somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:4adc205c@news.povray.org...
> > somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

> > > And *if* the second unmanned ship failed, *then* they'd send a manned
> rescue
> > > and repair mission, which would make for a more beliavable premise.

> >   You don't "rescue and repair" a ship which eg. plummets into the Sun
> > without exploding because something critical failed a bit before.

> Huh? Is the payload supposed to be *manually* detonated "inside" the sun?
> It's then sillier than I thought. If you drop a bomb into the sun and if it
> doesn't detonate, I'm sorry,

  Would it really be so hard to actually *cooperate* with the person you are
having a discussion with, rather than trying to constantly and meticulously
find flaws, just for the sake of argument and to try to prove other wrong?

  Imagine the following situation: One day before the final detonation
sequence is started, an electrical failure happens (something which could
be fixable by a crew of people), which makes the ship inoperable and the
computer unable to start the countdown sequence. Communication with Earth
might also get compromised.

  A crew on board could fix the problem in a few hours, and the operation
is again good to go. An unmanned ship would just continue its journey,
plummet into the Sun and fail to detonate at the critical point. There's
no way you could set up and send a repair crew in time before that happens.

> >   I honestly think you are now really stretching to try to find something
> > to complain (about a movie you haven't even seen). I'm failing to see your
> > ultimate motive. Is it to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing? What
> > is your ultimate goal?

> The whole premise struck me as supremely farfetched, that's all.

  At least it's based on actual theoretical physics.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message