Escape Velocity - Won't the orbital path just become larger with higher initial velocity?A revolving astronautA small object on the opposite side of the earth's orbit with 0 velocity,“in line” with the core - would it collide with the earth?How does escape velocity relate to energy and speed?Velocity of satellites greater than required velocityWork done in moving a body out of Gravitational influenceEscape velocity of the solar system?Violation of Gravity as a Conservative force?How does General Relativity explain escape velocities?
Why are Tucker and Malcolm not dead?
What can Amex do if I cancel their card after using the sign up bonus miles?
How do some PhD students get 10+ papers? Is that what I need for landing good faculty position?
In which case does the Security misconfiguration vulnerability apply to?
How do you deal with the emotions of not being the one to find the cause of a bug?
How was the murder committed?
Can sampling rate be a floating point number?
Can lodestones be used to magnetize crude iron weapons?
Do Reform Jews believe in a theistic God?
How to Check all AD userers for "blank" password?
How to find directories containing only specific files
Aderet's Anonymous Sefer and Haskamah?
Why is there a large performance impact when looping over an array over 240 elements?
Tempoverlustspiel
Are employers legally allowed to pay employees in goods and services equal to or greater than the minimum wage?
Corroded Metal vs Magical Armor, should it melt it?
Update Office without opening an Office application
Do I have to cite common CS algorithms?
How would timezones work on a planet 100 times the size of our Earth
Boss wants me to ignore a software API license prohibiting mass download
Is there a way to count the number of lines of text in a file including non-delimited ones?
What are those bumps on top of the Antonov-225?
How can I communicate my issues with a potential date's pushy behavior?
What is the hottest thing in the universe?
Escape Velocity - Won't the orbital path just become larger with higher initial velocity?
A revolving astronautA small object on the opposite side of the earth's orbit with 0 velocity,“in line” with the core - would it collide with the earth?How does escape velocity relate to energy and speed?Velocity of satellites greater than required velocityWork done in moving a body out of Gravitational influenceEscape velocity of the solar system?Violation of Gravity as a Conservative force?How does General Relativity explain escape velocities?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
Escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for an object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body. However, gravity has infinite range. Object $A$ is always getting pulled by the gravity of object $B$ no matter the distance between object A and B. (Maybe the force becomes extremely small with increasing distance, but still not zero)
So, how can an object possibly “escape the gravitational influence of another object”? Is there a more accurate definition of escape velocity? Won't the orbital path just become infinitely large with increasing initial velocity?
newtonian-gravity orbital-motion escape-velocity
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for an object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body. However, gravity has infinite range. Object $A$ is always getting pulled by the gravity of object $B$ no matter the distance between object A and B. (Maybe the force becomes extremely small with increasing distance, but still not zero)
So, how can an object possibly “escape the gravitational influence of another object”? Is there a more accurate definition of escape velocity? Won't the orbital path just become infinitely large with increasing initial velocity?
newtonian-gravity orbital-motion escape-velocity
New contributor
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
An object with an infinitely long orbital path will take an infinite amount of time to orbit when moving at a finite speed. In other words, it ain't coming back.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
11 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for an object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body. However, gravity has infinite range. Object $A$ is always getting pulled by the gravity of object $B$ no matter the distance between object A and B. (Maybe the force becomes extremely small with increasing distance, but still not zero)
So, how can an object possibly “escape the gravitational influence of another object”? Is there a more accurate definition of escape velocity? Won't the orbital path just become infinitely large with increasing initial velocity?
newtonian-gravity orbital-motion escape-velocity
New contributor
$endgroup$
Escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for an object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body. However, gravity has infinite range. Object $A$ is always getting pulled by the gravity of object $B$ no matter the distance between object A and B. (Maybe the force becomes extremely small with increasing distance, but still not zero)
So, how can an object possibly “escape the gravitational influence of another object”? Is there a more accurate definition of escape velocity? Won't the orbital path just become infinitely large with increasing initial velocity?
newtonian-gravity orbital-motion escape-velocity
newtonian-gravity orbital-motion escape-velocity
New contributor
New contributor
edited 10 hours ago
Qmechanic♦
112k13 gold badges218 silver badges1327 bronze badges
112k13 gold badges218 silver badges1327 bronze badges
New contributor
asked 11 hours ago
doge2048719doge2048719
161 bronze badge
161 bronze badge
New contributor
New contributor
2
$begingroup$
An object with an infinitely long orbital path will take an infinite amount of time to orbit when moving at a finite speed. In other words, it ain't coming back.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
11 hours ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
An object with an infinitely long orbital path will take an infinite amount of time to orbit when moving at a finite speed. In other words, it ain't coming back.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
11 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
An object with an infinitely long orbital path will take an infinite amount of time to orbit when moving at a finite speed. In other words, it ain't coming back.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
An object with an infinitely long orbital path will take an infinite amount of time to orbit when moving at a finite speed. In other words, it ain't coming back.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
11 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Is there a more accurate definition of escape velocity?
First, consider an object with a radial orbit (zero angular momentum orbit) in a $1/r^2$ central force field. The total energy $E$ of the object (which is constant) is the sum of the (negative) potential energy $U(r)$ due to the force field and the kinetic energy $T(v)$ due to the radial speed.
There are three cases to consider:
$E lt 0$: The orbit is bounded, i.e., there is a maximum, finite distance $r = r_max$ where the speed (and thus kinetic energy) is zero, and the object has maximum (least negative) potential energy
$E ge 0$: The orbit is unbounded, i.e., the object never has zero speed. As $r rightarrow infty$, the kinetic energy $T$ asymptotically approaches $E$ from above.
$E = 0$: A special case of the unbounded orbit in that $T rightarrow 0$ as $rrightarrowinfty$.
It is this special case that is relevant to the definition of escape velocity. At any radius $r_0$ in the central force field, there is a speed $v_e$ such that
$$T(v_e) = |U(r_0)|$$
Thus, an object starting at $r = r_0$ with outward radial velocity $vecv_e$ has just enough kinetic energy to, ahem, 'coast to a stop at $r = infty$'.
More precisely, the object will coast arbitrarily far away with speed arbitrarily close to zero. In this sense, the object 'escapes' the central force field, but just so.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The object doesn't escape the gravitational influence; as you have noted, $1/r^2$ is never equal to $0$. However, what we mean by "escape velocity"is that the object has enough energy (large enough velocity) so that its path would have to "turn around at infinity". In other words, the object's velocity is high enough and decreasing slow enough to where the object will never turn around.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are right. The notion of "escape" from a gravitational field is something that only exists in an idealized mathematical model of the situation. In that idealized model, we have only one gravitator, in a space-time of infinite extent. With that, we can state the idea of the escape velocity as thus:
It is the minimum speed that an object must be thrown away from the gravitator, in order that it will reach infinite distance, after an infinite lapse of time.
If you throw the object with less speed than this, it will come back: either it will strike the gravitator's surface, or it will go into a repeating orbit around it that nonetheless stays within some maximum distance from the object.
In formal language, if $mathbfr(t)$ is a vector pointing from the gravitator toward the thrown object and which traces its trajectory, and at $t = 0$ we throw the object, the escape velocity is the speed it must begin with, i.e. the minimum speed $v_mathrmesc$ where that if
$$|mathbfr'(0)| = v_mathrmesc$$
then
$$lim_t rightarrow infty |mathbfr(t)| = infty$$
. In reality, of course, there are two limitations: for one, we can never have an infinite time go by, which means that the object will, at all times, still be theoretically under the influence of the gravitator, even if that influence is extremely small. The other limitation is that in reality, there will be other gravity sources present at distance, which will then change the trajectory in other ways once their influence begins to dominate control over the motion of the thrown object and this, in turn, will also prevent reaching that infinite distance. For example, if we are talking about the Solar System, and we are "escaping" the Earth, if we launch a craft away with no more than Earth's escape velocity, then it will only "escape" until the Sun's gravity begins to dominate it, at which point it will now follow a more complicated trajectory based on mutual influence between the Earth and Sun (mostly, it will orbit the Sun, since the Earth will move away in the interim, but it may encounter the Earth again), and also, to some extent, the other planets.
Nonetheless, it is useful because we can take it as a ballpark for the minimum speed, and hence minimum effort which our engine must expend, to "get away" from the gravity source and get to a more remote destination like, say, Mars. Of course, actually travelling there will require more speed change (so-called "delta vee"), because we will also need to navigate to intercept that destination and then settle onto its surface safely.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"The other limitation is that in reality, there will be other gravity sources present at distance, which will then change the trajectory in other ways once their influence begins to dominate control over the motion" - given the significance of this year, would you consider mentioning the crossing, by the various Apollo spacecraft, of the equigravisphere?
$endgroup$
– Alfred Centauri
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The important part here is the speed of the orbiting object.
Every distance of the orbiting object has its own orbiting speed (orbiting along the circle). If you increase the speed, the orbiting path changes to an ellipse; if you increase the speed more, the ellipse becomes more and more prolonged.
If you continue to increase speed, there will be the moment in which the path becomes parabolic — and parabola is not closed curve anymore, so the object escapes — not from the gravitational force, but from the orbiting around the object.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
How about throwing an object up to the sky vertically? Escape velocity still applies to this scenario and the orbiting speed is zero.
$endgroup$
– doge2048719
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@doge2048719 The other answers do not rely on orbits.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the initial speed is high enough, the object will still move away, albeit with still decreasing speed. The limit of speed will be zero, but the speed never reach this limit, so it will be still positive. So object escapes — again, not from the gravitational influence, but from closed path; it's distance will never be shorter.
$endgroup$
– MarianD
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@doge2048719, Every ballistic trajectory in the vicinity of a planet is a conic section with one focus at the planet's center of mass. If you throw a baseball, it follows an extremely skinny elliptical path--an orbit, literally--until that path intersects the ground. If you throw the baseball absolutely straight up, it becomes a degenerate ellipse. Or, if you could throw it hard enough, it would be a degenerate parabola or a degenerate hyperbola, and it would never fall back.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Throw a stone up, and it will fall back on Earth. But if you give it very, very large speed, it will go away, into space. Surely, it's always under the gravitational influence of the planet but it has speed great enough that it never returns back.
The minimum speed needed for this is called escape velocity. And at that speed (or greater) the path of the object is an open curve; this means the curve extends to infinity and the object, hence, has no bounds on how far it can go.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
doge2048719 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f496601%2fescape-velocity-wont-the-orbital-path-just-become-larger-with-higher-initial%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Is there a more accurate definition of escape velocity?
First, consider an object with a radial orbit (zero angular momentum orbit) in a $1/r^2$ central force field. The total energy $E$ of the object (which is constant) is the sum of the (negative) potential energy $U(r)$ due to the force field and the kinetic energy $T(v)$ due to the radial speed.
There are three cases to consider:
$E lt 0$: The orbit is bounded, i.e., there is a maximum, finite distance $r = r_max$ where the speed (and thus kinetic energy) is zero, and the object has maximum (least negative) potential energy
$E ge 0$: The orbit is unbounded, i.e., the object never has zero speed. As $r rightarrow infty$, the kinetic energy $T$ asymptotically approaches $E$ from above.
$E = 0$: A special case of the unbounded orbit in that $T rightarrow 0$ as $rrightarrowinfty$.
It is this special case that is relevant to the definition of escape velocity. At any radius $r_0$ in the central force field, there is a speed $v_e$ such that
$$T(v_e) = |U(r_0)|$$
Thus, an object starting at $r = r_0$ with outward radial velocity $vecv_e$ has just enough kinetic energy to, ahem, 'coast to a stop at $r = infty$'.
More precisely, the object will coast arbitrarily far away with speed arbitrarily close to zero. In this sense, the object 'escapes' the central force field, but just so.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is there a more accurate definition of escape velocity?
First, consider an object with a radial orbit (zero angular momentum orbit) in a $1/r^2$ central force field. The total energy $E$ of the object (which is constant) is the sum of the (negative) potential energy $U(r)$ due to the force field and the kinetic energy $T(v)$ due to the radial speed.
There are three cases to consider:
$E lt 0$: The orbit is bounded, i.e., there is a maximum, finite distance $r = r_max$ where the speed (and thus kinetic energy) is zero, and the object has maximum (least negative) potential energy
$E ge 0$: The orbit is unbounded, i.e., the object never has zero speed. As $r rightarrow infty$, the kinetic energy $T$ asymptotically approaches $E$ from above.
$E = 0$: A special case of the unbounded orbit in that $T rightarrow 0$ as $rrightarrowinfty$.
It is this special case that is relevant to the definition of escape velocity. At any radius $r_0$ in the central force field, there is a speed $v_e$ such that
$$T(v_e) = |U(r_0)|$$
Thus, an object starting at $r = r_0$ with outward radial velocity $vecv_e$ has just enough kinetic energy to, ahem, 'coast to a stop at $r = infty$'.
More precisely, the object will coast arbitrarily far away with speed arbitrarily close to zero. In this sense, the object 'escapes' the central force field, but just so.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is there a more accurate definition of escape velocity?
First, consider an object with a radial orbit (zero angular momentum orbit) in a $1/r^2$ central force field. The total energy $E$ of the object (which is constant) is the sum of the (negative) potential energy $U(r)$ due to the force field and the kinetic energy $T(v)$ due to the radial speed.
There are three cases to consider:
$E lt 0$: The orbit is bounded, i.e., there is a maximum, finite distance $r = r_max$ where the speed (and thus kinetic energy) is zero, and the object has maximum (least negative) potential energy
$E ge 0$: The orbit is unbounded, i.e., the object never has zero speed. As $r rightarrow infty$, the kinetic energy $T$ asymptotically approaches $E$ from above.
$E = 0$: A special case of the unbounded orbit in that $T rightarrow 0$ as $rrightarrowinfty$.
It is this special case that is relevant to the definition of escape velocity. At any radius $r_0$ in the central force field, there is a speed $v_e$ such that
$$T(v_e) = |U(r_0)|$$
Thus, an object starting at $r = r_0$ with outward radial velocity $vecv_e$ has just enough kinetic energy to, ahem, 'coast to a stop at $r = infty$'.
More precisely, the object will coast arbitrarily far away with speed arbitrarily close to zero. In this sense, the object 'escapes' the central force field, but just so.
$endgroup$
Is there a more accurate definition of escape velocity?
First, consider an object with a radial orbit (zero angular momentum orbit) in a $1/r^2$ central force field. The total energy $E$ of the object (which is constant) is the sum of the (negative) potential energy $U(r)$ due to the force field and the kinetic energy $T(v)$ due to the radial speed.
There are three cases to consider:
$E lt 0$: The orbit is bounded, i.e., there is a maximum, finite distance $r = r_max$ where the speed (and thus kinetic energy) is zero, and the object has maximum (least negative) potential energy
$E ge 0$: The orbit is unbounded, i.e., the object never has zero speed. As $r rightarrow infty$, the kinetic energy $T$ asymptotically approaches $E$ from above.
$E = 0$: A special case of the unbounded orbit in that $T rightarrow 0$ as $rrightarrowinfty$.
It is this special case that is relevant to the definition of escape velocity. At any radius $r_0$ in the central force field, there is a speed $v_e$ such that
$$T(v_e) = |U(r_0)|$$
Thus, an object starting at $r = r_0$ with outward radial velocity $vecv_e$ has just enough kinetic energy to, ahem, 'coast to a stop at $r = infty$'.
More precisely, the object will coast arbitrarily far away with speed arbitrarily close to zero. In this sense, the object 'escapes' the central force field, but just so.
edited 4 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
Alfred CentauriAlfred Centauri
50.4k3 gold badges53 silver badges163 bronze badges
50.4k3 gold badges53 silver badges163 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The object doesn't escape the gravitational influence; as you have noted, $1/r^2$ is never equal to $0$. However, what we mean by "escape velocity"is that the object has enough energy (large enough velocity) so that its path would have to "turn around at infinity". In other words, the object's velocity is high enough and decreasing slow enough to where the object will never turn around.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The object doesn't escape the gravitational influence; as you have noted, $1/r^2$ is never equal to $0$. However, what we mean by "escape velocity"is that the object has enough energy (large enough velocity) so that its path would have to "turn around at infinity". In other words, the object's velocity is high enough and decreasing slow enough to where the object will never turn around.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The object doesn't escape the gravitational influence; as you have noted, $1/r^2$ is never equal to $0$. However, what we mean by "escape velocity"is that the object has enough energy (large enough velocity) so that its path would have to "turn around at infinity". In other words, the object's velocity is high enough and decreasing slow enough to where the object will never turn around.
$endgroup$
The object doesn't escape the gravitational influence; as you have noted, $1/r^2$ is never equal to $0$. However, what we mean by "escape velocity"is that the object has enough energy (large enough velocity) so that its path would have to "turn around at infinity". In other words, the object's velocity is high enough and decreasing slow enough to where the object will never turn around.
edited 8 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
20.7k4 gold badges35 silver badges74 bronze badges
20.7k4 gold badges35 silver badges74 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are right. The notion of "escape" from a gravitational field is something that only exists in an idealized mathematical model of the situation. In that idealized model, we have only one gravitator, in a space-time of infinite extent. With that, we can state the idea of the escape velocity as thus:
It is the minimum speed that an object must be thrown away from the gravitator, in order that it will reach infinite distance, after an infinite lapse of time.
If you throw the object with less speed than this, it will come back: either it will strike the gravitator's surface, or it will go into a repeating orbit around it that nonetheless stays within some maximum distance from the object.
In formal language, if $mathbfr(t)$ is a vector pointing from the gravitator toward the thrown object and which traces its trajectory, and at $t = 0$ we throw the object, the escape velocity is the speed it must begin with, i.e. the minimum speed $v_mathrmesc$ where that if
$$|mathbfr'(0)| = v_mathrmesc$$
then
$$lim_t rightarrow infty |mathbfr(t)| = infty$$
. In reality, of course, there are two limitations: for one, we can never have an infinite time go by, which means that the object will, at all times, still be theoretically under the influence of the gravitator, even if that influence is extremely small. The other limitation is that in reality, there will be other gravity sources present at distance, which will then change the trajectory in other ways once their influence begins to dominate control over the motion of the thrown object and this, in turn, will also prevent reaching that infinite distance. For example, if we are talking about the Solar System, and we are "escaping" the Earth, if we launch a craft away with no more than Earth's escape velocity, then it will only "escape" until the Sun's gravity begins to dominate it, at which point it will now follow a more complicated trajectory based on mutual influence between the Earth and Sun (mostly, it will orbit the Sun, since the Earth will move away in the interim, but it may encounter the Earth again), and also, to some extent, the other planets.
Nonetheless, it is useful because we can take it as a ballpark for the minimum speed, and hence minimum effort which our engine must expend, to "get away" from the gravity source and get to a more remote destination like, say, Mars. Of course, actually travelling there will require more speed change (so-called "delta vee"), because we will also need to navigate to intercept that destination and then settle onto its surface safely.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"The other limitation is that in reality, there will be other gravity sources present at distance, which will then change the trajectory in other ways once their influence begins to dominate control over the motion" - given the significance of this year, would you consider mentioning the crossing, by the various Apollo spacecraft, of the equigravisphere?
$endgroup$
– Alfred Centauri
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are right. The notion of "escape" from a gravitational field is something that only exists in an idealized mathematical model of the situation. In that idealized model, we have only one gravitator, in a space-time of infinite extent. With that, we can state the idea of the escape velocity as thus:
It is the minimum speed that an object must be thrown away from the gravitator, in order that it will reach infinite distance, after an infinite lapse of time.
If you throw the object with less speed than this, it will come back: either it will strike the gravitator's surface, or it will go into a repeating orbit around it that nonetheless stays within some maximum distance from the object.
In formal language, if $mathbfr(t)$ is a vector pointing from the gravitator toward the thrown object and which traces its trajectory, and at $t = 0$ we throw the object, the escape velocity is the speed it must begin with, i.e. the minimum speed $v_mathrmesc$ where that if
$$|mathbfr'(0)| = v_mathrmesc$$
then
$$lim_t rightarrow infty |mathbfr(t)| = infty$$
. In reality, of course, there are two limitations: for one, we can never have an infinite time go by, which means that the object will, at all times, still be theoretically under the influence of the gravitator, even if that influence is extremely small. The other limitation is that in reality, there will be other gravity sources present at distance, which will then change the trajectory in other ways once their influence begins to dominate control over the motion of the thrown object and this, in turn, will also prevent reaching that infinite distance. For example, if we are talking about the Solar System, and we are "escaping" the Earth, if we launch a craft away with no more than Earth's escape velocity, then it will only "escape" until the Sun's gravity begins to dominate it, at which point it will now follow a more complicated trajectory based on mutual influence between the Earth and Sun (mostly, it will orbit the Sun, since the Earth will move away in the interim, but it may encounter the Earth again), and also, to some extent, the other planets.
Nonetheless, it is useful because we can take it as a ballpark for the minimum speed, and hence minimum effort which our engine must expend, to "get away" from the gravity source and get to a more remote destination like, say, Mars. Of course, actually travelling there will require more speed change (so-called "delta vee"), because we will also need to navigate to intercept that destination and then settle onto its surface safely.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
"The other limitation is that in reality, there will be other gravity sources present at distance, which will then change the trajectory in other ways once their influence begins to dominate control over the motion" - given the significance of this year, would you consider mentioning the crossing, by the various Apollo spacecraft, of the equigravisphere?
$endgroup$
– Alfred Centauri
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are right. The notion of "escape" from a gravitational field is something that only exists in an idealized mathematical model of the situation. In that idealized model, we have only one gravitator, in a space-time of infinite extent. With that, we can state the idea of the escape velocity as thus:
It is the minimum speed that an object must be thrown away from the gravitator, in order that it will reach infinite distance, after an infinite lapse of time.
If you throw the object with less speed than this, it will come back: either it will strike the gravitator's surface, or it will go into a repeating orbit around it that nonetheless stays within some maximum distance from the object.
In formal language, if $mathbfr(t)$ is a vector pointing from the gravitator toward the thrown object and which traces its trajectory, and at $t = 0$ we throw the object, the escape velocity is the speed it must begin with, i.e. the minimum speed $v_mathrmesc$ where that if
$$|mathbfr'(0)| = v_mathrmesc$$
then
$$lim_t rightarrow infty |mathbfr(t)| = infty$$
. In reality, of course, there are two limitations: for one, we can never have an infinite time go by, which means that the object will, at all times, still be theoretically under the influence of the gravitator, even if that influence is extremely small. The other limitation is that in reality, there will be other gravity sources present at distance, which will then change the trajectory in other ways once their influence begins to dominate control over the motion of the thrown object and this, in turn, will also prevent reaching that infinite distance. For example, if we are talking about the Solar System, and we are "escaping" the Earth, if we launch a craft away with no more than Earth's escape velocity, then it will only "escape" until the Sun's gravity begins to dominate it, at which point it will now follow a more complicated trajectory based on mutual influence between the Earth and Sun (mostly, it will orbit the Sun, since the Earth will move away in the interim, but it may encounter the Earth again), and also, to some extent, the other planets.
Nonetheless, it is useful because we can take it as a ballpark for the minimum speed, and hence minimum effort which our engine must expend, to "get away" from the gravity source and get to a more remote destination like, say, Mars. Of course, actually travelling there will require more speed change (so-called "delta vee"), because we will also need to navigate to intercept that destination and then settle onto its surface safely.
$endgroup$
You are right. The notion of "escape" from a gravitational field is something that only exists in an idealized mathematical model of the situation. In that idealized model, we have only one gravitator, in a space-time of infinite extent. With that, we can state the idea of the escape velocity as thus:
It is the minimum speed that an object must be thrown away from the gravitator, in order that it will reach infinite distance, after an infinite lapse of time.
If you throw the object with less speed than this, it will come back: either it will strike the gravitator's surface, or it will go into a repeating orbit around it that nonetheless stays within some maximum distance from the object.
In formal language, if $mathbfr(t)$ is a vector pointing from the gravitator toward the thrown object and which traces its trajectory, and at $t = 0$ we throw the object, the escape velocity is the speed it must begin with, i.e. the minimum speed $v_mathrmesc$ where that if
$$|mathbfr'(0)| = v_mathrmesc$$
then
$$lim_t rightarrow infty |mathbfr(t)| = infty$$
. In reality, of course, there are two limitations: for one, we can never have an infinite time go by, which means that the object will, at all times, still be theoretically under the influence of the gravitator, even if that influence is extremely small. The other limitation is that in reality, there will be other gravity sources present at distance, which will then change the trajectory in other ways once their influence begins to dominate control over the motion of the thrown object and this, in turn, will also prevent reaching that infinite distance. For example, if we are talking about the Solar System, and we are "escaping" the Earth, if we launch a craft away with no more than Earth's escape velocity, then it will only "escape" until the Sun's gravity begins to dominate it, at which point it will now follow a more complicated trajectory based on mutual influence between the Earth and Sun (mostly, it will orbit the Sun, since the Earth will move away in the interim, but it may encounter the Earth again), and also, to some extent, the other planets.
Nonetheless, it is useful because we can take it as a ballpark for the minimum speed, and hence minimum effort which our engine must expend, to "get away" from the gravity source and get to a more remote destination like, say, Mars. Of course, actually travelling there will require more speed change (so-called "delta vee"), because we will also need to navigate to intercept that destination and then settle onto its surface safely.
answered 2 hours ago
The_SympathizerThe_Sympathizer
6,39312 silver badges30 bronze badges
6,39312 silver badges30 bronze badges
$begingroup$
"The other limitation is that in reality, there will be other gravity sources present at distance, which will then change the trajectory in other ways once their influence begins to dominate control over the motion" - given the significance of this year, would you consider mentioning the crossing, by the various Apollo spacecraft, of the equigravisphere?
$endgroup$
– Alfred Centauri
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"The other limitation is that in reality, there will be other gravity sources present at distance, which will then change the trajectory in other ways once their influence begins to dominate control over the motion" - given the significance of this year, would you consider mentioning the crossing, by the various Apollo spacecraft, of the equigravisphere?
$endgroup$
– Alfred Centauri
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
"The other limitation is that in reality, there will be other gravity sources present at distance, which will then change the trajectory in other ways once their influence begins to dominate control over the motion" - given the significance of this year, would you consider mentioning the crossing, by the various Apollo spacecraft, of the equigravisphere?
$endgroup$
– Alfred Centauri
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
"The other limitation is that in reality, there will be other gravity sources present at distance, which will then change the trajectory in other ways once their influence begins to dominate control over the motion" - given the significance of this year, would you consider mentioning the crossing, by the various Apollo spacecraft, of the equigravisphere?
$endgroup$
– Alfred Centauri
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The important part here is the speed of the orbiting object.
Every distance of the orbiting object has its own orbiting speed (orbiting along the circle). If you increase the speed, the orbiting path changes to an ellipse; if you increase the speed more, the ellipse becomes more and more prolonged.
If you continue to increase speed, there will be the moment in which the path becomes parabolic — and parabola is not closed curve anymore, so the object escapes — not from the gravitational force, but from the orbiting around the object.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
How about throwing an object up to the sky vertically? Escape velocity still applies to this scenario and the orbiting speed is zero.
$endgroup$
– doge2048719
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@doge2048719 The other answers do not rely on orbits.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the initial speed is high enough, the object will still move away, albeit with still decreasing speed. The limit of speed will be zero, but the speed never reach this limit, so it will be still positive. So object escapes — again, not from the gravitational influence, but from closed path; it's distance will never be shorter.
$endgroup$
– MarianD
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@doge2048719, Every ballistic trajectory in the vicinity of a planet is a conic section with one focus at the planet's center of mass. If you throw a baseball, it follows an extremely skinny elliptical path--an orbit, literally--until that path intersects the ground. If you throw the baseball absolutely straight up, it becomes a degenerate ellipse. Or, if you could throw it hard enough, it would be a degenerate parabola or a degenerate hyperbola, and it would never fall back.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The important part here is the speed of the orbiting object.
Every distance of the orbiting object has its own orbiting speed (orbiting along the circle). If you increase the speed, the orbiting path changes to an ellipse; if you increase the speed more, the ellipse becomes more and more prolonged.
If you continue to increase speed, there will be the moment in which the path becomes parabolic — and parabola is not closed curve anymore, so the object escapes — not from the gravitational force, but from the orbiting around the object.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
How about throwing an object up to the sky vertically? Escape velocity still applies to this scenario and the orbiting speed is zero.
$endgroup$
– doge2048719
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@doge2048719 The other answers do not rely on orbits.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the initial speed is high enough, the object will still move away, albeit with still decreasing speed. The limit of speed will be zero, but the speed never reach this limit, so it will be still positive. So object escapes — again, not from the gravitational influence, but from closed path; it's distance will never be shorter.
$endgroup$
– MarianD
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@doge2048719, Every ballistic trajectory in the vicinity of a planet is a conic section with one focus at the planet's center of mass. If you throw a baseball, it follows an extremely skinny elliptical path--an orbit, literally--until that path intersects the ground. If you throw the baseball absolutely straight up, it becomes a degenerate ellipse. Or, if you could throw it hard enough, it would be a degenerate parabola or a degenerate hyperbola, and it would never fall back.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The important part here is the speed of the orbiting object.
Every distance of the orbiting object has its own orbiting speed (orbiting along the circle). If you increase the speed, the orbiting path changes to an ellipse; if you increase the speed more, the ellipse becomes more and more prolonged.
If you continue to increase speed, there will be the moment in which the path becomes parabolic — and parabola is not closed curve anymore, so the object escapes — not from the gravitational force, but from the orbiting around the object.
$endgroup$
The important part here is the speed of the orbiting object.
Every distance of the orbiting object has its own orbiting speed (orbiting along the circle). If you increase the speed, the orbiting path changes to an ellipse; if you increase the speed more, the ellipse becomes more and more prolonged.
If you continue to increase speed, there will be the moment in which the path becomes parabolic — and parabola is not closed curve anymore, so the object escapes — not from the gravitational force, but from the orbiting around the object.
answered 10 hours ago
MarianDMarianD
1,1771 gold badge7 silver badges14 bronze badges
1,1771 gold badge7 silver badges14 bronze badges
$begingroup$
How about throwing an object up to the sky vertically? Escape velocity still applies to this scenario and the orbiting speed is zero.
$endgroup$
– doge2048719
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@doge2048719 The other answers do not rely on orbits.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the initial speed is high enough, the object will still move away, albeit with still decreasing speed. The limit of speed will be zero, but the speed never reach this limit, so it will be still positive. So object escapes — again, not from the gravitational influence, but from closed path; it's distance will never be shorter.
$endgroup$
– MarianD
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@doge2048719, Every ballistic trajectory in the vicinity of a planet is a conic section with one focus at the planet's center of mass. If you throw a baseball, it follows an extremely skinny elliptical path--an orbit, literally--until that path intersects the ground. If you throw the baseball absolutely straight up, it becomes a degenerate ellipse. Or, if you could throw it hard enough, it would be a degenerate parabola or a degenerate hyperbola, and it would never fall back.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How about throwing an object up to the sky vertically? Escape velocity still applies to this scenario and the orbiting speed is zero.
$endgroup$
– doge2048719
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@doge2048719 The other answers do not rely on orbits.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the initial speed is high enough, the object will still move away, albeit with still decreasing speed. The limit of speed will be zero, but the speed never reach this limit, so it will be still positive. So object escapes — again, not from the gravitational influence, but from closed path; it's distance will never be shorter.
$endgroup$
– MarianD
10 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
@doge2048719, Every ballistic trajectory in the vicinity of a planet is a conic section with one focus at the planet's center of mass. If you throw a baseball, it follows an extremely skinny elliptical path--an orbit, literally--until that path intersects the ground. If you throw the baseball absolutely straight up, it becomes a degenerate ellipse. Or, if you could throw it hard enough, it would be a degenerate parabola or a degenerate hyperbola, and it would never fall back.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
How about throwing an object up to the sky vertically? Escape velocity still applies to this scenario and the orbiting speed is zero.
$endgroup$
– doge2048719
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
How about throwing an object up to the sky vertically? Escape velocity still applies to this scenario and the orbiting speed is zero.
$endgroup$
– doge2048719
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@doge2048719 The other answers do not rely on orbits.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@doge2048719 The other answers do not rely on orbits.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the initial speed is high enough, the object will still move away, albeit with still decreasing speed. The limit of speed will be zero, but the speed never reach this limit, so it will be still positive. So object escapes — again, not from the gravitational influence, but from closed path; it's distance will never be shorter.
$endgroup$
– MarianD
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
If the initial speed is high enough, the object will still move away, albeit with still decreasing speed. The limit of speed will be zero, but the speed never reach this limit, so it will be still positive. So object escapes — again, not from the gravitational influence, but from closed path; it's distance will never be shorter.
$endgroup$
– MarianD
10 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
@doge2048719, Every ballistic trajectory in the vicinity of a planet is a conic section with one focus at the planet's center of mass. If you throw a baseball, it follows an extremely skinny elliptical path--an orbit, literally--until that path intersects the ground. If you throw the baseball absolutely straight up, it becomes a degenerate ellipse. Or, if you could throw it hard enough, it would be a degenerate parabola or a degenerate hyperbola, and it would never fall back.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@doge2048719, Every ballistic trajectory in the vicinity of a planet is a conic section with one focus at the planet's center of mass. If you throw a baseball, it follows an extremely skinny elliptical path--an orbit, literally--until that path intersects the ground. If you throw the baseball absolutely straight up, it becomes a degenerate ellipse. Or, if you could throw it hard enough, it would be a degenerate parabola or a degenerate hyperbola, and it would never fall back.
$endgroup$
– Solomon Slow
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Throw a stone up, and it will fall back on Earth. But if you give it very, very large speed, it will go away, into space. Surely, it's always under the gravitational influence of the planet but it has speed great enough that it never returns back.
The minimum speed needed for this is called escape velocity. And at that speed (or greater) the path of the object is an open curve; this means the curve extends to infinity and the object, hence, has no bounds on how far it can go.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Throw a stone up, and it will fall back on Earth. But if you give it very, very large speed, it will go away, into space. Surely, it's always under the gravitational influence of the planet but it has speed great enough that it never returns back.
The minimum speed needed for this is called escape velocity. And at that speed (or greater) the path of the object is an open curve; this means the curve extends to infinity and the object, hence, has no bounds on how far it can go.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Throw a stone up, and it will fall back on Earth. But if you give it very, very large speed, it will go away, into space. Surely, it's always under the gravitational influence of the planet but it has speed great enough that it never returns back.
The minimum speed needed for this is called escape velocity. And at that speed (or greater) the path of the object is an open curve; this means the curve extends to infinity and the object, hence, has no bounds on how far it can go.
$endgroup$
Throw a stone up, and it will fall back on Earth. But if you give it very, very large speed, it will go away, into space. Surely, it's always under the gravitational influence of the planet but it has speed great enough that it never returns back.
The minimum speed needed for this is called escape velocity. And at that speed (or greater) the path of the object is an open curve; this means the curve extends to infinity and the object, hence, has no bounds on how far it can go.
edited 9 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
Hack MasterHack Master
1919 bronze badges
1919 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
doge2048719 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
doge2048719 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
doge2048719 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
doge2048719 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f496601%2fescape-velocity-wont-the-orbital-path-just-become-larger-with-higher-initial%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
An object with an infinitely long orbital path will take an infinite amount of time to orbit when moving at a finite speed. In other words, it ain't coming back.
$endgroup$
– Nuclear Wang
11 hours ago