Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    can anyone explain to me how I'd go about doing this question? thanks
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Well, first write down Newton's law of gravitation? You'll find some constants are unknown (e.g. mass of the earth), but ignore this for now.

    Form equations for the acceleration at sea level, and the acceleration at 5km above sea level. You should be able to cancel out all the unknown quantities and be able to get the answer.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    Well, first write down Newton's law of gravitation? You'll find some constants are unknown (e.g. mass of the earth), but ignore this for now.

    Form equations for the acceleration at sea level, and the acceleration at 5km above sea level. You should be able to cancel out all the unknown quantities and be able to get the answer.
    I was going to ask why do we have an equation at sea level but im guessing because we have information for that and we can form an equation that we can substitute later?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    Well, first write down Newton's law of gravitation? You'll find some constants are unknown (e.g. mass of the earth), but ignore this for now.

    Form equations for the acceleration at sea level, and the acceleration at 5km above sea level. You should be able to cancel out all the unknown quantities and be able to get the answer.
    and here, why did he change the equation to a negative? is it because the rocket is traveling in the opposite direction to gravity?
    Attached Images
     
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maths&physics)
    I was going to ask why do we have an equation at sea level but im guessing because we have information for that and we can form an equation that we can substitute later?
    im also having trouble with part b.

    how did he get the equation: [( -1 / (r-x) ) + (1/r)] from part a?
    Attached Images
      
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maths&physics)
    I was going to ask why do we have an equation at sea level but im guessing because we have information for that and we can form an equation that we can substitute later?
    Yes, exactly.

    (Original post by Maths&physics)
    and here, why did he change the equation to a negative? is it because the rocket is traveling in the opposite direction to gravity?
    I don't see a negative anywhere here.

    (Original post by Maths&physics)
    im also having trouble with part b.

    how did he get the equation: [( -1 / (r-x) ) + (1/r)] from part a?
    Equation for potential energy (if you cover this in M3). Otherwise, you get the same result using "acceleration = v dv / dx" and integrating.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DFranklin)
    Yes, exactly.

    I don't see a negative anywhere here.
    sorry. I took the screenshot too early. so, why did he change the equation to a negative? is it because the rocket is traveling in the opposite direction to gravity?

    Equation for potential energy (if you cover this in M3). Otherwise, you get the same result using "acceleration = v dv / dx" and integrating.
    I get this bit now. thanks
    Attached Images
     
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Maths&physics)
    sorry. I took the screenshot too early. so, why did he change the equation to a negative? is it because the rocket is traveling in the opposite direction to gravity?
    Yes. G, M, m, d^2 are all positive quantities, but we see that acceleration is marked downwards, so we need a<0.

    Aren't these video tutorials?? Surely he would explain this step in it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)
    Yes. G, M, m, d^2 are all positive quantities, but we see that acceleration is marked downwards, so we need a<0.

    Aren't these video tutorials?? Surely he would explain this step in it.
    he didn't explain it. hes usually quite good and thorough but not always.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)
    Yes. G, M, m, d^2 are all positive quantities, but we see that acceleration is marked downwards, so we need a<0.

    Aren't these video tutorials?? Surely he would explain this step in it.
    this question follows the last. how would you suggest I go about this? thanks

    its fine. ive gone over my notes and found the way.
    Attached Images
     
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDKGames)
    Yes. G, M, m, d^2 are all positive quantities, but we see that acceleration is marked downwards, so we need a<0.

    Aren't these video tutorials?? Surely he would explain this step in it.
    the escape velocity is the initial velocity?

    but why are we ignoring v in the equation? what happens to it? thanks
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    For escape velocity, v simply needs to be greater than 0 at infinite distance from the planet - so 0.5*v^2 > 0, so the RHS of the expression is greater than 0
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    And yes, the escape velocity is the initial velocity required for an object to 'escape' the gravitational field of the planet
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSG29)
    For escape velocity, v simply needs to be greater than 0 at infinite distance from the planet - so 0.5*v^2 > 0, so the RHS of the expression is greater than 0
    but when I sub u back into the RHS of the equation, I get a negative value.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maths&physics)
    can anyone explain to me how I'd go about doing this question? thanks
    Gravitational attraction follows an inverse square law so the answer is just 9.8 * (6370/6375)^2.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maths&physics)
    but when I sub u back into the RHS of the equation, I get a negative value.
    How negative? If it's just a few thousand in this case, it's probably just a rounding error in the calculations made. If it's much bigger, you might have miscalculated - remember to convert radius into m from km, and use the u value in m/s
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSG29)
    How negative? If it's just a few thousand in this case, it's probably just a rounding error in the calculations made. If it's much bigger, you might have miscalculated - remember to convert radius into m from km, and use the u value in m/s
    have you tried it using the values in the screenshoot?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maths&physics)
    have you tried it using the values in the screenshoot?
    Yes, using u=5036 I got 0.5v^2=-11683
    Using u=5040, I got +8469
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSG29)
    Yes, using u=5036 I got 0.5v^2=-11683
    Using u=5040, I got +8469
    ah ok, so its rounding it that was the issue.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: February 22, 2018
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.