JMS CIS Digest: 05-Jan-99 14:11 through 06-Jan-99 00:02 (15 msgs)
John D. Hardin
J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
05-Jan-99 14:11 through 06-Jan-99 00:02 (15 messages)
WARNING: This digest may contain information about Babylon 5
episodes you haven't seen yet. Proceed with caution.
Subjects in digest:
That was great!
Re: IMage Laserdisks
A Call To Arms
Call to Arms
<ACTA>
That Music Hubub
Administrivia:
South Park fans may wish to visit:
http://www.infinicorp.com/babylonpark/
The administrivia for this digest may be read at
http://www.wolfenet.com/~jhardin/JMS-Digest-Administrivia.txt
It was last updated Tue Mar 31 7:34:33 1998
Replies to this digest go to me.
obSpoiler-space...
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 04 Jan 1999 06:26:03 -0700
From: Brian Makuch <10412...@compuserve.com>
To: All
Subject: That was great!
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
This was a great movie. The storyline was tight and fast. The old
characters all behaved like we'd expect and the new characters were
quite interesting as well. I think this and "In the Beginning" are my
two favorite B5 movies thus far.
As for Chen's score I really liked the music and if Crusade is
anything like I am imagining it will fit in perfectly with alien
landscapes and exporitory themes. For this action driven movie I don't
think Chen's subtlety was as good a fit as Franke's more dramatic
scoring.
The special effects also keep getting better and better. I really
liked the new ship, and the new jump-point sequences were simply
amazing. I loved seeing the new angle as it made me understand a little
better how the jump-points (in theory) interact with normal space. I do
agree with those who say that the end battle was a bit confusing; but
it was still fun to watch. The script seemed to give some perfect
opportunities that the FX people could have used give some definition
to the battle. For instance, when Sheridan asks the fleet to form a
flying wedge to get the Excaliber and Freedom to the target, there was
a perfect opportunity to focus on that part of the battle. I would
loved to have seen the Hermes and others form-up and fly into the mass
of Drahk ships, with some being blown apart and falling away, but still
clearing the way... Other non-CGI effects I would have have liked to
have seen was some weather on Daltron 7's. A massive dust storm raging
on the surface would have been really neat [though I don't know what
weather would be present on the surface of a planet that has been
destroyed like it was!!]
Those minor criticisms aside (and quite unimportant in the scheme of
things)... what a great show. When it was over, it seemed as if it had
lasted only a half-hour. I ended up watching it again!
-Brian
P.S. What the heck is up with TNT? Did they do any promotion for this
movie aside from the ads during B5 the past week. My brother, who has
watched B5 religiously since day one, didn't even know the movie was
going to be shown until Friday. If they are going to show this again in
march/may/june (whenever the heck Crusade is going to start), I can see
why they didn't promote it as heavily as they do for the rest of their
original movies [thank god/allah/buddah/krishna/DNA that the damn
Houdini bio-pic has gone away...]. Maybe in this interim, someone at
TNT will realize that they aren't yet as big as they think they are,
and that they need to build a network one day of the week at a time.
Maybe then they'll realize that the strongest timeslot they have is
Sunday at 10pm (following their movies) and put Crusade there and then
again Tuesday at 10pm. They can always start the rerun of a movie at
11pm. Probably they'll go the other way and decide that the Christmas
Story approach works, and show everything for 24hrs at at a time. And
since I'm bitching about TNT, I just have to say that ER is not the
best show ever. It is very well written, very well acted and I do watch
it on Thursdays. But in the end, it is quite simply...forgettable.
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jan 1999 14:11:06 -0700
From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
To: Brian Makuch <10412...@compuserve.com>
Subject: That was great!
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
I am in total darkness when it comes to understanding TNT's
philosophy of promotion. They did little for this, I guess because it
was the last of B5 in someone's view, promoted the hell out of the
Houdini flick, which cost about 3 times more than we did...and we ended
up getting exactly the same ratings. With a little real promotion, we
could've done even better.
jms
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jan 1999 16:24:08 -0700
From: Carl Cantarella <10503...@compuserve.com>
To: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
Subject: That was great!
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
Joe,
If you don't mind my asking --and I'm glad to hear that the movie
performed well-- but just what were the numbers?
I'm still a little confused as to just what Basic Cable
considers to be "Good" numbers. Something tells me just about anything
over a 2 qualifies, but that's just a guess on my part.
Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jan 1999 21:56:04 -0700
From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
To: Carl Cantarella <10503...@compuserve.com>
Subject: That was great!
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
It did 2.8, which was a higher number than they were expecting
(they'd sold the ads at 2.7, which means they made money off it), and
equal to the Houdini movie.
jms
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jan 1999 00:04:01 -0700
From: (blocked)
To: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: IMage Laserdisks
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
Thanks very much for the reply. Requet permission to qoute it in full
on the WB and TNT sites, where I think some of the hotheads really need
to see it.
(Interesting note: One post asked "What $@%&# idiot hired this guy,
anyway?" the reply, *not* from me, was "JMS is the $%&# idiot in
question. I can list some places where he is known to lurk if you'd
like to tell him what a $%&# idiot he is to his face.)
Regards,
Joe
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jan 1999 14:11:06 -0700
From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
To: (blocked)
Subject: Re: IMage Laserdisks
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
It kind of goes to show you how thin the layer of trust
goes...you'd think by now, after doing 5 years of B5, people would
think to cut a little slack and give a chance, assume that there's an
intent here, rather than saying suddenly I'm an idiot for not putting
in the kind of music they expected.
What's most interesting, and in some ways most galling, is the
number of posts I've seen in the last day or so from people who watched
CTA again, and said, "On second viewing, the music didn't bother me as
much, and I kind of like it in places." Maybe they should've been a
little less quick on the trigger and the condemnation.
As for some of the comments I've seen, basically saying he
should be killed (literally, someone suggested putting a gun to his
head and pulling the trigger) to some *very* xenophobic comments about
his being asian and that's the problem, with *that kind* of
music...they do not even merit a reply.
jms
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jan 1999 15:38:11 -0700
From: (blocked)
To: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: IMage Laserdisks
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
Message text written by J. Michael Straczynski
> As for some of the comments I've seen, basically saying he should be
> killed (literally, someone suggested putting a gun to his head and
> pulling the trigger) to some *very* xenophobic comments about his
> being asian and that's the problem, with *that kind* of music...they
> do not even merit a reply.
Yeah, those depressed the hell out of me. I've been out of organized
fandom since before there was an internet (it took "B5" to gradually
pull me back in, I may even go to my first convention in twenty years
sometime in '99.) I guess a part of me still clung to the adolescent
notion that fans of this kind of literature were somehow better and
more tolerant than most people. I don't understand how you can have
enough imagination to identify heart and soul with a Narn, and not use
that same imagination to identify with the other human down the street.
And I think this gets to one of the differences between "Trek" and
"B5". Trek fed that adolescent fan mindset - it says, "Here's the
future, and it is populated by people like you, better, wiser, kinder,
more tolerant than your parents, siblings and teachers. People who are
as good as you know in your heart that you are. Only the bad guys we
bring in for an episode and defeat have any negative qualities."
Starfleet is Star Trek fandom, or at least its own self-image, writ
large. B5 shows us a future not only much more like the real world in
general, but the more like world of fandom as it exists, and that may
have mae people uncomfortable. I think that is the real reason a lot
of Trek fans (of whom I am one) never warmed up to B5. It didn't give
them a comfortable future where it turned out THEY WERE RIGHT. Even
the great and noble have *real* flaws in B5, not "cute" ones like
impetuousness, and their flaws have real consequences.
Speaking of consequences: A lot of people are still angry at you, and
at the characters, for ignoring Lyta in "SiL" I've always thought
that, in addition to protecting the mystery of whatever you have in
store for her further down the line, it was perfectly in character for
the others. As good and kind and noble as Sheridan, et al were, they
*did* have a blind spot where Lyta was concerned, they did take her for
granted and they often treated her shabbily. And I, for one, am *glad*.
It would have been a cheat if everyone had gotten all weepy over poor
Lyta and how they treated her, even if that reaction would have tracked
with future events. If they'd ever given the matter a second thought
they *wouldn't* have treated her that way in the first place. So, of
course, they aren't aware that they did. A nice reminder for the rest
of us to consider our own actions, and not put *too* much faith in
heroes. I guess what I keep hearing is true. You really *can* write.
<vbg>
Regards,
Joe
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jan 1999 21:56:04 -0700
From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
To: (blocked)
Subject: Re: IMage Laserdisks
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
Re: Lyta in SiL...okay, if they mentioned Lyta, I'd get nailed
for not mentioning Na'Toth...or Sinclair...or Keffer...or somebody
else. You can't do five minutes of roll call in a TV show. That would
be deadly. They each picked one character to name, because they had a
close relationship in some way with that character. Who among them
really had a close relationship with Lyta? Name me that person. (Not
directed at you, just generally.)
Had Zack been there, then yeah, maybe he would've named Lyta (or
not, given what happens with her later). THAT would have been
appropriate. But it would NOT have been appropriate to have her named
just because somebody wants to hear her name called.
The persons named were ones to whom they had an emotional
attachment... Vir to Londo, Garibaldi to G'Kar, Ivanova to Marcus,
Sheridan to Londo, Delenn to Lennier. Lyta did not have that
connection to anyone at that table that would be on an equal footing.
jms
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jan 1999 05:09:08 -0700
From: SysOp Deonaha M. Conlin <10253...@compuserve.com>
To: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
Subject: A Call To Arms
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
Joe,
> Actually, Chris Franke is sufficiently impressed with Chen -- who
> has never scored a TV show before, this is his first shot and he
> shows much potential, we're very happy -- that he's going to release
> Chen's score to ACtA and later episodes via his own label.
I must be the only person who wasn't really bothered by the music. It
DID catch my attention at the beginning (the 'ooh, THAT'S different'
response), and then I mainly shut it out. Chen has an interesting
approach - and I like it! It isn't what we've come to expect from B5 -
but this wasn't setting up for B5 - and Crusade is a different critter,
or so I assume.
> stubborn I liked it.
Di Conlin (aka Tigger), Wielder of the Lesser Salmon of Discipline
Supreme Dominatrix, RMES - your fearless leader Sigh Corps - Jason
Carter Division
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jan 1999 14:11:06 -0700
From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
To: SysOp Deonaha M. Conlin <10253...@compuserve.com>
Subject: A Call To Arms
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
A woman of infinite taste and discretion...but we knew that.
jms
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jan 1999 14:50:10 -0700
From: Dave Vincent <75460...@compuserve.com>
To: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
Subject: Call to Arms
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
Message text written by J. Michael Straczynski
> Ramming Speed.
If you are approaching a target at speed X, you still have a
chance to peel away at the last moment. If you are approaching a
target at the top speed your engines can provide, such that you cannot
turn away or be deflected, that's speed Y. Speed Y is ramming speed.<
Seems an odd order. Why not maximum speed or full speed ahead? Does
EF rules provide for ramming of other starships?
Thanks, Dave
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jan 1999 21:56:04 -0700
From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
To: Dave Vincent <75460...@compuserve.com>
Subject: Call to Arms
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
"Seems an odd order. Why not maximum speed or full speed ahead? Does
EF rules provide for ramming of other starships?"
Because it also implies "...and we're going to HIT that ship."
Ramming speed says both. You could say, "Give me maximum speed, set a
course to RAM the ship," or you could say "Ramming speed." Same exact
content, shorter terms. Brevity is our friend. Pedantry is not.
jms
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jan 1999 21:56:04 -0700
From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
To: (blocked)
Subject: A Call To Arms
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
It was produced contractually as a B5 movie under the order TNT
gave for 4 such movies.
jms
------------------------------
Date: 06 Jan 1999 00:02:01 -0700
From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
To: (blocked)
Subject: ACTA
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
We have covered all three of the virus concerns in the way we
built this particular virus, thanks to help from the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, which consulted with us on its design. Trust me, it's
solid, and totally thought-through.
jms
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jan 1999 21:56:05 -0700
From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
To: (blocked)
Subject: That Music Hubub
Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
I like the music. I like the edginess of it. I wouldn't do
that particular style on a regular basis, because I think it would wear
thin after a while, but for this movie it was right. He's doing more
thematic stuff for the series, but keeping the approach of using a
variety of styles, including Chinese scales and stuff, which makes the
episodes sound nifty and exotic.
So yeah, I like it...but I also like the kind of edgy, growly
stuff Ry Cooder did for LAST MAN STANDING, so go figure.
jms
------------------------------
End of JMS CIS Digest 05-Jan-99 14:11 through 06-Jan-99 00:02
*************************************************************
Support the anti-Spam bill - join at http://www.cauce.org
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.info <*> Submissions: b5-...@plage.stanford.edu
Another fine service of ISN Mars Comments: b5-info...@plage.stanford.edu
Frank McKenney
F
r
e
s
h
S
p
o
o
f
o
r
B
r
e
a
k
f
a
s
t
In <d7n177...@gypsy.wolfenet.com>, "John D. Hardin" <jha...@wolfenet.com> writes:
>RFC 1153 Digest of messages from
>J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
>05-Jan-99 14:11 through 06-Jan-99 00:02 (15 messages)
>
>WARNING: This digest may contain information about Babylon 5
> episodes you haven't seen yet. Proceed with caution.
--snip--
>------------------------------
>
>Date: 05 Jan 1999 21:56:04 -0700
>From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
>To: Dave Vincent <75460...@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Call to Arms
>Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
>References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
>
>"Seems an odd order. Why not maximum speed or full speed ahead? Does
>EF rules provide for ramming of other starships?"
>
> Because it also implies "...and we're going to HIT that ship."
>Ramming speed says both. You could say, "Give me maximum speed, set a
>course to RAM the ship," or you could say "Ramming speed." Same exact
>content, shorter terms. Brevity is our friend. Pedantry is not.
>
> jms
"Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that, if
any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates / OS2BBS OS/2 Advisor
Richmond, Virginia (804) 320-4887
Internet: frank_m...@mindspring.com / TalkLink: WZ01123
Wendy Chatley Green
McKenney) wrote:
\(spoiler spoo and warnings left intact)
>:
>:F
>:r
>:e
>:s
>:h
>:
>:S
>:p
>:o
>:o
>:
>:f
>:o
>:r
>:
>:B
>:r
>:e
>:a
>:k
>:f
>:a
>:s
>:t
>:
>:
>:In <d7n177...@gypsy.wolfenet.com>, "John D. Hardin" <jha...@wolfenet.com> writes:
>:>J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
>:>05-Jan-99 14:11 through 06-Jan-99 00:02 (15 messages)
>:>
>:>WARNING: This digest may contain information about Babylon 5
>:> episodes you haven't seen yet. Proceed with caution.
>:
>:>------------------------------
>:>
>:>Date: 05 Jan 1999 21:56:04 -0700
>:>From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
>:>To: Dave Vincent <75460...@compuserve.com>
>:>Subject: Call to Arms
>:>Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
>:>References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
>:>
>:>"Seems an odd order. Why not maximum speed or full speed ahead? Does
>:>EF rules provide for ramming of other starships?"
>:>
>:> Because it also implies "...and we're going to HIT that ship."
>:>Ramming speed says both. You could say, "Give me maximum speed, set a
>:>course to RAM the ship," or you could say "Ramming speed." Same exact
>:>content, shorter terms. Brevity is our friend. Pedantry is not.
>:>
>:> jms
>:"Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that, if
>:any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
Seems to me it additionally conveys a message to the crew
that they're all gonna die. As Humpty Dumpty would have said, "It's
a portmanteau phrase."
--
Wendy Chatley Green
wcg...@cris.com
You can't make history in the subjunctive--Walter Wriston
felici...@kluge.net
# "Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that, if
# any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
it also (imho) conveys the message "route all available power to the engines,
including life support".
--
To reply via mail, please remove the obvious from the email address.
Joe Schulte
: Frank McKenney <frank_m...@mindspring.com> once typed out:
: # "Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that, if
: # any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
: it also (imho) conveys the message "route all available power to the engines,
: including life support".
What, just because they won't be needing it? :)
J. Weaver Jr.
>
> Frank McKenney <frank_m...@mindspring.com> once typed out:
> # "Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that, if
> # any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
>
> it also (imho) conveys the message "route all available power to the engines,
> including life support".
...not to mention disabling all those silly governmentally-mandated
safety overrides that would automagically veer the ship away at the last
possible moment... -JW
James A. Wolf
>Frank McKenney <frank_m...@mindspring.com> once typed out:
># "Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that, if
># any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
>
>it also (imho) conveys the message "route all available power to the engines,
>including life support".
>
"And play te really cool background music..."
<*> James A. Wolf - jaw...@tiac.net - www.tiac.net/users/jawolf <*>
"The jawbone of an ass is |"Oh, what a tangled web |"This is how the world
just as dangerous a weapon |we weave when, we first |ends, swallowed in fire,
today as in Samson's time." |practice to deceive." |but not in darkness."
Richard Nixon |Sir Walter Scott | J. Michael Straczynski
[PLEASE BUY 'THE ULTIMATE HULK' ANTHOLOGY, WITH MY FIRST PUBLISHED STORY!]
felici...@kluge.net
# "And play te really cool background music..."
"It's my background music ... all good heroes should have some."
Paul D. Shocklee
: Frank McKenney <frank_m...@mindspring.com> once typed out:
: # "Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that, if
: # any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
: it also (imho) conveys the message "route all available power to the engines,
: including life support".
It also implies that someone in charge thinks they're moving through
a resistive medium. In space, there is no maximum speed for a given
acceleration. "Ramming acceleration" or "ramming thrust" would be
more appropriate, or even just "Ram the bastards!"
On the other hand, I'm perfectly happy to attribute the anachronism to
language drift.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Paul D. Shocklee - physics grad student - Shadow agent |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "Periods of tranquility are seldom prolific of creative achievement. |
| Mankind has to be stirred up." -- Alfred North Whitehead |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Tom Thatcher
Paul D. Shocklee <shoc...@flagstaff.Princeton.EDU> wrote:
>On the other hand, I'm perfectly happy to attribute the anachronism to
>language drift.
Obviously. Look, in space, ramming another craft is almost certain
suicide. "Ramming speed" conveys in two short (albeit anachronistic)
words, the following concepts: (1) maximum thrust, (2) override any normal
safety precautions, if you burn out the engines that's ok, (3) divert
life support and weapons power to engines if that will increase the thrust,
(4) navigator to set a collision course, (5) say your last goodbyes.
After all, navy vessels still "Set sail," submarines are "boats,"
ships in spacedock "cast off moorings," spaceships have "decks"
and "bridges"...
--
Tom Thatcher
University of Rochester Cancer Center
tt...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Cronan
>On the other hand, I'm perfectly happy to attribute the anachronism to
>language drift.
Great idea. We can attribute the rest of the movie to B5's plausibility
drift.
Cronan
...or am I stirring metaphors again?
Gharlane of Eddore
this posting have been discussed at length before, and obviously need
to be explicated further until JMS begins to apprehend the few simple
concepts at issue.)
Dave Vincent <75460...@compuserve.com> asked:
Subject: Call to Arms
>
> Seems an odd order. Why not maximum speed or full speed ahead?
> Does EF rules provide for ramming of other starships?
>
Date: 05 Jan 1999 21:56:04 -0700
From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
>
> Because it also implies "...and we're going to HIT that ship."
> Ramming speed says both. You could say, "Give me maximum speed,
> set a course to RAM the ship," or you could say "Ramming speed."
> Same exact content, shorter terms. Brevity is our friend.
> Pedantry is not.
> jms
>
The problem with this attitude, as we've been at some little pains
to explain to you in the past, despite the fact that you obviouly
either didn't listen or didn't understand, is that speaking of a
"top speed," or a "maximum speed" in reference to a spacecraft,
is incredibly thick-headed and ignorant. IT IS INCORRECT.
THERE IS NO FRICTIONAL MEDIUM AROUND THE SHIP RETARDING ITS MOTION.
It's in a free-fall vacuum environment, and for a fixed acceleration,
the SPEED CONTINUES TO INCREASE.
"Maximum speed" and "ramming speed" pertain ONLY to the kinds of
ships that operate in viscous environments like AIR or WATER, where
you achieve a speed where the resistance of the medium equals the
best driving power of your engines.
The last time you did this, we pointed out that if you want people
who've survived junior high physics to buy this sort of lamebrained
scenario, the LEAST you could do is just change the line to read
something like "Maximum acceleration! We're going to RAM!"
Or if you hew to your stated desire for brevity and impact,
"MAX ACCEL! WE'RE RAMMING!"
For some inexplicable reasons, frank_m...@mindspring.com (Frank
McKenney) wrote:
>
> "Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that,
> if any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
>
This is as silly as JMS' comments, for obvious reasons.
The only way you have a specific "speed" is if you accelerate to that
speed and then SHUT OFF THE ENGINES, which no one would do; impact
energy of the collision rises as the square of the ship's speed, so
every erg of kinetic energy you can pump in prior to collision is
to the rammer's advantage.
In <3695c78c...@news.concentric.net> wcg...@cris.com writes:
>
> Seems to me it additionally conveys a message to the crew that
> they're all gonna die. As Humpty Dumpty would have said, "It's
> a portmanteau phrase."
>
Since you're crediting the wrong fictional character with the
portmanteau word "portmanteau," and since the concepts don't
pertain in this context, it's by no means anything of the sort;
and is, if anything, a second-order oxymoron.
Get a technical advisor, Joe.......
=========================================================================
|| __ __ ||
|| We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. / | / \ ||
|| We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, -|---+----+- ||
|| Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, | | | ||
|| And invocations of equations. |_/ \__/ ||
|| ||
|| These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. ||
|| ||
|| .....including how to spell "gray." +\../- ||
|| ||
=========================================================================
Brian Watson
Okay Cronan, that's the third time I've seen you put forth the suggestion
that the movie wasn't good. Now, as you had earlier, I'm calling you on
it. You've set forth a hypothesis, so prove it. Back it up instead of
(perhaps not in so colorful language) saying "THAT SUX, JMS SUX, B5 SUX,"
like any other good troller.
Bill
1. Space is not a perfect vacuum.
2. Spacecraft can reach a max speed depending on maaaximum drive output
compared to the vessel's mass and Mass of nearby objects. Gravity can slow
an object down.
Kurtz
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote in message
news:776oos$n...@news.csus.edu...
>The last time you did this, we pointed out that if you want people
>who've survived junior high physics to buy this sort of lamebrained
>scenario, the LEAST you could do is just change the line to read
>something like "Maximum acceleration! We're going to RAM!"
>
>Or if you hew to your stated desire for brevity and impact,
>
>"MAX ACCEL! WE'RE RAMMING!"
>
>
This makes complete sense to me, but for a couple things.
Saying "ramming speed" carries more dramatic weight than
the above. I don't know why - maybe the collective memory of
movies like Ben-Hur or The Enemy Below causes this.
The other is, for reasons I accept, space battle that is
*totally* accurate, is, well, boring. No sound at all except for
radio chatter. No visible signs of beam weapons. And so
forth. I mean, I initially really liked the fact that fighters in B5 at
least
seem to fight like they might in space, but most of the time, they
really just fly like airplanes. I know it's not real, but it just seems
more visually appealing.
Cronan
> Great idea. We can attribute the rest of the movie to B5's plausibility
> drift.
>
> Cronan
> ...or am I stirring metaphors again?
Brian Watson replied:
>Okay Cronan, that's the third time I've seen you put forth the suggestion
>that the movie wasn't good.
Then you haven't been reading all of my posts.
> Now, as you had earlier, I'm calling you on it.
Let me get this straight: you're calling me on the expression of my sense of
*aesthetics*?
> You've set forth a hypothesis, so prove it.
Must you insist on using words you clearly don't comprehend? I've not
offered a 'hypothesis'. I haven't even specifically stated my opinion yet,
and even if I had, I couldn't prove it because, like all aesthetic
judgements, it's entirely subjective. (Even the movies plausibility is
subject to a variety of factors; not the least of which is the audience's
ignorance. )
> Back it up
What, specifically, do you wish me to back up? If it's a full critique of
the movie you're after, I'm afraid you shall have to wait for my MiSTing like
everyone else. However, if there's an aspect of the film you feel I've
expressed an unsubstantiated opinion of then point it out to me and we'll go
from there.
> instead of
>(perhaps not in so colorful language) saying "THAT SUX, JMS SUX, B5 SUX,"
>like any other good troller.
Your McCarthyite accusations notwithstanding, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop
implying that an appreciable percentage of my posts are knee-jerk attacks on
JMS, B5 and this group. If you're unable to do this let me know so that I
might *plonk* you and get it over with. As things stand now, you're barely
worth my time - if you insist on spewing that vexing litany of invectives, as
is your right, you shall fast become more trouble than you're worth.
Your friend,
Cronan
Steve Brinich
> Let me get this straight: you're calling me on the expression
> of my sense of *aesthetics*?
*BZZZZTTT* Your comment directed to "plausibility" implies a criticism
based on objective facts (e.g. a story in which an ordinary human falls
two hundred feet onto a sidewalk and walks away has a plausibility
problem).
You've been called on it. Let's see the objective facts.
> Must you insist on using words you clearly don't comprehend?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
Frank McKenney
--snip--
>"Maximum speed" and "ramming speed" pertain ONLY to the kinds of
>ships that operate in viscous environments like AIR or WATER, where
>you achieve a speed where the resistance of the medium equals the
>best driving power of your engines.
>
>who've survived junior high physics to buy this sort of lamebrained
>scenario, the LEAST you could do is just change the line to read
>something like "Maximum acceleration! We're going to RAM!"
>
>Or if you hew to your stated desire for brevity and impact,
>
>"MAX ACCEL! WE'RE RAMMING!"
Gharlane,
Two points...
1) _Listen_ to the two phrases: "Ramming Speed"
"Maximum acceleration"
( or even "Max Accel! We're Ramming!" )
The first conveys the intent in three succinct syllables.
The second and third take eight or six.
2) Yes, the term "speed" is technically incorrect. However, _I_ would
not like to bet large sums of money that the phrase "speed" won't be
commonly used in an admittedly sloppy fashion two-and-a-half
centuries from now to describe what everyone will really know is
"accelleration". I mean, it's not like anyone's using "furlongs per
fortnight" _these_ days... (;-)
The term apparently jars you, and I suspect it does so on others. It is
"technically incorrect" in 1999-usage. But since when has that ever
stopped people from _using_ a phrase? Or JMS "quoting" their use of it?
Daniel Silevitch
1a. For any reasonable 24th century ship, the drive has enough power that
drag from dust and random hydrogen atoms becomes significant only when the
ship is moving at relativistic speeds (say .3c or above)
2a. Wrong wrong wrong. As long as the ship's engines exert a force greater
than the local gravity, the ship can accelerate and continue to gain speed
(until it runs out of fuel). _Acceleration_ is changed by nearby massive
objects (either increased, decreased, or changed in direction, depending
on what direction you want to go relative to the bearing of the planet).
Velocity is just the time integral of acceleration; as long as you have
_some_ acceleration capability in the direction you want, you can reach an
arbitrarily high velocity given enough time (modulus fuel limitations and
the speed of light, of course).
3. The real limit on how fast a practical ship can go is how much fuel
and/or reaction mass it can carry (though the newest ships in the B5 universe
seem not to use reaction drives, but Something Else (tm)).
The proper line would something to the effect of "Maximum burn; ram that
sucker!"
-dms
Gary Farber
<tt...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
[. . .]
: After all, navy vessels still "Set sail," submarines are "boats,"
: ships in spacedock "cast off moorings," spaceships have "decks"
: and "bridges"...
Still, "maximum speed" and "maximum acceleration" mean two differing
things; one wonders why JMS uses the former term in his explanations.
Surely he understands that there is no such thing as a "maximum speed"
for a space ship?
--
Copyright 1999 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: The other is, for reasons I accept, space battle that is
: *totally* accurate, is, well, boring. No sound at all except for
: radio chatter. No visible signs of beam weapons. And so
: forth. I mean, I initially really liked the fact that fighters in B5 at
: least
: seem to fight like they might in space, but most of the time, they
: really just fly like airplanes. I know it's not real, but it just seems
: more visually appealing.
There is no reason whatever for it to be "boring" if it is written well
and filmed well.
This is like saying that NYPD BLUE is "boring" because characters can't
fly like Superman, and smash buildings with their fists, both of which
would be "more visually appealing."
"More visually appealing" that doesn't make any sense still doesn't make
any sense. Deliberately portraying things that make no sense is Bad.
Kurtz
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:7783vo$k...@news1.panix.com...
>In <7770v3$4su$1...@winter.news.rcn.net> Kurtz <mal...@erols.com> wrote:
>[. . .]
>
>: The other is, for reasons I accept, space battle that is
>: *totally* accurate, is, well, boring. No sound at all except for
>: radio chatter. No visible signs of beam weapons. And so
>: forth. I mean, I initially really liked the fact that fighters in B5 at
>: least
>: seem to fight like they might in space, but most of the time, they
>: really just fly like airplanes. I know it's not real, but it just seems
>: more visually appealing.
>
>There is no reason whatever for it to be "boring" if it is written well
>and filmed well.
>
>This is like saying that NYPD BLUE is "boring" because characters can't
>fly like Superman, and smash buildings with their fists, both of which
>would be "more visually appealing."
>
>"More visually appealing" that doesn't make any sense still doesn't make
>any sense. Deliberately portraying things that make no sense is Bad.
>
I guess I just disagree. Try to imagine a space battle. For real.
First, utterly silent. Two, the space is, well, just plain black - most of
the
time it just isn't as colorful and starry as it is on TV. No sound of
explosions or sound of ships firing. If they use beam weapons, you
just see holes appearing on enemy ships. Very, very probably little
likelihood of seeing an explosion at all. Speed-wise, because of scale,
most ships would generally appear to move very slowly, even if they are
moving very fast. Any non-beam weapons would fire far too quickly
to even watch.
What you describe isn't a good metaphor - you want a *real* police
precinct? Lotta boring stuff. Lotta nights chasing false alarms, and
other non-events. Lotta nights at the station pushing papers and
sending someone out for lunch. NYPD Blue is good at providing the
feel of the station. It feels real. But it's not, really.
There were a lot of things about B5 that never seemed real to me,
but I accepted it to enjoy the show. For one thing, did you ever get the
impression that a quarter of a million people were on that thing? The
biggest crowds we ever saw looked like a few hundred, tops. How
much military and security is on that thing? You sure didn't see them
much, unless they were needed in a firefight. How important *was*
B5 in terms of interstellar diplomacy? Pretty darned important, but
did you get the feeling you were on something like the U.N. in space?
I've seen movies about the office of the president, and international
politics - did it ever seem that complex? Of course not, and most of us
just don't care. I accept the fact that when the station says goodbye to
G'Kar, it looks like a company pep rally and not a state dinner at the
White House.
I've written more than I care to - I just wanted to say that sometimes,
realism *isn't* what you want. You just want to be entertained. If it
means accepting things like hyperspace and jump-gates and PPG's
and telepathy genes and invisible Shadows and time-travel and a
universe teeming with bipedal humanoids, it doesn't matter to me that
it might be unrealistic. I like it.
Cronan
>> Let me get this straight: you're calling me on the expression
>> of my sense of *aesthetics*?
>
> *BZZZZTTT* Your comment directed to "plausibility" implies a criticism
>based on objective facts
As I explained later in the very same posts, even the movie's plausibility is
subject to a variety of factors; not the least of which is the audience's
ignorance.
> (e.g. a story in which an ordinary human falls
>two hundred feet onto a sidewalk and walks away has a plausibility
>problem).
Your example ignores the type of rationalization that B5 has been subject to
of late.
"Oh, well, maybe in the future they make sidewalks out of Nerf and
butter! We just don't know."
"But even if it was, he wouldn't have just gotten up and walked away."
"Obviously JMS has something planned for him in a future episode... and
it'll be explained then."
"But...."
"You hate B5 and JMS, don't you?"
> You've been called on it. Let's see the objective facts.
How is it you manage to be consistently and blindinly wrong every response
you make to one of my posts? Is it to be give me something unexpected to toy
with?
>> Must you insist on using words you clearly don't comprehend?
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black.
I'd appreciate an example of my 'using words' I 'clearly don't comprehend'.
Cronan
Cronan
>: Gravity can slow an object down.
>
>If they were a few hundred thousand kilometers from a planet, this would
>be relevant. They weren't. What mass's gravity would you suggest is
>relevant in this case?
The plot, Gary, the plot.
Cronan
Gary Farber
It's also very big. Neither fact is relevant when you're ramming a vessel
within, say, a tenth of a light year, at sub-relativistic speed.
: 2. Spacecraft can reach a max speed depending on maaaximum drive output
: compared to the vessel's mass and Mass of nearby objects.
Wrong.
: Gravity can slow an object down.
If they were a few hundred thousand kilometers from a planet, this would
be relevant. They weren't. What mass's gravity would you suggest is
relevant in this case?
--
David Stinson
speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would not be
all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
capability.
--
David A. Stinson Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves/index.html
E-Mail: dsti...@ix.netcomz.com da...@procomz.com dast...@aolz.com
* NO ELECTRONS WERE HARMED DURING PRODUCTION OF THIS MESSAGE *
REMOVE Z FROM ADDRESS IN POST TO EMAIL.
Sergey Bukhman
David Stinson wrote:
> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at top
> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would not be
> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
> capability.
>
How would firing it on the way cause extra damage?
>
> --
> David A. Stinson Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves/index.html
> E-Mail: dsti...@ix.netcomz.com da...@procomz.com dast...@aolz.com
> * NO ELECTRONS WERE HARMED DURING PRODUCTION OF THIS MESSAGE *
> REMOVE Z FROM ADDRESS IN POST TO EMAIL.
--
Sergey
------
Strong is the man who can fart without distorting his inner strength.
Jeanannd
>2 things:
>1. Space is not a perfect vacuum.
>2. Spacecraft can reach a max speed depending on maaaximum drive output
>compared to the vessel's mass and Mass of nearby objects. Gravity can slow
>an object down.
================
There is also the fact that there are clouds of gasses and dust debris floating
in space. Sometimes they are attracted to a gravity mass.
Between star systems they have detected large dark masses of ice like
materials....(they know frozen..but frozen what?) A ship travelling at a high
speed could have trouble if it hit such a large mass. Travelling at high
speed if it run into even a cloud of small particles...there could be severe
damage.
Traveling at high speed if it runs into a cloud of gas ?
I thought I could organize freedom - Bjork - The Hunter
jeanad (AKA) jeanannd
Wayne Throop
:: "Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that,
:: if any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
: it also (imho) conveys the message "route all available power to the
: engines, including life support".
Right. And also "double the drum cadence and whip the rowing slaves".
By the way, just as you don't want to whip the rowing slaves to death
before they get a good speed up, you actually probably DON'T want to
disable at least some of the safety cutouts. Seems to me it'd be
embarassing to start a kamikaze attack, only to have your engines flame
out leaving you drifting helpless in the viscous fluid that fills space.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
WWS
felici...@kluge.net wrote:
>
> Frank McKenney <frank_m...@mindspring.com> once typed out:
> # "Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that, if
> # any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
>
> it also (imho) conveys the message "route all available power to
> the engines, including life support".
Question: Why not open a jumpgate up in the middle of the planet
killer??? A small jumpgate in a big planet killer should rip it
to shreds!
--
<*>
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Laura M. Appelbaum
>
> F
> r
> e
> s
> h
>
> S
> p
> o
> o
>
> f
> o
> r
>
> B
> r
> e
> a
> k
> f
> a
> s
> t
>
> In <d7n177...@gypsy.wolfenet.com>, "John D. Hardin" <jha...@wolfenet.com> writes:
> >RFC 1153 Digest of messages from
> >J. Michael Straczynski <71016...@compuserve.com>
> >05-Jan-99 14:11 through 06-Jan-99 00:02 (15 messages)
> >
> >WARNING: This digest may contain information about Babylon 5
> > episodes you haven't seen yet. Proceed with caution.
> --snip--
>
> >------------------------------> >To: Dave Vincent <75460...@compuserve.com>
> >Subject: Call to Arms
> >Message-ID: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
> >References: <forum.baby...@compuserve.com>
> >
> >"Seems an odd order. Why not maximum speed or full speed ahead? Does
> >EF rules provide for ramming of other starships?"
> >
> >Ramming speed says both. You could say, "Give me maximum speed, set a
> >course to RAM the ship," or you could say "Ramming speed." Same exact
> >content, shorter terms. Brevity is our friend. Pedantry is not.
> >
> > jms
>
>
full-velocity ram") he could have avoided all of the nitpickers on this
point! ;D
LMA
Gharlane of Eddore
(Gharlane of Eddore), addressing JMS, writes:
--snip--
> "Maximum speed" and "ramming speed" pertain ONLY to the kinds of
> ships that operate in viscous environments like AIR or WATER, where
> you achieve a speed where the resistance of the medium equals the
> best driving power of your engines.
>
> The last time you did this, we pointed out that if you want people
> who've survived junior high physics to buy this sort of lamebrained
> scenario, the LEAST you could do is just change the line to read
> something like "Maximum acceleration! We're going to RAM!"
>
> Or if you hew to your stated desire for brevity and impact,
>
> "MAX ACCEL! WE'RE RAMMING!"
>
In <777mvr$pni$1...@camel25.mindspring.com> frank_m...@mindspring.com writes:
>
> Gharlane,
>
> Two points...
>
> 1) _Listen_ to the two phrases: "Ramming Speed"
> "Maximum acceleration"
> ( or even "Max Accel! We're Ramming!" )
>
> The first conveys the intent in three succinct syllables.
> The second and third take eight or six.
>
*Shrug* So go for "FULL POWER! RAM!"
And get it down to four syllables, if it matters that much to you.
Not to put too fine a point on it, "RAM!" would get the point
across all by itself, in one syllable......
But it's un-necessary; consider the volubility of JMS' characters
in most scenes, specifically including tension-fraught combat
situations, and you'll see that despite his assertions concerning
the desirability of brevity, he's more than willing to over-write
dialog.
In <777mvr$pni$1...@camel25.mindspring.com> frank_m...@mindspring.com writes:
>
> 2) Yes, the term "speed" is technically incorrect. However,
> _I_ would not like to bet large sums of money that the phrase
> "speed" won't be commonly used in an admittedly sloppy fashion
> two-and-a-half centuries from now to describe what everyone will
> really know is "accelleration".
>
Speak for yourself; since the differentiation between "speed" and
"acceleration" ( note spelling ) will be of critical importance to
the members of the space navy whose lives depend on being able to
pass information quickly and accurately by possessing and USING a
vocabulary with some correlation to reality, I would be delighted
to take your bet, at ten-to-one odds, any time you find a way to
verify future vocabulary to your own satisfaction, in a fashion
acceptable to the rest of us.
In <777mvr$pni$1...@camel25.mindspring.com> frank_m...@mindspring.com writes:
>
> I mean, it's not like anyone's using
> "furlongs per fortnight" _these_ days... (;-)
>
Again, speak for yourself. The speed of light in the Potrzebie System
has been clearly defined as 1.802618+ x 10^12 Furlongs Per Fortnight
since we did the C.I.T. extension of Knuth's original Potrzebie article,
about thirty years back. Note that that the standard reference in this
area, Knuth's article, "THE POTRZEBIE SYSTEM OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES,"
published some forty years agone, is still consulted on a daily basis by
scientists, techneers, and researchers, world-wide.
In <777mvr$pni$1...@camel25.mindspring.com> frank_m...@mindspring.com writes:
>
> The term apparently jars you, and I suspect it does so on others.
> It is "technically incorrect" in 1999-usage. But since when has
> that ever stopped people from _using_ a phrase? Or JMS "quoting"
> their use of it?
>
WRONG.
The rather major point you miss here is that, while language changes
over time, we are NOT seeing the characters speaking anything like
1999 Standard English. The writer TRANSLATES 2260-decade language into
OUR language for script purposes, in the same way that he translates
Narn and Centauri. It is the responsibility of the writer to USE
STANDARD LANGUAGE AND CONCEPT in his explication of his story, and
this most specifically includes translation of context and words into
CURRENTLY CORRECT AND APPREHENSIBLE ENGLISH.
Obviously, a few imported words like "spoo," contextually defined,
or alien words explained in the script, are eminently permissible
and appropriate.
But using XXth-century terminology incorrectly, due to clearly
demonstrated ignorance of concept, is *NOT*. Every time JMS
explains that he's done something dumb because he thinks it's right,
and hasn't taken the trouble to check it with someone who *IS*
competent, he's culpable on charges of insufficient respect to his
profession.
I say it again, and re-iterate the point; JMS needs a technical advisor.
If he'd responded to comments on the subject of his stupid "Ramming speed!"
line with an honest, open-minded "OOPS! Sorry about that!" it would hardly
have detracted from our respect for him and his work, and given hope for
better work in the future; but since this is *NOT* the first time he's
used that particular crippled concept, or defended it while blatantly
demonstrating near-total ignorance of the material involved, what we are
dealing with here is JMS' habitual refusal to learn or understand anything
of a technical, mathematical, or politically-non-JMS nature, and thereby
improve the quality of his work; it is this attitude, and behavior pattern,
that I decry.
And by the way, I liked the movie a heckuvva lot, even with the multiple
dis-services he did the new "thief" character.
( I'm reserving comments on the music until I've had time to think
about it. )
Spooky
>felici...@kluge.net wrote:
>>
>> Frank McKenney <frank_m...@mindspring.com> once typed out:
>> # "Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that, if
>> # any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
>>
>> it also (imho) conveys the message "route all available power to the engines,
>> including life support".
>
>...not to mention disabling all those silly governmentally-mandated
>safety overrides that would automagically veer the ship away at the last
>possible moment... -JW
>
>From what I've seen of Earth Force Fleet battle tactics, I would
assume that Ramming *is* a standard tactic for EA ships... How else
would you explain that Hammerhead configuration on the front of the
newer Warships?
--Brigand Spooky... Trying to raise his post-count <G>
ICQ# is 23064333
2306...@pager.mirabilis.com
--"Hell, pretty soon we`re gonna need a hall pass to use the head! I`m gonna go down to the lounge and get myself a libation, you wanna come?"
"Sure"
"Oh, wait-wait-wait, I`m gonna have to meet you there, I have to stop by Eisen's cabin to talk o him, I guess he just wanted to say Ouruvwa to his best pilot"
"Fine, but any bio-convergence chemists on their own are mine!"
--Maj. Todd Marshall and Col. Chris Blair
Come see me on the web and shop at my Amazon.com bookstore!
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/makeup/3619/index.html -- UPDATED 12/12/98!!
Craig Powers
> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at top
> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would not be
> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
> capability.
>
I thought I heard that it was damaged, which might have been why they
went for the ram instead of shooting.
--
Craig Powers NU ChE class of '98
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu http://lynx.neu.edu/home/httpd/c/cpowers
eni...@hal-pc.org http://www.hal-pc.org/~enigma
"Good..bad....I'm the guy with the gun." -- "Ash" in *Army of Darkness*
Gary Farber
: Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at top
: speed
How woud it be possible for them to be at a "top speed"?
: and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage.
I thought that would be logical as well.
: It would not be
: all that likely to divert them at that speed
"Likely"? How is it even conceivable? (Does the weapon give more thrust
than the drive?)
: or impede their damage capability.
There's an understatement.
Gary Farber
<ser...@netropolis.net> wrote:
: David Stinson wrote:
:> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at top
:> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would not be
:> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
:> capability.
:>
: How would firing it on the way cause extra damage?
Uh, how does the weapon cause damage, period? Clue: the same way.
: Strong is the man who can fart without distorting his inner strength.
Cronan
>: and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage.
>
>I thought that would be logical as well.
Would have been more logical to fire the weapon and not ram the damn thing
until they were sure they'd have to. Now that would have been logical. But
then The Black Guy wouldn't have died. Oh well.
>: It would not be
>: all that likely to divert them at that speed
>
>"Likely"? How is it even conceivable? (Does the weapon give more thrust
>than the drive?)
Why not? With all the other silliness it'd be at least as plausible.
>: or impede their damage capability.
>
>There's an understatement.
David's specialty.
ali...@aol.com
>
> Gary Farber wrote
> >: and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage.
> >
> >I thought that would be logical as well.
>
> Would have been more logical to fire the weapon and not ram the damn thing
> until they were sure they'd have to. Now that would have been logical. But
> then The Black Guy wouldn't have died. Oh well.
That was no Black Guy..... that was Worf's brother Kern. Also seen as
Jake Sisco as an adult in DSN. I like everything he does. Poor guy,
keeps getting killed off, or brain wiped as Worf's brother. No wonder
Klingons are so grumpy.
I may be wrong, but none of their weapons were getting though the
defenses. Darn dem Drahk and their stolen shadow science.
Martin Hardgrave
<jean...@aol.com> writes
>There is also the fact that there are clouds of gasses and dust debris floating
>in space. Sometimes they are attracted to a gravity mass.
>
>Between star systems they have detected large dark masses of ice like
>materials....(they know frozen..but frozen what?) A ship travelling at a high
>speed could have trouble if it hit such a large mass. Travelling at high
>speed if it run into even a cloud of small particles...there could be severe
>damage.
>
>Traveling at high speed if it runs into a cloud of gas ?
>
Clouds of gasses which look impressive on astro-photos, but which are
better vacuums than anything made by man.
--
Martin Hardgrave
Sergey Bukhman
Gary Farber wrote:
> In <3697FDA9...@netropolis.net> Sergey Bukhman
> <ser...@netropolis.net> wrote:
> : David Stinson wrote:
>
> :> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at top
> :> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would not be
> :> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
> :> capability.
> :>
>
> : How would firing it on the way cause extra damage?
>
> Uh, how does the weapon cause damage, period? Clue: the same way.
>
I don't know how the BFG works, but I have seen no evidence that firing it while in
motion towards the target would in any way increase it's effectiveness.
--
Sergey
------
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated Sergey Bukhman
<ser...@netropolis.net>wrote:
>
>
>Gary Farber wrote:
>
>> In <3697FDA9...@netropolis.net> Sergey Bukhman
>> <ser...@netropolis.net> wrote:
>> : David Stinson wrote:
>>
>> :> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at top
>> :> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would not be
>> :> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
>> :> capability.
>> :>
>>
>> : How would firing it on the way cause extra damage?
>>
>> Uh, how does the weapon cause damage, period? Clue: the same way.
>>
>
>I don't know how the BFG works, but I have seen no evidence that firing it while in
>motion towards the target would in any way increase it's effectiveness.
Two scenarios:
1) You ram a ship causing damage
2) You fire a weapon at a ship damaging it then finish it
off with a ram.
2 is more effective than 1. That's what David wrote.
How can that possibly be difficult to understand?
--
"Trust the franchise. The franchise is your friend."
anon 1997
Brian Watson
> There is also the fact that there are clouds of gasses and dust debris floating
> in space. Sometimes they are attracted to a gravity mass.
>
> Between star systems they have detected large dark masses of ice like
> materials....(they know frozen..but frozen what?) A ship travelling at a high
> speed could have trouble if it hit such a large mass. Travelling at high
> speed if it run into even a cloud of small particles...there could be severe
> damage.
You're missing a big point right here. No one in their right mind would travel
between star systems in normal space. It'd take decades to get anywhere!
Instead, that's the entire reason behind the use of the 'hyperspace' rule to get
around that so any kind of space opera can be told, or in the case of Star Drek,
the warp engine. It'd be pretty boring if you went through entire generations of
characters in the span of going back and forth between a few star systems.
Brian Watson
> On 10 Jan 1999 12:14:13 -0700, in
> rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated Sergey Bukhman
> <ser...@netropolis.net>wrote:
> >Gary Farber wrote:
> >> In <3697FDA9...@netropolis.net> Sergey Bukhman
> >> <ser...@netropolis.net> wrote:
> >> : David Stinson wrote:
> >> :> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at top
> >> :> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would not be
> >> :> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
> >> :> capability.
> >> : How would firing it on the way cause extra damage?
> >> Uh, how does the weapon cause damage, period? Clue: the same way.
> >I don't know how the BFG works, but I have seen no evidence that firing it while in
> >motion towards the target would in any way increase it's effectiveness.
>
> Two scenarios:
> 1) You ram a ship causing damage
> 2) You fire a weapon at a ship damaging it then finish it
> ff with a ram.
> 2 is more effective than 1. That's what David wrote.
> How can that possibly be difficult to understand?
I imagine they didn't do it because if they had to use all their energy to fire the main
gun, then they wouldn't have energy to keep pumping into the engines to accelerate.
Having lost six or seven seconds of acceleration would probably have seriously reduced
the force of impact of the Victory as it rammed the superstructure.
Wayne Throop
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
: "Laura M. Appelbaum" <l-app...@mindspring.com>
: And if jms remembered how he had Sinclair word this ("prepare for
: full-velocity ram") he could have avoided all of the nitpickers on
: this point! ;D
Well, most of them. But even so, there's no such thing as "full
velocity" in this context[1], any more than there is "full speed" or
"ramming speed". Sinclair would better have said "prepare for full
power ram" or "prepare for ram at full thrust" or "execute full-power
ram" or some related phrase. [2]
Note: Sinclair *was* talking to a computer, and the "ramming speed"
examples to human crews, so you might expect Sinclair to be a bit more
precise. And so it was... but not precise enough to avoid nit-dom
entirely!!!
:-)
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
[1] About "full velocity".
Taken literally, if this meant that the ram should occur at the
highest terminal velocity possible, the starfury would move AWAY from
the target, since the terminal velocity is practically limited only by
how long the engines can burn, and we know they can burn for LONG
periods of time with VERY large delta-v.
The point is, just "backing up" and getting a good run at it, you
can get as large a velociy as you want, for all practical porpoises.
One might claim "full velocity" means "best velocity on the least
time-consuming trajectory", but then, that's far better captured by
saying "ram at full thrust" instead of "ram at full velocity".
As explained in other posts, the conflation of "speed" and "thrust"
does exist in "wet navies", or wet-ships in general. This is
because a given thrust implies a speed when you are subject to drag.
But in spaceships, the two concepts are functionally distinct, and
both are necessary, and for that reason it's implausible that they
would be conflated.
[2] Even "RAMMING THRUST!". Though that would be suboptimal because of
the ambiguity involved, especially as a computer command, but ambiguous
even to a crew, since the origin of "engine" vs "helm" commands being
separate would imply a corresponding trajectory or steering command
"should" also be given.
Several people have mentioned they want a short, three-sylaboble
version instead of "maximum acceleration" or other verbose possibilities.
"Ramming speed!" is more dramatic, you see.
So? Here are two 3-sylabobble ways to improve on "ramming speed"
"ramming thrust", "full thrust ram", "ram that thing".
And here is a 2-sylabobble way to improve ont it: "ram it", "we ram".
There's no need to sacrifice anything at all to be a bit more
correct; there are single-sylabobble replacements for "speed".
Spooky
<l-app...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> "Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that, if
>> any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
>>
>And if jms remembered how he had Sinclair word this ("prepare for
>full-velocity ram") he could have avoided all of the nitpickers on this
>point! ;D
>
That's one of my favorite lines:
"No, not now, not like this! Prepare for Full-Velocity Ram!!
Afterburners on my mark... MARK!!!"
>LMA
>
--Brigand Spooky... Trying to raise his post-count <G>
ICQ# is 23064333
2306...@pager.mirabilis.com
--"This is how the world ends, swallowed in fire, but not in darkness."
--J. Michael Straczynski, "Deconstruction of Falling Stars"
Laura M. Appelbaum
>
> In <775f3l$mc...@biko.cc.rochester.edu> Tom Thatcher
> <tt...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
> [. . .]
>
> : After all, navy vessels still "Set sail," submarines are "boats,"
> : ships in spacedock "cast off moorings," spaceships have "decks"
> : and "bridges"...
>
> Still, "maximum speed" and "maximum acceleration" mean two differing
> things; one wonders why JMS uses the former term in his explanations.
> Surely he understands that there is no such thing as a "maximum speed"
> for a space ship?
Sure there is, Gary; ever hear of a little thing called "the speed of
light?" I would have thought a pedant like yourself would have been the
first to note that.
LMA
(186,000 miles per second -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law!)
Wayne Throop
: 2 things: 1. Space is not a perfect vacuum.
But it is near enough perfect that it takes hours at tens of
gravities acceleration to reach a speed that's unsafe on account of the
imperfection of the local almost-vacuum.
If "ramming speed" really meant some limit to do with the
imperfections of the vacuum, the order would have to be given
hours ahead of time[1], and the closing speed would be so high that
no human eye could pick out ether ship from the other.
In short, the depiction still sucks.
: 2. Spacecraft can reach a max speed depending on maaaximum drive
: output compared to the vessel's mass and Mass of nearby objects.
: Gravity can slow an object down.
They do? Gee, I guess Newton and all them
observational astronomers were all wrong.
Has the Nobel committee been told about this?
Hint: all the objects portrayed were freefalling.
In their rest frames[2], there are no such limits, even if there are
planets nearby and so on. Gravity can "slow an object down" (or speed
it up) in the system barycenter rest frame. But that's not what was
portrayed, as is trivially obvious (they'd have had to use actual
orbital dynamics, and they've NEVER done that!). And to cap it off, all
the spacecraft involved were portrayed as having enough thrust to exceed
any gravitational effect from any nearby objects, and more.
In short, the depiction still sucks.
On the other hand, (bluntly speaking, and I apologize in advance
at any offense) the original "ramming speed" phrase, while very grating,
isn't nearly as annoying as all the bogus excuses defending it.
YMMV.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
[1] Using VERY conservative estimates, 10g, 100km/sec limit,
it's still a kilosecond from the near standing start portrayed.
The limit is actually larger;
that's the smallest even vaguely supportable case.
[2] A rest frame is a bit of jargon, meaning that distances, times,
and velocities are all measured relative to a given object;
Eg, "earth's rest frame" would normally mean at distances and
such are taken relative to the center of the earth; a spaceship
under thrust has a "rest frame" also (but it's not inertial,
which is another big of jargon).
The point of my sprinkling "rest frame" at various points
in the above is to try to make it a bit less ambiguous just
what physical measurements of "velocity" and "distance" are
being discussed in terms of a "maximum speed", and so on.
James Bell
<3698FBCD...@netropolis.net>...
>
>
> Gary Farber wrote:
>
> > In <3697FDA9...@netropolis.net> Sergey Bukhman
> > <ser...@netropolis.net> wrote:
> > : David Stinson wrote:
> >
> > :> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of
being at top
> > :> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It
would not be
> > :> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
> > :> capability.
> > :>
> >
> > : How would firing it on the way cause extra damage?
> >
> > Uh, how does the weapon cause damage, period? Clue: the same way.
> >
>
> I don't know how the BFG works, but I have seen no evidence that firing
it while in
> motion towards the target would in any way increase it's effectiveness.
>
> Sergey
Here's a little known rule of thumb: Weapons are *ALWAYS* more effective
when fired than when idle.
Naturally firing the weapon will cause more damage than not firing it.
Perhaps you misunderstood the original post?
Jim
Wayne Throop
: The problem with this attitude, as we've been at some little pains to
: explain to you in the past, despite the fact that you obviouly either
: didn't listen or didn't understand, is that speaking of a "top speed,"
: or a "maximum speed" in reference to a spacecraft, is incredibly
: thick-headed and ignorant. IT IS INCORRECT.
: THERE IS NO FRICTIONAL MEDIUM AROUND THE SHIP RETARDING ITS MOTION.
: It's in a free-fall vacuum environment, and for a fixed acceleration,
: the SPEED CONTINUES TO INCREASE.
Well "for a fixed (nonzero) acceleration the speed continues to increase
(in the original rest frame)" is pretty much tautologous. I suspect
Gharlane really meant to point out that for a fixed THRUST, you'll get a
nonzero acceleration and increasing speed indefinitely. (There are some
speed limits, but B5 hasn't come anywhere near any of them.)
: "Maximum speed" and "ramming speed" pertain ONLY to the kinds of ships
: that operate in viscous environments like AIR or WATER, where you
: achieve a speed where the resistance of the medium equals the best
: driving power of your engines.
Exactly.
: Or if you hew to your stated desire for brevity and impact,
:
: "MAX ACCEL! WE'RE RAMMING!"
"Engine room! Max Accel!" "Feeding reactant at D-9 rate!!"
Or if you really mean "brevity is your friend", and want
a sharp impact, you can't do much better than "Ram it!".
"Ramming speed" for the same thing is remarkably inferior,
and so people tend to remark upon it.
David Stinson
Sergey Bukhman <ser...@netropolis.net> wrote:
:
:
:Gary Farber wrote:
:
:> In <3697FDA9...@netropolis.net> Sergey Bukhman
:> <ser...@netropolis.net> wrote:
:> : David Stinson wrote:
:>
:> :> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at
top
:> :> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would
not be
:> :> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
:> :> capability.
:> :>
:>
:> : How would firing it on the way cause extra damage?
:>
:> Uh, how does the weapon cause damage, period? Clue: the same way.
:>
:
:I don't know how the BFG works, but I have seen no evidence that firing it
while in
:motion towards the target would in any way increase it's effectiveness.
No but the ship hitting that which has just been hit by the weapon is bound to
do a lot more damage as well. I mean, you're going to die either way...
Daniel
Gary Farber wrote:
> In <7770v3$4su$1...@winter.news.rcn.net> Kurtz <mal...@erols.com> wrote:
> [. . .]
>
> : The other is, for reasons I accept, space battle that is
> : *totally* accurate, is, well, boring. No sound at all except for
> : radio chatter. No visible signs of beam weapons. And so
> : forth. I mean, I initially really liked the fact that fighters in B5 at
> : least
> : seem to fight like they might in space, but most of the time, they
> : really just fly like airplanes. I know it's not real, but it just seems
> : more visually appealing.
>
> "More visually appealing" that doesn't make any sense still doesn't make
> any sense. Deliberately portraying things that make no sense is Bad.
Actually, it might make a lot of sense for energy beams in space to be
colored. I recall hearing that big guns mounted on aircraft sometimes use
"tracer rounds..." Every so many rounds in an ammo belt (or whatever) is set
to illuminate brightly, so that when you hold the trigger down you see the
trail of bullets as a stream of light. This helps you aim.
Granted, combat in space is another matter entirely since it can easily take
place at distances where aiming by sight is impossible. But how much extra
trouble can it be to enable beam weapon to fire visable beams of light just
for those special cases? I can seen it being under the control of the pilot
(you probably wouldn't always want the beam to be visible), but why not have
the option?
-IdentityCrisis
Scott Johnson
: Question: Why not open a jumpgate up in the middle of the planet
: to shreds!
They probably can only open a jumpgate fairly close to the ship. By the
time they got that close they had probably taken so much damage that there
was no way they could have done it. About the only thing they could count
on was the momentum of the ship to carry it into the thing after all the
onboard systems had been burned out or destroyed.
Cheers,
--
Scott Johnson sco...@eecs.umich.edu
Dept. of EECS, Univ. of Michigan http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~scottdj
and Merit Network, Inc. (734) 763-5363
Finger for PGP public key.
Sergey Bukhman
David Stinson wrote:
> In article <3698FBCD...@netropolis.net>,
> Sergey Bukhman <ser...@netropolis.net> wrote:
> :
> :
> :Gary Farber wrote:
> :
> :> In <3697FDA9...@netropolis.net> Sergey Bukhman
> :> <ser...@netropolis.net> wrote:
> :> : David Stinson wrote:
> :>
> :> :> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at
> top
> :> :> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would
> not be
> :> :> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
> :> :> capability.
> :> :>
> :>
> :> : How would firing it on the way cause extra damage?
> :>
> :> Uh, how does the weapon cause damage, period? Clue: the same way.
> :>
> :
> :I don't know how the BFG works, but I have seen no evidence that firing it
> while in
> :motion towards the target would in any way increase it's effectiveness.
> :
>
> No but the ship hitting that which has just been hit by the weapon is bound to
> do a lot more damage as well. I mean, you're going to die either way...
>
But if they hit it with the BFG, why ram it?
>
> --
> David A. Stinson Web Page: http://www.procom.com/~daves/index.html
> E-Mail: dsti...@ix.netcomz.com da...@procomz.com dast...@aolz.com
> * NO ELECTRONS WERE HARMED DURING PRODUCTION OF THIS MESSAGE *
> REMOVE Z FROM ADDRESS IN POST TO EMAIL.
--
Gharlane of Eddore
have been a posting malf at *this* end, at approx 9:44 PM 9 Jan, PST,
so there may or may not be a prior copy of this already in the queue. ]
In <776oos$n...@news.csus.edu>, ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu
(Gharlane of Eddore), addressing JMS, writes:
--snip--
> "Maximum speed" and "ramming speed" pertain ONLY to the kinds of
> ships that operate in viscous environments like AIR or WATER, where
> you achieve a speed where the resistance of the medium equals the
> best driving power of your engines.
>
> The last time you did this, we pointed out that if you want people
> who've survived junior high physics to buy this sort of lamebrained
> scenario, the LEAST you could do is just change the line to read
> something like "Maximum acceleration! We're going to RAM!"
>
> Or if you hew to your stated desire for brevity and impact,
>
> "MAX ACCEL! WE'RE RAMMING!"
>
In <777mvr$pni$1...@camel25.mindspring.com> frank_m...@mindspring.com writes:
Frank McKenney
>WWS (wsch...@tyler.net) wrote:
>: Question: Why not open a jumpgate up in the middle of the planet
>: killer??? A small jumpgate in a big planet killer should rip it
>: to shreds!
>
>They probably can only open a jumpgate fairly close to the ship. By the
>time they got that close they had probably taken so much damage that there
>was no way they could have done it. About the only thing they could count
>on was the momentum of the ship to carry it into the thing after all the
>onboard systems had been burned out or destroyed.
Ah! A new approach! (?)
What would have happened if one of the two ships had opened a jump ooint
just _ahead_ of the "planet killer"? Would it have been possible to do
this in such a way that the weapon was sucked into hyperspace... and
thus diverted from Earth?
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates / OS2BBS OS/2 Advisor
Richmond, Virginia (804) 320-4887
Internet: frank_m...@mindspring.com / TalkLink: WZ01123
Sergey Bukhman
sgwm wrote:
> On 10 Jan 1999 12:14:13 -0700, in
> rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated Sergey Bukhman
> <ser...@netropolis.net>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Gary Farber wrote:
> >
> >> In <3697FDA9...@netropolis.net> Sergey Bukhman
> >> <ser...@netropolis.net> wrote:
> >> : David Stinson wrote:
> >>
> >> :> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at top
> >> :> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would not be
> >> :> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
> >> :> capability.
> >> :>
> >>
> >> : How would firing it on the way cause extra damage?
> >>
> >> Uh, how does the weapon cause damage, period? Clue: the same way.
> >>
> >
> >I don't know how the BFG works, but I have seen no evidence that firing it while in
> >motion towards the target would in any way increase it's effectiveness.
>
> Two scenarios:
>
> 1) You ram a ship causing damage
>
> 2) You fire a weapon at a ship damaging it then finish it
> off with a ram.
>
I agree with this. But that is not what he said. As you are a lover of clarity of
expression, please tell me where in the following statement ramming is implied in
addition to the firing:
>> :> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at top
>> :> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would not be
>> :> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
>> :> capability.
>
> 2 is more effective than 1. That's what David wrote.
No that is not what he wrote. And it is not even implied, because we know that a single
hit from the BFG would destroy whatever they wanted to destroy. Then the ramming would
be unnecessary.
>
> How can that possibly be difficult to understand?
>
Didn't you *plonk* me?
I feel cheated and used...
>
> --
> "Trust the franchise. The franchise is your friend."
>
> anon 1997
--
Chris Campbell
This just sparked a thought, actually; I wonder if such things as
full-velocity rams and "ramming speed" are actually naval standards in
Earthforce? Ramming speed might in fact be a constant, even though that's
inconsistent with past use of the term.
--
Oh my God! They've killed Kosh! You bastards!
Chris Campbell Sank...@ix.netcom.com
Thomas Yan
>>
>> Still, "maximum speed" and "maximum acceleration" mean two differing
>> things; one wonders why JMS uses the former term in his explanations.
>> Surely he understands that there is no such thing as a "maximum speed"
>> for a space ship?
>
>Sure there is, Gary; ever hear of a little thing called "the speed of
sorry, but my nerd hat is making me nitpick:
"the maximum" is a technical term, meaning "the largest *attainable*".
(note: when it exists, it is unique.)
this is not the same as "an upper bound",
meaning "at least as big as anything attainable";
(note: upper bounds do not have to be unique.)
to be really picky, there is also "the infimum",
meaning "the smallest possible upper bound";
(note: when it exists, it is unique.)
to see the difference among all these,
consider the infinite sequence .1, .11, .111, .1111, .11111, ...
+ there is no maximum since
there is no *largest* (attainable) number in the sequence:
for every number in the sequence, there is a larger one.
+ the infimum is 1/9
+ 10 is an upper bound, as is 186000.
- tky
p.s. i think that a space ship, starting at rest, has a maximum speed:
accelerate until all the fuel is gone. voila -- max speed.
--
Thomas Yan <ty...@cs.cornell.edu> I don't speak for Cornell.
Computer Science Department \\ Cornell University \\ Ithaca, NY 14853
WWS
ali...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Cronan wrote:
> >
> > Gary Farber wrote
(spoiler space, beneath and below)
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
l
m
n
o
p
q
r
s
t
u
v
w
x
y
z
The main gun on "Victory" (TT's ship) was destroyed just prior to the
attack - the comment went by quickly in dialogue, where it was referred
to as "rear main guns are destroyed". Should have been emphasized a
little more, since so many people missed the comment, and the reason
for the ram.
I winced a little when Excalibur's wave motion gun missed by .6 degrees.
How does a total destruction weapon "miss"? I think it would have been
more plausible if a body of Drakh ships had gotten in the way and
physically blocked the beam, at the cost of their ships. Then Victory
could have accelerated through the gap.
Still should have opened a jumpgate in the middle of the thing.
--
<*>
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Wayne Throop
:: Still, "maximum speed" and "maximum acceleration" mean two differing
:: things; one wonders why JMS uses the former term in his explanations.
:: Surely he understands that there is no such thing as a "maximum
:: speed" for a space ship?
: "Laura M. Appelbaum" <l-app...@mindspring.com>
: Sure there is, Gary; ever hear of a little thing called "the speed of
: light?" I would have thought a pedant like yourself would have been
: the first to note that.
:
: LMA (186,000 miles per second -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law!)
Well... no; or rather "not relevant". For three reasons.
Reason 1: JMS said his universe is practically newtonian;
no situation portrayed would involve significant relativistic effects.
( Hmmmm... anybody have the quote on that to hand; All I could
find was http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/find/Answers/answ181.html
"Actually, I'd argue that there's a difference between FTL travel,
and removing oneself from the standard reference by entering
hyperspace.", but I recall a statement much stronger about
this issue... am I misremembering? )
Reason 2: The actual situations where maximum or "ramming" speeds
are mentioned involve timescales far too short to accelerate
even to so much as a thousandth of lightspeed with the portrayed
ship capabilities. Even a sprint missile at 1000g would take
a large chunk of a day to approach lightspeed.
Reason 3. A smallish terminological nit, but since lightspeed is
approached asymptotically, there's STILL no "maximum speed" a ship can
have. No ship can have lightspeed, and any speed a ship CAN have has an
infinite selection of speeds higher still (but still less than lightspeed).
Considered as a limit, you never get any closer to "lightspeed" than you
were when you started accelerating; to see this, consider that the
principle of relativity says that at the END of any period of
acceleration, you have a perfectly legitimate frame of rest; you might
just as easily have DEcelerated from your *previous* ghastly-high
velocity to come to rest; there's no physical way to tell.
pick a little pick a little pick a little pick a little
nit! nit! nit! pick a lot pick a little more
John Bayko
Laura M. Appelbaum <l-app...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Gary Farber wrote:
>> Still, "maximum speed" and "maximum acceleration" mean two differing
>> things; one wonders why JMS uses the former term in his explanations.
>> Surely he understands that there is no such thing as a "maximum speed"
>> for a space ship?
>
>light?" I would have thought a pedant like yourself would have been the
>first to note that.
>
>LMA
>(186,000 miles per second -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law!)
Except you can't ever reach it because of fancy reletavity effects,
so you just keep accellerating closer and closer to it, never reaching
a maximum speed[1].
[1] Actually well before that, you will reach a point at which your
forward motion is equal to the rearward motion of your thrust (it
would come out of the engine nozzle and just sit there in dead space),
which makes it essentially negligable[2]. That would be your maximum
speed in a vacuum.
[2] "Negligable" does not mean "zero", but this problem starts getting
into "frames of reference" which I'm not familiar with - will there
still be forward acceleration at this point? I suspect so, but
clarification is appreciated.
--
John Bayko (Tau).
ba...@cs.uregina.ca
http://www.cs.uregina.ca/~bayko
Wayne Throop
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
: Sergey Bukhman <ser...@netropolis.net>
: [] we know that a single hit from the BFG would destroy whatever they
: wanted to destroy. Then the ramming would be unnecessary.
We do? How do we know that? What about the scenario as
portrayed in CtA, where the BFG is fired, but it only takes
out the covering forces, and the ram takes out the target?
That could have been done with one ship, except for
the extensive dammage to the Victory.
If your target has been hardened enouth (but not too much)
then the scenario as explained makes perfect sense. You blow away
the ablation sheilding with the BFG, and smack into the rest to
take out the bunker, make the gravel bounce, and so on.
However, note the phrasing:
:::: Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of
:::: being at top speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra
:::: damage. It would not be all that likely to divert them at that
:::: speed or impede their damage capability.
Since there's no such thing as "top speed" in this context,
the scenario as outlined is extremely unrealistic, requiring it
to be impossible to deliver more KE in the ram from a longer period
of thrust. It could still turn out to be better to use BFG+ram
instead of ram-alone. But if you fire from a distance to disperse
mobile cover along your path, that'll cost you all the KE you would
have gained during the Forbidden Minute of Unfortunate Brownout.
So. If you can wait until the very last 5-10 seconds,
then fire them guns, and keep the ship a-coming.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
In twenty-two sixty we took a little trip
Along with Captain Johnny and our allies every ship.
We took along Brakiri, and we took along the Vreen
We wanted the Centauri, but they didn't seem so keen.
We fired our guns and the Vorlon kept a-coming.
But there wasn't quite as many as there was awhile ago.
We fired once more, and they knew we wasn't funning,
The Shadows and the Vorlons left us room so we could grow.
Sergey Bukhman
James Bell wrote:
> Sergey Bukhman <ser...@netropolis.net> wrote in article
> <3698FBCD...@netropolis.net>...
> >
> >
> > Gary Farber wrote:
> >
> > > In <3697FDA9...@netropolis.net> Sergey Bukhman
> > > <ser...@netropolis.net> wrote:
> > > : David Stinson wrote:
> > >
> > > :> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of
> being at top
> > > :> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It
> would not be
> > > :> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
> > > :> capability.
> > > :>
> > >
> > > : How would firing it on the way cause extra damage?
> > >
> > > Uh, how does the weapon cause damage, period? Clue: the same way.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know how the BFG works, but I have seen no evidence that firing
> it while in
> > motion towards the target would in any way increase it's effectiveness.
> >
> > --
> > Sergey
>
> Here's a little known rule of thumb: Weapons are *ALWAYS* more effective
> when fired than when idle.
>
Thank you for making that clear.
>
> Naturally firing the weapon will cause more damage than not firing it.
> Perhaps you misunderstood the original post?
> > :> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of
being at top
> > :> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It
They way my underdeveloped mind understands the above is that firing the
weapon while in motion will somehow cause extra damage. I questioned that
assumption.
Please, oh mighty one, enlighten me.
>
> Jim
John Bayko
Brian Watson <ke...@cris.com> wrote:
>sgwm wrote:
[...]
>> Two scenarios:
>> 1) You ram a ship causing damage
>> 2) You fire a weapon at a ship damaging it then finish it
>> 2 is more effective than 1. That's what David wrote.
>
> to fire the main
>gun, then they wouldn't have energy to keep pumping into the engines to
> accelerate.
>Having lost six or seven seconds of acceleration would probably have se
>riously reduced
>the force of impact of the Victory as it rammed the superstructure.
I see, you're falling for the "Star Trek" concept of "energy",
where you could theoretically run the Space Shuttle's engines off of
batteries.
In the real world, of course, you will not get better gas milage
if you turn off your car radio, and conversely your lights don't dim
when you turn on a gas stove.
Chris Campbell
<772e8r$n7o$1...@camel18.mindspring.com>
<3695c78c...@news.concentric.net> <776oos$n...@news.csus.edu>
>: "Bill" <Rufi...@hotmail.com>
>: 2 things: 1. Space is not a perfect vacuum.
>
>But it is near enough perfect that it takes hours at tens of
>gravities acceleration to reach a speed that's unsafe on account of the
>imperfection of the local almost-vacuum.
Or a Bergenholm drive, which of course doesn't exist in B5.
>On the other hand, (bluntly speaking, and I apologize in advance
>at any offense) the original "ramming speed" phrase, while very grating,
>isn't nearly as annoying as all the bogus excuses defending it.
I still don't see what was wrong with something like "Maximum acceleration!
Prepare to ram!" I mean, the crew has to be clued in about that stuff anyway,
and there's nothing ponderous about phrasing it this way.
Chris Campbell
>> <tt...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>> [. . .]
>>
>> : After all, navy vessels still "Set sail," submarines are "boats,"
>> : ships in spacedock "cast off moorings," spaceships have "decks"
>> : and "bridges"...
>>
>> things; one wonders why JMS uses the former term in his explanations.
>> Surely he understands that there is no such thing as a "maximum speed"
>> for a space ship?
>
>Sure there is, Gary; ever hear of a little thing called "the speed of
>light?" I would have thought a pedant like yourself would have been the
>first to note that.
Yeah, but no one in B5 in normal space is coming even close to it. The medium
has no limits.
Wayne Throop
: I've written more than I care to - I just wanted to say that sometimes,
: realism *isn't* what you want. You just want to be entertained.
Right. And the phrase "ramming speed" in that context
was jarring and incongruous, and therefore impaired my entertainment.
Schadenfreude
Gharlane of Eddore <ghar...@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote:
>
>It's in a free-fall vacuum environment, and for a fixed acceleration,
>the SPEED CONTINUES TO INCREASE.
Gah! There are plenty of less defensible science nits people could be
making; I fail to see why everyone keeps hammering this one.
At least three reasonable explanations:
1) As someone recently suggested, language drift. There are plenty of
phrases today that don't mean exactly what they would seem to if you just
put together the meanings of the separate words; we call them "idioms".
It would be unsurprising if the idiom of space travel drew heavily from
the idiom of some mode of travel where "ramming speed" more strictly made
sense.
2) Yes, in an open-ended situation, there is no theoretical maximum speed
you can reach in an environment without resistance (disregarding, for the
moment, relativistic effects and speeds). However, as a practical matter,
you have some certain distance between you and the object you wish to ram.
Over that distance, you only have so much time to apply your maximum
acceleration, and the speed you can attain in that time is perforce
limited. "Ramming speed" is a succinct way of saying "as fast as we damn
well can between here and that thing" with the additional connotations of
"no turning back" and "we're all going to die".
3) The Babylon 5 universe is a *fictional* one, its primary purpose to
entertain, not to be completely scientifically accurate. None of the
alternatives that you suggest (or that I've heard anyone suggest) carry
nearly the emotional power and drama of "Ramming speed!" I would imagine
that the few people for whom the scene was "ruined" are dwarfed by the
portion of the audience that found it perfectly acceptable, and probably
more interesting than the alternative. If anyone can come up with an
alternative that *does* match "ramming speed" in drama and power *to the
average B5 viewer*, I'll gladly withdraw this point, but I haven't heard
one yet.
>> Seems to me it additionally conveys a message to the crew that
>> they're all gonna die. As Humpty Dumpty would have said, "It's
>> a portmanteau phrase."
>
>Since you're crediting the wrong fictional character with the
>portmanteau word "portmanteau," and since the concepts don't
>pertain in this context, it's by no means anything of the sort;
>and is, if anything, a second-order oxymoron.
While it is somewhat of a misquote, it is certainly the correct character
(Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking-Glass and What
Alice Found There"; there are several copies of it in various locations
online). Besides which, if you intend to criticize the use of
a literary term, you would be well advised to check your own; "oxymoron"
does not pertain here. Maybe you meant "non sequitur"?
-AM
John Bayko
Even near Earth orbit is closer to a vacuum than you can get from
standard industrial or scientific equipment. For all practical
purposes, space is entirely a vacuum.
>2. Spacecraft can reach a max speed depending on maaaximum drive output
>compared to the vessel's mass and Mass of nearby objects. Gravity can slow
>an object down.
Only if there *is* gravity - and it doesn't slow anything down, it
accelerates things, towards the gravitational mass. If something's
heading the other way, it'll slow down for a bit, then start speeding
up. *Really* fast.
Spooky
D. Shocklee) wrote:
>felici...@kluge.net wrote:
>: Frank McKenney <frank_m...@mindspring.com> once typed out:
>: # "Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that, if
>: # any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
>
>: it also (imho) conveys the message "route all available power to the engines,
>: including life support".
>
>It also implies that someone in charge thinks they're moving through
>a resistive medium. In space, there is no maximum speed for a given
>acceleration. "Ramming acceleration" or "ramming thrust" would be
>more appropriate, or even just "Ram the bastards!"
>
>On the other hand, I'm perfectly happy to attribute the anachronism to
>language drift.
Actually, IIRC, according to Newton (Or one of those old guys <G>)
There would be a maximum speed for the ship to achieve with any
thrust, ie: If the exhaust from the Engines is going 100 kps, then the
ship will go no faster than 100 kps in the other direction (Besides,
at 100 kps, if you use EarthForce technology from pre-IA times, that
would leave the crew as a nice, pinkish smear on the rear bulkheads, I
think <G>)
>
>--
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Paul D. Shocklee - physics grad student - Shadow agent |
>|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
>| "Periods of tranquility are seldom prolific of creative achievement. |
>| Mankind has to be stirred up." -- Alfred North Whitehead |
>+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
--Brigand Spooky... Trying to raise his post-count <G>
ICQ# is 23064333
2306...@pager.mirabilis.com
--"Hell, pretty soon we`re gonna need a hall pass to use the head! I`m gonna go down to the lounge and get myself a libation, you wanna come?"
"Sure"
"Oh, wait-wait-wait, I`m gonna have to meet you there, I have to stop by Eisen's cabin to talk o him, I guess he just wanted to say Ouruvwa to his best pilot"
"Fine, but any bio-convergence chemists on their own are mine!"
--Maj. Todd Marshall and Col. Chris Blair
Wayne Throop
: This just sparked a thought, actually; I wonder if such things as
: full-velocity rams and "ramming speed" are actually naval standards in
: Earthforce? Ramming speed might in fact be a constant, even though
: that's inconsistent with past use of the term.
I think this may be the least-implausible hypothesis to explain it.
But being least-implausible doesn't make it plausible, for reasons
I've posted in other messages.
Wayne Throop
: The real limit on how fast a practical ship can go is how much fuel
: and/or reaction mass it can carry (though the newest ships in the B5
: universe seem not to use reaction drives, but Something Else (tm)).
:
: The proper line would something to the effect of
: "Maximum burn; ram that sucker!"
Yes. But the segregation of "burn" and "ram" as two separate
orders is of some interest here. And it's Yet Another Reason why
"ramming speed" seems so dubious.
Now, in Ben Hur's rowing-slave gig IIRC, the order comes down
for "ramming speed", and the rowers row like the wind. What
are they going to ram? They don't need to know; even the
guy drumming cadence doesn't need to know. Up on deck there,
SOMEbody needs to know.
So let's update it a bit and think it through. A captain standing on
the bridge of screw-driven ship. He picks up the intercom, says
"emergency speed ahead"[1], but that's not all; he turns to the helmsman
and states a course to steer, eg: "ram that ship" or maybe even "2
degrees left rudder".
So EVEN IF we excuse use of "speed" (as we did for the wet-ship captain),
the phrase is still implausible, because (even if it's "obvious"), it's
incongruous because it's only part of a whole action. To leave the rest
implied is an incongruity in the context portrayed.
Let me repeat: the phrase isn't all THAT bad, IMO.
It's not totally out of the question that the phrase would come into
use, especially if it's done fairly often, as we see it done fairly
often in B5 (3 times at least). So it's possible to just add a teeny
bit of reinforcement to the hook upon which I suspend my disbelief
while watching B5.
So it's not that big of a nit.
But it's technically incorrect, linguistically implausible in the
context of drag-free operations in space, and anomalous in the context
of separation of targeting (helm) and thrust (engine room) commands.
So it's not that small of a nit, either.
As nits go, of course; they average pretty small, you understand.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
[1] Since the captain most likely means "spin the propellers at
their maximum rate, neglecting some normal safety measures", and
since the "speed" meant would come later as the newly applied
thrust is equalized by increasing drag, one might argue that he
"should" have said "maximum thrust", and that this parallels the
case of "ramming speed" in a spaceship.
But it doesn't, quite.
Remember, in a screw-driven wet-ship, "maximum thrust" fairly
quickly settles down to a maximum speed. The two have a large
extentional overlap in meaning. While in a wet-ship, the concept of
"acceleration" is normally moot, and it boils down to speed and
thrust, and the two always go together.
But in a spaceship, "maximum thrust" does NOT settle down to a
maximum speed in any practical sense. There's effectively no drag
to relate a thrust to a speed. Further, the concept of speed is
important, since the ship must deal with things like closing speed
upon docking, and the velocities of various objects during combat.
Thus, the concept of "speed" "acceleration" and "thrust" are all
important in the context of a spaceship, and it's implausible that
the distinctions would be blurred.
It's that dratted viscous fluid. It's what makes the usage
entirely plausible in the context of a wet-ship, but NOT plausible
in the context of a spaceship in a newtonian world.
Wayne Throop
: _I_ would not like to bet large sums of money that the phrase "speed"
: won't be commonly used in an admittedly sloppy fashion two-and-a-half
: centuries from now to describe what everyone will really know is
: fortnight" _these_ days... (;-)
: is "technically incorrect" in 1999-usage. But since when has that
: ever stopped people from _using_ a phrase? Or JMS "quoting" their use
: of it?
Can't answer for Gharlane, but the problem I still see it is
that there really isn't a plausible way for such a phrase to
develop. For "setting sail" and "decks" and so on, you can see
how the concept drift might occur. But it's IMPORTANT to
keep distinct the concepts of speed, velocity, and acceleration.
I wouldn't bet large sums of money either, but drifting between
two names for the same thing (speed/acceleration) requires that
the concepts overlap.
By "overlap", I mean something like this: "starting the ship moving" and
"setting sail" overlap enough in their extensional meanings that you can
see rationale for the drift. But in discussing newtonian motion, there
is practicallyno extensional overlap between velocity, acceleration, and
speed; they are three very distinct things in practice.
It's still POSSIBLE for an intentional collision manuver from "The Book"
to be named "ramming speed" in the future. But it seems overwhelmingly
implausible. Let's explore that, since the names of manuvers in
"The Book" might be traditional or whimsical references.
First, all the implications people have been loading on the phrase;
"ramming speed" means, maximum acceleration, remove safety overrides,
target something not specified in the command, and make out your last
will and testament in triplicate and present to the chief petty officer.
If anybody expects the crew to actually KNOW all these implications,
and have any chance of carrying them out, it can't be a new invention,
it must be the name of a manuver from The Book. An order which doesn't
state a target for the manuver, which is important in space, but
not in Ben Hur.
In summary, the phrase "ramming speed" as a command seems very
unlikely to evolve linguistically, either as an on-the-spot invention,
nor as a name of a Book manuver.
It's not a horribly bad phrase evil hiss boo.
But it's jarring, annoying, and yet easy to fix.
"Ram it!" or "Ram them!" or "We have to ram them!" seems fine to me.
Now that last one can be given a very good reading by any graduate
of the James T. Kirk memorial acting school
"We-have to... RAM, them!"
During the "..." pause, the patented working of lips and jaw, building
up the the explosive "RAM" sylable, as if trying to force it out.
Spooky
>In <775f3l$mc...@biko.cc.rochester.edu> Tom Thatcher
><tt...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu> wrote:
>[. . .]
>
>: After all, navy vessels still "Set sail," submarines are "boats,"
>: ships in spacedock "cast off moorings," spaceships have "decks"
>: and "bridges"...
>
>Still, "maximum speed" and "maximum acceleration" mean two differing
>things; one wonders why JMS uses the former term in his explanations.
>Surely he understands that there is no such thing as a "maximum speed"
>for a space ship?
Once a space ship has exceeded the speed of the Thrust, it will stop
going faster, according to that spoil-sport Newton
>
>--
>Copyright 1999 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
>Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
>
--Brigand Spooky... Trying to raise his post-count <G>
ICQ# is 23064333
2306...@pager.mirabilis.com
--"This is how the world ends, swallowed in fire, but not in darkness."
--J. Michael Straczynski, "Deconstruction of Falling Stars"
Wayne Throop
::: linguistically implausible in context,
::: and anomalous as a bridge order ..]
:: Bill" <Rufi...@hotmail.com>
:: 2 things: 1. Space is not a perfect vacuum. 2. Spacecraft can
:: reach a max speed depending on maaaximum drive output compared to the
:: vessel's mass and Mass of nearby objects. Gravity can slow an object
:: down.
: jean...@aol.com (Jeanannd)
: There is also the fact that there are clouds of gasses and dust debris
: floating in space. Sometimes they are attracted to a gravity mass.
: Between star systems they have detected large dark masses of ice like
: materials....(they know frozen..but frozen what?) A ship travelling at
: a high speed could have trouble if it hit such a large mass.
: Travelling at high speed if it run into even a cloud of small
: particles...there could be severe damage.
OK. Good to know, I suppose (whatever a "gravity mass" is and
why it only attracts things "sometimes").
And is this is relevant to the scene in question in some way?
Wayne Throop
: 1) As someone recently suggested, language drift. [...]
: 2) []"Ramming speed" is a succinct way of saying "as fast as we damn
: well can between here and that thing" []
Sure. And those two points are why it's only an annoyingly
gratuitous incongruity, rather than a major disappointment.
And sure, the benefit of changing it to something better is small.
But the COST of changing it to something better (at script time)
is infinitessimally small, and so it's *worth* *changing*.
Reviewing the points above: 1. it's an implausible language drift,
because of the importance of the distinction between thrust and speed in
space, and 2. it's even more succinct to say "RAM!", or equally
succinct to say "FULL THRUST RAM", and there are many alternatives that
don't involve an implausible language drift.
Two examples of the language drift of the general type required.
"Dial the phone". That got fixed in the language, because essentially
all phones were rotary dial phones; the "extensional meaning" of
dialing vs generally operating a phone were practically identical.
Or "Full speed ahead!". More accurately, this is a captain of a ship
telling the engine room to operate at full *thrust* (or screw revs),
not actually "full speed". But in a viscous fluid, drag means that
any given thrust is tied one-to-one with a specific speed that is
quite quickly reached, so if you order full thrust, you'll get
full speed, and vice versa.
The problem is, speed and thrust in space aren't tied together by a
viscous medium, nor by anything like the "dial the phone" circumstance.
And more than that, the distinction between speed and thrust (and
acceleration) will be VERY IMPORTANT in space tactics. In those
circumstances, language drift is very implausible. One doesn't tend to
blur distinctions that regularly need to be made clearly.
Again, not impossible. Just implausible, and noteworthy as a nit.
Hayley Rickey
Frank McKenney wrote:
> "Ramming speed" also clearly conveys a message to Engineering that, if
> any "overload safeties" exist, they should be disabled/cut out.
>
"Ramming Speed!" also indicates to anyone on the ship to make their peace with the
universe, because, barring miracles, the C.O. has just signed their death warrant.
Chris Campbell
<3698ce8e...@news.sirinet.net> <77bo12$8...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>: sank...@ix.netcom.com (Chris Campbell)
>: This just sparked a thought, actually; I wonder if such things as
>: full-velocity rams and "ramming speed" are actually naval standards in
>: Earthforce? Ramming speed might in fact be a constant, even though
>: that's inconsistent with past use of the term.
>
>I think this may be the least-implausible hypothesis to explain it.
>But being least-implausible doesn't make it plausible, for reasons
>I've posted in other messages.
True enough. I just love retconning errors into plausible plot points. It's
much more fun for me to make the story work *somehow* than to just have an
annoying error sticking out, marring the story.
Even still, it *is* rather grating, no matter how we rationalize it away . . .
Wayne Throop
::: things; one wonders why JMS uses the former term in his explanations.
:: Sure there is, Gary; ever hear of a little thing called "the speed of light?"
: ba...@pollux.cs.uregina.ca (John Bayko)
: Actually well before that, you will reach a point at which your
: forward motion is equal to the rearward motion of your thrust (it
: would come out of the engine nozzle and just sit there in dead space),
: which makes it essentially negligable[2]. That would be your maximum
: speed in a vacuum.
Uh... no. You can reach a velocity higher than your exhaust velocity.
It gets REALLY EXPENSIVE in payload/fuel ratios, but the exhaust
wouldn't just "sit there dead in space". There's no thing, physically,
as "sitting there dead in space". The concept of "sitting" or
"motionless" isn't relevant; doesn't apply to the situation.
Eventually, you would be burning fuel and producing an exhaust which
actually FOLLOWS AFTER YOU (when considered from your original
rest frame). But you'll still gain velocity because of it.
To slow down your exhaust, that's still a reduction in momentum.
And it must still be made up by the ship going faster, so that
momentum is conserved.
So exhaust velocity doesn't limit velocity in that way.
Eventually, drag with even 1 atom of hydrogen per cubic meter
will bring you to a maximum velocity for any given thrust.
Long before that, you'll be cooked by hard radiation, as those
hydrogen atoms come at you like a star's photosphere from a
centimeter in front of your nose.
ste...@radix.net
> How is it you manage to be consistently and blindinly wrong every response
> you make to one of my posts?
Because in nobody else's posts (at least on this newsgroup) have I found
such drastic dissonances between what is stated at the time and what the
author claims later to have intended. Would you care to clarify whether you
were making a criticism based on facts (as implied by your original reference
to "plausibility") or a criticism based on "esthetics" (as indicated in one
of your responses)?
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Wayne Throop
: p.s. i think that a space ship, starting at rest, has a maximum
: speed: accelerate until all the fuel is gone. voila -- max speed.
Exactly. But this is not normally refered to as "max speed", since it's
often in the same ballpark as orbital motions in the first place.
It's most often called "delta-v"; loosely speaking, it's how much you
can *change* your velocity using the fuel you've got left. So a ship
must have better than 11 kps delta-v to get away from the earth.
But that doesn't mean it spends its time going to mars at 11 kps.
It's not a "max speed" in that important sense.
There is an implication that B5 ships are an order of magnitude
more capable than that, so the distinction *might* fade... but
not really by all THAT much, given solar escape velocity is
what; more than 50kps. That's 1g for more than an hour, which
B5 ships seem to be able to outperform, but still, the hour
makes delta-v at least noticeably different from max speed.
Wayne Throop
: Actually, IIRC, according to Newton (Or one of those old guys <G>)
: There would be a maximum speed for the ship to achieve with any
: thrust, ie: If the exhaust from the Engines is going 100 kps, then the
: ship will go no faster than 100 kps in the other direction
Hmmm. That's two people; might I have been wrong?
I doubt it, but I'll ask.
Sir? Sir? Mr Spooky? Um... where did you hear that a rocket can't
exceed it's exhaust velocity? This alleged limit seems very, very
unlikely based on conservation of momentum issues alone.
And "the rocket equation" is given in several sources as
u = v ln(M0/M)+u0
where u is the final velocity, v is the velocity of the exhaust gases,
M0 and M are the starting and ending masses of the rocket, and u0 is the
initial velocity. So, if you simply drive the M0/M mass ratio large
enough (that is, (M0/M)>2.8 or so), u can exceed v.
Daniel Silevitch
Spooky <Zath...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>Surely he understands that there is no such thing as a "maximum speed"
>>for a space ship?
>
>Once a space ship has exceeded the speed of the Thrust, it will stop
>going faster, according to that spoil-sport Newton
Absolutely, totally, completely, wrong!
As long as the ship keeps throwing reaction mass out the back, it will
continue to accelerate (i.e. _gain_ speed) forward. It's a simple matter
of conservation of momentum. It is true that a higher exhaust velocity
will result in a higher acceleration, and therefore a higher final velocity
for a given amount of fuel. On the other hand, if you have a sufficiently
large amount of fuel, your rocket can attain a velocity greater than the
exhaust velocity.
For a simple single-stage rocket, the final velocity will be equal to
the exhaust velocity if the ratio (initial mass of rocket + fuel) / (final
mass of rocket) is e (2.718...). More fuel and you have a higher final
velocity, less fuel and you are moving slower. Things get more complicated
(and more efficient) for multi-stage rockets.
As far as the motion of the Excalibur is concerned, I have decided that the
ship is clearly outfitted with a Bergenholm. This of course explains the
"viscous medium" type motion observed.
-dms
Kenneth A. McIsaac
>
> 3) The Babylon 5 universe is a *fictional* one, its primary purpose to
> entertain, not to be completely scientifically accurate. None of the
> alternatives that you suggest (or that I've heard anyone suggest) carry
> nearly the emotional power and drama of "Ramming speed!" I would imagine
> that the few people for whom the scene was "ruined" are dwarfed by the
> portion of the audience that found it perfectly acceptable, and probably
> more interesting than the alternative. If anyone can come up with an
> alternative that *does* match "ramming speed" in drama and power *to the
> average B5 viewer*, I'll gladly withdraw this point, but I haven't heard
> one yet.
>
How about this. The captain sits in his chair, sticks a cigar in one
corner of his mouth, and with clenched jaw growls "Ram the bastards."
And if that's not melodramatic and cliched enough, he can say to himself
on the way in "Forgive me <wife and daughter>", or "I love you <wife and
daughter>".
"Ram the bastards" actually has fewer syllables than "Give me ramming
speed", so you get points for brevity too.
Charlie Edmondson
Hey Brian,
Lighten up! Boy, ya'll are sure on an anti-Cronan crusade lately. JMS
makes one joke about him, ya'll take it WAY too seriously, and so now,
when ever he posts its LETS GET CRONAN time!
I know Cronan is a lightening rod. He enjoys it! 8-) But when he
makes a simple follow up post about the present discussion on the
correctness of the term RAMMING SPEED! you jump on him like he made a
flame or troll. Read what he said! He was merely making a witty
remark, and a fairly good one at that, making as much fun of the recent
posters as on JMS! (What, you don't think they will have the fifteenth
remake of Ben Hur in super 3D ExperienceVision in the 32rd century? I
bet they will have just as good a grasp of what ramming speed is, even
you don't!)
Faith Manages,
Charlie
Brian Watson wrote:
>
> Cronan wrote:
>
> > Paul D. Shocklee wrote
> > >On the other hand, I'm perfectly happy to attribute the anachronism to
> > >language drift.
> > Great idea. We can attribute the rest of the movie to B5's plausibility
> > drift.
> > Cronan
> > ...or am I stirring metaphors again?
>
> Okay Cronan, that's the third time I've seen you put forth the suggestion
> that the movie wasn't good. Now, as you had earlier, I'm calling you on
> it. You've set forth a hypothesis, so prove it. Back it up instead of
> (perhaps not in so colorful language) saying "THAT SUX, JMS SUX, B5 SUX,"
> like any other good troller.
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated Sergey Bukhman
<ser...@netropolis.net>wrote:
>> >> : David Stinson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> :> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at top
>> >> :> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would not be
>> >> :> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
>> >> :> capability.
>> >> :>
Sergey Bukhman <ser...@netropolis.net>wrote:
>> >> : How would firing it on the way cause extra damage?
I then explained:
>> Two scenarios:
>>
>> 1) You ram a ship causing damage
>>
>> 2) You fire a weapon at a ship damaging it then finish it
>> off with a ram.
>>
>> 2 is more effective than 1. That's what David wrote.
Sergey Bukhman <ser...@netropolis.net>wrote:
>I agree with this. But that is not what he said.
Oh for heavens sake, Sergey, read what he wrote. For
clarity's sake, as I do oh so love it so much...
David's reply in explaining his post wrote this:
"No but the ship hitting that which has just been
hit by the weapon is bound to do a lot more damage
as well."
Now look how I interpreted it:
"You fire a weapon at a ship damaging it then finish
it off with a ram."
The reason he mentioned the advantage of speed in this
sentence is because he is saying that if you damage the ship
with a laser blast and weaken the hull, then because you are
at top speed you stand a far greater chance of breaching
that hull than you would have had you not been going at top
speed. i.e. there is an advantage to be gained by firing
your weapon at speed prior to the ram - it'll help you smash
the hull. Seems perfectly clear to me that's what he said.
And it seems somewhat coincidental to me that I should just
happen to interpret David's statement exactly the way I was
meant to don't you think?
That's a rhetorical question BTW.
>Didn't you *plonk* me?
I relented with a two day filter because you're not Thaxton
or Fuller, I wanted to prevent myself from openly flaming
you for your cretinous crack remark and I took pity on you
being locked up in there with "them" for eternity. Don't say
I'm not good to you. ;o)
>I feel cheated and used...
Well don't take it to heart kiddo, you never know what life
might throw you way.
--
"Trust the franchise. The franchise is your friend."
anon 1997
Gary Farber
:> <ser...@netropolis.net> wrote:
:> : David Stinson wrote:
:>
:> :> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at top
:> :> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would not be
:> :> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
:> :> capability.
:>
:> : How would firing it on the way cause extra damage?
:>
:> Uh, how does the weapon cause damage, period? Clue: the same way.
: I don't know how the BFG works, but I have seen no evidence that firing it while in
: motion towards the target would in any way increase it's effectiveness.
Try rereading what we've said. No one is suggesting that motion towards
the targert would increase the weapon's effectiveness. What was suggested
is that being hit by the weapon *and* being rammed would cause more damage
than simple ramming. It's difficult to see how it could cause less
damage, if fired at the last possible instant.
Generally speaking, firing a weapon causes more damage than not firing it.
I realize this is a difficult concept to absorb.
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated Sergey Bukhman
<ser...@netropolis.net>wrote:
>David Stinson wrote:
>
>> No but the ship hitting that which has just been hit by the weapon is bound to
>> do a lot more damage as well. I mean, you're going to die either way...
>>
>
>But if they hit it with the BFG, why ram it?
Sergey, I don't believe I'm having this discussion. Think on
it this way.
If you hit it with a plasma beam you'll cause hull damage.
In some places it will be breached and will therefore weaken
the overall super-structure of the ship. And this is before
you consider the effects of heating the metal in the area
where the plasma struck.
Now, what if the plasma beams are not strong enough on their
own to take out a ship that size or what if hull simply
crumples slightly or suffers an elastic collision on impact
if the hull integrity is 100%? Both would result in damage
but there's the risk that each on their own might not be
enough to take out the ship.
So what do you do? You hit it with everything you've got.
This reduces the risk of failure and increases the chances
you'll destroy it first time.
And recall this is a suicide mission, you're not exactly
going to risk failure. Hitting it with plasma on the way in,
causing hull damage and then ramming it is the best way to
ensure success.
The simplest analogy is to think of cutting a block of
butter that's been in the freezer. Your knife wouldn't be
able to cut through it but if you heated it a little first
then you could cut clean through it. Here the plasma is the
heat, plus a some hull damage, and the knife is the ramming
ship.
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated "Cronan"
<h...@mindspring.com>wrote:
>Gary Farber wrote
>>: and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage.
>>
>>I thought that would be logical as well.
>
>Would have been more logical to fire the weapon and not ram the damn thing
>until they were sure they'd have to. Now that would have been logical. But
>then The Black Guy wouldn't have died. Oh well.
Didn't you know the black guy always buys it before the end
of the movie?
But I digress.
I think the key element you have neglected here is time.
Ramming a ship to ensure its complete destruction is a
quicker option than using a prolonged barrage of plasma. In
this case its reasonable to assume that time was a luxury
they couldn't afford, especially since they too were a
target and could have been neutralised before being able to
complete destroying the ship.
It's also worth mentioning that they were heavily damaged
and about to blow anyway - may as well take someone with you
if you're a goner.
For example, the reason the Captain was Hiroshi was to draw
a parallel with Kamikaze pilots during WWII. Sure they could
have hung around for ages bombing ships and firing at them,
but they rammed them as soon as they got tight of them.
Gary Farber
[. . .]
: Granted, combat in space is another matter entirely since it can easily take
: place at distances where aiming by sight is impossible. But how much extra
: trouble can it be to enable beam weapon to fire visable beams of light just
: for those special cases? I can seen it being under the control of the pilot
: (you probably wouldn't always want the beam to be visible), but why not have
: the option?
Hint: beams of light are visible in an atmosphere when they are
illuminating particles of atmosphere. Space is a vacuum. HTH.
[. . . .]
Gary Farber
<apmi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[. . .]
: 3) The Babylon 5 universe is a *fictional* one, its primary purpose to
: entertain, not to be completely scientifically accurate.
So is the universe of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. A version in which Mr. Darcy
is actually a Transformer would probably be quite entertaining, and
visually appealing, so I'm sure no one would object to that.
[. . .]
: I would imagine
: that the few people for whom the scene was "ruined" are dwarfed by the
: portion of the audience that found it perfectly acceptable, and probably
: more interesting than the alternative.
[. . .]
: If anyone can come up with an
: alternative that *does* match "ramming speed" in drama and power *to the
: average B5 viewer*, I'll gladly withdraw this point, but I haven't heard
: one yet.
It's a shame that you think so poorly of the average B5 viewer. You may,
of course, be correct, but that would be a shame as well. I'd like to
think that they've actually passed junior high school physics. But
perhaps they actually don't know Newton's laws of motion. We can't say
withut a survey, can we? But it would certainly answer the question of
whether B5 is aimed at a science fiction audience, or at a stupider one.
If it isn't aimed at a science fiction audience, this newsgroup should
presumably be removed from the rec.arts.sf.* hierarchy, incidentally, and
moved to "rec.arts.tv.babylon5.moderated."
Newton's laws of motion are not exactly some highly esoteric and abstruse
point of obscure High Science, you know. Any thirteen-year-old should
know them.
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
apmi...@midway.uchicago.edu (Schadenfreude)wrote:
>3) The Babylon 5 universe is a *fictional* one, its primary purpose to
>entertain, not to be completely scientifically accurate.
Please, can someone please explain this to me. For years now
I have failed to get it. Just why is it that people always
think entertainment and scientific accuracy are mutually
exclusive?
Larry Niven and Arthur C Clarke are infinitely entertaining.
Do they have to revoke scientific accuracy to do so? No they
don't. In fact Larry Niven even had someone calculate the
tensile strength of scrith in his classic Ringworld.
And if plot is the important thing why bother having
science at all? In fact, why not just resort to having the
mind-numbing dumbness of ST:Voyager's pseudo-science
technobabble?
Science Fiction is "science" fiction because it uses real
science and where it has to use ideas such as jump gates it
extrapolates ideas for which we can suspend disbelief or see
that it could come to be. They then must be treated in a
consistent fashion - i.e if you create some physical system
then it can't react in two or more different ways to the
same stimulus. Case in point: the carbon dating fiasco in
Thirdspace- it was bad in so many ways.
Take, for example, Messages from Earth. Genius. Utter
genius. Not just in terms of the scripting and pacing but
also the science where they use Jupiter's huge pressure and
gravity to destroy the Shadow vessel.
Another example is to consider other genres. If you saw
George Clooney operating on a patient in ER using a broken
bottle and a pitchfork would you be annoyed, feel it was
dumb and shouldn't have been done? I think you would. so why
is it then that when we come to sf people accept exactly
that level of ignorance and then decry those of us who know
better for daring to be upset by it. Just because some of
the audience is scientifically illiterate (not a flame,
simple an observation based in fact) doesn't mean you should
then throw it out the window because "they don't
understand". And before you say the analogy with Clooney is
overstated I take the opportunity to remind you of the
carbon dating blooper in Thirdspace. That's how bad it was.
Someone else posted JMS's thoughts on this too, yesterday I
think. He basically said that real science can look cooler
and more dramatic than something scientifically illiterate.
Thankfully he's now enlisted the JPL to advise him.
Hopefully he makes good use of them.
Gary Farber
<ser...@netropolis.net> wrote:
[. . .]
: I agree with this. But that is not what he said. As you are a lover of
: clarity of expression, please tell me where in the following statement
: ramming is implied in addition to the firing:
:>> :> Actually what I was expecting was that they'd take advantage of being at top
:>> :> speed and fire the main weapon on the way in for extra damage. It would not be
:>> :> all that likely to divert them at that speed or impede their damage
:>> :> capability.
No offense intended, but is English possibly your second language?
:> 2 is more effective than 1. That's what David wrote.
: No that is not what he wrote.
It's exactly what he wrote.
Brian Watson
> In <F5B1I...@midway.uchicago.edu> Schadenfreude
> <apmi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> [. . .]
> : 3) The Babylon 5 universe is a *fictional* one, its primary purpose to
> : entertain, not to be completely scientifically accurate.
Okay, here's an easy enough statement for you: Ramming speed is the speed at
which no matter how much power is put into engines, the ship will be unable to
stop or change course to avoid hitting an object in front of it.
Can you just end this ridiculous argument over such a minor point in a
brilliant movie?
Brian Watson
> BZZZT: Error! Error! Error!
>
> Hey Brian,
> Lighten up! Boy, ya'll are sure on an anti-Cronan crusade lately. JMS
> makes one joke about him, ya'll take it WAY too seriously, and so now,
> when ever he posts its LETS GET CRONAN time!
>
> I know Cronan is a lightening rod. He enjoys it! 8-) But when he
> makes a simple follow up post about the present discussion on the
> correctness of the term RAMMING SPEED! you jump on him like he made a
> flame or troll. Read what he said! He was merely making a witty
> remark, and a fairly good one at that, making as much fun of the recent
> posters as on JMS! (What, you don't think they will have the fifteenth
> remake of Ben Hur in super 3D ExperienceVision in the 32rd century? I
> bet they will have just as good a grasp of what ramming speed is, even
> you don't!)
Wrong, reread what he said. He said that he can attribute the 'rest of the
movie to B5's plausibility drift,' meaning that every other (i.e. rest) aspect
of the movie was not plausible. I have asked him to explain why, but as of the
third time, he's been unable to answer the question. I can only conclude he
can't.
And as I stated earlier, ramming speed does make sense. It simply means a speed
in excess of the speed and distance to a target that makes a ship unable to
either stop or change course enough to avoid hitting an object in front of it.
Duh.
Cronan
>> How is it you manage to be consistently and blindinly wrong every response
>> you make to one of my posts?
>
> Because in nobody else's posts (at least on this newsgroup) have I found
>such drastic dissonances between what is stated at the time and what the
>author claims later to have intended.
I would suggest that the 'dissonances' you find are a result of your own
desire to find fault in whatever I write. Dating back to when I posted my
first MiSTing to this group you've consistently tried to find any fault in my
posts for no reason beyond, "OH, it's Cronan."
Would you care to clarify whether you
>were making a criticism based on facts (as implied by your original
reference
>to "plausibility") or a criticism based on "esthetics" (as indicated in one
>of your responses)?
I've explained this before, Steve: even the movie's plausibility is
subject to a variety of factors; not the least of which is the audience's
ignorance. It's not a fact either way that the movie is implausible (what I
found implausible to the point of hilarity, you and a great many others seem
to have accepted without so much as a second thought); it, as I've explained
to you several times now, is extremely subjective. Judgments as to my
'particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses[1]' are,
by definition, aesthetic judgments.
Cronan
[1] Guess where I lifted that from, go ahead, guess!
Cronan
>Wrong, reread what he said. He said that he can attribute the 'rest of the
>movie to B5's plausibility drift,' meaning that every other (i.e. rest)
aspect
>of the movie was not plausible.
That's certainly an... interesting reading of what I wrote.
I have asked him to explain why, but as of the
>third time, he's been unable to answer the question. I can only conclude he
>can't.
It's really hard to answer a question asked
>And as I stated earlier, ramming speed does make sense.
Sure it does. To you. But y'all is ignant. (On a seemingly limitless
variety of subjects.)
Cronan
...I tain't nothin' but a country boy
Cronan
Cronan
> I have asked him to explain why, but as of the
>>third time, he's been unable to answer the question. I can only conclude
he
>>can't.
>
>It's really hard to answer a question asked
That should say, "It's really hard to answer a loaded question."
Cronan
Brian Watson
> Brian Watson wrote
> >Wrong, reread what he said. He said that he can attribute the 'rest of the
> >movie to B5's plausibility drift,' meaning that every other (i.e. rest) aspect
>
> >of the movie was not plausible.
> That's certainly an... interesting reading of what I wrote.
That's a litteral interpretation of what you wrote, I'm sorry if you're too
'ignant' to understand it.
The second line was added from your own followup post. Interestingly enough, the
first is probably more accurate. You can't seem to answer any question asked of
you, yet seem to expect loads and loads of evidence or reasoning behind anyone
else's ideas. And yet, with the second line, you again evade the question asked
of you, essentially suggesting that the movie had so many faults or problems, yet
again not actually answering the question. Time to put up or shut up,
Simple(ton) Cronan.
> >And as I stated earlier, ramming speed does make sense.
> Sure it does. To you. But y'all is ignant. (On a seemingly limitless
> variety of subjects.)
> Cronan
> ...I tain't nothin' but a country boy
You've yet to prove me wrong in anything, so I can only come to the conclusion
that you're like any other troller, a big blow hard with no substance.