Solar System Vs. Galaxy

POSTED BY: MadJack
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 17:41
VIEWED: 40250
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

MADJACK

Monday, February 16, 2004 3:06 PM

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

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

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

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 16, 2004 3:16 PM

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

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

HANS

Monday, February 16, 2004 3:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MadJack:

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

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

GROUNDED

Monday, February 16, 2004 5:14 PM

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

LINDLEY

Monday, February 16, 2004 5:27 PM

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

LTNOWIS

Monday, February 16, 2004 10:51 PM

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

GUARDIAN

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:23 AM

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

Guardian.

GROUNDED

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:00 PM

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

I've seen no evidence for it whatsoever on the show. Light from the sun takes just over 5 hours to reach Pluto so if you had FTL you could fly from one extreme of Pluto's orbit to the other in 10 hours or less (depending how much faster than light you are going). The crew of Serenity seem to just be getting by so we can also assume that they can't afford to skip back and forth between nearby systems i.e. they need to work locally. Travel times on the show seem to be measured (generally) in days which leads me to believe they're sort of moving around the system in a roughly circular path, jumping from planet to planet as the presence of the Alliance will allow.

FREAKYSINS

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 8:28 PM

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

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

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

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

ARAWAEN

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 9:24 PM

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

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

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

Arawaen

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

FOURSKYS

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 9:53 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARAWAEN

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:43 AM

I agree. Serenity can go PGF.

Arawaen

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

DRAKON

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 11:21 AM

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

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

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

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

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

GROUNDED

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 12:09 PM

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

DRAKON

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:52 PM

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

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

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

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

FREAKYSINS

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:06 PM

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

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

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

"Have good sex!"

GROUNDED

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

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

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

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

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

CARTAGIA

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 4:06 PM

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

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

Simon: I've never shot anyone before.

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

LODRIL

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:00 PM

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

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

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

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

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

GROUNDED

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:02 PM

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

GROUNDED

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:07 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

FREAKYSINS

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:30 PM

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

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

CARTAGIA

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:51 PM

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

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

Simon: I've never shot anyone before.

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

GROUNDED

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:57 PM

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

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

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:01 PM

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

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

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

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

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

GTE910H

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:18 PM

I'm a huge fan of: "It really doesn't matter"

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

SEVENPERCENT

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 8:39 PM

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

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

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

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

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

GROUNDED

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 9:58 PM

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

HOTPOINT

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:01 PM

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

Accept serious Gravity Modification and I'll buy it

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

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

DRE

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:41 PM

I would assume they have a form of FTL travel based on the comments of their 'Burner' drive (where Serenity's engines glow and the ship vroooooms off). It's definately not warp/superlight speed, but it moves em faster and easier (a couple references are made between Mal and Wash about 'burning' the drives and the use of fuel, etc. My two cents there.

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

IKIYO.
DRE

LODRIL

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:42 PM

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

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

I've worked for several major multinational corporations... and I can tell you that when they refer to 'core brands', there's not any sort of geographic unity. Core could mean a lot of things non-geographical (non-spatial?); original Alliance members, largest worlds (and thus the economic center of the 'verse), even something else entirely, like the fact that they are terraformed a different way (liquid magma core worlds... thus more suitable for Terran geography?). Even discarding the non-geography explanations, you're still faced with the fact that even if 'Core' means spatially central to the human-inhabited regions of space, you still can't identify what size that region is. They could be the three or four closest systems, with other worlds being elsewhere in the galaxy, or, as you suggest, a single solar system with important planets nearest the star. There's no evidence supporting either point, other than the gravimetrics angle of how many planets can dance on a pinhead (as many as Joss wants).

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

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

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

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

DRE

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:42 PM

I would assume they have a form of FTL travel based on the comments of their 'Burner' drive (where Serenity's engines glow and the ship vroooooms off). It's definately not warp/superlight speed, but it moves em faster and easier (a couple references are made between Mal and Wash about 'burning' the drives and the use of fuel, etc. My two cents there.

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

IKIYO.
DRE

FOURSKYS

Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:51 AM

A couple more thougts...

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

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

JASONZZZ

Thursday, February 19, 2004 1:32 AM

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

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

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

GROUNDED

Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lodril:

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

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

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

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

HORRID

Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:20 AM

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

LODRIL

Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:58 PM

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

I stand corrected. :)

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

FREAKYSINS

Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:19 PM

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

Regardless, and as was stated earlier, we don't have enough information as yet to make any kind of realistic decisions. The bottom line is, it's Joss' 'verse, and if he wants to make it 70+ moons orbiting a gigantic galactic cheese wheel, I'm going to watch it anyway and love every second of it.

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

FREAKYSINS

Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:19 PM

Doh!! Double-post!!

GROUNDED

Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:08 PM

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

I stand corrected. :)

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

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

LODRIL

Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:32 PM

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

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

FREAKYSINS

Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:14 PM

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

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

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

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

ROCKETJOCK

Friday, February 20, 2004 7:03 AM

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

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

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

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

RocketJock

NOOCYTE

Friday, February 20, 2004 7:46 AM

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

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

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

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

Keep flyin'!

Department of Redundancy Department

SINGULARITY

Friday, February 20, 2004 7:51 AM

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

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

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

What's anyone else think?

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

GROUNDED

Friday, February 20, 2004 2:28 PM

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

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

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

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

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

FOURSKYS

Sunday, February 22, 2004 12:04 AM

Point of Note:

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

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

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

thoughts?

NOOCYTE

Sunday, February 22, 2004 12:58 AM

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

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

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

thoughts?

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

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

Department of Redundancy Department

GROUNDED

Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:13 AM

Nice name Noocyte

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

MENZOA

Sunday, February 22, 2004 10:53 PM

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

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

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

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

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

GROUNDED

Monday, February 23, 2004 11:34 AM

If they were still inside our solar system do you think they'd refer to 'Earth That Was' with such mythic tones?

HANS

Monday, February 23, 2004 1:15 PM

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

That's a rather definitive statement considering the lack of evidence. Having read numerous posts on this subject I am far from convinced that a single system with that many worlds is absolutely impossible (as opposed to being very improbable). To dismiss the idea as fantasy is a little premature. For such a system to work it may require a highly advanced level of science...but maybe no more advanced then one requires to have FTL.

Hans

HANS

Monday, February 23, 2004 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:

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

Sorry, but that could easily mean a "planetary system" (a term I think they use in one of the episodes, but I don't have the reference on hand). In fact, the reason I'm 99% sure the show does take place in a single system is the language used in the show to describe the locations they visit. There's dozens of references to moons and planets, but not a single one to a star system, or a sun, or a solar system, something you'd think they'd mention if they were travelling over interstellar distances.

Note this very interesting piece of dialogue from "Serenity":

Dobson
"You're carrying a fugitive across
interplanetary borders..."

Interplanetary, not interstellar. By itself this is not definitive, but when piled up with all the other evidence it makes a strong case for the one system theory.

Hans

HANS

Monday, February 23, 2004 1:51 PM

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

Hardly. To me, the evidence in favour of a single system is overwhelming. I won't go over all of it again (as it's been posted on this thread and others before) but these are the key things that nail it down for me.

Distance

Every time a distance is given on the show, it's given in thousands or millions of miles rather than light years. The kind of distances they mention are what you would expect from one point to another in a star system, but in terms of interstellar travel would be totally inconsequential.

(from War Stories)
MAL
We are about 20,000 miles from our last
drop, people, then we can take a break
and think about spending some of this
money.

(from The Train Job)
OTHER MAN
We didn't fly 86 million miles to track down
a box of bandaids, Colonel.

(A hugely convincing piece of evidence, that second one. The dialogue seems to suggest the man flew a long distance, but 86 million miles to a ship capable of FTL would be an extraordinarily short voyage).

FTL

In 14 episodes, not a single line of dialogue that indicates they are travelling faster than light. Nothing from Wash the pilot, or Kaylee the engineer that sounds like FTL talk or discussion of what drives it, and not one piece of visual on-screen evidence of FTL travel. Also, every time they encounter another ship in space (Serenity, Bushwhacked, etc) the ships always seem to be traveling at relativistic speeds. Finally, the few mentions of propulsion (in Serenity and The Message) seem to imply conventional travel - using more fuel cells or burning harder to shorten travel time sounds more like the characteristics of a conventional drive.

etc., etc.

Yes, I know we can think up reasons to cancel the above evidence. Maybe they just never talk about their FTL drive. Maybe all the mentions of light years and interstellar distances happen off screen. Maybe they conveniently slow down to sub-light speeds whenever they meet another ship (I'm sure the Reavers are grateful for that). The question is, do you think that's reasonable?

Hans

HANS

Monday, February 23, 2004 2:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
If they were still inside our solar system do you think they'd refer to 'Earth That Was' with such mythic tones?

I can't speak for others, but I think most people who support the one system theory don't think it happens in our system, but another nearby one.

I presume that they used sub-light colony ships to leave Earth. So, if the other system was 15 light years away, and they managed to accelerate their ships up to 1/2 lightspeed, they'd get there in 30 years. One could imagine a rapid deterioration of the Earth in the late-21st/early-22nd centuries, followed by a period of 100 years or so when massive colony ship left the Earth for the new system (which, presumably, had many planets that were either Earth-like or viable candidates for terraforming). No need for FTL.

Hans

GROUNDED

Monday, February 23, 2004 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:

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

Sorry, but that could easily mean a "planetary system" (a term I think they use in one of the episodes, but I don't have the reference on hand). In fact, the reason I'm 99% sure the show does take place in a single system is the language used in the show to describe the locations they visit. There's dozens of references to moons and planets, but not a single one to a star system, or a sun, or a solar system, something you'd think they'd mention if they were travelling over interstellar distances.

Note this very interesting piece of dialogue from "Serenity":

Dobson
"You're carrying a fugitive across
interplanetary borders..."

Interplanetary, not interstellar. By itself this is not definitive, but when piled up with all the other evidence it makes a strong case for the one system theory.

Hans

A good point that hadn't occured to me :) Just to clarify my position, I'm in the 'single (not our) solar system + no FTL' camp, which would put me in complete agreement with you :)

AJ

Monday, February 23, 2004 3:55 PM

Shamefully, I hadn't given this much thought before starting on this thread (except a brief mental note regarding the reavers encounter in 'Bushwhacked', and an aesthetic appreciation of the 'naturalistic' feel of Serenity's travels).

Having got this far, though, I find myself inclined to agree with Hans and Grounded (among others) on the way of this. So, from a non-partisan viewpoint, I have a couple of issues:

Terraforming is all well and good, but it can't change the strength of the sun (or can it???) So, how do people have inhabitable worlds at liveable temperatures with (presumably) such variety of distance from said sun;

Congestion - probably just me, but there seems to be a lot of ships and people kicking around in space for just one solar system. I guess if I were out and about in our own solar system I'd feel a little differently, so okay... it is just me;

Route-planner 2517 - travel through a solar system means a lot more attention to orbits. After all, if you pick the wrong time to fly, you could end up more than tripling your journey time.

Still, maybe this new solar system's sun has a bit more oomph than our little old red dwarf (or whatever it is!) - would mean everything is further out, but might go some way to helping me feel easier about the first two.

Or I could just be rambling - who knows?

HANS

Monday, February 23, 2004 3:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
A good point that hadn't occured to me :) Just to clarify my position, I'm in the 'single (not our) solar system + no FTL' camp, which would put me in complete agreement with you :)

I wasn't sure whether they had brought you over to the dark side or not with their crafty arguments. :) If we're not on the winning side of this argument, at least we know we'll be on the right one...

Hans

GROUNDED

Monday, February 23, 2004 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
A good point that hadn't occured to me :) Just to clarify my position, I'm in the 'single (not our) solar system + no FTL' camp, which would put me in complete agreement with you :)

I wasn't sure whether they had brought you over to the dark side or not with their crafty arguments. :) If we're not on the winning side of this argument, at least we know we'll be on the right one...

Hans

:)

The trouble is, because the show is a bit scientifically vague and, in places, mildly inconsistent, I'd say there's no way to really prove either theory. My reasons for saying 1 system and no FTL are mainly aesthetic.

HANS

Monday, February 23, 2004 5:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AJ:

(stuff cut)
Terraforming is all well and good, but it can't change the strength of the sun (or can it???) So, how do people have inhabitable worlds at liveable temperatures with (presumably) such variety of distance from said sun;

This is probably one of the strongest arguments against the one-system theory - the fact that the so-called "life zone" in a system may not be big enough.

Personally, I think it works something like this: there is an optimal life zone, where earth-like planets occur naturally, and there's a marginal life zone, where planets can be terraformed to be livable but are never very comfortable (e.g. desert- or arctic-like environments, depending on things like the level of greenhouse gasses and the distance from the sun). The lush, rich, Earth-like planets form the "central planets" and the marginal planets are out on the rim, leading to the core/rim split we all know and love.

Others have speculated that the Firefly system has a blue star, which as the largest star type (?) will have the biggest life zone. Blue star? Blue Sun? Hmmm...

Quote:
Originally posted by AJ:

Route-planner 2517 - travel through a solar system means a lot more attention to orbits. After all, if you pick the wrong time to fly, you could end up more than tripling your journey time.

I don't think this is an argument against the one-system theory (and maybe you don't either), it just leads to some interesting navigation problems.

On another matter:

I have a beautiful map of the Firefly system I created that will silence my opponents once and for all. :) Every time I've tried to load it to the Blue Sun Room I get an error. It seems to be the right format/size. I sent a message to Hakan about this but he hasn't gotten back to me. Anyone else having trouble loading images? Maybe it's a lcoal problem.

Hans

LODRIL

Monday, February 23, 2004 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
There's dozens of references to moons and planets, but not a single one to a star system, or a sun, or a solar system, something you'd think they'd mention if they were travelling over interstellar distances.

That's not very compelling evidence though. No one lives on a star. If I go to Taiwan, I say I'm going to Taiwan, not "Asia" or "Earth" or "Sol system". I might even say "Taibei". People tend to refer to things by the most well known landmark, which might not be the star in question. I live outside of D.C., but when I'm travelling and people ask me where I'm from, that's what I tell them. "North America" is too broad, and "Takoma Park" too specific.

Particularly if there are only a few inhabited star systems, you'd still refer to destinations more specifically than just by star. If you're headed to Ariel, there's only one big famous Ariel, and everyone knows what star it circles, you wouldn't say it any other way unless you wanted to be purposefully vague.

GROUNDED

Monday, February 23, 2004 6:51 PM

Maybe not, but the actual distances mentioned in the show are compelling for the one system argument.

HANS

Monday, February 23, 2004 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lodril:

That's not very compelling evidence though. No one lives on a star. If I go to Taiwan, I say I'm going to Taiwan, not "Asia" or "Earth" or "Sol system". I might even say "Taibei". People tend to refer to things by the most well known landmark, which might not be the star in question. I live outside of D.C., but when I'm travelling and people ask me where I'm from, that's what I tell them. "North America" is too broad, and "Takoma Park" too specific.
(stuff cut)

Hmmm, I have to disagree. First of all, people do talk about broad generalizations (asian cooking, european vacations, african music, etc). You're right that as inhabitants of Earth we don't talk about Earth or the sol system as a destination - that's because our entire society is contained within that system. This, to me, is exactly the same reason Mal and the gang don't talk about stars or solar systems - their entire society is contained within their solar system. And if their universe was made up of a handful of star systems with dozens of planets (like the continent/country analogy) I still think you'd have to mention a star system here or there (especially since conventional travel within a star system is presumably very different from FTL travel to a different star system, in terms of propulsion method, distances, and travel times).

You're absolutely right that it could be convention in the Firefly universe to talk about planet names and not stars. I just find it strange that they are never mentioned.

Hans

NIHILISMNOW

Monday, February 23, 2004 7:44 PM

For me it is pretty clear that it is a single solar system. Most of the evidence that leads me to believe this has been mentioned above.

Also if there were multiple systems the spectrum of visible light would be different in each of the systems and the majority of the systems would have to be binary or trinary. We havent seen a single shot in firefly of 2 suns in the sky.

LODRIL

Monday, February 23, 2004 10:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NihilismNow:
Also if there were multiple systems the spectrum of visible light would be different in each of the systems and the majority of the systems would have to be binary or trinary. We havent seen a single shot in firefly of 2 suns in the sky.

There are lots of binary or trinary systems in the galaxy, but not all solar systems are that way. For all we know, those systems would be far more difficult to colonize, which would be why we don't see them (higher ambient radiation, more tectonic activity from the gravities involved, etc). The lack of multiple suns in the various episodes doesn't point to much of anything.

Secondly, it doesn't matter what color the star is, the human brain comprehends one set of colors. My guess is that you're suggesting that different colored stars would give everything a funky tint. I'm not sure that's true, since our own sun skews things blue, and it's yellow. At that level of light intensity, I don't think the color of the star effects the visible spectrum. Besides, a TV show where everything was tinted funky colors would be nigh unwatchable. Not even Star Trek goes that far most of the time, and I consider it pretty unwatchable as is.

I still think there's not enough evidence to go either way. The best 'single system' argument is the distances that Mal lists off from time to time. Which isn't really very solid either. In the alternative, you've got lots of Earth-sized (or at least Earth-gravity) worlds with similar climates, which would seem to be difficult to pack into a single system.

GROUNDED

Monday, February 23, 2004 10:41 PM

The sky is blue, not because of the Sun's emission spectrum, but because of the way the atmosphere scatters light.

Lodril - why don't you think the distances are 'solid'?

POPEBOB

Monday, February 23, 2004 10:52 PM

Ya know, the Star cluster bit sounds good. maybe even a couple close star clusters. thats why it takes a few hours to get to some places and a few days to get to others. Of course i don't think Serenity has FTL capabilities but i do believe that it's possible to do 1/2 light. I think Joss would have wanted to stray from the whole ftl "warp speed mr. sulu" crap. Not that i have anything against Rodenberry.. i just like Firefly the most

With what ive seen of Joss in pertinent interviews it would make sense that they go PGF or the like but not FTL.

Ahhhh.. Curse you sudden but inevitable betrayal!!

LTNOWIS

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:38 AM

Personally I gotta go with the no FTL side, simply because they never show any evidende or references to FTL. Though I gotta say that it would hard to have "sectors," as book says, if all the planets are spinning. So I tend to side with the Star Cluster theory.

But do you think Joss'll ever tell us? I think that even if the series goes on for a couple more seasons, the writers won't resolve this little mystery, to avoid ticking off half the fans. That, and they don't think it's important

LODRIL

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 2:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
The sky is blue, not because of the Sun's emission spectrum, but because of the way the atmosphere scatters light.

That wasn't what I was referring to. Find a room with white tile and close all the doors and windows on a bright sunny day. Look at the tile under artificial light. Next, let in the sunlight and look at the tiles. They'll have a noticably bluer tint. I'm not entirely sure why, but sunlight skews blue; it's most noticable when you don't white balance an older camera after moving it from inside light to outside light. To the naked eye, however, the difference is seldom seen.

Quote:
Lodril - why don't you think the distances are 'solid'?

Numerous reasons... one, we don't know where he started counting. Say he claims to travel 30 million miles. What does that include? What if he has some sort of 'jump' technology that lets him skip trillions of miles in between? Is it 30 million straight he's talking about, or 30 million at sublight/analog travel? FTL might well just avoid the passage of time entirely, in which case he might not count it.

The stronger response is that just because planet A and B are within a certain distance does not mean that all the settled planets are within a single solar system. Planet C might be much, much farther out... which is why they're doing a short run between A and B (possibly on the way to C). We don't really visit that many planets in the series, so it's quite possible Serenity stayed mostly in one local area while being capable of going much farther. There's just no way to tell.

WYDRAZ

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 6:13 AM

Serenity doesn't need FTL to travel interstellar distances. Everyone knows that once you break the system boundary (just outside the Oort cloud) that the time-dilated space between stars allows the ship (and light, and everything else) to move at thousands of times the speed that light travels inside a system.

This is the future, folks, anything could be true. All of the above arguments are valid, but has anyone considered they could all be true too?

AJ

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 9:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lodril:
What if he has some sort of 'jump' technology that lets him skip trillions of miles in between? Is it 30 million straight he's talking about, or 30 million at sublight/analog travel? FTL might well just avoid the passage of time entirely, in which case he might not count it.

Interesting point. It may be logical to say that it's pure lunacy to travel at FTL within a solar system, as you're more than likely to plough into planets, debris, other ships, etc..., so the necessary approach is to plod through all those millions of miles to get to the edge of a system, jump to the edge of the next, and plod on again.

Although personally I'm still leaning towards the single (large, blue sunned) solar system theory.

HANS

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Personally I gotta go with the no FTL side, simply because they never show any evidende or references to FTL. Though I gotta say that it would hard to have "sectors," as book says, if all the planets are spinning. So I tend to side with the Star Cluster theory.

The references to sectors and quadrants are a little confusing if they are in an ever-changing solar system. However, it makes sense that they would come up with some geographic system to differentiate different parts of the system. A sector could be a certain degree arc out from the sun, while a quadrant could be a 45 degree "slice" of the orbit that contains a particular planet, or vice versa, or something completely different. Just because they use geographic terms doesn't mean those regions are fixed in space. A sector could be a certain portion of a planet's orbit that rotates around the sun with the planet - think of the tumblers of a lock spinning around a central axis. Thus, when someone is "8 sectors away" they are 8 orbits into (or out of) your current location.

Star clusters sounds like a nice solution, but from everything I've heard if the stars are close enough together that you don't need FTL, then the gravity effects from nearby stars would make planetary orbits unstable. Even if the next star was only 1/10th of a light year away (extremely close in galactic terms) it would still take months at half-lightspeed to reach them. However, I'm not as astrophysicist and may be wrong...

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:

But do you think Joss'll ever tell us? I think that even if the series goes on for a couple more seasons, the writers won't resolve this little mystery, to avoid ticking off half the fans. That, and they don't think it's important

Ultimately, it's not important. 99% of why I enjoy the show is the characters, the plots, the drama. However, as an intellectual exercise, it's a fun topic to debate...

Hans

LODRIL

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
Star clusters sounds like a nice solution, but from everything I've heard if the stars are close enough together that you don't need FTL, then the gravity effects from nearby stars would make planetary orbits unstable.

Good points all around in your post.

With the unstable gravitation though, that might explain why most of the planets are so much less civilized. If they're only habitable for a few decades before massive earthquakes or something, that would keep the less stable planets less civilized. Big infrastructure just wouldn't be justified if it only lasted a few years.

Another point, which could go towards the single system argument, is that in "Trash" they're on an asteroid that's been terraformed, but it seems to have Earth level gravity. This would point towards normalization of gravity being part of the terraforming process. Serenity obviously has artificial gravity of some kind throughout, and so the technology to effect an entire planet could be within reach. Depending on how much control over gravity can be exerted with their technology, and how expensive it is to do so, it vastly expands the type of worlds that can be settled, since you no longer have to worry about size when considering a potential settlement.

If that's the case, then any boulder floating in space could be terraformed and settled. Even our own solar system might have enough raw surface area to make reasonable colonies.

Of course, that doesn't address the issue of proximity to the sun as an environmental condition. Or any other number of things (tectonics springs to mind). I still lean towards a cluster of close planets, but no argument so far has really been able to rule out anything.

LODRIL

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 2:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
Star clusters sounds like a nice solution, but from everything I've heard if the stars are close enough together that you don't need FTL, then the gravity effects from nearby stars would make planetary orbits unstable.

Good points all around in your post.

With the unstable gravitation though, that might explain why most of the planets are so much less civilized. If they're only habitable for a few decades before massive earthquakes or something, that would keep the less stable planets less civilized. Big infrastructure just wouldn't be justified if it only lasted a few years.

Another point, which could go towards the single system argument, is that in "Trash" they're on an asteroid that's been terraformed, but it seems to have Earth level gravity. This would point towards normalization of gravity being part of the terraforming process. Serenity obviously has artificial gravity of some kind throughout, and so the technology to effect an entire planet could be within reach. Depending on how much control over gravity can be exerted with their technology, and how expensive it is to do so, it vastly expands the type of worlds that can be settled, since you no longer have to worry about size when considering a potential settlement.

If that's the case, then any boulder floating in space could be terraformed and settled. Even our own solar system might have enough raw surface area to make reasonable colonies.

Of course, that doesn't address the issue of proximity to the sun as an environmental condition. Or any other number of things (tectonics springs to mind). I still lean towards a cluster of close planets, but no argument so far has really been able to rule out anything.

ROCKETJOCK

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:17 PM

A question that's been bothering me. If the Alliance (or whatever ancestor of the alliance sponsored the great emmigration) has terraformation technology advanced enough to reshape 70-100 worlds in less that 500 years, then why did they leave Sol system to begin with?

Presumably Earth-that-was has been ruined in some way that isn't easily repairable (radioactive half-lives being what they are), but Sol system is as likely a target for terraformation projects as any other.

Why bother to cross interstellar gulfs to reach a solar system that you're going to have to rebuild anyway, when you have a perfectly good one at your front door?

I'm sure someone will point out that the proto-alliance might not have known the target system was without earthlike worlds until they got there; but logically they must have had the T-Tech before departure; they sure as hell couldn't develop it on the way. And if they had it, why didn't they reshape Mars, Venus, or Europa?

Of course, if the multiple systems hypothesis is correct, this isn't a problem. They speak of "Earth-that-was", not "Sol-System-that-was", after all. Perhaps some of the worlds we saw were right here in home space all along...

Come to think of it, "Ariel" is the name of a moon right here in Sol System...

RocketJock

SAINT JAYNE

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hans:
Ultimately, it's not important. 99% of why I enjoy the show is the characters, the plots, the drama. However, as an intellectual exercise, it's a fun topic to debate...

It's fun to read, although I don't have much to add. I thought these type of debates always ended with "Stephen Hawking wasn't on the writing team so none of it makes a lick of sense". Who, BTW, I send my best wishes to during his illness.

GROUNDED

Tuesday, February 24, 2004 7:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Lodril:

With the unstable gravitation though, that might explain why most of the planets are so much less civilized. If they're only habitable for a few decades before massive earthquakes or something, that would keep the less stable planets less civilized. Big infrastructure just wouldn't be justified if it only lasted a few years.

If the orbits of the planets were erratic they'd have a lot more than earthquakes to worry about! I think the point is that if there was a star cluster then planets wouldn't be able to form stable orbits in the first place.

WYDRAZ

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 3:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
If the Alliance has terraformation technology advanced enough to reshape 70-100 worlds in less that 500 years, then why did they leave Sol system to begin with?

No doubt Mars and Venus are among the Core Worlds, I'd gather.

But there is the sun's "biozone" to consider, which puts most other planets in the system either too close (and too hot) or too far (and too cold) to terraform. Thus, it's time to go exploring other systems!

Once you colonize Mars and Venus, you might need more room in other systems. That probably happened before the Earth was ruined, and where we learned to terraform.

JASONZZZ

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 4:31 AM

Plenty of material in the system. We can toll stuff from the asteroid belt and other places, put them around the LeGrange points in the same orbital path as Earth, viola, start filling up the biozone in exactly the same place where everything else has worked.

Quote:
Originally posted by wydraz:
Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
If the Alliance has terraformation technology advanced enough to reshape 70-100 worlds in less that 500 years, then why did they leave Sol system to begin with?

No doubt Mars and Venus are among the Core Worlds, I'd gather.

But there is the sun's "biozone" to consider, which puts most other planets in the system either too close (and too hot) or too far (and too cold) to terraform. Thus, it's time to go exploring other systems!

Once you colonize Mars and Venus, you might need more room in other systems. That probably happened before the Earth was ruined, and where we learned to terraform.

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

NOOCYTE

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 6:01 AM

You know, something's been vexing me on this subject. Please pardon the scanty, too-long-since-being-refreshed layman's knowledge of relativity.

We've been going back and forth on the question of supralight speeds, what with the mass-increases-exponentially-close-to-light-speed (okay, now is when I stop with the hyphens) conundrum.

Buuut...

We already know that ships in the 'verse are able to generate artificial gravity, at least within their own hulls, without the need to spin sections of the ship for centripedal "gravity." Hell, they can even turn it on and off (witness the boxes crashing to the deck near the beginning of "Serenity," when everyone was safe and sound in the airlock). This would, I believe, make it necessary to have some ability to locally alter the curvature of spacetime. Indeed, this is done in such a blase, no-fuss way that no one ever comments on it (except for Kaylee with the buffeting in "The Message"), and it works even when primary power is out (OOG). Incidentally, it would also be robust enough that rich folks with all manner of expensive stuff would choose to live on floaty island estates...and, presumably still get insurance!

So, the question which occurs to me is whether such an ability to essentially alter the gravitational constant in the vicinity of the ship might not in itself constitute a way to get around the light-speed barrier, and so enable interstellar travel without all the fireworks of a Warp Drive (and so escape specific mention as a separate drive system, being a subset of the "grav drive"). The problem of being able to exceed C in flat space would be sidestepped because space would not, strictly speaking, be flat around the ship (this might also address the issue of the folks planetside getting older a lot faster from a ship's crew's perspective, what with them zooming around at near-relativistic speeds all the time. Time dilation for such a well-travelled crew would be a Big Problem. For example, Badger might have aged as much as a few years between "Serenity" and "Shindig!").

So, is there anyone with enough of a knowledge of General Relativity to comment on such wildly speculative stuff?

Keep Flyin'!

Department of Redundancy Department

DRAKON

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grounded:
If the orbits of the planets were erratic they'd have a lot more than earthquakes to worry about! I think the point is that if there was a star cluster then planets wouldn't be able to form stable orbits in the first place.

They'd constantly get tugged out and end up as frozen bodies spinning in interstellar space. Earthquakes would not be a big problem I don't think.

Erratic orbits will screw up your weather something fierce, but generating earthquakes? Don't think so.

Remember that time scale is important. If you can maintain a stable orbit of say 1000 years, a mere eyeblink on the cosmological scale, why not? Besides which, 1000 years gives you time to figure out a more permenent solution.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Noocyte:
We already know that ships in the 'verse are able to generate artificial gravity, at least within their own hulls, without the need to spin sections of the ship for centripedal "gravity." Hell, they can even turn it on and off (witness the boxes crashing to the deck near the beginning of "Serenity," when everyone was safe and sound in the airlock). This would, I believe, make it necessary to have some ability to locally alter the curvature of spacetime. Indeed, this is done in such a blase, no-fuss way that no one ever comments on it (except for Kaylee with the buffeting in "The Message"), and it works even when primary power is out (OOG). Incidentally, it would also be robust enough that rich folks with all manner of expensive stuff would choose to live on floaty island estates...and, presumably still get insurance!

So, the question which occurs to me is whether such an ability to essentially alter the gravitational constant in the vicinity of the ship might not in itself constitute a way to get around the light-speed barrier, and so enable interstellar travel without all the fireworks of a Warp Drive (and so escape specific mention as a separate drive system, being a subset of the "grav drive"). The problem of being able to exceed C in flat space would be sidestepped because space would not, strictly speaking, be flat around the ship (this might also address the issue of the folks planetside getting older a lot faster from a ship's crew's perspective, what with them zooming around at near-relativistic speeds all the time. Time dilation for such a well-travelled crew would be a Big Problem. For example, Badger might have aged as much as a few years between "Serenity" and "Shindig!").

So, is there anyone with enough of a knowledge of General Relativity to comment on such wildly speculative stuff?

Keep Flyin'!

Department of Redundancy Department

Yes. His name is Miguel Alcubierre, who was a grad student at the University of Cardiff, and now working at the Max Plank Institute in Germany, (under one of his old professors I think.)

In 1994 he wrote a paper, (apparently as a lark) about how to achieve FTL travel within the confines of GR. It can be found at athttp://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0009/0009013.pdf.

There has been an interesting exchange about whether this would work or not, exclusively on technical issues and not the underlying theory. There is a big question about whether quantum effects would rule it out, and several work arounds have been written up and worked out.

In essense, you are right. If you can control gravity to the extent we have already seen, you should be able to do FTL rather easily.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

HANS

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 1:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
A question that's been bothering me. If the Alliance (or whatever ancestor of the alliance sponsored the great emmigration) has terraformation technology advanced enough to reshape 70-100 worlds in less that 500 years, then why did they leave Sol system to begin with?
(stuff cut)

The main reason Earth was abandonned, for me, has more to do with political reasons than technical ones (and this is 100% speculative). The Alliance (as a very autocratic organization) wants to have complete control of all human colonies. If humanity was spread out over more than one system, and FTL had not been invented, then it would take decades for either people or messages to go from one system to another. This would make it impossible for a unified government to exist, and the different solar systems would almost certainly develop their own independent governments.

The Alliance, or whatever government existed before this, would not allow this. Thus, Earth and the Sol system was deliberately allowed to fall into decay when the Alliance decided to centralize humanity in the new system, which had more viable planets and resources. They would do this by deliberately ignoring environmental problems on Earth, strip-mining resources on Earth and other planets to make their colony ships, economic embargos, even military action.

Hans

GORAMSHINY

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:15 PM

Okay, I've been a silent member of this board for a while now ( mostly cause i could never remember my gorram password and didn't want to bother calling it back up ) but being the giant science geek i am i can't stay silent any longer.

Now, I've read this thread from tip to tail and have cobbled together my own history of everything. No doubt one much in error but here goes.

IT's my understanding that the Alliance itself wasn't a formal goverment till after the indipendance war ( and as has been previously stated i think, we've no idea how long that war lasted. ) So here's what i think happened. The two majour powers on earth that was ( being the american and Chinese ) were able to launch the majourity of colony ships ( most likely mutli generational ones) when whatever happened back in good old sol was gonna happen. As such their cultures came to dominate the new home of humanity. At some point after the founding of the new worlds the alliance formed, possibly as a economic union or mutual protection pack from raiding/warring colonies. That alliance decided that voluntary joining of same wasn't good enough anymore and launched a war on the colonies that hadn't already joined up ( and as has been stated in teh show that the rim is being pushed out we can assume that between the start of the war and the placement of firefly some growth occured as well ) which could mean that a war was raging on the core planets for long enough that the planets on the (then) rim ( Shadow perhaps ) wouldn't have been embroiled in the war till much later, perhaps long enough for a young malcom reynolds to come of age and join up to defend his home.

Now, what does this have to do with the whole 1 system/many systems question?

Not much, just a background on where I'm coming from.

Now someone else posted in this thread that it's possible that the drive we see Serenity using, the 'full burn' is just a menthod of getting to a FTL safe launch point. Something to get to the edge of systems rather then a point to point drive.

This, to me, makes sense. If the Firefly 'verse does have FTL then perhaps the drive system can't be used(safely?) inside a system's gravity well.

That would allow for both the measurments we see in the show ( all intrasystem distances ) while still allowing the possibility of a multi system universe.

This, to me, makes the most sense. Traveling through the vast space between systems, even with the fun of a 'streaky' star filled window, hardly makes good TV so it's understandable that they would leave that out ( as they do most of the travel time between places in a system ). So, basically i think it's both, I think there's a number of fairly close ( and by close i mean a few light years ) each with a few terraformed worlds & moons ( Wouldn't put it past the alliance to 'make' a few worlds out of anything floating around if they felt the need and plopping them in the 'habitable' zone of a star ) This would solve everything. The number of planets in a system could be maintained at a reasonable number for all and allow the use of some for of Intersystem travel ( be it FTL, Jump Gates, what not )

So, there's my two cents, pick it apart all you like and my appologies for any spelling/grammer errors. I can't do either if my rutting life depended on it.

AJ

Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:05 PM

Ah, jump gates, yes - then a more specific geographic correlation could be formed between systems (need to travel to a specific jump gate to get to a specific system). The Alliance would like that!

HANS

Thursday, February 26, 2004 8:37 PM

I have posted my speculative map of the Firefly system in the Blue Sun room...

http://www.fireflyfans.net/sunroomitem.asp?i=840

Notes:

As one can see, I am a believer in the “one-system” theory, and think the show takes place in a single star system. I am aware of the arguments against this theory, but it still feels right to me. The purpose of the map was to help me visualize what the system might look like.
I was going to include another map tracing the journey of Serenity over the course of the show, but decided against it. The great Firefly Timeline ( www.mts.net/~arphaxad/firefly.html) by Edgar Governo shows that there are several gaps between episodes of up to several months, and it was too hard to speculate on where the ship was during those periods.

Some notes on the map:

- “Number of habitable worlds” includes both moons and planets in that planetary system, as applicable. The names of habitable moons are indicated next to the appropriate planet; unnamed or non-life supporting moons are not shown.

- I speculate that there is an "optimal life zone", where earth-like planets occur naturally, and a "marginal life zone", where extensive terraforming is needed and planets are never 100% earth-like. Obviously, the core planets are in the optimal zone and the rim/border planets are in the marginal zone. Only orbits in the optimal and marginal life zones are shown, with the exception of the planet in orbit #1 (outside life zone). There are presumably other planets beyond orbit #17 that are outside the marginal life zone. This is probably Reaver territory...

- The name of a planet is bolded. In some cases the name of a planet is not known and only the names of mentioned moons are shown.

- On the map, the position of the planets on their orbits is shown for reference purposes only. Actual position will of course vary over time as the planets move about their orbits.

- Where possible I tried to use travel times mentioned in the show to get an idea of a planet’s/moon’s position. However, there are only a few travel times mentioned and almost no distances. I figured that in most cases it would take a couple days for a ship to travel from one planetary system to another assuming they are in relatively close orbits and the planets are in the same general arc coming out from the sun. For example, in “Serenity” it takes two days to reach Whitefall from Persephone and another two days or so to reach Beaumonde. Persephone seems to be in a semi-civilized region of space (but outside the Core) while Whitefall is definitely out in the wilder part of the system. We can assume at the time of the episode both planets were in the same general position on their orbits – if Whitefall had been on the other side of the system the travel time would have been weeks, not days.

Hans

THEROGUEROOSTER

Friday, February 27, 2004 4:27 AM

I have to say that this has been the most enjoyable thread I've read in a long time! I can't commit to any side though, simply because I'm not convinced that the Joss-man himself has figured out all the extents of the Firefly verse. Travel times seem to be dictated by the needs of the script, and (to borrow a line I've read somewhere) ships "move at the speed of plot."

But I'm with the rest of y'all in that I'd love an answer to this question.

In regards to why humans left Earth in the first place, from Mal's intro my understanding is that "the Earth got used up," meaning we finally burned through all the natural resources mother-Earth had to give. No great disasters or political machinations -- she simply couldn't sustain us any longer.

Perhaps the movie will prompt Joss to flesh out the 'verse in more detail, and give us the single vs. multiple system answer once and for all.

Hey, it could happen!
-tRR

FORRESTWOLF

Monday, August 9, 2004 8:16 PM

Well, I used the recently-leaked map from the movie as a basis for my own map using the program It's Full of Stars (IFOS is a GREAT free program, by the way!).

It's all in 3-D positioning, using a 4-solar-system, very, very tight star cluster. Not TERRIBLY realistic, but a compromise between galaxy and solar system, and completely consistent with said leaked map.

If anyone wants the IFOS file from me - it's got the systems all worked out, by the way - let me know.

Haken, if you don't want it here, I'll take it down!

Here's the Blue Sun Room link:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/sunroomitem.asp?i=1718

- Forrestwolf

GHOULMAN

Monday, August 9, 2004 9:15 PM

... some things I learned about the 'verse.

People in the 'verse are stupid. They use terms like 'universe' and 'galaxy' to refer to anything not on a planet. This is as intentional on the show as much as it is unintentional in real life.

Everything revolves around a Big Blue Sun.

There are dozens of planets and hundreds of moons. Certainly enough to call it 'big' and small enough not to need warp nacelles. Thank the 'verse!

Personally, the show seems to be obvious about it's setting. Why people argue about it really mystifies me.

But hey, don't mind me. Please continue.

JAYNEZTOWN

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 7:44 AM

I reckon the majority of Firelfy takes place within our own Solar system, but that is not to say it goes beyond it.

There are many reasons I believe that it takes place around, Mars, the Sun, Jupiter, Earth-that-was...many little clues and pointers within the show, and many signs that we are still hanging around Jupiter and so forth

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=6528

I've wrote some about it on that thread

FORRESTWOLF

Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:56 PM

While I find the idea of our solar system being the one in Firefly attractive, and I like the idea of one solar system even better, I can't ignore the existence of the leaked map from the movie. Lest we think the artist who drew it wasn't the one chosen by Joss, two facts:

1) His money was clearly chosen (see the image of prop money from the movie - it's the same as the one in the leaked map image).

2) He's the author of a rather realistic Star Trek charts book. The style is the same on the Firefly map - and as a maker of realistic star charts, he's an obvious choice for Joss.

That's why I've reluctantly modified my belief in one solar system and gone to the four systems shown in his map. If we assume his map was to scale - even including the planets (and that they weren't just expanded views overlaid on the stars) - then you get something like what I put together in the Blue Sun Room image. And FTL isn't necessary! A subluminal colony ship would have made the exodus there over the course of a long time (hundred years?), and then people settled it.

HANS

Wednesday, August 11, 2004 3:34 PM

Version 2 of my speculative system map has been posted in the Blue Sun Room at:
www.fireflyfans.net/sunroomitem.asp?i=1737#7166

I've been working on this for a while, put it away, then saw some of the recent promotional material for Serenity that (too my mind at least) reinfoces the single system theory.

Planets are not shown to scale. Only planets are shown, but we can assume each planet has a large system of moons. The names of named planets (in bold) and moons (regular text) are shown. I did not include any scales or distances, since we have so little information on that it's hard to be accurate. If we assume the sun is a Blue Sun (which would make for the largest life zones possible) than maybe the outermost orbit shown is 10 AUs or more out.

I am assuming there are other orbits beyond the ones shown in the uninhabitable zone.

As to the question of why the outer planets, furthest from the sun, seem hot and desertlike - a heavy greenhouse effect, which as part of terraforming is needed to keep the outer planets at a stable temperature.

This was done in Poser and Photoshop.

Enjoy!

Hans

SHINY

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:16 PM

http://chud.com/interviews/980
_________________________________________________

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 me science questions I’m going to cry.

WYDRAZ

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 4:59 PM

No wonder there is so much confusion about this. Joss doesn't even know for sure...

Oh, and play Strange Adventures in Infinite Space. http://digital-eel.com/sais

GROUNDED

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 6:11 PM

Me, a long time ago: "am I the only one campaigning for single system, no FTL?"

Win!

FORRESTWOLF

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 6:13 PM

Thank you thank you thank you Shiny (and Joss) for answering this one! I know, it's vague. But it's pretty gorram clear Joss WISHES it could be non-FTL, even if the science doesn't QUITE add up.

I'm sticking with my own close-star-cluster approach to my Firefly campaign now :)

XENOCIDE

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 7:19 PM

I don't know if anyone has read Kim Stanley Robinson's "(Red, Green, Blue) Mars" books but by the end he has folks terraforming Pluto! I think any society that manipulates gravity as easily as is done in firefly could move a whole lot of energy out of the "temperate zone" of a solar system using gravitational lensing. You might even be able to 'densen' (sorry for making up words here but my major was politics not Physics or English) a gas giant enough to make yourself a small star. If you have the gravity technology you can move mountains or steady orbits. On the fringes though, politically speaking, planets will have less access to the resources of society. So gravity tech might be sparse on Whitefall or othersuch places.

Zoe told us (which episode?) that when teraforming folks made planets as much like earth that was as could be; atmo, bio, gravity. She specifically mentioned gravity so a place like our moon might be made just a little denser so it could hold atmo (and settlers) down.

I think this helps the single system theory a great deal. You can teraform all the way to Oort if you want to with grave tech and fusion.

Of course any culture with grav tech and fusion is probably right on the cusp (at least) of FTL. Infinite energy and the ability to manipulate space-time? That'll get you past PGF pretty gorramn fast, won't it?

I also like Single system better in the Civil War metaphor. I want Unification to be a war of brother vs brother. A fight between neighbors. Not "Starship Troopers" or "Forever War" but rather "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."

And for all you folks who say we're missing the point, and "It's about the characters." Well, duh. But it's Hard to run a D20 Future firefly campaign without knowing where stuff is. You know my players are gonna ask!

Furthermore, Serenity is my favorite character and I wanna know how gorramn fast she goes!

Well, that's my two cents, argue on,

"Though I may be crucified one thousand times over, I will never serve another master"

CONSCIENCE

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 8:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by xenocide:
Of course any culture with grav tech and fusion is probably right on the cusp (at least) of FTL.

That's assuming faster-than-light travel is even possible. I for one really doubt that it is.

FORRESTWOLF

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 8:28 PM

True about FTL being unlikely, but grav tech is also rather improbable. Not to say impossible! Just as unlikely as FTL. And I always do wonder why somehow, as the atmo goes on in the airlock in the pilot episode, the grav does too...that's some heavy air :)

And yes, I agree - it's about the characters and story - but as a person running an RPG, I deal with players wanting to know how long it takes to get places. I use ~ 3x Pluto distance as the absolute limit of my terraformed planets, Saint Albans being one at that distance (i.e., gorram cold).

And the grav lensing approach is more or less what I go with - I'm incorporating the idea of Blue Sun mucking with grav tech for more aggressive terraforming as the basis of my campaign (hope my players aren't reading this!).

JILTEDTOO

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 9:35 PM

While watching the show, I never really thought of whether there was FTL travel or not. I always assumed they would have to go to different solar systems to be able to land on planets, which had the same light as earth, same type of plant life, and same atmosphere.

I can't imagine any of the habitable planets being moons on gas giants because of the days weeks, or even months of darkness that may occur. They would have to be planets with orbits similar to that of the earths orbit. Even a planet with the orbit of Mars, would be darker at the equator then the earth. An orbit of Mercury would be too hot to sustain life without the use of a sheltered environment. You could terraform a planet like Pluto, but still would never make it habitable for life without life support. You cannot terraform a planet to make the Sun closer, and you cannot terraform a planet to increase its mass to hold an atmosphere.

Though it is possible to have multiple planets in an earth type orbit around a sun, it is unlikely there would be multiple planets like Earth around one sun.

There would have to be FTL travel in firefly. Even in the closest star clusters the stars would be more then 1 light year apart.

JT

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE