Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke) - Page 6

Puke · #51 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 · #52 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 · #53 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 · #54 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 · #55 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.

geoschmo · #56 June 27th, 2002, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hadrian Tyrael S. Aventine:
Acutally, DS9 being a rip of B5 isn't true and isn't provable.

So which is it? Those statments appear to be either redundant (If it's not true then it's stands to reason it's not provable) or contradictory.

Quote:

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

SHERIDAN: "Susan, What's wrong?"
IVANOVA: "John, I, I'm pregnant. And G'Kar is the father!"
[Close up of Sheridan with a pained look on his face. Organ music rises to creshendo, and fade to black.]

EWWWWW! Finally, a good result of the show being on the WB.

Geo

Baron Munchausen · #57 June 27th, 2002, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
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

Yeah, the lack of air to fuel the engines is the main limitation. But lift does enter the equation eventually. I think the F-15 can actually go higher in 'vertical' mode than it can sustain in level flight...

There was a 'satellite killer' missile designed to be fired from an F-15 at one time. Dunno if it went into actual production. That infomation is probably classified.

[ June 27, 2002, 14:29: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Baron Munchausen · #58 June 27th, 2002, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hadrian Tyrael S. Aventine:
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.

Sorry, but it is entirely provable. You can look at the two story arcs and see point after point copied from B5. They actually stole some of the actors in mid-story, like the guy that played 'General Hague', to play the same part in their story arc.

Strasczinski publicly stated in the B5 newsGroups that he had pitched the story to Paramount and given them a full printed outline of the arc. So it's no 'mystery' or 'coincidence' that the two series overlap so much.

geoschmo · #59 June 27th, 2002, 03:45 PM

If it's true Baron it wouldn't be all that suprising. Story pitches are routinely "borrowed" in Hollywood. Scripts are rehashed and rewritten with new characters for new shows. Very little is truely original because it's tough to get financing for an "unproven" idea. You can go back decades and find the same episodes done over and over again in different shows. It's rather amusing actually. You ever notice how movies always seem to come in pairs? Two volcano movies one year, two asteroid movies the next.

I remember reading that Roddenberry had an idea for a DS9/B5 like series when the original Trek went off the air in the 60's, but he couldn't get the backing for it. TNG was supposed to be it, but Paramount insisted on a more familier formula. He referred to TOS/TNG as "Wagon Train to the stars", and the show he wanted to do would be more like "Gunsmoke in the stars".

Geoschmo

[ June 27, 2002, 14:48: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

disabled · #60 June 27th, 2002, 03:46 PM

The actor that played the General was also featured in the Outer Limits as both a general and president, he also appeared in many other TV shows and movies around the same time.

While I do think they did copy, I also think they developed along different lines.

DS9 had only the Cardassian Civil War, Dominion War, and one other I can't remember over the course of 7 seasons. B5 had about 5 or 6 wars in 5 seasons.

B5 was much more political while DS9 was more military based.

I won't go into religious over tones.

Honestly, I don't consider them rip offs. Most of the time, it's people just bashing DS9 or B5 or both.