Hope the transcript matches normal presentation mores. And I thought I'd keep the title text explanation simple - so I haven't wasted much time if it gets utterly changed. [[User:Mattdevney|Mattdevney]] ([[User talk:Mattdevney|talk]]) 12:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else notice a weird white line through the dates? [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 14:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:I came here to ask about that. [[User:Linea alba|Linea alba]] ([[User talk:Linea alba|talk]]) 16:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::Haha, your username is linea alba. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.87|199.27.128.87]] 19:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:Same here. I'm wondering if it's stylistic somehow (futuristic-looking?) or just a mistake.--[[User:Piratejabez|Piratejabez]] ([[User talk:Piratejabez|talk]]) 17:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::It looks as if he tried to move the labels down, but didn't select the whole line: [http://imgur.com/a/EZSYT]. But it seems odd that he wouldn't notice it right away, since it cut ALL the digits in half. [[User:Linea alba|Linea alba]] ([[User talk:Linea alba|talk]]) 18:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Thanks for sharing. Yes, that's very plausible. Strange that he wouldn't notice it, though...--[[User:Piratejabez|Piratejabez]] ([[User talk:Piratejabez|talk]]) 19:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::Looks like he fixed it :) [http://www.xkcd.com/1477/ comic sans line]--[[User:Piratejabez|Piratejabez]] ([[User talk:Piratejabez|talk]]) 18:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
:::I've added an incomplete tag for updating the fixed image. Sorry people, but I don't have the time to learn how to do that. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189|188.114.99.189]] 19:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I just used http://timeanddate.com to calculate the Star Wars Trilogy Tipping Point, i.e.- the date starting on which ''The Phantom Menace'' will have released closer to ''A New Hope'' than to the present day: May 13, 2021. --[[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.140|173.245.50.140]] 18:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks! I was wondering. That is a bit more hopeful.--[[User:Piratejabez|Piratejabez]] ([[User talk:Piratejabez|talk]]) 19:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Be sure to get "Comics to make one feel old" in those categories. [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.138|199.27.128.138]] 19:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the alt text say "A *long* time ago (...) in a galaxy far, far..."?
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.157|108.162.238.157]] 00:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Damn, so close to May 4th, i wonder if there is anyway to prove that this can technically be the right day ("May the fourth be with you") [[User:Jack1197|Jack1197]] ([[User talk:Jack1197|talk]]) 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone else here getting tired of these 'this event is closer to another event than to today' things? :/ [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.25|141.101.99.25]] 10:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

:Not yet for me. We are further away from the new millennium than the new millennium seemed like in 1984. Ooooh! c. June 1, 2000 is the Nintendo NES/now midpoint. Ooooh! Most of the 80s is now over 30 years old. Ooooh! The women that were barely 18 in all of it are now post-menopausal! Ooooh! Early 80s sorority girls could now have great-grandchildren old enough to like giiiirls! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.94|108.162.215.94]] 17:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

::Wait, what? No. Grandchildren, maybe, but not great-grandchildren. The oldest person meeting the description "early 80's sorority girl" would be someone who was 18 in 1980. Their child, assuming they had one right away, would be 18 in 1998. If that child had a child (the sorority girl's grandchild) immediately upon turning 18, that grandchild would be 18 in 2016. In this model, 2016 is the earliest year in which the great-grandchild could be born. Assuming that by "like girls" you mean "hit puberty," and since the average onset of puberty is close to 12 years, the soonest the sorority girl's great-grandchild could "like girls" would be 2028, thirteen years from now. Even if we allow for the possibility of teen pregnancies, and we assume that each generation gave birth to the next at age 15 (...shudder...) instead of age 18, we're still looking at a date in 2022. And, even if the original sorority girl gave birth at age 15 (three years prior to becoming an "early 80's sorority girl"), it would still be 2019 before her great-grandchildren would enter puberty. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.50.71|173.245.50.71]] 20:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:::At least here, you register for kindergarten ("Grade 0") in year of birth plus 5. Thus people usually get their Bachelor's in year of birth plus 22. A girl born 1956.0 gives birth 1972.3 but luckily a family member adopts her and she graduates May 1980 because she's a slow slut. Grandchild is born 1988.7, Great-grandson born 2005.0 Original research, but is not unrealistic for that boy to like girls when I wrote that. Just a month after turning 10 a classmate who could pass for 11 went up to me and was like "what are you doing?" while I was lying on the floor. She thought it was funny. (I was the class clown). I saw past her dress until her inner upper, upper, upper, upper thigh and was kind of turned on (months before the sex ed class so I wasn't "groomed" by the teacher's curriculum or otherwise know what to expect). It was so good that I tried real hard to keep a poker face and not let her know what I'm looking at or otherwise spook her away and was feeling like "awww!" when I decided I had to stand up cause a few seconds is pushing it (imagine how embarrassed I would've been if she realized what a naughty thing I was doing!). Maybe this is why I always had a fetish for thicker (not fat) peer+older girls with thick legs in a dress. And that skin color. (And dominantish women. And cunnilingus.) So yes, 10 year olds like girls. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.162|108.162.238.162]] 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

More correctly the Hubble Parameter, since the Hubble Parameter has been shown NOT to be a constant.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.192|108.162.216.192]] 02:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

1477: Star Wars

2015-12-07T19:07:14Z

188.114.99.189: needs uploading of the fixed comic, without the white line over the dates

{{Incomplete|fixed comic image needs to be uploaded}}
{{comic
| number = 1477
| date = January 23, 2015
| title = Star Wars
| image = star_wars.png
| titletext = A long, long time (plus 40 years) ago, in a galaxy far, far away (plus a corrective factor involving the Hubble constant) ...
}}

==Explanation==
This is another comic based on pointing out just how much time has passed since the release of a particular film. The same basis is found in [[1393: Timeghost]] and [[891: Movie Ages]], and a similar theme is used in [[647: Scary]] and [[973: MTV Generation]]. Many people remember going to see major films at the time of release, and in their mind it may seem like "just a few years ago". In reality however, many years have passed, and it comes as a shock to realise just how long ago it was.

In the first panel, [[Cueball]] states that we are approaching the ''Back to the Future'' date (October 21, 2015), which is the date that protagonist Marty McFly travels to in ''{{w|Back to the Future Part II}}'', released in 1989. Megan adds that we're even closer to May 13, 2015, the "''{{w|Star Wars}}'' tipping point".

The original first set of ''Star Wars'' films was released as a trilogy over the span of 6 years, with the third one, ''{{w|Return of the Jedi}}'' being released on May 25, 1983. After that, no films were released for 16 years until {{w|Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace|''The Phantom Menace''}} on May 19, 1999, the first in a trilogy of prequels. Thus up until now, the length of time between the two films, [http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=5&d1=25&y1=1983&m2=5&d2=19&y2=1999&ti=on 5,839 days], has been greater than the time between the latter film and the present. Megan points out that May 13, 2015 will mark [http://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?m1=5&d1=19&y1=1999&m2=5&d2=13&y2=2015&ti=on 5,839 days] after the release of ''The Phantom Menace'', meaning that for the first time the release date of the two films will be closer together than the latter film is to the present day.

In the final panel, Cueball points out how weird it is that he (along with most other people) are regularly surprised at the passage of time, given how predictable time is by its very nature. Megan's last line is a reference to the famous opening sequence used in the ''Star Wars'' films, which begins "A long time ago...".

The title text repeats the opening text from the films, inserting Megan's suggestion for changing the duration, and extending it to include the {{w|Hubble constant}} for adjusting the distance estimation. The Hubble constant is a value that describes an estimated rate of expansion of the universe. This expansion means that during the 40 years that have passed since the release of the first Star Wars movie, the "galaxy far, far away" has gotten even farther away.

==Transcript==
:[Cueball and Megan are walking together.]
:Cueball: We're almost at the ''Back to the Future'' date.
:Megan: We're even closer to the ''Star Wars'' tipping point.
:Cueball: The what?

:[Diagram showing a timeline from before 1980 to about 2020. Markers on the line indicate the release date of ''Return of the Jedi'', the release date of ''The Phantom Menace'', and May 13th, with arrows showing the intervals in between these three points.]
:Megan: On May 13th, ''The Phantom Menace'' will have come out closer to ''Return of the Jedi'' than to the present
:Cueball: Wow.

:[Cueball and Megan stop walking. Megan is in a reflective pose with her hand on her chin.]
:Cueball: It's weird how I'm constantly surprised by the passage of time when it's literally the most predictable thing in the universe.
:Megan: You know, "A long time ago" should have "Plus four more decades" added in rereleases.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Megan]]
[[Category:Comics to make one feel old]]
[[Category:Star Wars]]

2015-11-11T00:04:43Z

188.114.99.189: my opinion

Talk:1356: Orbital Mechanics

2015-11-06T01:17:55Z

188.114.99.189:

I just put in a first attempt at the explanation. Could do with links to pages regarding KSP, etc, etc. (Or rewrite entirely how it ought to be done, of course.) Also, if anyone knows ''for sure'' that "aim nose at destination, fire retros", as seen in the film Gravity, would or would not give the desired effect, that'd be useful to clarify or dismiss. From my own experience with the Kerbals, it wouldn't (never mind all the other broad assumptions made in that otherwise spectacular film  ), but KSP ''also'' rather fudges away the N-body problem, artificially. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.209|141.101.88.209]] 05:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

:You are correct that "aim nose, fire retros" doesn't work in reality. KSP fudges the n-body problem by putting the planets and moons on tracks, and then changing you into a different 2-body problem when you cross into a smaller {{w|hill sphere}} than the one you were in. The maneuver node system does a little bit of n-body work when you get a maneuver close to another body, but you'll notice that when the ship actually crosses into the other hill sphere the trajectory for the maneuver goes weird. It's a rather clever optimization for a simulator like KSP. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 06:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I really wish there was a downwards curve for "I saw Armageddon". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.60|108.162.221.60]] 06:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

:There will be a huge upwards curve on "how much I think i know about orbital mechanics" - See {{w|Dunning-Krueger effect}} for more info. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.77|108.162.229.77]] 14:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

::In my opinion, the {{w|Dunning-Krueger effect}} is already present in the graph, at the downwards slope after every local maxima. As in, someone starts learning about something, they think they know all about it, and then they start realizing how much they don't know about it. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189|188.114.99.189]] 01:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

;Future mission failure due to discrepancies in Kerbal Space Program
I note some differences in KSP (from wikipedia):

:The game simulates trajectories and orbits using patched conic approximation instead of a full n-body simulation, and thus does not support Lagrange points and halo orbits.

:The celestial bodies in the Kerbal solar system are about 1/10 the radius of their real-universe equivalents yet have comparable surface gravity, implying that they have unrealistically high densities. This change to scale makes many tasks considerably easier. For example, a surface to low-Kerbin-orbit launch requires a delta-v of about 4.5 km/s, compared to 9.5 km/s for a low-Earth-orbit launch. In particular, because of the game also having unrealistically efficient and flexible (in terms of speed and altitude) turbojet engines, this means it is much easier to make a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle using jet engines to accelerate a vehicle to orbital speed on only a small fraction of its mass in jet fuel, then give a tiny boost with rockets to reach orbit, whereas in real life, a highly efficient but powerful and lightweight scramjet would be necessary to do the same with several times the amount of fuel.

So I predict some probability that, after reading this comic, some NASA person will make the mistake of designing real missions using notions or designs from it, which will fail in real life (or at least be ridiculed at mission design review time). And then Randall will have to write a really challenging comic about it..... [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 13:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

: Maybe Randall should add a horizontal line well over the curve, labelled: ''Level of knowledge required for a successful mission in real life'' - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.185|108.162.254.185]] 10:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

: Do you really think that a trained, qualified person at NASA, who ''had to go to school and study physics'' to plan missions, will be stupid enough to revert from his physics degree to Kerbal Space Program, thus reenacting [[1244:_Six_Words]]? I think that unlikely. [[User:Jetman123|Jetman123]] ([[User talk:Jetman123|talk]]) 07:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

''Once at that lower orbit, your velocity is faster'' ... really? I though that on lower orbit, your velocity is slower BUT your {{w|Angular_velocity|ANGULAR velocity}} is faster, which is the reason you start to overtake your target ... but I never played Kerbal, so I may be wrong. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

:According to the {{w|Kepler's equation|Kepler's Equation}} a lower orbit means faster speeds. The Kerbal program is much more sophisticated and I even still did not figure out how to use my German keyboard on that Demo. Nevertheless, orbital mechanics are simple in general and then look at {{w|Neil Armstrong}} at {{w|Gemini 8}} — moving around in weightlessness is not easy. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

He was born with innate knowledge of orbital mechanics equivalent to roughly freaking 20-25% of high school physics! THAT is Randall Munroe, ladies and gentlemen! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.48|108.162.212.48]] 00:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

:Not to put too fine a point on it, and I am in no way anything even close to resembling a physicist, engineer, etc., but I expect that most people are probably "born" (i.e. gain from birth to HS physics) with a similar level of understanding. I am happy to be corrected on this point, but I would imagine that the 20-25% level cited probably involves a basic conceptual understanding of Newtonian physics that we all gain from our life experience from birth to 17/18 years. From what I recall, HS physics clarified some of these principles and revealed the mathematical structures behind them. With that in mind, I'm pretty comfortable saying that my knowledge of physics pre-HS was about 1/4 of the final. And now that it's been about 15 years, I'm probably back down to the same level. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 10:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

::That, or the x axis isn't at y = 0, to make it more readable (my Economics Engineering teacher would death glare at me now...). [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189|188.114.99.189]] 01:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:1356: Orbital Mechanics

2015-11-06T01:15:40Z

188.114.99.189:

I just put in a first attempt at the explanation. Could do with links to pages regarding KSP, etc, etc. (Or rewrite entirely how it ought to be done, of course.) Also, if anyone knows ''for sure'' that "aim nose at destination, fire retros", as seen in the film Gravity, would or would not give the desired effect, that'd be useful to clarify or dismiss. From my own experience with the Kerbals, it wouldn't (never mind all the other broad assumptions made in that otherwise spectacular film  ), but KSP ''also'' rather fudges away the N-body problem, artificially. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.209|141.101.88.209]] 05:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

:You are correct that "aim nose, fire retros" doesn't work in reality. KSP fudges the n-body problem by putting the planets and moons on tracks, and then changing you into a different 2-body problem when you cross into a smaller {{w|hill sphere}} than the one you were in. The maneuver node system does a little bit of n-body work when you get a maneuver close to another body, but you'll notice that when the ship actually crosses into the other hill sphere the trajectory for the maneuver goes weird. It's a rather clever optimization for a simulator like KSP. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]_a ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 06:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I really wish there was a downwards curve for "I saw Armageddon". [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.60|108.162.221.60]] 06:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

:There will be a huge upwards curve on "how much I think i know about orbital mechanics" - See {{w|Dunning-Krueger effect}} for more info. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.229.77|108.162.229.77]] 14:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

::In my opinion, the {{w|Dunning-Krueger effect}} is already present in the graph, at the downwards slope after every local maxima. As in, someone starts learning about something, they think they know all about it, and then they start realizing how much they don't know about it. [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189|188.114.99.189]] 01:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

;Future mission failure due to discrepancies in Kerbal Space Program
I note some differences in KSP (from wikipedia):

:The game simulates trajectories and orbits using patched conic approximation instead of a full n-body simulation, and thus does not support Lagrange points and halo orbits.

:The celestial bodies in the Kerbal solar system are about 1/10 the radius of their real-universe equivalents yet have comparable surface gravity, implying that they have unrealistically high densities. This change to scale makes many tasks considerably easier. For example, a surface to low-Kerbin-orbit launch requires a delta-v of about 4.5 km/s, compared to 9.5 km/s for a low-Earth-orbit launch. In particular, because of the game also having unrealistically efficient and flexible (in terms of speed and altitude) turbojet engines, this means it is much easier to make a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle using jet engines to accelerate a vehicle to orbital speed on only a small fraction of its mass in jet fuel, then give a tiny boost with rockets to reach orbit, whereas in real life, a highly efficient but powerful and lightweight scramjet would be necessary to do the same with several times the amount of fuel.

So I predict some probability that, after reading this comic, some NASA person will make the mistake of designing real missions using notions or designs from it, which will fail in real life (or at least be ridiculed at mission design review time). And then Randall will have to write a really challenging comic about it..... [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 13:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

: Maybe Randall should add a horizontal line well over the curve, labelled: ''Level of knowledge required for a successful mission in real life'' - [[Special:Contributions/108.162.254.185|108.162.254.185]] 10:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

: Do you really think that a trained, qualified person at NASA, who ''had to go to school and study physics'' to plan missions, will be stupid enough to revert from his physics degree to Kerbal Space Program, thus reenacting [[1244:_Six_Words]]? I think that unlikely. [[User:Jetman123|Jetman123]] ([[User talk:Jetman123|talk]]) 07:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

''Once at that lower orbit, your velocity is faster'' ... really? I though that on lower orbit, your velocity is slower BUT your {{w|Angular_velocity|ANGULAR velocity}} is faster, which is the reason you start to overtake your target ... but I never played Kerbal, so I may be wrong. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

:According to the {{w|Kepler's equation|Kepler's Equation}} a lower orbit means faster speeds. The Kerbal program is much more sophisticated and I even still did not figure out how to use my German keyboard on that Demo. Nevertheless, orbital mechanics are simple in general and then look at {{w|Neil Armstrong}} at {{w|Gemini 8}} — moving around in weightlessness is not easy. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 21:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

He was born with innate knowledge of orbital mechanics equivalent to roughly freaking 20-25% of high school physics! THAT is Randall Munroe, ladies and gentlemen! [[Special:Contributions/108.162.212.48|108.162.212.48]] 00:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

:Not to put too fine a point on it, and I am in no way anything even close to resembling a physicist, engineer, etc., but I expect that most people are probably "born" (i.e. gain from birth to HS physics) with a similar level of understanding. I am happy to be corrected on this point, but I would imagine that the 20-25% level cited probably involves a basic conceptual understanding of Newtonian physics that we all gain from our life experience from birth to 17/18 years. From what I recall, HS physics clarified some of these principles and revealed the mathematical structures behind them. With that in mind, I'm pretty comfortable saying that my knowledge of physics pre-HS was about 1/4 of the final. And now that it's been about 15 years, I'm probably back down to the same level. [[User:Orazor|Orazor]] ([[User talk:Orazor|talk]]) 10:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

::That, or the graph doesn't start at birth (my Economics Engineering teacher would death glare at me now...). [[Special:Contributions/188.114.99.189|188.114.99.189]] 01:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)