Thrust vs Gravity: What's Missing?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter hal bitton
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity Thrust
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conceptual differences between two identical rocket ships in a gravitational field: one hovering at a fixed altitude and the other ascending at a constant vertical velocity. Participants explore the implications of thrust, energy, and work in these scenarios, questioning the nature of energy gain and efficiency in rocket propulsion.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that both rocket ships require the same thrust to maintain their positions, as neither is accelerating vertically.
  • Another participant argues that the energy of the rocket exhaust differs between the two cases, with the exhaust being slightly slower for the ascending rocket.
  • It is proposed that ship A is wasting energy by not doing work, while ship B is gaining energy through its ascent.
  • A participant emphasizes that the energy used by ship B is not free, as it is derived from burning rocket fuel, which is inherently inefficient at low speeds.
  • One response introduces the idea of a generic lifting force, noting that while the lifting force can be the same, only one scenario does work.
  • Another participant highlights that the kinetic energy associated with ship B's upward motion contributes to its energy gain, which is not free but rather accounted for by the fuel consumed.
  • A comparison is made to a crane lifting a load at constant speed, illustrating the relationship between work done and energy in both scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of energy gain and efficiency in the two rocket scenarios. There is no consensus on the interpretation of energy dynamics between the hovering and ascending rockets.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference the work-energy principle and the efficiency of rocket engines, but these concepts remain contested within the discussion. The implications of thrust and energy are explored without resolution on the underlying assumptions or definitions.

hal bitton
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Thrust at hover vs thrust at constant non zero vertical velocity.
This is a conceptual problem. Consider two identical rocket ships in a gravitational field with no atmosphere. Ship A is hovering at a fixed altitude, ship B is ascending at a constant vertical velocity. Since neither ship is accelerating vertically, the thrust required of both should be the same, namely, thrust equal to the weight of the ship. Yet ship B is gaining potential energy, and ship A is not. I realize ship B's constant vertical velocity is the result of a previous vertical acceleration, but still, at some point in time it seems that ship B will be gaining "free" energy compared to ship A. What am I missing here? Regards, Hal
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are missing an analysis of the energy of the rocket exhaust. It will be different in the two cases, the exhaust being slightly slower for the rising rocket.
 
hal bitton said:
...but still, at some point in time it seems that ship B will be gaining "free" energy compared to ship A. What am I missing here?
You're saying it backwards: ship A is wasting all of its energy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
hal bitton said:
at some point in time it seems that ship B will be gaining "free" energy compared to ship A.
Since B is burning rocket fuel the energy is not free, regardless of what you compare it to.

Rocket engines are very inefficient at low speed, with 0% efficiency at 0 speed. So the difference is simply that rocket B has slightly greater efficiency than rocket A. Maybe 0.001% efficiency instead of 0%.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters, DrStupid and Ibix
It seems like this talk of rocket engines might be missing a fundamental part of your question. Let's switch from "rocket engine" to some generic magic force in it's place. Yes, in both cases the lifting force can be the same, but one does work and the other doesn't. Force and work (or energy) just aren't the same things. It is as simple as that, almost a definition instead of an explanation. The magnet stuck to your refrigerator isn't doing any work to stay there, but there is a force generated. From this point you can dig deeper into how the forces are created or applied, as in the previous answers.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban
hal bitton said:
Summary:: Thrust at hover vs thrust at constant non zero vertical velocity.

I realize ship B's constant vertical velocity is the result of a previous vertical acceleration, but still, at some point in time it seems that ship B will be gaining "free" energy compared to ship A. What am I missing here?

The energy that B gains is not free. The fuel in the moving rocket contains more energy (the kinetic energy in the Earth frame of reference associated with its upward motion). As the fuel is burned this extra energy is what seems to be free, but really it is already paid for and the ledger is in fact perfectly balanced.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lnewqban and DaveE
hal bitton said:
Summary:: Thrust at hover vs thrust at constant non zero vertical velocity.

... What am I missing here? Regards, Hal
I believe that the non-zero velocity, which means kinetic energy, which means work done on the rocket is what you are missing, Hal.

This problem could be compared to a crane statically suspending first and then lifting a load at constant speed: mechanical energy coming from its engine does the lifting work.
Crane's drum brake and tension in the cable are what keep the load suspended at zero vertical velocity.

Copied from:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)

"Work is closely related to energy. The work-energy principle states that an increase in the kinetic energy of a rigid body is caused by an equal amount of positive work done on the body by the resultant force acting on that body. Conversely, a decrease in kinetic energy is caused by an equal amount of negative work done by the resultant force. Thus, if the net work is positive, then the particle’s kinetic energy increases by the amount of the work. If the net work done is negative, then the particle’s kinetic energy decreases by the amount of the work."
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
6K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K