Question about Grav. Potential Energy and Escape Velocity

AI Thread Summary
To determine the maximum height a rocket reaches when launched vertically from Earth's surface with an initial speed less than escape velocity, gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy must be equated. The initial kinetic energy and potential energy at the Earth's surface should be set equal to the potential energy at the maximum height, where kinetic energy is zero. The conservation of energy equation can be expressed as (1/2)mv0^2 - [G(m)(Mearth)]/r1 = -[G(m)(Mearth)]/r2, where r1 is the Earth's radius and r2 is the maximum height. The final height can then be calculated as r2 - r1. This approach effectively utilizes energy conservation principles to solve the problem.
Divergent13
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
I am finding this question to be a bit challenging---

Determine a formula for the maximum height h that a rocket will reach if launched vertically from the Earth's surface with speed Vo. (< Vesc)

(Ignore air resistance and the Earth's rotation)

I know I should plug in numbers only until the end, but by using Gravitational potential energy, is it appropriate to begin with (1/2)m*v1^2 - [G(m)(Mearth)]/r = (1/2)m*v^2 - [G(m)(Mearth)]/r ?

The chapter is quite short --- Thanks for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not a physicist or even a scientist, but wouldn't it be merely a matter of 1G deceleration till no momentum is left, and then calculate the distance achieved in that time?

W.A. McCormick
 
You want to use an energy argument.

The object initially has zero potential energy (if you define the PE at the radius of the Earth as zero) and some amount of kinetic energy. When it's at the maximum height, it has zero kinetic energy and some amount of potential energy. Equate and solve.

cookiemonster
 
Divergent13 said:
I know I should plug in numbers only until the end, but by using Gravitational potential energy, is it appropriate to begin with (1/2)m*v1^2 - [G(m)(Mearth)]/r = (1/2)m*v^2 - [G(m)(Mearth)]/r ?
Yes, that's essentially it. But set it up carefully as a statement of energy conservation. KE1 + PE1 = KE2 + PE2. Of course, maximum height means that KE2 = 0.

\frac{1}{2}mv_0^2 - \frac{GmM_e}{r_1} = - \frac{GmM_e}{r_2}<br />

The height will be r_2 - r_1; r_1 = radius of Earth.
 
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?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top