Editing 2534: Retractable Rocket
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
+ | {{incomplete|Created by a RETRACTABLE ROCKET SCIENTIST - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} | ||
This comic documents another of [[Beret Guy]]'s [[:Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy|absurdist ventures]]. He explains to [[Megan]] that "we" (possibly [[:Category:Beret Guy's Business|his company]]) are testing their new "retractable" rocket. | This comic documents another of [[Beret Guy]]'s [[:Category:Strange powers of Beret Guy|absurdist ventures]]. He explains to [[Megan]] that "we" (possibly [[:Category:Beret Guy's Business|his company]]) are testing their new "retractable" rocket. | ||
Line 13: | Line 14: | ||
{{w|Reusable launch system|Reusable rockets}} are a growing industry, as they are more economically viable in the long run – though technically much more difficult to operate – than rocket boosters that are just discarded after use (which have been standard throughout the majority of space-faring history). Thus, Megan is understandably confused about Beret Guy's assertion that theirs is "retractable", asking if he misspoke. In typical fashion, he assures her that he did not misspeak, with a single "No" without further explanation. | {{w|Reusable launch system|Reusable rockets}} are a growing industry, as they are more economically viable in the long run – though technically much more difficult to operate – than rocket boosters that are just discarded after use (which have been standard throughout the majority of space-faring history). Thus, Megan is understandably confused about Beret Guy's assertion that theirs is "retractable", asking if he misspoke. In typical fashion, he assures her that he did not misspeak, with a single "No" without further explanation. | ||
− | They proceed to watch the rocket "launch", proving that it is indeed ''retractable''. In fact the rocket does not launch, but merely ''extends'' – apparently all the way to the {{w|International Space Station}} (ISS), a height of over 400 km | + | They proceed to watch the rocket "launch", proving that it is indeed ''retractable''. In fact the rocket does not launch, but merely ''extends'' – apparently all the way to the {{w|International Space Station}} (ISS), a height of over 250 miles (over 400 km) – before retracting, as promised, to its original position. The top part, with the astronauts in it, has been left in space. Presumably, it is docked to the ISS, as the crew onboard the ISS say hello to them in panel 4. |
− | Of course, it would not be possible to extend anything this far.{{Citation needed}} The top would | + | Of course, it would not be possible to extend anything this far.{{Citation needed}} The top would be moving very fast compared to the bottom part, and even with the strongest material a fully extended, very thin, presumably, hollow structure with a payload on top would break very soon after extension began. Also, the ISS moves at 17,100 mph (27,600 km/h) compared to the ground under it, making an orbit in about one and a half hour. So making the tip follow this long enough to dock would be even more impossible. |
− | + | A possibility of making a {{w|space elevator}} has been discussed, but it would not extend like this with a payload on top. Randall has for instance referenced space elevators in [[697: Tensile vs. Shear Strength]]. | |
− | |||
− | |||
The title text parodies the 'old' single-use boosters. It appears that the predecessors to the 'retractable rockets' were capable of controlled extension only. Once they had lofted the payload to orbit, they were then allowed to fall over, destroying them in the process so they could not be used again just like booster rockets. However, if a 250 mile/400 km high construction just fell over, it would be much more difficult to avoid other damage, than to the rocket (booster), than for just a few small booster rockets falling out of the sky.{{Citation needed}} | The title text parodies the 'old' single-use boosters. It appears that the predecessors to the 'retractable rockets' were capable of controlled extension only. Once they had lofted the payload to orbit, they were then allowed to fall over, destroying them in the process so they could not be used again just like booster rockets. However, if a 250 mile/400 km high construction just fell over, it would be much more difficult to avoid other damage, than to the rocket (booster), than for just a few small booster rockets falling out of the sky.{{Citation needed}} | ||
Line 45: | Line 44: | ||
*The [https://web.archive.org/web/20211028014542/https://xkcd.com/ original comic] misspelled "retractable" as "retractible". Has been documented on the web archive. | *The [https://web.archive.org/web/20211028014542/https://xkcd.com/ original comic] misspelled "retractable" as "retractible". Has been documented on the web archive. | ||
**This was done both in the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/5/57/20211028040721%21retractable_rocket.png comic itself], and [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2534:_Retractible_Rocket&redirect=no the title]. | **This was done both in the [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/archive/5/57/20211028040721%21retractable_rocket.png comic itself], and [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2534:_Retractible_Rocket&redirect=no the title]. | ||
+ | **This was soon corrected, but has left its mark on explain xkcd as can be seen in the links above. | ||
{{comic discussion}} | {{comic discussion}} |