The Firefly/Serenity Solar System

POSTED BY: FraserBW
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 7, 2006 10:55
VIEWED: 27197
PAGE 9 of 11

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Monday, January 2, 2006 12:16 AM

There's twenty planets, which means 50 or more moons of Gas giants and possibly the Earth-like planets.

In the DVD extras it's mentioned that Serenity uses a variation of a fusion rocket engine, so it seems reasonable that you can use data for those types of engines. They produce speeds of roughly 5 Million to 10 Million m/s (50,000 to 100,000 Km/s).

50,000km/s is about 0.16c (1/6th of the speed of light).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

AAHHAAA

Monday, January 2, 2006 12:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

if he had a great plot that only worked if Serenity can run on chopped liver he would use it
(snip... that shouldn't stop us from enjoying it.

Fletch-- totally agree; he'd just borrow Mr. Fusion from Back2Future and get on with it!:]

personally, I'd like to see this cast/set of personas together in anything Joss cared to do... (boy, am I in trouble) I could see them (in a Vancouver production) as a team of X-file2 investigators or as Sliders or (my favorite) a team of WWII secret agents operating in France- they'd work.

rather Serenity 2, tho

CITIZEN

Monday, January 2, 2006 12:45 AM

I find Firefly is far more consitent with real science on the whole than Star Trek.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

RODWY

Monday, January 2, 2006 1:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There's twenty planets, which means 50 or more moons of Gas giants and possibly the Earth-like planets.

In the DVD extras it's mentioned that Serenity uses a variation of a fusion rocket engine, so it seems reasonable that you can use data for those types of engines. They produce speeds of roughly 5 Million to 10 Million m/s (500,000 to 100,000 Km/s).

50,000km/s is about 0.16c (1/6th of the speed of light).

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

Oh I was just runnin off 1/10th the speed of light and it takes 3 and a half weeks roughly to get from jupiter to pluto at that speed. But 50,000 - 100,00 km/s makes perfect sense in the time it takes them to get from place to place.

---
Mal: Define Interesting
Wash: Oh god, Oh god, We're all gonna die?

TENTHCREWMEMBER

Monday, January 2, 2006 1:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Quote:
Originally posted by aahhaaa:
Occam's Razor- one simple answer for all the observetd phenomena...

It was all a dream.

-

Sometimes the simplest explanation is the incorrect one.

For example I was once on a Robotics team, and there we made a robot (go figure) like any good robot it could go forward and back, turn, stack boxes, operate without an operator for short periods provided a preprogrammed function was selected, push several times its weight, and attach itself to a surface with industrial strength suction cups so nothing could move it. Such is the life of a robot.

Anyone observing this robot who believed in Occam’s Razor would immediately be forced to assume that it was a thinking being. All of the things it did could be perfectly explained by the Robot thinking, and (by the same argument that rules out an immaterial soul) one would reject (via the Razor) the absurd idea that somewhere, unknown and unseen, was a human operator.

It does not change the fact that there was a human operator. It is just that a human operator need not be introduced into the picture to explain the phenomenon, but one does need to be introduced to create the phenomenon.

Best. Explaination. Ever.

BWAH!
TCM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Avail yourself of my trade! I have original (meaning: designed by me!) T-shirts, posters, mugs and more at http://www.cafepress.com/10thcrew
*Download my Firefly Games for FREE at http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=13&t=12622
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In or near Ohio? Join us!
http://p097.ezboard.com/bohiofireflyfans
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/firefly-ohio

CHRISTHECYNIC

Monday, January 2, 2006 3:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I find Firefly is far more consitent with real science on the whole than Star Trek.

As someone who was raised a Star Trek fan, grew up with Star Trek fans, is friends with Star Trek fans, still is a Star Trek fan, and has just been spoken to about creating an entire language in the "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" style, I can assure you that you're absolutely right.

In a very real sense Star Trek never was sci-fi, it was a fantasy where they called their magic, "science," but they never let the name limit them. Firefly, though not trying to bombard you with a, "This is science," feel definitely sticks a hell of a lot closer to science.

FLETCH2

Monday, January 2, 2006 3:54 AM

Star Trek originally wasn't about "science" it was "wagon train to the stars" or in short another Gosh Darn Space Western... :)

They tried to keep it consistant and what they had originally was at least considered possible within the science framework of the 1960's. Back then matter/antimatter was considered the most powerfull energy producing reaction and space warp MIGHT have been possible --- please Citizen, dont start talking about warp theories from the 1980's when talking about a 1960's show.

There were a few things that they did for filming convenience -- like firefly they have zero energy cost artifical gravity so they don't film people floating around when the juice goes off. The biggest fantasy element they added was the Transporter which on Rodenberry's instructions they never once explained because they realised it couldn't work, it was a way to let a cheap optical effect replace an expensive special effects shot of sending down a shuttle every week. It is the filming Macguffin that the big solar system is to Firefly, a convenience needed to tell stories.

The problem started with TNG because they got this fanboy need to try and explain how things worked all the time. Thus they devised "Heisenberg Compensators" to explain transporters "scientifically" rather than just not saying.

The irony here is that for all it's faults even Space:1999 was a harder SciFi show than Trek -- those big Eagle engines? Supposedly NERVA style nuclear motors and unlike both Trek and Firefly Alpha CAN loose gravity if thye loose power (though for filming reasons they TELL us they lost it rather than show it....)

RODWY

Monday, January 2, 2006 4:48 AM

yo fletch if you want warp theories, I'm your man, even though I'm only 15 I have done a lot of studying on the topic.

---
Mal: Define Interesting
Wash: Oh god, Oh god, We're all gonna die?

ROCKETJOCK

Monday, January 2, 2006 6:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

We can discount an inertialess drive for the Alliance Cruiser too, since we plainly see thoes huge Newtonian engines sticking out the backend.

The RPG refers to a reduced-inertia drive, not a Doc Smith style inertialess drive; you'd still need some kind of reaction drive to give the ship its initial impetus, and since most of your ineria-reduced velocity vanishes when you shut the drive off, you'd have to burn some fuel to match orbital velocities; no use arriving at Whitefall and turning off the drive only to find you're going 100,000 KPH in the wrong direction...

"Captain, I dinna' think the doubletalk can stand the strain..." -- James Doohan

CITIZEN

Monday, January 2, 2006 1:48 PM

My understanding of the term inertialess drive was that it describes a drive system that doesn't operate on Newtons 3 laws of conservation. Which is what I was getting at.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE