distinction is crucial in scenarios where the escaping mass is significant, as it affects the calculated escape velocity. The difference in velocities between the two formulations is minimal, approximately 1 part in 1016 when comparing a rocket 1000 times more massive than the Saturn V.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational physics and escape velocity concepts
  • Familiarity with the equations of motion in celestial mechanics
  • Knowledge of mass-energy equivalence and kinetic energy calculations
  • Basic proficiency in orbital mechanics and two-body problem analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of escape velocity in the context of two-body problems
  • Explore the concept of reduced mass in gravitational systems
  • Investigate the implications of mass ratios on escape velocity calculations
  • Learn about the effects of body motion on gravitational interactions in orbital mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, aerospace engineers, and students of gravitational physics who are interested in the nuances of escape velocity calculations and their implications in space exploration.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
8K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
16K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K