explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3111: Artificial Gravity

2025-07-10T13:55:03Z

82.132.236.42: /* Explanation */ doh!

{{comic
| number = 3111
| date = July 4, 2025
| title = Artificial Gravity
| image = artificial_gravity_2x.png
| imagesize = 423x365px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Low gravity can cause bone loss, so we're pleased to report that, since we initiated capsule motion, the number of bones in each crew member has been steadily increasing.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a very unhappy astronaut. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
In a low gravity environment, such as a spaceship taking an interplanetary or interstellar voyage, the human body will experience slow but {{w|Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_human_body|adverse side effects}}. Many prototype designs have been introduced to combat this, both in science fiction and real life. One of the most common (for non-fictional purposes, or in {{w|hard science fiction}}) is to use a rotating system to subject the crew to [[123: Centrifugal Force|centrifugal force]], simulating the effects of {{w|gravity}}. Examples of mimicing gravity using spinning elements are: the whole wheel-like space-station and internal living ring of the ''Discovery'', from ''{{w|2001: A Space Odyssey}}''; the extended rotating arms of the ''Hermes'', in ''{{w|The Martian (film)|The Martian}}''; the whole rotating structure of ''Endurance'', from the movie ''{{w|Interstellar (film)|Interstellar}}''.

[[Cueball]] instead describes a spacecraft in which the crew quarters are being continuously shaken back and forth across an axis. [[Ponytail]] immediately sees problems with this approach, and asks if the shaking pod can be replaced with a much safer and more stable spinning wheel or cylinder. Cueball concedes this argument, but reveals that the ship has already been built, launched, and is in operation, so the crew is stuck with the shaking pod setup. Apparently, nobody pointed out that there was a much better approach during the mission development.

A shaking spaceship design would create an experience of gravity for the crew — just a very unpleasant one. When the capsule accelerates "up" (from the point of view of the picture), the crew will feel a gravity-like force pulling them "down" against the capsule 'floor'. However when the capsule accelerates "down", the crew will find themselves thrown against what was the 'ceiling' of the capsule, but has now suddenly become the 'floor', in an experience similar to falling several metres. The direction of this artificial "gravity" will keep alternating as long as the capsule keeps shaking. This will result in the crew not only repeatedly falling against one surface or the other, but also at a variable apparent gravity as the capsule's lateral velocity changes. This might make their life onboard ship, which could (otherwise) be expected to last for many years, somewhat unpleasant.{{Citation needed}}

This shaking system would also be wasteful of energy, since there would be losses due to friction at the joints between modules, as well as the energy costs of changing the motion of the crew module relative to the rest of the structure. In contrast, a rotating structure freely floating in a weightless environment tends to retain its motion, with negligible losses due to interactions with other bodies.

The title text discusses a real side effect of low gravity environments — a form of bone density loss known as {{w|Spaceflight osteopenia}}. The speaker claims that "the number of bones in each crew member has been steadily increasing". This is because the shaking, and subsequent multiple impacts, are fragmenting the crew members' bones. The broken pieces of bone are then being counted as bones in their own right and increasing the effective count, without telling if the pod's awkward configuration has done anything to reduce bone ''mass'' loss.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Cueball and Ponytail are standing near a blueprint of a spacecraft, with Cueball pointing at the blueprint. In place of conventional conical fairing, this spacecraft has a large mechanical arm on the nose. The arm is holding an egg-shaped capsule. Two semi-transparent drawings of the arm and the capsule are depicted on either side of it with speed streaks in between, implying shaking back and forth motion of the arm.]
:Cueball: To produce artificial gravity during the voyage, the crew capsule is kept in constant motion.
:Ponytail: Wouldn't it make more sense to spin it instead of shaking it, so the acceleration is steadier?
:Cueball: ...Listen. You, I, and the crew all wish we'd thought of that before launch.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Space]]

3111: Artificial Gravity

2025-07-10T13:54:23Z

82.132.236.42: /* Explanation */ Added a few more examples, across various periods and with some slightly different implementations. (Nearly added Elysium, but too similar to 2001's 'wheel-station'.)

{{comic
| number = 3111
| date = July 4, 2025
| title = Artificial Gravity
| image = artificial_gravity_2x.png
| imagesize = 423x365px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Low gravity can cause bone loss, so we're pleased to report that, since we initiated capsule motion, the number of bones in each crew member has been steadily increasing.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a very unhappy astronaut. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
In a low gravity environment, such as a spaceship taking an interplanetary or interstellar voyage, the human body will experience slow but {{w|Effect_of_spaceflight_on_the_human_body|adverse side effects}}. Many prototype designs have been introduced to combat this, both in science fiction and real life. One of the most common (for non-fictional purposes, or in {{w|hard science fiction}}) is to use a rotating system to subject the crew to [[123: Centrifugal Force|centrifugal force]], simulating the effects of {{w|gravity}}. Examples of mimicing gravity using spinning elements are: the whole wheel-like space-station and internal living ring of the ''Discovery'', from ''{{w|2001: A Space Odyssey}}''; the extended rotating arms of the ''Hermes'', in ''{{w|The Martian (film)|The Martian}}; the whole rotating structure of ''Endurance'', from the movie ''{{w|Interstellar (film)|Interstellar}}''.

[[Cueball]] instead describes a spacecraft in which the crew quarters are being continuously shaken back and forth across an axis. [[Ponytail]] immediately sees problems with this approach, and asks if the shaking pod can be replaced with a much safer and more stable spinning wheel or cylinder. Cueball concedes this argument, but reveals that the ship has already been built, launched, and is in operation, so the crew is stuck with the shaking pod setup. Apparently, nobody pointed out that there was a much better approach during the mission development.

A shaking spaceship design would create an experience of gravity for the crew — just a very unpleasant one. When the capsule accelerates "up" (from the point of view of the picture), the crew will feel a gravity-like force pulling them "down" against the capsule 'floor'. However when the capsule accelerates "down", the crew will find themselves thrown against what was the 'ceiling' of the capsule, but has now suddenly become the 'floor', in an experience similar to falling several metres. The direction of this artificial "gravity" will keep alternating as long as the capsule keeps shaking. This will result in the crew not only repeatedly falling against one surface or the other, but also at a variable apparent gravity as the capsule's lateral velocity changes. This might make their life onboard ship, which could (otherwise) be expected to last for many years, somewhat unpleasant.{{Citation needed}}

This shaking system would also be wasteful of energy, since there would be losses due to friction at the joints between modules, as well as the energy costs of changing the motion of the crew module relative to the rest of the structure. In contrast, a rotating structure freely floating in a weightless environment tends to retain its motion, with negligible losses due to interactions with other bodies.

The title text discusses a real side effect of low gravity environments — a form of bone density loss known as {{w|Spaceflight osteopenia}}. The speaker claims that "the number of bones in each crew member has been steadily increasing". This is because the shaking, and subsequent multiple impacts, are fragmenting the crew members' bones. The broken pieces of bone are then being counted as bones in their own right and increasing the effective count, without telling if the pod's awkward configuration has done anything to reduce bone ''mass'' loss.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
:[Cueball and Ponytail are standing near a blueprint of a spacecraft, with Cueball pointing at the blueprint. In place of conventional conical fairing, this spacecraft has a large mechanical arm on the nose. The arm is holding an egg-shaped capsule. Two semi-transparent drawings of the arm and the capsule are depicted on either side of it with speed streaks in between, implying shaking back and forth motion of the arm.]
:Cueball: To produce artificial gravity during the voyage, the crew capsule is kept in constant motion.
:Ponytail: Wouldn't it make more sense to spin it instead of shaking it, so the acceleration is steadier?
:Cueball: ...Listen. You, I, and the crew all wish we'd thought of that before launch.

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Space]]

3107: Weather Balloons

2025-07-10T13:31:07Z

82.132.236.42: /* Transcript */ Nobody improved it, whilst I was gone, so doing it myself.

{{comic
| number = 3107
| date = June 25, 2025
| title = Weather Balloons
| image = weather_balloons_2x.png
| imagesize = 547x351px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Once you add the balloons into the model, it makes forecasting easier overall--the forecast is always 'cold and dark, with minimal solar-driven convection.'
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|This page was created by a METEOROLOGIST BOT WITH A FEAR OF PRE-COPULATORY SEXUAL CANNIBALISM. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
A {{w|weather balloon}} is a balloon that carries {{w|meteorology|meteorological}} instruments into the high atmosphere and sends readings back to scientists, who use the information to make weather and climate predictions. Typically it will rise up until the difference between the pressure inside the balloon and that outside gets too great, and the membrane breaks and the fragments of balloon fall back down. This is why the graph plots the number of balloons launched each day, rather than overall, since most balloons launched on one day would be gone from the sky the next day.

The chart in the comic claims that weather forecasting accuracy correlates with the number of weather balloons launched each day, with accuracy increasing fast at first, followed by diminishing returns as the number of launches increases. However, it forecasts that if the rate of balloon launches is sufficiently high, it could provide so many balloons that they actually impact the weather by blocking out sunlight. If the balloons are not included in the weather model, the accuracy of the model based on the readings provided by the many balloons decreases. This starts to happen somewhere between 100 billion to 1 trillion weather balloons launched each day. The accuracy of the model drops completely towards zero for around 10 trillion launched each day, where it even falls below the accuracy for just a single balloon (which may or may not be augmented by non-balloon information) at the start of the graph.

While the number of weather balloon launches impacts weather model accuracy, it's not the only factor. Ground stations have been collecting and collating useful surface data for centuries. Scientific understanding of the physical processes in the atmosphere has also improved, only in part due to balloons, and the speed of computers used in analyses and simulations has increased by many orders of magnitude. The existence of weather and geophysical satellites also significantly improves forecasts, as they can continuously gain information about clouds and temperatures over huge areas, while weather balloons capture information as they rise through only a single air-column for a limited duration.

The surface area of the Earth is around 510 {{w|Trillion|(short-scale) trillion}} square meters, and a typical weather balloon (while smaller at launch) will expand to approximately 6 m diameter at altitude; this covers an area slightly under 30 m², within a just marginally larger 'air surface area' at height. This makes it entirely possible to blanket the whole Earth with around 18 trillion standard weather balloons - or possibly even fewer, given the current availability of larger balloon models each more than twice the width, or four times the area. This isn't far off the implications given by the graph. On the other hand, the inherent translucency of the balloon material, the tendency of the balloons to jostle vertically (the illustration implying that it's not just a single layer of close-packed balloons), and the need to synchronize launches and ascents to try to form an optimal single layer, might make complete coverage difficult to accomplish without a slightly greater number of launches. Alternatively, roughly doubling this coverage could be achieved by launching when the balloons will end up in the sunlit hemisphere at any given time.

The joke in the title text is that when there are so many balloons that sunlight is entirely blocked, weather will always be the same - dark and cold - so we won't need complex models to forecast it. Also, when there is no heating of the Earth's surface, the solar-driven convection that drives storms and weather patterns would stop. Of course, plants and algae would start to die out, followed shortly by humans and most other life on Earth. However, assuming that the balloons are being launched by humans, the number of them that it would be possible to launch would fall as the population and social structures began to collapse, mitigating the impact on the weather. The pollution from the trillions of balloons would last for longer, but wouldn't prevent sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Don't remove this notice too soon.}}

:[A graph.]

:[X axis has 14 divisions/ticks upon it, a selection of them labeled logarithmically with progressive values of ten:]
::1 [First tick]
::10
::100
::1,000
::1 Million
::1 Billion
::1 Trillion [Penultimate tick]
::[Rightwards arrow and label:] Number of weather balloon launches per day
:[Y axis is unmarked and unquantified:]
::[Upwards arrow and label:] Weather model accuracy

:[The plot starts above the first mark for 1 balloon, at about 40% of the eventual maximum value of the curve. It starts rising quickly before levelling off, effectively plateaus between 100 million and 10 billion, then reduces even more rapidly down to perhaps 15% of the maximum above the final 10 trillion mark.]
::[A point on the line at about 4000 launches per day and 85% of the maximum is indicated by an arrow and label:] Current rate

:[The graph is decorated (behind the plot-line) with a number of drawn features, mostly of weather balloons dotted around the space between the 'ground'/X-axis and the upper limit of the plot.]
::[The upper balloons are visibly more expanded than those closer to the ground, one of which seems to have just been released by a Cueball standing half way between the "1" and "10" tickmarks, as apparently linked by some 'movement dots'.]
::[Most balloons are at or around the upper limit of their range, and the number of balloons around a general horizontal position increases from left to right.]
::[A single high-altitude ballon is found in the area above the plot-line to the left.]
::[In the top right, balloons become heavily clustered and an arrow points at this overlapping mass (once more above the plot-line) leading from a text label:] Layer of weather balloons, not accounted for in models, blocks sunlight from reaching Earth

:[A stylistic 'Sun' is drawn above the top-right cluster of balloons, various light-to-mid-shade halftones are used to roughly indicate shadows cast below the in reasingly densely packed balloons leading up to this section of the scene. The lightest tones start to 'reach the ground' at slightly above the "1 Billion" mark, the darkest tones starting in the 1 Trillion to (unlabeled) 10 Trillion division.]

{{comic discussion}}<noinclude>

[[Category:Line graphs]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Weather]]

Talk:1122: Electoral Precedent

2025-07-10T12:35:38Z

82.132.236.42:

This illustrates how the future is unlike the past in countless ways. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.59}}

----
I don't understand what he means by Alternative Tickets in the last frame.
:It does not say 'Alternative', it says {{w|Alliterative}}, meaning that both names starts with the same sound/letter. '''R'''omney/'''R'''yan --[[User:Pmakholm|Pmakholm]] ([[User talk:Pmakholm|talk]]) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
::There have only been three alliterative tickets: Buchanan-Breckinridge, Stevenson-Sparkman, and Romney-Ryan. The first one won and the other two lost.

----
My research tells me that Jefferson won 1800. Error on Randall's part? [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 08:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by 1792 vs. 1804: The latter is "No incumbent has beaten a challenger", but didn't Washington face any challenger when he was re-elected in 1792? [[User:Jolindbe|Jolindbe]] ([[User talk:Jolindbe|talk]]) 14:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
: {{w|United_States_presidential_election,_1792|He ran unopposed}} --[[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 14:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:: As far as I understand it, he had four opponents, but got all the votes. Then, the electoral college voted on whom to be the vice president among the remaining candidates. But it seems unlikely to get 100% of the popular votes, do I misinterpret the wiki page? [[User:Jolindbe|Jolindbe]] ([[User talk:Jolindbe|talk]]) 17:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, back then, the electoral college didn't take their votes from the people. They just decided, so they decided to give Washington the presidency. [[Special:Contributions/140.247.0.79|140.247.0.79]] 18:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

----
"1904: No one under 45 has become president. ... Roosevelt did."

Sort of. {{w|Theodore Roosevelt}} (Oct 1858–1919) was under 45 when he ''became'' president, in 1901. But by the time of the ''1904'' election he was 46.
<br/>[[Special:Contributions/75.36.234.236|75.36.234.236]] 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
:Correct. Theodore Roosevelt was the youngest President to date, but Kennedy was the youngest yet ''elected''. [[Special:Contributions/67.51.59.66|67.51.59.66]] 20:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The image needs to be updated. I'm not sure how to do that myself. [[Special:Contributions/76.122.5.96|76.122.5.96]] 23:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded corrected image, changed tense on comments. Reload/refresh to check the 1800 frame should now show Jefferson... --[[User:Bpothier|B. P.]] ([[User talk:Bpothier|talk]]) 01:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And how can people be from Virginia AND Massachusett? I think he meant OR.[[Special:Contributions/77.245.46.86|77.245.46.86]] 11:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I take it the entire comic will not go up under "Transcripts"? [[User:Bobidou23|Bobidou23]] ([[User talk:Bobidou23|talk]]) 22:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

:It will, but no one's been bothered the transcribe it all yet.[[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 23:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

----
:Although Buchanan/Breckinridge won in 1856, Stevenson/Sparkman were defeated by Eisenhower/Nixon in 1952. So that precedent is not true. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.33|162.158.186.33]] 06:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

He's wrong about the other 'precedent' for 2012 as well. Other first name with a K losers:
*1924, Frank T. Johns (Socialist Labor)
*1932, Frank S. Regan (Prohibition)
*1936, Frank Knox (Republican)
*1948, Tucker P. Smith (Socialist)
*1980, Patrick J. Lucey (Independent)
*1996, Patrick Choate (Reform)
*2004, Chuck Baldwin (Constitution)
*2008, Chuck Baldwin (Constitution)
--[[Special:Contributions/76.20.209.221|76.20.209.221]] 10:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
----

Good point about small party candidates, but Tucker P. Smith was the Socialist vice presidential candidate in 1948; the presidential candidate was Norman Thomas.
--[[Special:Contributions/174.59.119.154|174.59.119.154]] 13:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
----
You're technically wrong about Chuck Baldwin. He was born as Charles Baldwin. He only ran for vice president in '04 and president in '08. I'm too lazy to find the rest.[[User:Randomperson4000|Randomperson4000]] ([[User talk:Randomperson4000|talk]]) 19:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
----

;Errors
Should the errors be included in the article explanation, or should they just be discussed here in the chat box? I'm of the opinion that anything that doesn't go towards explaining the comic should go here in the discussion. I would lean towards keeping error nitpicking confined to the discussion page. [[User:Davidy22|Davidy22]] ([[User talk:Davidy22|talk]]) 13:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

:I think errors should be put down in a trivia/errors section. Or, if a flame war is starting, move it onto the talk page. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I put back my original comment on the 2012 streaks; some anonymous person had previously written 'whether he thinks "st" and "sp" sounds are different enough to count as alliteration', but first of all, an alliteration requires the (first) sound(s)/letter(s) of two words to be the same (not different), and second, if Randall would consider Stevenson/Sparkman not to be alliterative (as their second letters differ), he would undoubtedly think the same about Romney/Ryan.--[[User:Jay|Jay]] ([[User talk:Jay|talk]]) 14:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

:Yeah, I noticed that edit, but thought there was a "not" in there, which would have made it make sense. Ah well. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

:Not quite true, Jay - St/Sp is two different consonant ''blends'', which are much more intertwined than a consonant and its following vowel, as in Ro/Ry. The question is do they sound alike, not the literal letters used. [[User:Jerodast|- jerodast]] ([[User talk:Jerodast|talk]]) 17:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

:But then, Buchanan-Breckinridge in 1956 would be B-Br, and so there would be no alliterative tickets. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.33|162.158.186.33]] 06:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: 1996 - surely 'William' (12 pts not including 50 pts for using all seven letters) beats 'Robert' - (8 pts)? {{unsigned|163.1.166.255}}

----

2012: Democratic incumbents never beat taller challengers.

Isn't Obama 6'1" and Romney is 6'2"? Certainly Obama won there. [[Special:Contributions/24.6.170.96|24.6.170.96]] 01:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

:The comic was written before the presidential election. {{unsigned ip|173.245.52.223}}

;Transcript
Just finished the transcript. I didn't check for typos, since there was a lot of typing. It would be great if someone else would look over it. {{unsigned|207.242.93.10}}

:Looks great! I've removed a lot of the whitespace which (I think) makes it easier to read, and doesn't require quite as much scrolling. I haven't gone through and spell checked everything either, but if someone finds anything they can fix it. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 23:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

----

2012: No Republican has lost a November 6 presidential election...
2012: No one ever wins re-election after the previous two presidents - from different parties - won re-election...
2012: No Democrat was re-elected with very high unemployment and a Republican-controlled House...

...until Obama. [[Special:Contributions/50.74.2.12|50.74.2.12]] 02:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

----

Is it me or does the 1972 panel now say „Quakers can’t win twice“? What happened to „No wartime candidate has won without Massachusetts“?
1956–1964 seem to be wrong, too. Or am I missing something?
[[User:Quoti|Quoti]] ([[User talk:Quoti|talk]]) 23:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

----

2016: No white guy who's been mentioned on twitter has gone on to win... Until Trump did. [[User:Redninjakoopa|Redninjakoopa]] ([[User talk:Redninjakoopa|talk]]) 04:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

----

Funny how the alt text is now also false, considering Trump is now president-elect. ill change the comment on Jan. 20th {{unsigned ip|108.162.237.39}}
:It's really funny because Trump is basically the king of Twitter politics/mud-slinging, I'm presuming that Randall didn't go back and change that alt-tag, because it was a safe bet that anyone coming after Obama would be another white guy, and anyone elected would be mentioned on twitter, but because Trump is so prolific on Twitter it makes the alt-text seem almost prophetic. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.251|172.68.58.251]] 14:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Sam

----

1848
Democrats do not lose when they carry Pennsylvania.
But
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1848_United_States_presidential_election
Shows Taylor the Whig carrying Pennsylvania and winning.
I am confused.

----

Trump isn't white, he's orange. The first white guy to be mentioned on Twitter and then get elected president is Joe Biden.
:Ahh, I love this comment. [[User:Beanie|Beanie]] ([[User talk:Beanie|talk]]) 13:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
:Quite :) [[User:The Cat Lady|-- The Cat Lady]] ([[User talk:The Cat Lady|talk]]) 20:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The letter K thing feels ominous right now. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.90.2|172.69.90.2]] 21:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

----

The K streak is broken now, now that Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump in the 2024 election. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.130|172.70.210.130]] 17:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

----

Another precedent for 1860: The incumbent vice president has never lost... until Breckinridge. (John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Martin Van Buren won as the incumbent vp, but John C. Breckinridge lost as the incumbent vp.) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.90.160|162.158.90.160]] 02:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

----

Another precedent for 1840: Only people named John Adams can lose their re-election bid... until Martin Van Buren. (Another precedent for 1900: If an election has the same two candidates as the previous one, the loser of the first election wins the second one... until Bryan.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.115|172.70.214.115]] 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

----

I thought of another one: "No president born west of the Mississippi has won." ...until Hoover did. (Hoover was born in West Branch, IA) {{unsigned ip|199.66.15.1|00:35, 10 July 2025}}

Talk:3111: Artificial Gravity

2025-07-10T12:33:35Z

82.132.236.42:

Note the motion lines around the main body of the spacecraft, showing that it is also shaking to a much lesser extent. [[Special:Contributions/181.214.218.76|181.214.218.76]] 15:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
:That is just Newton's Third Law, which is very often taken into account in space obviously. [[User:Thehydraclone|Thehydraclone]] ([[User talk:Thehydraclone|talk]]) 16:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
:: I prefer to think it's using thrusters either side of the main body to slightly oscillate that back and forth, which then translates into the larger movement of the capsule through the joint. [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 08:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Report: Total crew bone mass remains constant. {{unsigned ip|2804:7f0:bf02:c680:390e:8bb5:b4a9:db40|16:05, 4 July 2025}}
: Now you made it sound like some bones have changed owner. Whether intentional or not, very xkcd. --[[User:Coconut Galaxy|Coconut Galaxy]] ([[User talk:Coconut Galaxy|talk]]) 13:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
:: "We may have made the change of direction a ''little'' too abrupt..." [[Special:Contributions/82.13.184.33|82.13.184.33]] 15:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The spinning idea reminds me of the spin drive from Andy Weir's "Project Hail Mary."[[Special:Contributions/136.47.216.1|136.47.216.1]] 17:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Wait, nothing about the 4th of July today? That's odd. [[Special:Contributions/2601:647:8500:1E09:55BB:EEBB:23EA:178A|2601:647:8500:1E09:55BB:EEBB:23EA:178A]] 23:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
: this rocket was clearly sent up mistaken for a firework {{unsigned ip|2600:4040:52f1:300:8c1d:959a:d4c2:80be|14:07, 5 July 2025}}
: Not at all surprising - clicking through [[:Category:Comics from July]] to find the relevant week each year, the only one I can see in twenty years ''directly'' referencing it is [[1858: 4th of July]]; at a stretch, you could suggest that [[285: Wikipedian Protester]] was also specifically timed. More notably, it's the 19th anniversary of [[123: Centrifugal Force]], which feels relevant. - [[User:IMSoP|IMSoP]] ([[User talk:IMSoP|talk]]) 10:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

aw, great, "steadily"--[[User:Bb777|me, hi]] ([[User talk:Bb777|talk]]) 03:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

This rocket design and the intent to provide artificial gravity to the crew module is similar (but not identical) to the design of the ship in Andy Weir's novel Project Hail Mary, for which the film adaptation's trailer was released on June 30. [[Special:Contributions/24.85.198.95|24.85.198.95]] 16:36, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Could this possibly be a reference to james bond preferring his drinks "shaken not stirred?" Especially given how the engineers never even considered spinning the capsule, despite the obvious impracticality of having it "shaken not spun," like they had some kind of personal preference. [[User:Ip36|Ip36]] ([[User talk:Ip36|talk]]) 00:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
:No obvious Bondian reference (saving for prior centrifugal/centripetal death-traps). And incidentally also interesting to note that stirring is also the ''prefered'' method of mixing, by anyone not solely influenced by Fleming's œuvre. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.236.42|82.132.236.42]] 12:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)