Talk:1919: Interstellar Asteroid

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

Let's see:

  • Long and thin.
  • From another solar system.
  • Made mostly of metal.
  • Spinning to create artificial gravity.

...yeah - could be anything really! 173.245.50.102 05:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, at about 200 meters in length, rotating once every 8 hours... If it's spinning for gravity, it's very low gravity.
Also be aware that it's tumbling end over end, not rolling, so the momentum ("spin gravity") would be greatest at the ends, not along the sides.
162.158.75.130 21:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Has he ever referenced Weird al before? 172.68.174.94 05:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There's one potential reference in 488 and an example of something he talks about in 1576, but nothing directly. Fabian42 (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously in the alt-text he is referencing Starship Troopers [1] 172.68.50.142 08:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I've read Heinlein's story, & seen the movies, but I can't think of a specific element of those which corresponds to the "return fire" mentality implied in the Alt-Text; almost every SciFi dealing with aliens has humans urging a counter-attack. In fact, I think an old Twilight Zone or Outer Limits episode might be a better example than Starship Troopers, in which we at least had solid evidence of another species. In many SciFi plots we just assume anything unusual is hostile, whether it's actually alive or not.
162.158.75.130 21:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Not the "return fire" part, that's Randall's contribution. The concept of sending an asteroid as an intentional attack. NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the remark that the asteroid might be to precise for the bugs - well, everyone in the move (as well es the novel) underestimated the bugs, didn't they? Even some skymarshall took the responsibility and had to step down (oh no!) 172.68.50.142 08:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is Megan coming up with these ideas, instead of say Whitehat? 108.162.249.40 10:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

White-Hat isn't as imaginative as Megan, based upon their general depictions.
162.158.75.130 21:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

So, it's an interstellar object that just happens to have come close enough to Earth to be spotted? What are the odds of that being purely random, just an asteroid passing by, rather than a swing and a miss or a little recon mission? --AnnatarsGift (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no data to estimate the frequency of interstellar objects transiting our star system, because this is literally the first interstellar object ever known to have done so. It's expected to completely exit Sol system (passing beyond our Oort cloud) in about 200,000 years, so it's a very long term "event".
Likewise, there is no data on any known extrasolar species, so it's impossible to know how likely a recon mission would be. If we assume the presence of interstellar explorers, we're also assuming some level of technology or biology well beyond our current capabilities, so it's still pretty hard to guess how likely they'd be to send a big tumbling metallic probe.
That said, its course is less than ideal for speedy fly-bys: Even if someone decided to send out a long-term recon mission (measured in tens of millions of years since launch), ʻOumuamua's orbit is extremely unstable with a high likelihood of low-mass collisions or capture by a planetary body. "Sub-optimal" might be putting it too kindly, as mission plans go.
162.158.75.130 21:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
For all we know, Earth is late to this party. Maybe asteroids randomly fly by other planets all the time within observable distance, just that there were no Earthlings present to do said observing. NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe we have decided the Eggplant emoji is an euphemism.

Here's a picture of the monolith [2] Rtanenbaum (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, mentioning the Eggplant emoji is definitely a way of implying "penis shaped" without saying that. I am reminded of the Austin Powers movie: "It looks like a giant~" "Willy, come look at this!"
162.158.75.130 21:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Anybody else read "Rendezvous with Rama" by Arthur C. Clarke? The behavior of this object is disturbingly similar to the ship described there. Archiesholland (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that's what the first comment is referring to.
On re-reading, I think you're right. Probably also applies to AnnatarsGift's comment. Archiesholland (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Wayyy too small though (only ~200 meters long); Unless it's crewed by microscopic tardigrades!?!
D
162.158.75.130 21:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I know as a somewhat tall guy I'm in the vicinity of 2 meters tall, so that would be a HUNDRED of me. :) If it's even slightly better dimensionally distributed than 2001's monolith, that sounds fine. Also, the space shuttle was merely 56 meters long, 200 sounds downright spacious and roomy by comparison. LOL! I can't help but think of how the phone in my pocket has more computational power than the roomful of computers which first sent men to the moon, imagine that kind of minimizing progress applied to space vehicles? NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that Weird Al recently tweeted about the trademark on his name.

(previous commenter forgot to sign) The style of this and the last explaination is very different than of most other recent ones. usually it is quite long, describing the comic and everything, even the most obvious thing in there in biggest detail. These 2 just give references to some points - is there any reason to that? Lupo (talk)

Yes: The comics are relatively straightforward, so little explanation is needed. It happens; enjoy it. --BigMal // 108.162.216.184 20:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I've seen simple, even 1 panel, comics get such an explanation as could be published as a book... Introducing confusion where there was none. I'd say the brevity on this one is just a sign of it still being early, just wait for it. LOL! NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


NO mention of how "iPhone XXXXX" should most likely be "iPhone L"? Or that it's not means it's most likely referencing clothes sizes, how they add X's to indicate bigger sizes? (L, XL, XXL, XXXL, XXXXL, etc)? Okay... NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


In terms of another object it could be, the NASA APOD page for NOV. 22 2017 mentions the similarities to Arthur C. Clark's Rama ship.Just a thought. 172.68.34.46 18:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Tools

It seems you are using noscript, which is stopping our project wonderful ads from working. Explain xkcd uses ads to pay for bandwidth, and we manually approve all our advertisers, and our ads are restricted to unobtrusive images and slow animated GIFs. If you found this site helpful, please consider whitelisting us.

Want to advertise with us, or donate to us with Paypal?