What if...? Part 3

[kaliszewski]

Something that's bugged me from the start: in the film's capsule synopsis, we're told that "a terrible accident" jeopardizes the mission. I saw no "terrible accident"; what I did see was someone (Trey) making a really hideous blunder-- which is not exactly the same thing. Another thing that's bugged me: the size of the crew. They simply don't have enough people for the mission. (I know that in the deleted scenes on the DVD, Danny Boyle tries to explain, for instance, that Harvey's working the night shift. But he's it?)

So... what if they'd started out with at least a crew of twelve (if not sixteen), and the "terrible accident" occurred days or weeks ago, when a horrific structural failure (or the impact of debris [one of the transmissions that Kaneda is studying from Pinbacker's log mentions debris] or a meteorite) destroyed the ship's residential areas while, say, the "night shift" was sleeping...? Four to eight (that being half the crew) dead, potentially crippling damage to the ship, and the survivors trying to handle the strain of shuffling responsibilities, picking up the extra work, etc. For all we know, the people we'd be left with would have been the mission's "second stringers": Capa as the backup to the mission's now-dead chief physicist, for instance....

Just thinking....

[chero]

The "terrible accident" could be Trey (a "blunder" is a mistake which in essence is an accident [i.e. unintentional]) or the destruction of the Oxygen Garden or BOTH.

As for the crew, if they had twelve people it would be tough on the Oxygen Garden. According to Corazon, for a crew of eight they had enough oxygen to the payload delivery point (they were even over-producing), but the fact remains that only a quarter of it was left for the return trip home. Before Capa's fateful decision to go off-course, I'm pretty sure that everyone had some hope of making it safely back to Earth. If this was indeed the case, their oxygen supply would be thinning out as it is. I also highly doubt that they would make the spaceship larger to accomodate the extra people. Humanity had a time limit to get these two missions on their way. The smaller, the quicker.

[kaliszewski]

They had seven years. That's a chunk of time!

Alternately-- and I know I just keep throwing things out there--

1. The ship could have been bigger. What's preventing it? It's not like aerodynamics and bulk are considerations in space. Why go for "long and spindly," for example...? Why not construct a stocky ship that fits up closer to the shield...? (Maybe that idea appeals to me because I personally spend so much time AVOIDING THE SUN.)

2. The one I really like: the "sub tender." A supply ship-- like the ones that used to run supplies to submarines during the World Wars and the Cold War-- to accompany the Icarus and stand by just outside the dead zone. Ugly little pug, all shields and bulk, supplies and spare parts-- and COMMUNICATION WITH EARTH....

I'll say it again: my mind's always going a bazillion miles an hour. Never mind me: it's like having a head full of Post-It notes...!

[chero]

Was seven years for one spaceship or two? Also, building in space is not exactly easy. Movement is slower than normal, isn't it? The slender shape of Icarus I & II helps with space travel, I think. Once the payload is delivered, the spaceship has so much to blast away from the Sun and its shape could help with speed. A bulky shape would make it hard to maneuver, too.

[brittany]

I'll also point out that there is limited supplies on Earth to work with. They originally put their faith into the first spaceship. Since it failed, they literally had to scrape for materials for a second spaceship.

In short, there wasn't much wedding rings to use for this second spacecraft (as Gia says).

[chero]

I missed your communication comment. How is maintaining a stable communication link with Earth helpful when they are approaching the climax of the mission? Everyone knows what they need to do. If something goes array, the countdown is still ticking. This "supply ship" couldn't do anything about it ("You're stuck? Hold on, we'll be there in one day and two hours!"). Like Capa said, "we are the last hope." The reports that are sent back and forth is just to keep tabs on how well the mission is going and how well family and friends are doing. I see no further use of the Earth-Icarus communication. If anyone has any last minute questions, they don't deserve to be in the crew.

[kaliszewski]

But the crew had questions. More communication is always good. For instance:

"We found Icarus I. What should we do?"

Or "Our Oxygen Garden went up in flames. Sub tender: please stand by to receive survivors."

Or (from the tender's POV, keeping an eye on Icarus II via telescopic scan-- which they'd certainly be able to do): "They just suffered damage to their Oxygen Garden. Search and rescue, the clock is ticking. Nineteen hours and counting to rendezvous with Icarus II and pick up survivors."

Or, at the very least (from the tender, the heartbreaking [but in my opinion absolutely necessary]): "Mission accomplished. Payload successfully deployed and detonated. Icarus II and crew lost. Repeat: Icarus II destroyed, all crew lost, payload successfully delivered."

Yes: they might still fail. Those aboard the Icarus II might still suffocate. Or the tender might be late rendezvousing with parts for the mainframe (which should have been aboard Icarus already: what did they have in terms of supplies and spare parts, anyway...?). But they'd have a shot at it. I like to believe that chances exist. Think of all the effort that went into the recent attempted rescue of those miners in Utah: granted, that effort was unsuccessful. But people were still driven to try. It's just how we are. Our drive to help others is nearly as strong as our will to survive. (And that's coming from the biggest pessimist this side of anywhere!)

They mined all the Earth's fissile materials for the second payload. They did not mine all the Earth's metal ore. Building a standby ship and sending it along would seem do-able. It's all a question of re-routing raw materials. The United States very rapidly built thousands of planes, tanks, and ships by channeling iron ore and steel away from consumer goods (most notably away from the manufacture of automobiles) during World War II; it seems that nations would willingly divert materials to a space mission intended to save the planet.

Another though re: shape. Short and bulky might actually be more maneuverable. (Heck, I know my squat little toad of a Mini is maneuverable!) You're not contending with resistance from gravity in terms of takeoff. Nor are you dealing with atmospheric drag. And you don't have to worry about your whole back end burning off every time you think about changing course...!

I'm just playing logistics versus drama here. If I had been a designer working on the Icarus II team on Earth, these are some of the thoughts I would have put forward, especially given the loss of the first mission. What can we do to increase the second mission's chances of success...?

[Starry_MelC]

The way I see it is 8 crew members have their own pros and cons. Pros is when O2 Garden is destroyed and running VERY low on oxygen, you dont have to vote to kill off even more crew! Cons is when something like the stuff in RPG happens, where everyone is either dead, dying, hurt, insane or pantless, there wont be enough blood lying around for blood transfusion...

Now I'm officially confused... >.<

[kaliszewski]

(Ummm, I think I need to stop starting threads when my back hurts. I get GRUMPY.)

_{Off to find the Excedrin.... * *}

[chero]

kaliszewski said:

But the crew had questions. More communication is always good. For instance:

"We found Icarus I. What should we do?"

Or "Our Oxygen Garden went up in flames. Sub tender: please stand by to receive survivors."

Like Searle said, "this is not a democracy." The most reliable answer (which ironically turned out for the worse) would come from one of their crew mates - their physicist. Capa should know how to answer it since he is a master of the bomb. "Two payloads are better than one." This held true... until we found out that the Icarus I was sabotaged.

As for the whole "sub tender" and Icarus II communication, how would that even work? The communication loss in the film wasn't technical, it was natural. Solar wind is real. I denounced this as a goof on IMDb from my research gathered from National Geographic. In 50 years time, they obviously couldn't master all the phenomenons of space.

kaliszewski said:

I'm just playing logistics versus drama here. If I had been a designer working on the Icarus II team on Earth, these are some of the thoughts I would have put forward, especially given the loss of the first mission. What can we do to increase the second mission's chances of success...?

This reminds me of your "mainframe-shouldn't-be-so-damn-easy-to-sabotage" bit. My response: you need to take into equation the knowledge of the sabetour and the fact that Earth attempted to eliminate the potential for sabotage via (somewhat flawed) psychological tests. Basically, in 50 years time humans will still be the "unpredicable variable." It seems like nothing will ever change that. Sure the mainframe was easy to sabotage, but the only people who would be responsible would be the crew members.... and they were tested like crazy.

Also, the first mission failed not because of supplies or design, but because of an idea. An idea is more powerful than any physical material, me thinks.