Power Required to Accelerate Space Craft to Near Light Speed

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around estimating the power required to accelerate a spacecraft from relativistic speeds, specifically from 0.9c to 0.9999c. Participants explore the implications of special relativity on energy and time measurements from different frames of reference, including the Earth and the spacecraft itself.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that to estimate power, one must consider whether to use classical or relativistic energy and which time frame (Earth or spaceship) to apply, questioning if the powers calculated in both frames would be equal.
  • Another participant asserts that at relativistic speeds, relativistic energy should be used, and notes that the efficiency of rockets is not 100%, recommending the relativistic rocket equation for further insights.
  • A participant provides equations for time and energy changes as measured in the Earth frame, detailing how to calculate average power based on these changes.
  • It is noted that when switching to the perspective of an observer moving at 0.9c, the final velocity of the rocket appears lower, leading to different calculations for energy and power in that frame.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about how accelerating observers onboard the rocket would perceive their velocity and energy state during acceleration.
  • Another participant mentions that in the ship's frame, the jet-power remains constant for a constant thrust scenario, indicating that exhaust velocity and mass ejected do not change with speed in that reference frame.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to calculate power, as there are multiple competing views regarding the appropriate energy and time frames to use. The discussion remains unresolved with differing opinions on how to interpret the situation from various frames of reference.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of calculations due to relativistic effects, including time dilation and changes in energy as perceived from different frames. There are unresolved aspects regarding the exact power calculations from the perspective of the spacecraft's observers.

edgepflow
Messages
688
Reaction score
1
I hope I can explain my question clearly enough for someone to answer.

Suppose we wish to estimate the power required to accelerate a spacecraft from say 0.9c to 0.9999c in a certain time. By basic definition: Power = Change in Energy / Change in Time.

Due to special relativity, there is a difference in these quantities as measured by the stationary Earth and the space craft. The classical change in energy would be m*v^2 /2, while the relativistic energy would include the term for increase in relativistic energy. The time dilation effect may also be directly calculated.

So to figure the power, which energy (classical or relativistic) and which time (earth or spaceship) should be used as seen on (a) earth, or (b) the spaceship. Are these powers equal?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If your spaceship is moving at relativistic speeds, you need to use the relativistic energy. As far as power levels go, it depends on what you're interested in. You can calculate either, depending on your interest, and should note which one you are calculating.

Note that rockets are not 100% efficient though. You might be interested in the relativistic rocket equation, which would give you answers to what would be required if the spaceship were a rocket.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The time as measured in the Earth frame (t) for a rocket accelerating with constant acceleration as measured in the rocket frame (a) to reach a given velocity (v) is:

[tex]t = \frac{v}{a\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}}[/tex]

The time interval measured in the Earth frame to go from 0.9c to 0.9999c is:

[tex]\Delta t = t_2 - t_1 = \frac{0.9999c}{a\sqrt{1-(0.9999)^2}} - \frac{0.9c}{a\sqrt{1-(0.9)^2}}[/tex]

The energy of the rocket at a given instant in the Earth frame (ignoring loss of mass due to using fuel) is:

[tex]E = m c^2 \sqrt{1+(at/c)^2}[/tex]

The change in energy in the Earth frame is:

[tex]\Delta E = E_2 - E_1 = m c^2 \sqrt{1+(at_2/c)^2} - m c^2 \sqrt{1+(at_1/c)^2}[/tex]

where m is the invariant mass.

The average power going from 0.9c to 0.9999c in the Earth frame is then:

[tex]W = \Delta E / \Delta t[/tex]


Now if we switch to the point of view of an inertial observer moving at 0.9c relative to the Earth frame, the initial velocity of the rocket is zero and the final velocity using the relativistic velocity addition formula is:

[tex]v_2 = \frac {0.9999c-0.9c}{(1-0.9999*0.9)} = 0.9981c[/tex]

The equations given earlier can be reused to calculate the time interval and the power in the new frame using the new velocity values. It turns out that the change in energy and power in the new frame is less than in the Earth frame, but that makes sense because the final velocity of the rocket is lower according to the observer moving at 0.9c relative to the Earth.

The proper time that elapses according to the rocket observers as they accelerate from 0.9c to 0.9999c is given by:

[tex]\Delta T = (c/a)*atanh(0.9981)[/tex]

As for what the power is from the point of view of accelerating observers onboard the rockets, I am not sure. What would they consider their velocity and energy state to be at any given time?
 
kev said:
As for what the power is from the point of view of accelerating observers onboard the rockets, I am not sure. What would they consider their velocity and energy state to be at any given time?

Nice exposition. As for the power seen in the ship frame, it's just the jet-power which doesn't change for a constant thrust scenario. Exhaust velocity and mass ejected would remain the same in that case at all speeds, in the ship's reference frame.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
13K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
Replies
60
Views
5K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • · Replies 130 ·
5
Replies
130
Views
17K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K