Quote:

---

Originally posted by MadJack:


Now obviously there can't be "hundreds of earths" in a single solar system On the same note, the entire galaxy could not be fully explored, terraformed and settled suitible planets in a mear 500 years. Ofcourse, just because the Mal intro said "a whole new galaxy of earths", it dosn't mean that they actually terraformed an entire Galaxy, just alot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lindley:
I think that there *is* FTL travel in Firefly----its just not depicted with the usual streaking-stars.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arawaen:
Are stars within a cluster less than 1 LY apart? FTL still seems necessary to me in a cluster. Even light speed is not that fast when you are talking interstellar distances and the travel times given in the show.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grounded:
Some of the aspects of the show seem to imply that FTL is necessary. Others (notably the way Serenity is depicted in flight) seem to imply that FTL has not been achieved. To be honest I think this is just an oversight, something that wasn't really considered in the conception of the show or rather was considered to be unimportant. From the evidence in the episodes I'd say Serenity is not capable of FTL and lives in a solar system that is (somehow) very densely populated with planets and moons. If the show had continued I doubt we'd have ever been given any explanation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon:

Well, I would disagree. Just because it does not look like all the common conceptions of FTL flight don't mean nothing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon:

It is only geeks like me and you that get bugged by this kind of thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grounded:
The crew of Serenity seem to just be getting by so we can also assume that they can't afford to skip back and forth between nearby systems i.e. they need to work locally.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lodril:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grounded:
The crew of Serenity seem to just be getting by so we can also assume that they can't afford to skip back and forth between nearby systems i.e. they need to work locally.

---

That assumes a whole host of other things though, including how close the various planets are to each other, which is a critical piece of information we just don't have. They could be in one system, but on the other hand they might be on opposite sides of the galaxy. It might take days at ten times the speed of light, or days only just below the speed of light.

We also don't know the nature of their travel technology. Moving from opposite ends of the galaxy might be easier than cutting through the middle. It might be faster to go farther than it is to travel a shorter distance. This isn't just dependent on technology either, their routes could also be dictated by Alliance presence, tolls, taxes, and all sorts of other things.

They also seem to travel at slower speeds between points. Possibly there are navigational requirements that only allow full speed to be achieved between certain local positions. Hazards to the space lanes, jump points (ala Wing Commander), or who knows what else. Try explaining the Internet to someone from 1504... they're missing too many intervening pieces of technology for any of it to make much sense, even if you could sit them down and show it to them.

We're missing far too much information to put forward anything but wild speculation here. Which is good. I'm tired of too many answers. That was always my problem with the past several iterations of Star Trek.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Freakysins:
They also refer to the "core planets"... to me, that is more indicative of a group of systems. The idea of a single solar system supporting more than 70 terraformed, habitable planets (even if 2/3rds of them are simply hospitable moons) is just too... impossible, I guess, based on what I know about the way spatial bodies act and react. I can make a more cohesive case for FTL travel than I can a single solar system.

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gte910h:
I'm a huge fan of: "It really doesn't matter"

Perhaps the science was proved wrong, and there isn't and difference between FTL and normal travel, who knows. Its not important. The show is about grime, grit and reality, and people in those situations: the tech is a distraction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grounded:
Lol, am I the only one campaigning for single system, no FTL?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grounded:
They consistently refer to the 'inner planets' in the show. Does that not sound like evidence of a single solar system? Also, if you open it up so that they're operating in a galaxy then the probabilities of encountering other ships goes way down and makes eps like Out Of Gas all the more improbable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lodril:

I've worked for several major multinational corporations... and I can tell you that when they refer to 'core brands', there's not any sort of geographic unity. Core could mean a lot of things non-geographical (non-spatial?); original Alliance members, largest worlds (and thus the economic center of the 'verse), even something else entirely, like the fact that they are terraformed a different way (liquid magma core worlds... thus more suitable for Terran geography?). Even discarding the non-geography explanations, you're still faced with the fact that even if 'Core' means spatially central to the human-inhabited regions of space, you still can't identify what size that region is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DRE:
I would assume they have a form of FTL travel based on the comments of their 'Burner' drive (where Serenity's engines glow and the ship vroooooms off). It's definately not warp/superlight speed

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grounded:
I don't think I used the word 'core' anywhere in my post! I said 'inner planets'

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lodril:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grounded:
I don't think I used the word 'core' anywhere in my post! I said 'inner planets'

---

I stand corrected. :)

Much of the same logic applies though. "Inner", and I think they also used "central", could have non-spatial meaning (less likely than Core, I suppose), but also don't imply anything about size, only relative location. Inner to a larger area could be several solar systems across.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Freakysins:
The bottom line is, it's Joss' 'verse, and if he wants to make it 70+ moons orbiting a gigantic galactic cheese wheel, I'm going to watch it anyway and love every second of it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lodril:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Freakysins:
The bottom line is, it's Joss' 'verse, and if he wants to make it 70+ moons orbiting a gigantic galactic cheese wheel, I'm going to watch it anyway and love every second of it.

---

Hmm. Well, while I do like Firefly, I have to admit the galactic cheese wheel would probably throw me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RocketJock:
Down to brass tacks, I consider Firefly Science Fiction, not fantasy. Placing scores of habitable worlds in a single solar system is fantasy. Therefore, we must assume multiple systems, which implies some kind of FTL, though not necessarily something flashy and obvious.

---

Quote:

---

I was just watching "The Train Job" last night, and noticed that at the very end, when the guys with blue hands are interrogating the "door man", they say something to the effect:

"We didn't fly 83 million miles for a box of band-aids, colonel"

83 million miles is less than the distance between the earth and the sun, but they make it sound like it's quite a large distance.

thoughts?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Grounded:
Lol, am I the only one campaigning for single system, no FTL?

---