Conservation of energy in Gravitation

AI Thread Summary
In the context of a rocket moving through the gravitational fields of the Sun and Mars, energy conservation is observed in Mars's frame, while the Sun's frame depicts the interaction as an elastic collision. The rocket's velocity changes from v to -(v+2U) in the Sun's frame, illustrating the effects of relative motion. Although Mars is not a perfectly inertial frame due to the rocket's influence, energy conservation can still be analyzed using the common center of mass frame. Elastic collisions are defined by the conservation of kinetic energy and the separation speed remaining constant before and after the collision. Understanding these principles helps clarify the dynamics of gravitational interactions and energy conservation in different reference frames.
phantomvommand
Messages
287
Reaction score
39
Suppose a rocket is moving at radial velocity vr and tangential velocity vt in the Sun's gravitational field. At some time, the rocket enters the gravitational field of Mars (with the above mentioned velocities), and gravitation effects due to the Sun can be ignored. After more time, the rocket leaves the g-field of Mars. Let Mars move at velocity vm with respect to the Sun.

The textbook has claimed that in Mars's frame, the energy of the rocket is conserved, while in the Sun's frame, this event is seen as an elastic collision between Mars and the rocket.

I can see how energy of the rocket is solely conserved in Mars's frame, like how objects in Earth's g-field have their energy conserved basically. But how does the "elastic collision" in the Sun frame work? What would be the equations of conservation of momentum/energy? You guys are welcome to introduce new variables to quantify/better illustrate your explanations. Thank you!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
phantomvommand said:
But how does the "elastic collision" in the Sun frame work?
A head on elastic collision with an much heavier object means the speed relative to the heavier object is approximately conserved, just the direction is reversed.

Let v and U be the speeds of rocket and planet moving in opposite directions in the sun's frame. If you simplify the trajectory to a U-turn as shown below:

- In the planet's frame the rocket velocity goes from v+U to -(v+U)
- In the sun's frame the rocket velocity goes from v to -(v+2U)

This is a simple Galilean Transformation (subtracting U from both velocities)

700px-Gravitational_slingshot.svg.png

From: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:_Gravity_Assist

phantomvommand said:
I can see how energy of the rocket is solely conserved in Mars's frame, like how objects in Earth's g-field have their energy conserved basically.
That is actually an approximation, because Mars is accelerated by the rocket, so its frame is not perfectly inertial. This doesn't matter much for energy, but it does for momentum. You can use the common center of mass frame of Mars and rocket to have conservation of energy and momentum.

phantomvommand said:
But how does the "elastic collision" in the Sun frame work? What would be the equations of conservation of momentum/energy?
Here again you have to use the common center of mass frame of Sun, Mars and rocket, to have conservation of energy and momentum.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes phantomvommand and PeroK
Note that elastic collisions also conserve energy, by definition.
 
  • Like
Likes phantomvommand
phantomvommand said:
I can see how energy of the rocket is solely conserved in Mars's frame, like how objects in Earth's g-field have their energy conserved basically. But how does the "elastic collision" in the Sun frame work? What would be the equations of conservation of momentum/energy? You guys are welcome to introduce new variables to quantify/better illustrate your explanations. Thank you!
Another way to describe an elastic collison is one where the separation speed between the two objects is the same before and after the collision. That implies that the KE of each object is conserved in the frame of the other.
 
  • Like
Likes phantomvommand
PeroK said:
Another way to describe an elastic collison is one where the separation speed between the two objects is the same before and after the collision. That implies that the KE of each object is conserved in the frame of the other.

A common analogy is throwing a ball against a wall that is approaching you:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/primer/

Gravity-Assist-Cartoon-1095x502.png
This is also similar to making an effieicent U-turn with a plane in a moving airmass:

 
  • Like
Likes phantomvommand
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