Talk:1866: Russell's Teapot

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 20:06, 24 July 2017 by (talk) (launch vehicle regulation discussion)
Jump to: navigation, search

In this case, nesting the teapot in a catapult/cannon which is launched by another catapult/cannon might perhaps be sufficient to get past NASA regulations. (Catapults/cannons only launching the payload and not themselves...) --Nialpxe, 2017. (Arguments welcome)

Though there's still the matter of an equal and opposite force pushing the satellite away from its gravitational bonds of the catapult. Even if the 2nd catapult is no longer associated with the Earth or Earth's gravity, the catapult will continue to be a launcher. That's just changing what it is launching *from*. 18:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)ColinHeico
But make sure it is a mobile cannon, otherwise it would not qualify as a launch vehicle. 11:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I immediately thought "railgun". And the payload can still be a rocket; once it's not touching the ground it's accelerating, not launching. (Also Russell failed to account for female barbers. Honestly, people!) 09:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
One such company did exist, Quicklaunch had the idea of launching via a space gun. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
He didn't need to account for female barbers (or anybody who isn't a man) because the barber in the paradox shaves precisely those men who don't shave themselves. He only shaves men, and all men in the town are only shaved by him or themselves. Everyone else is a completely different story, so they can be shaved by whoever they want (except the barber, who only shaves men). 00:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Only if you assume that females who are barbers don't shave their legs, armpits, or their various lady parts. This only further confuses the paradox. -- Mjm87 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
For much of Bertrand Russell's life, they didn't. 09:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You wouldn't even need a cannon/catapult. If you put the satellite on a small rocket, and put that on a much larger rocket, you can have the big one launch itself, the smaller one, and the satellite. The regulation only says the satellite must be in a non-self-launching launch vehicle. It doesn't say it can't *also* be in a self-launching launch vehicle. -- 20:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

When I first saw this comic I immediately thought of the Utah Teapot, it's a model used in computer graphics because it's simple and has both convex and concave surfaces. Both teapots, I would assume, (I've only just heard of Russel's Teapot so I could be wrong) are well known to different parts of the nerd community? (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Hopefully it will support HTCPCP-TEA. 17:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

i think people just really like teapot examples (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

The major problem here is that CubeSats are currently only launched into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and are expected to re-enter the atmosphere within days to weeks. Russell's teapot is (allegedly) in orbit between Earth and Mars and Cueball's device is not likely to have enough delta-v to leave Earth orbit. SteveBaker (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"A teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars" This implies that the teapot is physically located between Mars and Earth at all times. Which if true would be a highly irregular orbit requiring constant velocity changes, which is an impossible feat to achieve with current teapot technology. -- Mjm87 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Nonsense. It would be a highly regular orbit and many asteroids are already there, despite the most of them are between Mars and Jupiter (Asteroid-Belt):--Dgbrt (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Since we're nitpicking. Having velocity changes does not preclude being in orbit: objects in orbit are always accelerating. Having a constant velocity change does preclude being in orbit, but it also precludes remaining between Earth and Mars, since it would result in eventually leaving the solar system.-- 19:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I can see both of your points. As mjm87 says, "between the Earth and Mars", taken literally, would mean "on a line between the two planets", which would be a very unusual orbit. And, I agree, it would be impossible without constant velocity changes, so wouldn't be an "orbit" in the usual sense. On the other hand, I took Russell's words the way Dgbrt seems to have, as meaning "between the orbits of Earth and Mars", as this is the way most astronomers would interpret it. A don't know that there are "many" asteroids that remain between Earth and Mars, but there are quite a few crossing the space, and at least a few with average distances in that range. - N Kalanaga (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

There is also quantifier scope ambiguity there. I believe that there is a large constellation of teapot statites, and at any given moment at least one of them is directly between Earth and Mars. -- 06:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Since Russell was going for absurdity, I favour the more absurd interpretation namely Mjm87's. Capncanuck (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Taking "on a line between the two planets" literally would simply reduce to "inside the orbit of Mars". The Earth moves faster than Mars and right now the Sun is exactly between them on that line. NASA, ESA, and ISRO can not communicate with their orbiters and rovers until the beginning of August (see Solar conjunction). So the meaning "between the orbits of Earth and Mars" is still much more plausible.--Dgbrt (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry we have been working on it. Launching the project in a few months. Zackdougherty (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)