| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 5: |
Line 5: |
| | | | |
| | Launches have been stopped many times at less than 8 seconds, and Randall would be familiar with this fact. The "unavoidable" bit of the explanation can safely (and preferably) be dropped. Given Randall's demonstrated frustration with Webb delays, the joke about the RSO shooting down Santa is almost certainly attributable to intolerance of another delay. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.213|172.70.130.213]] 07:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC) | | Launches have been stopped many times at less than 8 seconds, and Randall would be familiar with this fact. The "unavoidable" bit of the explanation can safely (and preferably) be dropped. Given Randall's demonstrated frustration with Webb delays, the joke about the RSO shooting down Santa is almost certainly attributable to intolerance of another delay. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.213|172.70.130.213]] 07:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC) |
| − | :Thanks for the heads up; edited my addition. It still feels like an italicized "oh no" is too big of a reaction to a delay that's <strike>short, unique, and measurable</strike>. Maybe forcing a launch to abort at -7 seconds causes some kind of fuel combustion(??)/consumption issue that damages some of the spacecraft and requires a much longer delay? Then this could be added to the explanation. (Obviously I'm not an expert here.) Alternatively, say it takes 7 seconds to say the words in the second and third panels, so the spacecraft has already launched. [[User:Zowayix|Zowayix]] ([[User talk:Zowayix|talk]]) 08:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :Edit: Found a real example of an abort delay and added to the explanation.
| |
| − | ::I mean, it kinda feels like a “straw that broke the camel’s back” type of situation here. It’s not the incident itself, it’s everything leading up to that moment and how it probably left Cueball on edge. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.195|108.162.215.195]] 08:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I think there's a barb here about NASA ruining xmas for a lot of people, by slipping the launch date to 25 December. [[User:Arithex|Arithex]] ([[User talk:Arithex|talk]]) 08:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As far as I know, Range Safety Officers don't have ground-to-air weapons, and are therefore incapable of shooting down Santa. when RSO's need to kill something, they use remote detonation commands. How any RSO managed to pre-place a self-destruct package aboard Santa's Sleigh remains an open question: normally they only have those placed aboard the actual rocket stages. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.57|172.70.130.57]] 11:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :That's easy: Write Santa a letter that you want a remotely controllable self-destruct package for Christmas. It will be conveniently placed on the sleigh on December 25. This must be one of the gazillion steps on the JWST pre-launch checklist. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.164|162.158.91.164]] 13:14, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :All will be revealed in the new {{w|How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000 film)|Grinch}} sequel, '''How the Grinch Killed Christmas''' which details how he finds work as a Range Safety Officer. [[User:Kev|Kev]] ([[User talk:Kev|talk]]) 19:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | As far as you know. The possibility of an RSO having an FIM-92G in the backseat is low, but never zero. {{unsigned ip|172.70.126.221}}
| |
| − | : (For those as confused as I was, that's the Range Safety Officer (only a momentary confusion) and a Stinger Missile. Also adding their unsigned IP for them, for neatness.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.68|172.70.86.68]] 17:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | While I like the current note about Santa being aware about this launch due to astronomy geeks asking for it as a present, I would note that Santa must already have extremely good collision avoidance system considering the speed his sleight is moving (at least 650 miles per second) to manage all deliveries over single night. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 03:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :That's assuming Santa moves with finite speed and well-defined position. Personally I'm a big fan of the time stop/time loop explanation.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.121|172.69.42.121]] 03:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Real launch aborts have occurred after T=0. For Ariane 5 launches T=0 is ignition of the main engines. Liftoff occurs when the solid boosters are ignited at T+6seconds. (This is different from NASA and other American launchers where T=0 is liftoff)[[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.91|172.70.34.91]] 15:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Arguably observing Santa Claus should be prioitized over launching JWST ASAP, if Santa ''really'' appear on a flying sleigh. It could lead to completely new science if it ever happens :p [[User:Lamty101|Lamty101]] ([[User talk:Lamty101|talk]]) 08:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
| |
| − | :It might have implications for the to-orbit industry. The speeds and other capabilities of a reindeer-guided-sleigh seem to be believed to sufficient to deliver to the ISS at the very least. But it should at least outperform LauncherOne ('only' delivering seven packages to orbit, yesterday), if not the CargoDragon/CrewDragon. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.121|172.70.90.121]] 09:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
| |
