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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
