Where does Firefly take place?

POSTED BY: Hans
UPDATED: Sunday, July 2, 2006 05:23
VIEWED: 62435
PAGE 12 of 18

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE

JUSTDAVID

Monday, January 19, 2004 11:33 PM

In "Bushwhacked" Mal says

"Reavers ain't men. Or they forgot how to be. Now they're just nothing. They got out to the edge of the galaxy, to that place of nothing, and that's what they became."

That decides it as far as I'm concerned. It has to be more than just one planetary system.

Haken needs a new development system. Please donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

CAPNRAHN

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
200 years - just think of what New York was like in 1804! And since all but the core worlds seem to be underdeveloped colonies, that seems a reasonable length of time.

I never imagined that stasis ever came into it. The journey from one system to another is for most people a one-way, one-time trip.

Sorry ,there is a BIG differance between a city and 'hundreds' of terraformed worlds.

Not to mention how long it would take to terraform a single planet. Joss just dinna go into what tech was used.

Quote:

I don't think it's impossible to visulaize two sets of conventional engines on one ship, one used for maneuvering, landing, and in-atmosphere flight, with the other used for the high speeds needed for interplanetary (not interstellar) travel. In fact, that's exactly what we seem to see on screen. The fact that they used the "big engine" in-atmosphere ("Serenity"), not as any sort of "warp drive" but just to accelerate very fast away from the Reavers, seems (to me) to confirm that it is a strictly conventional drive system...one that gives a big push that is fine for interplanetary travel, but has no special properties to break that light speed barrier.

And yes, I would love a series bible as well!

I didn't mean impossible, but my point of a single system with hundreds of planets would be a nightmare to construct, much less navigate.

Yes ... we need to call Joss "on the carpet" fer this one!

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

GUNRUNNER

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 3:24 AM

"Yes moving planets and moons would require super-science, but I don't think it would be too difficult for a culture that had planet scale artificial gravity (mentioned in the train job) and rapid terraforming."

I read an article on space.com a few months back that floated the idea of altering the orbit of an astroid and bringing it close to a planet over and over again each time the astroid would pull the planet closer to its destnation. So all that is required to move a planet is a rocket and some big nukes or kenetic projectiles.

CAPNRAHN

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:58 AM

With hundreds of planets or planetoids? The logistics anre a NIGHTMARE

[Pray excuse this SW referance] With even the might of the Star Wars Empire's Armada AND BOTH Death Stars would be hard pressed to make ... HUNDREDS.

And the orbits have to be slow and methodical... a large enough body causes bloody hell with tidea and plate tectonics. Now speed that sucker up ... wheeeeeee Uber-Gravity Whip! Crack that terraform-hopeful planet like a raptor feeding on an egg.

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

DRAKON

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CapnRahn:
Joss ... please tell US or print a show 'bible'!

Would like to second this, but don't think its gonna happen any time soon. I agree with your reasoning and analysis, but it may never get defined in that much detail.

Why? Because this show is not about science in the way that folks like you and I want. Its about the characters and how they interact in this world. The science was left fuzzy for a very good reason, this is not a science show.

The science is not the star, we don't have the "particle of the week" to duex ex machina the crew of Serenity out of danger.

You are absolutely right, 70 worlds, terraformed or no, ain't going to make for a stable system. (I have my doubts about star clusters as that can be a chaotic mess as well, stripping planets from their home star all the time and sending them out into the void.) FTL would be necessary for anything larger than a single solar system.

But ultimately, none of this really matters. Serenity has the ability to get from one world to another. The two worlds exist, are separated by some space, and that is all that matters for dramatic purposes.

I think Joss is more concerned with the stories, the characters, than the nitty gritty of the drive system, or how so many worlds can exist where. And I find it really hard to argue with his choice.

Which really cheeses me off, because I wanna know too.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

HANS

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CapnRahn:

Sorry ,there is a BIG differance between a city and 'hundreds' of terraformed worlds.

Not to mention how long it would take to terraform a single planet. Joss just dinna go into what tech was used.

Uhh, I was using the New York example as a justification for why we see large, developed, high-tech cities...not to extrapolate it over into terraforming. My point was, lots can change in 200 years.

As for your point that it might take a long time to terraform worlds, that's a problem for both the many systems and one-system theories. I don't think it supports one theory over another. We know there are many worlds ("more than 70" or "hundreds", depending on your source) and that many were terraformed.

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:30 PM

Back in October I put together a summary of arguments for and against FTL in Firefly at http://jack.p5.org.uk/ftl-firefly.en.html

Corrections welcome.

--
I am Jack's username
Monarch (Firefly sim): < http://tenforward.slasims.com/viewforum.php?f=104>

WYDRAZ

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by IamJacksUsername:
Back in October I put together a summary of arguments for and against FTL in Firefly at http://jack.p5.org.uk/ftl-firefly.en.html

Corrections welcome.

Seems like you could use some catchin' up with that summary. One thing you mentioned is that 'Core' alludes to core of the galaxy, when it can also simply mean 'first' or 'inner', such as a core group of worlds where the first human explorers came from. It's location is not necessarily the core of the galaxy.

WYDRAZ

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:41 PM

I wish Joss would stop this silly argument for us. But I think he already has. Joss has made the statement that there are no aliens known to mankind, and mankind can only conlude this if they've been all over the galaxy!

DRAKON

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 12:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wydraz:
I wish Joss would stop this silly argument for us. But I think he already has. Joss has made the statement that there are no aliens known to mankind, and mankind can only conlude this if they've been all over the galaxy!

Not necessarily. The statement means what it says, regardless of where or how much of the galaxy mankind has searched. None known, means none known. It don't mean their ain't none, or even we have explored the entire galaxy.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE