The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Profile of harrogate22
  3. Show Posts
  4. Messages
  • Profile Info
    • Summary
    • Show Stats
    • Show Posts
      • Messages
      • Topics
      • Attachments
      • Thanked Posts
      • Posts Thanked By User
    • Show User Topics
      • User Created
      • User Participated In

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

  • Messages
  • Topics
  • Attachments
  • Thanked Posts
  • Posts Thanked By User

Messages - harrogate22

Pages: [1]
1
General Science / "Simple" Rocket Science: Where have I gone wrong?
« on: 05/01/2008 14:03:30 »
This problem has nagged me for a long time, and yes; it IS rocket science!

Assume a rocket with mass m in free vacuum space switches the on its engine for time t at a set throttle level.  The fuel-burn is constant, so force developed is constant, and hence the rocket's velocity will rise in a linear fashion.

(For simplicity I have ignored the change in mass due to fuel useage; let's assume it's an ion drive)

So after time t the velocity is v, and the kinetic energy of the rocket is (1/2) * m * v * v

The rocket now coasts along for an indeterminate time using no fuel, and maintaining its kinetic energy.

The engine is now switched on again to repeat exactly the acceleration as above for the same time and with the same fuel useage.  It's velocity is now 2v (isn't it; it has, after all, carried out two bursts of identical acceleration)

The problem now is that the rocket's kinetic energy is (1/2 * m * (2v) *(2v)), and this is four times the kinetic energy it had after the first fuel-burn.

So the question is this: how can the rocket gain more (double, in fact) energy kinetically than has been used in the two fuel-burn sessions.

Clearly there is an error, and onecan easily demonstrate by other means how the books do actually balance.  The problem I find is in identifying the error in the above reasoning.

Pages: [1]
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 27 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.