ATTN JMS: Star Trek style shuttle/fighter bays and TNT interference?
Brian Watson
episodes that were produced and in a rough cut format. One part of it
that caught my attention is a reference to the shuttle and fighter bays
being pressurized, but having them open to space, the atmosphere being
kept in by a 'magnetic' shield or some technowizzit. I was wondering if
this is true, because it's the kind of thing that smacks of of the Star
Trek method of thinking of just inventing technology because it looks
cool, rather than being based on any science. I've always liked the
Earthforce fighter bays and the station requiring pressure doors closing
to contain an atmosphere, and I believe we saw the same thing with a
Nial fighter landing on a Whitestar. It just doesn't make sense from a
safety standpoint to use such a field to begin with, since if power is
lost to it for even a few seconds you could have a catastrophic loss of
life or damage to the bays. Was it things like this that TNT wanted to
change about the show, but you didn't want for the scientific
standpoint, that forced you to look for a new home for Crusade? I
sincerely hope to see the tried and true pressure doors on the
Excalibur, rather than these hokey little neon tubes surrounding the
door to prevent air from rushing out.
(And how could this even be remotely science based? How can a magnetic
field affect a non charged molecule such as O2?)
Cronan
>I read recently a few reviews on the AICN page about some of the
>episodes that were produced and in a rough cut format. One part of it
>that caught my attention is a reference to the shuttle and fighter bays
>being pressurized, but having them open to space, the atmosphere being
>kept in by a 'magnetic' shield or some technowizzit. I was wondering if
>this is true, because it's the kind of thing that smacks of of the Star
>Trek method of thinking of just inventing technology because it looks
>cool, rather than being based on any science.
You seem to be implying that B5 hasn't done the exact same thing.
It has.
Cronan
...take that Shadow Death Cloud thing as a particularly egregious example
Brian Watson
Science and machines are two different things. One is a pure understanding
of a concept, the other is an application of a science. There's really
nothing spectacularly impossible about the Death Cloud, except the
engineering difficulty of actually making something that large move without
tearing itself apart. Someone who is a billion years of research ahead of
you could conceivably build something like that. It's even less ridiculous
than a Dyson sphere, which is supposed to encompass an entire solar system.
The Death Cloud is just a frame work that surrounds a planet (with segments
that can connect, disconnect and change positions to adapt for size of
planet?) and then fire missiles at it. Burrowing nuclear missiles isn't that
unusual, since our military has been developing burrowing bombs to destroy
bunkers for some time now.
While I wasn't specific in the part of the post you replied to, in the second
part I asked how an uncharged particle such as O2 could be kept at by a
magnetic field. This is what concerns me, a flagrant scientific error, rather
than some scientific nit that goes against what we know to be true about
atoms and molecules and charges they have.
Jms at B5
>that caught my attention is a reference to the shuttle and fighter bays
>being pressurized, but having them open to space, the atmosphere being
>kept in by a 'magnetic' shield or some technowizzit.
No, there is a definite (and very large) airlock door that closes after ships
enter the flight deck, so it can then be pressurized.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Sergey Bukhman
Cronan wrote:
> Brian Watson wrote
> >I read recently a few reviews on the AICN page about some of the
> >episodes that were produced and in a rough cut format. One part of it
> >that caught my attention is a reference to the shuttle and fighter bays
> >being pressurized, but having them open to space, the atmosphere being
> >kept in by a 'magnetic' shield or some technowizzit. I was wondering if
> >this is true, because it's the kind of thing that smacks of of the Star
> >Trek method of thinking of just inventing technology because it looks
> >cool, rather than being based on any science.
>
> You seem to be implying that B5 hasn't done the exact same thing.
>
> It has.
>
> Cronan
> ...take that Shadow Death Cloud thing as a particularly egregious example
Or the battlecrabs themselves. Is there any reason for them looking like
spiders, rather than scare/amaze us?
--
Sergey
------
Prepare for rhyme - I'll publish, right or wrong:
Fools are my theme, let Satire be my song.
-Byron
sgwm
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated Sergey Bukhman
<ser...@netropolis.net>wrote:
>Or the battlecrabs themselves. Is there any reason for them looking like
>spiders, rather than scare/amaze us?
Yes. The Shadows like how they look.
--
"The day a studio begins messing around with a
show is when it pretty much becomes doomed."
J.M.Straczynski
on Genie
Michael J. Hennebry
>(And how could this even be remotely science based? How can a magnetic
>field affect a non charged molecule such as O2?)
O2 is paraagnetic, slightly attracted to a magnetic field.
Most things, e.g. N2, are diamagnetic, slightly repelled by a magnetic field.
To use a magnetic field as a container for a gas of any kind would
require one whopper of a magnetic field.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"NO KILL I" -- Evelyn Horta
Werner Spahl
> While I wasn't specific in the part of the post you replied to, in the second
> part I asked how an uncharged particle such as O2 could be kept at by a
> magnetic field. This is what concerns me, a flagrant scientific error, rather
> than some scientific nit that goes against what we know to be true about
> atoms and molecules and charges they have.
Why not use gravity instead of a magnetic field? As the Minbari generate
gravity, it might be possible to "push" or "pull" air inside the bay...
--
Werner Spahl (ui2...@sun1.lrz-muenchen.de) Freedom for
"The meaning of my life is to make me crazy!" Vorlonships
Mark Pickett
>Or the battlecrabs themselves. Is there any reason for them looking like
>spiders, rather than scare/amaze us?
No, there isn't. And what's wrong with that? You SHOULD be scared by the
Shadows. Unless you have a Vorlon battleship, a telepathic A-bomb, or a
First One riding with you.
mp
"it gives me the screaming willies."
--draal
Chris Campbell
interference? wrote:
>Or the battlecrabs themselves. Is there any reason for them looking like
>spiders, rather than scare/amaze us?
Given the Shadows' MO, that might be part of the point, actually . . .
--
Oh my God! They've killed Kosh! You bastards!
Chris Campbell Sank...@ix.netcom.com
Brian Watson
> Cronan wrote:
>
> > You seem to be implying that B5 hasn't done the exact same thing.
> > It has.
> > Cronan
> > ...take that Shadow Death Cloud thing as a particularly egregious example
>
> Or the battlecrabs themselves. Is there any reason for them looking like
> spiders, rather than scare/amaze us?
When we know anything about genetically engineering spaceships, we can
appropriately answer the question. Until then, it's just enough that they look
spiffy, and quite very alien.
Sergey Bukhman
Brian Watson wrote:
And that's an example of, and I quote you:
"just inventing technology because it looks cool, rather than being based on any
science."
Mot that there's anything wrong with that.
Brian Watson
> Brian Watson wrote:
>
> > Sergey Bukhman wrote:
> >
> > > Cronan wrote:
> > >
> > > > You seem to be implying that B5 hasn't done the exact same thing.
> > > > It has.
> > > > Cronan
> > > > ...take that Shadow Death Cloud thing as a particularly egregious example
> > >
> > > Or the battlecrabs themselves. Is there any reason for them looking like
> > > spiders, rather than scare/amaze us?
> >
> > When we know anything about genetically engineering spaceships, we can
> > appropriately answer the question. Until then, it's just enough that they look
> > spiffy, and quite very alien.
>
> And that's an example of, and I quote you:
>
> "just inventing technology because it looks cool, rather than being based on any
> science."
I clarified myself in another post in the thread, meaning that the science is
completely contrary to what is definately known. We don't know much about genetic
engineering, but we are learning more daily. The idea of using a magnetic field to
hold in an uncharged particle of gas, goes completely against what is certainly known
with basic sciences. With genetic engineering, there isn't much we can say is flat
out impossible to be done now or in the future.
> Mot that there's anything wrong with that.
Jumpgates and hyperspace would be the best instance of something completely made up.
Theoretically, it may work in math, but in reality, it's very unlikely to be true.
jco...@ix.netcom.com
> (And how could this even be remotely science based? How can a magnetic
> field affect a non charged molecule such as O2?)
O2 is, in fact, paramagnetic. The other primary atmospheric chemicals, N2,
Ar, and CO2, aren't. I'll save the chemical details for email in the remote
case that anyone is interested.
"I've got a head full of useless minutiae and I'm not afraid to use it."
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Andrew Wendel
Werner Spahl wrote in message ...
Assuming only 1 g of gravity, you need several miles of atmosphere above
you for the air will be thick enough to be breathed.
Andy
------
Andrew Wendel
Engineering God
mailto:h...@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~h38
-------------------------------------------
An unbreakable toy is useful for breaking other toys.
Brian Watson
> In article <36B672E2...@cris.com>,
> Brian Watson <ke...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > (And how could this even be remotely science based? How can a magnetic
> > field affect a non charged molecule such as O2?)
>
> O2 is, in fact, paramagnetic. The other primary atmospheric chemicals, N2,
> Ar, and CO2, aren't. I'll save the chemical details for email in the remote
> case that anyone is interested.
But can a magnetic field actually force O2 molecules to remain in a specific
area, against the pull of a near absolute vaccuum of space?
HFMoon
hold in an uncharged particle of gas, goes completely against what is certainly
known
with basic sciences. >>
Now wait a second. If you're going to nitpick that our ignorance about genetic
engineering makes battlecrabs acceptable but our knowledge of magnetism makes
the Star Trek "Hold the air in" field impossible, then I'm going to have to
nitpick your complaint.
Exactly which episode of Star Trek, whichever series, did they say that the
shuttlebay forcefield was a "magnetic" field?
Richard, Euph
<*>
"My maker was some geek in a lab coat, with an eye-dropper and a petri dish.
What do I need to make peace with him for?"
-Col. T.C. McQueen
The Angriest Angel
Mac Breck
shuttle to conserve the air, right? They must. We've just never seen it.
Mac
Jms at B5 wrote in message <19990202004735...@ng154.aol.com>...
>> One part of it
>>that caught my attention is a reference to the shuttle and fighter bays
>>being pressurized, but having them open to space, the atmosphere being
>>kept in by a 'magnetic' shield or some technowizzit.
>
Werner Spahl
> Werner Spahl wrote in message ...
> >
> >Why not use gravity instead of a magnetic field? As the Minbari generate
> >gravity, it might be possible to "push" or "pull" air inside the bay...
>
> Assuming only 1 g of gravity, you need several miles of atmosphere above
> you for the air will be thick enough to be breathed.
I meant some kind of negative gravity curtain at the opening of the bay to
keep the oxygen inside with normal 1 g in the rest of the bay. Might even
be simpler for Minbari than pumping such a great area in little time ;).
Brian Watson
> So I guess they evacuate the area before opening the door and launching a
> shuttle to conserve the air, right? They must. We've just never seen it.
>
> Mac
Well it's been stated by JMS (or Copeland) or someone in on the know that the
Cobra bays are definately unpressurized when launching the Starfuries. They
pressurize them so the flight crew can help the pilot in, evacuate the area
just prior to launch and then depressurize the bay, opening the bay just
seconds before launch.
Brian Watson
> <<The idea of using a magnetic field to
> hold in an uncharged particle of gas, goes completely against what is certainly
> known
> with basic sciences. >>
>
> Now wait a second. If you're going to nitpick that our ignorance about genetic
> engineering makes battlecrabs acceptable but our knowledge of magnetism makes
> the Star Trek "Hold the air in" field impossible, then I'm going to have to
> nitpick your complaint.
>
> Exactly which episode of Star Trek, whichever series, did they say that the
> shuttlebay forcefield was a "magnetic" field?
I'm not aware of exactly where the field was stated as being magnetic, only that
the review of the episodes stated that the one that was believed to be in the bays
of the Excalibur were like the magnetic forcefields that keep the air in on the
Enterprise's shuttlebays. In either case, the very idea of a force field is
ridiculous, and how it would keep in air is just pointless.
Andrew Wendel
>I'm not aware of exactly where the field was stated as being magnetic, only
that
>the review of the episodes stated that the one that was believed to be in
the bays
>of the Excalibur were like the magnetic forcefields that keep the air in on
the
>Enterprise's shuttlebays. In either case, the very idea of a force field
is
>ridiculous, and how it would keep in air is just pointless.
If the gentleman that founded 3M had bothered to do a literature search, he
would have discoved that it was impossible to create the sticky substance
that we now use to keep post-it notes in place. At this stage, we don't
know that "force fields are impossible". Technially, gravity is a force
field. Gravitational fields cause what we precieve to be a force. (It is
actually space being bent by mass.) We don't know enough to be sure at this
point. We don't even really know how our own brains work.
Andy
------
Andrew Wendel
Engineering God
mailto:h...@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~h38
-------------------------------------------
What has four legs and an arm? A happy pit bull.
Dr. Michael R. Nash
>
> HFMoon wrote:
>
> > <<The idea of using a magnetic field to
> > hold in an uncharged particle of gas, goes completely against what is certainly
> > known
> > with basic sciences. >>
> >
> > Now wait a second. If you're going to nitpick that our ignorance about genetic
> > engineering makes battlecrabs acceptable but our knowledge of magnetism makes
> > the Star Trek "Hold the air in" field impossible, then I'm going to have to
> > nitpick your complaint.
> >
> > Exactly which episode of Star Trek, whichever series, did they say that the
> > shuttlebay forcefield was a "magnetic" field?
>
> the review of the episodes stated that the one that was believed to be in the bays
> of the Excalibur were like the magnetic forcefields that keep the air in on the
> Enterprise's shuttlebays. In either case, the very idea of a force field is
> ridiculous, and how it would keep in air is just pointless.
where the Death Star air-traffic-controller says "We're opening the
magnetic field" when the Falcon goes into the bay.
jco...@ix.netcom.com
Brian Watson <ke...@cris.com> wrote:
If the field were ludicrously strong, perhaps. I'll leave speculation as
to the amount of energy involved to Uncle Al. I'm quite confident that the
strength required would be incredibly prohobitive, probably by many, many
orders of magnitude.
> But can a magnetic field actually force O2 molecules to remain in a specific
> area, against the pull of a near absolute vaccuum of space?
>
>
"I've got a head full of useless minutiae and I'm not afraid to use it."
Spooky
here", and various coffee stains, Brian Watson <ke...@cris.com>
scribbled:
>just prior to launch and then depressurize the bay, opening the bay just
>seconds before launch.
>
Actually, there is usually someone in a Space-suit working in there,
so I suppose it is a vacuum...
--Brigand Spooky... Wishing that someone would start making Space: Above and Beyond again...
My ICQ# is 23064333
2306...@pager.mirabilis.com
--"Everybody hold on tight, the flight sucks and we don't serve peanuts!"
--Lt. Hawks, "Space, Above and Beyond"
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!!
Nicolai
> On 1 Feb 1999 23:09:39 -0700, in
> rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated Sergey Bukhman
> <ser...@netropolis.net>wrote:
>
>
> >Or the battlecrabs themselves. Is there any reason for them looking like
> >spiders, rather than scare/amaze us?
>
> Yes. The Shadows like how they look.
>
>
> --
> "The day a studio begins messing around with a
> show is when it pretty much becomes doomed."
>
> J.M.Straczynski
> on Genie
One thing that we have to remember is that science fiction is a form of
speculative fiction. That means that we are intentionally bending the
rules in order to come up with an interesting story and an interesting
universe. If you have to stick strictly with reality then NONE of B5
would be possible. There are a few general classifications of sci-fi that
are often used. Sci-fi can be hard or soft (ie socially based or
technology based) and near future or far future. In the case of Star Wars
(and mostly Star Treck as well though to a lesser extent) you have an
exceedingly soft/far-future (or far past if you will) story. With B5 you
have something in between. Human society is close enough to where we are
now that we can recognize its state as an evilution from where we are now
rather like how we would look at the world in the 1700's compaired to
now. Many structures are very different but you can easily see how things
got from there to here. On the other hand when we are looking at things
based on the Vorlons or the Shadows, or for that matter the Minbari, it is
VERY far future. We are not talking about a few decades of technical
research we are talking about centuries, millenia, of development in quite
alien directions. I am no more capable of saying what would be reasonable
or possible for a Shadow or a Vorlon than a well educated ancient Athenian
would be able to say about us. I mean look at how much changed in just
the last few DECADES as to what we think is possible.
As far as the look of the Shadows, the more appropriate question is why
shouldn't they look like that. Although I would be loath to project human
qualities on Shadows, designing of anything, space ships included, is
going to be a mixture of practicality and creative spirit. As far as
practicality goes, the problems of designing an effective, combatitive,
space vessel are very different from designing anything atmospheric or
sea-faring. Perhaps one problem is distribution of mass so that the craft
doesn't spin uncontrollably or take too much energy to stop or start
spinning (it is much more advantageous to have the mass evenly distributed
than on the ends). The spines out in front could be a method of
destributing needed equipment without either overbalancing or offering a
large cross section that can be shot at. I can think of many advantages
and many disadvantages to such a design. Hense it does not violate my
suspension of disbelief.
I've always liked ship design on B5. I think it has been done quite
intelligenly, and says something about the way that the culture thinks.
Look at Earth. We're new at this, so we have these long unweildly things
that have to be really hard to turn or to get to move any way other than
forward. They look like something designed by humans with a view to human
design tendancies, and by someone who is very new at this buisness. The
Centauri (and the Narn) make basically disk like things which allow you to
attempt to present a thin cross section to an enemy, but can become a
liability when surrounded in all dimentions, thus they have to be
confident in the power of their weapons. Similarly the Minbari have
distributed their mass in a more spherical method presenting roughly equal
cross sections from any direction. They are slow and rely on weaponry and
the cover of smaller ships, the idea being that they don't let anything
get close enough to be able to do any real damage. They have about as
easy a time shooting in any direction, and can turn easily because they
are not elongated. Shadows and Vorlons are both so powerful and so good
at manipulating space with their drive systems that it barely matters how
they design, so their designs reflect how they wish to be viewed to some
extent. Remember they work by influincing others more than direct action.
Anyway, enough rambling,
Michael Boyle
mjb...@princeton.edu
Cronan
Brian Watson wrote
>> Brian Watson wrote
>> >I read recently a few reviews on the AICN page about some of the
>> >that caught my attention is a reference to the shuttle and fighter bays
>> >being pressurized, but having them open to space, the atmosphere being
>> >this is true, because it's the kind of thing that smacks of of the Star
>> >cool, rather than being based on any science.
>>
>> It has.
>> Cronan
>> ...take that Shadow Death Cloud thing as a particularly egregious example
>
>of a concept, the other is an application of a science. There's really
>nothing spectacularly impossible about the Death Cloud, except the
>engineering difficulty of actually making something that large move without
>tearing itself apart.
You misunderstand, Brian. You said, "the Star Trek method of thinking of
just inventing technology because it looks cool, rather than being based
on any science." I make mention of the Shadow Death Cloud in particular
because, well, there are much more 'scientifically accurate' ways to kill
all life on a planets surface while rendering it completely uninhabitable
(I could name five without so much batting an eyelash), but they don't
look as cool. They're visually boring so JMS created a more eye-catching
approach to planetary destruction.
The same is true of the forcefield thing. There are tons of more accurate
ways to approach the whole shuttle/fighter bay problem than putting a
magicky forcefield on it... but they won't catch the eye, they won't make
people go, "KICK ASS!" so the forcefield is chosen over the doors and life,
hard as it maybe to believe goes on.
Someone who is a billion years of research ahead of
>you could conceivably build something like that.
?
It's even less ridiculous
>than a Dyson sphere, which is supposed to encompass an entire solar system.
I... don't really get where you're going with this.
>The Death Cloud is just a frame work that surrounds a planet (with segments
>that can connect, disconnect and change positions to adapt for size of
>planet?) and then fire missiles at it. Burrowing nuclear missiles isn't that
>unusual, since our military has been developing burrowing bombs to destroy
>bunkers for some time now.
Which is fine. But ridiculous. Just as forcefields are theoretically
possible (but shouldn't be used given that there are more scientifically
accurate alternatives), a death cloud is theoretically possible (but
shouldn't be used because there are more scientifically accurate
alternatives). Your post seem to make the unwarranted assumption that
B5 is somehow better than trek in the creation of whizzbang sensawunder
toys. It's not. It just uses them more consistently.
>While I wasn't specific in the part of the post you replied to, in the second
>part I asked how an uncharged particle such as O2 could be kept at by a
>magnetic field. This is what concerns me, a flagrant scientific error, rather
>than some scientific nit that goes against what we know to be true about
>atoms and molecules and charges they have.
Depends on how the field works. If, by some off chance, the ships
gravity drive is used to keep the air from rushing out it makes more
sense than, say building a planetkiller.
Cronan
Cronan
Chris Campbell wrote
> interference? wrote:
>>Or the battlecrabs themselves. Is there any reason for them looking like
>>spiders, rather than scare/amaze us?
>
You mean when the Shadows took to designing their ships a million
years ago their first consideration was... what might potentially
scare sentients with a specific culture from a certain blue-green
planet in the an out fashion spiral arm of the galaxy?
Cronan
...that's, errr, and impressive bit of engineering
Cronan
hard as it maybe to believe, goes on.
Sergey Bukhman
Cronan wrote:
> > interference? wrote:
> >>Or the battlecrabs themselves. Is there any reason for them looking like
> >>spiders, rather than scare/amaze us?
Interference is my game, but Sergey Bukhman is still my name.
Nicolai
check before posting :P
mjb