Do I have to spell it out for you? We have a payload to deliver to the heart of our nearest star. We're delivering that payload because that star is dying. And if it dies, we die. Everything dies. So that is our mission. There is nothing, literally nothing, more important than completing our mission. End of story!
He's right.
He's right? Of course I'm right! Is anyone here seriously considering otherwise?
May I put a counter-argument?
No!
Captain?
Go ahead.
It would, of course, be absurd to alter our trajectory to assist the crew of the Icarus I. Even if we knew that some or even all of that crew are still alive, their lives are entirely expendable when seen in the context of our mission. As are our own lives.
Exactly.
However, there is something on board the Icarus I that may be worth the detour. As you pointed out, Mace, we have a payload to deliver. A payload, singular. Now, everything about the delivery and effectiveness of that payload is entirely theoretical. Simply put, we don't know if it's gonna work. But what we do know is this: if we had two bombs, we'd have two chances.
You're assuming we'd be able to pilot Icarus I.
Yes.
Which is assuming that whatever stopped them completing the mission wasn't a fault or a damage to the spacecraft.
Yes.
It's a lot of assumptions.
It is. It's a risk assessment. The question is: does the risk of a detour outweigh the benefits of an extra payload?
We'll have a vote.
No. No, we won't. We are not a democracy. We're a collection of astronauts and scientists, so we're gonna make the most informed decision available to us.
Made by you, by any chance?
Made by the person best qualified to understand the complexities of payload delivery: our physicist.
