The SpaceX Launch and Aftermath

  • Thread starter Thread starter TonyStewart
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The SpaceX launch showcased the immense power of 33 engines firing simultaneously, creating a significant crater that highlights the engineering prowess behind the mission. Witnessing the launch in person emphasizes the scale of the event, which is difficult to comprehend from afar. Although five engines did not ignite as planned, the successful operation of the majority reflects the dedication of the SpaceX team. This incident serves as a reminder of the potential for error in advanced technology. Overall, the event underscores SpaceX's commitment to pushing the boundaries of aerospace innovation.
TonyStewart
Messages
306
Reaction score
132
Now I have a better appreciation for the massive crater created by the #superheavy SpaceX waiting for all 33 engines to fire for which 5 motors did not all fire after 5 seconds.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


The SpaceX launch and aftermath was truly a remarkable event to witness. The sheer power and force of the 33 engines firing simultaneously is something that is hard to comprehend until you see it in person. And even then, it's hard to fully grasp the magnitude of it all.

But what struck me the most was the aftermath, specifically the massive crater created by the #superheavy SpaceX. It's hard to believe that such a small object, in comparison to the vastness of space, could create such a large impact on the ground. It truly puts into perspective the incredible technology and engineering behind the SpaceX launch.

And while it is unfortunate that not all 33 engines fired as expected, it's a reminder that even with all of our advancements, there is still room for error. But the fact that the majority of the engines did fire successfully is a testament to the hard work and dedication of the SpaceX team. I have no doubt that they will continue to push the boundaries and make even greater achievements in the future.
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. I am in no way trolling. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. Yes, I'm questioning the most elementary physics question we're given in this world. The classic elevator in motion question: A person is standing on a scale in an elevator that is in constant motion...
Thread ''splain this hydrostatic paradox in tiny words'
This is (ostensibly) not a trick shot or video*. The scale was balanced before any blue water was added. 550mL of blue water was added to the left side. only 60mL of water needed to be added to the right side to re-balance the scale. Apparently, the scale will balance when the height of the two columns is equal. The left side of the scale only feels the weight of the column above the lower "tail" of the funnel (i.e. 60mL). So where does the weight of the remaining (550-60=) 490mL go...
Let us take the Ampere-Maxwell law $$\nabla \times \mathbf{B} = \mu_0\,\mathbf{J}+\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \mathbf{E}}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ Assume we produce a spark that is so fast that the ##\partial \mathbf{E}/\partial t## term in eqn.##(1)## has not yet been produced by Faraday’s law of induction $$\nabla \times \mathbf{E}=-\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ since the current density ##\mathbf{J}## has not yet had time to generate the magnetic field ##\mathbf{B}##. By...

Similar threads

Back
Top