Text 14049, 95 rader
Skriven 2007-04-26 16:08:32 av Jeffrey Kaplan (412.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Relative ship sizes in the B5 universe (and others)
===============================================================
It is alleged that Vorlonagent claimed:

> > We never actually saw any maintenance going on on the Agamemnon because
> > we never saw the Agamemnon that much.  Absence of evidence is not
> > evidence of Absence.  And the only times we've seen actual maintenance
> > going on on the station was when it was plot relevant.
> 
> We see it going on in the background.  IIRC it's one of the things extras 
> are often doing.

You mean those things that look like hovering floor waxers?  I thought
"A View From The Gallery" established that those things don't do
anything. :)
 
> > As for things breaking on B5:  "By Any Means Necessary".  Catastrophic
> > failure happened because of substandard parts used to build the docking
> > bay control computers, in an attempt to cut costs.
> 
> ...which bolsters my point.  If Earth stuff was better or longer lasting 
> than what we have now, even the substandard stuff would be less substandard. 
> B5 conforms to 20th/early 21st century expectations of failure rate, 
> therefore maintenance needs are not reduced by +200 years of technology.

Even the Minbari, the most advanced of the "younger races" have
technical breakdowns, and they have almost-god-level tech, with
refractive hull plating to disperse energy weapon hits, automatic
self-repairs, etc.

> > The EA ships still get their motive force by rockets.  Maybe nuclear or
> > ion powered instead of a chemical reaction like we have now in reality,
> > but they still need a reaction mass to eject out the engine nozzles.
> > And that means some kind of actual fuel that needs to be stored and
> > replaced.
> 
> True.  The power source of B5's time is undoubtably fusion, unless fusion 
> can't be miniaturized enough to fit on a starship.  We know it is B5's power 
> source.  It probably in't a star fury's because we have several times heard 
> people talking about getting the fighters "recharged."

And we've had at least one reference to a radiation leak in a 'Fury's
power core.  IIRC, that's what killed Ramirez (he had a bet with
Franklin about the Mars baseball team).

"Recharge" could simply be what they say in 2260 when we would say
"refuel".  Or they could be referring specifically to the reaction mass
for motive power rather than the 'Fury's actual power plant.

> 15 star furies don't have the same ammunition needs as 80+ jet fighters. 
> The omega's own missile racks are harder to judge since we know they have 
> them but they have never used them on screen.
> 
> If the PPG gun is any judge, storage needs for weapons gasses is minimal. 
> Characters on the show were more worried about the power source than the 
> ammo supply.  Unless gas and power were co,bined into one unit, which still 
> argues that storange needs are minimal.

It's a matter of scale.  We've only seen on-screen the "cap" used in
the handguns, and there's a reference to the cap used in the rifles as
being bigger.  The "cap" equivalent for the guns on a Starfury would be
much bigger.  Based on scale and how many shots they'd need to have,
I'd say the ammo supply for one gun on a Starfury is probably about the
size of a modern-day thousand-pound bomb, and a standard 'Fury has two
of those guns.

> When has B5's defense grid shot projectiles?  Episode, please.  The only 
> defense grid I can think of to use physical weapons was Earth's.

"The Fall Of Night", for one.  The smaller guns that pop up have
rotating drum ammo feeds, and the barrels recoil after every shot.  If
they were energy weapons they wouldn't need that.

> Bottom line is there's no justification to assuming that the vast majority 
> of Omega interior space is storage and justifying a ridiculously small crew 
> on that basis.

Bottom line is that we just don't know.  And rather than just complain
that +in reality+ it makes no sense, I'm providing hypothesis for why
in this fictional show it is that way.

> But this discussion is really only here cew over your assertion that gravity 
> (specifically lack of it) is a constrain on crew size.
> 
> I think I've made the point that it isn't.

No, you haven't.  But I can agree to disagree.

-- 
Jeffrey Kaplan                                         www.gordol.org
The from userid is killfiled             Send personal mail to gordol

"The Superior Person's Book Of Words", by Peter Bowler:
ANTE-JENTACULAR: Pre-breakfast. Goes nicely with 'post-prandial' (after
dinner).
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)