Talk:Reach

Template Planet
Someone needs to fix that template at the top of the page. I have no idea how to do so. SPARTAN-118
 * Done. User0(contribs)(talk) 15:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Epsilon Eridani C
Note: This post was made back when someone speculated Reach to be the real-world exoplanet Epsolin Eridani c.

Do we have a confirmation if ε Eridani C is actually the second planet in the system? Even if it's the second one discovered by current means, we don't know if there's any planets in between. Isn't this more or less a conjecture or an interesting piece of trivia more fitting for the trivia section? Also according to this, Epsilon Eridani C is 37 AU away from the star. That's way beyond the habitable zone (Earth is 1 AU away from Sol) Also it has an orbital period of 280 years as opposed to 390 days of Reach. So, very unlikely to be the same planet.--Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 23:42, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Damn, could you imagine that? "Oh look sonny, it's your Birthminute" Yup, getting old... RIP johnny, 1/9/3000 - 1/9/3000, die of old age" Wow. DarkbelowHGR   CommbandD  12:21, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Gas giant?
I'm quite confused about the gas giant seen near Reach. It's so close that it looks like Reach could be one of its moons, but there's no way that can be right, can it?-- Fluffy Emo Penguin 16:01, June 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks more like the object you described as a gas giant is one of Reach's moons. It has rings like the larger moon and as you said, it's too close to Reach to be a separate planet. The moon seems to have a gaseous atmosphere, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's a gas giant. Though I'm not sure if it's possible for something that small to have an atmosphere. Still, it's impossible for a gas giant to be that close to Reach so I guess the best explanation is that the larger moon has an atmosphere of some sort. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 16:09, June 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * True, I never thought of that. Seems odd that a moon could have rings like that. It really plays tricks on the mind because it makes it look like Reach is a moon to a gas giant. (And no mention of my Over 9,000 referance?)-- Fluffy Emo Penguin 16:14, June 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess the moon having rings is mostly for the sake of making it look cool. I'm no expert in astronomy so I can't say if a moon can even maintain rings. As for atmosphere, Saturn's moon Titan has one, but then again, it's the size of a small planet. I doubt Reach's moon is even nearly that large, though it does look pretty big in some images. What I also find interesting is that Reach's smaller moon is always seen next to the large one; could it be orbiting the large moon that in turn orbits Reach? Otherwise it'd be a huge coincidence to see them so close to each other. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 16:24, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, every picture we have of these moons next to each other is in the same time frame (last few weeks of the Battle of Reach) so their orbital cycles would be in the same position.-- Fluffy Emo Penguin 16:36, June 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Just like Jupiter's moon Titan which looks like a gas giant but has a thick atmosphere but a surface made of rock. --


 * The rings can be duplicated with any object with a gravitational pull. The Earth and the Moon can have rings - though maybe not containing large objects like in Jupiter's. We're simply in a part of the system that doesn't have much dust or rock floating around freely.--  Fore  run  ner  17:00, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Reach's Naval Assets
Under the Defense paragraph it states the following: "Total Naval Assets: 1,209 (T); 75 (X)". I have two questions that have to do with this fact. 1) Is it talking about the Navy that operates in the sea or the Navy that operates in space? Im assuming it's the latter, but Im unsure. 2) What does the "(T)" and "(X)" mean/stand for? -- Rorschach 416 July 27, 2010


 * I'd say T stands for "Terrestrial", while X stands for "Exoatmospheric", corresponding to "wet" Navy and "space" Navy forces. Given the figures given in the rereleased Halo: The Fall of Reach, placing the Covenant fleet at more than 700 ships, this is a pitiful amount. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   02:02, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Terraformed?
The article says that Reach required some degree of terraforming to be hospitable for human life. It seems unlikely as there are still native species on Reach (Moa, Gueta). It seems that Reach would have already had a hospitable enough environment for the various plantlife and animal life, so the terraforming could have possibly been purely atmospheric. But, doing this would undoubtably kill off many of the native species. However, the terraforming could have been to just add more oxygen for human life assuming Reach already had a sufficient amount for native life, and this would assume that the species afterwards would be the most adaptable and toughest. I guess it comes down to how many native species we see in the game.-- Fluffy Emo Penguin 15:35, August 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Terraforming doesn't just affect atmosphere. It also affects other factors - geography, for example. From what we've seen of Reach, it's pretty rugged and mountainous, and levelling a significant chunk of land for the construction of cities, roads, farms, etc, would be a major undertaking. It also affects the magnetosphere - Mars, for example, has a very thin one, letting a lot of radiation in. If Reach was similar, the UNSC would need to enhance it to provide a habitat where humans don't get sunburn in thirty seconds. Or water supplies? Harbours, canals, resorvoirs, would all have to be set up for human infrastructure. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   10:09, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also possible that certian intrest groups or individuals worked to try and help some of Reach's native wildlife adapt to the new human based climatic conditions and biosphere. Dragrath1 23:00, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also possible that certian intrest groups or individuals worked to try and help some of Reach's native wildlife adapt to the new human based climatic conditions and biosphere. Dragrath1 23:00, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed an interesting thing about reach involving the landscape. Several of the small oceans and large lakes take a very circular appearance as if they were the remains of massive impact creators. Should we list the large circular ocean as one of the interesting features of reach? --Reptileus 02:36, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

My guess is the Elites helped with this to help make up for all they did. I mean Ol Arby owed us one for all he did to us.--WarGrowlmon18 01:40, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

European descent?
It seems that Reach was colonised mainly by Europeans, primarily Hungarians and Slovakians. For example, it has many countries named in Hungarian, Czech and whatever else, like Visegrad and Ütközet. The farmer whom Jorge spoke to in the level Winter Contingency also spoke some weird language, and Laszlo Sorvad and Sára Sorvad were Hungarian. The two moons of Reach were also named after animals in Hungarian mythology. Could this suggest that Reach could originally have been a low-tech Outer Colony and not a major military force of the UNSC? I'm just here to let you guys know. Don't pummel me with tons of contradictions -- 'Mmm... Jackal Stew' 10:46, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because as this Briton knows, Europe isn't low-tech.--The All-knowing Sith&#39;ari 12:53, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't get the logic here. Why on Earth would a planet being colonized by mostly Europeans mean that it's low-tech? How the hell did you even come t that conclusion? And as for it being an Outer Colony, that has to do with its distance from Earth so yes it may have once been an Outer Colony but due to expansion it is now an inner colony.--Soul reaper 13:21, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Real Life Planet
Did anyone else see that scientists have found a habitable planet about 20 lightyears away from Earth? It is even bigger than Earth and looks apears to be just as hardy in terms of weather conditions as Reach. I just though this was interesting and thought that maybe it could be put under a "Trivia" section.The Emporer 14:57, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It's in a different system, and a different planet overall. It has absolutely nothing to do with Reach. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 15:32, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Article needs to be reworked
First of all the article begins with, "Reach was a human colony" Well it is clear after the events of Halo: Reach that, was, no longer applies as in 2589 the planet was resettled. Second I don't feel we can say most of the planet's surface was glassed. I know the article mentions the area around the ONI Sword Base, However once again after the events of Halo: Reach in 2589 we can see that Noble 6's Helmet is still on the ground unfazed by glassing, as is the remains of the Frigate at the shipyards.--Subman758 03:16, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Planet's age is unfitting for its life
Reach's age is 1 billion years old and has a wide range of complex life, yet the most basic organic structures didn't even appear on Earth until 1.5 billion years of age. At only 1 billion years old, why does Reach have similar life to that of Earth at roughly 4.25 billion years old? Precursor involvement? Forerunner seeding?-- Fluffy Emo Penguin ( ice quack! ) 17:55, 17 March 2011 (EDT)


 * No one can predict nature; one can only make theories as accurate as they can. As such, never generalise what Earth has achieved to other planets. :) — subtank  18:07, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

The Forerunner idea is also a possibility, seeing as we know they had some sort of presence there... although I absolutely agree that the rules of life probably vary considerably between planets (both as far as Halo is concerned and in reality) SPARTAN-347 19:06, 17 March 2011 (EDT)


 * Yes, but the speed at which Reach's life evolved is astonishingly crazy. On Earth, there was a 3 billion year span from the very first life to the kind of life on Reach. I don't care what its origins are, no kind of life can get that complex in 1 billion years. If the life on Reach is native, then the Precursors must have been involved. Or, when the Forerunners inhabited the planet, they brought along some select species of value to them; similar to how they seed their artificial worlds.--[[Image:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]] Fluffy Emo Penguin ( ice quack! ) 19:31, 17 March 2011 (EDT)


 * Does anybody really think that the flora and fauna of Reach are truly native? That fish, birds, mammals and reptiles would evolve under even subtly different conditions to look nearly identical to those that developed on Earth? I don't believe it for one moment. Exactly how that life got there, I don't know - I'm sure the Forerunners or the Precursors had a hand in it, though exactly why remains to be seen. And until it is, we really can't say how it got there, or why. --  Specops306   Autocrat     Qur'a 'Morhek   19:58, 17 March 2011 (EDT)


 * If you have an Earth-like planet, similar species are bound to evolve. For example, on Reach, I wouldn't expect to see a 7-legged mammal with eyes on its elbows. Evolution is all about how organisms adapt to their surroundings. Since Reach has very similar conditions to Earth, you would expect to see similar creatures. However, the only confirmed "native" species are the Moa and Gúta. All the others like the rats and koi are likely brought over from Earth. Pests like rats always find a way to piggyback off of human travel, and koi are more of a decoration than true wildlife, hence their existance in the uppity high-class tower on Refleciton.--[[Image:PENGUIN4.gif|15px]] Fluffy Emo Penguin ( ice quack! ) 13:58, 18 March 2011 (EDT)


 * I agree with the Precurser theory - they had many successes with bio-technology (their ships, for example) and were capable of reprogramming life to evolve rapidly. I would also like to point out that evolution doesn't occur at a steady pace - you get get millions of years of little change when life is reacting well to their environments, hence why exagerated body parts hasn't become a norm for Crocodilians - they just don't see the necessity once it's mating season. Similarly you could get times where life flourishes and advances significantly - compare the late Permian with the mid-Jurassic, where two major extinction events replaced amphibians and mammal-like reptiles as the more successful animals with wave after wave of ingeniously-designed Diapsid reptiles with new forms of hip structure; the ability of flight and an unusual form of swimming never to be seen again. It is a harsh environment that forces life to evolve rapidly as it tries to make sense of the world.--  Fore  run  ner '' 11:02, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Reach was Inhospitable for life because of a meteor crash?
I just found something... When Reach was Found By Humans, it was inhospitable for life, right? Now, in the level Unearthed, there is a meteor crash site outside the map. I think that Reach was hospitable for life before the meteor crashed. Should it be noted? -- steven1098s 10:54, May 25, 2011


 * That depends on the size of the meteor. Even Earth get hit by dozens of meteors, albeit small ones. At least a house-sized meteor, though, would be enough to level off a city like New Alexandria. 20 stories high means the destruction of Europe, and if it were perhaps a mile wide, extinctions would be likely. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 09:11, 25 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Well, it seems to be large enough to vanish everything on Reach. It looks as large as the one that fell on Earth 65 million years ago. -- steven1098s 17:41 (UTC), May 25, 2011


 * I doubt that the two are directly-related - it took constant bombardment to affect Mars' ability to recover and turn rotten. A large impact can do a lot of damage, but it's what happens next that judges how the planet reacts.--  Fore  run  ner '' 11:02, 25 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Well, there may be other meteor crash sites like this one in Unearthed. -- steven1098s 19:04 (UTC), May 25, 2011

Charum Hakkor
Is it possible that Reach is Charum Hakkor?

Change of main article picture?
Is it appropriate to change it to one of the texture's of reach from the LNoS Skybox? The images in questions are of a much higher resolution, and represent the final, most canonical (They are in game, and therefore more recent than the current picture, which unless I am mistaken, was taken from prerelease image) representation of what Bungie intended reach to appear as. Jabberwock xeno (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
 * The LNoS image is a skybox texture intended to be viewed in a very specific way (spread out across the horizon as a massive matte painting) and when taken out of its proper context and seen as a flat image, it doesn't accurately represent what it's supposed to. The original and current main image is taken from a wallpaper on B.net; the same look is used in the intro for the game, so it's hardly any less canonical. It looks different because we're seeing the planet from further away, whereas the skybox texture is meant to be seen from our position in the LNoS space battle sequence - that is, low orbit, where the light reflected by the planet appears much more vivid, particularly due to Reach's massive, constant aurorae. Thus it's much less "realistic" as far as general representations of the planet go. --Jugus (Talk  | Contribs ) 11:17, 6 June 2013 (EDT)


 * Actually Jugus, thanks to Jabberwock's upload of the global view of Reach, I've verified that the image from the official wallpaper is slightly different from the final version. In the official wallpaper, the entire geography is flipped, with Viery being closer to south. Also, Viery's landmass in the official wallpaper is smaller compared to the final version. I've updated the picture with one from the opening credit, though it is a bit blurry. If you can find a higher resolution screenshot, please update the image. As for the proposal to change the picture, it would be as per above.— subtank   11:44, 6 June 2013 (EDT)


 * But the concepts of "south" and "north" are entirely arbitrary in space - the reversal of geography only tells us that we're seeing the planet from a different angle. As for the size of the Viery continent, isn't that more likely to be because of distortion resulting from the planet's curvature? Regardless, I don't believe there's any reason to compromise image quality for an issue as small as this one. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 11:50, 6 June 2013 (EDT)


 * There is no up in space, yes... However, as this is an issue of presentation for an entertainment piece, scientific accuracy is sacrificed to answer the general audience's question of where is up in space. In other words, dumbed down to be presentable for audience (i.e. red barrels are flammable and explosives, car doors are excellent shields, Stormtrooper marksmanship).
 * As for updating the image, allow me to explain my process. The process involves two images: the official wallpaper and this global view of Reach. Get the official wallpaper and flip it horizontally and vertically in an image editing software. By now, you'll have Viery in the same location as you see in the opening credits. Now, refer to this global view of Reach (which is apparently the texture for the holographic planet of Reach in Ardent Prayer). By enhancing zooming in the image, compare Viery between the two images. You'll find that the landmass of Viery is reduced in the official wallpaper (one might argue that the clouds over Viery is covering the landmass but this would not hold since you can clearly see that there is no landmass underneath the clouds). Since the one from the official wallpaper lacks this detail from the final version, I assume that the one from the opening credit might have been the updated one with the corrected landmass.— subtank   12:10, 6 June 2013 (EDT)


 * I compared them and you're right, there's an aberration in Viery's landmass - most notably, the wallpaper version appears to have an extra gulf where none exist in the intro or the geographical map. Why would they change something like this is anyone's guess - you'd think the artists would stick to one core image and produce all images of the planet based on that, but apparently someone felt it necessary to adjust that peculiar detail. Now, coming back to the question of which one to use as the title image, I'm still not convinced that the tiny difference prevents us from using the sharper, higher-resolution wallpaper version - when it comes to instances of differences in visuals or "artistic license", there are far worse offenders in the Halo franchise and this one, in comparison, is pretty far from being a deal-breaker. --<font color="MidnightBlue">Jugus (<font color="Gray">Talk  | <font color="Gray">Contribs ) 12:57, 6 June 2013 (EDT)


 * So, accurate detail over precise detail? Acceptable for me. — subtank   13:02, 6 June 2013 (EDT)