Colonial Fleets - Reverse homage

Page 5 of 9

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

Colonial Fleets (http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums/index.php)

- The Last Battlestar......Galactica! (http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=60)

- - Reverse homage (http://www.colonialfleets.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8003)

justjackrandom

September 29th, 2004 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

Sometimes we nerds take ourselves a little too seriously dont you think?
;)

WAY too seriously... :/: ;)

JJR

justjackrandom

September 29th, 2004 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

oh,....and it doesnt have to be boring.
Check out 1st season Star Trek, the episode where Kirk battles the Romulan vessel at long range. That is a great example of a gripping, exciting battle that uses very little effects and simulates a more realistic space combat.

Balance of Terror is an excellent episode based loosely on Run Silent, Run Deep, a submarine vs destroyer WWII story (good film, great book, written by Edward L. Beach as part of a trilogy). But if ALL combat in Trek were that way, it would get old quick. Additionally, establishing such a style of combat would shoot holes in the idea of fighter operations. This may be realistic (I don’t think fighter operations will be viable for a long time in space…), but not where certain shows (BSG) want to go.

JJR

justjackrandom

September 29th, 2004 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter noble

Hmm, interesting, very interesting. ;)

You do know that Vipers and Raiders etc manouver in some sort of 'gravity bubble' don't you?

Best,

Peter

Yep. I figure there are two separate fields of energy that surround small ships for exoatmospheric operations in the Galactica Milieu. The first generates the gravity “bubble” that the ship uses for maneuvering as it would in a liquid medium, by interacting with the field with its control surfaces (I even have a few ideas on the specifics of how it works), and the second is a modified Alcubierre drive field, which is what allows the ships to travel FTL without special FTL engines. It’s also great for tooling around a solar system at fractions of C. As it is also sort of a grav drive, it becomes useful for cruising the interstellar and intergalactic waterways of negative energy.

The first field must also be configurable for shape, allowing for gravitic streamlining of the ship in an atmosphere (how else can the Viper reach escape velocity with a wind-sock in its nose?)

:salute:

JJR

Ioraptor

September 29th, 2004 01:05 PM

...pistols at dawn Sept! :)

Ioraptor

September 29th, 2004 01:06 PM

...pistols at dawn Sept! :)

ur..... phasers?

peter noble

September 29th, 2004 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

He gets it! ;)

It's my hypothesis that some of the atmosphere from the Galactica gets trapped in the bubble when the Viper launches and if the ship explodes the bubble bursts while the tylium/solium ignites leading to the brief fiery gas cloud explosion we see on screen.

A lot of Colonial technology looks simple but it's not if you think about it. They've got forcefields that a ship can pass through and them not lose any atmosphere from the launch bay.

The warrior's helm is basically a spacesuit in itself acting like the Flickinger Field does in Jack McDevitt's books. Those bars that light up top and bottom aren't there for show they generate a forcefield that'll allow the pilot to breathe if the cockpit gets holed and de-pressurises.

Quote:

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

The second is a modified Alcubierre drive field, which is what allows the ships to travel FTL without special FTL engines. It’s also great for tooling around a solar system at fractions of C. As it is also sort of a grav drive, it becomes useful for cruising the interstellar and intergalactic waterways of negative energy.

I'd like to here more about this, I've never heard of this in SF before, is it like an Alderson Drive?

Best,

Peter

Rowan

September 29th, 2004 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustex

Great! When do the reruns come on!

Have a peek here at Firefly...
http://versaphile.com/download/firefly.html
;) :D

Sept17th

September 29th, 2004 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

...pistols at dawn Sept! :)

ur..... phasers?

I prefer "blasters". I'll set mine for stun, a painful stun but no one need be die over this. You can set your volume to zero.

Really though, a smart guy like you must stay away from the TV dinners. :D

Rowan

September 29th, 2004 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrior

If you don't like sound in space, then TURN THE VOLUME OFF!

:LOL: ;)

Rowan

September 29th, 2004 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter noble

Quote:

Originally Posted by justjackrandom
Yep. I figure there are two separate fields of energy that surround small ships for exoatmospheric operations in the Galactica Milieu. The first generates the gravity “bubble” that the ship uses for maneuvering as it would in a liquid medium, by interacting with the field with its control surfaces (I even have a few ideas on the specifics of how it works)

Quote:

Originally Posted by justjackrandom
The second is a modified Alcubierre drive field, which is what allows the ships to travel FTL without special FTL engines. It’s also great for tooling around a solar system at fractions of C. As it is also sort of a grav drive, it becomes useful for cruising the interstellar and intergalactic waterways of negative energy.

I'd like to here more about this, I've never heard of this in SF before, is it like an Alderson Drive?

Best,

Peter

ok this is getting facinating!!! :D

Antelope

September 29th, 2004 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrior

"I think the word hijacked would objectively be called "bought", "purchased", or were "sold". It's a business not the bible."

antelope, that response to Dawg makes no sense.

You don't know the history of the DeSanto project, do you?

When Dawg said BG was hi-jacked from DeSanto, that is *exactly* what he means.

I think sometimes we lose sight that we are talking about a for profit television show.

Whoever owned the rights to make and/or financed the Desanto continuation at the time it was shut down, shut it down. No one held a gun to their head. They simply decided rightly or wrongly that further investment in the project would not provide the desired return on investment at that particular point in time.

No one is scheming out there to "destroy" the show. No one is trying to "rape" the fans. No one is or was trying to "hijack" anything. All the people involved were trying to make as much money as they could off the franchise.

The fact that all these money oriented people may not understand their product and may be incompetent I would not dispute. :cry:

And Yes I am now aware of the history behind the Desanto Continuation thanks to the many great original Battlestar Galactica series fans I have met here over the past year. :salute:

One of the reasons I believe Larson will sit on his hands for the next year or so is so he can stick his wet finger in the wind and see which way the Battlestar Galactica profit winds are blowing after the new series has some time to air. :bg04: :colonial: Larson may be the creator but he is more worried about his checkbook than he is about any of the concerns you, I, or any other fan may have about the show.

Rowan

September 29th, 2004 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

Firefly was an interesting show. I really liked it. I can’t wait for the movie. But one reason it didn’t work as television is because it broke too many dramatic necessities to make it interesting to a larger audience, and one of these was trying to be too realistic in its portrayal of vacuum operations.

As for what constitutes “realistic” in scifi, I’ll reiterate something I said earlier by posting a quote from another source: “We inevitably tend to envision the capabilities of putative extraterrestrials as being similar to, or slightly more advanced than ours”. (Seth Shostak November 2003, Space.com). Meaning that the more scientific-minded of us usually want our heroes to live and work in a world that follows roughly the same rules as ours does. Yet who is to say what those rules will be in 100 years, or 200, or 500?

JJR

I love Firefly and had no problem adjusting to no sound in space in fact when Serenity is passing close to the Reevers ship there was no sound and frankly I found it very eerie I loved it. I'm a total animal nut and vegetarian but I love the moment when Mal shot the horse because it broke the rules and loved it when he shot the "police officer" in his cargo hold without a second thought - again because it broke the rules. One of my most favorite Sci-Fi books is the series by C.J. Cherryh about Pyanfar Chanur who is an upright feline creature. In her culture only the females of her species are allowed on spaceships as males are notoriously unstable and emotional (sorry boys ;) ) it's an area of space were oxygen breathers (Hani, Kif etc.) and methane breathers (the Knnn) have worked out an intricate web of communications and politics designed to maintain a mutually profitable economic climate and a shaky peace until one human arrives and throws the whole thing out of whack. Kind of like the way John does in Farscape. I love the battles and chases portrayed in these books all the variety of species and all the space stations everything is alien to me and the rules don't apply and that is why I like it. I like my Sci-Fi to be gritty, scary , unpredictable, I like fast paced but I also enjoy watching the day to day routines of peoples lives as lived on a ship or space station. I want it to be intense and not pretty and I don't want to feel safe. It's only in the third season of Enterprise that I started to like that show once it got a little less safe and characters that were around for a few shows were getting killed and alien species were plotting to eliminate the human race and when Archer throws his morals away. I want it to entertain me but I also want it to blow me away with it's imaginativeness and challenge my morals, ideals, my "humanity" this is why I liked the baby killing scene in BSG 2003. ( I'm not saying this to stir the $hit pot just using it as an example of how moraly / emotionally challenging I like it)

peter noble

September 29th, 2004 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antelope526

One of the reasons I believe Larson will sit on his hands for the next year or so is so he can stick his wet finger in the wind and see which way the Battlestar Galactica profit winds are blowing after the new series has some time to air. Larson may be the creator but he is more worried about his checkbook than he is about any of the concerns you, I, or any other fan may have about the show.

Sadly, you may very well be right.

Peter

Antelope

September 29th, 2004 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

The first generates the gravity “bubble” that the ship uses for maneuvering as it would in a liquid medium, by interacting with the field with its control surfaces (I even have a few ideas on the specifics of how it works), and the second is a modified Alcubierre drive field, which is what allows the ships to travel FTL without special FTL engines. It’s also great for tooling around a solar system at fractions of C. As it is also sort of a grav drive, it becomes useful for cruising the interstellar and intergalactic waterways of negative energy.

The first field must also be configurable for shape, allowing for gravitic streamlining of the ship in an atmosphere (how else can the Viper reach escape velocity with a wind-sock in its nose?)

:salute:

JJR

If you believe in UFOs and also certain military and private propulsion theories future craft (and current UFOs) will be (are) enveloped in an artificial gravitational field. The craft basically "falls" in whichever direction the controller wants. Such artificial fields also supposedly can result in the occupant not feeling acceleration. Both Boeing, NASA, and Russia are now openly working on projects in this arena. If such things turn out to be true we should see super acceleration and near light speed craft in the next 100 years.

Mustex

September 29th, 2004 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ioraptor

I'm here to represent a large number of people who are sick to death of roaring space ships and zinging laser bolts. We are tired of space vessels making turns as if they were in atmosphere and are bored with 'torpedoes' that do less damage than a WW2 era weapon.
Futhermore we think 'flying bridges' on spaceships are FRACKING STUPID.
STUPID

:mad:

We are dying to see ships that are designed for a three dimensional environment and behave that way. We :barf: in our TV dinners every time we see a Federation vessel line up nicely on a two dimensional plane with its opponent.
ARGHHHHHHH!!!!!
We cant take it anymore!!!

Any concession on these points will earn our viewership.
We would watch the Ron Moore Battlestar Galactica series for this reason if they used a CGI Miss Piggy to play Adama and everyone onboard was a transvestite muppet!

.....uh urr (wiping foam from mouth), I think its time for my meds....
:wtf:

SO SAY WE ALL!...errr except for the part about the meds. I take mine in the morning (I'm ADD, and take a small dosage of aderol, although my doctor has said the dosage is SO small I've apparently outgrown it, and the aderol just serves as a pick-me-up).

Mustex

September 29th, 2004 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrior

Must not be too many, considering the droves of people that show up to watch Star Wars... the very epeditomy of what you hate.

"Star Wars" at least doesn't pretend to be science. "Star Trek" on the otherhand should make up it's mind, STOP PRETENDING TECHNO-BABBLE IS SCIENCE!

And tell me, prior to "Star Wars" what was the highest grossing sci-fi movie of all time?...say it...say it...SAY IT!...THAT'S RIGHT "2001" BABY! Silly science has it's place, but I think there should be a balance of the two on TV, and this is the first step.

Mustex

September 29th, 2004 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justjackrandom

A number of folks have already addressed this well as far as the dramatic reasons for doing this, but I’ll try to put it another way. Space combat governed by the science of today would be boring. And who is going to watch boring?

Firefly was an interesting show. I really liked it. I can’t wait for the movie. But one reason it didn’t work as television is because it broke too many dramatic necessities to make it interesting to a larger audience, and one of these was trying to be too realistic in its portrayal of vacuum operations.

As for what constitutes “realistic” in scifi, I’ll reiterate something I said earlier by posting a quote from another source: “We inevitably tend to envision the capabilities of putative extraterrestrials as being similar to, or slightly more advanced than ours”. (Seth Shostak November 2003, Space.com). Meaning that the more scientific-minded of us usually want our heroes to live and work in a world that follows roughly the same rules as ours does. Yet who is to say what those rules will be in 100 years, or 200, or 500?

Our understanding of the nature of the universe has changed so many times in the last 2000 years we often find it comical to see how our ancestors viewed creation. And the more we learn about he nature of the universe today, the more we realize just how much we still don’t know. How will our descendents 2000 years hence see our view of the universe? Probably the same way we see the view of our ancestors.

How do we KNOW that in 200 years ships won’t move through space as if in a liquid medium, and may then create some form of sound? If you accept FTL capabilities in any form, or the control over the force of gravity, then why is the rest so difficult?

JJR

Let me put this in another way. I COULD be riding an invisible, pink unicorn. But can you provide me with evidense that I am? There's a rule in science (can't remember what it's called) that says "if you can't provide evidence something is happening, it probably isn't." Furthermore, while our ancestors might not have understood the world, it's those ideas they got through observations that are most accurate (we have not yet disproven Newton, because he was observant, as we try to be). What you're referring to is called a "singularity", or a point at which predicting the advancement of science becomes impossible. But this does not override previously established laws of physics. The fact that E=MC2, doesn't mean that an object in motion no longer tends to stay in motion. For more, follow this link:

http://www.orionsarm.com/intro/grading.html

Mustex

September 29th, 2004 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peter noble

Hmm, interesting, very interesting. ;)

You do know that Vipers and Raiders etc manouver in some sort of 'gravity bubble' don't you?

Best,

Peter

So why can't this "gravity bubble" be used for all acceleration, rather than just having thrusters on the back?

Mustex

September 29th, 2004 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sept17th

What the hell is a "flying bridge"?

I think you all or ya'll are in the minority. I think the group you represent have a boring idea of what science fiction on TV should be. I think some one as highly enlightened as your self shouldn't be eating TV dinners its so 1978.

I think what you described above with the silence of space, bullets and Muppets should have its own name...maybe something other than Battlestar Galactica which clearly is so flawed to you.

So liking realism means we don't like TOS? So are you saying that all fans of "2001: A Space Oddessey" hate "Star Wars". Well guess what, in spite of liking realism every now and then, I consider "Return of the Jedi" to be the greatest movie ever made.

Mustex

September 29th, 2004 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrior

If you don't like sound in space, then TURN THE VOLUME OFF!

And how do you propose I edit out the visible lasers?

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:46 AM.

Page 5 of 9

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page