Where does Firefly take place?

POSTED BY: Hans
UPDATED: Sunday, July 2, 2006 05:23
VIEWED: 62559
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

RANGRBOB

Sunday, January 4, 2004 10:22 AM

I guess I can understand the typical SciFi fan wanting to know the ends and outs of how everything in the 'verse works. For years we have been subjected to so much technobabble from SciFi it's all many of us can think of when we watch one. I just want it to be said here that I am one of those SciFi fans and always want to know those ins-and-outs. I've even read the "physics of" for every SciFi plot that a "physics of" exist.

Maybe this has been said, but I think that Firefly is special. I don't think it matters much how they get around or how much exist for them to get around in. In Firefly it's not about how they make the journey it's the journey that's important. I don't think for one second that the creators or writers cared one lick beyond, we need a ship and some places for them to go when it came to the science of the show.

Now after saying that the answer to how much of the galaxy human's occupy is all that they need. How fast they travel in that galaxy is, as fast as the script calls for. And, how they travel that fast is very unimportant.

"If the snow on the roof is to heavy the roof will cave in, his brain is in terible danger."

LTNOWIS

Thursday, January 8, 2004 12:47 AM

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.

LTNOWIS

Thursday, January 8, 2004 12:51 AM

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"

ZAPHODB

Thursday, January 8, 2004 12:55 AM

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

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

HANS

Thursday, January 8, 2004 6:20 PM

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.

SURLYBEN

Monday, January 19, 2004 8:11 AM

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

CAPNRAHN

Monday, January 19, 2004 10:41 AM

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!!!"

HANS

Monday, January 19, 2004 1:57 PM

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!

WYDRAZ

Monday, January 19, 2004 9:01 PM

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.

CAITLYN

Monday, January 19, 2004 9:16 PM

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. "

JUSTDAVID

Monday, January 19, 2004 11:33 PM

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

CAPNRAHN

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 12:24 AM

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!!!"

GUNRUNNER

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 3:24 AM

"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.

CAPNRAHN

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:58 AM

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!!!"

DRAKON

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 2:06 PM

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?"

HANS

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 3:00 PM

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.

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:30 PM

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>

WYDRAZ

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:40 PM

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.

WYDRAZ

Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:41 PM

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!

DRAKON

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 12:09 PM

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?"

HANS

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 1:11 PM

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.”

HANS

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 1:21 PM

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

ZEKE023

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 1:51 PM

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).

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 1:53 PM

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>

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 3:44 PM

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>

HANS

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 4:56 PM

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

WYDRAZ

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:56 PM

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?

DRAKON

Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:00 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?"

FORTUNATUS

Thursday, January 22, 2004 7:09 PM

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."

EBONEZER

Tuesday, January 27, 2004 1:45 AM

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."

VISVIVALAW

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 2:56 AM

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?

ROCKETJOCK

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 5:14 AM

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

ROCKETJOCK

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 5:22 AM

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

SURLYBEN

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 6:40 PM

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

VISVIVALAW

Wednesday, January 28, 2004 7:03 PM

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.

DRAKON

Thursday, January 29, 2004 11:58 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?"

HANS

Thursday, January 29, 2004 12:43 PM

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

DRAKON

Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:37 PM

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?"

SURLYBEN

Thursday, January 29, 2004 3:20 PM

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)

DRAKON

Friday, January 30, 2004 10:12 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?"

LTNOWIS

Friday, January 30, 2004 12:18 PM

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.

LTNOWIS

Friday, January 30, 2004 12:18 PM

Ok, I posted twice. Sorry.

ARAWAEN

Friday, January 30, 2004 4:21 PM

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

DRAKON

Saturday, January 31, 2004 10:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
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.

So far I don't know of any sci fi that has gotten it right.

There is a paper.. hang on...
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9907/9907019.pdf

That gives an idea what Alcubierre's original idea would look like from the inside. It does look different, but not radically enough that I think it would be noticable, unless you knew what you were looking at.

In short, it does not necessarily have to look that cool, as you would see in Star Wars, Trek or any other television show.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

BLUBBY

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:02 AM

It seems to me that the area of science where we are being asked by Whedon and crew most explicitly to suspend disbelief is not drive technology at all but rather in the area of sub-atomic particle and/or wave manipulation, with a good measure of nanotech thrown in.

Besides the ship's artificial gravity itself, in Trash, we clearly see the use of some type of gravitic or EM-field-based technology used to permanently elevate village-size estates over a large body of water. Moreover, presumably the wealthy people inhabiting the estates won't tolerate the bad wealther that would no doubt need to accompany what seems to me to be rather turbulent ocean below (and the winds apparently buffeting our heros as they attempted to secure the garbage bin).. in fact, there doesn't seem to be any wind at all at the garden party above. We also receive numerous references to the "making" of habitable earths, as others have commented on in this thread, and the ability of Serenity's engine (or engine and various sub-systems, some or which may be operational at any given point in time) to generate air, gravity, and presumably, water. Finally, on Jayne's World, they seem to be making hi-tech materials (strong enough for spacecraft hulls, they say) using little more than unskilled labor... again, suggesting super-sciency nanotech or some other intervention at the sub-atomic level (e.g., the soil in those bogs itself is engineered).

My guess is that the Firefly universe has some type of mysterious energy source that encompasses gravity-control technology, atmospheric force fields, and an extremely sophisticated nano/sub-atomic-technology (whether wave or particle based) to adapt everything from soils to temperatures to human beings to newly terraformed environments. Given the forgoing and the requisite suspension of disbelief, it should be possible to terraform nearly anything, given, say, hydrogen. For all we know, there's a cold fusion generator capable of producing all of the forgoing effects buried at the core of every terraformed world. With this, it's possible that even small planetoids, regularly or irregularly shaped, can be terraformed in whatever time it takes a good environmental engineer to program that miracle generator to produce enough funky particles and/or fields to affect whatever changes he cares to, to whatever rock he cares to colonize.

Thus, colonizing 70 or 700 worlds, in any given solar system filled with any manner of rocks at all, becomes possible... if we have the ability to cheaply produce the energy -- waves and/or particles -- needed to create and maintain gravity, air and water, who cares about celestial dynamics? In fact, the programming of such a device, which might, in our suspension of disbelief, require little if any maintenance and run for centuries, could be done by engineers on a few central worlds and be produced by them for the exclusive benefit of licensed shipbuilders and the official colonization program... and those who use it, with the exception of the odd genius like Kaylee, would never have to think about it much at all.

If one accepts that such a powerful panaceaic technology could exist, then the key problem becomes, then why doesn't their 'verse resemble more the paradise of Star Trek's Federation rather than the dystopia obviously portrayed? Well, first of all, we haven't really seen the central worlds in much detail. It is also entirely possible that the social structure of their verse is such that this knowledge would not be widely disseminated or too easily reproducible, leaving the bulk of unwashed and unlearned beneficiaries of the tech at the mercy of a few ubermenschen technocrats at whatever their equivalent of MIT is, on the central worlds. While such a technology could be used, by more ethical people, to solve all of humanity's problems, it is, instead, used (or rather mis-used) by the Alliance and its rulers primarily to maintain and extend their own political power. Such a political 'verse would not be a stable one, but, then again, the series does not pr

WILLARDLARD

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:10 PM

While the physics and theory of this debate are still interesting, the question has already been answered by Joss himself. In an interview posted fairly recently he said that the show takes place in one solar system, and added something like, "You've never seen a system like this before."

I apologize for not offering a link, but I can't seem to find the interview again. It was posted somewhere on this site or on Whedonesque.com within the last few weeks. Maybe someone else has a better memory than I.

WILLARDLARD

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:27 PM

I dug some more and found the interview. You can read it at http://chud.com/interviews/980. The relevant excerpt is below.

Q: Does Serenity go faster than light?

Joss: I don't think so.

Q: Are the planets really close together?

Joss: They’re really close together. You’ve never seen a planet cluster like this one. It’s a little planet village. If you start asking my science questions I’m going to cry.

OLDFAN45

Tuesday, February 15, 2005 11:07 PM

Quote:
Joss: They’re really close together. You’ve never seen a planet cluster like this one. It’s a little planet village. If you start asking my science questions I’m going to cry.

That doesn't sound like an answer, that sounds like a dodge for a question he's never thought out, which in the 2003 part of the thread one of the writers is quoted as specifically stating. No link was offered back then to a discussion where this statement was supposed to have been made.

Let's see what Serenity contains on this matter before worrying this bone more. In the meantime, every flan for her/imself, find the explanation that suits your needs and fly with it. BTW, for the record, I fall into the many systems/close star cluster/STL-but-not-by-much camp. May even be a camp of one, for all I know.

WIBBLEDTODEATH

Thursday, August 4, 2005 8:56 AM

You are all correct...and wrong.
according to...

My own little theory........

We already know that intersteller travel is possible in firefly....it may be slow...in the region of 30 odd years...but it is at the very least possible...and has been done on a vast scale (the exedos from earth that was). We also know that earth (and possibly other planets in the system) were used up and that migration to outer colonies was needed. We know that, even if FTL is not possible, VERY fast sublight speeds are routine (how far did those Blue Sun agents travel again?....it was done in the space of a few hours to half a day max..the time between them being captured and the hands of blue turning up..was not much over the timetable quick get in and out with the River).

All of this means that, regardless of which side you are on...the colonisation of multple star systems IS possible (at least earth that was, and another..if nothing else). It strikes me as odd that if their society had burned up the resources of one system, that society wouldnt spread to several others to delay this from happening again any time soon...
We know 70+ odd worlds exist...and that more moons are being terriformed for colonists...

It is hard for people to swallow that 70+ habitable worlds could be crammed into one solar system. It is also hard for some to swallow the idea of FTL...and for some this is 2 much like other sci-fi and lacking romantacism.

We also have conflicting intro's from the perspective of the captain and Book..about the worlds colonised...one mentions spreading across the galaxy, another taking a system for themselves.

I would like to point out that these are NOT mutually exclusive.

Very fast slower than light capability is all that is needed to colonise several near by solar systems. While not spreading across the whole galaxy ala Starwars, or even a huge chunk of it as in Trek...there is no reason why the Verse (a word that is shorthand for more than the single system I am guessing)could not be a few nearby systems. When a character talks about all the worlds (presumably inhabited) in the Verse...it doesnt have to mean all the worlds in their system..but in the universe.

This doesnt mean that travel between systems is commonplace, fast or easy. Or that the 70+ worlds are reachable by Serenity without the burden of a multiple decade journey. just that they are known (or thought) to exist, somewhere.

Serenity can very well be set within a single solar system, with several other inhabited subsystems based around gas giants...scores of worlds may be accessible...but maybe not all 70 in the one system.

This system is probably a frontier one

It has some core planets (such as Ariel, at the least..or the planet upon which Ariel city is located)..a core planet being a highly populated industtrial world run by the corporate alliance.

and some rather primative, backwater...3rd world moons and lawless non core planets....

Serenity may never leave the system....after all...with such a limited capacity cargo hold...the profitability of a smuggling operation that takes decades to complete is probably not making for a wise business plan...plus they kinda like the less civilised system with limited alliance presence..its easier on crime.

But that doesnt mean that many other planets in the verse dont exist in other systems..out of the scope of the TV show, Movie, and Capt Mal (other than his mentioning of them)...but settled by humans colonists (possibly forming the greater part of the Alliance).

This also makes sence of the drive to terraform planets when...on the face of it...many dont seem to be well populated (although mining resources is another good reason) If other systems exist who are burning up, or in fear of burning up resources..then it makes sense that they would export people to a more sparcely developed one (a journey that, one way, is more than possible...esp given the alliances floating spaceborn cities)...and perhapse import resources in bulk from other system's mining colonies and ag worl

REDNAX

Thursday, August 4, 2005 12:09 PM

Latest JW interview confirms no FTL (mild Serenity spoilers).
http://www.infocusmag.com/05augustseptember/whedonuncut.htm

Quote:
You’ve created with “Firefly” and “Serenity” another universe in which the spaceships do not travel faster than light, while “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” and “Battlestar Galactica” and virtually every other major spacefaring franchise utilizes faster-than-light travel. Does this betray perhaps a particular fondness for the “Alien” franchise, which also eschewed FTL?

Very much so, and I think the roots of it go eons beyond. The science fiction that I love, generally speaking, was very sort of specific. What I loved about spaceships was the idea that they might break. The idea of being in one. The idea of the grittier, realistic, hard-science kind of space that was actually creepy to be in. That’s why “Alien” just blew me away. I was like, “These are people who don’t even like each other. There’s no structure here. They killed the handsome guy. I can’t figure this out.” It was just a scary place to be. The most important line in “Star Wars,” to me, is the moment Luke looks at the Millennium Falcon, the most beautiful ship I’ve ever seen, and says, “What a piece of junk!”

My theory is that humans flead Earth using STL generational or cryosleep ships (River was in cryosleep in the pilot). The new solar system probably has multiple suns.

The RPG should clarify things (but that may not be considered canonical).

OLDFAN45

Thursday, August 4, 2005 2:13 PM

You did indeed write a very eloquent Firefly essay. I trod some of tghe same territory on the OB:

http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages?msg=3863.269
and http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages?msg=3863.275

Just sayin'.

OLDFAN45

Thursday, August 4, 2005 2:18 PM

I got fidgety about that myownself.

http://forums.prospero.com/foxfirefly/messages?msg=3863.275

Ringworlds solve problems that cryoships don't.

YT

Thursday, August 4, 2005 8:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WibbledtoDeath:
VERY fast sublight speeds are routine (how far did those Blue Sun agents travel again?....it was done in the space of a few hours to half a day max..the time between them being captured and the hands of blue turning up..was not much over the timetable quick get in and out with the River).

One of us is confusing two eps. On the chance it might be you, here's where I think the confusion arises:
In Train Job, one of the Blue Hands ops says they travelled 86 million miles (from memory). That would be to an Alliance cruiser, somewhere in space (I presume not too far from the world with the train). We aren't told where they started. In Ariel, which I think is the story to which you refer above, as far as I can recall they could have been coming from elsewhere in the same city.

I like your essay.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . .

WIBBLEDTODEATH

Friday, August 5, 2005 5:39 AM

Yes, thank U, I was indeed confusing 2 eps.

This occured in the Train job (not Ariel, as I 1st suggested), it took the blue sun agents an afternoon to travel 86million miles...a little under 1 AU

But I still hold to my belief that very fast non FTL speeds are commonplace.Travel time from a frontier moon to one of the core planets in A firefly class ship is 5 days (in, um, our Mrs Reynolds)....still makes it real fast(besides...the firefly drive effect..was designed to signify real fast (non ftl) speeds are available..without having to go into distracting technical exposition).

Perhapse the best evidence of very efficient sublight travel is Serenity's manouverability in atmosphere and ability to cheaply make escape velocities......this displays some pretty advanced tech.

Tanks to others also for the links to their ringworld explanation/discussion of the exedos from earth that was. It does indeed bear a strong resemblance to the way I imagine things could go (at least regarding the multiple nearby system colonisation)...

although, I imagine that the ringworld model would create more hemogenous societies than we see in firefly (rather than the extreems of primative isolated settlers and core worlds) and kinda reduces the need for terraforming new worlds(you already have a habitable environment...just need to park it near a convenient star and maybe do a lil more asteroid mining for raw resources...if my thinking of it it rightways up...please let my know if not).

Personally, I doubt that society would have got it together enough to have such a coordinated mass exedos (with temps an avarage 1-1.5 celsius higher now than when I was a kid...and weather patterns in Australia changed dramatically..we still cant agree to something so simple as reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Individuals can be smart...humans en mass tend to be really stupid) More likely that...after developing the technology to travel fast within system (gravetic drives, and nuc fusion thrust etc) and mining/colonising other nearby worlds (Mars, moons of local gas giants etc)....conditions on earth deteriorated to such a degree that alternatives became desireable.

Once conditions got bad enough...and given that travel through space (in system at least) was routine..organisation would have been irrelavent..people would pay what they could/do what is needed to get on a colony ship and get away without any need for organisation on a global scale (although, the practice of terraforming worlds and supplying peeps with transport would have been a real money spinner for corporations and businesses with the ability to do so.....)

Teraforming missions would have been sent out 1st...and colonists...as the environment deteriorated and the means were ready and available anyway...would have departed earth over time in a piecemeal fashion. Thus we have backwater colonies that have been been isolated for ages...reavers...panets upon which the principle form of entertainment is bird juggling etc..along side more modern developed worlds.

Also, I cant see that people would have been particularly concearned about getting to a far off high density star cluster..at least without taking the option of colonising multiple closer to earth systems 1st....Why would you bother travelling 60+ years to get to a system with many planets when you could take a 30 year voyage to a more modest location that would prove just as viable?...Plenty of good looking stars exist within any 10ly wide patch of nearby space..(see this great star chart of systems within 12.5ly: http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/12lys.html)

That said...the closest system to earth is a star that is a mere .24ly away from aother likely looking binary system...for all you "single" system nuts out there.....I mean, technically its 2 systems...but the distances are more manageable for non ftl travel (although you need to be faster than 2AU/day unless you got a lot of time on your hands..like 6000 days or so...)

Travel to stars within 15ly or so (let alone 4.22ly it takes to get to the

YT

Friday, August 5, 2005 8:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WibbledtoDeath:
although, I imagine that the ringworld model would create more hemogenous societies than we see in firefly (rather than the extreems of primative isolated settlers and core worlds)

Well, Larry Niven's ringworld (the original), which is a simplification of a Dyson Sphere, is pretty big -- on the close order of 6 x 10 to the fourteenth power square miles, or about 10 million times the total surface area of Earth, including oceans & polar caps. That's enough elbow room to enable one to get really far away from the nearest neighbour.

Quote:
and kinda reduces the need for terraforming new worlds(you already have a habitable environment...

You certainly won't be terraforming another solid body in a ringworld system. You'd want the mass for the ring itself but, more importantly, anything in the system that isn't attached to the ringworld poses a potential threat, in the astronomically long term.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . Train, "Drops of Jupiter"

YT

Friday, August 5, 2005 9:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by WibbledtoDeath:
Personally, I doubt that society would have got it together enough to have such a coordinated mass exedos (with temps an avarage 1-1.5 celsius higher now than when I was a kid...and weather patterns in Australia changed dramatically..we still cant agree to something so simple as reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

What's your preference?
Encourage vegetarianism & kill meat animals?
Reduce milk consumption & kill cows?
Outlaw composting? (each of these three should reduce methane production)

Or are you more of a gambler?
Fund design, production & dissemination of methanophagic bacteria? (presumably reducing methane in the atmosphere, but what would they excrete? Downside risk estimates are left as an exercise for the student)
Promote automotive engines that reduce carbon dioxide emissions & increase water vapour emissions? (ooops, I'm sorry, you wanted to decrease global warming, didn't you?)
Offer to take in obsolete nuclear warheads from Russia & the USA to explode them in a spare desert you have laying around (& hope that models indicating more aerosols would have a cooling effect are right & those that indicate it would have a warming effect are wrong)

How 'bout something that does work, @least in the short run:
Replace fossil fuel fired electric power generation with nuclear electric power generation

Or do you want a sure thing, short & long term:
Legislate & enforce reductions in power production
Legislate & enforce reductions in power consumption
Radically increase (factor of 10 @least, to be increased later as needed) taxes on power production & consumption

Simple

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . . Stones, "I'm Alright", "Out of Our Heads"

WIBBLEDTODEATH

Friday, August 5, 2005 12:14 PM

Actually, I was thinking we could bottle all those greenhouse gases up...keep em for a rainy day.

I am sure they will come in very handy when we are attempting to terraform some cold rock out there in space....

And yes, more use of nuc power sounds good 2 me

(What, you think Serenity runs on Kaylee love alone?)

Actually, we had the option of a perfectly viable solar power generation method proposed some years ago (all that hot arrid outback and no ozone layer has its uses) but it was rejected by a typically conservative government.....now we are investing in desalination plants (HUGE ENERGY HOGS..and very costly) TO SUPPLY WATER...oops, caps.....water for us thirsty people in NSW (who, as it stands, have had
Legislated reductions & Radically increased taxes on water consumption..at least in my lil patch of the verse). Anyhoo...this is not the correct thread for such a discussion...although I am sure that those living on the Earth that was suffered many such issues before they decided to go star trekin.....

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

YT

Friday, August 5, 2005 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WibbledtoDeath:
Actually, we had the option of a perfectly viable solar power generation method proposed some years ago (all that hot arrid outback and no ozone layer has its uses)

P'r'aps, but proposals for centralized solar-electric power conversion seem lacking in imagination (stuck in a mental rut). A cool thing about solar power is it is so scaleable. Why incur transmission losses of 30% from a regional power station when one can heat water & generate electricity @one's house? The coolest thing about solar is, of course, using more of the fusion power already being generated for us, without our having to ask, tax & utility rate free.

Quote:
now we are investing in desalination plants (HUGE ENERGY HOGS..and very costly)

I'm not sure why nobody seems to want to use solar distillation. It would require more area (1 order of magnitude? 2?) for similar output, but operating costs exclusive of debt service would be far lower. I can't find a comparative analysis.

Y'all in Oz (& SA) might be better off investing in B D Nuclear-powered Marine Engines, to move ice islands from the ice cap.

Quote:
Anyhoo...this is not the correct thread for such a discussion...

True, and I do apologize to everyone; it's just that the Real World Events forum makes my skin crawl.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . .

YT

Friday, August 5, 2005 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by WibbledtoDeath:
although I am sure that those living on the Earth that was suffered many such issues before they decided to go star trekin.....

Unfortunate choice of phrase, that. But @least now we're into General Discussions about Firefly -- still not quite the right forum, but a fair number of threads here in Ep Discussions seem to drift that way.

Lotta room for conjecture, here. Returning to your original question (title of this thread), I @first thought that the three possible answers could have different implications for the demise of Earth-that-Was. Then thinking back to your essay, I realized transport options were the key, and my response began to grow like Topsy. I'll work offline &, if it makes any sense, I'll post.

Keep the Shiny Side Up . . .

LUPINDA3RD

Thursday, October 6, 2005 6:18 AM

okay get ready cause i'm going to cover plenty of stuff. *takes a deep breath*

1 in the movie serenity they show a picture of a large solar systern with about 12 planets i guess (not sure cause it was a short glympse)

2 Joss says he dosn't believe in the use of FTL travel

3 the best sources of power would be Fussion, Fission, and Solar

4 many of those worlds were moons which is possible to teriform with my guess.

5 they later mention in the movie that there were planets that couldn't be inhabited

6 I figure Green House Gases could be used to create a thicker atmo for planets that are farther out then others (the gases would trap heat)

7 Well i got nothin for 7 but thanks for listenin

people don't really apreciate what we do in this world, and when we're gone they're gonna wonder why the world sucks

SPACESAMURAI

Monday, December 5, 2005 4:04 AM

i think they're might be a third possibility. While not really sceintific in anyway, and more of a cop out than anything else, it could be possible the the 'verse is some kind of unique astrological phenomenon. Just a big group of planetoids kind of like a big ass ort cloud. (I'm terrible at astrology, so this really has no sceintific basis, I got no clue if it's even possible, but it's just an idea).

I aim to misbehave
-Mal-

SPACESAMURAI

Monday, December 5, 2005 4:04 AM

sorry, double post.... whoops.

DONCOAT

Monday, December 5, 2005 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by spacesamurai:
i think they're might be a third possibility. While not really sceintific in anyway, and more of a cop out than anything else, it could be possible the the 'verse is some kind of unique astrological phenomenon. Just a big group of planetoids kind of like a big ass ort cloud. (I'm terrible at astrology, so this really has no sceintific basis, I got no clue if it's even possible, but it's just an idea).

I think you mean Astronomy, not astrology.

That said, I agree that we don't know enough about other planetary systems to completely rule out the idea of a single-system 'verse, especially if we allow the possibility of some exotic new technologies for terraforming. If we assume the new sun is a large, hot star (which gives a wide "habitation zone") and that there are a lot of planets and moons available as raw material, I'm reasonably comfortable with the single-system scenario as laid out in the Visual Companion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

KYOBONITSUKI

Sunday, June 11, 2006 5:20 PM

God! Reading over all this stuff since my last post has been fun.

Well this is my current ides...

IT IS ONE SYSTEM.... THERE IS NO FTL.

Joss has stated this and in the intro to the film the teacher states they found "a new solar system with dozens of planets and hundreds of moons."

There! It's one system... the Verse and Galaxy are slang referring to populated space.

Exactly how big the Verse is is rather difficult to pin down.

In Serenity (the film) the map behind the teacher in River's nightmare shows us a 20 orbit system (however the 6th orbit seems to be unoccupied). In this map there does not seem to be any indication that the system is a multistar system. It is possible that this map only covers the core.

Problems with this map are that the instructor mentions "dozens of planets and hundreds of moons"... 20 is a bit low for "dozens." When she speaks of "the savage outer planets" the 11th planet in this system is detailed, seeming to suggest that this map includes the outer planets. the shooting script also indicates that the planet we are meant to see is on "the edge of the galaxy."

The map featuring Miranda, later in the film, seems to show a completely different and complicated system. It appears to be at minimum a 5 star system (quintary?) with four star systems around the central core system. Miranda is indicated as being in the Burnham quadrant - seeming to indicate a division of the verse into 4 parts - perhaps these satellite systems.

This map seems to show a core system of 6 orbits around a yellow-white star. Clockwise from the 2 o'clock position we have: 9 orbits and one ring around a small blue-white star; 5 orbits around a medium-size red star; 15 orbits and one ring around a slightly smaller yellow star; and 8 orbits and 3 rings around a midsize orange star.

This map seems to feature worlds that match the "Worlds of the Alliance" graphic, and the blue-white star could have some significance to the Blue Sun corporation. The problem is the severe improbability of a quintary system. A rather laboured explanation could be that some or all of the satellite stars are engineered, (perhaps from grey dwarf gas giants a la 2010).

The fact that these two maps seem to contradict each other seems to indicate that the creative staff has no idea how the Verse is laid out. Making any attempt by us fans to figure it out nigh impossible - but mighty fun to ponder.

Myself... for my own little selfish purposes (read: RPG) have decided that this is a 5 focus system as shown in the map in the visual companion. Each of the 4 remote stars is a grey dwarf... and provides the name of the quadrant... thus Miranda orbits Burnham.

The system is not beholden to Bode's Law and habitable planets are not strictly required to be in the biozone of the star. The core system consists of 20 planets as shown on the teachers screen but only the orbits shown on the Miranda graphic are terraformed.

Now how to explain "dozens" of planets.....

cheers

matt

TRAVELER

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:16 AM

The one thing I've learned about science fiction is you have to learn to bend. Travel to another star you invent hyper drive or if your a Star Trek fan warp drive. What are they? There had to have been some way to travel to other stars for this story to end up in another or as some people beleave several other solar systems. It most be a very early type of travel or they would be hopping to other systems. But nobody seems to be doing that. I get the feeling they are at one solar system that mUst have a large star with alot more planets around it than our own system. The planets nearer the star would be like Earth and they call them the central planets. The other worlds are moons of gas giants like Jupitor, which are farther from the star like our own. These moons would have to be fairly equal in size to Earth to have the right gravity. A planet the size of Jupitor could have more than one moon like this and the heat produced by this gas giant would help to support life on these moons. Now there must be several of these planets in order to have all these habital moons. So again I think the star must be much larger than our old Sol to have produced all these satelites. But I beleave Joss didn't worry about any of this. He had a ship and he sent it where ever he wanted it to go. If it stayed in one solar system or traveled beyond didn't matter to him. They never explain the engine. It revolves. Why? It looks good if you have moving parts. If their engine had the capacity to travel to other solar systems then firing it up, to do the Crazy Ivan in the atmosphere of Whitefall, in the first episode would have destroyed that planet. And how come when they are in space and another ship comes by they are going so slow. If they are traveling countless thousands of miles the ships would be a just a flash on their screen if they were lucky. Not this holding their breath hoping the reavers don't spot them. In order to create a story you most bend. And science fiction has done that since Flash Gordon and will continue to do it, whether it be Star Trek, Farscape, or any other show you can name. Write the story and don't worry how far they traveled or how fast. So it doesn't matter if it is one solar system or several the cows will forget they are cows until they are outside again. And Jayne will always lie and whore. You can bend science fiction but you can't bend Jayne.

Traveler

MAGHAFFAR

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:14 AM

Well no one's weighed in with the obvious assessment (OK, except for the guy right above me who sneaked in while I was editing this thing)vis a vis looking at the show from Joss and the writers P.O.V. Joss has said he doesn't know beans about science and doesn't really care. The focus was always on storytelling. So it's clear to me (as a writer) that no one was paying that much attention to the details about what the size framework was for the show, just that it "appears" to be based on a single system with major terraformed planets that have lots of terraformed moons around them. As this scenario is highly improbable scientifically, it seems clear to me that Joss and the writers weren't trying to play "Mr. Science" in their stories. Just trying to tell human-based stories set in a "small" framework of Alliance = core worlds, Independents / the rest of humanity = rim worlds and outer moons. This was done to provide a dramtic background for lots of things to work with story-wise, and not for scientific consistency. There are all sorts of scientific improbables you can chalk up if you start looking -- the ol' "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" debate. Meaning, it's irrelevant. The show and the movie were never about the science but about the people. So let's not get all bogged down in a geek-fest debate on intangibles that none of the creators / writers even cared about (said by a true geek from the original Star Trek days). OK, that's my 2-cents.

===============================================================
Jonathan M.A.Ghaffar - Your Firefly/Serenity MP3 Ringtone Guru!
Free MP3 uploader program (PC) at: www.tonethis.com
Website for free ringtone downloading: http://mindfulmusings.net/cellupload/singleupload.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MAGhaffar@wayoftheseekers.com
http://www.WAYoftheSEEKERS.com
http://www.TombofJesus.com
http://www.alislam.org

TRAVELER

Wednesday, June 28, 2006 11:24 PM

Guess I'm a faster editor MAGhaffer. But your angels on the head of a pin is a perfect example of what is happening here. The wonderful thing is, nobody is wrong. You can make the story anywhere you want it. Jayne won't stop bedding every whore he meets if you change their location or the size of space they travel in.

What do we do with the chain of command?

MAGHAFFAR

Thursday, June 29, 2006 12:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by traveler:
Jayne won't stop bedding every whore he meets if you change their location or the size of space they travel in.

What do we do with the chain of command?

What else? Give it to River -- she'll
whup EVERYBODY'S ass!
...Or we could talk more.

MAGHAFFAR

Thursday, June 29, 2006 12:26 AM

dble post. oops. [ducks River's mean-ass
swing with that ol' Chain of Command]

OVERLORD

Saturday, July 1, 2006 8:56 PM

Well said, MAGhaffar! People tend to forget that Firefly is Science-Fiction. The planets could be anywhere at anytime and it does not really matter.

Now, say I wanted to be geeky enough and bring Science into the picture. Well, chances are the setting of Firefly is in one or two galaxies. The crew of Serenity is not flying from one part of the Universe to the other or else most of the show would be spent seeing the crew's life onboard during spaceflight. Either way, it is still fiction. Best to take the Science aspect of Firefly with a pinch of salt.

EXODUS

Sunday, July 2, 2006 5:23 AM

Well, I favour Hypothesis #2 for a couple of reasons.

1. The fact that other colonized solar systems are discussed is pretty much a straight answer.
2. The statement used to defend Hypothesis #1 about how Earth found a new solar system to use up could have referred to past colonies being terraformed in only one solar system. This could have changed over time to many solar system thus creating jurisdictions (ie. core planets, outer rim).

I would also like to say though that this is Science-Fiction and therefore it is best that it is not analyzed scientifically (especially if the writer of the series comes from a weak scientific background). If I had to choose, I would choose Hypothesis #2 but either way, it is Firefly and I love it.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2