2423: Project Orion

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 01:00, 11 February 2021 by DgbrtBOT (talk | contribs) (Created by dgbrtBOT)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Project Orion
If you tune out again, when you tune back in you'll be hearing about dusty plasma fission fragment rockets.
Title text: If you tune out again, when you tune back in you'll be hearing about dusty plasma fission fragment rockets.

Explanation

Ambox notice.png This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by a BOT. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.
If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

Transcript

Ambox notice.png This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.


comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!

Discussion

If you read xkcd long enough, the comics always tend toward being about conversations tending toward something. (Okay, that’s not true; there’s one other comic like this and it was a conversation tending toward being about species tending toward being built like crabs. Still funny to think about, though.) 108.162.215.244 01:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

All xkcd comics eventually become conversations about conversations. Captain Video (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that "dusty plasma fission fragment rockets" is a series of trochees.162.158.183.117 05:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

TIL trochee means something different for English than for Greek, Latin, Hungarian etc. Torzsmokus (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This also means that the first four words can be sung to the tune of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 172.69.34.148 21:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The current explanation mentions other examples of topics, specialists from different fields apparently tend to converge on. Can anyone confirm whether those are actually true, or at least commonly known stereotypes? I've never heard of any such claim. The claim being, that all conversations converge on these topics, not the topics themselves. Bischoff (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Now I understand a bit better what may have influenced some plot elements of Neal Stephenson's book Anathem.172.69.62.220 15:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

More specifically? It's not striking a chord for me. All Sci-Fi conversations eventually come around to multiverse phenomena? ProphetZarquon (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, there definitely was an Orionesque system. With the pre-detection theorising by the core characters possibly being juxtaposed with more mundane gardening information within the Math/enclave. (Must re-read it!) 172.69.55.104 21:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that modern engineering can make project Orion safe.

While modern engineering can perhaps make some forms of nuclear propulsion safe(ish) and I think that stuff like nuclear thermal rockets could be great in some roles, I don't think that we are close to being able to detonate nukes in Earths atmosphere safely. Safely enough for the people on the rocket, maybe, but not for the people eating their atomic dust. Like the plans for that giant hypersonic nuclear ramjet, it's awesome, and would likely work, but I don't see a way to clean up the emissions to anything like acceptable levels.

BlakeFelix (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)