1133: "Up Goer Five"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
ThirdParty
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:53 pm UTC
Location: USA

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby ThirdParty » Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:44 pm UTC

Vroomfundel wrote:Well, then it's top 1000 roots, strictly speaking, not words
Yes, but "root" may not have been on Randall's list, and "words" was sufficient to get the general point across. "word-parts" would have been hopelessly vague.

User avatar
jonadab
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:31 am UTC
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby jonadab » Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:51 pm UTC

Well, then it's top 1000 roots, strictly speaking, not words


This isn't always obvious to native English speakers who have not studied other languages (because, English is just about as lightly inflected as any language I can name), but there's a difference between putting standard inflectional endings on a word to create a different form of the same lexeme (past tense form, participle form, plural form, whatever) versus combining multiple roots to create another lexeme altogether. If you could use any word made from the top thousand roots, you could say things like "decentralized" and "unregenerate".

"Decentralized is from "de-" + (an older spelling of) "center" + "-al" + "-ise" + "-ed". "Unregenerate" is from "un-" + "re-" + "gen" (one of the most prolific Indo-European roots, it originally had one of the mysterious lost Indo-European gutterals or whatever they were on the end of it) + "-ero" (a common verb-forming suffix in Latin) + "-ate". Building words up out of components like Lego bricks in this manner is a fundamentally different operation, linguistically, from just changing an inflectional ending.

The difference may seem somewhat arbitrary if you only consider English, but it becomes much more obvious if you study other languages, especially heavily inflected ones. In Common Greek, for example, the definite article has seventeen distinct forms, depending on case, number, and gender, but fundamentally it is still the same word. The definite article in English has one spelling, "the", and two pronunciations (depending on whether the following word starts with a vowel sound or not, although if you pay especially close attention you will eventually realize that people occasionally use the "wrong" one and nobody notices).

User avatar
RAGBRAIvet
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:50 pm UTC
Location: 43° 53' 03" -91° 14' 06"

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby RAGBRAIvet » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:06 pm UTC

AvatarIII wrote:
ryzvonusef (1151717) wrote:Courtesy of Reddit, this image goes the full other way w.r.t. technical language:

Spoiler:
Image
Liters... what an ugly spelling, litres is much nicer.

But, but, but .... why would you spell it either way when the word is actually pronounced "leeters"?

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby AvatarIII » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:15 pm UTC

RAGBRAIvet wrote:
AvatarIII wrote:
ryzvonusef (1151717) wrote:Courtesy of Reddit, this image goes the full other way w.r.t. technical language:

Spoiler:
Image
Liters... what an ugly spelling, litres is much nicer.

But, but, but .... why would you spell it either way when the word is actually pronounced "leeters"?


because it's actually pronounced ˈliː.tə

Milnoc
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 4:43 am UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby Milnoc » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:20 pm UTC

In the UK (and sometimes in Canada), it's usually "re" and not "er". Litre. Theatre. Centre.

User avatar
jonadab
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 11:31 am UTC
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby jonadab » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:22 pm UTC

Liters... what an ugly spelling, litres is much nicer


The plural is largely unattested in American English. We just use the singular form.

This may be because well more than 99% of all uses of the word are in the phrase "two-liter bottle" or "two-liter bottles", or sometimes this is shortened to just "two-liter" but is still a reference to the bottle(s) -- a reference that in practice for most folks is less about volume and more about the specific design of the container, a transparent flexible plastic bottle in a certain very specific shape with a particular type of twist-off cap et cetera. Nobody can ever remember whether a two-liter bottle holds slightly more or slightly less than a half-gallon jug, but I'm pretty sure the difference is within the legal tolerance for how accurate the reported volume has to be compared to the statistical mean or median volume of the actual contents. However, whereas half-gallon jugs come in a variety of shapes and designs, two-liter bottles are much more uniform, a very specific and instantly recognizable design. If you produced one that was 20% larger or smaller but otherwise the identical design, most Americans would probably still call it a "two-liter bottle".

In theory we know that liters are a unit, because in elementary school (in _math_ class of all things -- not in, for example, social studies) they try very hard to teach us the conversion factor between liters and gallons to about three decimal places, along with a dozen other completely useless metric-to-normal conversion factors. We forget the numbers, but we remember that the words "liter" and "gram" and whatnot technically refer to amounts, and the smarter students also remember that liter is a unit of volume. But once we get past about fifth grade we never see the word actually used that way in practice, ever again, unless we happen upon an internet forum where Europeans are talking about gas mileage (or technically I suppose it would be kilometrage -- if that is even a word).

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby AvatarIII » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:34 pm UTC

jonadab wrote:
Liters... what an ugly spelling, litres is much nicer


The plural is largely unattested in American English. We just use the singular form.

This may be because well more than 99% of all uses of the word are in the phrase "two-liter bottle" or "two-liter bottles", or sometimes this is shortened to just "two-liter" but is still a reference to the bottle(s) -- a reference that in practice for most folks is less about volume and more about the specific design of the container, a transparent flexible plastic bottle in a certain very specific shape with a particular type of twist-off cap et cetera. Nobody can ever remember whether a two-liter bottle holds slightly more or slightly less than a half-gallon jug, but I'm pretty sure the difference is within the legal tolerance for how accurate the reported volume has to be compared to the statistical mean or median volume of the actual contents. However, whereas half-gallon jugs come in a variety of shapes and designs, two-liter bottles are much more uniform, a very specific and instantly recognizable design. If you produced one that was 20% larger or smaller but otherwise the identical design, most Americans would probably still call it a "two-liter bottle".

In theory we know that liters are a unit, because in elementary school (in _math_ class of all things -- not in, for example, social studies) they try very hard to teach us the conversion factor between liters and gallons to about three decimal places, along with a dozen other completely useless metric-to-normal conversion factors. We forget the numbers, but we remember that the words "liter" and "gram" and whatnot technically refer to amounts, and the smarter students also remember that liter is a unit of volume. But once we get past about fifth grade we never see the word actually used that way in practice, ever again, unless we happen upon an internet forum where Europeans are talking about gas mileage (or technically I suppose it would be kilometrage -- if that is even a word).


Funny you should mention car mileage, because speed and distance on roads, and therefore mileage, are pretty much the only things we in the UK, as standard, still use imperial measurements for. much to the chagrin of the EU probably. (Although we don't call car fuel "gas".)

User avatar
RAGBRAIvet
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:50 pm UTC
Location: 43° 53' 03" -91° 14' 06"

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby RAGBRAIvet » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:36 pm UTC

Additional:  
"And if the breathing air (for burning) makes stuff in the people box start burning, you are having a really, really big problem and won't go into space or anywhere else ever."
RIP Gus, Ed, and Roger.

I also like the way he made reference to the whole "Houston, we have a problem" incident.

And just to be a nerdy nit-picker — the "part that goes along to give people air, water, computers, and stuff" (also known as the Service Module) remained connected to the "people box" (the Command Module) during the "flies around the other world" (lunar orbit) portion of the mission.  In fact, I believe there were a couple of orbits when the "part that flies down to the other world" (the Lunar Excursion Module or LEM) was still docked to the nose of the Service Module/Command Module before it disengaged and descended to the lunar surface, so pretty much the entire upper fourth of the Saturn V (except for the "thing to help people escape really fast if there's a problem") flies around the other world.

And as long as Randall specifically identified the "part that stays on the other world" (the descent stage of the LEM) he might just as well have identified the top half (the ascent stage of the LEM) as "part that comes back to the people car and then gets thrown away". :wink:

User avatar
zombie_monkey
Posts: 644
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:26 pm UTC
Location: Bulgaria

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby zombie_monkey » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:53 pm UTC

jonadab wrote:In theory we know that liters are a unit, because in elementary school (in _math_ class of all things -- not in, for example, social studies) they try very hard to teach us the conversion factor between liters and gallons to about three decimal places, along with a dozen other completely useless metric-to-normal conversion factors. We forget the numbers, but we remember that the words "liter" and "gram" and whatnot technically refer to amounts, and the smarter students also remember that liter is a unit of volume. But once we get past about fifth grade we never see the word actually used that way in practice, ever again, unless we happen upon an internet forum where Europeans are talking about gas mileage (or technically I suppose it would be kilometrage -- if that is even a word).


Kilometrage is indeed a word that means that, at least in Bulgarian. But it's not used in the context of fuel efficiency because, in Europe, fuel efficiency is not measured in distance travelled per volume unit of fuel (miles/gallon), but rather fuel spent for a given standard distance travelled, usually litres of fuel per 100 kilomteres.

SerialTroll
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:28 am UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby SerialTroll » Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:59 pm UTC

AvatarIII wrote:I'm surprised "goer" is on the top 1000 words but "sun" and "god" aren't. I say sun and god all the time, but never say goer.


Sun is in the top 1000 according to this: http://www.rupert.id.au/resources/1-1000.txt

I imagine that there are other lists of the top 1,000 that use different methodology and/or sources of their data, but I agree with you that "sun" is very common. "God" would be much more dependent on the sources you use to define the top 1000.

dp2
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby dp2 » Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:00 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:Soooo.... we've already ended up in the Idiocracy?

I see it in my head movies. But this head movie makes my eyes rain...

Oh, and: DURK URR DURRR!

Your link is broken. Here is the correct link.

asakasan
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:53 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five": poster in site store, please

Postby asakasan » Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:01 pm UTC

TL;DR: MODS: Request to have this comic printed up as a poster for sale in the store, please and thank you.

Greetings fora, first post, so apologies for noob status. Science teacher here.
With regards to the language, I can't decided if it's condescending and simple to the point of inaccuracy, or if it's refreshingly clear.
We talk about language use and vocabulary all the time in teaching, especially with the advent of the Common Core.
In either case, I love it, and would love to have it in the store as a poster. I would try to have it printed on a poster plotter, but the printing people might want to kill me for using all of their blue ink.

GregHD74
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:29 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby GregHD74 » Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:39 pm UTC

Re: the omission of Moon from the 1000 word list...I wonder if this is due to not including proper nouns? The Moon, meaning ours, may be a common term, but is the planetary object moon a well known and oft used term?

I wonder if Randall had this comic in mind when he worked on the map...

mike.s
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:28 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby mike.s » Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:55 pm UTC

dtilque wrote:
Joost wrote:Was Apollo 5 manned? I thought they started doing that later on :o I mean, it wasn't till 11 that they landed on the Moon. Or is that not the other world this comic speaks of?

Up Goer 5 = Saturn 5

But yeah, it probably should be Up Goer 11.

ETA: I suppose it's refering to the entire Apollo program, from 8 through 17, so he couldn't use the number of an specific mission.


"Up Goer Five" is "Saturn V" (the launch vehicle) not "Apollo 5" (the mission).

Strictly a Saturn V is just the three big rocket stages (S-IC, S-II, S-IVB) while the bit on top is an "Apollo spacecraft". Apollo 5 did not launch on a Saturn V - it was an Earth orbit test so only needed the smaller Saturn IB. A Saturn V could have launched other payloads besides an Apollo (a derivative of it, comprising just the S-IC+S-II stages, was used to launch the Skylab space station). There is added confusion from the fact that as well as the spacecraft, Apollo was used as the name for the entire project that included most of the Saturn development (the initial work on Saturn pre-dates Project Apollo).

Common parlance extends the Saturn V to include the Apollo spacecraft.

Anyway, where did the word-list come from?
This one includes "moon"
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category: ... asic_words
while this one does not
http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/li ... ords.phtml

Unclevertitle
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 4:20 am UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby Unclevertitle » Mon Nov 12, 2012 2:56 pm UTC

I think for the purpose of 'understandability' (by which of course I mean comedic effect masquerading as understandability) Randall used 'Up Goer' as a replacement for rocket.

Saturn was probably omitted because translating it as, 'The world which which we aren't going to with stuff around it Five Up Goer' (for Saturn V Rocket) loses some coherence and humor value due to length of delivery and also that title's way too long.

Although looking it up, apparently Saturn is the god of agriculture. So he'd be the big guy in the sky of making plants grow. Substituting plants with 'things' or 'stuff' and grow with 'go up' Saturn is then the big guy in the sky making things go up. If a grower is one who grows then an up goer is one who goes up then Saturn, a mythical deific grower is an 'Up Goer Maker.' But 'Up Goer Maker Five' would have just confused everybody, until it was patently obvious Randall was talking about the Saturn V.

But that's ancient mythology, we know Saturn as a planet. A world that flies in the sky. Substitute fly with go. And where is the sky? Isn't it up?
So a planet is 'a world that goes up.' An 'Up Goer' in the more traditional sense.

So 'Up Goer Five' works. But if we want to be specific we can say 'Up Goer that we used to think made other things go up Five.' And if we want to make it clear that we know how agriculture actually works: 'Up Goer that we used to think made other things go up but now we know another up goer does that Five'

No wait, same problem again. Just 'Up Goer Five.' And yeah, I'm totally overthinking this yet having fun doing it.

if4124l
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:07 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby if4124l » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:11 pm UTC

This is very funny, one of the funniest IMO. Especially how he turned hydrogen, helium, and nitrogen into stuff that fits in the 1000 words.
But why ten hundred? Can't believe thousand is not in the top thousand words.

spaceguy87
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:12 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby spaceguy87 » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:17 pm UTC

Is it just me or is there a typo on left by the second stage? It looks like he accidentally copy-and-pasted the description of the helium with no arrows. The actual helium tanks for the second stage are shown below on the second stage where it says "more funny voice air". How to point this out to get it fixed?

Great comic anyway!

Rickola
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:14 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby Rickola » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:21 pm UTC

I may be showing my age, but I instantly recognized the lettering style as a wonderful homage to Vaughn Bodé and his drawing of the Sunpot space vehicle. I have the original art, bought from Vaughn directly in the 1970s. A talent much too soon gone. I also saw with my own eyes three Saturn Vs leave for the moon from the Cape (A11, A13, and A17). Apollo 13 I saw from the press site, and it was an absolutely amazing sight. And sound.

Spoe
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:28 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby Spoe » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

PsiSquared wrote:Another rare gem. Definitely one of my favorites on XKCD.


Yep. Definitely needs to be a poster.

w.eckhardt
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 4:42 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby w.eckhardt » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:29 pm UTC

zombie_monkey wrote:Kilometrage is indeed a word that means that, at least in Bulgarian. But it's not used in the context of fuel efficiency because, in Europe, fuel efficiency is not measured in distance travelled per volume unit of fuel (miles/gallon), but rather fuel spent for a given standard distance travelled, usually litres of fuel per 100 kilomteres.


Hey, speak for your own country! In Holland, it is common to say: my car uses 1 on 20, meaning: 1 liter for every 20 kilometers.
The liter/100 km is somewhat rare here.

Kilometrage sounds to me as a strange translation of range, meaning: The distance you can travel on one tank of fuel.

ike
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 3:12 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby ike » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:33 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Methinks neither is "nor"....


.... and nor is "neither".


[edited for what is my best guess attempt at good grammar, but I am very unsure that it is correct]

exoren22
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:30 am UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby exoren22 » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:41 pm UTC

rgove wrote:
A grown chimpanzee has the intelligence of a 4-year old!

If you genuinely believe that, it's been a long time since you interacted with any 4-year-olds.


Because you've obviously interacted with enough chimpanzees to make the comparison.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:42 pm UTC

AvatarIII wrote:
gem_t wrote:It is certainly a clever idea, almost everything we expect of Randal. At least we now know what he was really doing while knocking out the political stuff.
It is easy to go looking for more descriptive words in the list, but I have to ask about the title "Up Goer"...
The words Planet, Six, Ring, Huge are all on that list,
though the original reference was probably the God of the skies, Saturn.
Two and Element are in the list, as is eight!
I guess the question is whether you expect general knowledge greater than vocabulary?
one - ten are all on the list, I checked. but not eleven
So the list doesn't go up to eleven, is what you're saying?

Unclevertitle wrote:But that's ancient mythology, we know Saturn as a planet. A world that flies in the sky. Substitute fly with go. And where is the sky? Isn't it up?
So a planet is 'a world that goes up.' An 'Up Goer' in the more traditional sense.
The rocket was named after the god rather than the planet, though.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Rondodu
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:32 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby Rondodu » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:50 pm UTC

tups wrote:
pareidolon wrote:If you're talking about hydrogen, I guess he figured more people would relate to the H-bomb (at least I think that's what "big sky bag" is talking about) than to the composition of the sun.


"Big sky bag" would be zeppelin, referring to the fire on/of the Hindenburg in 1937. Unfortunately, "zeppelin" isn't in the list of the ten hundred most-used words. Unfortunately.

I remember, however, seeing a documentary (fifteen years ago) arguing that it was not the hydrogen which was the cause of said fire, as the text from the picture seems to imply.

Also, other people conversations must be very dull if neither Saturn nor zeppelin don’t appear in the first thousands most-used words.

User avatar
Editer
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:17 am UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby Editer » Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:59 pm UTC

zombie_monkey wrote:... in Europe, fuel efficiency is not measured in distance travelled per volume unit of fuel (miles/gallon), but rather fuel spent for a given standard distance travelled, usually litres of fuel per 100 kilomteres.


My favorite thing from Randall's "What If" posts is his pointing out that volume/distance = area -- meaning, you can express fuel efficiency in square meters. :shock: (Though square centimeters would be more useful given the actual dimensions. Still.)
These days, if you don't have ADD, you not paying close enough attention. -- J.P. Barlow

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby AvatarIII » Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:06 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
AvatarIII wrote:
gem_t wrote:It is certainly a clever idea, almost everything we expect of Randal. At least we now know what he was really doing while knocking out the political stuff.
It is easy to go looking for more descriptive words in the list, but I have to ask about the title "Up Goer"...
The words Planet, Six, Ring, Huge are all on that list,
though the original reference was probably the God of the skies, Saturn.
Two and Element are in the list, as is eight!
I guess the question is whether you expect general knowledge greater than vocabulary?
one - ten are all on the list, I checked. but not eleven
So the list doesn't go up to eleven, is what you're saying?


exactly!

Jonesthe Spy
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:20 pm UTC

This was terrific for explaining the rocket design to my 6-year old. Though I admit I cheated and used "hydrogen", "oxygen", and "helium" instead of "air that goes in skybag" etc...

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1841
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:21 pm UTC

jonadab wrote: Nobody can ever remember whether a two-liter bottle holds slightly more or slightly less than a half-gallon jug, but I'm pretty sure the difference is within the legal tolerance for how accurate the reported volume has to be compared to the statistical mean or median volume of the actual contents.


Its slightly more. 3.8 litres per gallon.

I know this, because on a vast majority of urinals, they will state "1 gal. per flush" right on top, where you look while using said urinal, and on the other side of the valve is "3.8 litres per flush", hence 1 gal. = 3.8 litres.

(i just checked, and apparently, 1 gal. = 3.785 litres more or less, so they're right!)
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

dulcimoo
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:14 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby dulcimoo » Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:26 pm UTC

A couple of things....
I understand the "Up Goer Five" ...
but The first stage didn't burn "Sky Bag Air". The first stage of a saturn five burned kerosene and LOX, not LH2 and LOX.

2nd. Saturn was the father of Zeus. Maybe Old Old God or Dad of Dad God or something might have worked.

So maybe ... Dad of Dad God Five Up Goer Thing might be good.


But what ever ... I got it ... but some folks are having problems separating that this is an full Saturn 5 "stack" with the Missions (Apollo 9-17 or -20 if you want to count the three that were built but never flown).

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:33 pm UTC

dulcimoo wrote:A couple of things....
I understand the "Up Goer Five" ...
but The first stage didn't burn "Sky Bag Air". The first stage of a saturn five burned kerosene and LOX, not LH2 and LOX.
Which is why the first stage is described as using lamp oil instead of skybag gas.[/quote]
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
tomandlu
Posts: 1111
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:22 am UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby tomandlu » Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:36 pm UTC

Do they take any spare nitrogen or just recycle efficiently (or use helium instead)?
How can I think my way out of the problem when the problem is the way I think?

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby PolakoVoador » Mon Nov 12, 2012 4:56 pm UTC

willpellmn wrote:I'm all for cutting back on the jargon in science, but methinks this is going a liiiitle too far.....


Not using jargon and trying some ill defined terms can end up PRETTY BADLY.

SchighSchagh
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:16 am UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby SchighSchagh » Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:15 pm UTC

AvatarIII wrote:
dudiobugtron wrote:
AvatarIII wrote:I'm surprised "goer" is on the top 1000 words but "sun" and "god" aren't. I say sun and god all the time, but never say goer.

I imagine that "go" is on the list, but he judged it was ok to use different word endings as long as people who only had a 1000-word vocab could still understand them.
Same with "explain" vs "explained", breathe/breathing, human/humans (cf: humanity) etc...


You're probably right.


You're both probably wrong, or Randall would have just said "humanity" instead of "[humans]".

EDIT: Also, interesting how 1000 is not in the list of 1000 most used words, hah!
Also also, I really think oxygen ought to be on the list. We should all start using oxygen more!! Use it day and night, I say!!

SchighSchagh
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:16 am UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby SchighSchagh » Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:21 pm UTC

ryzvonusef (1151717) wrote:Courtesy of Reddit, this image goes the full other way w.r.t. technical language:

Spoiler:
Image


Excellent! Interesting how Randall's seemingly oversimplified version actually includes a few details the more technical drawing doesn't like the helium space fillers.

bugefun
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:15 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby bugefun » Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:31 pm UTC

Why not the title of "Farm God Five Up Goer"?
Farm is definitely on the list. God is on this list http://www.giwersworld.org/computers/li ... ords.phtml but not on this list http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category: ... asic_words . It's interesting though that god is on this Wiktionary list http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix: ... lish_words that was actually copied from the other Wiktionary list in 2004. So sometime between 2004 and now, god was removed from the list. Also funny is that the current Wiktionary list of "1000 English basic words" actually only has 724 words. So you might be safe adding god back in. You could also use leader or ruler instead of god.

rysuei
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:30 am UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby rysuei » Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:42 pm UTC

Milnoc wrote:In the UK (and sometimes in Canada), it's usually "re" and not "er". Litre. Theatre. Centre.


I find the trend for that usage in Canada revolves around how closely you are to Quebec. Head west toward Alberta/BC and people seem to start using "er" again.

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 408
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby StClair » Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:55 pm UTC

Great strip and (as others have noted) very Kerbal. :)

iabervon
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:25 am UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby iabervon » Mon Nov 12, 2012 5:59 pm UTC

I think "wet" isn't a very good description of high-pressure super-cooled liquids, because they don't have most of the properties that "wet" usually indicates. I'd say "moves like water", because that's the relevant feature. For that matter, I don't think I'd say that cooking oil in a bottle is "wet". I think the rest of the comic uses words that describe (or make reference to) what the jargon means, whereas calling the fuel "wet" relates only to what the jargon word is. You can only understand the fuel if you know that "wet" means liquid and doesn't really mean wet in the usual sense.

iabervon
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:25 am UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby iabervon » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:11 pm UTC

pareidolon wrote:If you're talking about hydrogen, I guess he figured more people would relate to the H-bomb (at least I think that's what "big sky bag" is talking about) than to the composition of the sun.


The stuff in this rocket wouldn't work in an H-bomb (not enough neutrons). Also, the bombs which killed lots of people were A-bombs, not H-bombs, and the stuff inside was about as different as can be from the stuff in this rocket.

ut_icedragon
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:47 pm UTC

Re: 1133: "Up Goer Five"

Postby ut_icedragon » Mon Nov 12, 2012 6:14 pm UTC

Having been to Kennedy Space Center (KSC) just 3 months ago and seen the Up Goer Five (or at least pieces of one) up close, this one cracks me up. Love the part about how this end must be pointing at ground if you want to go to space.

Happy to see people also correctly explaining the difference between the "Saturn" Vehicle and Apollo programs. I was gonna jump on it but I was beaten to the punch.

IF you haven't been to KSC, I HIGHLY recommend going. Its truly breathtaking. Right now, with no active space program, the Vehicle assembly building is open to tours. A MUST SEE!!! They have the new Orion launchpad outside the VAB, and they had boilerplate mockups of parts of the Orion in the VAB. Also got to see Atlantis in one of the assembly bays while they build the new Shuttle building. To see shear size of everything up close and to be able to touch such incredible pieces of history, words just don't do it justice (not even the ones on the 1000 most used list). I've loved everything about space since I was a kid and the visit was just...wow...I'm actually getting slightly choked up just thinking about it all.

To hear the people there talk about the KSC in its hayday, during the height of the space race (there were launches almost every other day), to what its been reduced to is just heartbreaking. The current Timeline of the Orion program won't include an actually vehicle launch till 2014, and a manned mission till 2019!!! I know the costs are nothing to sneeze at, but to me, its a worthy cause, not just for America, but for mankind.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DwayneSa, Vroomfundel and 107 guests