Improbable Technology by bluekieran

They're there because they're funny or stylish.

If you don't like it, don't watch Whedon, who is both.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 3:47 AM

WREN

I don't think it was an imperfection.

The windows may be sponsered by the companies that advertise on them. The bar owner may have seen the pool table as a good investment. The whole bar looks as though it is on it's last legs, including the pool table, so the bar owner probably installed it all when he first set up the business. He probably thought he was onto a gold mine.

On the other hand your average joe can't afford the technology and probably wouldn't want it if he could. It wouldn't be a lot of use if the power supply failed for some reason.

Look at third world countries of today and you see the same situation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 3:59 AM

STARPILOTGRAINGER

Plus, if holo-technology is fairly cheap, a holo-pool table might not be anything more unusual than... well, an arcade game in a bar. And those are pretty common. Plus, a holo-pool table had one advantage... you don't have to keep track of your balls. And, as the management isn't responsible for ball failure, a faulty machine can screw up people's games and make them have to pay again.

Remember it all depends on where you are. If you're a lonely little bar on a dunghill of a moon, what happens if you break a window? You may not have facilities to make a replacement nearby. Which means you'd need to get a replacement shipped. Probably at high cost.
But if you've got a holo-window, well, chances are if something goes wrong it'll be something really tiny, and you can have a replacement come along with the repairman's carry on luggage (not to mention having your own general purpose engineer in town with all sorts of little replacements for the small things that go wrong).

Sure, if the whole thing gets damaged, you're still in financial trouble, but if you build it right, it's a lot easier to carelessly wreck a whole window beyond repair than it is to wreck a whole big electronic device.

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 4:29 AM

Holo-technology is probably cheaper than an actual window or a real pool table NOW. When I was a physics major 25 years ago, I remember setting up simple holograms in the college lab with fairly inexpensive equipment - nothing as complicated as a pool table, of course. But 500 years from now, something like that should be both simple AND cheap.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 4:47 AM

FEMALEJAYNE

how likey is it that you can bring glass through thousands and thousands of miles in a jittery spaceship every couple weeks because people keep getting thrown through the window? It'd be really expenive. As for the pool table, who would be able to pocket a ball? or cheat for that matter?
The horses and wagons are a good idea because A. it's somewhat of a western and B. with limited resouces who would be able to get gas? The planets have only been taraformed for life not convience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FemaleJayne:
how likey is it that you can bring glass through thousands and thousands of miles in a jittery spaceship every couple weeks because people keep getting thrown through the window? It'd be really expenive. As for the pool table, who would be able to pocket a ball? or cheat for that matter?
The horses and wagons are a good idea because A. it's somewhat of a western and B. with limited resouces who would be able to get gas? The planets have only been taraformed for life not convience.

Exactly, on all counts. Especially the comment about being able to get gasoline. Of course, horses would be used. Gasoline is a FOSSIL FUEL. There would have had to have been life on all these planets millions of years ago for petroleum to have developed. Since all the outer planets have just been terraformed, we know that isn't the case. Therefore, the only sources of energy would be current plant growth, to "run" the horses, solar (as seen used in "Heart of Gold") or nuclear energy from uranium, which would be found on most planets comprised of the heavier elements - and is apparently what powers Serenity.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 5:59 AM

EMBERS

this is actually a really interesting topic...
I really agree about being out on the edge of the universe (populated part I mean) would make it hard to get a lot of materials...

but I'd been thinking that here you have a very poor planet, where the locals for the most part can't afford much (if any) technology...
but the one place that DOES make some money (so has some techology) is the bar!

Seems to me that the rich (in the 'Firefly'verse) can afford just about anything their hearts desire (I don't see the point in having your own stupid floating island, where your view is of other floating islands and you can't even go swimming...but what do I know?) and the poor (pretty consistantly) can't afford much of anything at all...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 5:59 AM

STATIC

One thing that we must remind ourselves of now and again is that Joss will toss certain principles out the window (intended pun) for the sake of good storytelling.

Maybe a holo-window and holo-pool table doesn't QUITE 'jive' with the rest of the backdrop. . .but those two elements fit well with the tapestry he's weaving at the moment. . .so he puts it in.

In previous threads we've often discussed how Firefly fans tend to be less like the stereotypical 'geeks' that fans of other sci-fi are. . .mostly because the show is more character and story-driven, and less about the neat new toys. I think it's great to see Kaylee working on the engines and fiddling around with components that look like you could buy at your local "Advance Auto Parts" store. . .on a space ship.

Joss uses low tech usually b/c it's easy for the audience to wrap their heads around it and focus on the story. . .and HIGH tech when it's really neat and will suit the story artistically or comedically.

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 6:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
I don't see the point in having your own stupid floating island, where your view is of other floating islands

In these extrapolations of gated estates you wouldn't see the poor people, except when you invited them into your home, and told them to clean it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 6:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:
but I'd been thinking that here you have a very poor planet, where the locals for the most part can't afford much (if any) technology...
but the one place that DOES make some money (so has some techology) is the bar!

Hmm, I do like the idea that the line between hi- and lo-tech could be very thin indeed: with hi-tech goods very cheap, but not so prevalent as to be truly commonplace, you really could end up with a predeominantly low-twxh world with the odd piece of techno-frippery scattered around. Nice :)

(Oh, and I do get the point made elsewhere that it's more to do with storytelling or style than realism; I'm fine with that, but it's not what I'm trying to discuss).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 6:18 AM

DIXIEFLATLINE

I'd very much expect to see a patchwork of technology -- the core worlds probably have a consistent level of high tech, but out on the frontier there would be only bits and pieces that either a) make sense and can do a particular job better and cost less to maintain than the low-tech equivalent, or b) are playpretties that somebody brought out with them and that hasn't broken down yet. (E.g., Rance Burgess' beloved sidearm that runs out of batteries at the worst possible moment.) So it's hard to pinpoint anything as really out of place.

One thing that strikes me a bit odd is the guns (the traditional ones, not the force-pulse weapons we see in "Ariel" and "Trash"). They certainly look and act like standard gunpowder-based weapons, except for the little electric whine we hear whenever somebody cocks one. That I'm having a hard time figuring out a reasonable justification for. Only explanation I've come up with is that the bullets have tiny capacitors inside to deliver a disabling electric shock when they hit, and the whine we hear is the round in the chamber getting its capacitor charged up. It's kind of a stretch, though, and we haven't seen anybody who looked like they were "stunned" when hit by a bullet.

There are also some really clever touches, like the design of Serenity's engine. Not only is it a rotary, but it's started by a hand crank (viz, the end of "Out of Gas"), which brings to mind nothing so much as WW1-era aircraft and automobiles. It's a nice touch that works well to give the impression of antiquated, but rugged and functional technology.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 6:54 AM

TIGER

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: ...that too is a bit of a stretch. We have holographic pool tables,(and windows) but still have horse drawn wagons - on the same planet! Lets just hope Joss et al iron out those tiny imperfections for the movie.

I've heard this complaint about Firefly from the beginning, and I just don't understand why anyone has a problem with the mix of high and low tech in the Firefly 'verse, when the exact situation is present on our planet right now.

Look at any third world country, or even a second world country like India. There you have millions of people staking out 10sq feet of sidewalk to call a home, they eat rotten vegetables and fresh bugs, bath in a river used for sewage and disposal of the occasional corpse - and right around the corner there is an internet cafe. Down the street there is a nuclear power plant, and on the militry bases there are 20 million dollar fighter planes, and bombers that can carry nuclear warheads.

This disparity in weatlh and technology is the rule rather than the exception in most of the world. We here in the U.S. (and many other western nations) have avoided the worst of it, which may explain why so many people have a problem with the concept.

The gulf in technology in the Firefly 'verse is a stroke of genius, and with the possible exception of Heinlein's 'Citizen of the Galaxy', I've never seen (or read) it done more succesfully.

---------------------------------------------
...In pleasant peace and security
How suddenly the soul in a man begins to die.
He shall look up above the stalled oxen
Envying the cruel falcon,
And dig under the straw for a stone
To bruise himself on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 7:10 AM

RELFEXIVE

Quote:
Originally posted by DixieFlatline:
One thing that strikes me a bit odd is the guns (the traditional ones, not the force-pulse weapons we see in "Ariel" and "Trash"). They certainly look and act like standard gunpowder-based weapons, except for the little electric whine we hear whenever somebody cocks one. That I'm having a hard time figuring out a reasonable justification for. Only explanation I've come up with is that the bullets have tiny capacitors inside to deliver a disabling electric shock when they hit, and the whine we hear is the round in the chamber getting its capacitor charged up. It's kind of a stretch, though, and we haven't seen anybody who looked like they were "stunned" when hit by a bullet.

The powder in the rounds could be set off by electric ignition instead of by the impact of a hammer/firing pin on the detonator thingy on the rear of the round. So the the "capacitor charge" noise is for that.

Incidentally... you all realise that the window must have been a force field instead of a mere holoprojection, don't you? A floating image would not keep out the wind or rain, or loud noises; it would not be anywhere near as good as a glass window otherwise, so it would be pointless. And naturally, it's one not strong enough to stop heavy things going through it, like people or chairs.

How does that sit with you all?

Mal: "We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis. You know why? Because we are so... very... pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 8:10 AM

BRITCHICK

Holo pool tables don't get smashed up in a fight.. sounds like a good investment to me!

Plus they can switch it off if they need the floor space, or change it for something else later (I assume!).

Like fireflyfans.net?
Help keep the site running.. Why not donate?
see links on homepage

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 10:00 AM

CYBERSNARK

The "mixture of tech" idea is a good one. I remember reading a Star Wars book once where they talked about an alien civilization being inconvenienced to have to run their matter resequencers by candlelight.

Maybe the holographic window being permeable is the point.

On one hand, you'll want some kinda screen over the window to (A) make the place look classy (B) let the people inside see the people outside without being seen clearly. Yet at the same time, depending on how hot/cold it'll get outside, you may also want airflow ('cause it's cheaper than actually paying for air conditioning that will inevitably break down on the hottest day of the year).

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 10:27 AM

STATIC

Not only would you probably want to maintain airflow. . .but like mentioned previously. . .

Bar owner pays out the wazoo every time someone got tossed through his pretty glass window. . .so he replaces it with something that might be pricey to begin with, but much cheaper to maintain that accomodates having a mouthy drunk having tossed through it on a regular basis without breaking down.

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 10:48 AM

KURUKAMI

Or, alternatively, some of the handguns have actuators in them which help the gun track a target. That idea popped up a decade ago in Lawrence Watt-Evans' novel "Nightside City".

"Sir, I would like to gingerly point out that it is difficult for someone to be gently reassuring when they're holding three and a half feet of sharpened steel."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 11:22 AM

VELOXI

Well, in my estimate, the availability/price/demand for the materials that make billiard balls, for example. Billiard balls are made of plastics or ivory from elephant tusks, and I've never seen an elephant in FF. ;) Therefore, I'm guessing that holo technology is cheaper and easier to deal with, since real billiard balls would probably be way too expensive and valuable to waste in an ordinary bar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 11:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RelFexive:

Incidentally... you all realise that the window must have been a force field instead of a mere holoprojection, don't you? A floating image would not keep out the wind or rain, or loud noises; it would not be anywhere near as good as a glass window otherwise, so it would be pointless. And naturally, it's one not strong enough to stop heavy things going through it, like people or chairs.

How does that sit with you all?

True - I assumed it wasn't just a projection, if only bevause it was disrupted by someone passing through it. As for the feasability argument, it's hard to figure install and upkeep costs, but we could just assume that the bar is rough enough that people fly through sufficiently frequently to make it worthwhile to install a "window" that doesn't need fixing each time :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Static:
One thing that we must remind ourselves of now and again is that Joss will toss certain principles out the window (intended pun) for the sake of good storytelling.

Well, I don't think Joss is a principle-tossing kind of guy, but I agree that the focus is, and should be, on the storytelling. The technological and social elements exist to support the story, not the other way around. As long as they remain consistent, I don't have a problem with the occassional implausibility.

However, within the context of this discussion , I think it's implausible that they have faster-than-light travel and gravity-control, but that they still use basic electro-mechanical systems. That gap seems a little too wide.

Also, at the rate our control of matter is improving, I don't think we'll even look the same in 500 years. Now, that would really screw the storytelling. Not to mention the budget.

We are not in the 8th dimension! We're over New Jersey!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 1:00 PM

Faster-than-light travel? Where was that on Firefly? One of my favorite things about the show is that they appear NOT to have it.

EDIT: Also, consider historical perspective. Think what was considered high tech 500 years ago and compare it to what we have now. What we now consider to be "high tech" will probably be considered very primitive in another 500 years.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 1:54 PM

FIREFLEW

Quote:
Originally posted by embers:

I don't see the point in having your own stupid floating island, where your view is of other floating islands and you can't even go swimming...but what do I know?B]

Who wouldn't want a floating island?

Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 2:00 PM

NOSADSEVEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Lets just hope Joss et al iron out those tiny imperfections for the movie.

Wow, I'm surprised to hear that these things are considered 'imperfections' at all. To me, these are exactly what the concept of the show was about...Not mistakes to be corrected, but ideas being shared. The contrasts of not only coexistent technology but also of culture were constantly being highlighted throughout the entire series, from Mal's concurrent use of chopsticks and tin cup, to the frontier bar with the forcefield window.

Certainly, Joss & Co. haven't outlined the actual course of future technology, but they have served to give us a rare alternative concept of what the integration of future technologies might be like. They've created a tangible future that need not be specifically accurate in order to be metaphorically correct.

~~~~~~~~~
Ain't. We. Just.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 2:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
Faster-than-light travel? Where was that on Firefly?

Well, I think it's implied. Serenity seems to be capable of interplanetary fight in terms of days, or weeks at most. The Alliance presumably has ships better than that. Given that travel is so easy, and that the Alliance is not only capable of projecting overwhelming force, but is actively doing so, could the Alliance, the Reavers, and bandits all co-exist in one system? Maybe. Maybe not. Analogies could be drawn with our own little world.

But if it is one system, where's Earth? They're certainly no longer in our neighbourhood. Without FTL they would have spent anything from decades to hundreds of years emigrating to other systems in sub-FTL ships. Could that travel-time, plus the time needed to create an obviously extensive civilisation, be included in the "within 500 years" timescale? Maybe.

(Now that I've though about it, their control over gravity, inertia, and energy means they could probably get pretty close to the speed of light, which makes the whole scenario a bit more reasonable)

Anway, having everything packed into one system just seemed a bit too constricting, and unlikely, to me. But, no problem.

We are not in the 8th dimension! We're over New Jersey!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 3:47 PM

I don't think that speeds anywhere near that are necessary for interplanetary travel if the ship is powered by even a nuclear engine, as Serenity appears to be. Nuclear powered spacecraft, currently theorized, could easily travel 10 times faster than our current fastest spacecraft. At those speeds, a trip from here to Saturn would only take six weeks. From here to Mars would only take a few days - and we're talking speeds that are still way, way slower than light travel. That's why I thought they DIDN'T have light speed travel on Firefly. The travel times between planets for Serenity are consistent with speeds of several hundred thousand m.p.h.. If they were going at light speed, the several day trips they are making would only take minutes.

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 4:08 PM

STARPILOTGRAINGER

Well, that assumes that the planets are all in the same solar system. If it's not, then even at FTL speeds it might be days between places.

I think an argument could be made for it either being FTL or STL. IMHO, the best argument for it being FTL is Out of Gas. If they were STL, even if they were waaaay out of the way, it shouldn't have taken more than a couple minutes for a distress signal to get to somebody. There's no reason for a signal to only have a limited range unless you're dealing with some FTL signalling device that has weird rules.

Star Pilot Grainger
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down."
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/newnumber6

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 4:19 PM

ANNIK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wave:
Quote:
Originally posted by Static:
One thing that we must remind ourselves of now and again is that Joss will toss certain principles out the window (intended pun) for the sake of good storytelling.

Well, I don't think Joss is a principle-tossing kind of guy, but I agree that the focus is, and should be, on the storytelling. The technological and social elements exist to support the story, not the other way around. As long as they remain consistent, I don't have a problem with the occassional implausibility.

However, within the context of this discussion , I think it's implausible that they have faster-than-light travel and gravity-control, but that they still use basic electro-mechanical systems. That gap seems a little too wide.

Also, at the rate our control of matter is improving, I don't think we'll even look the same in 500 years. Now, that would really screw the storytelling. Not to mention the budget.

We are not in the 8th dimension! We're over New Jersey!

As mentioned before in this thread, we already have significant tech discrepancies in countries all over the planet ... no different in the future, I'm sure. The Have's will have a lot, the Have Not's will lack a lot more.

My mum grew up on an honest-to-goodness homestead without running water, electricity, etc. Their home was heated by a coal stove, which also provided them something to cook on. The bathroom was a shack out back. They walked to school or drove a carriage/sled pulled by horses. For her early years, they used a team of horses for plowing. I was shocked to discover that many other parts of Canada had a significantly higher level of tech than the region she grew up in ... but they did. In a pioneer area, the basics were the common stuff, the high-tech just wasn't part of the map yet.

Cheers,
Annik
... my sister's a ship. We had a complicated childhood.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 4:22 PM

Yeah, I agree. My original post was based on the assumption that they had to travel between solar systems, since it didn't seem likely that the whole Firefly 'verse was packed into one system, in which case FTL was necessary, but that its use for interplanetary hops wasn't feasible (for whatever reason).

Given that the writers allowed terraforming and gravity/inertia-control through, FTL seemed to be just one more Sci-Fi staple present to simplify the storytelling, even if it is a bit more far-fetched than the others.

The idea that they are stuck in one system is appealing though, since it avoids that whole FTL problem and increases the storytelling possibilities. Conflict between people who just can't avoid each other is a primary theme, after all.

We are not in the 8th dimension! We're over New Jersey!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 4:23 PM

I guess it depends on assumptions we're making for ourselves that aren't defined in the show. If they are in one system (what I think), then FTL is totally unnecessary. However, if you're right about multiple star systems, then it would be necessary. Maybe we'll find out in the movie...

Apathy on the Rise. No One Cares.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 4:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by annik:
As mentioned before in this thread, we already have significant tech discrepancies in countries all over the planet ... no different in the future, I'm sure. The Have's will have a lot, the Have Not's will lack a lot more.

Yep. I don't have a problem with tech discrepancies in countries, or towns, or even homes. I do have a problem with huge discrepancies in small systems. How likely is it that a spaceship with gravity/inertia-control would be started with a hand-crank?

We are not in the 8th dimension! We're over New Jersey!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 4:34 PM

TJACK

Austin: " ...Oh no! Now I've gone all crosseyed!"
Basil: "Don't worry about things like that Austin, just relax and enjoy yourself.
And that goes for all you folks out there as well."

Happy Independance Day from Boston U.S.A.

When faced with a moral question I ask myself; "What would The Lone Ranger do?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 5:17 PM

ANNIK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wave:
Quote:
Originally posted by annik:
As mentioned before in this thread, we already have significant tech discrepancies in countries all over the planet ... no different in the future, I'm sure. The Have's will have a lot, the Have Not's will lack a lot more.

Yep. I don't have a problem with tech discrepancies in countries, or towns, or even homes. I do have a problem with huge discrepancies in small systems. How likely is it that a spaceship with gravity/inertia-control would be started with a hand-crank?

Ever look at a Lada 4x4? (Niva)? They still had hand-cranks.

Look at diodes. Hopelessly old-fashioned and never used anymore, right? But now LEDs are the hottest thing in low-cost lighting technology.

I say everything that goes around comes around, and that includes technology.

Oh ... and I vehemently believe the Firefly 'Verse is at least the size of a galaxy.

Cheers,
Annik
... my sister's a ship. We had a complicated childhood.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 5:24 PM

Quote:
Ever look at a Lada 4x4? (Niva)? They still had hand-cranks.

How 'bout FTL?

We are not in the 8th dimension! We're over New Jersey!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 5:44 PM

GUNRUNNER

Quote:
Originally posted by Wave:
Yep. I don't have a problem with tech discrepancies in countries, or towns, or even homes. I do have a problem with huge discrepancies in small systems. How likely is it that a spaceship with gravity/inertia-control would be started with a hand-crank?

Despite modern tech like magnetic key cards, fingerprint scanners, retina scanners, and voice print id you still need a everyday looking key to fire the Trident D-5 nuclear missiles on a US SSBN.

Just because tech is old that doesn’t mean it goes away. A crank is a simple way to get power to start an engine when there is no other power available, if a ship is just sitting around and someone needs to start it up, do you think they have there own portable nuclear reactor to give the engine a jump start? With a crank you don't need a genarator or power in the ship's capactors all you need is a little muscle-which in the FF 'verse is cheap is dirt.

The Firefly CCG Yahoo Group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/FFCCG
The Firefly CCG Forum:
http://s8.invisionfree.com/FFCCG/
My Other Site:
http://www.geocities.com/billds9/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 5:52 PM

ANNIK

What Gunrunner said.

Cheers,
Annik
... my sister's a ship. We had a complicated childhood.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 6:24 PM

THEGREYJEDI

It seems to me that when the Earth That Was got used up, everyone left our solar system for the next closest system. Thus I think it's all in one system, though it might be a bit larger than ours. And they mention terraforming. Now, let's look at our own solar system. A trip from earth to, say, a moon of Saturn, would take a week with the nuclear driven ship that Serenity appears to be. But, let's say your ship breaks down in the space between the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. And then Jupiter and Saturn are on the other side of their orbits from you. You're stuck out in the black. And if you take into consideration that most of the big gas planets in our system all have several, to over a dozen moons, that's a lot of terraforming. So then, you have lot's of black space where the planets eventually orbit, but aren't at the moment, and these planets have many moons apiece. And then Reavers are all pushed out the far reaches beyond Neptune, hovering about in the lonely cold that is Pluto, where even out sun looks nothing more than a large star. And you figure, all of the planets and moons around 93 million miles from the star of the system were terraformed first, given the closeness to earth. But these worlds obviously can't hold the growing populations, so they ship out settlers with little more than hatchets and blankets. No nifty tech like lasers and the like. So you figure a new settlement prospers for a while and then get equipment to make rudimentary arms. Guns. Guns are way easier to manufacture than a laser gun would be. And I've heard theories of electric or chemically propelled rounds as opposed to combusting powder, hence the whine. And I also think that a low power field that could keep rain out and heat in but not withstand the force of, say, a body makes a certain amount of sense. The same with a holo-pool table. You figure there's sensors in the cue sticks that interact with the geometry and collision programming of the ball, no cue balls to keep up with and all.

At least that's my take.

"And these three remain: Faith, Hope, and Love. And the greatest of these Love."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 7:43 PM

Quote:
Just because tech is old that doesn’t mean it goes away. A crank is a simple way to get power to start an engine when there is no other power available, if a ship is just sitting around and someone needs to start it up, do you think they have there own portable nuclear reactor to give the engine a jump start? With a crank you don't need a genarator or power in the ship's capactors all you need is a little muscle-which in the FF 'verse is cheap is dirt.

I could buy the safety kind of argument: that in a system that crucial it's good to have a manual element to guard against accidents, but I'm not sure about the kickstarting thing. How much energy would be required to boot that engine? Certainly more than a hand-crank could supply, even if they actually cranked it rather than simply clunking it a half-cycle like a switch. And if there are layers of bootstrapping systems, why not bypass the manual element entirely, as we do in most systems today, like cars? I suppose it could be an oversized ignition switch...

I'm glad the writers left this kind of info unspecified. Imagine not being able to spend hours discussing it!

We are not in the 8th dimension! We're over New Jersey!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 8:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
And they mention terraforming.

That's something else that bothers me. Would an organisation expend the mind-boggling amount of wealth required to terraform a planet, and then just dump a few settlers there with no support? Where's the return on that investment? Surely they'd stay and make the place a going concern? If they didn't, they'd not only lose their investment, they'd be setting themselves up for a war of independence in a few decades.

It may be an example of inter-planetary pork-barrel politics, i.e. politicians playing power games have the incidental effect of a few planets being terraformed, a la the International Space Station.

We are not in the 8th dimension! We're over New Jersey!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 4, 2004 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wave:
Would an organisation expend the mind-boggling amount of wealth required to terraform a planet, and then just dump a few settlers there with no support?

I'm not too sure of the detailed technology of terraforming, but perhaps a freshly 'formed world needs to be worked up some before it enters a more productive state - like running hogs over rough ground. If slave or endentured workers are the norm for terraforming crews (Shingdig), then desperate settlers seem the next exploitable group from the 19th Century character set.

I'm sure you're right about the persistence of the pork-barrel, and the carpet-bag would have been in evidence too. Unfortunately, Fox Network have surrendered that mirror to HBO's Deadwood.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 5, 2004 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bikisdad:
I guess it depends on assumptions we're making for ourselves that aren't defined in the show. If they are in one system (what I think), then FTL is totally unnecessary. However, if you're right about multiple star systems, then it would be necessary. Maybe we'll find out in the movie...

From The Train Job: "We didn't fly 86 million miles to track down a box of band-aids, Colonel. "

Inference is that 86m miles isn't just around the corner, it's a good distance. It's 93 million miles from the Earth to the Sun, so I presume that most of what takes place happens within a single solar system, with the "core" worlds being those closest to the Sun.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 5, 2004 1:56 AM

How does Jayne's rainstick work?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 5, 2004 2:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly:
How does Jayne's rainstick work?

You just shake it around a bit while dancing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 5, 2004 2:33 AM

EMBERS

Quote:
Originally posted by Wave:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
And they mention terraforming.
That's something else that bothers me. Would an organisation expend the mind-boggling amount of wealth required to terraform a planet, and then just dump a few settlers there with no support? Where's the return on that investment? Surely they'd stay and make the place a going concern? If they didn't, they'd not only lose their investment, they'd be setting themselves up for a war of independence in a few decades.

My theory on the terraforming is that the corporate/government aspect of the Alliance will terraform, and move in 'workers' and sometimes things just don't work out...
Like the planet/moon where the train job took place?
Everyone has a terrible disease that seems to be from something at comes up out of the ground...

So the investors cut their loses and abandon the project....

I'm assuming there are huge numbes of successful planets/moons that became the core planets, where the rich all live happily and the investors are getting a huge return on their investments.

I see it like the way Gov'ts colonized new lands throughout history: you take the dregs of society, people you want out of your kingdom, and you offer them the opportunity to build a new life independently; maybe become rich, maybe just be allowed to live (like w/deportation). You send them off to a rough untamed world...
and you pretty much abandon them there.
Maybe they'll make it, maybe they won't, what do you care?
If they make it then you have a thriving community to tax and you get a return on your investment (and those annoying Puritans or convicts or whatever are far away).

The only reason you would return is if they are successful AND they think they can break away and actually be independent. THEN it is necessary to send troops and ruthlessly put them down. But of course if they are are not successful then cut your loses and leave them there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 5, 2004 2:36 AM

DIXIEFLATLINE

Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly:
How does Jayne's rainstick work?

It's a hollow branch of bamboo or cactus, partially filled with pebbles and sealed at the ends. When you tip it over, the pebbles run down the shaft and make a sound like rain.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 5, 2004 4:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly:
How does Jayne's rainstick work?

Jayne's rainstick is a comedic device. It works like this:
* it is sympathetic magic, and so gives a reference in a scifi show to that sufficiently advanced technology that is indistinguishable from magic
* it provides a penis reference, which is always funny - don't ask me why, it's just an observation
That its magic doesn't work does not have significance for the show

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 5, 2004 4:25 AM

CAPTAINHARBATKIN

Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly:
it provides a penis reference, which is always funny - don't ask me why, it's just an observation

So, when Jayne says he'll be in his bunk, it's his RAIN STICK he's got his hands on? Oy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh, and sew our skins into their
clothing - and if we're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 5, 2004 4:29 AM