Difference between revisions of "3005: Disposal"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(→‎Explanation: Comic flow, and expand upon the current context of vehicle design which the comic's rocketry company is trying/failing to emulate.)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
{{incomplete|Created by a MINESHAFT-TARGETING ROCKET - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
 
{{incomplete|Created by a MINESHAFT-TARGETING ROCKET - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
  
−
This comic is about humorous solutions to problems. Instead of trying to make a rocket that doesn’t explode upon impact, [[Randall]]’s team has decided to make a rocket disposal hole, hence the comic name.  Although they can't seem to make a rocket that lands properly, it is stated they are good at steering enabling them to get the rocket to the small disposal hole that was created for it, letting them contain the explosion when it does crash-land.
+
This comic came out a couple of weeks after the successful first attempt to 'catch' a rocket during {{w|Starship flight test 5}}, based upon {{w|SpaceX}} having {{w|Falcon 9 first-stage landing tests|an extensive history}} of bringing rocket stages back to Earth in a controlled manner. Whereas the traditional approach was for such rocketry to allow most of the initial launch-vehicle to be a single-use stage that was effectively destroyed once it had fulfiled its purpose, it has become a developmental aim across much of the commercial side of the industry to introduce as much reusability as possible in the mission hardware to potentially save costs and construction time.
  
−
SpaceX initially had many instances of explosions on impact during testing, as illustrated in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ#this montage].
+
In order to accomplish a successful recovery, expended stages have been given unprecedented ability to control their fall back to the ground, often in a manner that allows them to propulsively halt their descent directly over a prepared landing pad (on land or sea) and settle down softly enough on landing gear to be refurbished and reused (sometimes for {{w|List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters#Booster 1061|more than twenty subsequent missions}}. For the recent Starship test, the one (and, so far, only) attempt to recover its {{w|SpaceX Super Heavy#B9%E2%80%93B12|Super Heavy Booster}} involved being precisely guided to be ''caught'' by the {{w|SpaceX Starbase#Orbital Launch Pad A|original launch tower}}; though it is never expected to refly, as a test prototype, it survived the whole process. Though there were plenty of examples, such as those in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ#this montage], where the the landing (or its aftermath) was not so successful.
 +
 
 +
Though SpaceX is the current leader in such an accomplishments, there are other companies who are various degrees along a similar developmental route. [[Randall]] claims to be amongst them, and has achieved the non-trivial feat of being able to direct the discarded rocket stage ''very precisely'', but without that extra bit of ability to ensure that it doesn’t explode upon impact. The team has decided to exploit their ability to precisely control the rocket, only to send it 'safely' into a barely larger hole that (with a lid, directly manhandled by a [[Cueball]] employee) lets it {{w|rapid unplanned disassembly|rapidly disassemble}} but in a planned and 'safe' manner. Of course, as a [[:Category:Compromise|'compromise']], it does not achieve the original aim of recoverability/reusability, yet it is also intrinsically far more complicated than the default option of just letting it generally fall to its destruction onto a handy 'empty' down-range area that {{w|Spacecraft cemetery|shouldn't inconvenience anybody}}.
 +
 
 +
With the comic depicting the 'disposed' stage as powering downwards, this might explain their lack of success in perfecting any form of intact recovery, as practical examples of this technology tend to spin the craft around to make use of the main thruster(s) for a {{w|retrorocket}}-assisted {{w|VTOL|landing}}, or at least don't try to counteract the passive deceleration provided by parachutes or other purposeful aerodynamic drag.
  
−
This comic came out about 2 weeks after {{w|SpaceX}} successfully caught the returning [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Super_Heavy Super Heavy booster rocket] using giant arms on the launch tower.
 
  
 
The title seems to refer to the sound effects of dragging an element into the trash on computers. Or, alternatively, the sound of a canister being sucked into a vacuum tube.
 
The title seems to refer to the sound effects of dragging an element into the trash on computers. Or, alternatively, the sound of a canister being sucked into a vacuum tube.

Revision as of 14:54, 31 October 2024

Disposal
We were disappointed that the rocket didn't make a THOOOONK noise when it went into the tube, but we're setting up big loudspeakers for future launches to add the sound effect.
Title text: We were disappointed that the rocket didn't make a THOOOONK noise when it went into the tube, but we're setting up big loudspeakers for future launches to add the sound effect.

    Explanation

    Ambox warning blue construction.svg This is one of 53 incomplete explanations:
    Created by a MINESHAFT-TARGETING ROCKET - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page!

    This comic came out a couple of weeks after the successful first attempt to 'catch' a rocket during Starship flight test 5, based upon SpaceX having an extensive history of bringing rocket stages back to Earth in a controlled manner. Whereas the traditional approach was for such rocketry to allow most of the initial launch-vehicle to be a single-use stage that was effectively destroyed once it had fulfiled its purpose, it has become a developmental aim across much of the commercial side of the industry to introduce as much reusability as possible in the mission hardware to potentially save costs and construction time.

    In order to accomplish a successful recovery, expended stages have been given unprecedented ability to control their fall back to the ground, often in a manner that allows them to propulsively halt their descent directly over a prepared landing pad (on land or sea) and settle down softly enough on landing gear to be refurbished and reused (sometimes for more than twenty subsequent missions. For the recent Starship test, the one (and, so far, only) attempt to recover its Super Heavy Booster involved being precisely guided to be caught by the original launch tower; though it is never expected to refly, as a test prototype, it survived the whole process. Though there were plenty of examples, such as those in montage, where the the landing (or its aftermath) was not so successful.

    Though SpaceX is the current leader in such an accomplishments, there are other companies who are various degrees along a similar developmental route. Randall claims to be amongst them, and has achieved the non-trivial feat of being able to direct the discarded rocket stage very precisely, but without that extra bit of ability to ensure that it doesn’t explode upon impact. The team has decided to exploit their ability to precisely control the rocket, only to send it 'safely' into a barely larger hole that (with a lid, directly manhandled by a Cueball employee) lets it rapidly disassemble but in a planned and 'safe' manner. Of course, as a 'compromise', it does not achieve the original aim of recoverability/reusability, yet it is also intrinsically far more complicated than the default option of just letting it generally fall to its destruction onto a handy 'empty' down-range area that shouldn't inconvenience anybody.

    With the comic depicting the 'disposed' stage as powering downwards, this might explain their lack of success in perfecting any form of intact recovery, as practical examples of this technology tend to spin the craft around to make use of the main thruster(s) for a retrorocket-assisted landing, or at least don't try to counteract the passive deceleration provided by parachutes or other purposeful aerodynamic drag.


    The title seems to refer to the sound effects of dragging an element into the trash on computers. Or, alternatively, the sound of a canister being sucked into a vacuum tube.

    Transcript

    Ambox warning green construction.svg This is one of 28 incomplete transcripts:
    Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can fix this issue, edit the page!
    [A two-stage rocket is ascending with a plume of exhaust behind it]
    [The first stage falls off and the second stage ignites]
    [The first stage begins to fall, turned off]
    [The first stage reignites to control trajectory and attitude]
    [The first stage falls toward a large hole with a lid. A Cueball is holding the lid open]
    [Cueball pushes the lid closed]
    Click
    [The first stage, now out of sight, explodes, Cueball shielding his ears and flinching away from the loud noise]
    BOOOOM
    Caption below comic:
    Our rockets were good at steering, but we couldn't get them to land without exploding, so we just dug a rocket disposal hole.

    comment.png  Add comment      new topic.png  Create topic (use sparingly)     refresh discuss.png  Refresh 

    Discussion

    That's either a giant Cueball, or a really tiny rocket. Barmar (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

    It's an Electron? Or maybe Falcon 1? Redacted II (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    He must be assigned there by the Range Danger Officer. Elizium23 (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

    It seems strange to me to see Randall drawing a rocket landing with its engine pointing upward instead of downward, when he traditionally has expressed so much interest in rocket and space physics. It's also notable that the rocket-landing problem was solved by others before SpaceX was considered to have, I bumped into a successful project on a maker site in the past couple years. 172.68.3.71 01:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

    SpaceX was the first to propulsively land an orbital booster. Redacted II (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    The first to propulsively land an orbital booster east of the Mississippi. Elizium23 (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    No. Worldwide. List a single orbital rocket booster that propulsively landed before Falcon 9 Flight 20. There aren't any.Redacted II (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
    (I believe that was a reference to 2901: Geographic Qualifiers, etc.) 172.69.79.183 19:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
    The extra energy from impacting at high speed ensures the rocket is thoroughly disassembled for maximum packing efficiency. RegularSizedGuy (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    I do not think it strange for the rocket engine pointing upwards, I think it funny. It was definitely on purpose. Sebastian --172.68.110.148 08:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

    There’s a Space Category, and a Kerbal program Category and a Mars Rover Category, why not a Rocket category? I propose on creating one. All in favor? 42.book.addict (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

    AYE! B for brain (talk) (youtube channel wobsite (supposed to be a blag)) 09:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    SQRT(-1) Redacted II (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    I remember when businesses would use canisters to hold receipts and send them through vacuum tubes from the checkout to accounting. The canisters would make a "THOOOONK" sound when sucked into the vacuum tubes. I suggest that is why the comic is expecting a "THOOOONK" sound when the rocket enters the disposal site. Rtanenbaum (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

    We have at least three supplimental jokes in the explination. If we keep this up we're going to need an explainexplainXKCD page. 172.69.135.130 16:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

    Out of interest, what 'supplimental' jokes would you say these three things are? I see nothing that isn't actually explanation or explainable (if necessary) by the links embed in the text itself. Improvements are always welcome, but maybe we don't necessarily know where there needs to be more honed/expanded description unless you point out where it lacks it. 172.69.194.11 16:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

    "'...the sound of a canister being sucked into a vacuum tube.'" I don't think 'vacuum tube' means what you think it means. There can not be a "THOOOONK" sound" in a vacuum (no air). Google is all about vacuum electronic devices in (old) amplifiers and computers. The transit tube at the bank is apparently a "pneumatic tube" which makes good sense to me. --PRR (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

    Point taken (not being the editor who raised this original link) but, like a vacuum cleaner, they can be reduced-pressure tubes (normal atmosphere generally being allowed in behind the capsules, to some degree or other, as they are sucked through to their destinations).
    The "thooonk" is more indicative of a system where there's momentary intake of pressure from the outside, as opposed to the "pffffft" that might indicate a momentary leaking out of a high pressure injected behind the 'shuttle capsule' in a positive-pushing pneumatic system.
    Also, technically more efficient to partially evacuate tubes ahead of the cannisters than to supply extra air for a 'blowy' version of it, for several reasons (don't build up front-side pressures, or send air the wrong way back up any merging junctions; the (multiple, if necessary) "insertion hatches" are simpler to implement, vs. the one vacuum-ending receiving station; it's more self-cleaning; failures don't generally lead to burst-out pipes scattering debris, at worst generally just a failure to pull anything new through until fixed; it allows for more rapid acceleration but smoothing the end velocity to a managable receiving-speed, rather than necessitating the need to "force the cork all the way out of the bottle" all the way right up to the end). The caveat to this being that it may have an upper limit of length ('repeater' stations may be needed to reboost into a subsequent sucking-stretch) from source node to destination; but the ultimate hard limit to this would be the actual height of the atmosphere (less a proportion, due to all inefficiencies), so not normally a deal-breaker for all practical purposes
    Perhaps better described as an "atmospheric" system (c.f. the usual form of atmospheric railway), or at least a "pressure differential" one, than the implication that it's a (possibly closed-loop) compressed-air one, but terminology and implementation details are all rather imprecisely defined anyway. 172.70.160.228 10:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
          comment.png  Add comment
    Retrieved from "https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=3005:_Disposal&oldid=355166"