Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Energy weapons
21 views
Skip to first unread message
Blair Leatherwood
Oct 31, 2011, 1:15:42 PM10/31/11
to
After watching "Infection" again (if you're going to watch the show in
series, you have to watch *all* of the episodes), I thought about
handheld energy weapons, the various types and wondered about the
effectiveness.
I've thought of four types: projectile-type (PPGs, Star Wars blasters),
focused beam (laser, phaser), wide energy field (Romulan disruptors),
and unfocused (anything that looks like lightning strikes and seems to
be attracted to the nearest conductive material--the Ikarran weapon, etc).
Anyone have any opinions on which is the most effective type? Are they
designed for general or specific uses? Any types I've missed?
I know the PPGs were designed for interior, short-range use. What about
the others? Is there evidence of "design" or are they merely imagined
for purposes of plot and what the sfx houses can produce?
Blair
series, you have to watch *all* of the episodes), I thought about
handheld energy weapons, the various types and wondered about the
effectiveness.
I've thought of four types: projectile-type (PPGs, Star Wars blasters),
focused beam (laser, phaser), wide energy field (Romulan disruptors),
and unfocused (anything that looks like lightning strikes and seems to
be attracted to the nearest conductive material--the Ikarran weapon, etc).
Anyone have any opinions on which is the most effective type? Are they
designed for general or specific uses? Any types I've missed?
I know the PPGs were designed for interior, short-range use. What about
the others? Is there evidence of "design" or are they merely imagined
for purposes of plot and what the sfx houses can produce?
Blair
Nicole Massey
Nov 2, 2011, 11:05:05 AM11/2/11
to
"Blair Leatherwood" <bleath...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:j8ml40$k1c$1...@dont-email.me...
> After watching "Infection" again (if you're going to watch the show in
> series, you have to watch *all* of the episodes),
I know a lot of fans grumble about Infection, but remember that this was
> series, you have to watch *all* of the episodes),
also the first hint of the conflict the Minbari had with the Shadows a
thousand years ago. It's one of those subtle things that doesn't seem like
anything when you watch it but takes on added meaning later on, which JMS is
good at.
Andrew Swallow
Nov 2, 2011, 12:37:23 PM11/2/11
to
source of the weapons technology.
Andrew Swallow
Duggy
Nov 2, 2011, 7:07:23 PM11/2/11
to
On Nov 1, 3:15 am, Blair Leatherwood <bleatherw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> After watching "Infection" again (if you're going to watch the show in
> series, you have to watch *all* of the episodes),
That is true.
> After watching "Infection" again (if you're going to watch the show in
> series, you have to watch *all* of the episodes),
===
= DUG.
===
Doug Freyburger
Nov 3, 2011, 2:14:20 PM11/3/11
to
Blair Leatherwood wrote:
>
> After watching "Infection" again (if you're going to watch the show in
> series, you have to watch *all* of the episodes), I thought about
> handheld energy weapons, the various types and wondered about the
> effectiveness.
>
> I've thought of four types: projectile-type (PPGs, Star Wars blasters),
> focused beam (laser, phaser), wide energy field (Romulan disruptors),
> and unfocused (anything that looks like lightning strikes and seems to
> be attracted to the nearest conductive material--the Ikarran weapon, etc).
>
> Anyone have any opinions on which is the most effective type? Are they
> designed for general or specific uses? Any types I've missed?
Do projectile weapons in your model include charged high energy
>
> After watching "Infection" again (if you're going to watch the show in
> series, you have to watch *all* of the episodes), I thought about
> handheld energy weapons, the various types and wondered about the
> effectiveness.
>
> I've thought of four types: projectile-type (PPGs, Star Wars blasters),
> focused beam (laser, phaser), wide energy field (Romulan disruptors),
> and unfocused (anything that looks like lightning strikes and seems to
> be attracted to the nearest conductive material--the Ikarran weapon, etc).
>
> Anyone have any opinions on which is the most effective type? Are they
> designed for general or specific uses? Any types I've missed?
particles? You seem to make a distinction between a single shot
discharge and a continuous beam in the case of a Star Wars blaster.
In that sense projectile types that go boom tend to win. Good laser
weapons tend to be the pulse type and some even use a chemical discharge
like a shell.
Focused beam weapons have a problem - The beam is colated in a chamber
where the energy bounces back and forth until it reaches firing level.
The problem is what happens to the beam at the mirror in the back. Some
powerful lasers have a lot of leakage backwards as they fire. With a
beam that will do significant damage when it hits the target, how do you
make the mirror survive? It has to be something immune to laser or
phaser. Whatever is used at the back of the weapon will also make
pretty good shielding.
Wide energy field weapons have a simpler problem - We don't know how to
make them other than explosive discharges. Unfocused weapons have a
similar problem - Good luck hitting what you want to hit and not hitting
the guy next to you instead.
Jon Schild
Nov 3, 2011, 9:31:19 PM11/3/11
to
On 10/31/2011 11:15 AM, Blair Leatherwood wrote:
> After watching "Infection" again (if you're going to watch the show in
> series, you have to watch *all* of the episodes)
Can't I even skip "Grey 17 is Missing"?
> After watching "Infection" again (if you're going to watch the show in
> series, you have to watch *all* of the episodes)
Jeffrey Kaplan
Nov 3, 2011, 10:02:37 PM11/3/11
to
Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Nicole Massey said:
> I know a lot of fans grumble about Infection, but remember that this was
> also the first hint of the conflict the Minbari had with the Shadows a
> thousand years ago. It's one of those subtle things that doesn't seem like
> anything when you watch it but takes on added meaning later on, which JMS is
> good at.
And it introduces the concept of living/biological machines which is
> I know a lot of fans grumble about Infection, but remember that this was
> also the first hint of the conflict the Minbari had with the Shadows a
> thousand years ago. It's one of those subtle things that doesn't seem like
> anything when you watch it but takes on added meaning later on, which JMS is
> good at.
important for later on when we get more info about the Vorlon and
Shadow ships.
--
Jeffrey Kaplan www.gordol.org
Double ROT13 encoded for your protection
"...Understanding is a three-edged sword." (Amb. Kosh, B5
"Deathwalker")
Jeffrey Kaplan
Nov 3, 2011, 10:08:22 PM11/3/11
to
Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Blair Leatherwood
said:
> Anyone have any opinions on which is the most effective type? Are they
> designed for general or specific uses? Any types I've missed?
Whatever is "effective" depends mostly on plot and other things
specific to the setting.
> I know the PPGs were designed for interior, short-range use. What about
> the others? Is there evidence of "design" or are they merely imagined
> for purposes of plot and what the sfx houses can produce?
Me, I think that most of the time it's "it would be really cool if it
did this" school of fake weapon design. The B5 PPGs are only the second
energy weapon I recall having been designed with a specific reasoning.
The first is, believe it or not, the Star Wars light saber. And that
was still a "hey, this'd be a cool weapon".
"This is not a clear and present danger? I +must+ read the rule book
again." (Lt. Cmdr. Ivanova, B5 "Soul Hunter")
said:
> Anyone have any opinions on which is the most effective type? Are they
> designed for general or specific uses? Any types I've missed?
specific to the setting.
> I know the PPGs were designed for interior, short-range use. What about
> the others? Is there evidence of "design" or are they merely imagined
> for purposes of plot and what the sfx houses can produce?
did this" school of fake weapon design. The B5 PPGs are only the second
energy weapon I recall having been designed with a specific reasoning.
The first is, believe it or not, the Star Wars light saber. And that
was still a "hey, this'd be a cool weapon".
"This is not a clear and present danger? I +must+ read the rule book
again." (Lt. Cmdr. Ivanova, B5 "Soul Hunter")
Jeffrey Kaplan
Nov 3, 2011, 10:09:21 PM11/3/11
to
Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Andrew Swallow said:
> I suspect that 'Infection' is also feeds into Crusade. Part of the
> source of the weapons technology.
You mean the Excalibur's main gun? That was based on Vorlon tech.
> I suspect that 'Infection' is also feeds into Crusade. Part of the
> source of the weapons technology.
Jeffrey Kaplan
Nov 3, 2011, 10:15:32 PM11/3/11
to
Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Doug Freyburger said:
> Do projectile weapons in your model include charged high energy
> particles? You seem to make a distinction between a single shot
> discharge and a continuous beam in the case of a Star Wars blaster.
Watch it again, the SW blaster is not a continuous beam, it's a bolt of
> Do projectile weapons in your model include charged high energy
> particles? You seem to make a distinction between a single shot
> discharge and a continuous beam in the case of a Star Wars blaster.
coherent energy of some kind, probably plasma.
> Focused beam weapons have a problem - The beam is colated in a chamber
> where the energy bounces back and forth until it reaches firing level.
outset. LEDs, for example, emit directional light without needing
reflectors. On many LEDs used as marker lights, the plastic bulb is
there specifically to unfocused the light and spread it out more.
Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #99.
Any data file of crucial importance will be padded to 1.45Mb in size.
Jeffrey Kaplan
Nov 3, 2011, 10:16:24 PM11/3/11
to
Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Jon Schild said:
> Can't I even skip "Grey 17 is Missing"?
What, you don't like "mostly fit could stand to lose a few pounds air"?
> Can't I even skip "Grey 17 is Missing"?
"If I am ever the Hero top 100 list: #70. Being captured by the Evil
Overlord is one way to learn his secret plans, but there are
innumerable other ways that are better, and they will be tried first.
Andrew Swallow
Nov 3, 2011, 11:02:58 PM11/3/11
to
On 04/11/2011 02:09, Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:
> Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Andrew Swallow said:
>
>> I suspect that 'Infection' is also feeds into Crusade. Part of the
>> source of the weapons technology.
>
> You mean the Excalibur's main gun? That was based on Vorlon tech.
>
No the main arc. Earth building weapons using banned Shadow technology.
> Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Andrew Swallow said:
>
>> I suspect that 'Infection' is also feeds into Crusade. Part of the
>> source of the weapons technology.
>
> You mean the Excalibur's main gun? That was based on Vorlon tech.
>
Andrew Swallow
Doug Freyburger
Nov 4, 2011, 12:05:50 PM11/4/11
to
Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:
> Doug Freyburger said:
>
>> Do projectile weapons in your model include charged high energy
>> particles? You seem to make a distinction between a single shot
>> discharge and a continuous beam in the case of a Star Wars blaster.
>
> Watch it again, the SW blaster is not a continuous beam, it's a bolt of
> coherent energy of some kind, probably plasma.
I'll respond with "read it again". You appeared to make a distinction
> Doug Freyburger said:
>
>> Do projectile weapons in your model include charged high energy
>> particles? You seem to make a distinction between a single shot
>> discharge and a continuous beam in the case of a Star Wars blaster.
>
> Watch it again, the SW blaster is not a continuous beam, it's a bolt of
> coherent energy of some kind, probably plasma.
based on timing of output - continuous versus bolt. Weapons development
at the moment makes a distinction that is more along the line of pure
energy versus matter - laser versus charged particle beam aka plasma.
An SW blaster is both bolt and plasma by those two different
distinctions.
John W. Kennedy
Nov 4, 2011, 12:06:53 PM11/4/11
to
criticism of pantheism, which it badly needed. And, setting aside the
rubber suit and the bad science in Garibaldi's improvised weapon, it's
really kinda fun.
Doug Freyburger
Nov 4, 2011, 12:07:52 PM11/4/11
to
Jon Schild wrote:
> Blair Leatherwood wrote:
>
>> After watching "Infection" again (if you're going to watch the show in
>> series, you have to watch *all* of the episodes)
>
> Can't I even skip "Grey 17 is Missing"?
The B-story in that episode does matter.
> Blair Leatherwood wrote:
>
>> After watching "Infection" again (if you're going to watch the show in
>> series, you have to watch *all* of the episodes)
>
> Can't I even skip "Grey 17 is Missing"?
Blair Leatherwood
Nov 4, 2011, 1:34:48 PM11/4/11
to
David E. Powell
Nov 4, 2011, 6:36:11 PM11/4/11
to
On Nov 4, 12:06 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The "partly constructed area" thing was neat, and the idea of people
closed off from the rather interesting events of the past few years
was pretty neat too. I really liked that one.
Garibaldi might have preferred that he had his "antique" from the
beginning in there instead of the "contents" alone, but that gave the
makers the chance to do a bit of a salute to Captain Kirk.
It was also a good, pointed critique of cults, along the Jonestown
model or a la the short story "The Lottery."
wrote:
closed off from the rather interesting events of the past few years
was pretty neat too. I really liked that one.
Garibaldi might have preferred that he had his "antique" from the
beginning in there instead of the "contents" alone, but that gave the
makers the chance to do a bit of a salute to Captain Kirk.
It was also a good, pointed critique of cults, along the Jonestown
model or a la the short story "The Lottery."
David E. Powell
Nov 4, 2011, 6:47:01 PM11/4/11
to
On Oct 31, 1:15 pm, Blair Leatherwood <bleatherw...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Star Wars blasters were modified real weapons, allowing for blank fire
to assist animators. They also had the "look" down pat, being based in
real weapons.
Sometimes a cool "look" is what it takes. Harrison Ford's pistol in
"Blade Runner" was modified from a rifle mechanism after one of the
film folks saw the rifle and thought it looked well machined and
futuristic.
The Original Star Trek Phasers were supposedly based in scientific
theory and were written in as replacing Laser Pistols, which had been
in the original Pilot episode and were seen again in later episodes in
places like Colony Worlds.
The question of real science, practicality, and looks and how they
blend offers up a wide spectrum, from RoboCop's sidearm to the "Men In
Black" weapons.
The idea of PPGs not puncturing hulls was mentioned a while back, too.
Not sure if slug throwers were issued in B5's timeline, but aside from
personally owned "antiques" I can't recall any as far as issue weapons
to troops, security forces, or carried by militia or crooks. The Earth
civilians seen preparing for a Minbari assault on their colony during
"In The Beginning" also had PPGs. Everyday people tended to carry PPGs
if they had a distance weapon, knives and clubs and fists for the
rest. Not many firearms, but then again one must recall the B5 prop
house already had PPGs and it was probably easier to pass them out
than to do a gun rental or make other props.
Also there are safety issues that even blank firing guns have on sets
that something like a PPG prop does not. This may or may not add ot
the filming cost if a prop expert certified in blank gun safety has to
be brought in.
David
For an example of a blank gun mishap, google "Jon Erik Hexum."
wrote:
to assist animators. They also had the "look" down pat, being based in
real weapons.
Sometimes a cool "look" is what it takes. Harrison Ford's pistol in
"Blade Runner" was modified from a rifle mechanism after one of the
film folks saw the rifle and thought it looked well machined and
futuristic.
The Original Star Trek Phasers were supposedly based in scientific
theory and were written in as replacing Laser Pistols, which had been
in the original Pilot episode and were seen again in later episodes in
places like Colony Worlds.
The question of real science, practicality, and looks and how they
blend offers up a wide spectrum, from RoboCop's sidearm to the "Men In
Black" weapons.
The idea of PPGs not puncturing hulls was mentioned a while back, too.
Not sure if slug throwers were issued in B5's timeline, but aside from
personally owned "antiques" I can't recall any as far as issue weapons
to troops, security forces, or carried by militia or crooks. The Earth
civilians seen preparing for a Minbari assault on their colony during
"In The Beginning" also had PPGs. Everyday people tended to carry PPGs
if they had a distance weapon, knives and clubs and fists for the
rest. Not many firearms, but then again one must recall the B5 prop
house already had PPGs and it was probably easier to pass them out
than to do a gun rental or make other props.
Also there are safety issues that even blank firing guns have on sets
that something like a PPG prop does not. This may or may not add ot
the filming cost if a prop expert certified in blank gun safety has to
be brought in.
David
For an example of a blank gun mishap, google "Jon Erik Hexum."
Blair Leatherwood
Nov 4, 2011, 6:54:00 PM11/4/11
to
On 11/4/11 3:47 PM, David E. Powell wrote:
>
> For an example of a blank gun mishap, google "Jon Erik Hexum."
>
No need. I think most of us here are old enough to *remember* it.
>
> For an example of a blank gun mishap, google "Jon Erik Hexum."
>
Blair
Jeffrey Kaplan
Nov 4, 2011, 7:05:33 PM11/4/11
to
Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Doug Freyburger said:
> > Watch it again, the SW blaster is not a continuous beam, it's a bolt of
> > coherent energy of some kind, probably plasma.
>
> I'll respond with "read it again". You appeared to make a distinction
> based on timing of output - continuous versus bolt. Weapons development
> at the moment makes a distinction that is more along the line of pure
> energy versus matter - laser versus charged particle beam aka plasma.
>
> An SW blaster is both bolt and plasma by those two different
> distinctions.
The SW blaster discharge is also not a continuous beam, and it tends to
> > coherent energy of some kind, probably plasma.
>
> I'll respond with "read it again". You appeared to make a distinction
> based on timing of output - continuous versus bolt. Weapons development
> at the moment makes a distinction that is more along the line of pure
> energy versus matter - laser versus charged particle beam aka plasma.
>
> An SW blaster is both bolt and plasma by those two different
> distinctions.
burst when it strikes a target, rather than cutting a hole. IOW, other
than being able to see a bolt of light instead of a visual distortion,
it behaves like a more powerful PPG.
"...Ah. You seek meaning." (Amb. Kosh, B5 "Deathwalker")
Elko T
Nov 4, 2011, 7:09:55 PM11/4/11
to
because I'm young. :) OTOH, what I instantly remembered was Brandon Lee.
--
No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.
Jeffrey Kaplan
Nov 4, 2011, 7:11:51 PM11/4/11
to
Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, David E. Powell said:
> The idea of PPGs not puncturing hulls was mentioned a while back, too.
It was mentioned specifically in the show at least once, maybe in "Grey
> The idea of PPGs not puncturing hulls was mentioned a while back, too.
17 Is Missing", while Garibaldi is talking about the antique revolver.
PPGs are issued as standard sidearms to ship and station crews
specifically because while the PPG discharge can be a lethal injury, it
is unable to penetrate the hulls.
"The Superior Person's Book Of Words", by Peter Bowler: FIRKIN: A
small tub for butter. The author has nothing to say about this word
other than to point out that the world awaits the poet who can
successfully rhyme 'firkin', 'gherkin' and 'merkin' in the one work.
Duggy
Nov 4, 2011, 8:12:57 PM11/4/11
to
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Nov 4, 2011, 8:56:18 PM11/4/11
to
===
= DUG.
===
Kay Shapero
Nov 5, 2011, 12:05:59 AM11/5/11
to
In article <j8rmam$d47$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, ny...@gypsyheir.com says...
Quote from the notes I took on a marathon re-watch (well, most of one -
I ran out of time/steam halfway through season 5 when after all there
wasn't much ROOM for stuff that'd make sense many eps later).
Infection
OK, the episode generally considered the worst of the series... but in
retrospect there's a lot more here than met the eye first time around.
This is the episode that introduces organic technology in its nightmare
aspect... which is generally what we see throughout the series, later in
Crusade, and still later in the Technomage novels (with the notable
exceptions of the Minbari ships, Kosh's ship, and the White Stars and
one more, sort of, which we don't find out about until after the
series.) Long before we know anything about the Shadows, Nelson
prefigures the unfortunate man who blunders into the Shadow ship off
Jupiter, and the shipload of telepaths rescued (if that's the word) from
the Shadows much later.
And there goes Sinclair being suicidal again - nearly pulls it off this
time, too. And there's Garibaldi calling him on it, directly this time.
Survival guilt as a theme, something echoed later in Marcus. Right now
mostly part of the run-up to And The Sky Full of Stars, four episodes
later. Garibaldi's comment on heroes "I don't know, I've never been
one," reminds me slightly of the much later alternate-world invasion of
B5, and "This is the moment I was born for." Garibaldi's not completely
immune to the idea of being a hero.
One of many invocations of Santayana.
And at the end, there's Sinclair's wonderful speech including "All of
this is for nothing unless we go to the stars." The fourth episode of
the series, and one of the most memorable scenes in it.
--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
I ran out of time/steam halfway through season 5 when after all there
wasn't much ROOM for stuff that'd make sense many eps later).
Infection
OK, the episode generally considered the worst of the series... but in
retrospect there's a lot more here than met the eye first time around.
This is the episode that introduces organic technology in its nightmare
aspect... which is generally what we see throughout the series, later in
Crusade, and still later in the Technomage novels (with the notable
exceptions of the Minbari ships, Kosh's ship, and the White Stars and
one more, sort of, which we don't find out about until after the
series.) Long before we know anything about the Shadows, Nelson
prefigures the unfortunate man who blunders into the Shadow ship off
Jupiter, and the shipload of telepaths rescued (if that's the word) from
the Shadows much later.
And there goes Sinclair being suicidal again - nearly pulls it off this
time, too. And there's Garibaldi calling him on it, directly this time.
Survival guilt as a theme, something echoed later in Marcus. Right now
mostly part of the run-up to And The Sky Full of Stars, four episodes
later. Garibaldi's comment on heroes "I don't know, I've never been
one," reminds me slightly of the much later alternate-world invasion of
B5, and "This is the moment I was born for." Garibaldi's not completely
immune to the idea of being a hero.
One of many invocations of Santayana.
And at the end, there's Sinclair's wonderful speech including "All of
this is for nothing unless we go to the stars." The fourth episode of
the series, and one of the most memorable scenes in it.
--
Kay Shapero
http://www.kayshapero.net
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Nov 5, 2011, 2:48:49 PM11/5/11
to
"David E. Powell" said:
> The idea of PPGs not puncturing hulls was mentioned a while back, too.
"Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@gordol.org>" wrote:
> The idea of PPGs not puncturing hulls was mentioned a while back, too.
> It was mentioned specifically in the show at least once [...]
> PPGs are issued as standard sidearms to ship and station crews
> specifically because while the PPG discharge can be a lethal
> injury, it is unable to penetrate the hulls.
This was something I found odd at the time: you've got a space station
> specifically because while the PPG discharge can be a lethal
> injury, it is unable to penetrate the hulls.
five miles long with 250,000 people in it and it's made of stuff so
thin a bullet can go through it? What if it gets hit with space junk?
If a bullet can go through it, what's to stop a crashing Starfury from
tearing a gash hundreds of feet long and 50 feet wide?
Same goes for the "standard policy" part: you issue sidearms to
people on ships designed for battle. Do you really want a hull that's
not even bulletproof on a warship? Isn't that the sort of weakness
than an enemy could take great advantage of?
With the level of technology presented on B5, it just seemed out of
place for "shoot through the hull" to be any sort of serious concern.
Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"When you're young, you look at television and think, ''There's a
conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down.'' But when
you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are
in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more
depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the
bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in
business to give people what they want. It's the truth."
-- Steve Jobs, Wired (April 2002)
Jeffrey Kaplan
Nov 5, 2011, 4:17:12 PM11/5/11
to
Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Dr Nancy's Sweetie
said:
> This was something I found odd at the time: you've got a space station
> five miles long with 250,000 people in it and it's made of stuff so
> thin a bullet can go through it? What if it gets hit with space junk?
> If a bullet can go through it, what's to stop a crashing Starfury from
> tearing a gash hundreds of feet long and 50 feet wide?
>
> Same goes for the "standard policy" part: you issue sidearms to
> people on ships designed for battle. Do you really want a hull that's
> not even bulletproof on a warship? Isn't that the sort of weakness
> than an enemy could take great advantage of?
You're in a firefight, it will likely not be a single shot that hits
the hull, it'll be lots of shots that hit the hull. Eventually, the
hull gets weakened to the point of failure or puncture. This would
happen sooner with slug throwers than PPG bolts.
Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #185.
If I capture an enemy known for escaping via ingenious and fantastic
little gadgets, I will order a full cavity search and confiscate all
personal items before throwing him in my dungeon.
said:
> This was something I found odd at the time: you've got a space station
> five miles long with 250,000 people in it and it's made of stuff so
> thin a bullet can go through it? What if it gets hit with space junk?
> If a bullet can go through it, what's to stop a crashing Starfury from
> tearing a gash hundreds of feet long and 50 feet wide?
>
> Same goes for the "standard policy" part: you issue sidearms to
> people on ships designed for battle. Do you really want a hull that's
> not even bulletproof on a warship? Isn't that the sort of weakness
> than an enemy could take great advantage of?
the hull, it'll be lots of shots that hit the hull. Eventually, the
hull gets weakened to the point of failure or puncture. This would
happen sooner with slug throwers than PPG bolts.
Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #185.
If I capture an enemy known for escaping via ingenious and fantastic
little gadgets, I will order a full cavity search and confiscate all
personal items before throwing him in my dungeon.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Nov 5, 2011, 11:21:27 PM11/5/11
to
I noted that I would be unhappy with a non-bulletproof spacestation
their ship and starts shooting at you. B5 does not have force-field
type tech, and bullets don't slow down moving through a vacuum. In
a vacuum, bullets would have a range measured in tens or even hundreds
of miles. And you wouldn't even need chemical explosives, because with
fusion tech you could use magnetic linear accelerators.
Based on what we see and what Garibaldi said, anyone who wants to take
out B5 (and apparently any of the EA cruisers or destroyers) can put some
of these on their spaceship:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/M61_Vulcan
and fire it from 20km out. 60 seconds of continuous fire from 10 of
these would put so many projectiles on course that there would be no
hope of intercepting them - and you'd only have 20 seconds to respond,
which wouldn't even be enough time to launch starfuries (even if there
was anything for them to do). If the hull can't handle the slugs from
a .45, anyone with a military junkyard could obliterate the station (or
any of the military vessels) and kill nearly everyone on board in
minutes.
Arguing the same point from the other direction: I have the memory of
something crashing directly into the side of the station at one point;
some small spacecraft during a battle, I think. If the side of the
station can survive an impact from a space vehicle moving at high speed
and remain airtight, I don't see how a slug from .45 is going to get
through it. (The same argument could be made for the episode in
which a Centauri heavy cruiser attacks B5: why use so few heavy
projectiles if 100 times as many tiny ones would work?)
"If you'd like to be a contestant on 'The Running Man', send a self-
addressed stamped envelope to ICS Talent Hunt, in care of your local
affiliate. Then go out and do something _really_ despicable!"
-- Phil Hilton
or warship, and "Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@gordol.org>" wrote:
> You're in a firefight, it will likely not be a single shot that hits
> the hull, it'll be lots of shots that hit the hull. Eventually, the
> hull gets weakened to the point of failure or puncture. This would
> happen sooner with slug throwers than PPG bolts.
And it would happen instantly if the enemy has mounted a gatling gun to
> You're in a firefight, it will likely not be a single shot that hits
> the hull, it'll be lots of shots that hit the hull. Eventually, the
> hull gets weakened to the point of failure or puncture. This would
> happen sooner with slug throwers than PPG bolts.
their ship and starts shooting at you. B5 does not have force-field
type tech, and bullets don't slow down moving through a vacuum. In
a vacuum, bullets would have a range measured in tens or even hundreds
of miles. And you wouldn't even need chemical explosives, because with
fusion tech you could use magnetic linear accelerators.
Based on what we see and what Garibaldi said, anyone who wants to take
out B5 (and apparently any of the EA cruisers or destroyers) can put some
of these on their spaceship:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/M61_Vulcan
and fire it from 20km out. 60 seconds of continuous fire from 10 of
these would put so many projectiles on course that there would be no
hope of intercepting them - and you'd only have 20 seconds to respond,
which wouldn't even be enough time to launch starfuries (even if there
was anything for them to do). If the hull can't handle the slugs from
a .45, anyone with a military junkyard could obliterate the station (or
any of the military vessels) and kill nearly everyone on board in
minutes.
Arguing the same point from the other direction: I have the memory of
something crashing directly into the side of the station at one point;
some small spacecraft during a battle, I think. If the side of the
station can survive an impact from a space vehicle moving at high speed
and remain airtight, I don't see how a slug from .45 is going to get
through it. (The same argument could be made for the episode in
which a Centauri heavy cruiser attacks B5: why use so few heavy
projectiles if 100 times as many tiny ones would work?)
"If you'd like to be a contestant on 'The Running Man', send a self-
addressed stamped envelope to ICS Talent Hunt, in care of your local
affiliate. Then go out and do something _really_ despicable!"
-- Phil Hilton
Jeffrey Kaplan
Nov 6, 2011, 10:06:30 AM11/6/11
to
Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Dr Nancy's Sweetie
said:
said:
> I noted that I would be unhappy with a non-bulletproof spacestation
> or warship, and "Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@gordol.org>" wrote:
>
> > You're in a firefight, it will likely not be a single shot that hits
> > the hull, it'll be lots of shots that hit the hull. Eventually, the
> > hull gets weakened to the point of failure or puncture. This would
> > happen sooner with slug throwers than PPG bolts.
>
> And it would happen instantly if the enemy has mounted a gatling gun to
> their ship and starts shooting at you. B5 does not have force-field
Yeah, well, you'd expect that from an enemy OUTSIDE your ship or
> or warship, and "Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@gordol.org>" wrote:
>
> > You're in a firefight, it will likely not be a single shot that hits
> > the hull, it'll be lots of shots that hit the hull. Eventually, the
> > hull gets weakened to the point of failure or puncture. This would
> > happen sooner with slug throwers than PPG bolts.
>
> And it would happen instantly if the enemy has mounted a gatling gun to
> their ship and starts shooting at you. B5 does not have force-field
station who is trying to destroy you! We're talking about weapons
being operated by troops inside the object in question, who presumably
do NOT want to destroy the thing, only the opposing force's people.
> type tech, and bullets don't slow down moving through a vacuum. In
> a vacuum, bullets would have a range measured in tens or even hundreds
> of miles. And you wouldn't even need chemical explosives, because with
> fusion tech you could use magnetic linear accelerators.
it's missed shots from within hitting the hull instead of the person
being shot at.
Tips for the Innocent Bystander: 32. If the mere presence of your new
sweetheart provokes a hostile or fearful reaction in cats or dogs,
terminate the relationship immediately.
Blair Leatherwood
Nov 6, 2011, 12:43:07 PM11/6/11
to
On 11/6/11 7:06 AM, Jeffrey Kaplan wrote:
> Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Dr Nancy's Sweetie
> said:
>
>> I noted that I would be unhappy with a non-bulletproof spacestation
>> or warship, and "Jeffrey Kaplan<gor...@gordol.org>" wrote:
>>
>>> You're in a firefight, it will likely not be a single shot that hits
>>> the hull, it'll be lots of shots that hit the hull. Eventually, the
>>> hull gets weakened to the point of failure or puncture. This would
>>> happen sooner with slug throwers than PPG bolts.
>>
>> And it would happen instantly if the enemy has mounted a gatling gun to
>> their ship and starts shooting at you. B5 does not have force-field
>
> Yeah, well, you'd expect that from an enemy OUTSIDE your ship or
> station who is trying to destroy you! We're talking about weapons
> being operated by troops inside the object in question, who presumably
> do NOT want to destroy the thing, only the opposing force's people.
>
>> type tech, and bullets don't slow down moving through a vacuum. In
>> a vacuum, bullets would have a range measured in tens or even hundreds
>> of miles. And you wouldn't even need chemical explosives, because with
>> fusion tech you could use magnetic linear accelerators.
>
> The issue at hand isn't shooting at the station from a battle cruiser,
> it's missed shots from within hitting the hull instead of the person
> being shot at.
>
Another point that could be considered--the difference between exterior
> Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Dr Nancy's Sweetie
> said:
>
>> I noted that I would be unhappy with a non-bulletproof spacestation
>> or warship, and "Jeffrey Kaplan<gor...@gordol.org>" wrote:
>>
>>> You're in a firefight, it will likely not be a single shot that hits
>>> the hull, it'll be lots of shots that hit the hull. Eventually, the
>>> hull gets weakened to the point of failure or puncture. This would
>>> happen sooner with slug throwers than PPG bolts.
>>
>> And it would happen instantly if the enemy has mounted a gatling gun to
>> their ship and starts shooting at you. B5 does not have force-field
>
> Yeah, well, you'd expect that from an enemy OUTSIDE your ship or
> station who is trying to destroy you! We're talking about weapons
> being operated by troops inside the object in question, who presumably
> do NOT want to destroy the thing, only the opposing force's people.
>
>> type tech, and bullets don't slow down moving through a vacuum. In
>> a vacuum, bullets would have a range measured in tens or even hundreds
>> of miles. And you wouldn't even need chemical explosives, because with
>> fusion tech you could use magnetic linear accelerators.
>
> The issue at hand isn't shooting at the station from a battle cruiser,
> it's missed shots from within hitting the hull instead of the person
> being shot at.
>
and interior walls. The shell of the station is probably much thicker
and built to withstand impacts as the exterior of the station can be hit
by many things other than weapons.
The interior walls are a different story. They're probably much thinner
except in structural members. A projectile would easily penetrate these
and could cause significant damage to whatever's behind them. For the
interior of the station, a standard issue weapon that's designed to not
penetrate walls would be a good idea. I would imagine that if one is in
an area of the station with exterior walls it wouldn't matter much what
type of weapon is used.
Also, look at some of the episodes where someone/thing is trying to cut
through the external shell. It's pretty durable.
Blair
Andrew Swallow
Nov 6, 2011, 2:23:26 PM11/6/11
to
commerce not as a fort. Castles have much thicker walls than most
office blocks.
The place also has windows which could be broken by bullets.
Andrew Swallow
Nicole Massey
Nov 6, 2011, 7:05:59 PM11/6/11
to
"Jeffrey Kaplan" <gor...@gordol.org> wrote in message
news:cd8db7h1a60ofaq8e...@gordol.org...
> Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Dr Nancy's Sweetie
> said:
>
>> I noted that I would be unhappy with a non-bulletproof spacestation
>> or warship, and "Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@gordol.org>" wrote:
>>
>> > You're in a firefight, it will likely not be a single shot that hits
>> > the hull, it'll be lots of shots that hit the hull. Eventually, the
>> > hull gets weakened to the point of failure or puncture. This would
>> > happen sooner with slug throwers than PPG bolts.
>>
>> And it would happen instantly if the enemy has mounted a gatling gun to
>> their ship and starts shooting at you. B5 does not have force-field
>
> Yeah, well, you'd expect that from an enemy OUTSIDE your ship or
> station who is trying to destroy you! We're talking about weapons
> being operated by troops inside the object in question, who presumably
> do NOT want to destroy the thing, only the opposing force's people.
>
>> type tech, and bullets don't slow down moving through a vacuum. In
>> a vacuum, bullets would have a range measured in tens or even hundreds
>> of miles. And you wouldn't even need chemical explosives, because with
>> fusion tech you could use magnetic linear accelerators.
>
> The issue at hand isn't shooting at the station from a battle cruiser,
> it's missed shots from within hitting the hull instead of the person
I'd think that weaponry penetrating bulkheads inside a ship and then
> said:
>
>> I noted that I would be unhappy with a non-bulletproof spacestation
>> or warship, and "Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@gordol.org>" wrote:
>>
>> > You're in a firefight, it will likely not be a single shot that hits
>> > the hull, it'll be lots of shots that hit the hull. Eventually, the
>> > hull gets weakened to the point of failure or puncture. This would
>> > happen sooner with slug throwers than PPG bolts.
>>
>> And it would happen instantly if the enemy has mounted a gatling gun to
>> their ship and starts shooting at you. B5 does not have force-field
>
> Yeah, well, you'd expect that from an enemy OUTSIDE your ship or
> station who is trying to destroy you! We're talking about weapons
> being operated by troops inside the object in question, who presumably
> do NOT want to destroy the thing, only the opposing force's people.
>
>> type tech, and bullets don't slow down moving through a vacuum. In
>> a vacuum, bullets would have a range measured in tens or even hundreds
>> of miles. And you wouldn't even need chemical explosives, because with
>> fusion tech you could use magnetic linear accelerators.
>
> The issue at hand isn't shooting at the station from a battle cruiser,
> it's missed shots from within hitting the hull instead of the person
penetrating other beings, like high ranking alien representatives, would be
a bigger concern. The outside of the ship is hardened, but it would be
surprising to find the inside bulkheads and such were, especially for a
station at the end of a dying project built on the cheap. (It didn't even
have engines) And the majority of the people we encounter inside the
station are security forces, not military, that have PPG's. The trend in
security is to minimize the lethality of control devices, so that also might
be a factor.
Dr Nancy's Sweetie
Nov 7, 2011, 11:33:08 AM11/7/11
to
We have been discussing the bulletproofness of B5. I have objected
that Garibaldi's remark about issuing PPGs as standard weapons to keep
people from shooting through the hull of a warship or space station
makes no sense, because you'd want the hull of either item to to be
bulletproof. With the level of technology seen on the show (which
includes fusion power but not force fields), any non-bulletproof ship
could be obliterated in under a minute by an attacker with a 20mm
gatling gun. Also, they have numerous small ships which regularly
go down to planets and apparently survive atmospheric re-entry over
and over again without needing maintenance, which means that they
must have vastly stronger and more durable materials available to
them than we have now.
"Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@gordol.org>" wrote:
> [Y]ou'd expect that from an enemy OUTSIDE your ship or station who is
> trying to destroy you! We're talking about weapons being operated by
> troops inside the object in question, who presumably do NOT want to
> destroy the thing, only the opposing force's people.
>
> troops inside the object in question, who presumably do NOT want to
> destroy the thing, only the opposing force's people.
>
> The issue at hand isn't shooting at the station from a battle cruiser,
> it's missed shots from within hitting the hull instead of the person
> being shot at.
Are you suggesting that the hull of the ship is bulletproof from the
> it's missed shots from within hitting the hull instead of the person
> being shot at.
outside but not from the inside? How exactly would that work?
"Blair Leatherwood <bleath...@comcast.net>" wrote:
> Another point that could be considered--the difference between
> exterior and interior walls. The shell of the station is probably
> much thicker and built to withstand impacts as the exterior of the
> station can be hit by many things other than weapons.
in the discussion goes to shooting through the "hull", not just
interior walls. That's the nit I am picking.
> Also, look at some of the episodes where someone/thing is trying to
> cut through the external shell. It's pretty durable.
any sense. Given what it takes get inside the thing, I don't see how
a simple handgun is going to be able to punch a hole in it.
"I look back with some satisfaction on what an idiot I was when I
was 25, but when I do that, I'm assuming I'm no longer an idiot."
-- Andy Rooney
Donald Arseneau
Nov 7, 2011, 7:22:58 PM11/7/11
to
"Dr Nancy's Sweetie" <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> writes:
> Are you suggesting that the hull of the ship is bulletproof from the
> outside but not from the inside? How exactly would that work?
I was thinking of this possibility when I saw the previous posts.
> Are you suggesting that the hull of the ship is bulletproof from the
> outside but not from the inside? How exactly would that work?
Suppose most of the strong components were not sealed, but there was a
pressure seal on the inside, much like the vapor barrier in house
construction. The air-tight layer would have to get structural support
from the stronger backing in order to withstand the air pressure.
(I don't really buy this description, but it can serve for TV land.)
Donald Arseneau as...@triumf.ca
David E. Powell
Nov 7, 2011, 7:45:18 PM11/7/11
to
On Nov 6, 12:43 pm, Blair Leatherwood <bleatherw...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Sort of like Police today carrying hollowpoint rounds in their
pistols, to prevent over-penetration. If the compartment walls between
walls in living quarters are thin to save weight, a PPG would be less
likely to blow through them with a stray shot than a pistol. (I don't
even want to know what kind of power or muzzle energy a 2250s slug
throwing hand gun could put out, though it might remain pretty close.
The basic .45 Auto and 9mm Parabellum rounds have been pretty much the
same for 100+ years.)
wrote:
pistols, to prevent over-penetration. If the compartment walls between
walls in living quarters are thin to save weight, a PPG would be less
likely to blow through them with a stray shot than a pistol. (I don't
even want to know what kind of power or muzzle energy a 2250s slug
throwing hand gun could put out, though it might remain pretty close.
The basic .45 Auto and 9mm Parabellum rounds have been pretty much the
same for 100+ years.)
Jeffrey Kaplan
Nov 7, 2011, 8:29:37 PM11/7/11
to
Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Nicole Massey said:
> surprising to find the inside bulkheads and such were, especially for a
> station at the end of a dying project built on the cheap. (It didn't even
> have engines) And the majority of the people we encounter inside the
Engines? It's a space STATION, not a space SHIP. It has
> surprising to find the inside bulkheads and such were, especially for a
> station at the end of a dying project built on the cheap. (It didn't even
> have engines) And the majority of the people we encounter inside the
station-keeping rockets/jets/whatever to maintain its orbit, and that's
all it needs.
Peter's Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord, #203.
I will not employ an evil wizard if he has a sleazy mustache.
John W. Kennedy
Nov 7, 2011, 9:17:24 PM11/7/11
to
On Nov 7, 8:29 pm, Jeffrey Kaplan <gor...@gordol.org> wrote:
> Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Nicole Massey said:
>
> > surprising to find the inside bulkheads and such were, especially for a
> > station at the end of a dying project built on the cheap. (It didn't even
> > have engines) And the majority of the people we encounter inside the
>
> Engines? It's a space STATION, not a space SHIP. It has
> station-keeping rockets/jets/whatever to maintain its orbit, and that's
> all it needs.
Babylon 4 had engines.
> Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Nicole Massey said:
>
> > surprising to find the inside bulkheads and such were, especially for a
> > station at the end of a dying project built on the cheap. (It didn't even
> > have engines) And the majority of the people we encounter inside the
>
> Engines? It's a space STATION, not a space SHIP. It has
> station-keeping rockets/jets/whatever to maintain its orbit, and that's
> all it needs.
Blair Leatherwood
Nov 8, 2011, 12:28:49 AM11/8/11
to
Nicole Massey
Nov 8, 2011, 9:34:21 AM11/8/11
to
news:nd1hb7hfepiko0q12...@gordol.org...
3 were to have them. He also stated that B5 didn't have them due to limited
budget.
There are all kinds of reasons why a large space station could use engines
from time to time. Comet or asteroid avoidance is just one of them. But the
point is moot, as JMS said the prior ones had them or would have had them,
and B5 didn't due to budget restrictions.
And they may have been a requirement by the Minbari, who were funding the
station. Of course, after Babylon 4 was finished the Grey Council didn't
think they were needed anymore and stopped pushing for them.
> Previously on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, Nicole Massey said:
>
>> surprising to find the inside bulkheads and such were, especially for a
>> station at the end of a dying project built on the cheap. (It didn't even
>> have engines) And the majority of the people we encounter inside the
>
> Engines? It's a space STATION, not a space SHIP. It has
> station-keeping rockets/jets/whatever to maintain its orbit, and that's
> all it needs.
Babylon 4 had engines, and statements Joe made about it indicated the prior
>
>> surprising to find the inside bulkheads and such were, especially for a
>> station at the end of a dying project built on the cheap. (It didn't even
>> have engines) And the majority of the people we encounter inside the
>
> Engines? It's a space STATION, not a space SHIP. It has
> station-keeping rockets/jets/whatever to maintain its orbit, and that's
> all it needs.
3 were to have them. He also stated that B5 didn't have them due to limited
budget.
There are all kinds of reasons why a large space station could use engines
from time to time. Comet or asteroid avoidance is just one of them. But the
point is moot, as JMS said the prior ones had them or would have had them,
and B5 didn't due to budget restrictions.
And they may have been a requirement by the Minbari, who were funding the
station. Of course, after Babylon 4 was finished the Grey Council didn't
think they were needed anymore and stopped pushing for them.
gabi
Nov 8, 2011, 6:19:48 PM11/8/11
to
gabi
Nov 8, 2011, 6:23:04 PM11/8/11
to
On Nov 4, 9:05 pm, Kay Shapero <k...@kayshapero.net> wrote:
> In article <j8rmam$d4...@speranza.aioe.org>, ny...@gypsyheir.com says...
>
>
>
> > "Blair Leatherwood" <bleatherw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
you take notes?
g
> In article <j8rmam$d4...@speranza.aioe.org>, ny...@gypsyheir.com says...
>
>
>
> > "Blair Leatherwood" <bleatherw...@comcast.net> wrote in message
g
Kay Shapero
Nov 8, 2011, 9:58:42 PM11/8/11
to
In article <ca6da64d-72c5-4a19-822d-b6924ded6696
@g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, gab...@comcast.net says...
> Subject: Re: Energy weapons
> From: gabi <gab...@comcast.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
rewatch. http://www.kayshapero.net/B5thon.htm
Address munged, to email use kay at the above domain (everything after
the www.)
@g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, gab...@comcast.net says...
> Subject: Re: Energy weapons
> From: gabi <gab...@comcast.net>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
>
> On Nov 4, 9:05 pm, Kay Shapero <k...@kayshapero.net> wrote:
> > In article <j8rmam$d4...@speranza.aioe.org>, ny...@gypsyheir.com says...
> >
>
> On Nov 4, 9:05 pm, Kay Shapero <k...@kayshapero.net> wrote:
> > In article <j8rmam$d4...@speranza.aioe.org>, ny...@gypsyheir.com says...
> >
>
>> And at the end, there's Sinclair's wonderful speech including "All of
>> this is for nothing unless we go to the stars." The fourth episode of
>> the series, and one of the most memorable scenes in it.
>you take notes?
When I post things to my website, I do - which was the point of the
>> this is for nothing unless we go to the stars." The fourth episode of
>> the series, and one of the most memorable scenes in it.
>you take notes?
rewatch. http://www.kayshapero.net/B5thon.htm
Address munged, to email use kay at the above domain (everything after
the www.)
Duggy
Nov 12, 2011, 6:41:47 PM11/12/11
to
On Nov 5, 8:47 am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com> wrote:
> The idea of PPGs not puncturing hulls was mentioned a while back, too.
> Not sure if slug throwers were issued in B5's timeline, but aside from
> personally owned "antiques" I can't recall any as far as issue weapons
> to troops, security forces, or carried by militia or crooks. The Earth
> civilians seen preparing for a Minbari assault on their colony during
> "In The Beginning" also had PPGs. Everyday people tended to carry PPGs
> if they had a distance weapon, knives and clubs and fists for the
> rest. Not many firearms, but then again one must recall the B5 prop
> house already had PPGs and it was probably easier to pass them out
> than to do a gun rental or make other props.
It's not mentioned in the series, but if you can easily/cheaply
> The idea of PPGs not puncturing hulls was mentioned a while back, too.
> Not sure if slug throwers were issued in B5's timeline, but aside from
> personally owned "antiques" I can't recall any as far as issue weapons
> to troops, security forces, or carried by militia or crooks. The Earth
> civilians seen preparing for a Minbari assault on their colony during
> "In The Beginning" also had PPGs. Everyday people tended to carry PPGs
> if they had a distance weapon, knives and clubs and fists for the
> rest. Not many firearms, but then again one must recall the B5 prop
> house already had PPGs and it was probably easier to pass them out
> than to do a gun rental or make other props.
recharge an energy weapon or it's clip it's a much better weapon than
a gun which needs bullets shipped to or made on the space station or
Mars base and carried around by those with weapons. Once energy
weapon usage increases cost of bullet production does to and the slug
thrower market would become very niche.
That's a little too complex to be said in an episode, though.
===
= DUG.
===
David E. Powell
Nov 13, 2011, 2:15:53 AM11/13/11
to
can come from any source. This is a brilliant point.
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===
Duggy
Nov 13, 2011, 8:18:25 AM11/13/11
to
On Nov 13, 5:15 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
Not to mention a blockade would cut off any supply of fresh bullets.
Then you could just send man after man at them until there supply of
bullets ran out while you watch from the comfort of your Space
Cruiser? What's that, Kif? Well, send for more men, we're not the
ones being blockaded.
===
= DUG.
===
Then you could just send man after man at them until there supply of
bullets ran out while you watch from the comfort of your Space
Cruiser? What's that, Kif? Well, send for more men, we're not the
ones being blockaded.
===
= DUG.
===
gabi
Nov 13, 2011, 1:02:10 PM11/13/11
to
On Nov 13, 12:15 am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
wrote:
> > That's a little too complex to be said in an episode, though.
>
> A very, very good point, however. Shipping is at a premium, and energy
> can come from any source. This is a brilliant point.
>
>
be nice if the weaponry in question could be charged kinetically, the
old 'still-suit' technique.
g
wrote:
> > That's a little too complex to be said in an episode, though.
>
> A very, very good point, however. Shipping is at a premium, and energy
> can come from any source. This is a brilliant point.
>
>
old 'still-suit' technique.
g
Duggy
Nov 14, 2011, 10:39:18 PM11/14/11
to
===
= DUG.
===
Elko T
Nov 16, 2011, 6:19:06 PM11/16/11
to
Kay Shapero wrote:
> @g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, gab...@comcast.net says...
posted the address here, read your reviews after watching (but not
immediately afterwards - I watch one DVD at a time, and then before
watching the next, read your notes for the previous episodes). The
effect is surreal - it's as if we've watched different series. :) I
remember almost none of the things you mention in the notes, or if I do,
it is about one in five. For example, I knew about Sinclair's "All of
this is for nothing..." because I read about it in your message - quoted
above - and I still missed it! I don't remember seeing it in the
episode; I actually have no idea as part of what he said it! I'll need
to go back and hunt for it. (And why do you write that Infection is
"generally considered the worst of the series"? I thought that was "Grey
17"? And I think "Deconstruction..." and GroPos are not much better.
Compared to them, Infection is high art.)
And conversely - you don't mention many of the key (from my POV) moments
in each episode. For instance, Believers was mainly about denouncing
religious fanatics and religion in general; a scathing and devastating
critique. But it's not apparent from your notes; the only thing I
actually remember that was in them was "The avalanche...". Ivanova said
"Good." "NOT good"? Completely missed that moment. :)
--
No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.
> @g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com>, gab...@comcast.net says...
>> On Nov 4, 9:05 pm, Kay Shapero <k...@kayshapero.net> wrote:
>
>>> And at the end, there's Sinclair's wonderful speech including "All of
>>> this is for nothing unless we go to the stars." The fourth episode of
>>> the series, and one of the most memorable scenes in it.
>
>> you take notes?
>
> When I post things to my website, I do - which was the point of the
> rewatch. http://www.kayshapero.net/B5thon.htm
Truly remarkable. I'm gradually re-watching B5, and since you kindly
>
>>> And at the end, there's Sinclair's wonderful speech including "All of
>>> this is for nothing unless we go to the stars." The fourth episode of
>>> the series, and one of the most memorable scenes in it.
>
>> you take notes?
>
> When I post things to my website, I do - which was the point of the
> rewatch. http://www.kayshapero.net/B5thon.htm
posted the address here, read your reviews after watching (but not
immediately afterwards - I watch one DVD at a time, and then before
watching the next, read your notes for the previous episodes). The
effect is surreal - it's as if we've watched different series. :) I
remember almost none of the things you mention in the notes, or if I do,
it is about one in five. For example, I knew about Sinclair's "All of
this is for nothing..." because I read about it in your message - quoted
above - and I still missed it! I don't remember seeing it in the
episode; I actually have no idea as part of what he said it! I'll need
to go back and hunt for it. (And why do you write that Infection is
"generally considered the worst of the series"? I thought that was "Grey
17"? And I think "Deconstruction..." and GroPos are not much better.
Compared to them, Infection is high art.)
And conversely - you don't mention many of the key (from my POV) moments
in each episode. For instance, Believers was mainly about denouncing
religious fanatics and religion in general; a scathing and devastating
critique. But it's not apparent from your notes; the only thing I
actually remember that was in them was "The avalanche...". Ivanova said
"Good." "NOT good"? Completely missed that moment. :)
--
No, no, you can't e-mail me with the nono.
gabi
Nov 25, 2011, 2:38:26 PM11/25/11
to
g
0 new messages