Pytels Dynamics 12.18: Rocket dynamics

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the dynamics of a rocket engine, specifically estimating its velocity and acceleration at two distinct time points: t=0 and t=8 seconds, based on provided time-elevation data. The problem is situated within the context of dynamics and involves polynomial fitting and numerical methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore polynomial fitting to model the height as a function of time, questioning the validity of initial conditions such as velocity and acceleration at t=0. Some suggest using cubic or higher-degree polynomial fits, while others express skepticism about the feasibility of estimating acceleration from the given data.

Discussion Status

Several participants have offered various polynomial fitting approaches and discussed the implications of their findings. There is an ongoing exploration of different methods, including constrained least-squares and least-absolute-value fits, with no clear consensus on the best approach or the validity of the initial estimates provided in the problem statement.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem may require advanced reasoning and numerical methods, as indicated in the source material. There is also a recognition of the limitations of the data provided for estimating initial conditions accurately.

Alexanddros81
Messages
177
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


A rocket engine takes 8 seconds after firing to reach its full thrust. Assuming that
the rocket was fired at t=0, use the following time-elevation data to estimate the
velocity and acceleration (a) at t=0; and (b) at t=8s

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I don't know which equation to use
Solution given is for a) v=-2.5m/s, a=0m/s2 (b) v=160m/s, a=33m/s2
 

Attachments

  • 12_18 Pytel.jpg
    12_18 Pytel.jpg
    25.3 KB · Views: 468
Physics news on Phys.org
This seems a rather strange question, and the answers even stranger.
It is nigh impossible to estimate the acceleration at t=0 from these data, but I would have thought it should be > 0. And I do not see how the velocity could be negative then. So I will violate the usual HW forum rules and lay out my solution.

I approached it by supposing the height is a polynomial function of time and looked for the highest degree. Seems to be about 3. So then I used an online tool to find the best cubic fit to the data. That doesn't quite work because it gives a nonzero height at t=0. I fixed that by dividing the heights by the times (leaving out the t=0 point) and finding the best quadratic fit, then multiplying back by time. This gives
y = 7.08E-001t3 + 2.177 t2 -2.303t.
That's a pretty good fit to the data, but it still gives a negative velocity at t=0. You could fix that by extending my procedure for solving the nonzero height, giving you a polynomial with only t2 and t3 terms.

Edit: I believe it makes sense to assume height and velocity are 0 at time 0. So divide by t2 and then look for a polynomial fit. I had to go up one more degree to get a good fit:
y = -4.09602831·10-2 t4 + 1.278815296 t3 - 9.82402941·10-2 t2
 
Last edited:
You could use the first three and last three data pairs to answer the question. But then I didn't get either given answer, missing the t=0 one big-time. But then, they did say "estimate" :smile:

You could also assume thrust F(t) = kt or F(z) = kz, fitting the data to get k (where z = elevation). But I wouldn't bother.
 
I finally found in Pytel book what I was looking for. At the beginning of the book at preface it states:
"An asterisk is also used to mark problems that require advanced reasoning. Topics and problems
associated with numerical methods are preceded by an icon representing a computer disk"
Having an image of a computer disk in front of a problem number means it is solved using numerical method.
Up to this problem sample problem 12.4 was used numerically using numerical differentiation with finite
differences which is summarized in Appendix E.

I don't know if this helps...
 
haruspex said:
This seems a rather strange question, and the answers even stranger.
It is nigh impossible to estimate the acceleration at t=0 from these data, but I would have thought it should be > 0. And I do not see how the velocity could be negative then. So I will violate the usual HW forum rules and lay out my solution.

I approached it by supposing the height is a polynomial function of time and looked for the highest degree. Seems to be about 3. So then I used an online tool to find the best cubic fit to the data. That doesn't quite work because it gives a nonzero height at t=0. I fixed that by dividing the heights by the times (leaving out the t=0 point) and finding the best quadratic fit, then multiplying back by time. This gives
y = 7.08E-001t3 + 2.177 t2 -2.303t.
That's a pretty good fit to the data, but it still gives a negative velocity at t=0. You could fix that by extending my procedure for solving the nonzero height, giving you a polynomial with only t2 and t3 terms.

Edit: I believe it makes sense to assume height and velocity are 0 at time 0. So divide by t2 and then look for a polynomial fit. I had to go up one more degree to get a good fit:
y = -4.09602831·10-2 t4 + 1.278815296 t3 - 9.82402941·10-2 t2

One can also try a constrained least-squares (L2) fit and/or least-absolute-value (L1) cubic fit to the data. In both cases we seek a fit of the form ##y = at + bt^2 + ct^3## under the constraint ##a \geq 0##. The L2 fit minimizes ##\sum_{i=1}^9 (y_i - at_i - b t_i^2 - c t_i^3)^2## (using a nonlinear optimization package to handle the constraint on ##a##), while the L1 fit minimizes ##\sum_{i=1}^9 |y_i - at_i - b t_i^2 - c t_i^3|## (by converting it to a linear programming problem and solving using a computer package). The results are:
$$\begin{array}{rl}
\text{L1 fit:} & y = 1.58 t^2 + 0.74 t^3 \\
\text{L2 fit:} & y = 1.4940 t^2 + 0.75573 t^3
\end{array}
$$.
The initial velocities are both zero (obtained as output, rather than input), and the initial accelerations are 0.74 (m/s) and 0.75573 (m/s) are reasonably consistent.

I would much more trust such a "fitting" method than a "finite-difference" method in this case, because the question asks for a second-derivative estimate at an end-point and I do not believe finite-difference methods can be reliable in such cases.

However, as you have said already, there is no truly convincing way of estimating the figures the question seeks.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K