Relativistic speed of a rocket with constant thrust

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the speed curve of a relativistic rocket with constant thrust, addressing the complexities introduced by the rocket's decreasing mass as fuel is consumed. Participants explore the implications of constant thrust versus constant acceleration, and the relationship between energy, momentum, and mass in relativistic contexts.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to calculate the speed curve using relativistic momentum equations but finds unexpected results, questioning their reasoning.
  • Another participant suggests that the original poster may be conflating proper time and coordinate time, requesting clarification of their calculations.
  • Some participants assert that the assumption of 100% efficiency in fuel conversion leads to contradictions, arguing that it is not applicable to a rocket scenario.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of constant thrust versus constant acceleration, with some participants emphasizing that the ship's mass varies over time.
  • Participants debate the meaning of specific impulse and its relevance to the calculations being discussed.
  • One participant expresses a desire to focus solely on calculating the speed curve using constant thrust, regardless of the type of engine proposed.
  • Another participant mentions the potential use of a photon rocket as a form of efficient propulsion.
  • Concerns are raised about energy loss due to exhaust, with participants discussing how this affects the overall energy and momentum of the rocket.
  • There are references to energy-momentum relations and the need to consider the instantaneous rest frame during calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the assumptions regarding the efficiency of the rocket's engine, the implications of constant thrust versus constant acceleration, or the correct approach to calculating the speed curve. Multiple competing views remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of specific impulse, the relationship between energy and momentum, and the effects of mass loss on the rocket's performance. There are unresolved mathematical steps and assumptions that affect the discussion.

Flisp
Messages
79
Reaction score
8
I try to calculate the speed curve of a relativistic rocket driven by a 100% efficient engine with constant thrust, when traveling to a distant star. All equations I can find consider constant acceleration, which of course is not working, since the ships mass decreases when the fuel is used, resulting in a low acceleration at the beginning and high acceleration/deceleration towards the end.
I tried using the relativistic momentum equation E² = p² + m² (using c = 1), and p = w * m,
(where E is energy, p momentum, m mass, and w proper speed) and assuming that the entire mass of the used fuel is transferred into momentum so that the energy of the rocket is constant. However, the momentum curve I get is steep at start and flat at the end (without deceleration). The resulting speed curve is steep at start, flattens and gets steeper again. I don't understand why. Burning constant amounts of fuel, I would expect a linear increase of momentum and an exponential increase of speed since less and less mass is accelerated by the constant force from the engine.
Where am I thinking wrong, here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My first guess would be that you are mixing proper time and coordinate time at some point. Can you post your math, being very careful to identify everything?
 
Google "relativistic rocket". Wikipedia has the maths, and there's more detail at mathpages.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ComplexVar89 and anorlunda
Flisp said:
100% efficient engine with constant thrust [...] and assuming that the entire mass of the used fuel is transferred into momentum so that the energy of the rocket is constant
So although we have constant thrust, we do not have constant acceleration. The ship's mass varies over time so that its relativistic mass (##\gamma \ m##) remains constant.

This definition of 100% efficiency means that it is not a rocket at all. Instead, it is a race car using the internal energy of its fuel reserves to power the thrust it applies on a stationary highway.

Edit to add: There can be no exhaust stream. Any ejected mass or energy would reduce the remaining relativistic mass.
 
Last edited:
Dale said:
My first guess would be that you are mixing proper time and coordinate time at some point. Can you post your math, being very careful to identify everything?

At start the speed is so low that there is virtually no difference between the two speeds. I would like to show my math, is there some equation editor?
 
Ibix said:
Google "relativistic rocket". Wikipedia has the maths, and there's more detail at mathpages.
It's all based on constant acceleration a.
 
Constant proper acceleration!
 
Flisp said:
assuming that the entire mass of the used fuel is transferred into momentum so that the energy of the rocket is constant

That's impossible.
 
  • #10
DrStupid said:
That's impossible.
Impossible for a rocket. Not for a race car. (See post #4)
 
  • #11
jbriggs444 said:
Impossible for a rocket. Not for a race car.

I was referring to "assuming that the entire mass of the used fuel is transferred into momentum so that the energy of the rocket is constant"
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444
  • #12
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pencilvester
  • #13
jbriggs444 said:
So although we have constant thrust, we do not have constant acceleration. The ship's mass varies over time so that its relativistic mass (##\gamma \ m##) remains constant.

This definition of 100% efficiency means that it is not a rocket at all. Instead, it is a race car using the internal energy of its fuel reserves to power the thrust it applies on a stationary highway.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. With 100% efficiency I meant that the specific impulse Isp = 1. For instance some alien anti matter drive. When I get this right I will calculate more realistic Isp :-)

When I calculate momentum, mass should be constant regardless the frame of referrence accoring to Energy–momentum relation on Wikipedia. The mass of the ship, however, decreases when fuel is burnt.

To calculate the new momentum I use ##E^2 = p^2+ m^2##, where E is energy, p is momentum, and m rest mass.
Some fuel is used and all its matter transformed into momentum while the ships total energy remains constant: From one moment to the next burning a certain amount of fuel I have:
##p_{1}^2 + m_{1}^2 =p_{2}^2 + m_{2}^2##
solved for p2 I get
##p_{2} = \sqrt(p_{1}^2 + m_{1}^2 - m_{1}^2)##

Using ##w_{2} = \frac {p_{2}} {m_{2}}## I calculate the new proper speed.
 
  • #14
PeroK said:
You could also search for "hyperbolic motion relativity", to get an analysis of motion with constant proper acceleratio. E.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_motion_(relativity)

You could also search for "Rindler Coordinates".
I don't want constant acceleration, I want constant thrust.
 
  • #15
Flisp said:
With 100% efficiency I meant that the specific impulse Isp = 1
Specific impulse of 1 means that the fuel can support its own mass against the acceleration of Earth's gravity for 1 second. Surely that is not what you mean.
 
  • #16
Flisp said:
I don't want constant acceleration, I want constant thrust.

Have you tried using a photon rocket, as an efficient form of propellant?
 
  • #17
PeroK said:
Have you tried using a photon rocket, as an efficient form of propellant?
It really does not matter what engine real or imagined I use. All I want to know at this point is how to calculate the speed curve using constant thrust.
 
  • #18
jbriggs444 said:
Specific impulse of 1 means that the fuel can support its own mass against the acceleration of Earth's gravity for 1 second. Surely that is not what you mean.
I meant specific impuls = 1 if using speed of light c = 1 light years / year.
 
  • #19
Flisp said:
It really does not matter what engine real or imagined I use. All I want to know at this point is how to calculate the speed curve using constant thrust.

Constant in which reference frame?
 
  • #20
PeroK said:
Constant in which reference frame?
The rockets frame. For an astronaut on the rocket the engine works the same regardless the current speed.
 
  • #21
Flisp said:
Some fuel is used and all its matter transformed into momentum while the ships total energy remains constant

No, it doesn't. The rocket loses energy with the exhaust (which consists of radiation in case of a specific momentum of c).
 
  • #22
Flisp said:
The rockets frame. For an astronaut on the rocket the engine works the same regardless the current speed.

Ejecting photons at a constant rate should give you that. Although, as @Dale mentioned above, perhaps the problem will be relating the ship's proper time to the coordinate time in the initial rest frame.

The notes I have on this just give the speed when the ship reduces to a certain mass. Do you already know how to calculate this?
 
  • #23
Flisp said:
I meant specific impuls = 1 if using speed of light c = 1 light years / year.
The speed of light is 1 light year per year. But what does that have to do with the question at hand?

Are you trying to say that the exhaust velocity is c? If so, that goes counter to the original stipulation that the relativistic mass of the craft never decreases.
 
  • #24
DrStupid said:
No, it doesn't. The rocket loses energy with the exhaust (which consists of radiation in case of a specific momentum of c).
Yes, I know, but that would not change my basically faulty speed curve that has a typical square root shape when reasoning tells me it should have a tsiolkovsky-rocket-equation shape (flat at start, geting steeper all the time) since the engine pumps the same amount of energy per dt into the rocket, while the rocket gets lighter and lighter. Taking losses into account only changes the final max speed, not the basic shape of the curve.
 
  • #25
I suggest you write down the energy-momentum relations in the instantaneous rest frame before and after ejecting a small amount of matter with a fixed speed u relative to the ship. This should give you the change in velocity in the instantaneous rest frame. You can relate this to the change in velocity via relativistic velocity addition and it should give you a differential equation for the velocity as a function of proper time.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nugatory
  • #26
Flisp said:
I try to calculate the speed curve of a relativistic rocket driven by a 100% efficient engine with constant thrust, when traveling to a distant star.

If the rocket has a chemical engine, its mass is decreasing due to exhaust gas of burned fuel.
 
  • #27
jbriggs444 said:
The speed of light is 1 light year per year. But what does that have to do with the question at hand?

Are you trying to say that the exhaust velocity is c? If so, that goes counter to the original stipulation that the relativistic mass of the craft never decreases.
Did I say mass was constan? Well, it is not. Fuel is burnt. And while all the fuels matter is transformed into pure energy, momentum goes upp, mass goes down. Energy is constant.
Yes exhaust velocity is c.
 
  • #28
jbriggs444 said:
If so, that goes counter to the original stipulation that the relativistic mass of the craft never decreases.
I think this was stipulated by you from the OP’s ”100% efficient”. I suspect the OP is not aware of this implication but is really imagining a rocket with an exhaust.
 
  • #29
Flisp said:
Did I say mass was constan?
Yes, you said that [relativistic] mass is constant:
Flisp said:
so that the energy of the rocket is constant
Relativistic mass is another name for total energy.
 
  • #30
Orodruin said:
I think this was stipulated by you from the OP’s ”100% efficient”. I suspect the OP is not aware of this implication but is really imagining a rocket with an exhaust.
Not so.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
6K