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 15: | Line 15: | ||
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 (over 250 miles) – 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. | 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 (over 250 miles) – 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. | ||
β | 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 27,600 km/h (17,100 mph) compared to the ground under it, making an orbit in about one and a half hours. So making the tip follow this long enough to dock would be even more impossible. |
β | + | 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]]. He has also examined the problems of a solid metal object extending through the atmosphere [https://what-if.xkcd.com/157/ in a what-if]. | |
β | The current method of sending rockets into space requires huge amounts of fuel, and the more fuel you attempt to carry, the heavier the rocket, leading to more fuel being required, etc. ({{w|Tsiolkovsky rocket equation}}), which makes the current method inefficient. Alternate methods are being explored, such as using a slingshot ({{w| | + | The current method of sending rockets into space requires huge amounts of fuel, and the more fuel you attempt to carry, the heavier the rocket, leading to more fuel being required, etc. ({{w|Tsiolkovsky rocket equation}}), which makes the current method inefficient. Alternate methods are being explored, such as using a slingshot (such as {{w|Spinlaunch}}, in actual construction), theoretical {{w|space elevators}}, or this comic's impossible retractable rocket idea, all of which would leave the majority of the "fuel" requirements on Earth or elsewhere rather than having to carry heavy fuel with the rocket. The only fuel carried might be minimal amounts for course adjustments once in space rather than large amounts used to get there. |
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}} |