Understanding Mass, Energy & Space: How Much Energy Does it Take to Move 1 Ton?

AI Thread Summary
Moving a 1-ton mass in space requires a significant amount of energy, despite the absence of gravity. Kinetic energy (KE) is calculated using the formula KE = 1/2 m v², where m is mass and v is velocity, indicating that even a small speed requires considerable energy. To stop a moving object, the same amount of energy must be applied, debunking the idea that one could stop a large mass with minimal force. Applying force over a longer distance increases the work done, as work is defined by the equation W = f d, where W is work, f is force, and d is distance. Overall, effective movement and stopping of mass in space depend on the principles of kinetic energy and work.
raezair
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hi;
disclaimer: I'm not a physicist.
just wondering ... if i was in space and needed to move 1 ton of mass ... how much energy would it require?
if everything in space is weightless then does it really require much energy?
what about inertia? ... if a 1 ton mass was floating toward me could i simply stop it (like superman) with 1 finger??
thanks
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
How fast do you want to move it?

KE = 1/2 m v²
p = m v

Where KE is kinetic energy, p is momentum, m is mass, and v is velocity.
 
well ... just for the example ... let's say 10km per hour and i was going to use 100 pounds of force (arm strength) to move the object

and, then one more variable ... if one was to use a smaller force to move the object over a longer time period then is it the same formula ? ... just with a time variable added ?

for example ... instead of all the force in one instance ... 1/10th the force over 10X the time ... would that be correct ??

so, of your two equations, which equation would I use ?

thanks
 
raezair said:
... if a 1 ton mass was floating toward me could i simply stop it (like superman) with 1 finger??
thanks

Of course not. The fact that the truck floating towards you is not being pulled down by gravity does not mean it has less energy when it's moving, quite the contrary.
If the object has a certain amount of kinetic energy, you will need that amount to stop it. Otherwise you will be swept away. It depends on what you are picturing when you say 'floating'.
You can't stop a comet with your index finger just because you're in outer space. Superman packs a mean punch, really.
 
raezair said:
well ... just for the example ... let's say 10km per hour and i was going to use 100 pounds of force (arm strength) to move the object
So, with the formula above you have KE = 1/2 1 ton (10 km/h)² = 3858 J

If we take 3858 J and divide by 100 lbf (W = f d) we get 8.6 m. So a 100 lbf push could slow a 1 ton mass from 10 km/h over a distance of 8.6 m. Since most people don't have arms 8.6 m long this would not work.

raezair said:
and, then one more variable ... if one was to use a smaller force to move the object over a longer time period then is it the same formula ? ... just with a time variable added ?

for example ... instead of all the force in one instance ... 1/10th the force over 10X the time ... would that be correct ??
I think what you are interested in is W = f d where W is work f is force and d is distance. So if you apply the same force over a longer distance then you have done more work. Also remember that work is equal to the change in energy.
 
Last edited:
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top