Avatar movie

[synonys]

http://www.pandorapedia.com/doku.php/isv_venture_star

geek-out, this website is super loaded with technical info about stuff in the movie.

 

[Linguofreak]

Bombing them with a near lightspeed projectile would leave no nuclear waste.

Untrue. Even at 0.04 c (90 years to Alpha Centauri), we're talking impact temperatures in the "supernova" range. The impact would produce lots of immediate nuclear radiation, and almost certainly some "nuclear waste" (though I'm not sure how much).

---------- Post added at 01:38 ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 ----------

Mhhh I don't agree fully, a silent extermination or displacment might have been a successeful operation but with so much loss the military will have a hard time to explain what happened, so there will be an investigation, the media will relate the event and I bet the public opinion will ask some head and survey more closely what happen on pandora.

Military learned hard way to keep the control over the media but this can't work when an operation is such a complete failure.

Dan

No, using RKKV's to wipe the planet clean should do a good job of eliminating the inhabitants without losses.

Of course, the astronomical community might notice. So might other technological civilizations with the ability to build RKKV's. They might decide to launch a few in our direction.

 

[Sky Captain]

All they needed to clear out unwanted wildlife is to turn the back end of their starship against the target area and fire the main engine for few seconds when in low orbit and the pesky wildlife would cease to exist.

 

[jedidia]

that would most certainly irradiate the area, though. On the other hand, they're waering their fancy armor suits all the time anyways, so maybe a bit of radiation isn't even a problem. Which brings us back to plan a: nuke 'em!

No, using RKKV's to wipe the planet clean should do a good job of eliminating the inhabitants without losses.

As I said, the danger about RKKV's is that if you bug up, the planet might go to smithereens (don't forgett, we're talking about a moon here. Though of course gravity seems to be 1 g judging from the way people move in the movie, having a habitable moon around a gas giant with a mass as big as earth's should be well towards impossible). Or at least so severly messed up that it becomes inhabitable for a few decades.

In that case they'll outsource it to this guy.

Muahahaha, I love that little creep!

 

[dansteph]

No, using RKKV's to wipe the planet clean should do a good job of eliminating the inhabitants without losses.

Either there is still some freedom on earth and the secret will be revealed and the responsible would be jailed for mass murder either there is none and effectively it might "work" in this case.

But I highly doubt it's the case because of the situation at start of movie, we can feel the earth's policy is to respect indigen, only the company seem to go completely mad.

Now maybe I'm wrong, indigen massacre exist in amazonia and other country without anyone bothering too much, so !??

Dan

 

[Hielor]

Though of course gravity seems to be 1 g judging from the way people move in the movie, having a habitable moon around a gas giant with a mass as big as earth's should be well towards impossible).

It was explicitly stated at one point in the movie that the gravity was lower than Earth's.

 

[liber]

I watch movie and it's amazing,worth of getting a copy...:thumbup:

 

[T.Neo]

Though of course gravity seems to be 1 g judging from the way people move in the movie, having a habitable moon around a gas giant with a mass as big as earth's should be well towards impossible).

If the moon is outside the roche radius, it should indeed be possible.
The only limit to the size of moons around gas giants is the amount of material avaiable for them to accrete from.

The impact would produce lots of immediate nuclear radiation, and almost certainly some "nuclear waste" (though I'm not sure how much).

Where would the "nuclear waste" come from? The nuclear reactors aboard the impactors, or the natural radioactive compounds in the crust? Or would the impact produce so much energy as to transmute matter via fission/fusion into radioactive elements?

 

[jedidia]

The only limit to the size of moons around gas giants is the amount of material avaiable for them to accrete from.

That is not definitaly known. There may be other factors. But this factor alone makes it rather improbable, that would have to be a hell of a gas giant that has enough material lying around to form a moon of the earths mass. But yes, we don't really know wheather it's possible or not.

It was explicitly stated at one point in the movie that the gravity was lower than Earth's.

I haven't seen the movie yet, I was jduging by what I saw in the trailers.

Or would the impact produce so much energy as to transmute matter via fission/fusion into radioactive elements?

you bet it would

 

[T.Neo]

There may be other factors.

Then what are these potential other factors? Aliens distorting the spacetime continuum? Flesh eating space-sharks?

that would have to be a hell of a gas giant

And they exist. So-called "super Jupiters". They get very large.

Although I agree with you that large (Earth-sized) moons are less probable then smaller ones, I would not rule out the possibility of them forming.

 

[jedidia]

Then what are these potential other factors? Aliens distorting the spacetime continuum? Flesh eating space-sharks?

:lol:

I said there MAY be other factors. I'm just programming a solar system generator and I couldn't really find much material about the formation of moons around gas giant, so it seems that we don't know that much about it yet.
However, I thought that the relationship between the mass of the satelite and the roche limit might make it rather difficult for such a moon to form. I just ran the numbers and noticed that it is indeed not so, since it's not the mass of the satelite that is relevant, but rather the density, and since a massive body is much more dense it's roche limit actually becomes smaller. So yeah, it seems more possible than I thought.

 

[Eagle]

If the moon is outside the roche radius, it should indeed be possible.
The only limit to the size of moons around gas giants is the amount of material avaiable for them to accrete from.

The moon could have been captured long after both the gas giant and star formed.
Every couple years Jupiter picks up some asteroids from the belt and drags them around for a while.

Now the Arrakis specialty of unobtainium actually makes me think the capture of some exotic object (stellar core, etc.) is more likely unless they have sandworms or some niche process to produce it. (meteoric unobatainium is annother posibility as an exo-source)

 

[Urwumpe]

Large moons of a gas giant could also form by the same process that makes planets form around the sun, just one scale smaller. The principles are the same, the gravity of the central star negligible if you are deep enough in the Hill sphere.

 

[Linguofreak]

Where would the "nuclear waste" come from? The nuclear reactors aboard the impactors, or the natural radioactive compounds in the crust? Or would the impact produce so much energy as to transmute matter via fission/fusion into radioactive elements?

You'd be getting transmutation.

At just 0.04 percent of the speed of light the energy per nucleon (proton or neutron, they have about the same mass) is higher (about 1 MeV) than that at which silicon fusion occurs in stars (2 or 300 keV). Silicon fusion is the last stage of fusion in stars that can produce more energy than it consumes, and thus, once silicon fusion is over, the core collapses in on itself and you get a supernova. The core collapse involves velocities around .2c. So any impactor traveling at more than a few percent of the speed of light has supernova-level per-nucleon energies. Stars forge most of the elements up to iron before they go supernova, and most of the heavier elements and most of the remaining light elements during the supernova. So at least from an energy per nucleon standpoint, you have enough to forge pretty much any nucleus that exists on Earth. Keep in mind, though, that I'm not sure how much you'll get of the more radioactive stuff, though.

 

[synonys]

Just for info, the ships are traveling at .7c.

 

[Unstung]

.7 times the speed of light? I didn't notice that in the movie.

 

[Suzy]

I saw it this week, in 3D. Generally good, though a bit cheesy/clichéd in places. I liked the space scenes (too brief!) and the bioluminescent forest. I wish the Na'vi had been a bit more "alien" (Neytiri was designed to appeal to male fantasies, which irked me, but what can you expect ). In some way I liked District 9 more (the only other cinema movie I saw this year) as its story was more original, though the CGI in Avatar was very realistic.

 

[Turbinator]

Avatar has reached the $1 billion mark at the box office -- making it the the 3rd biggest grossing film in the history of cinema so far. Only 4 films have ever passed the $1 billion marker -- "Titanic," "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" and "The Dark Knight."

It is poised to take over The Lord of the Rings by next weekend and become the 2nd biggest film ever. And James Cameron's last 2 films would then both be at the top of the list of the largest grossing films in the history of cinema. Titanic at $1,842,879,955 and Avatar at over $1,119,110,941.

The stock is going trough the roof:

 

[dbeachy1]

I just saw Avatar last week with some friends -- a total of three times, actually: first in Real 3D and then in IMAX 3D a few days later. Real 3D was good but the IMAX 3D was epic! Then I ended up seeing it again in IMAX 3D on Saturday when a buddy of mine was in town visiting (he hadn't seen it yet). I agree the plot was predictable, but I loved it anyway. 10 out of 10 from me. :thumbup:

 

[Brycesv1]

i just saw it today in 3d. it was amazing. even the CGI characters looked realistic. the only thing i found that i didnt like were a few bad one-liner cliches.