9

While writing a physically realistic game ( "Asteroid Defender" ) a physical question came up whether Diag.1 or Diag.2 or Diag.3, correctly depicts reality.

In deep space (away from other celestial bodies), a perfectly spherical asteroid of mass m moves in a straight line with velocity $\overrightarrow{V0}$ relative to point C (red dot). Its motion is constant and uniform since no forces are acting on it.

The asteroid has uniform density so its Center of Mass (CoM) coincides with its geometric center. The asteroid is rigid and does not deform when touched or pushed. The asteroid does NOT spin about its CoM. The pale green rectangles appearing on the asteroid visualize the lack of asteroid's spin. This is depicted at times t-1 and t0 on the diagrams.

At time t1 a maneuverable spacetug (space-pusher for European readers) applies a force $\overrightarrow{F1}$ to the surface of the asteroid at point P1 (small yellow dot) via a rigid and flat pushplate, which is mounted in front of the spacetug (thick blue line). This force vector lies on a line connecting point `P1' and the CoM, thus it is incapable of causing the asteroid to spin about its CoM.

As time progresses, the spacetug continuously varies the direction of the applied force in such manner as to cause the asteroid to traverse a semicircular path (U-turn) of radius r centered around point C. The magnitude of this force remains constant throughout the U-turn - only its direction changes continuously.
At all times, the applied force vectors lie on lines connecting the CoM with the points at which the pushplate touches the surface of the asteroid (e.g.: P1 at t1, P2 at t2, P3 at t3, P4 at t4, P5 at t5). The pushplate does NOT slip on the surface of the asteroid and does not spin it about its CoM - the pushplate only pushes the asteroid. This is depicted on the diagrams at times from t1 to t5.

Once the asteroid completes the 180 degrees of the U-turn, the spacetug disengages and allows the asteroid to move away in a straight line at the velocity $\overrightarrow{-V0}$ which is parallel but opposite to the initial approach. The kinetic energy of the asteroid before and after the U-turn is the same. The asteroid does not spin about its CoM as it departs. This is depicted at times t6 and t7 on the Diagrams.

QUESTION: Which Diagram correctly depicts reality in this scenario?

Please justify why one diagram correctly depicts reality and the remaining ones - do not.

Diag. 1, depicts the lines (P1_CoM, ... P5_CoM) connecting asteroid's CoM and the points at which the pushplate touches the asteroid's surface (P1 at t1, ... P5 at t5), as always passing through the center of the U-turn ( point C ). The vectors ( $\overrightarrow{F1}$, ... $\overrightarrow{F5}$ ) lie on these lines. Zoom for more details. enter image description here Diag. 2 and Diag.3 depict the lines (P1_CoM, ... P5_CoM) connecting asteroid's CoM and the points at which the pushplate touches the asteroid's surface (P1 at t1, ... P5 at t5), as passing through points (Q1, ... Q5), respectively, which do NOT coincide with point C.
In other words: the lines (P1_Q1, ...P5_Q5) on which the force vectors lie ( $\overrightarrow{F1}$, ... $\overrightarrow{F5}$ ), pass a certain distance x away from the point C.
Zoom for more details. enter image description here Zoom for more details. enter image description here

The red dashed line P0_Q0 is just a helper line that passes through the CoM at t1 and through the CoM at t5 and through point C. This line cannot be seen without zooming in.

-------------- EDIT ----------------
A question arose in the comments to Kamil's answer, whether it is possible to have a sum of two vectors $\overrightarrow{A}$ + $\overrightarrow{B}$ such that the magnitude of this sum is the same as the magnitude of the vector $\overrightarrow{A}$ alone?
The answer is "Yes", but that is possible only when the angle between these two vectors is >90º and <270º. See the formal proof here: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WK9nJ.jpg

Another EDIT: In response to the objction raised by Luke Pritchett in the comments below, I am linking an answer relevant to his objection: Asteroid Spin Prevention while Pushing

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
  • 1
    Isn’t there a stack about games and games design? –  Jul 13 '19 at 14:47
  • 2
    Yes, there is, but this is a physics question. The application does not determine its nature. – George Robinson Jul 13 '19 at 14:58
  • "pushplate does NOT slip on the surface of the asteroid and does not spin it about its CoM - the pushplate only pushes the asteroid." I'm pretty sure this is inconsistent. In order for the push to not spin the asteroid the force has to always point through to CoM to point c. This means the point of application has to rotate also be on the line from CoM to point c, which rotates around. To make this happen either the plate has to slide along the outside of the asteroid or the asteroid has to spin around at the same rate it rotates around c. – Luke Pritchett Jul 13 '19 at 15:52
  • @Luke: There is a third solution. The pushplate can relatively "roll" on the surface of the asteroid...and this is exactly what the Diagrams show. Also, I cannot agree with you that: "...In order for the pushplate to not spin the asteroid the force has to always point through to CoM to point C" - pointing to the point Cis not necessary to prevent spin, only pointing to CoM is necessary for spin prevention. I can open up another question about it if it will help. – George Robinson Jul 13 '19 at 17:07
  • The force must point to c in order for the asteroid to move in a circle around c at a constant speed. The force must point to the CoM for the planet not to spin. Therefore, the force must point through both. I did not consider rolling though. That makes Diagram 1 correct. – Luke Pritchett Jul 14 '19 at 00:02
  • So no friction here, and hence the contact force is always perpendicular to the paddle? – John Alexiou Jul 26 '19 at 16:39
  • ja72: Yes, the force vector is always perpendicular to the pushplate and always lies on the line Px_Qx, which passes through the asteroid's CoM. In other words: the force vector always "points at" the CoM. – George Robinson Jul 27 '19 at 07:27
  • As a side note, I think a game like this would be a lot of fun. Trying to control the trajectory of a massive asteroid by only a contact force (with friction). – John Alexiou Jul 29 '19 at 00:54

4 Answers4

1

The get a semi-circular trajectory the transverse acceleration must be non-zero and constant. It is quite, simple. If the asteroid is moving with speed $v$, and a constant transverse acceleration of $a=a_T$ is applied, then the asteroid is going curve with a radius of curvature equals to $r = v^2/a_T$. The sweep rate is going to be $\omega = a_T/v$. The exit velocity is $v$, as there is zero longitudinal acceleration to speed up or slow down the asteroid.

This corresponds to Diagram 1.

Diagrams 2 and 3 are incorrect because the asteroid is not going to traverse a semi-circular path. Both are subsets of the general problem, where the line of action has a moment arm $d$ from the instant center of rotation (point C). For Diagram 2, $d>0$ and for Diagram 3 $d<0$. Of course, Diagram 1 is $d=0$.

Considering the lead angle $\theta$ formed by $d$ across $r$ (the radius of curvature) the acceleration $a$ is decomposed into two components

$$ \matrix{ a_T = a \cos \theta & a_L = a \sin \theta } \;\tag{1}$$

The trigonometry of the problem is such that $d = r \sin \theta$

sketch

The equations of motion are:

$$ \matrix{ \dot{v} = a \sin \theta & \frac{v^2}{r} = a \cos \theta} \; \tag{2} $$

The solution of the above at every instant is

$$ \boxed{ r = \sqrt{d^2 + \left( \frac{v^2}{a} \right)^2 } \\ \dot{v} = \frac{a^2\;d}{ \sqrt{v^4 + a^2 d^2} } }$$

which means that the radius depends on the speed, and the speed keeps changing in a non-linear fashion depending on the sign of $d$. Thus the path curvature changes with time making the asteroid trace a spiral shape.

John Alexiou
  • 38,341
0

At any moment the force component in the line of (tangent to) the momentary velocity changes the magnitude of the velocity (i.e. speed), but not the direction; the force component perpendicular (normal) to the line of the momentary velocity changes the direction of the velocity, but not its magnitude.

In diag. 1 the force is always perpendicular to the line of the momentary velocity, so the speed remains $V_0$.

In diag. 2 there's always a force component against the velocity; this reduces the speed, so it cannot be $V_0$ at the end of the maneuver.

In diag. 3 there's always a force component adding to the speed, so it cannot be $V_0$ at the end of the maneuver.

In either case the asteroid can move along the semicircle, but 2 and 3 require the spacetug to gradually change the magnitude of the perpendicular component of the force, not only the direction. This is because the perpendicular component that would keep a mass $m$ on the given circular trajectory with the radius $r$ depends on the speed $v$:

$$ F_p=\frac { m v^2 } r$$

I think it may be possible to keep the magnitude of the force constant in cases 2 and 3. Non-constant perpendicular component would require a non-constant tangent component, so the overall magnitude could stay constant. Still the non-zero tangent component would reduce (diag. 2) or increase (diag. 3) the speed over time.

From the three diagrams only the first one can give you $- \overrightarrow {V_0}$.


Note U-turn in space is a waste of fuel. If the spacetug just applied force to the left, it could eventually stop the asteroid and then accelerate it to $- \overrightarrow {V_0}$. Planes in the atmosphere perform U-turns along semicircles because it's very easy to get normal forces from aerodynamics; plus they need to maintain speed, so they don't stall. In space, unless you need a specific trajectory, just push to the left long enough to change $\overrightarrow {V_0}$ to $- \overrightarrow {V_0}$.

  • @GeorgeRobinson If both vectors are perpendicular to the velocity, they lay on a plane perpendicular to the velocity, so their sum lays on the same plane, so the sum is also perpendicular to the velocity. – Kamil Maciorowski Jul 13 '19 at 16:41
  • Which vectors are you referring to? If we talk about vec addition, let's talk about adding velocity vectors to velocity vectors, or force vectors to force vectors. It is obvious that force causes acceleration (a=F/m), but acceleration is not the same as velocity...albeit it is the rate of change of it. You wrote: "...changes the direction of the velocity, but not its magnitude." - why not the magnitude, as well? When I throw a rock horizontally, the perpendicular gravitational attraction causes a parabolic trajectory, in which both the magnitude and direction of the rock's velocity changes. – George Robinson Jul 13 '19 at 16:57
  • @GeorgeRobinson so where is the gravity you mention for the rock - you state you are in deep space so the rock will travel in a straight line. –  Jul 13 '19 at 17:56
  • @Mike: The rock example was just an illustration that an addition of another perpendicular vector changes the direction and magnitude of the vector sum. In my Original Posting there is no gravity. However, the different, albeit related, parabolic scenario can be accomplished with a thruster in lieu of gravity (and act just like a horizontal rock throw) . See: https://imgur.com/9dwtEPu – George Robinson Jul 14 '19 at 10:08
  • NOTE: How in this example, the appearance of acceleration in the Y direction causes velocities V1, ...V8 to be added to the perpendicular V0, which changes BOTH the magnitude and direction of the resultant vector sum VT. All without gravity. See: https://imgur.com/9dwtEPu – George Robinson Jul 14 '19 at 10:13
  • @GeorgeRobinson In this example the force (always in Y direction) is not always perpendicular to the momentary velocity. When it's not perpendicular, a tangent component exists. – Kamil Maciorowski Jul 14 '19 at 12:14
  • But at the FIRST INSTANCE the added vector IS perpendicular to V0, yet BOTH the magnitude of the sum is greater than the magnitude of V0 AND the direction of the sum is different from the direction of V0. Yet, in your answer you write, that the perpendicular addend "...changes the direction of the velocity, but not its magnitude" and that is just not true as illustrated by that example. Yes, it can happen, that the result of vector addition has a different direction but not magnitude, but only under the special conditions, that are mentioned in this proof: https://imgur.com/LELihq9 – George Robinson Jul 14 '19 at 16:38
  • @GeorgeRobinson You need to think in terms of $d \overrightarrow V$, not $\Delta \overrightarrow V$. Instead of this imagine constant thrust and a full parabola. The speed (magnitude of velocity) has its minimum at the vertex ("top") of the parabola. Minimum, and it changes smoothly, so its derivative is exactly zero at this moment. This is also the only moment at which the force (thrust) is perpendicular to the momentary velocity. It's no coincidence. At this very moment the force does not change the speed, it changes only the direction of the velocity. – Kamil Maciorowski Jul 14 '19 at 19:21
  • @Kamil: At the top of that parabola, the total velocity equals the horizontal velocity because the vertical velocity is zero. In the next instance, the vertical velocity becomes greater than zero, thus the magnitude of the total velocity increases AND its direction changes (while the horizontal velocity remains unaffected). – George Robinson Jul 14 '19 at 20:24
  • @GeorgeRobinson Under one of the other answers the comment is "you have to consider infinitesimal time changes". I cannot agree more. If you have trouble with this in the case of our full parabola then it may be helpful if you consider the moment just before the top and the moment just after, so the top is exactly in between. At these two moments the magnitude of the velocity is the same, the direction differs. The speed decreases before the top, increases after the top. The top is the very point where the speed neither decreases nor increases. – Kamil Maciorowski Jul 14 '19 at 20:47
  • @Kamil: Infinitesmal time change is synonymous with infinitesmal time interval. Infinitesmal is infinitely small, but still greater than zero. The time interval cannot be zero because without time there is no motion. Motion at an instance is not physical - it is possible only in abstract math. – George Robinson Jul 27 '19 at 08:11
  • @Kamil: Also, zero length time interval seems like a contradiction of Q.M., where energy magnitudes cannot infinitely and continuously regress toward zero, but the magnitudes of distance and time, that create them - can. They don't have the Planck Time without a reason. – George Robinson Jul 27 '19 at 08:13
  • @GeorgeRobinson You tagged [tag:newtonian-mechanics] so please leave quantum mechanics out. Newton (aside from Leibniz) developed infinitesimal calculus (abstract math!) exactly to deal with problems like this in Newtonian mechanics. – Kamil Maciorowski Jul 27 '19 at 08:24
0

An object with a center of mass that orbits a point in a circular path at radius $r$ has position vector $$\vec{x}(t) = r(\cos \theta(t), \sin\theta (t))$$ and hence must experience net force $$\vec{F}_{net} = mr\dot{\theta}^2 (-\cos\theta,-\sin\theta) + mr\ddot{\theta}(-\sin\theta,\cos\theta)$$ which has magnitude $$|\vec{F}_{net}| = mr\sqrt{\dot{\theta}^4+\ddot{\theta}^2}$$

For the magnitude of the force to be constant we must have $$ \vec{F}\cdot\dot{\vec{F}} = 0$$ $$\Rightarrow \dot{\omega}(2\omega^3+\ddot{\omega})=0$$ where $\omega = \dot{\theta}$ is the angular speed. There are two solutions: $\dot{\omega} = 0$ and $2\omega^3 + \ddot{\omega} = 0$. The second solution does not work because if $\omega >0$ then $\ddot{\omega} <0$, but that would mean the object could not come out of the semi-circular path at the same speed it started. This means that the object must travel the semi-circle at a constant speed, with $\dot{\omega} = 0$.

Looking at the equation for the net force we see that if $\ddot{\theta} = 0$, the force always points to the center of the circle. And finally, if the object is to not spin as it orbits the force must also point to the center of mass of the object. So if the object travels at a constant speed your Diagram 1 is the only correct answer.

  • How do you reconcile your answer with the proof at https://imgur.com/LELihq9 ? In Diag.1, the initial F1 is perpendicular to V0 so it can only cause perpendicular velocity components to be added to V0. According to the proof, the MAGNITUDE of the vector sum of V0 + another velocity vector, cannot be equal to the magnitude of V0 when the angle between the summands is 90deg. If you want to see what happens when another velocity vector is added to V0 at 90deg, then see this different, albeit related, scenario at: https://imgur.com/9dwtEPu – George Robinson Jul 14 '19 at 06:53
  • The problem with that proof is that it doesn't use infinitesimal changes in velocity. If we want to know whether $v$ has constant magnitude at all times we need to take the derivative of $|\vec{v}| = \sqrt{\vec{v}\cdot\vec{v}}$. The derivative of that is $\frac{d|\vec{v}|}{dt}=\frac{\vec{a}\cdot\vec{v}}{|\vec{v}|}$, so the speed only remains constant when $\vec{a}\cdot\vec{v} = 0$. Again, we are not adding vectors perpendicular to $v$, we are adding infinitesimal vectors perpendicular to $v$. There is no – Luke Pritchett Jul 14 '19 at 13:26
  • I thought that rules of vector addition are not affected by the size of its summands. Anyway, how can adding infinitely small vectors, which are PERPENDICULAR to V0, decrease (...and eventually even reverse) it to (-V0) ? – George Robinson Jul 14 '19 at 13:41
  • 2
    Because you add a new infinitesimal at each instant. By adding up many infinitesimals at each instant you can get any change you want over a period of time. You have to consider it this way because you have a constantly changing force, and hence you have to consider infinitesimal time changes. – Luke Pritchett Jul 14 '19 at 13:46
  • Consider two velocity vectors $\vec{v}{A,B}$ with the same magnitude and angle $\theta$ between them. The angle $\Delta v = \vec{v}_B-\vec{v}_A$ makes with $\vec{v}_A$ is determined by $\Delta v\cdot \vec{v}_A = \vec{v}_B\cdot \vec{v}{A} - |\vec{v}_A|^2 = |\vec{v}_A|^2(\cos\theta - 1)$. As we consider velocity vectors that are very close to each other on the circular path we have $\theta\rightarrow 0$ and so $\cos\theta-1\rightarrow 0$ and $\Delta \vec{v}\cdot \vec{v}_A \rightarrow 0$. – Luke Pritchett Jul 14 '19 at 14:18
  • ...but is this realistic? Do the time intervals between vector additions really go below the Planck Time and approach zero? From that analysis I gather that using even ridiculously short intervals like Planck Time, yields a different result than approaching zero length time intervals. Remember, I am interested in an answer that accurately depicts reality...not abstract math. P.S. Is the original question really so bad, that it does not deserve any upvotes? – George Robinson Jul 14 '19 at 16:49
  • This is the basic, underlying mathematics of classical physics, in use since the time of Newton. If you believe that Newton's Laws correctly describe reality then you believe that calculus accurately describes reality. Put another way, if you have an acceleration function that is constant changing in time then trying to calculate the motion using only discrete time steps $\Delta t$ will always have error because it ignores how the acceleration changed between $t$ and $t+\Delta t$. – Luke Pritchett Jul 14 '19 at 18:34
  • I thought about it and it seems that motion cannot physically occur in a zero time interval (an instant). That is only possible in abstract math. IOW, in physics: No time = No motion. Also, it seems like a contradiction of Q.M., where energy magnitudes cannot infinitely and continuously regress toward zero, but the magnitudes of distance and time, that create them - can. – George Robinson Jul 27 '19 at 07:57
  • Is motion possible in 0.1s? Is it possible in 0.0001s? How about 0.000000000000001s? Or 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001s? Are you hypothesizing that there is a smallest possible time beyond which change is not possible? If so, where is your evidence for that hypothesis? In 600 years of physics no one has yet found any physical evidence for a smallest time. All of classical and modern physics is built on the notion of considering changes over arbitrarily small time intervals, which is the idea I am talking about here. No one is claiming that motion happens in no time. – Luke Pritchett Jul 27 '19 at 13:04
  • As long as the the time interval being considered is greater than zero, I have no objection, although the Planck Time MIGHT present some limit on the duration. What I really object to is the rules of vector addition being affected by the size of its summands. – George Robinson Jul 27 '19 at 15:57
  • No one said the rules of vector addition change when the size changes. When you take the velocity vector of an object moving in a circle at time $t$ and then at time $t+\Delta t$ then the acceleration vector $a = (v(t+\Delta t)-v(t))/\Delta t$ is a vector that is very, very close to perpendicular to $v$ when $\Delta t$ is very, very small. The smaller you make $\Delta t$, the closer $\vec{a}\cdot \vec{v(t)}$ is to zero. Because of this it makes sense to say that the acceleration at any instant is perpendicular to the velocity. – Luke Pritchett Jul 27 '19 at 17:11
-1

To reverse the direction of the craft without orbital assist, the most fuel efficient way would be to fire thrusters exactly opposite to the direction traveled, until the craft comes to a complete stop and then starts moving back. the diagrams shown would rotate the craft but not efficiently reverse it's course. diagram one could reverse its coarse if the thrusters were fired continuously at t3 until the craft came to a complete stop and then came to desired opposite velocity. Merely rotating a projectile will not reverse its coarse. To efficiently rotate a craft you only need one off center burn to start it spinning and then one equal and opposite burn to stop its spinning at the desired point.

  • Thank you for the answer, but the rocket fuel efficiency is irrelevant to this problem. The semicircular trajectory is mandatory. – George Robinson Jul 13 '19 at 16:14