Minimum escape velocity of a projectile required to rise a certain height

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves determining the minimum launch speed required for a projectile to reach a height of 2R above the surface of a planet with mass M and radius R, disregarding atmospheric effects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the relationship between potential and kinetic energy, with some attempting to derive the necessary speed using energy conservation principles. There is debate over the correct interpretation of the height and the corresponding energy changes.

Discussion Status

Multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored, with some participants suggesting different methods to arrive at the answer. There is no explicit consensus, but guidance on using energy equations has been provided.

Contextual Notes

Participants note discrepancies between their calculations and the provided answer choices, leading to discussions about potential errors in reasoning or assumptions made in the problem setup.

JFonseka
Messages
117
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A projectile is launched from the surface of a planet (mass = M, radius = R). What minimum launch speed is required if the projectile is to rise to a height of 2R above the surface of the planet? Disregard any dissipative effects of the atmosphere.


Homework Equations



v = [tex]\sqrt{2GM/R}[/tex]



The Attempt at a Solution



So we know that for a projectile to rise to a height of R above the planet, the equation above will suffice, however the projectile in this question has to rise to a height of 2R, that is R + 2R, so 3R. I thought you simply replace R by 3R, to get v = [tex]\sqrt{2GM/3R}[/tex]

But that's not the case, the multiple choices does not have that as one of the answers. The answers listed were...

a) [tex]\sqrt{\frac{4GM}{3R}}[/tex]
b) [tex]\sqrt{\frac{8GM}{5R}}[/tex]
c) [tex]\sqrt{\frac{3GM}{2R}}[/tex]
d) [tex]\sqrt{\frac{5GM}{3R}}[/tex]
e) [tex]\sqrt{\frac{GM}{3R}}[/tex]


I think the most sensible looks to be GM/3R but I'm probably wrong, how should I go about doing this problem?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Potential energy is = GMm/R
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 m v^2
Where R is distance form centre of planet with mass M and m is the mass of the object.
You are going from R=r to R=3r so change in potential energy is
PE = GMm/r - GMm/3r = 2GMm/3r

Set this equal to KE, cancel m and solve for v
 
e would be the energy to maintain an orbit at 3R.

Ep = -GMm/r

[tex]\Delta[/tex]Ep = Epf - Epi
Epf = -GMm/3r
Epi = -GMm/r

-GMm/3r - -GMm/r = [tex]\Delta[/tex]Ep
-GMm/3r + GMm/r = [tex]\Delta[/tex]Ep
-GMm/3r + 3GMm/3r = [tex]\Delta[/tex]Ep
2GMm/3r = [tex]\Delta[/tex]Ep

2GMm/3r = mv2
- Is the condition for escaping Earth's gravity.

Edit:
2GMm/3r = (1/2)mv2
4GM/3r = v2
[tex]\sqrt{\frac{4GM}{3r}}[/tex]

I forgot the 1/2, lol.

Just for the record, second poster made two big mistakes. You don't subtract initial from final to get delta. AND, the formula contains a negative sign.
 
Last edited:
BlackWyvern said:
e would be the energy to maintain an orbit at 3R.

Ep = -GMm/r

[tex]\Delta[/tex]Ep = Epf - Epi
Epf = -GMm/3r
Epi = -GMm/r

-GMm/3r - -GMm/r = [tex]\Delta[/tex]Ep
-GMm/3r + GMm/r = [tex]\Delta[/tex]Ep
-GMm/3r + 3GMm/3r = [tex]\Delta[/tex]Ep
2GMm/3r = [tex]\Delta[/tex]Ep

2GMm/3r = mv2
- Is the condition for escaping Earth's gravity.

If we solve that, we see that the simple solution seems to be correct.
So someone is wrong. <_<
I see no flaw in my logic, I don't see their logic. So I feel that the answers you are given are incorrect.

Nope, they are quiz answers, and it would have been pointed out by now by some other student or the lecturer if the answers were wrong, the correct answers was the 4GM/3R

When in fact we use the 2nd poster's method it turns out to be right.
 
JFonseka said:
When in fact we use the 2nd poster's method it turns out to be right.
I did check the answer but it would have taken all the fun out of it to tell you!
 
mgb_phys said:
I did check the answer but it would have taken all the fun out of it to tell you!

Well it wasn't that hard to figure it out after that, divide by half, divide by m and take the square root, lol
 

Similar threads

Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K