Newton's 2nd Law conceptual problem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of Newton's 2nd Law to a rocket with a mass of 15,000 kg accelerating upward at 2.0 m/s². The initial calculation of 30,000 N as the thrust force is incorrect because it does not account for the rocket's weight. The correct formula includes both the gravitational force and the upward acceleration, leading to the equation F = 15,000 kg * (2 m/s² + 9.8 m/s²). This means the thrust force must actually be 179,700 N to overcome gravity and achieve the desired acceleration. Understanding the forces acting on the rocket is crucial for accurate calculations.
[V]
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
A 15,000 kg rocket blasts off from Earth with a uniform upward acceleration of 2.0 m/s2 and feels no air resistance. The thrust force its engines must provide during this acceleration is 30,000 N upward.

Apparently this is FALSE!

I don't understand why
F=MA
<br /> 30000N=15000kg*2m/s^2<br />

indeed the math is true?

why is the answer false? What am I missing? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because you have to also counter the rocket's weight, so the force must be equal to the rocket's weight plus an additional 30,000 N to cause a 2 m/s2 upward acceleration.

(It might be easier to see if you draw a free body diagram)
 
Expanding cjl's post:

<br /> 30000N=15000kg*2m/s^2<br />
is wrong; while
<br /> F=15000kg*(2m/s^2 + 9.8m/s^2)<br />
is the right expression.
 
Remember that F in Newton's 2nd law are all the forces that are acting on a body. Thus, besides the upward force, you also have a downward force, which is gravity.
 
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...
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