Difference between revisions of "Talk:3005: Disposal"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(my comments)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
That's either a giant Cueball, or a really tiny rocket. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
 
That's either a giant Cueball, or a really tiny rocket. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
 
:It's an Electron? Or maybe Falcon 1? [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 00:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
 
:It's an Electron? Or maybe Falcon 1? [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 00:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
 +
::He must be assigned there by the Range Danger Officer. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.71|172.68.3.71]] 01:23, 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. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.3.71|172.68.3.71]] 01:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
 
:SpaceX was the first to propulsively land an orbital booster. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 01:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
 
:SpaceX was the first to propulsively land an orbital booster. [[User:Redacted II|Redacted II]] ([[User talk:Redacted II|talk]]) 01:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
−
:Re downward-pointing, there's a possible side-reference to [[1133: Up Goer Five]]'s "you will not go to space today". But I think it's more that if you have the ability to send it down a hole to explode, you have no reason to finesse the (non-)landing and might as well just thread it in under as much of the full propulsion as you can handle.
+
::The first to propulsively land an orbital booster east of the Mississippi. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 03:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
−
:And the conceit of the rocket-tech is that they've solved the position+direction issue 'perfectly', even if they haven't solved the "how to then stop it just before/as it reaches the ground" and/or any usable ways of standing/hanging it upright once it does.
 
−
:It's a 7+D problem. Attaining a precise position (x,y,z) with a precise velocity (dx,dy,dz) in at least one precise angle (verticality; plus possibly also others, if rotation is important, plus dθ and dφ at near-zero) and at least to one further limit (fuel remaining >=0). 'All' Cueball's rocket has to do is to perfect 5 or 6 dimensional properties (thread through x,y,z, being aimed in a vertically downwards (or, at a push, upwards) orientation and no ''excessive'' horizontal motion... all the rest can be fudged somewhat). And no additional weight needed for landing/catching points. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.8|141.101.98.8]] 03:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
 
 
:The extra energy from impacting at high speed ensures the rocket is thoroughly disassembled for maximum packing efficiency. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 06:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
 
:The extra energy from impacting at high speed ensures the rocket is thoroughly disassembled for maximum packing efficiency. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk: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 --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.148|172.68.110.148]] 08:05, 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 --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.148|172.68.110.148]] 08:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:03, 31 October 2024

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)
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)

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)
Retrieved from "https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:3005:_Disposal&oldid=355187"