MHB Stopping a Spaceship: Calculating the Required Force from Backthrusters

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dustinsfl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics Strange
Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
So the question reads:

A spaceship is accelerating at 1000m/s^2. How much force is required from the backthrusters to completely stop the spaceship?

In space, nothing truly stops. You may not be accelerating but you are definitely orbiting something (planet, moon, sun, etc). We can put something at a stable Lagrange point, but the points are in an non inertial reference frame so even then the seemingly stationary object isn't stopped.

Is this question answerable?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
dwsmith said:
So the question reads:

A spaceship is accelerating at 1000m/s^2. How much force is required from the backthrusters to completely stop the spaceship?

In space, nothing truly stops. You may not be accelerating but you are definitely orbiting something (planet, moon, sun, etc).

Actually, not necessarily. You could be in outer space, in a micro-gravity environment with virtually no gravitational force on you. You could also, theoretically, come to a stop in the reference frame of the fixed stars.

We can put something at a stable Lagrange point, but the points are in an non inertial reference frame so even then the seemingly stationary object isn't stopped.

Is this question answerable?

As is, I should think not. I think you'd need the know the mass of the spaceship. Are you given that?

Another thing that puzzles me: what force is causing the $1000$ m/s2 acceleration? Is this the force that the backthrusters must counter?
 
dwsmith said:
So the question reads:

A spaceship is accelerating at 1000m/s^2. How much force is required from the backthrusters to completely stop the spaceship?

This question makes absolutely no sense without being given the spaceship's mass and its current velocity or at least the time it's been accelerating. As it is the spaceship could be going at near the speed of light or at a few metres per second (in some frame of reference) and the answers would be widely different.

With the current data all you can say is that an acceleration of 1000 m/s^2 in the opposite direction will cause the spaceship to stop accelerating (in whatever frame of reference you are using). But it will still be moving. And never mind that you can't actually compute acceleration from force without being given the mass of the spaceship.

dwsmith said:
In space, nothing truly stops. You may not be accelerating but you are definitely orbiting something (planet, moon, sun, etc). We can put something at a stable Lagrange point, but the points are in an non inertial reference frame so even then the seemingly stationary object isn't stopped.

Well, "nothing truly stops" is hardly a useful definition of motion. Evidently two objects which aren't moving in the exact same direction at the exact same speed appear to be moving from one another's reference frame. Otherwise, they appear immobile relative to one another. Barring relativity, if I'm moving from your perspective, then you're moving from mine. You don't have to be in space for this to be the case, when I walk the entire planet is in fact receding beneath my feet, and so on. So I'm not sure what the statement is trying to say.

Also, if you are orbiting something then you are definitely accelerating in some frame of reference (but not in others). It's all relative.

dwsmith said:
Is this question answerable?

No, since it is meaningless.
 
One of the most critical problems in Apollo Missions on the 'sixty years' was the landing of the space shuttle on lunar ground. Of course the use of a parachute is not applicable and the only way to contrast the gravity and stop the shuttle is the appropriate use of a posterior rocket. If the initial speed $v_{0}$ at time $t_{0}$ and the 'stop time' T are given, then it is possible to program the thrust of the rocket as function of time to be $S_{1}$ for $t_{0} < t < t_{0} + T$ in order to have v = 0 at $t = t_{0} + T$ and $S_{2} < S_{1}$ for $t > t_{0} + T$ in order to mantain $v=0$ for $t > t_{0} + T$ ... Kind regards$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
chisigma said:
One of the most critical problems in Apollo Missions on the 'sixty years' was the landing of the space shuttle on lunar ground. Of course the use of a parachute is not applicable and the only way to contrast the gravity and stop the shuttle is the appropriate use of a posterior rocket. If the initial speed $v_{0}$ at time $t_{0}$ and the 'stop time' T are given, then it is possible to program the thrust of the rocket as function of time to be $S_{1}$ for $t_{0} < t < t_{0} + T$ in order to have v = 0 at $t = t_{0} + T$ and $S_{2} < S_{1}$ for $t > t_{0} + T$ in order to mantain $v=0$ for $t > t_{0} + T$ ... Kind regards$\chi$ $\sigma$

I assume you meant the LEM (lunar excursion module) ;D the space shuttle never left low Earth orbit and did not have near enough delta-v to even reach the moon, let alone land on it and get back home. Good analysis, though in practice this analytical solution is improved over time using a PID controller to account for gravitational anomalies, rough terrain, rotation, and so on...

To think all this was done on a computer infinitely less powerful than your average cellphone these days... impressive.
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top