Talk:2804: Marshmallow

Made a start, not sure if the heating up science is completely correct though MrCandela (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Because I'm a nitpicker, I kind of want to see some mention in this blurb about how reentry is usually a communications blackout period, due to the plasma sheath blocking all radio waves and so talking with Houston *during* reentry is unrealistic. I strongly suspect Randall knew this, though and ignored it for the sake of the joke. Trimeta (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

In the case of the space shuttle it was possible to circumvent the problem of radio blackout by relaying the radio through satellites (the plasma blocks the radio waves downwards, but there was be a window upwards). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_blackout#Spacecraft_reentry Rps (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

The current explanation suggests that Mission Control would be concerned by the lack of communication from the capsule, but given that they would be aware of the effects of reentry, there's no particular reason why this should cause them concern.141.101.99.134 15:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Some things that should probably be added: The comic was likely published in anticipation of the 54th anniversary of the first moon landing on the 20th of July 1969 In reality, the marshmallow, exposed to the vaccum of space, would expand due to the internally trapped gasses until its structural integrity failed https://youtu.be/MYAmPRQ4eWo?t=285 The title text should probably direct reference to Kessler syndrome, in which a single collision of orbiting objects causes a chain reaction filling low earth orbit with debris, in this case, tasty stacks 162.158.155.71 14:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

IMO, "Reentry Marshmallow Toasting Module" refers only to the Marshmallow arm and any necessary associated parts (covers, actuators, etc.), not the whole spacecraft (as the way it is currently written suggests). That is, as for instance, Apollo had a command module, a service module, etc.(?) in this case, there is this extra module. I think it is not unusual to have experiments or sensors piggy-backing in a existent spacecraft or probe. Rps (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed - I'd just amended the article to that effect before coming down here and reading this. :o) 141.101.99.134 15:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"the marshmallow has been on the outside of the module for the entire journey, exposed to the vacuum of space. In this situation, it would have radiated all its heat energy away, reaching temperatures near absolute zero" I think this is incorrect: the side of the spacecraft in the shadow gets quite cold, although probably not ~3ºK (cosmic background temperature), since in low-earth orbit you have a warm body (the Earth) radiating some heat some (most?) of the time. But the sun side gets quite hot. Apollo used "Passive Thermal Control" (informally, it was called “barbecue roll”) to even out the temperature. Rps (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if Randall played Outer wilds recently. Fabian42 (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the specific choice of graham crackers is a reference to anything scientific. That's the usual cracker used to make s'mores. Barmar (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. I'm sure that the S'mores Randall is familiar with would have been made with Graham crackers and that's what he's referring to. MAP (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Also agreed, graham crackers are the normal recipe for s'mores, there's no reason to expect any reference to Graham's number. I'll remove that from the explanation.PotatoGod (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

An Apollo capsule returning from a lunar mission would be traveling at approximately escape velocity. If you think about it, how would it lose all the velocity it gained falling from lunar orbit, except by atmospheric friction? (Luna is at approximately infinity in terms of velocity needed to reach L1. Nitpicking (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)