The Importance of Escape Velocity and Its Role in Space Exploration

AI Thread Summary
Escape velocity is crucial for overcoming Earth's gravitational pull, as it determines the speed needed for an object to break free from gravity without falling back. Simply accelerating at 9.81 m/s² does not suffice, as the object must reach a specific velocity at a certain altitude to escape. When an object hovers at one meter with a constant upward acceleration, the energy is converted into heat rather than kinetic or potential energy. Rockets often accelerate at higher rates, such as 4g, to ensure they achieve the necessary escape velocity before engine shutdown. Understanding these principles is essential for successful space exploration and mission planning.
Denton
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
I don't understand why we need an escape velocity, couldn't we escape the planet by accelerating an object above 9.81 m/s^2?


Also, say you've got an object one meter off the ground and you apply a constant 9.81 m/s^2 acceleration upwards to it so the object is hovering, where is the energy going? Kinetic energy should be zero since there is no velocity (its not moving anywhere) and there would be no gain in potential energy either since again its not ascending or descending gravity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nono, I am not talking about any animal skeletal structure holding up the object, just say its a 100% efficient rocket or something there providing acceleration.
 
Well, what is the potential energy of the object when it is at a height of 1 meter? What would it be if it were allowed to fall to the ground?
 
Denton, with any constant acceleration whatsoever, you will escape a gravitational well. As Assclown (who is probably less inebriated than me) pointed out, you could easily walk your way up as long as you had something to climb upon. Escape speed (not velocity, which implies a direction) refers to ballistic, rather than powered, flight.
 
Note, however, that in order to escape you need to reach escape velocity. If you accelerate upwards at 9.8 m/s, you will eventually reach a velocity and altitude where your velocity exceeds escape velocity at that altitude. Turn off your engines too soon and you'll fall back to earth. You just don't ever need to be going faster than the escape velocity at the surface of the Earth -- but none of our rockets do that anyway.

Now the second part of the OP is the answer to the question of why the space shuttle accelerates at 3g instead of 1g: it is actually accelerating at 4g instead of 2 g: applying twice the force and achieving 3x the acceleration. Where does the extra energy go? It is dissipated as heat. Lost. The answer is the same whether a rocket holds an object 1m off the ground or you do with your muscles.
 
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