Where does Firefly take place? by Hans

Well, I just stumbled upon this big argument, and I find that both the explanations are fraught with loopholes.

If it takes place in a Solar System, then why would they refer to "sectors?" With all the planets moving around, you couldn't define any area bigger than a planetary system, except concentric rings.

If it takes place in a galaxy, it would have to be our galaxy. And then they would know where "Earth that was" was, unless it got exploded or something. Even then, they could still go back to the old Solar system, maybe colonize Europa. Unless everybody just forgot how to find it.

Didn't they say that it takes place in a star cluster on the old Fox.com website? Or maybe on the opening explanation that was broadcasted with the first few episodes? Whatever, a star cluster would be a nice middle ground.

Anyway, now I gotta nitpick points that nobody cares about.

Quote:
Origionally posted by SaintProverbius:
Even at the speed of light, we're still talking years to get anywhere. 10-20 drives wouldn't be enough to move billions of people.

They didn't move everybody from Earth. Only a few thousand volunteers from the USA, China, and a few minor nations. They never said "Humanity had to leave Earth before it disintigrated." It could be that they were merely facing overcrowding and pollution, so some wealthy nations sent some people away. That would explain the complete lack of Hispanics on the show.

Quote:
If physics were acurate then Vira would be able to fire in a vacuum. Most modern guns have everything they need to fire in the shell(a Glock 9mm can fire in a vacuum or even under water). If many guns can do that now - how about 500 years in the future?

Vira is a submachine gun. It needs ventilation to avoid overheating, so they put holes in it. Sure, it can't be fired in space, but the makers wouldn't have cared, because nobody would want to anyways. Whatever, there have been worse design flaws. Besides, Firefly isn't really about versetile, 21st century firearms.

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

Wednesday, January 7, 2004 2:51 PM

I think I found the firefly intro, and it clearly says galaxy.

Here's the website:
http://www.gloomyjoe.com/firefly/

In case you don't want to surf all the way over there, here's the intro:

The War to Unite the Planets was six years done, and the victorious Alliance was spreading its control further and further throughout the galaxy. Those who had fought for independence and so bloodily lost had no choice but to live by Alliance law. Some never would, and those few found themselves drifting--flying to the furthest reaches of the galaxy, to the worlds less civilized, some barely settled, where the Alliance might not control their lives. These were hard worlds, and work was where you found it. Those who got buy lived by a simple creed: Any job, anywhere. -- Intro, "Serenity"

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

Wednesday, January 7, 2004 2:55 PM

ZAPHODB

Yup, that's the intro from the original unaired version of Serenity.

Industrial Looniee & Madness - http://www3.telus.net/vchrusch

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

Thursday, January 8, 2004 8:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SaintProverbius:

Quote:
We also have Joss's comment in "Serenity: the Tenth Character" that the ship is propelled by "a fusion explosion". Basically, you're setting off a nuclear reaction behind the ship to propel it. Ain't no way that's gonna push you past lightspeed.

Okay, so first you guys were claiming there's no reactor. Now that reactor mechanism won't work? Eh? Guess what, it would be enough. We're talking about dropping a little sun out the back and riding the push from that.

I don't mean to sound ornery, but you're missing a fundamental problem here, that has been discussed above ad nauseum: the light speed barrier. I don't care HOW much thrust your "little sun out the back" generates, it is not going to push you past the light speed barrier. It's a fundamental and (as far as we know) unbreakable barrier when using a conventional drive system.

That's why most FTL drives in science fiction involve wormholes or "subspace fields" or something like that - they acknowledge that just going "real fast" is not going to be enough to break C (the speed of light). Even the fastest conventional starship will take a year to travel one light year. With distances to even nearby stars measured in multiple light years, you begin to see the problem.

NOTE: I am not saying that Serenity automatically does not have some sort of FTL drive. Whether you believe one exists or not is up to you. Maybe they have found a way of breaking the light speed barrier. I'm just saying there's more and more evidence that the drives we have seen are purely conventional ones.

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

Sunday, January 18, 2004 10:11 PM

SURLYBEN

I like to think that Firefly takes place in TheSolar System. The planets and moons have been moved to create several klemperer rosettes. ( http://burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/kempler.html , see especially the 4th and 5th from the bottom...)

Yes moving planets and moons would require super-science, but I don't think it would be too difficult for a culture that had planet scale artificial gravity (mentioned in the train job) and rapid terraforming. It certainly doesn't require as much super-science as FTL travel would.

They never say how small the moons are that they terraform, but if you figure at least 500 km (below that and they tend to be irregularly shaped) then there are 23 or so rocky bodies in the solar system to start with. If you go smaller, or if you allow the creation of new ones (by smashing old ones together, or breaking up planets) then 70 seems like a reasonable figure...

For two rosette orbits, you would need a fairly wide habitable zone, or some way to warm up the worlds outside the zone (space mirrors, maybe), but nothing that would be impossible using science as we know it.

I don't have any evidence that this is the Firefly scenario, but it does have a certain explanatory power. For example, now you can take core and rim literally, and all the references to a single system suddenly make sense, and you don't even need an exodus to make it happen. (Georgia system could refer to a planet/moon system). Explains how Serenity is able to get from the rim to the core without too much trouble (distances between planets on the rim and from the rim to the core would be roughly the same order of magnitude), Earth that Was was probably 'used up' to make the core worlds.

In this situation the phrase 'a whole galaxy of planets' is just a more poetic way of saying 'a lot of planets.' I don't really have a strong argument, but the idea appeals to me.

One final note: Ariel is a moon of Uranus. Diameter 1158 km.

Ben

http://www.contretemps.net

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

Monday, January 19, 2004 12:41 AM

CAPNRAHN

I will admit, I have not read this entire thread, so some of this may have been already chewed over.

I favor a star cluster, not single solar system.

I think the 'firefly effect' (gravity drive?) from the 'behind' of Serenity represents the FTL.

A single solar system with "hundreds" of planets would be a VERY unstable system ... LaGragne points intersecting, the oort cloud dumping in a drenn load of debris insystem and so forth.

Which would make navigation a total nightmare.

Yep, should be a star cluster.

If they don't have FTL, they sure got one hellva civilazition built in only 500 years. Considering the 'survivors' of Earth-That-Was would have to had to 'slow-boat' it.

Even using stasis is a strech. Which, BTW, we did not see on the show. Only a 2 week drug induced coma-like death.

Just to get to Alpha Centuri (closest to Sol System) AT light speed, it would take around 4 1/2 years.

Now each system in the cluster may have dozens of planets, moons etc ...

Another point, if Serenity does not have FTL of some sort, why 2 differant sets of engines?

The twin engines should be enough to manuver and thrust the Serenity about.

Joss ... please tell US or print a show 'bible'!

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

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

Monday, January 19, 2004 3:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CapnRahn:

(stuff cut)
If they don't have FTL, they sure got one hellva civilazition built in only 500 years. Considering the 'survivors' of Earth-That-Was would have to had to 'slow-boat' it.

Even using stasis is a strech. Which, BTW, we did not see on the show. Only a 2 week drug induced coma-like death.

Just to get to Alpha Centuri (closest to Sol System) AT light speed, it would take around 4 1/2 years.

In my totally hypothetical timeline ( www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=3267) I tried to figure out a timetable for travel to (and colonization of) a new system. A hyopthetical system 15 light years away could be reached in 30 years by a ship going 1/2 lightspeed. 30 years is a long time but not "generation ship" long. It's not impossible to imagine huge colony ships being built to take the earth's population from one system to another. Even if it takes several centuries to develop the technology and make the exodus, that still could give you 200+ years of civilization in the new system before the events on the series. A lot can happen in 200 years - just think of what New York was like in 1804! And since all but the core worlds seem to be underdeveloped colonies, that seems a reasonable length of time.

I never imagined that stasis ever came into it. The journey from one system to another is for most people a one-way, one-time trip.

Quote:
Originally posted by CapnRahn:

Another point, if Serenity does not have FTL of some sort, why 2 differant sets of engines?

The twin engines should be enough to manuver and thrust the Serenity about.

Joss ... please tell US or print a show 'bible'!

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

I don't think it's impossible to visulaize two sets of conventional engines on one ship, one used for maneuvering, landing, and in-atmosphere flight, with the other used for the high speeds needed for interplanetary (not interstellar) travel. In fact, that's exactly what we seem to see on screen. The fact that they used the "big engine" in-atmosphere ("Serenity"), not as any sort of "warp drive" but just to accelerate very fast away from the Reavers, seems (to me) to confirm that it is a strictly conventional drive system...one that gives a big push that is fine for interplanetary travel, but has no special properties to break that light speed barrier.

And yes, I would love a series bible as well!

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

Monday, January 19, 2004 11:01 AM

Although the arguments for and against a single-system are very logical and convincing for the most part, there is one little factoid that has me convinced it must be multiple star systems.

It was made clear in 'The Message' that THERE ARE NO ALIENS in the Firefly universe. Now we all know that aliens probably don't live in our own system, so the only way the human race can conclude that there are no aliens is if they had been to many other star systems, and found none with aliens.

'nuff said.

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

Monday, January 19, 2004 11:16 AM

CAITLYN

Where does Firefly take place? I don't rightly know. I know Farscape took place in New Zealand and I am pretty fair certain Firefly didn't take place there.

Oh, wait a minute, you were talking about the place pictured in the show with all the planets and space and things...

I go with hypothesis #2. I get the idea that humanity spread out from Earth-that-was, with the Core planets being the first settled and mankind going further and further out, pushing the Rim back. That assumes FTL travel, of course.

I don't see a way hypothesis #1 could work. They clearly haven't run out of planets to teraform, either.

Yes, I studied physics at University. Don't tell anyone.

"We'll have to call it "early quantum state
phenomenon." Only way to fit 5000 species
of mammal on the same boat. "

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

Monday, January 19, 2004 1:33 PM

JUSTDAVID

In "Bushwhacked" Mal says

"Reavers ain't men. Or they forgot how to be. Now they're just nothing. They got out to the edge of the galaxy, to that place of nothing, and that's what they became."

That decides it as far as I'm concerned. It has to be more than just one planetary system.

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

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

Monday, January 19, 2004 2:24 PM

CAPNRAHN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
200 years - just think of what New York was like in 1804! And since all but the core worlds seem to be underdeveloped colonies, that seems a reasonable length of time.

I never imagined that stasis ever came into it. The journey from one system to another is for most people a one-way, one-time trip.

Sorry ,there is a BIG differance between a city and 'hundreds' of terraformed worlds.

Not to mention how long it would take to terraform a single planet. Joss just dinna go into what tech was used.

Quote:

I don't think it's impossible to visulaize two sets of conventional engines on one ship, one used for maneuvering, landing, and in-atmosphere flight, with the other used for the high speeds needed for interplanetary (not interstellar) travel. In fact, that's exactly what we seem to see on screen. The fact that they used the "big engine" in-atmosphere ("Serenity"), not as any sort of "warp drive" but just to accelerate very fast away from the Reavers, seems (to me) to confirm that it is a strictly conventional drive system...one that gives a big push that is fine for interplanetary travel, but has no special properties to break that light speed barrier.

And yes, I would love a series bible as well!

I didn't mean impossible, but my point of a single system with hundreds of planets would be a nightmare to construct, much less navigate.

Yes ... we need to call Joss "on the carpet" fer this one!

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

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

Monday, January 19, 2004 5:24 PM

GUNRUNNER

"Yes moving planets and moons would require super-science, but I don't think it would be too difficult for a culture that had planet scale artificial gravity (mentioned in the train job) and rapid terraforming."

I read an article on space.com a few months back that floated the idea of altering the orbit of an astroid and bringing it close to a planet over and over again each time the astroid would pull the planet closer to its destnation. So all that is required to move a planet is a rocket and some big nukes or kenetic projectiles.

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

Monday, January 19, 2004 8:58 PM

CAPNRAHN

With hundreds of planets or planetoids? The logistics anre a NIGHTMARE

[Pray excuse this SW referance] With even the might of the Star Wars Empire's Armada AND BOTH Death Stars would be hard pressed to make ... HUNDREDS.

And the orbits have to be slow and methodical... a large enough body causes bloody hell with tidea and plate tectonics. Now speed that sucker up ... wheeeeeee Uber-Gravity Whip! Crack that terraform-hopeful planet like a raptor feeding on an egg.

"Remember, there is only ONE absolute - There ARE NO absolutes!!!"

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

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 4:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CapnRahn:
Joss ... please tell US or print a show 'bible'!

Would like to second this, but don't think its gonna happen any time soon. I agree with your reasoning and analysis, but it may never get defined in that much detail.

Why? Because this show is not about science in the way that folks like you and I want. Its about the characters and how they interact in this world. The science was left fuzzy for a very good reason, this is not a science show.

The science is not the star, we don't have the "particle of the week" to duex ex machina the crew of Serenity out of danger.

You are absolutely right, 70 worlds, terraformed or no, ain't going to make for a stable system. (I have my doubts about star clusters as that can be a chaotic mess as well, stripping planets from their home star all the time and sending them out into the void.) FTL would be necessary for anything larger than a single solar system.

But ultimately, none of this really matters. Serenity has the ability to get from one world to another. The two worlds exist, are separated by some space, and that is all that matters for dramatic purposes.

I think Joss is more concerned with the stories, the characters, than the nitty gritty of the drive system, or how so many worlds can exist where. And I find it really hard to argue with his choice.

Which really cheeses me off, because I wanna know too.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CapnRahn:

Sorry ,there is a BIG differance between a city and 'hundreds' of terraformed worlds.

Not to mention how long it would take to terraform a single planet. Joss just dinna go into what tech was used.

Uhh, I was using the New York example as a justification for why we see large, developed, high-tech cities...not to extrapolate it over into terraforming. My point was, lots can change in 200 years.

As for your point that it might take a long time to terraform worlds, that's a problem for both the many systems and one-system theories. I don't think it supports one theory over another. We know there are many worlds ("more than 70" or "hundreds", depending on your source) and that many were terraformed.

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

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:30 AM

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Well, I'm all right. - Mal

Back in October I put together a summary of arguments for and against FTL in Firefly at http://jack.p5.org.uk/ftl-firefly.en.html

Corrections welcome.

--
I am Jack's username
Monarch (Firefly sim): < http://tenforward.slasims.com/viewforum.php?f=104>

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

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 10:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by IamJacksUsername:
Back in October I put together a summary of arguments for and against FTL in Firefly at http://jack.p5.org.uk/ftl-firefly.en.html

Corrections welcome.

Seems like you could use some catchin' up with that summary. One thing you mentioned is that 'Core' alludes to core of the galaxy, when it can also simply mean 'first' or 'inner', such as a core group of worlds where the first human explorers came from. It's location is not necessarily the core of the galaxy.

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

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 10:41 AM

I wish Joss would stop this silly argument for us. But I think he already has. Joss has made the statement that there are no aliens known to mankind, and mankind can only conlude this if they've been all over the galaxy!

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

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by wydraz:
I wish Joss would stop this silly argument for us. But I think he already has. Joss has made the statement that there are no aliens known to mankind, and mankind can only conlude this if they've been all over the galaxy!

Not necessarily. The statement means what it says, regardless of where or how much of the galaxy mankind has searched. None known, means none known. It don't mean their ain't none, or even we have explored the entire galaxy.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by IamJacksUsername:
Back in October I put together a summary of arguments for and against FTL in Firefly at http://jack.p5.org.uk/ftl-firefly.en.html

Corrections welcome.

Very good summary! Having started this thread I'm glad to see lots of people are interested in the same issue.

As a supporter of the one-system theory, and since you included Mal's "whole galaxy of earths" line from an intro, you should probably include the line's from Books intro...

“After the Earth was used up, we found a new solar systemand hundreds of new 'Earths' were terraformed and colonized. The central planets formed 'The Alliance' and decided all the planets had to join under their rule...After the war, many of the Independents...drifted to the edges of the system, far from Alliance control.”

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

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Quote:
Originally posted by wydraz:
I wish Joss would stop this silly argument for us. But I think he already has. Joss has made the statement that there are no aliens known to mankind, and mankind can only conlude this if they've been all over the galaxy!

Not necessarily. The statement means what it says, regardless of where or how much of the galaxy mankind has searched. None known, means none known. It don't mean their ain't none, or even we have explored the entire galaxy.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

Actually, I think the lack of alien life is more likely to be evidence in favour of the one-system theory. If you happen to believe that alien life is possible or probable, but none have been seen on Firefly, then that means they are probably limited to a very small area of space (i.e. one system). If humanity was spread out over hundreds of systems, you would have thought they'd encounter some sort of alien life form, even if it was nothing more than an exotic cow...

Hans

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

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:51 AM

ZEKE023

I actually had a conversation with a physicist about this (this question has been weighing on me as my rpgame is going to start soon and geography is important).

Either a.) it takes place among many solar systems.

or.
b.) Firefly does not attempt to remotely agree with physics.

All the theories I've heard for a single system involve using larger stars to increase the "life-zone" as if this is not done, more than 7/9 the planets in a system would be uninhabbitable. This could be done - but the skies would all be a different color and the sun would be a different size (on mars the sun looks 1/3 the size it does on earth). So clearly, either all of these places that Serenity visits are in multiple solar systems - or Firefly just doesn't take astro-physics into account (which is a very viable option).

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

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:53 AM

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Well, I'm all right. - Mal

Thanks for the Core comment wydraz, I've updated the summary.

I don't understand your aliens comment.

--
I am Jack's username
Monarch (Firefly sim): < http://tenforward.slasims.com/viewforum.php?f=104>

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

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 5:44 AM

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Well, I'm all right. - Mal

Thanks Hans, I completely missed Book's intro. I've updated the summary.

--
I am Jack's username
Monarch (Firefly sim): < http://tenforward.slasims.com/viewforum.php?f=104>

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

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 6:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zeke023:
I actually had a conversation with a physicist about this (this question has been weighing on me as my rpgame is going to start soon and geography is important).

Either a.) it takes place among many solar systems.

or.
b.) Firefly does not attempt to remotely agree with physics.

(stuff cut)

Not being an astrophysicist I can't comment on whether a system with 70+ habitable planets would be a.) extremely rare or b.) totally impossible. If b, then we either accept the multiple systems theory, or accept that Firefly takes place in a universe where the rules don't apply (not very satisfactory).

However, while some people fixate on the viability of such a system, for me it is the whole faster-than-light issue that makes me bang my head against the wall. There are many respectable physicists who believe that FTL travel might very well be impossible. While there are many theories floating around about how FTL might work, it involves a level of scientific ability that is well advanced from what we have now. As others have pointed out, if you accept FTL travel as commonplace in the Firefly universe, you're accepting a level of superscience that could equally be applied to the level or terraforming that might be needed to create a habitable system with many habitable planets (and yes, vice versa).

But even if you disagree about how viable FTL travel is, there's still that giant elephant standing there that everyone seems to forget: There's not one single on-screen evidence of FTL travel taking place. While the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you have to ask how reasonable it is that there's no mention of how they travel from world to world. In 14 episodes, no warp drives, no stargates, no wormholes...no line from Wash about "approaching the jump point", no line from Kaylee about "the hyperdrive is down!"...only what appears to be an enirely conventional propulsion system.

Hans

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

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon (regarding aliens)
None known, means none known. It don't mean their ain't none, or even we have explored the entire galaxy.

You forget that the fact that 'there are no aliens' is commonly accepted by the human race in Firefly. They even mention this in one of the beginning scenes of "The Message". As I said before, how can the human race be so presumptuous as to believe that there are no aliens (not just that they haven't found any) unless they have explored a good number of star systems?

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

Thursday, January 22, 2004 1:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:

However, while some people fixate on the viability of such a system, for me it is the whole faster-than-light issue that makes me bang my head against the wall. There are many respectable physicists who believe that FTL travel might very well be impossible. While there are many theories floating around about how FTL might work, it involves a level of scientific ability that is well advanced from what we have now. As others have pointed out, if you accept FTL travel as commonplace in the Firefly universe, you're accepting a level of superscience that could equally be applied to the level or terraforming that might be needed to create a habitable system with many habitable planets (and yes, vice versa).

But even if you disagree about how viable FTL travel is, there's still that giant elephant standing there that everyone seems to forget: There's not one single on-screen evidence of FTL travel taking place. While the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you have to ask how reasonable it is that there's no mention of how they travel from world to world. In 14 episodes, no warp drives, no stargates, no wormholes...no line from Wash about "approaching the jump point", no line from Kaylee about "the hyperdrive is down!"...only what appears to be an enirely conventional propulsion system.

Hans

First off, I am one of those nuts who thinks that FTL is possible. Part of that is optimism, but part of that is from following the debate over
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0009013
The issues have all been technical and several later papers have addressed them. But the key point is that it is consistent with what we (think we) know about the space time manifold.

I'll say it again, the issues are technical, rather than theoretical. It looks like it is doable, (rather than impossible,) just we don't know how yet to build the gear to create the effect.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, January 22, 2004 9:09 AM

FORTUNATUS

Just tossing my .02 into the pot. These are mostly random observations flung out at, well, random.

I think Serenity uses some kind of gravitic drive. In The Train Job, Kaylee mentions (IIRC) a "grav thrust" or somesuch.

The main drive is something called a "standard radion core" by River in the same episode. That sounds like technobabble in line with some kind of fusion reactor, a la Mr. Whedon's commentary.

Fusion reactors do require fuel, and they do produce waste. Serenity doesn't seem to have a hydrogen scoop or the necessary equipment to filter whatever it might take from e.g. skimmin a gas giant, so it makes sense that they'd have to buy fuel for the ship.

There are lots of problems with the science of the show. Fairly rapid terraforming, gravity creation, etc. For me, the second worst is the notion that the ship's artificial gravity would suddenly experience a hiccough as the ship entered a planet's atmosphere, as though the planet's gravity wouldn't have affected the ship before that point. (The worst is gravity generation in the first place. What, can they manipulate an object's mass or something? If so, then FTL is easy.)

That whole, wonderful, golden glow emitted by Serenity's aft end seems a lot like science fantasy to me. This glowing golden light/gas pours out for a while, then suddenly turns into a little puff of light blue-green light when the ship zings off. Obviously, this is no form of transportation known to modern man, and it certainly doesn't look like a ship riding an explosion to me. It could easily be some kind of FTL drive, or not. When I first saw it, I assumed that it was the show's version of going to warp, so I don't really buy the whole "we've never seen them go FTL" argument--even if the main drive is occasionally used for SlowerTL movement.

My take? Joss and crew were more interested in the people than the science, which is why the science is almost never mentioned. Captain dummy talk is ostensibly used for Mal, but it's also used so the audience doesn't have to sit through a pile of Treknobabble and, I expect, so the writers are free to worry about more important stuff.

So, until a movie or new show comes along to tell us otherwise, I don't think we'll ever reach a better answer than, "Firefly occurs within a nebulous collection of planets and moons somewhere in space." More to the point, I really don't think Firefly will ever qualify as hard scifi. It's rubber science at best.

_______________
"Yep. That's a cow fetus."

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

Monday, January 26, 2004 3:45 PM

EBONEZER

Quote:
Just take a look at the star map photo that guy is selling in his press kit. That there is a galaxy my friend

You'll also notice that in the press kit are little foil things with freeze dried "space food" You can get these at a lot of science stores, and museum gift shops. All the press packet people did was slap a sticker on there that said "Firefly" I think it's reasonalbe that the press packet guys had no idea where in space the show was set, and the star map came from discoverychannel.com or something.

I'm not saying firefly is set in the whole galaxy, i'm saying that that's not wholely conclusive evidence.

"Oh my god it's grotesqe! and here's a thing in a jar."

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 4:56 PM

VISVIVALAW

It's gotta be hypothesis #2 because hypothesis #1 is impossible. Yes, you could have a solar system with maybe a dozen planets each with 8 or 10 moons (unlikely but not impossible). But there's a limit to what terraforming can do. They'd *all* have to be relatively near to the habitable zone and that's out of the question. Gotta be hypothesis #2. Why invent a mythical, magical single system with an impossible number of habitable planets when you can just assume (as later episode dialogue indicates) that the worlds are spread over many systems?

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:14 PM

ROCKETJOCK

I can't accept hypothesis #1; I'm a Hard-Science Fiction fan, Nivenite persuasion. I find it hard enough to believe that mankind has terraformed more than seventy planetary bodies in somewhat less than 500 years; placing them all in a single planetary system strains my willing suspension of disbelief too far.

(Incidentally, the figure comes from Mal, in the scene deleted from "Our Mrs. Reynolds", bonus features disk four.)

I don't have any problem with having multiple terraformations within a system; but I'd think you'd have trouble finding more than six or eight prospects per system. And even if you place a dozen or so systems edge-to-edge within a dense cluster with no more than a light year average distance betweem them, that still implies either some kind of FTL drive or dealing with the effects of relativistic time compression -- something the show implies even less than FTL.

The existing fourteen episodes are tantalizingly short on engineering details. The "Hard Burn" engine and the two outboard mounts are clearly reaction drives, with some kind of fusion power implied ("Hard Burn" is referred to as a plasma explosion on the "Serenity" commentary track, although that might just refer to the CGI effect used.)

For the record, in "The Train Job" River states that Serenity has a "radionic power core", while in "The Message" Kaylee refers to the ship having "Gravity Drive". That last sound like something other than the reaction drives, and since no one has proven the propagation rate of gravity to be limited to "C", might just be a good basis for FTL. It might also explain why a Firefly's engine has to turn -- centrifugal rotation has traditionally implied antigravy in the visual shorthand of Science Fiction cinema -- C/R Harryhausen's classic "Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers."

RocketJock

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

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:22 PM

ROCKETJOCK

Another thought: If Joss had wanted the opening narrations to be accepted as canon, he would have included them on the DVD set, as bonus items if nothing else.

As he didn't, I'm assuming he wasn't happy with them, either because of style or content, and therefore don't feel bound by any statements made in them.

Who wrote the opening narrations anyway?

RocketJock

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

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 8:40 AM

SURLYBEN

Quote:
Originally posted by visvivalaw:
It's gotta be hypothesis #2 because hypothesis #1 is impossible. Yes, you could have a solar system with maybe a dozen planets each with 8 or 10 moons (unlikely but not impossible). But there's a limit to what terraforming can do. They'd *all* have to be relatively near to the habitable zone and that's out of the question. Gotta be hypothesis #2. Why invent a mythical, magical single system with an impossible number of habitable planets when you can just assume (as later episode dialogue indicates) that the worlds are spread over many systems?

But the thing is, hypothesis 2 requires a mythical, magical FTL drive. Which, while common enough in science fiction, is even more impossible. Anyway, hypothesis 1 is not, in fact, impossible. Just extremely unlikely.

Given enough time, money, and the inclination to do it, we could turn the Solar System into such a system without violating known laws of physics. If we had planet-scale gravity manipulation (as they do in the 'verse), it would be a piece of cake.

--
http://www.contretemps.net

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

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:03 AM

VISVIVALAW

Even more impossible? Not at all. There are a variety of theoretical possibilities:
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw81.html

Such massive control of gravity is a much less believable technology than FTL. So why bother? Just assume FTL and the ability to terraform worlds in nearby systems (as later episodes make clear references to other systems).

And even if you could move planets around, it would be a celestrial mechanics nightmare to find stable orbits within the habitable zone for all these terraformed worlds. Building hundreds of many-miles-long O'Neil colonies is a tiny engineering project in comparison.

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

Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Surlyben:

But the thing is, hypothesis 2 requires a mythical, magical FTL drive. Which, while common enough in science fiction, is even more impossible. Anyway, hypothesis 1 is not, in fact, impossible. Just extremely unlikely.

Actually, Hypothesis 1 is impossible, 70 worlds in a single solar system, each with an earth normal temperature, let alone gravity, the physics simply don't work. The orbits would be unstable, and either most of these planets would be smacking into each other, or kicked out of the habitability zone of the parent star.

As for Hypothesis 2 being "even more impossible" You guys are operating from old data. This is no longer true. FTL is theoretically possible and the present debate over it now falls to technical issues, rather than theoretical ones.

In 1994, a grad student at the University of Cardiff wrote a paper that you can find here:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0009013
It was originall published in a peer reviewed journal Classical Quantum Gravity 11 (1994) L73-L77. Since then, there has been a good debate about the paper in many journals as well as on the LANL archives. Also, the paper's author, Miguel Alcubierre has moved on to do research at the Max Planc Institute in Germany on numerical relativity, or computer models of coliding black holes and such.

The basic theory is that you create a bubble in the space-time manifold, in the space and time we all share. You curve the walls of this bubble such that, in the forward direction, space is shrinking, and in the aft direction, space expands. This is done by controlling the amount of "negative energy" in a band that surrounds and bisects the bubble.

Negative energy is not that "out there" a concept, there are things like the Casimer effect that indicate such energy is not unrealistic.

The major objection was not that it inconsistent with General Relativity, but that the amount of negative energy was so high as to render it inpractical. However later papers by Chris Van Den Broeck, F. Loupe and others have shown work arounds to reduce the total energy requirements for the effect. There is even a paper by Hiscock that shows what the view from the bridge of such a vessel would look like.

I understand the idea that FTL is impossible. Its based on General Relativity, in that, it takes more and more energy to move a particle closer and closer to the speed of light. At lightspeed, a massive particle would require infinite energy. However Alcubierre's Warp Drive gets around this by not having the ship travel at all, but warping the space-time around the ship in the proper way to achieve the same effective results.

Relative to the inner walls of the warp bubble, the ship does not move. Space time is flat inside the bubble. Outside however, is a different story, but at present there is no violation of General Relativity, nor with any known physics. Space time curvature is how gravity works, and we know that mass and energy alter the shape of this manifold.

You can read more about it, by searching the LANL archives under the terms "Warp Drive". Also take a look at transverable worm holes as a lot of that theoretical work is applicable to warp drives as well. Its all about altering the shape of space and time.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, January 29, 2004 2:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

Actually, Hypothesis 1 is impossible, 70 worlds in a single solar system, each with an earth normal temperature, let alone gravity, the physics simply don't work. The orbits would be unstable, and either most of these planets would be smacking into each other, or kicked out of the habitability zone of the parent star.

As for Hypothesis 2 being "even more impossible" You guys are operating from old data. This is no longer true. FTL is theoretically possible and the present debate over it now falls to technical issues, rather than theoretical ones.

(stuff cut)

As someone who still supports hypothesis one (for various esthetic, storytelling, and technical reasons which are discussed ad nauseum above) I want to thank you for your great research on FTL drives. While I may not believe FTL exists in the Firefly universe, as a science fiction (and science fact) fan in general I love the idea that it might one day be possible.

Hans

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

Thursday, January 29, 2004 3:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
As someone who still supports hypothesis one (for various esthetic, storytelling, and technical reasons which are discussed ad nauseum above) I want to thank you for your great research on FTL drives. While I may not believe FTL exists in the Firefly universe, as a science fiction (and science fact) fan in general I love the idea that it might one day be possible.

Hans

More than welcome. It was this paper, when I first found it about 10 years ago that got me interested in the mathematics of General Relativity. I had always been told it was a beautiful theory, but unless you are a math geek, its kinda hard to see.

And the fact that it no longer proves a hindrance to FTL, well, even better.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Thursday, January 29, 2004 5:20 AM

SURLYBEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

Actually, Hypothesis 1 is impossible, 70 worlds in a single solar system, each with an earth normal temperature, let alone gravity, the physics simply don't work. The orbits would be unstable, and either most of these planets would be smacking into each other, or kicked out of the habitability zone of the parent star.

There are about 30 worlds in the solar system right now, if you include moons of a reasonable size... All more or less in stable orbits, and there are plenty of orbital configurations that are stable which involve far more worlds than 70.

There is plenty of mass in the solar system to make more. At least 24 of them could be packed into a rosette style orbit in the habitable zone, and the habitable zone can be extended to a certain extent (via mirrors and the like). Atmospheric terraforming is quite possible, even for smaller bodies that can't hold an atmosphere. The important thing is not whether it can hold an atmosphere, but how fast it loses the atmosphere (and how much it costs to keep adding new atmosphere, I suppose)

With the exception of the stability of artificial orbits, none of this is theoretical. Planets have, in fact, been formed in the past, planets have atmospheres, and at least one of those atmospheres has been changed into what we now call earthlike.

As far as the altering the gravity of planets in the course of terraforming, I agree that in the real world, it's only plausible by altering the mass of the planet. But in Firefly, they have artificial gravity. If we can believe The Train Job, they have it on a planetary scale. This would make the terraforming and moving planets around a great deal easier (and thus makes the one system notion more plausible) but it isn't actually a requirement.

Regarding negative energy and wormholes and warp drives, I am vaguely familiar with them, but I guess my information is old. I thought that the energy requirements were like "let's convert jupiter to energy for our trip to Tau Ceti". Moving planets seemed more plausible to me.

The infinite energy requirement as you approach light speed isn't actually my only objection to FTL travel. The time travel and violations of causality that it implies bother me for aesthetic reasons. (I can easily imagine a world without causality, but that doesn't mean I want to live there.) I notice the paper you linked to actually addresses this to a limited extent, so that's good news, I guess. I had a physicist friend who claimed that inventing teleportation would be easy compared to the difficulty of avoiding also inventing time travel...

Hmm. I suppose a drive like that might explain why Serenity never encounters Reavers or Alliance patrol vessels at anything like the high relative velocities you would expect if they were flying between planets on conventional drives. The ships are actually only moving at 20 miles an hour locally... (Yes, I know Joss mentions the low speeds as a mistake in the Serenity commentary, but I don't mind an after the fact explanation that makes it seem intentional)

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

Friday, January 30, 2004 12:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Surlyben:

Regarding negative energy and wormholes and warp drives, I am vaguely familiar with them, but I guess my information is old. I thought that the energy requirements were like "let's convert jupiter to energy for our trip to Tau Ceti". Moving planets seemed more plausible to me.

Original estimates by Ford et.al. put it at between 4 jovian masses and a mass greater than the known universe, just to get to light speed. And compress it into an extremely thin shell. But later papers have tackled this problem and seem to have reduced it to more reasonable levels.

Quote:

The infinite energy requirement as you approach light speed isn't actually my only objection to FTL travel. The time travel and violations of causality that it implies bother me for aesthetic reasons. (I can easily imagine a world without causality, but that doesn't mean I want to live there.) I notice the paper you linked to actually addresses this to a limited extent, so that's good news, I guess. I had a physicist friend who claimed that inventing teleportation would be easy compared to the difficulty of avoiding also inventing time travel...

Yeah, that would be a problem if the internal region of the bubble, where the ship is, is travelling at any speed approaching light. However, and here is a big part of the trick. The inside ain't moving and ain't curved. There is no time dilation or any of the other weird effects associated with close to light speed travel. There is even an argument that time inside the bubble can be run at any speed compared to time outside.

On the entire subject of time travel, which is another issue altogether, its kind of a guy feeling for me, but I don't think it is possible. I think there is a facet of time, that we do not understand or know well enough about yet, that prevents (backward) time travel. It may be something as simple as there only being on temporal dimension.

Quote:

Hmm. I suppose a drive like that might explain why Serenity never encounters Reavers or Alliance patrol vessels at anything like the high relative velocities you would expect if they were flying between planets on conventional drives. The ships are actually only moving at 20 miles an hour locally... (Yes, I know Joss mentions the low speeds as a mistake in the Serenity commentary, but I don't mind an after the fact explanation that makes it seem intentional)

Regardless of which hypothesis is true, you still need high speeds to get anywhere in space. However, it seems some sort of collision detection would also be needed, and if you are at high speed, it seems reasonable that the first thing you do when your proximity alarms trip, is to stop/slow the ship greatly. So I see this as possibly not even a bug or mistake.

As for your remarks on Hypothesis 1, I think the orbital considerations are what is most problematic. Yes, there are a lot of worlds in this system, but almost all of them are too light to maintain an atmosphere, or otherwise outside the habitability zone of the sun (roughly between the orbits of Venus and Earth) Moving them takes care of the latter complaint, but not the first. And the resulting orbital dynamics, well there is a nightmare of a computer simulation just waiting to be run.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

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

Friday, January 30, 2004 2:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:

But even if you disagree about how viable FTL travel is, there's still that giant elephant standing there that everyone seems to forget: There's not one single on-screen evidence of FTL travel taking place. While the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you have to ask how reasonable it is that there's no mention of how they travel from world to world. In 14 episodes, no warp drives, no stargates, no wormholes...no line from Wash about "approaching the jump point", no line from Kaylee about "the hyperdrive is down!"...only what appears to be an enirely conventional propulsion system.

Hans

I agree. Maybe it's from reading too much Star Wars, but I always thought that when you go to lightspeed, it has to be special. Like, you press a button, and you enter a wormhole, and only a special kind of ship or a large mass can bring you out prematurely. You can't slow down or change course. If you jettison your cargo in hyperspace, then it'll vaporize into random energy. It only makes sense that an engine that could take you across the galaxy in a few hours would work differently than a standard rocket/fusion engine.

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

Friday, January 30, 2004 2:18 AM

Ok, I posted twice. Sorry.

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

Friday, January 30, 2004 6:21 AM

ARAWAEN

I have been analyzing the problem from Serenity's point of view. The true practicality or impracticality of FTL and single system physical requirements is fine academically, but I don't think it can answer questions within the Firefly Universe which is more Space Opera than Science Fiction.

We know that Serenity has two types of propulsion. The thrusters on the sides and the 'firefly' effect. The thrusters have been 'on' both for atmospheric flight and in deep space, but they are not always 'on' in deep space. The 'firefly' effect is usually only used in deep space (exception being the episode Serenity, though I did get the impression that using it in atmo' wasn't most efficient course of action).

The 'firefly' effect seems to produce a near instantaneous burst of acceleration without any corresponding effect on the crew. This could be FTL or not. Even without FTL, normal levels of acceleration (< 1 G for spacecraft) are going to require lengthy travel times between worlds. The special effect we see on screen could be an 'FTL Effect' not unlike the streaking stars of Star Trek or Star Wars. Likewise it might just indicate that they accelerated to a high STL speed.

The occasional usage of the thrusters in deep space could simply be a matter of the advantage of constant acceleration versus fuel conservation.

What I cannot tell at the moment is whether the 'spinny thingee' has anything to do with propulsion or not. It doesn't seem to operate in atmo' but always seems on in space (except 'Out of Gas' where ship was damaged.)

Arawaen

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

Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:12 AM