Talk:2876: Range Safety

The 'standard' and '2x' sized images had unexpected sizes, so a Trivia section has been automatically generated, and an imagesize parameter has been added (at half size) to render the image consistently with other comics on this website. --TheusafBOT (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so, today we learned modern xkcd comics are drawn entirely with the pencil tool, with the brush size for the text averaging 22 pixels, and then downscaled to 1/15th of the size before final publication. 162.158.103.91 15:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The text is a font...

ProphetZarquon (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"...is a font..." https://github.com/ipython/xkcd-font PRR (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I think you missed the context from that page. It states that "xkcd-font is a font derived from Randall's handwriting...", not that the text placed in the comic drawings is rendered with a font. If you study the comics text, there are brush stroke variations between different instances of the same character, e.g. in this day's comic it is noticeable in "T" and "R" --Jarvik (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Could we STOP getting Trivia items stating "image was uploaded with a resolution/size larger than the supposed 2x version"? If nobody is willing to save the evidence, I assume it's a lie and should be removed from the Trivia. Note how the very next item claims the tower was missing THEN OFFERS A LINK TO THAT VERSION! That's how to treat such anomalies, to save it in case Randall fixes it! I haven't seen a single large comic which was claimed to be large. Pics or it didn't happen, come on! NiceGuy1 (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is the tower missing in the second panel?

If the other buildings weren't in the same place, and the tower weren't back in panel 3, I'd have guessed that the rocket was moved back to the VAB to wait for the next launch window. Maybe this was more activity of the Range Mischief Officer? Barmar (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be back. RIIW - Ponder it (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It was just an optical illusion - haze from the launch site causing tricks of the light. As is the fact that the various protuberances from the tower appear to change from panel to panel. 172.69.194.14 11:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it worth adding a guess of what kind of rocket it is to the explanation? The phallic design seems like one of Blue Origin's. Barmar (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The thin "neck" makes it look like somewhat like a Long March 4 when carrying a large fairing, but it's a bit exaggerated in how much thicker the lower stages are. The ratio looks more like a Vega-C, but then the neck is way too short.172.69.247.40 17:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hard to tell, in silouhette. Often a two(-or-more)-side-booster configuation is used to increase the payload capabilities for a normally 'straight-up' main stack. And the reason why the stack needs boosting may be the increased weight (and/or fairing-size) of the extra-large payload section.

The fins off the base of the broad 'body' are typical parts of add-on-boosters (which may have various top ends, some matching the 'shoulders' as seen) to aid with both the assisted phases of the launch (keeping the stack trimmed without excessive gimballing of the engines equipped to gimbal) and to ensure their eventual ejection is safe (adds a further force to ensure the expelled boosters consistently tumble safely away from the still-ascending, maybe boosting, central stack). There's not enough pixels to be sure if it's a typical Russian/European booster-profile (if it's an Arianne, sheer length make it closer to Arianne 5 (typical 2-booster stacking) to either Arianne 4 (A42P/44LPA/44P/etc) or 6 (A62/A64), though it's borderline even for a 5G/G+, and Proton-M has 'very low shoulders' too), and so many 'private' vehicles exist that I wouldn't want to check them all just for this. Not a Falcon 9 variant, however.

The outsized header-fairing tends to happen for large loads that don't need a broad stack (JWST needed no comparatively huge head, it already needed power enough to get to L2!), something big-and-buslike that maybe a Delta-II might launch to sub-GEO (although the D2's boosters clearly do not match this profile, either).

Unless I (or anybody else) happens upon a stack-shot that matches it, I think it's just an ad-hock composite. A Platonic 'form' of a rocket (or an Aristotelian one, if you prefer). But it does raise interesting questions.

...as does why "uprange" is redlinked (currently!) in the wiktionary page for "downrange". (Launching uprange into thunderstorms would be the suggestion for yet another range non-safety officer to make... :p ) 141.101.98.104 01:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Is "Why do we even HAVE that position?" a throw-back to The Emporer's New Groove? Hymie (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I doubt it's a specific reference - it's a pretty common joke - cf. 'What do we even pay you for?'

SpaceX?

My first thought was SpaceX, e.g. the 2020-12-09 SN8 flight: https://www.google.com/search?q=spacex%20sn8%20faa

There was also some coverage of the 2022-02-03 Starlink launch which implied it would've been more prudent to "wait out the storm": https://time.com/6146986/space-x-satellites-solar-storm/, but skimming academic articles makes it sound like losing so many satellites was surprising to forecasters: https://www.google.com/search?q=february+3+2022+starlink+launch+space+weather Mikey.r (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)