Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)

disabled · #1 June 27th, 2002, 04:42 AM

DS9, sadly, won't be picked up by many networks mainly because it went into a gray area of character development where good guy abd bad guy got mixed. While more realistic, it requires story arcs and such that dropped Ratings.

Voyager was supposed to fix that by have all episodes unrelated. That did even worse since all the characters were made to fit the writer's wet dreams.

What I'm hoping for is Berman to be reduced in power... ALOT so that trek can grow a bit. DS9 and TNG did well because Berman kinda stayed out of it, just handling the studio affairs and supervisor top level crap. He went nitty-gritty on Voyager for season 1-5 and that series went to crap, he totally abandoned Voyager for Enterprise in seasons 6 & 7 and that really sent it to the crapper.

Lesson to be learned- Berman is interested in money.

Baron Munchausen · #2 June 27th, 2002, 04:56 AM

Bwahahaha... what do you think any studio is interested in? Trek went into the trash bin when Rodenberry died. Paramount was left in sole control of it. Berman may or may not be dumber than the average studio exec, but it'll be incredibly lucky to find one willing to let Trek be a SciFi show with real attempts at exploration and experimentation. It's just another cash cow with a formula to follow as far as the suits are concerned.

The only reason DS9 had any quality at all was that it was a rip-off of Babylon 5, designed to 'block' it's success. Strasczinsky (sp?) had pitched it to Paramount before being accepted at WB, and so they had the outline of the story arc to work with.

[ June 27, 2002, 14:22: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Puke · #3 June 27th, 2002, 07:26 AM

now you guys have me aching for a good space combat sim. bastards.

the Last tabletop one i played was aerotech/battlespace, i always wanted to take a stab at silent death or full thrust. SFB was always too complicated to be enjoyable. like ASL, you know? the paratrooper modules for ASL were fun, but when you have a stack of rulebooks 3 feet high, its not a beer and pretzels game anymore.

a on-off-topic question for you aviation experts out there though: regarding flight ceilings on aircraft (aforementioned bit about our fighters being able to hit 50,000 feet by flying vertically, and such). why the limit? is it because the plane uses aerodynamics to translate forward momentum into vertical momentum, and then maintains it with its thrust until gravity overcomes the thrust its putting out? or is it because the atmosphere is thinner and the engines are not able to operate as efficiently and they are not achieving the right fuel air mixture and combustion is not working right?

its sure as heck not because gravity is getting stronger the further you are from the earth, and its sure as heck not because the atmosphere is thicker and harder to penetrate at higher elevations.

Phoenix-D · #4 June 27th, 2002, 07:29 AM

A few things: the engines don't work as well, and the wings don't generate as much lift since the air is thinner.

Phoenix-D

geoschmo · #5 June 27th, 2002, 07:37 AM

Yeah, if you are talking about flying straight up under engine power, ala Yeager at the end of the right stuff, the lift isn't even such a big deal cause going straight up the wings aren't generating much lift. Well, they are, but it isn't helping to gain altitude anyway.

The problem is the jet engine needs air. I don't know how much oxygen it needs to be able to keep jet fuel burning and spinning the turbines. I am sure it needs some. But even if you could keep the turbines magically spinning somehow without oxygen you wouldn't get any thrust with no air to compress and push out the back.

That's why you need a rocket to keep generating thrust past a certain point. The rocket fuel has it's own oxygen in the form of a liquid or solid, and it generates thrust by the expansion of that fuel as it burns.

Geoschmo

geoschmo · #6 June 27th, 2002, 02:20 PM

Hehe, I got it wrong again. (Boy, I need to learn to shut up when I don't kow what I am talking about.

)

Most of the jet's thrust is produced by combustion of the air after it's compressed. If the compression alone was producing the thrust basically it would just be an inside out propeller.

So the answer is, yes it's the lack of oxygen required to burn the jet fuel efficently that makes a jet engine not be able to operate efficently at extremely high altitudes.

I found a preetty good link to refresh up on jet engine principles if you are interested. http://www.soton.ac.uk/~genesis/Leve...h/Jetprinc.htm

disabled · #7 June 27th, 2002, 02:21 PM

Acutally, DS9 being a rip of B5 isn't true and isn't provable. Both shows did develop at the same time, along with many other space-station based sci-fi shows. Those two developed, many others failed.

Also, the script controllers at Paramount don't keep stuff like story pitches. I've seen incidents where a writer will pitch them 4 stories, they'll say keep that one for later and make it more detailed and come back, then trash it a month later. They trashed it because they don't remember it. These people see and hear millions of script pitches a day.

Plus B5 was pitched to the day time soap people at paramount, whom promptly canned it.