Rocket Launch: Achieving Escape Velocity w/ Fuel-Mass Ratio of 300

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a rocket propulsion problem, specifically focusing on the concept of escape velocity and the relationship between fuel mass and rocket mass. The original poster attempts to derive the necessary fuel-to-rocket mass ratio to achieve Earth's escape velocity, given specific parameters for exhaust velocity and mass loss rate.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the equations of motion for the rocket, questioning the validity of the exhaust velocity value provided. There is discussion about the direction of forces acting on the rocket and whether the chosen frame of reference is appropriate.

Discussion Status

Some participants express skepticism about the given exhaust velocity, suggesting it may be too low. There is an ongoing examination of the implications of this value on the calculations and the overall problem setup. Multiple interpretations of the exhaust velocity and its context are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem states the exhaust velocity in meters per second, which raises questions about its plausibility in the context of achieving escape velocity. The discussion also highlights potential errors in the problem statement regarding the exhaust velocity.

Sudo
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Rockets are propelled by the momentum of the exhaust gases expelled from the tail. Since these gases arise from the reaction of the fuels carried in the rocket, the mass of the rocket is not constant, but decreases as the fuel is expended. Show that for a Rocket starting initially from rest, and taking the velocity of the exhaust gases relative to the rocket, ##v'## = 2.1 m/s and a rate of mass loss per second L = 1/60 of the initial mass, to reach the escape velocity of the Earth (##v_e## = 11.2 km/s), the ratio of the weight of the fuel to the weight of the rocket must be almost 300!

Homework Equations


I know that ##F=m(\frac {dp} {dt})=ma=m\frac {dv} {dt}##

The Attempt at a Solution


First, I work in the frame of the rocket; so we have two forces, the weight ##W=mg## and the force of the exhaust exiting the rocket ##\frac {dm} {dt}v'##. Both forces are pointing downward, thus I set up the following equation: $$ma=m\frac {dv} {dt}=-v'(\frac {dm} {dt})-mg$$ Now I rewrite ##m\frac {dv} {dt}## as ##m\frac {dv} {dm}\frac {dm} {dt}##; now I have this expression:$$m\frac {dv} {dm}\frac {dm} {dt}=-v'(\frac {dm} {dt})-mg$$As ##\frac {dm} {dt}=L=-\frac {m_0} {60}## and dividing both sides by ##m## we have:$$\frac {dv} {dm}(-\frac {m_0} {60})=-\frac {v'} {m}(-\frac {m_0} {60})-g$$Dividing both sides by ##L## yields:$$\frac {dv} {dm}=-\frac {v'} {m}+\frac {60g} {m_0}$$Now we're ready to write our differential equation as follows:$$dv=-\frac {v'} {m}~dm+\frac {60g} {m_0}~dm$$We can now integrate, this knowing that we start from ##v_0=0## and from a certain initial mass given by ##m_0=m_{rocket}+m_{fuel}## and a final mass ##m_f=m_{rocket}##$$\int_0^v dv=-v'\int_{m_0}^{m_f} \frac {1} {m} \ dm+\frac {60g} {m_0}\int_{m_0}^{m_f} dm$$After integrating and evaluating I get the following expression:$$v=-v'ln(\frac {m_f} {m_0})+\frac {60g} {m_0}(m_f-m_0)$$This can be rewritten as:$$v=-v'ln(\frac {m_{rocket}} {m_{rocket}+m_{fuel}})-\frac {60g} {m_{rocket}+m_{fuel}}(m_{fuel})$$Then, if ##m_{fuel}>>m_{rocket}## we can ignore the term ##m_{rocket}## in ##\frac {1} {m_{rocket}+m_{fuel}}##, and the expression can be rewritten as:$$v=-v'ln(\frac {m_{rocket}} {m_{fuel}})-60g=v'ln(\frac {m_{fuel}} {m_{rocket}})-60g$$Solving for the desired ratio I get:$$\frac {m_{fuel}} {m_{rocket}}=e^{\frac {v+60g} {v'}}$$However when plugging in the equation the values ##v'=2.1 m/s##, ##v=11.2 km/s##, and ##g## the value is much, much bigger than 300.

What did I did wrong? Did I chooses the incorrect frame? To my understanding my equation ##ma=m\frac {dv} {dt}=-v'(\frac {dm} {dt})-mg## should be true for this frame, thus ##v'## indeed is 2.1 m/s

Thank you for your time! As always I appreciate detailed answers, thanks again!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The value given for ##v'## looks too small. Could it actually be 2.1 km/s?

You stated that both the thrust force and the gravitational force act downward. But the rocket goes upward.
However, I think your equations are correct.
 
Last edited:
TSny said:
The value given for ##v'## looks too small. Could it actually be 2.1 km/s?

You stated that both the thrust force and the gravitational force act downward. But the rocket goes upward.
However, I think your equations are correct.
I'm not completely sure, the problem states m/s.

Do you think that, even when considering that ##v'## is relative to the rocket (i.e., measured by someone in the rocket, not an observer on ground), 2.1 m/s would still, anyway, be too small?

Thanks for the reply!
 
Sudo said:
I'm not completely sure, the problem states m/s.

Do you think that, even when considering that ##v'## is relative to the rocket (i.e., measured by someone in the rocket, not an observer on ground), 2.1 m/s would still, anyway, be too small?
Too small by exactly a factor of 1000. An exhaust velocity so laughably low and a coincidence so striking that it is quite obviously an error in the problem statement.

An arthritic cripple could throw bowling balls out the back end of a rocket faster than 2.1 m/s. 300 such throws would achieve a velocity around 25 miles per hour (*) -- somewhat less than escape velocity.

(*) Assuming that the arthritic cripple starts with a pile of 300 bowling balls on his lap and has the same mass as one of the balls.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K