![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hey guys. I am currently working on a project to model the trajectory
of a rocket traversing the Earth-Moon system. Basically it moves from a circular orbit about the Earth to an intercept course with the Moon by applying an impulse or boost to it's tangential velocity. Basically, my problem is that the total energy of the rocket in this system (i.e. Kinetic + Gravitational Potential) is not constant. Naturally, there is an increase when the boost is applied, but there is also an increase as the rocket approaches the Moon, which seems bizarre because surely the gravitational potential should become more negative as the rocket's velocity (and thus its kinetic energy) increases, leading to no net increase in total energy. Does anyone have any ideas why this is happening? Kind Regards, Matt |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 18, 9:07 am, Matt wrote:
Hey guys. I am currently working on a project to model the trajectory of a rocket traversing the Earth-Moon system. Basically it moves from a circular orbit about the Earth to an intercept course with the Moon by applying an impulse or boost to it's tangential velocity. Basically, my problem is that the total energy of the rocket in this system (i.e. Kinetic + Gravitational Potential) is not constant. Naturally, there is an increase when the boost is applied, but there is also an increase as the rocket approaches the Moon, which seems bizarre because surely the gravitational potential should become more negative as the rocket's velocity (and thus its kinetic energy) increases, leading to no net increase in total energy. Does anyone have any ideas why this is happening? Kind Regards, Matt Just a speculation.. do you need to include Chemical Potential along with the other two energies? Kinetic + Grav. Pot + Chem. Pot. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just a speculation.. do you need to include Chemical Potential along
with the other two energies? Kinetic + Grav. Pot + Chem. Pot. I hadn't thought about that. I'm not too worried about what happens to the total energy when the boost is applied, the bigger concern is why the value rises as it approaches the Moon. I've also noticed that the absolute value of the rocket's total energy is around -3 x 10^10 J. Why is this value negative? The mass of the rocket is set at 30332 kg. Kind Regards, Matt |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Matt" wrote in message
ups.com... Just a speculation.. do you need to include Chemical Potential along with the other two energies? Kinetic + Grav. Pot + Chem. Pot. I hadn't thought about that. I'm not too worried about what happens to the total energy when the boost is applied, the bigger concern is why the value rises as it approaches the Moon. I've also noticed that the absolute value of the rocket's total energy is around -3 x 10^10 J. Why is this value negative? The mass of the rocket is set at 30332 kg. I think you mean that the total mechanical energy is negative, rather than its absolute value. Absolute values are always positive (or zero). A negative energy means that the object is gravitationally bound to the system. If it were positive it would be on an escape trajectory away from the Earth-Moon system. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think you mean that the total mechanical energy is
negative, rather than its absolute value. Absolute values are always positive (or zero). Yes you're right, sorry to type something misleading :s A negative energy means that the object is gravitationally bound to the system. If it were positive it would be on an escape trajectory away from the Earth-Moon system. I don't know why I didn't realise that sooner! That expains it perfectly Kind Regards, Matt |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article . com,
Matt wrote: Just a speculation.. do you need to include Chemical Potential along with the other two energies? Kinetic + Grav. Pot + Chem. Pot. I hadn't thought about that. I'm not too worried about what happens to the total energy when the boost is applied, the bigger concern is why the value rises as it approaches the Moon. I've also noticed that the absolute value of the rocket's total energy is around -3 x 10^10 J. Why is this value negative? The mass of the rocket is set at 30332 kg. Its gaining energy from the gravitational potential of the moon. Once you're past the point where the forces of gravity balance... Negative energy = bound. -- Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within. Coffee boy to the rich and famous. Proud owner of the Mop Jockey. COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article . com, Matt wrote: Just a speculation.. do you need to include Chemical Potential along with the other two energies? Kinetic + Grav. Pot + Chem. Pot. I hadn't thought about that. I'm not too worried about what happens to the total energy when the boost is applied, the bigger concern is why the value rises as it approaches the Moon. I've also noticed that the absolute value of the rocket's total energy is around -3 x 10^10 J. Why is this value negative? The mass of the rocket is set at 30332 kg. Its gaining energy from the gravitational potential of the moon. Once you're past the point where the forces of gravity balance... Negative energy = bound. it's like a ****ing flashback to 7th grade. don't forget about the van allen belt radiation in your calculations or else you'll be to blame when this kid gets a red mark on his homework. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
Artimus Q Dufflebag wrote: Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article . com, Matt wrote: Just a speculation.. do you need to include Chemical Potential along with the other two energies? Kinetic + Grav. Pot + Chem. Pot. I hadn't thought about that. I'm not too worried about what happens to the total energy when the boost is applied, the bigger concern is why the value rises as it approaches the Moon. I've also noticed that the absolute value of the rocket's total energy is around -3 x 10^10 J. Why is this value negative? The mass of the rocket is set at 30332 kg. Its gaining energy from the gravitational potential of the moon. Once you're past the point where the forces of gravity balance... Negative energy = bound. it's like a ****ing flashback to 7th grade. don't forget about the van allen belt radiation in your calculations or else you'll be to blame when this kid gets a red mark on his homework. I apologise Matt, as it seems I have something stuck to my shoe. -- Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within. Coffee boy to the rich and famous. Proud owner of the Mop Jockey. COOSN-174-07-82116: alt.astronomy's favourite poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Matt wrote: I'm not too worried about what happens to the total energy when the boost is applied, the bigger concern is why the value rises as it approaches the Moon. My first thought was the same as others: the Moon's potential energy. From a later post, though, you appear to have that right. Could the problem be numerical inaccuracy? How are you doing the orbit integration? I've also noticed that the absolute value of the rocket's total energy is around -3 x 10^10 J. Why is this value negative? Think about what energy=0 would mean. Can the rocket escape the Earth- Moon system? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
problem be numerical inaccuracy? How are you doing the orbit
integration? Using a Fourth Order Runge-Kutta Method |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Total energy of the universe - TYPO | Jack Sarfatti | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 26th 06 09:59 PM |
The total energy of the universe is not conserved | Jack Sarfatti | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 26th 06 09:46 PM |
ATK Rocket Motors and Composites Help Launch New Earth Observation Satellite Aboard Delta II Rocket | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | May 24th 05 04:08 PM |
PLANETS ORBIT THE EARTH TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY | GRAVITYMECHANIC2 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 19th 03 09:25 PM |
PLANTES ORBIT THE EARTH TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY | GRAVITYMECHANIC2 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 23rd 03 02:29 AM |