What is the escape velocity of Earth?

AI Thread Summary
Escape velocity from Earth is approximately 11.186 km/s, which refers to the speed needed for a projectile to break free from Earth's gravitational pull. This speed is independent of the direction of launch, meaning a projectile can be fired in any direction as long as it reaches this speed. If launched from a height of 1000 meters and at this speed, the projectile will escape Earth's gravity without crashing back. The trajectory must not intersect with Earth's surface to avoid failure. Thus, even a slight downward angle would still allow the projectile to escape successfully.
Stephanus
Messages
1,316
Reaction score
104
What is escape velocity?
According to Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
Earth:
Escape velocity: 11.186km/s?
What does that mean?
Does the projectile should be fired perpendicular with respect to the ground angle?

According to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
The term escape velocity is a misnomer, and it is referred to as escape speed since it is independent of direction.
According to this, can the projectile be fired in any direction (because it is speed not velocity) as long as its speed is 11.186 Km/s to escape earth?If (supposed Earth has no atmosphere) the projectile is fired parallely to the ground (tangent), what is its escape velocity?

Thanks for any explanation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The wikipedia article has it right. As long as the trajectory doesn't intersect the surface of the Earth and go "boom!", if it is launched at or above escape velocity the projectile will escape no matter what direction it is aimed. Escape velocity tangent to the surface of an airless non-rotating body is the same as escape velocity vertical to the surface.

There are many ways of showing this, but the easiest is to look at the sum of the projectile's potential and kinetic energy, which must remain constant throughout its trajectory.
 
  • Like
Likes Stephanus
Nugatory said:
...as long as the trajectory doesn't intersect the surface of the Earth and go "boom...".
Yes, yes, I understand now. So if the projectile is placed, say..., 1000m above ground (earth).
And it's fired horizontally and 10 to the ground, supposed the Earth has no atmosphere and no mountain (and skyscraper for that matter), I don't know if the math is correct for 10; 1000 m above the ground; and Earth radius. After all Earth is bolate not sphere.
Just supposed in that height and direction the projectile is fired 11.186 km/s, and doesn't go boom, it will travel to space, Right?
 
Stephanus said:
Yes, yes, I understand now. So if the projectile is placed, say..., 1000m above ground (earth).
And it's fired horizontally and 10 to the ground, supposed the Earth has no atmosphere and no mountain (and skyscraper for that matter), I don't know if the math is correct for 10; 1000 m above the ground; and Earth radius. After all Earth is bolate not sphere.
Just supposed in that height and direction the projectile is fired 11.186 km/s, and doesn't go boom, it will travel to space, Right?

Yes. In fact, you could aim the thing slightly downwards so that it just barely missed grazing the surface of the earth, and it would still escape.

All that will change is the direction that it's traveling as it heads away from earth.
 
  • Like
Likes Shawnyboy and Stephanus
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top