Escape velocity
|
|
Thread rating:  |
mikejenningz@yahoo.co.uk - 13 Apr 2007 12:55 GMT escape velocity question.
does the figure listed for escape velocity for a planet not vary with the altitude you are at. If you are on the top of a mountain then surely with a slower speed you would be able to get into orbit? Also the higher your altitude the slower you would need to travel to maintain orbit?
Jeff Findley - 13 Apr 2007 15:46 GMT > escape velocity question. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the higher your altitude the slower you would need to travel to > maintain orbit? You're confusing two concepts. Escape velocity is not the same thing as orbital velocity. Earth's escape velocity is the velocity you must achieve in order to *never* orbit or fall back to the earth. The energy you need to expend to achieve escape is higher than that needed to achieve orbit.
If you launch from the top of a mountain the energy needed to attain the same orbit is less than if you launched from sea level. The difference is due less atmospheric drag and less gravity losses. But to achieve the same orbit, you have to achieve the same final velocity at the same (orbital) altitude.
The higher the orbit, the lower the orbital velocity, but that higher orbit still takes more energy to achieve if you're launching from the earth's surface.
This is all basic orbital mechanics. There are some good websites that talk about orbital mechanics. You might try Google.
Jeff
 Signature "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
d&tm - 14 Apr 2007 23:54 GMT > escape velocity question. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the higher your altitude the slower you would need to travel to > maintain orbit? yes the higher the altitude the lower the escape velocity.
Ve = SQRT ( 2GM/r)
Ve = escape velocity G= Universal Gravitation constant M= mass of body escaping from r= distance from centre of body to object.
but since r = distance from centre of body , not surface , the effect of being on top of a mountain is pretty small. although it would get you out of a lot of air resistance. consider Mt Everest. r for sea level is about 6300 km. r for the top of Mt Everest is about 6310 km terry
Jeff Findley - 16 Apr 2007 15:32 GMT > but since r = distance from centre of body , not surface , the effect of > being on top of a mountain is pretty small. although it > would get you out of a lot of air resistance. consider Mt Everest. r for > sea level is about 6300 km. r for the top of Mt Everest is about 6310 km > terry I'd think that Mt Everest would be damned inconvenient for launches. If you wanted to work in that environment for any length of time, you'd need more than supplemental oxygen, you'd need pressure suits and pressurized buildings.
Jeff
 Signature "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)
Bill Clecter - 19 Apr 2007 09:38 GMT >> but since r = distance from centre of body , not surface , the effect of >> being on top of a mountain is pretty small. although it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >than supplemental oxygen, you'd need pressure suits and pressurized >buildings. Not to mention getting the crawler up there...
rcochran@lanset.com - 16 Apr 2007 19:20 GMT > <mikejenni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > sea level is about 6300 km. r for the top of Mt Everest is about 6310 km > terry Nit to pick. You correctly point out that the distance you're interested in is r, or the distance from the earth's center. But to maximize that, you wouldn't go to Everest, but instead to Chimborazo (or perhaps Huascarán). Remember that Earth is approximately an oblate spheroid, and our reference for sea level is farther from the center of the earth at the equator than at the poles. Everest is the highest above sea level, but Chimborazo is located closer to the equator, so is farther from the earth's center than Everest is. Its equatorial location also has the added benefit of giving you some velocity due to the Earth's rotation.
Agree with the major point, however. Even the biggest mountains aren't very high relative to the earth's radius. And the logistical impracticalities of working at altitude easily outweigh the slight energy advantage.
Reference on Chimborazo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimborazo_(volcano)
d&tm - 17 Apr 2007 10:28 GMT On Apr 14, 3:54 pm, "d&tm" <tfm...@iprimusREMOVEME.com.au> wrote: snip
> yes the higher the altitude the lower the escape velocity. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > sea level is about 6300 km. r for the top of Mt Everest is about 6310 km > terry Nit to pick. You correctly point out that the distance you're interested in is r, or the distance from the earth's center. But to maximize that, you wouldn't go to Everest, but instead to Chimborazo (or perhaps Huascarán). Remember that Earth is approximately an oblate spheroid, and our reference for sea level is farther from the center of the earth at the equator than at the poles. Everest is the highest above sea level, but Chimborazo is located closer to the equator, so is farther from the earth's center than Everest is. Its equatorial location also has the added benefit of giving you some velocity due to the Earth's rotation.
Agree with the major point, however. Even the biggest mountains aren't very high relative to the earth's radius. And the logistical impracticalities of working at altitude easily outweigh the slight energy advantage.
Reference on Chimborazo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimborazo_(volcano)
nit pick accepted . its a good point. I recall doing the sums some time ago to separate the energy required to get to orbit into the altitude (potential energy) and speed (kinetic energy ) components. I think the speed made up about 5/6th of the energy required to get to LEO from the surface. so all the ideas of using mountains and balloons etc to get the height just dont cut it. terry
R2-Bacca - 25 Apr 2007 16:00 GMT > <mikejenni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ve = SQRT ( 2GM/r) In order to escape earth's gavity, you always have to be going at least 11.2 km/s. Whet>
> Ve = escape velocity > G= Universal Gravitation constant [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sea level is about 6300 km. r for the top of Mt Everest is about 6310 km > terry The escape velocity relative to any point A on the earth is always the same regardless of the altitude of the point P from which you are launching. The escape velocity relative to the point P from which you are launching from varies with point P's distance from the center of the earth. When launching from a higher point, what you are actually doing is borrowing some extra velocity from the increased rotational speed of that point.
The tangential speed of any point P on a rotating object is
v=wr
where v is the tangential speed, w is the angular speed of the rotating object, and r is the distance between the point P and the center of rotation of the object. The further away from the center you are, the faster your tangential velocity.
In order to escape earth's gravity, you always have to be going at least 11.2 km/s relative to the center of the earth. If you launch from a lower altitude, then you must design your craft to attain most of that velocity on it's own. If you launch from a higher altitude, your craft gets that extra speed boost and doesn't have to attain as much of it on it's own.
If you are troubled with that explanation, consider this:
Imagine you have one of those cool Styrofoam airplanes. It is a calm day- there is no wind at all. In order for your little plane to generate enough lift to fly, it has to be going at least a certain speed relative to the ground. Lets arbitrarily say that speed is 2 m/ s. You could get the plane to that speed by standing still and just throwing it with your arm. Relative to you, to plane has a velocity of 2 m/s. Relative to the ground (the relative frame in which the air exists), the plane is also going at 2m/s. Now imagine you throw the plane a second time, but this time you give a little running start at 1 m/s. This time, since the plane still only has to be traveling at 2 m/s relative to the ground frame, you only need to throw the plane at 1 m/s relative to your now moving frame, but relative to the ground frame, it is moving at 2m/s (your 1 m/s running speed plus the 1 m/s throwing speed).
The plane still always needs to hit 2 m/s relative to the ground, but depending on whether you are moving or not when you throw it, the speed you need to throw it at may be lower than 2 m/s.
I hope that makes sense. It's all in the relativity. :-)
R2-Bacca - 25 Apr 2007 23:25 GMT On Apr 13, 7:55 am, mikejenni...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> escape velocity question. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the higher your altitude the slower you would need to travel to > maintain orbit? The escape velocity relative to any point A on the earth is always the same regardless of the altitude of the point P from which you are launching. The escape velocity relative to the point P from which you are launching from varies with point P's distance from the center of the earth. When launching from a higher point, what you are actually doing is borrowing some extra velocity from the increased rotational speed of that point.
The tangential speed of any point P on a rotating object is
v=wr
where v is the tangential speed, w is the angular speed of the rotating object, and r is the distance between the point P and the center of rotation of the object. The further away from the center you are, the faster your tangential velocity.
In order to escape earth's gravity, you always have to be going at least 11.2 km/s relative to the center of the earth. If you launch from a lower altitude, then you must design your craft to attain most of that velocity on it's own. If you launch from a higher altitude, your craft gets that extra speed boost and doesn't have to attain as much of it on it's own.
If you are troubled with that explanation, consider this:
Imagine you have one of those cool Styrofoam airplanes. It is a calm day- there is no wind at all. In order for your little plane to generate enough lift to fly, it has to be going at least a certain speed relative to the ground. Lets arbitrarily say that speed is 2 m/ s. You could get the plane to that speed by standing still and just throwing it with your arm. Relative to you, to plane has a velocity of 2 m/s. Relative to the ground (the relative frame in which the air exists), the plane is also going at 2m/s. Now imagine you throw the plane a second time, but this time you give a little running start at 1 m/s. This time, since the plane still only has to be traveling at 2 m/s relative to the ground frame, you only need to throw the plane at 1 m/s relative to your now moving frame, but relative to the ground frame, it is moving at 2m/s (your 1 m/s running speed plus the 1 m/s throwing speed).
The plane still always needs to hit 2 m/s relative to the ground, but depending on whether you are moving or not when you throw it, the speed you need to throw it at may be lower than 2 m/s.
I hope that makes sense. It's all in the relativity. :-)
John Doe - 26 Apr 2007 01:09 GMT Another question:
If someone says that escape velocity is X, what does it actually mean ?
Is it really delta V value for a launch from the centre of the earth (no earth rotation help) ?
Or is it a vertical speed you would need to launch at so that after all the deceleration from the gravity, you would still have some velocity to continue towards the rest of the universe ?
Also, if you go into low earth orbit, and gradually add delta V to increase your altitude, your speed actually decreases, right ?
Is escape velocity defined as the orbital altitude where the speed needed to remain in orbit is basically 0 ? (at which point any delta V results in movement forwards and no ensuing deceleration ?)
Also, is there a difference in terms of total energy required to leave the earth's gravity, between launching straight up towards the target, versus going to low orbit and gradually increasing orbital altitude until you've reached the ability to escape with just a tiny addition of delta-V ?
(forgetting air drag for the sake of this question).
rcochran@lanset.com - 29 Apr 2007 19:33 GMT > Another question: > > If someone says that escape velocity is X, what does it actually mean ? > > Is it really delta V value for a launch from the centre of the earth (no > earth rotation help) ? Not from the center of the earth; normally quoted from its surface, but may be quoted from any point.
> Or is it a vertical speed you would need to launch at so that after all > the deceleration from the gravity, you would still have some velocity to > continue towards the rest of the universe ? That's closer, but not exactly.
It's the speed necessary to overcome the gravitation of the Earth only (or whatever other body is being discussed).
But note that the Earth itself is gravitationally bound up in the solar system, which is gravitationally bound in the Milky Way, which is gravitationally bound in the local group of galaxies. Each of these massive things has its own escape velocity. If a missle reaches Earth's escape velocity, it can escape from Earth's gravitational well, but the Sun's gravity will prevent it from going on indefinitely across the universe. It'll stay in the solar system, not too far from Earth's orbit.
> Also, if you go into low earth orbit, and gradually add delta V to > increase your altitude, your speed actually decreases, right ? Yep.
> Is escape velocity defined as the orbital altitude where the speed > needed to remain in orbit is basically 0 ? (at which point any delta V > results in movement forwards and no ensuing deceleration ?) Escape velocity is not defined as an altitude. It's defined by computing the gravitational potential energy, converting it to kinetic energy, and solving for velocity.
|
|
|