Typical energy ratios to get into orbit? (height, friction, velocity)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the energy ratios required for a rocket to achieve orbit, emphasizing that most energy is used for kinetic energy rather than overcoming atmospheric drag. A significant portion of fuel is dedicated to lifting the rocket's weight and providing potential energy, with atmospheric drag being a minor factor due to the thinness of the upper atmosphere. For low Earth orbits, about 10% of energy contributes to potential energy, while the rest primarily supports kinetic energy. The challenges of launching heavy telescopes with balloons are highlighted, noting that their instability and weight make them impractical compared to orbital solutions. Overall, achieving the necessary kinetic energy remains the primary hurdle for space launches.
Stargazer19385
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
I realize the answer depends how where in the atmosphere speed is increased more, and whether a higher orbit or lower orbit is desired, and the shape size and weight of the craft. But I'm just curious about typical ratios.

About what fraction of the fuel goes to lifting the weight of the craft? The weight of the fuel? (giving them potential energy)
What fraction goes to giving the craft the kinetic energy (final speed)?
What fraction goes to just overcoming friction through the atmosphere?

Thanks. lots of math with the atmosphere thinning and the reynolds numbers changing and fuel mass and speed changing.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Most of the energy goes into the velocity and heat of the fuel, most of the interesting energy goes into the kinetic energy of the rocket (for low Earth orbits), and some smaller fraction (I think it was something like 10% compared to the kinetic energy) into potential energy.
For higher orbits or even escape routes, the initial part is the same. Gravity exchanges kinetic energy for potential energy afterwards.

For a given rocket, it is easy to calculate the final potential and kinetic energy of the rocket. Atmospheric drag is hard to evaluate, but it is a small contribution.
 
That all makes perfect sense. I kind of should have known drag would be a small portion, since it only goes 400 miles up, and most of that is through very thin air. Only about 3-5 miles of the air is remotely thick. However, high velocity through thin air could still mean high drag.

So kinetic energy is the hurdle...

I guess the reason we don't have large telescopes hanging from balloons instead of in orbit is the telescopes are too heavy and would need a very big balloon. The balloon blocking the view could be solved by suspending the telescope well below the balloon so it is angularly small at that distance.
 
So kinetic energy is the hurdle...
Right.

Balloons are also unstable.
For small telescopes, the atmosphere is not so problematic, and large telescopes are really heavy.
 
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...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
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?
Back
Top