GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Solar System Vs. Galaxy

POSTED BY: MADJACK
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 07:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 28957
PAGE 1 of 3

Monday, February 16, 2004 5:06 AM

MADJACK


I Know this has Proably been thoch on before, But does FireFly take place in a single solar system or in multiple systems? I the Book intro it stated, quote: “After the Earth was used up, we found a new solar system and hundreds of new 'Earths' were terraformed and colonized", and in the Mal intros it states, and I quote here; “Here's how it is. The Earth got used up, so, we moved out, and terraformed a whole new galaxy of earths"

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.

In my opinion Firefly does not take place in a single Solar System


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

Monday, February 16, 2004 5:16 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Clearly this is taking place in our local galaxy. Once human kind figured out how to terraform other planets, it had essentially established a foothold on the rest of this galaxy.

500 yrs is far too short a time to have fully colonized the entire galaxy, which is its self 100,000 light yrs across. Think of early settlers as the orignial 13 colonies here in the United States, but instead of a large land mass, we have a entire galaxy to explore.

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

Monday, February 16, 2004 5:30 AM

HANS


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.



A long discussion takes place here: www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=4&t=2671


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

Monday, February 16, 2004 7:14 AM

GROUNDED


Since there is apparently no FTL in Firefly, it would pretty much have to be a single solar system. Or, if there were multiple solar systems, the events of Firefly never leave whichever one they start in. As far as 'hundreds of Earths' is concerned, they've already had habitable moons in the show so if there were a decent number of planets, each with a decent number of moons then you could get up there.

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

Monday, February 16, 2004 7:27 AM

LINDLEY


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

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

Monday, February 16, 2004 12:51 PM

LTNOWIS


I still think it's a bunch of close star systems, in a star cluster. When they say "It's the best in the galaxy!" or something, it's like saying "best in the 'verse"; it doesn't mean they're in more than one system. Though each model has it's drawbacks.

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

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:23 AM

GUARDIAN


I tend to agree with the single solar system, or solar system cluster view, as many of the colony seem to be on moons, also the centeral worlds would then been those closest to the sun, with the other colony being on the moons of gas giants and the like. also it seems to me that a lot of the colony may be space stations, or asteriod base
which could explain how there could be so many settlments in a single solar system,

Guardian.

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

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 2:00 AM

GROUNDED


Quote:

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



I've seen no evidence for it whatsoever on the show. Light from the sun takes just over 5 hours to reach Pluto so if you had FTL you could fly from one extreme of Pluto's orbit to the other in 10 hours or less (depending how much faster than light you are going). 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. Travel times on the show seem to be measured (generally) in days which leads me to believe they're sort of moving around the system in a roughly circular path, jumping from planet to planet as the presence of the Alliance will allow.

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

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:28 AM

FREAKYSINS


Greetings, all. I'm new here, so please bear with me.

I'm of the idea that Firefly takes place in a star cluster. Considering that there are just over 70 planets terra-formed and giving that, in order to terraform a planet, it most certainly has to meet certain criteria (a certain closeness to a star, approximately 1 G gravity, give or take, etc), the single solar system idea just doesn't make any sense. A close-knit star cluster is much more realistic, in that the entire population of humanity could have boarded near-lightspeed capable vessels and convoyed to the nearest reasonably researched cluster that had a variety of "suns" similar to our own, hence a reasonably high (statistically speaking) number of worlds which showed terraforming promise. The journey may well have taken several years, but when we're talking about the salvation of the human race, why not? Once there, the "core planets" are established (hell, terraforming may not even be necessary in some instances) and then it's just a matter of spreading out, which humans are already obviously quite good at. In a star cluster it may take only days or weeks to reach another star system with a 'formable world, which easily accounts for Serenity's travel times. The farther out from the "Core" (the tightest-packed systems) you get, the less frequent the visits from supply ships, tourists, etc... and the more likely you're going to get out and lose your way, literally and figuratively; hence the backwater worlds we often see in Firefly, as well as the Reavers.

All of this discounts FTL travel, of course. FTL just makes thing too easy, IMO.

"I like smackin' 'em!"--Jayne, Safe

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

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:24 AM

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.

Even the longest journey is only described as "Damn near a month" (SAFE, reference to how long the cattle had been on ship). That would require 12 times the speed of light to travel a single LY.

I like (would even prefer) the idea of single system, but multiple systems with FTL seems the most realistic to me.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

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

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:53 AM

FOURSKYS


Star within a cluster are definitely closer than a light year apart, but there's a problem with that scenario too. In star clusters, the stars are often too dense to form planets (such as in globular clusters), and those are too far away to get to in a reasonable time.

If you want to talk about less dense clusters, just stellar associations, then there is a good chance that there could be planets and stars within a reasonable travel time. The closest star to our own, Proxima centauri, is a little over 4 ly (I think), but we are in a very low density stellar environment. This is not characteristic of the Milky Way as a whole.

As for the total number of planets around a single star, I find it really hard to belive that there could be these 70 inhabitable worlds in a single solar system. Also, if that were the case, the alliance would always be nearby. They wouldn't really be able to be "at the corner of no and where" anywhere they went. Making a habitable planet that far from the sun would require far too much ozone gasses to be livable, if they're also supposed to be that far from the core.

As for travel times, we also need to concern ourselves with whose reference frame the travel time is observed from. I mean, they have to be traveling fast, regardless of FTL sppeds or not. some substantial fraction of the speed of light. that's going to cause some time dilation (moving objects age slower). I think this is a whole bag of worms that no one in the television industry wants to tackle, just because it would make things far too complicated. For an example, if they were traveling at a good portion of light speed, then they would age only a few days to travel from planet to planet, say, whereas the people waiting for their goods would have to wait months if not years. It doens't quite make commerce very easy if there weren't FTL travel.

Also these people must be at least able to travel out of the solar system. The reavers made it out to the edge of the galaxy and back. Sure it might have taken a generation or two to do it, but they made it. Granted, it is a few thousand light years out.

So they still need to be able to get pretty fast, maybe not FTL, but at least PFF (Pretty Freakin' Fast), or maybe PGF or PRF (Pretty Gorram Fast; Pretty Ruttin' Fast). But once you cross the line to anything even a significant fraction of light speed, you run into many of the same issues (not to mention the mass of the ship becoming enormous)

Well, there's my extend version of 2 creds on the issue...

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

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 5:43 PM

ARAWAEN


I agree. Serenity can go PGF.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:21 AM

DRAKON


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.



It is my understanding that even in a star cluster, you still need FTL. Any star cluster where the stars are closer aren't going to have stable planetary orbits. The planets will get stripped from their parent star to go wandering all over the place.

You need those kinds of separation between stars, or else they start knocking loose planets.

Which means you got a bunch of planets, with no suns. Which means ice balls, airless rocks, and gas giants, and NO HEAT! No terriforming, at least above ground.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:09 AM

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.

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:52 AM

DRAKON


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.



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

But I do think you are right. This is just not important to the Firefly story/series. It is only geeks like me and you that get bugged by this kind of thing.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 5:06 AM

FREAKYSINS


Indeed, I don't believe it's important to the overall storyline at all, but the tech interests me, and I like to discuss it.

As far as the planets in a cluster being stripped from their respective gravity wells, I think this is only true of very densely-packed clusters.

But then, what the hell do I know... I'm anything but an astrophysicist or even amateur astronomer. I'm just a geek with a lot of curiosity and a knapsack filled with useless information.



"Have good sex!"

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 5:46 AM

GROUNDED


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.



Well the crew consistently refer to 'burn' which tends to suggest (at least to me) traditional fuel-burning propulsion. The CGI seems to be consistent with that as well, visually.

Quote:

Originally posted by Drakon:

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



That's half the fun :) If it was all perfectly correct then we wouldn't get to play the sci-fi elitists ;)

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:06 AM

CARTAGIA


I always assumed that the 'Firefly Effect' was the signature of an FTL igniting.

Obviously they don't use 'jumpgates' or 'hyperspace', bit it is possible that there is some sort of FTL. That might explain why the shuttles and other spaceships need carriers for long journies and don't have capability of reaching anywhere on their own.

Simon: I've never shot anyone before.

Book: I was there, son. I'm fair sure you haven't shot anyone yet.


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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:00 AM

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.

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:02 AM

GROUNDED


You could also explain that by assuming that the shuttles have a much smaller fuel capacity...


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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:07 AM

GROUNDED


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.



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.

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:30 AM

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."

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:51 AM

CARTAGIA


I guess another assumption on my part, is that the "Core Worlds" referred to more of the core of the alliance government. Though it also makes sense that they would be closer together. The Core Worlds were probably the first to be terraformed. They then spawned daughter planets further and further out, using each terraformed planet as a 'jumping off point' to go to the next.

Just my thoughts, though. Can really make any argument.

Simon: I've never shot anyone before.

Book: I was there, son. I'm fair sure you haven't shot anyone yet.


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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:57 AM

GROUNDED


But any such case would be dependent on the creation of the series' 'universe' having been done with all these factors in mind. I'm saying that, simply from watching the series, it seems to me to be a single solar system without FTL - regardless of whether or not the concept of hundreds of habitable planets is incongruous with a single system. There have certainly been plenty worse oversights in the history of TV SF thus far!

Perhaps even less likely than 70 terraformed planets in one system, is that we will be terraforming planets in 500 years time at all...

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:01 AM

JASONZZZ



Check out Kemplerer Rosettes, you can have an entire crapload of planets in the same stable orbital path.

http://burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/kempler.html


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."



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:18 AM

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.

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:39 AM

SEVENPERCENT


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.



I agree to being a huge fan of 'Doesnt matter', I hate technobabble, but I'm bored, so I'll weigh in with my two cents-

I go with the multiple solar systems theory- I think the core worlds are in the closest together solar systems and are the most inhabited, with various outer colonies and moons as you get into solar systems further away (like the example of a Medieval castle and its surrounding villiages, as you get further from the castle defensability and supply go WAY down, while crime and poverty go WAY up) - 'The Black' as it relates to the Reavers is out into starless areas that are completely uninhabited, with almost colonized ships (forcing them to come into regular territory for supplies and new recruits)-
As far as FTL travel goes, I think it's possible within the confines of what you are shown- Look at modern cars- I know my car is powered by (at least I think it is)by an internal combustion engine- Beats me how it works, but I know enough about it to fix little parts when they break, or take it to someone that can fix it- When I say I got from point A to point B here in year 2004, I got in my car and went there- Not, I achieved getting there by x, the science of which is y- They have higher tech because it's the future, and unlike Star Trek they dont need to tell us how every gizmo works (Hell, Mal's the captain and he doesnt know)- They just put it together and use it, just like I use my car- I dont need to know how, I can just suspend my disbelief and go, ok- It's totally irrelevant to the show-
Which leads me to my last point (sorry this is long)- With multiple star systems, and chances of things going wrong, and space debris, I'm sure there are Space Lanes, just like today's modern highways- Do you have to use them? No, but they are probably highly alliance patrolled and safe- You can take the back way (like in OOG), but it's risky (we see why)- You want to avoid cops? Take the back roads, but better hope nothing happens- So I throw in for multiple systems, space lanes, and FTL-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 11:58 AM

GROUNDED


Lol, am I the only one campaigning for single system, no FTL?


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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 12:01 PM

HOTPOINT


Quote:

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




Accept serious Gravity Modification and I'll buy it

Even so I'd be happier with a Binary/Trinary Star system

...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 12:41 PM

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, but it moves em faster and easier (a couple references are made between Mal and Wash about 'burning' the drives and the use of fuel, etc. My two cents there.

As to the nature of the 'Verse, I opt for the multiple systems, but they gotta be pretty close knit. It isn't completely infeasible, but I'd put my money on Alliance Core bein by a blue star. . . .



IKIYO.
DRE

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 12:42 PM

LODRIL


Not to keep arguing with Grounded specifically, but... :)

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.



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. They could be the three or four closest systems, with other worlds being elsewhere in the galaxy, or, as you suggest, a single solar system with important planets nearest the star. There's no evidence supporting either point, other than the gravimetrics angle of how many planets can dance on a pinhead (as many as Joss wants).

As to the second point about running into other travellers, you're presuming that an unbounded area to travel in means undefined space routes. Unless they ignore intervening obstacles, there are still going to be points between destinations at which you need to slow down and turn to avoid collision. So you could travel a line at FTL, then stop, manuever to the next straight-line shot and go again. If the routes are optimized to conserve time and fuel, it makes sense that they would often end up being in the same place. When I was in school, there were many ways to get across campus, but one was generally easiest... so if you were looking for someone, you could wait there and chances were they'd come right by.

In point of fact, within a single crowded solar system with no defined travel routes, you'd less likely to encounter other ships. There would be fewer obstacles to straight line travel, so they'd be farther off your course unless they left the same place at around the same time heading to the same destination. Even a solar system is a huge area to find a small object like a Firefly without predefined travelways.

And if there are pre-defined travelways, then that doesn't argue in favor of either a single solar system or a wider area.

I'm not saying it couldn't be a single system, but there's certainly not any strong evidence pointing at that or the other way.

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 12:42 PM

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, but it moves em faster and easier (a couple references are made between Mal and Wash about 'burning' the drives and the use of fuel, etc. My two cents there.

As to the nature of the 'Verse, I opt for the multiple systems, but they gotta be pretty close knit. It isn't completely infeasible, but I'd put my money on Alliance Core bein by a blue star. . . .



IKIYO.
DRE

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:51 PM

FOURSKYS


A couple more thougts...

If you look at the background in "The Train Job" after the bar fight, you can cleary see (if memory serves me) 3 other solid bodies, most likely planets and moons. One takes up just about the whole sky. This definitely sets up the idea that the solar system(s) is(are) quite densly packed. This definitely lends support to the idea of a single solar system. But the big problem that we have is that we've only seen a small number of planets/moons. Whitefall, persephone, Ariel, and only one or two more. We know that the travel time can range near a month between some destination(especially if it's across the solar system, and you don't fly through the center), but we don't have a feel for the whole system. It could be that they're just sitting in a sinlge solar system for a while, or maybe just in a small region of one. But there is an underlying theme to all of the travels, which is really accentuated by the theme of the show: Slow. It's kinda lazy to go anywhere. Like the idea of Joss sitting on his back porch plucking some strings during the opening sequence. They don't show ships zooming by each other at high speeds, because it's not thematic to the show. If I were to pick the best idea which fits the concepts of the show, I would have to say they live in a single solar system, with a very bright sun, and some habitable planets really far out (The Outer Rim).

While I'm not necessarily comfortable with the mechanics of a system with that many bodies, I do think that traveling at light speeds breaks the theme of the show. I just picture them traveling through space like the settlers in the Old West, pulled by oxen, sitting on covered wagons. to me, it seems like that how things should feel, even in Space.

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

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:32 PM

JASONZZZ



Check out Kemplerer Rosettes, you can have an entire crapload of planets in the same stable orbital path.

http://burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/kempler.html

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

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

Thursday, February 19, 2004 1:06 AM

GROUNDED


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.



I don't think I used the word 'core' anywhere in my post! I said 'inner planets' (which, as far our solar system is concerned, refers to Mars through Mercury). Of course I may have misquoted and in fact they don't ever say 'inner planets' specifically, I just seem to remember it from somewhere.

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



FTL stands for 'faster than light' - maybe you knew that but the wording of your post seems contradictory

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

Thursday, February 19, 2004 1:20 AM

HORRID


I would say they have FTL tech just based the show being intended to run for 5 to 7 years, which is a long time to hang around the same 10 or so planets, that said plenty of shows last that long only being in one apartment building on one planet and I'm sure every planet in firefly has multiple towns on it, so maybe they don't

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

Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:58 AM

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.

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

Thursday, February 19, 2004 4:19 AM

FREAKYSINS


The Phrase "core planets" came from my post, but now you've got me doubting that I actually heard that on Firefly, because I can't recall the exact line. It may well have been "inner planets".

Regardless, and as was stated earlier, we don't have enough information as yet to make any kind of realistic decisions. 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.

"I wanna go to the crappy planet where I'M a hero!"

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

Thursday, February 19, 2004 4:19 AM

FREAKYSINS


Doh!! Double-post!!

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

Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:08 AM

GROUNDED


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.



I understand the logic but, for me, it just doesn't gel with the idea of multiple systems. 'Inner planets' is already an established term (of course it doesn't have to used in its established sense...) and ties in more with concentric orbits around a sun than with systems among a group. But like I said before, I'm not sure I've quoted correctly - 'inner planets' may never have been mentioned. I suppose that's excuse enough to go watch the whole lot again :)

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

Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:32 AM

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.

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

Thursday, February 19, 2004 10:14 AM

FREAKYSINS


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.



It would throw you, sure... but you'd watch.

"Son of a... " *THUD!*

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

Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:03 PM

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.*

This doesn't contradict the "slow and easy" transit times the dramatic situation calls for; speed is relative to the distances being crossed, after all. A leisurely car ride from Reno, Nevada to the California coast might take a single day. Ask the Donner party how long the trip took.

70 - 100 worlds being terraformed in less than 500 years stretches my willing suspension of disbelief badly enough, but putting them all in a single solar system just snaps the rubber band.

*Footquote: "Faster Than Light" always made about as much sense to me as "Slower Than Dark."
--John Byrne

RocketJock

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

Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:46 PM

NOOCYTE


Quick thought: I'd always rather liked the little FTL sidestep they pulled on "Space: Above and Beyond." There was some vague mention that space had been found to be riddled with useable wormholes, which had been charted, and which allowed access to other star systems. It was a snippet which was dropped, right at the beginning, then never mentioned again, so they could get on with the business of story-telling, no muss, no fuss.

Something like this could settle the issue handily, as it relies on some putative future "discovery," some bit of info we couldn't possibly have yet (like Hyperspace being undiscoverable within any deep gravity well in Niven's Known Space stories).

Personally, I'd be willing to forgive --even embrace-- such a bit of literary short-cut-ism if it allowed the stage of our 'verse to stretch virtually without limit ("No matter how long the arm of the Alliance gets, we just push out a little further...").

It would also quiet the Newtonian nightmares of imagining some poor, straining star system forever poised on the edge of calamity with scores of planetary bodies hurtling around, just managing not to go plowing into each other!

Keep flyin'!

Department of Redundancy Department

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

Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:51 PM

SINGULARITY


Ok...lets throw some stuff out there. The way things seem every planet or moon that we have seen has at least 1 G, an earth-like atmosphere with the right mix of gases to sustain human life, and a sun or suns that give off about the right frequency of light to give a typical blue sky.

I would like to point out that as it stands there are roughly 30 to 40 moons in our solar system right now. There is a large belt of rocks between earth and mars as well as an even larger area of comet stuff out around or past Pluto.
The "stuff" to create a small planetoid is out there. If the technology could bring together some of that "stuff", maybe we could make the assumption that the show could take place in one solar system. I do not know because we did not get to see enough of this great show to find out.

Here are some things that I would need to know.
How big are the moons that were terraformed. Most of the border ones seem to have just one name. Maybe that would indicate that they are really not very big. If that's the case then maybe you could have multiple moons in a single particular area.

What's anyone else think?


Space: region beyond Earth’s atmosphere, region between all celestial bodies, freedom to assert identity

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

Friday, February 20, 2004 4:28 AM

GROUNDED


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.



This hinges on assuming that the writer's of the show are writing 'hard' sci-fi. I have never seen a sci-fi show that was based on a rigorous and plausible scientific background. The line between sci-fi and fantasy is not a clear one. Consider X-Men as an example. It's science fiction but it's also clearly fantastical. Everything has degrees and SF is no exception. As far as TV is concerned, sci-fi tends to show future worlds that, on the surface, appear to be reasonable extrapolations from our own time but are actually riddled with holes under the microscope. There are already a fair few errors in the few FF episodes we have, and that's excluding all this FTL/systems stuff.

The question is: into how much scientific detail did Joss go when he created the FF universe? I don't think he went very far, otherwise more explanations would appear in the show......but I could be wrong


As for moons - there are a lot more than 40 in our solar system.

http://www.planetary.org/learn/solarsystem/moons.html

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

Saturday, February 21, 2004 2:04 PM

FOURSKYS


Point of Note:

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?

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

Saturday, February 21, 2004 2:58 PM

NOOCYTE


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?



Yah, this has been brought up before. My thought was always that it could simply have meant the cruiser was within the system where they were doing...other Blue Hand stuff, and they traveled to rendez-vous with it. Well, okay, that's the fan-wank version of the story (like it?).

It could simply mean that the writers needed a Big Sounding Number, and 83 exp6 sounded Impressive. Face it, as lovingly crafted as our verse may be in many respects, this ain't Arthur Clarke (thank goodness; much as I adore his writing, his characters always seemed almost an afterthought, IMHO)

Department of Redundancy Department

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

Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:13 AM

GROUNDED


Nice name Noocyte

Anyway, to the point. I was looking at the FireflyWiki site yesterday and apparently at some point in the show they mention the 'Georgia system'. That would undoubtedly point towards multiple systems and therefore (sadly, IMO) FTL.

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

Sunday, February 22, 2004 12:53 PM

MENZOA


Quote:

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





No, I'm not only saying no FTL, I'm saying it's set in THE solar system. My basis for this: in a small comment by Mal on the sorry state of colonists he specifically states that they modify the local gravity and atmosphere before dumping the colonists down there with a hatchets, maybe a herd.

I'd sooner suspend disbelief on the issue of super-advanced terraforming technology that lets you make Mimas (a moon of Saturn) seem like a Southern California desert with a big, bright sun than have to bother with all the issues connected with FTL.

And that's before touching on the idea of clumping together new "moons" from large asteriods in the belt.

Also, a few of the moon-names are taken from our own star system. (Ariel orbits Unranus, with a diameter about 1/10th of Earth's.) With 79 known planets and moons to work with, there's really no need to shovel in the idea of other star systems.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL