Talk:1458: Small Moon

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 15:54, 10 December 2014 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

I marked the transcript as incomplete; we can't be sure as to who is saying which lines in the final panel without Randall telling us himself. Notably, the second-to-last-line does not sound like something Ben Kenobi would say; more likely it's Han Solo. 13:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably another dig at the Pluto "dwarf planet" controversy? 06:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Implying that it might not be? 15:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is too good. I laughed for about 2 straight minutes.. :D 06:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Added a short placeholder explanation for the comic itself, using's suggestion. Needs refining and explaining of the alt text. Cheers. 07:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

In the movie, they didn't have 3 hours to argue over the thing. Not sure if that's relevant... Haelbarde (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason it couldn't be a space station would be that something so large would wind up collapsing in on its own gravity. 08:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not solid, it's a comapritively low density on the whole (on the order of ten thousand millionths that of Earth's sea-level atmospheric pressure, if I've not thrown a rogue zero or two in to the calculation by accident, so is doubtless mostly vacuum outside of the functional/habitable/structural areas), there are obviously various gravitational compensators for the inhabited sections (hence "looking sideways out of the equator ring" and along the beam-channel, yet "up from the surface" from the trench system defence turrets and other internal shafts are also vertiginously 'up-down' in nature) and doubtless its structural stength is composed of various Unotanium (i.e. "durasteel") alloys and the like, way beyond what we could currently build with Earthly technology. 10:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I would note that a Death Star can not be a moon. Briff (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that it is canon that the "Star Destroyer"s are neither (if taken literally) capable of destroying stars nor (in the sense of "star ship" in general) are they technically destroyer-class ships. You've got to put it down to The Empire just having no sense of relevence when it comes to naming its vessels. Probably too much influence from clone-thinking... 10:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I will argue that by my understanding of the term, it actually is a moon whenever it is orbiting a planet but it would probably be better to come up with new terminology given the interstellar capabilities. -- 12:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Band of Traveling Accountants

I've never heard of the word "deunifying"; did you mean "disuniting" or "disunifying"? 14:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)