Solve Spivak's Rocket in Empty Space

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around Spivak's derivation of the rocket's motion in empty space, specifically the time derivative of the momentum of expelled fuel. Participants express confusion over how Spivak calculates this derivative, particularly the negative sign indicating the momentum of the rocket. They clarify that Spivak treats the combined system of the rocket and the expelled exhaust as isolated, ensuring conservation of mass and momentum. The conversation highlights the complexity of Spivak's notation, suggesting that a simpler approach could yield the same results more clearly. Ultimately, the derivation leads to the relationship between the rocket's mass, its acceleration, and the ejection velocity of the fuel.
Samuelb88
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
I'm reading Spivak's mechanics book and I'm stumped on some of the math in his derivation of an analytic expression for the motion of a rocket in empty space.

Let \mathbf{v}(t) be the rockets velocity, let \mathbf{q}(t) be the velocity at which fuel is ejected from the rocket, and let m(t) be it's mass. Suppose m'(t) = -k for some constant k.

From a stationary frame of reference, the ejection velocity of the fuel is \mathbf{v}(t) + \mathbf{q}(t). In a small time interval, the amount of fuel ejected is m(t) - m(t+h), and its ejection velocity is approximately \mathbf{v}(t) + \mathbf{q}(t). Hence the total momentum is
\mathbf{p}_{fuel}(t) = [m(t) - m(t+h)] \cdot (\mathbf{v}(t) + \mathbf{q}(t))

Spivak claims the time derivative at time t of the momentum of the expelled fuel is
\lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{m(t)-m(t+h)}{h} ( \mathbf{v}(t) + \mathbf{q}(t) = - m'(t) \cdot ( \mathbf{v}(t) + \mathbf{q}(t) )

Here's where I'm confused. I'm not sure how he calculates the time derivative of the momentum of the ejected fuel. I'm assuming he uses the formula
\lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{\mathbf{p}(t) - \mathbf{p}(t+h)}{h}

But when I do it this way, I get that \mathbf{p}_{fuel}(t) = m'(t) \cdot (\mathbf{v}(t) - \mathbf{p}(t) (I'm not even sure if my evaluation of the limit is correct). Perhaps the negative sign denotes the momentum of the ship, but nonetheless, I would really appreciate if someone could explain/show this step to me.

Next Spivak sets his time derivative of momentum equal to the time derivative of -m(t) \mathbf{v}(t). I'm a bit confused here as well. I know that the time derivative of momentum is equal to the force, and the second law tells us that the sum of the forces is equal to the product of mass and acceleration. So again it looks like he's using the negative sign to denote the velocity of the ship? Again, could someone explain this part to me as well?

At any rate, in case you were curious, Spivak determines that
m(t) \frac{d \mathbf{v}(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt} \mathbf{q}(t)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
A real number that is sufficiently small.
 
I don't have Spivak, but from your description I can see what he is doing. He is defining a system comprising the rocket plus the cloud of exhaust that the rocket has expelled. This is presumably a chemical reaction, making the total mass of the rocket+exhaust cloud system constant (chemical reactions conserve mass). The system is isolated, so the total linear momentum of the rocket+exhaust system is also constant.

Let m_r(t) and m_e(t) be the masses of the rocket and exhaust cloud. Define the changes in mass over some time interval (t,t+\Delta t) as
\begin{aligned}<br /> \Delta m_r(t;\Delta t) &amp;= m_r(t+\Delta t) - m_r(t) \\<br /> \Delta m_e(t;\Delta t) &amp;= m_e(t+\Delta t) - m_e(t)<br /> \end{aligned}
By conservation of mass, \Delta m_e(t;\Delta t) = -\Delta m_r(t;\Delta t) and thus
\Delta m_e(t;\Delta t) = m_r(t) - m_r(t+\Delta t)
(This apparently backwards delta is where you appear to have gotten confused.)

For a sufficiently small period of time, the exhaust speed relative to some inertial observer will be nearly constant (your \mathbf v(t) + \mathbf q(t)), and thus the momentum transferred to the exhaust cloud will be approximately \Delta m_e(t;\Delta t)(\mathbf v(t) + \mathbf q(t)) = (m_r(t) - m_r(t+\Delta t))(\mathbf v(t) + \mathbf q(t))
Dividing by \Delta t and taking the limit as \Delta t \to 0 yields
\dot{\mathbf p}_e(t) = -\dot m_r(t) (\mathbf v(t) + \mathbf q(t))

Since the total momentum of the system is constant, we must have
\dot{\mathbf p}_r(t) = - \dot{\mathbf p}_e(t) = \dot m_r(t) (\mathbf v(t) + \mathbf q(t))
From \mathbf p_r(t) = m_r(t)\mathbf v(t), we also have
\dot{\mathbf p}_r(t) = \dot m_r(t) \mathbf v(t) + m_r(t)\dot{\mathbf v}(t)
Equating these two expressions for \dot{\mathbf p}_r(t) yields
\dot m_r(t) (\mathbf v(t) + \mathbf q(t)) = \dot m_r(t) \mathbf v(t) + m_r(t)\dot{\mathbf v}(t)
Canceling the common term \dot m_r(t) \mathbf v(t) from the left- and right-hand side yields
\dot m_r(t)\mathbf q(t) = m_r(t)\dot{\mathbf v}(t)
 
re your first question... Spivak is simply treating (v(t) + q(t)) as a constant, and replacing the expression for the limit of \Deltam/\Deltat by the rather simpler m\acute{}.

I find Spivak's derivation, though correct, so cumbersome in its notation, as to make an easy piece of Physics seem difficult. I'd do this...

momentum of rocket at time (t + \Deltat) + Momentum of gases ejected in time \Deltat = momentum of rocket at time t.

So (m + \Deltam)(v + \Deltav) + (-\Deltam)(v + q) = mv

Note that \Deltam is negative. Multiplying out and cancelling those terms that cancel:

(m + \Deltam)\Deltav - (\Deltam)q = 0

So (m + \Deltam)(\Deltav/\Deltat) - (\Deltam/\Deltat)q = 0

In the limit as \Deltat\rightarrow0, \Deltam\rightarrow0, and we have

m(dv/dt) - q(dm/dt) = 0
 
Thanks DH and Philip. Can't believe I didn't think of dividing both sides by change in t then letting the change go to zero! Although I probably wouldn't of appealed to the relation p_r&#039;(t) = -p_e&#039;(t).
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top