i think it's a sound decision that the chance of 2 bombs were better than one
I don't think so. Deviating from the original plan makes the mission more prone to unforeseen mistakes/misfortune/accidents/etcetera. Kaneda though decided that this was justified because, according to Capa, "two coin flips are better than one". However, Capa made a fundamental logical error with that statement.
True, the first payload would have a chance of about 50% (according to Icarus' simulation), which is about the same success rate as a coin toss. But what Capa overlooked, is that a second coin toss would result in
exactly the same outcome when under the exact same (minute) conditions as the first coin toss. In other words, if the first payload fails (of which there was a 50% chance due to unknown/incomputable factors), then the second payload would most likely fail too, since there are no grounds to assume that external factors (= the unknown/incomputable factors) would have changed significantly enough to warrant a different outcome.
Besides, there wasn't even any guarantee that the Icarus 1 payload was still operational. As one of the characters remarked, "the payload hadn't been delivered so obviously something must have gone wrong with it".
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
https://y2u.be/VI57QHL6ge0
reply
share
Hayley7
10 years ago
Thanks for the response... exactly what I'm wanting... some counter arguments to make me doubt my own outlook lol
I saw it differently to you I suppose... you seem to see the bombs as 2 individual chances... and if one fails for whatever reason, then likely so will the second... I tended to see it as the 2 bombs being together and being stronger that way... so even though there might not be enough ooompfh in 1 to restart the sun, 2 going off inside it together just might be enough to get it over the line and give it the kickstart it needed
The other thing that occurred to me when reading your response, is that they never talked about the possibility of going to Icarus I after they had delivered their package into the sun
In other words... if their dropoff point was so close to where Icarus I was, could they have dropped their bomb, and then gone over to check out the other bomb
I suppose it depends whether Icarus I was close enough to be affected by the first bomb drop
reply
share
Lucy9596
10 years ago
I don't think so. Deviating from the original plan makes the mission more prone to unforeseen mistakes/misfortune/accidents/etcetera.
Agreed.
Kaneda though decided
Thanks for that statement. It's not relevant here but I always get angry when Capa is made responsible for the disaster. It was Searle who started the discussion and it was Kaneda who decided. Capa himself stated nobody knows what is going to happen. It's only guesswork.
True, the first payload would have a chance of about 50% (according to Icarus' simulation), which is about the same success rate as a coin toss. But what Capa overlooked, is that a second coin toss would result in exactly the same outcome when under the exact same (minute) conditions as the first coin toss. In other words, if the first payload fails (of which there was a 50% chance due to unknown/incomputable factors), then the second payload would most likely fail too, since there are no grounds to assume that external factors (= the unknown/incomputable factors) would have changed significantly enough to warrant a different outcome.
If we assume there's a 50/ 50 chance like in a coin toss there will be the same with the second payload. The real problem was to think they could use it in the first place. Too many unknown factors like is the ship able to move. And Kaneda should have decided accordingly.
Besides, there wasn't even any guarantee that the Icarus 1 payload was still operational. As one of the characters remarked, "the payload hadn't been delivered so obviously something must have gone wrong with it".
with it or with something else. Yeah.
Mace was right, they should have followed the plan.
Will Graham: I don't find you that interesting.
Hannibal Lecter: You will.
****
reply
share
Hayley7
10 years ago
I totally get the point about "if one bomb doesn't work then neither would two"... but I can't help but think, what if one bomb DID work in every way it was supposed to, but it just simply wasn't powerful enough to restart the sun... whereas chucking two in there might do the job
Obviously it's a mute point at the ending of the film... because we're certainly given the impression that it's a particularly bright morning on earth...
but in the beginning of the film... when they have no idea what's to come... they're millions of miles from earth... and they know that there are absolutely no more bombs ever coming because there's not the resources...
if you knew there was a chance to throw in double the amount of nuclear power while you were there... isn't it worth trying?
reply
share
yurenchu
10 years ago
I could be wrong because I'm not a physicist so I have no knowledge of "fissile material" whatsoever and how it would produce a chain reaction, but in my view a merely double amount is not significantly more (than a single amount) to make a difference. If a double amount had a significantly higher chance of success than a single amount, then the smart physicists on Earth would have already sent up a payload with a double amount when they sent the first Icarus mission.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
https://y2u.be/VI57QHL6ge0
reply
share
hypermecha
9 years ago
The point is mute?! WTF does that mean? LOL...I think you must have meant the point is moot.
🐯
reply
share
MrZoolook
8 years ago
The problem here is that if both bombs DID work, and only one would be needed, throwing both in together could over-explode the sun. The result would be a sun twice as hot (or big) as it should be, and the Earth is burnt to a crisp.
To mitigate that, you'd throw one in at a time. Thus, if both bombs worked (as they would in the first paragraph), you'd only need 1 anyway. So you risked a working bomb to get a 2nd bomb that wasn't required.
If you assume that only only 1 bomb was needed, but the first one either didn't work, or the ship didn't reach it's delivery point, there would be no reason to assume the Icarus 2 or its bomb would work either, as both missions were built to similar specifications. Thus, you introduced unneeded risk to your mission, to gain an unneeded bomb.
In the cold light of day (an appropriate phrase for this film), Mace was 100% correct. Not even a 2nd uncertain or unneeded chance, is worth the total annihilation of the I2 and its chance.
reply
share
remembervhs
9 years ago
True, the first payload would have a chance of about 50% (according to Icarus' simulation), which is about the same success rate as a coin toss. But what Capa overlooked, is that a second coin toss would result in exactly the same outcome when under the exact same (minute) conditions as the first coin toss. In other words, if the first payload fails (of which there was a 50% chance due to unknown/incomputable factors), then the second payload would most likely fail too, since there are no grounds to assume that external factors (= the unknown/incomputable factors) would have changed significantly enough to warrant a different outcome.
I totally disagree. There's absolutely no way both payloads would enter the sun in the exact same place or follow the exact same path once inside the sun. Could there be some problem with the theoretical physics behind both bombs? Sure. But just because the first bomb failed wouldn't mean that the second bomb would fail as well. There's every reason to believe that the state of the sun and the way the bomb entered would be different in two different attempts.
reply
share
yurenchu
9 years ago
I think you missed the meaning of the words "significantly enough" in my previous post.
The concept of the payload either works, or it doesn't work; it's just that it has never been tried before, so Capa doesn't know. If it works at the second attempt, then it should also have worked at the first attempt; otherwise the designers back on Earth did a very lousy job designing the payload. The designers built both payloads according to the same specifications; the designers didn't use a different model for the Sun the second time they built the payload. (Why? Because the model used during the first design still applied; the internal dynamics of the Sun haven't changed drastically in that relatively small amount of time.)
If you add (the right amount of) gelatin and sugar to boiling water that's being stirred, and then let it cool/set, you're gonna get jello. It doesn't matter in which direction you stirred, or where you got the water from, or at what time or what angle you add the gelatin and sugar, the outcome will be always the same: you're gonna get jello.
In engineering, this concept is called "robustness of design".
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
reply
share
GreyHunter
9 years ago
You're basing your argument on a completely unconfirmed assumption. Either the payload works or it doesn't. I agree there. One assumes the designers of the payload felt comfortable enough with the physics given that no mention is made of an error in the theory. What happens in the movie is that the simulation starts to fail well before the payload hits its target, and that's a problem in execution. It's never suggested that the risk of failure revolves around the workings of the payload, only around the point where they can't control or accurate predict the payload's progress once it reaches a certain point during its journey. The problem the movie suggests is that it's next to impossible to accurately map out the journey once the payload begins to enter the sun, presumably because no-one has managed to figure out a way to directly observe the conditions the payload will encounter. It's all theory and induction from the surface of the sun onwards (I assume past the chromosphere because that's where our modern direct observation ends.) In that situation, two payloads are unequivocally better than one. It's like firing a bullet from a gun. We have no doubt about the physics of the bullet. It can encounter the intended target and affect the resisting surface accordingly, it hits something other than the intended target. or it misses completely and eventually succumbs to the gravitational vector. So firing two bullets is certainly better than firing one, assuming you make the effort to aim again. The bullet will do its job in all cases...that is, it will do exactly what a bullet does when it hits something (be it a person, a tree, the ground, etc.) We can predict the effect of each outcome based on what we know about bullets and physics. But only a direct hit of the intended target will achieve the goal of the person firing the gun. The design's robustness is immaterial in this case, since even the best-designed bullet or payload imaginable is only as good as the execution of the delivery system. A second payload would give a second chance to arrive at the target that exists past the place where the simulation fails.
reply
share