Talk:3005: Disposal

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)

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)

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.

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. 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. 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)

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) 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)