My theory about guns in Firefly

POSTED BY: Ringwraith
UPDATED: Thursday, January 2, 2003 01:21
VIEWED: 41251
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RINGWRAITH

Saturday, September 21, 2002 9:33 PM

I don't know if anyone has really talked about this subject before. I think there has been discussion but I can't remember where or when it was. Maybe in an interview with Joss Whedon? If that's the case you have my apologies in advance.

Besides the absence of aliens in Firefly we also know that the characters use weapons that fire cartridges: pistols, machine guns, rifles, etc.

Some might be disappointed in this ("It's a sci-fi show, they're supposed to use ray guns!") but I'm not and I have some theories into why guns are used.

Guns are easy to make. If you can get some good milling equipment, the proper metals, etc you can make your own gun. It wouldn't be easy but it's very possible. Plus it'd be cheap. You could make a six-shooter much easier than a semi-auto; too many things to go wrong.

Guns work, especially the ones with few moving parts like revolvers. Chances are it won't jam up on you and it'll do what it's supposed to do when you shoot someone.

As advancements in armor are made, so are advancements in weapons. You have to adapt to keep up. If in the Firefly universe personal body armor hasn't advanced very far you may as well just use a gun. Unless everyone is using a new type of metal or some fancy Kevlar-type vest you should be guaranteed to put a whole in the other person. You shoot the person, he falls over, he dies. No worrying about accidentally hitting "stun" instead of "full power" on your phaser.

I'm sure this will be explained as the series progresses but in the meantime I thought I'd put in my thoughts about this.

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

NOVAGRASS

Saturday, September 21, 2002 9:52 PM

Nicely put, Ringwraith.

What I find most irritating about science fiction is the persistant notion that everyone need to use "ray-guns." A few questions: Are projectile firing guns effective? Yes. Has anything more effective been developed? No. Why? Because projectile-firing guns are effective.

There's no need to put intense research into weapons when the current weapons are effective enough. Also: It would probably be easier to develop laser-deflecting body sheilds that are comfortable to wear than it is to develop comfortable/convenient body armor to deflect bullets.

Get used to the idea that lasers will most likely never be used as personal weapons. Phasers are illogical unless they were to be used for stunning opponents rather and killing them.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

ZICSOFT

Saturday, September 21, 2002 10:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
Phasers are illogical unless they were to be used for stunning opponents rather and killing them.

Well, maybe in your universe! But in the warm-and-fuzzy Roddenberryverse, you have to have 100% safe, non-lethal weapons! They can't even allow people to hit their head when they fall down!

RONSON2K

Saturday, September 21, 2002 11:01 PM

Well just a couple of things. Guns use expanding gas to fire a projectile. On earth the sorrounding gas is well not that volitile. On other planets this may not be the case. Gravity may also be different as well as atmospheric pressure. All these things work together on earth to make a gun effective but on another world these things could work against such a weapon. One might need different types of powder or longer barrel or greater riffling or stonger material.

Myself I think the guns are used as a 'primitive' in the future kinda thing. Low tech sort of an 'anti Roddenberry' if you will. To set itself appart. Also Special effects cost $$$ budget may not be able to handle all the effects for the first season and savings could be used to construct a 'ray gun' for season two...

Ronson2k

LIVINGIMPAIRED

Sunday, September 22, 2002 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ronson2k:
Also Special effects cost $$$ budget may not be able to handle all the effects for the first season and savings could be used to construct a 'ray gun' for season two...

Ronson2k

Did you see the special effects? I don't think the budget entered into it. Joss wanted a look. Guns contributed to the look.

What amazes me is how the weapons look both antique and futuristic. Projectile weapon technology has definatly advanced over the centuries. Instead of making up ray guns, people just improved what they already had. Which explains why the guns work on different planets.

________________

"I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life’s a bitch. You’ve got to go out and kick ass." —Maya Angelou

JENGEL

Sunday, September 22, 2002 12:16 AM

How do we know that these guns actually are just like the guns of today? Maybe it's an advanced form of pulse technology that pushes out super-compressed "pellets" of energy that fuse the molecules together and form dense projectiles on the fly? You never know.

Like someone said, people will always use the simplest weapon when it comes down to it. A laser gun requires a LOT of technology. A gun is simple. I think guns have a long lifespan. Maybe someday someone can create a portable lazer, but you need an energy source for that. Not as reliable
as a projectile gun.

I like them using guns. Blowing holes into the hulls is not an issue. Any space-vessel that complex would be made of numerous hull layers, much of it cast metal of some sort. Not even .50 calibre bullets can penetrate current tank armor. And I guarantee you that spaceships need even thicker hulls than a tank.

DAKOTASMITH

Sunday, September 22, 2002 1:18 AM

Well, here's my $0.02 worth, as a major gun enthusiast and hunter:

The fact that everyone is running around with a slug-chucker is the only thing about the show that bugs me.

I don't mean that they shouldn't have some kind of gun, but I look at the development of personal weapons since, say, 1600 and move that forward 500 more years and add a spacefaring culture behind it.

It just seems to me that given that 500 years ago the major personal weapon was the knife and that portable firearms were -- at best -- in their infancy, that it seems odd for someone 500 years in the future to be carrying a slug-chucker.

Now, don't get me wrong, as I otherwise like virtually everything else I've seen. But it seems odd to me that a sane individual who understands that self-defense cannot be delegated would protect him- or herself with a 500-year-old weapon design.

Dakota Smith

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.

TINYTIMM

Sunday, September 22, 2002 1:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
Besides the absence of aliens in Firefly we also know that the characters use weapons that fire cartridges: pistols, machine guns, rifles, etc. Guns are easy to make. You could make a six-shooter much easier than a semi-auto; too many things to go wrong. Guns work, especially the ones with few moving parts like revolvers. Chances are it won't jam up on you and it'll do what it's supposed to do when you shoot someone.

Actually, a revolver requires more skill and complex parts than a semi or full automatic. One of the simplest handguns ever made is the Glock 9mm. The Glock's complexity comes in the precise control over the shape of the plastic frame.

During WWII, just about any machine shop could produce the Sten gun, a 9mm submachine gun, and did. At least one blow-back submachine gun, with silencer has been produced INSIDE a US Prison. With simple tools. Cross reference "Small Arms of the World" by Smith and Ezell.

Jeff
Who was a US Army Small Arms Repairman and Inspector back in the 1970s.

HAPLO721

Sunday, September 22, 2002 1:44 AM

My thoughts:

1. They mentioned that all inhabited worlds had been terraformed, which means that they have been altered into a very Earthlike state. Most likely every one of these planets has a nearly identical atmosphere to Earth's (at least Earth in our time...)

2. Dakota, I invite you to think of a hand weapon that's both superior to a firearm, and not insanely expensive/complicated. I don't think you can though.

TINYTIMM

Sunday, September 22, 2002 1:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
What I find most irritating about science fiction is the persistant notion that everyone need to use "ray-guns." A few questions: Are projectile firing guns effective? Yes. Has anything more effective been developed? No. Why? Because projectile-firing guns are effective.

Would everyone be happy if we called them, "Kinetic Energy Projectors?"

Jeff
Who notes the Rock Mark I, still delivers an effective dose of KE to a target...especially when rolled down a hill or dropped from a tall building.

TINYTIMM

Sunday, September 22, 2002 1:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jengel:
I like them using guns. Blowing holes into the hulls is not an issue. Any space-vessel that complex would be made of numerous hull layers, much of it cast metal of some sort. Not even .50 calibre bullets can penetrate current tank armor. And I guarantee you that spaceships need even thicker hulls than a tank.

Our current spacecraft don't have hulls anywhere as thick as a tank, though if you add some of the tiles on a shuttle to a leading edge you might come close. Tank armor can stop an incredible amount of energy. It takes a long 30mm diameter projectile made of depleted uranium or very hard and dense steel to penetrate a modern tank's frontal armor. This penetrator travels over a mile a second. Cross Reference: all sorts of shows repackaged and repeated on the History Channel.

Jeff
Who prefers a foxhole that doesn't attract so much attention. (Cross reference: "Willie and Joe" cartoons from WWII.

TINYTIMM

Sunday, September 22, 2002 2:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DakotaSmith:
It just seems to me that given that 500 years ago the major personal weapon was the knife and that portable firearms were -- at best -- in their infancy, that it seems odd for someone 500 years in the future to be carrying a slug-chucker.
Dakota Smith

It all depends on the technology of energy storage. Right now the energy is stored in chemical form and is converted to drive a projectile at a high velocity. One of the problems with current laser weapons technology is using a Boeing 747 to lug around the generator.

I can go Deer hunting, with a Laser weapon or a .30-30 rifle.

I'll mount the laser on an Army 2 1/2 ton truck, and pull a trailer with the generator on it. I'll stop, crank up the turbine engine, and then look around for the deer, who, being sensitive herbivores will have departed for the next county at the sound of the turbine spooling up.

With the .30-30 I can climb up a tree stand and be eminently well equipped for the mission with five rounds in the rifle and five rounds in my little pocket on the right side of my jeans.

Jeff
Who notes fixed cartridge weapons have only been practical since the middle of the 1800's, starting with the .22 Short rimfire round, which has been in continuous production ever since.

RINGWRAITH

Sunday, September 22, 2002 3:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:

Actually, a revolver requires more skill and complex parts than a semi or full automatic. One of the simplest handguns ever made is the Glock 9mm. The Glock's complexity comes in the precise control over the shape of the plastic frame.

All I'm saying is, and I'm not a gun expert, but I meant the process and technology involved in building one; wouldn't there be more pieces involved in the manufacturing of a magazine versus a 6-shot cylinder? Plus getting all the materials and such? I had always assumed that there were less (moving) materials required to build a revolver--the weapon you mentioned that was built inside of a US prison sounds really interesting, I didn't know it could be done.

Plus there's the reliability of a revolver vs a semi-auto. Again, I mean their universe, not ours, and who has access to the better materials. Just speculating.

Thanks for your insight though. Hope I don't come across as totally ignorant.

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

TINYTIMM

Sunday, September 22, 2002 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:

Actually, a revolver requires more skill and complex parts than a semi or full automatic.

... wouldn't there be more pieces involved in the manufacturing of a magazine versus a 6-shot cylinder?
Plus there's the reliability of a revolver vs a semi-auto. Thanks for your insight though. Hope I don't come across as totally ignorant.

The cylinder of a typical (S&W Model 38) revolver has 11 parts, two of which, the extractor and cylinder require very close tolerance machining.
The five chambers and the extractor must be carefully bored to form five chambers aligned to thousanths of an inch.

A magazine has four pieces, spring, body, follower and base plate, everything except the spring is stamped out of steel, the body folded and welded, then place in a fixture and the lips ground to spec.

Jeff
Who was trained to repair the Model 10 S&W revolver and the M 1911A1 Colt Automatic.

TINYTIMM

Sunday, September 22, 2002 1:16 PM

Now that I've dragged out my copy of "The Gun Digest Book of Exploded Firearms Drawings" which has nothing to do with exploding firearms.

For your edification: The Colt Peacemaker Single Action Army Revolver 1873 has 53 parts, including 7 washers.

The Colt M1911A1 Army Automatic has 55 parts, including one magazine with three parts.

A Winchester 1894 lever action carbine has 65 parts.

The British bolt action, Lee Enfield Rifle No. 4, Mark I* has 47 parts (I tossed this one in for our Commonwealth friends)

The Savage Single barrel Model 944 break action shotgun has 28 parts. Similar guns sell at Wal*Mart for around $100 US.

I note we have available today mass produced rifles and pistols originally designed over the last 300 years, from flintlocks to Semi-auto pistols and rifles.

Jeff
Who suspects serious breakdowns in the supply system in the Firefly Universe.

RINGWRAITH

Sunday, September 22, 2002 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:

The cylinder of a typical (S&W Model 38) revolver has 11 parts, two of which, the extractor and cylinder require very close tolerance machining.
The five chambers and the extractor must be carefully bored to form five chambers aligned to thousanths of an inch.

A magazine has four pieces, spring, body, follower and base plate, everything except the spring is stamped out of steel, the body folded and welded, then place in a fixture and the lips ground to spec.

Thanks Jeff! I didn't realize it was as "simple" to make the semi vs the revolver. You surprised the missus and myself but that's a good thing.

I think in a post somewhere you mentioned that you were going to go over the FF episode to try to identify some of the weapons (even though to me some look like bastardized versions) so I'm just wondering if you had a chance to yet. I think this show will be more interesting than most, since they have technology to build fancy ships and floating trains but they still use weapons that fire a piece of lead.

No problem here, though.

I'll have to talk to Haken and see if we can get you an official title like "Firefly Fans Weapons Expert." Sorry, you probably won't get paid, though.

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

TINYTIMM

Sunday, September 22, 2002 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
I'll have to talk to Haken and see if we can get you an official title like "Firefly Fans Weapons Expert." Sorry, you probably won't get paid, though.

Oh Joss! Not That! I'll have to replace my pic with the one of me with the 20 gallon hat and the .44 Magnum!

Jeff
Who is famous for getting a picture in a nationally distributed book, showing only his back, knit hat and hearing protection.

DAKOTASMITH

Sunday, September 22, 2002 5:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
It all depends on the technology of energy storage.

I completely agree, which is part of wht I think slug-chuckers are inconsistent with an interstellar technology.

Quote:
Right now the energy is stored in chemical form and is converted to drive a projectile at a high velocity. One of the problems with current laser weapons technology is using a Boeing 747 to lug around the generator.

True, but the same is true of space travel.

Look, it took a 20-story building loaded with rocket fuel to put two men on the moon (and one in orbit of it).

The Serenity, by comparison, is an interstellar spacecraft -- meaning she's got enough energy to go faster than light, carrying a small crew, passengers, cargo, and so forth. Yet she's not even as long as a passenger train.

Nor did we see Serenity need to refuel, which implies that her power source is long-lived or regenerating.

So scale this down a bit: if a vessel the size of Serenity can go FTL with no problems, why can't a battery pack that would fit into the handle of, say, a M1911-sized grip not fire off at least ten shots of directed energy?

To me, the inconsistency is that any FTL civiliation that doesn't have a hideously huge power supply means that they've got some way to generate a lot of power in a very small space. If that's the case, why can't they do it with handheld battery packs?

Quote:
Who notes fixed cartridge weapons have only been practical since the middle of the 1800's, starting with the .22 Short rimfire round, which has been in continuous production ever since.

Indeed, which hints at the possibilities.

A technological society that went from flintlocks to cartriges to experimental (very fixed) laser, particle beams, and magnetic weapons in under 200 years. Why, then, would there be no significant development in weapons in the next 500 years?

Dakota Smith

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.

DAKOTASMITH

Sunday, September 22, 2002 5:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Haplo721:
Dakota, I invite you to think of a hand weapon that's both superior to a firearm, and not insanely expensive/complicated. I don't think you can though.

I can do it with a couple of "givens":

Given:

1. 500 years to tinker.

2. A technology capable of producing small interstellar FTL spacecraft.

Given this, I can imagine quite a lot of thinks superior to a slug-chucker. Here are a couple of notions regarding a directed energy weapon:

o No moving parts. This is a wonderful thing, particularly on the battlefield, where guns can become fouled and fail to operate. With a directed energy weapon, there's no round to feed, no slide, no hammer to be cocked (in the case of a revolver). Even the trigger mechanism can be electronic -- something that Remington actually has on the market in one of their rifles.

Moving parts suck. The more you have, the greater a potential for failure.

o No limit to range. A slug-chucker is limited by all kinds of things. My Kimber Custom Classic, for example, has an effective range of a bit over a hundred yards, because it becomes difficult to predict bullet drop beyond that range. A laser has no such limitiation -- line the target up in the sites at 10 yards or 100 yards. There's no reason to take into account weather conditions, either -- a laser's going to fire straight unless it comes within the influence of a massive gravitational field on the order of a star.

o No recoil. My carry gun is a Taurus M917 revolver in .357Magnum. This gun has a 3" barrel and is a small frame, and let me tell you: it kicks. I absolutely won't carry anything more anemic for personal defense, but if I could get the same stopping power with a bolt of directed energy, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

o No sound. Contrary to what they show you on TV, guns are loud. I typically fire seven rounds through my Taurus M917 on an outdoor range, on the theory that if I ever have to use it to defend myself, I won't have time to get hearing protection. My ears ring for two hours afterward.

And I never fire them without hearing protection at an indoor range, because I'll be half deaf for hours.

Now, during the heat of the moment, adrenaline does something to deaden your hearing to loud noises. On a couple of occasions, I've had to finish a buck with my Kimber because a badly-placed shot from my Winchester Model 70 rifle didn't do the job. While loud, the noise isn't as bad when I'm shooting calmly at the range.

However, if I could get the same stopping power in a silent weapon, I'd happily do it.

o No need for cartriges. This is the one that really appeals to me. The "ammo" of a directed energy weapon is its power source: in this case, probably a rechargable battery the size of a M1911 clip. If I didn't have to carry around all kinds of ammo cans, I'd be one happy camper. Bring my carry gun home, drop the day's battery into the charger, replace it with a fresh one, and reholster the weapon. Sounds like heaven to me.

Dakota Smith

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.

NOVAGRASS

Sunday, September 22, 2002 6:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DakotaSmith:

2. A technology capable of producing small interstellar FTL spacecraft.

I believe it is implied (if it hasn't been stated directly) that FTL space travel does not exist in Firefly.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

DAKOTASMITH

Sunday, September 22, 2002 7:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
I believe it is implied (if it hasn't been stated directly) that FTL space travel does not exist in Firefly.

I'm confused, then. These various Earthlike planets aren't all in the Sol system, are they? They are working on the outer boundaries of an interstellar Alliance, correct?

If so, then they better have FTL spacecraft, or there's going to be a lot of time between episodes. I mean, for them just to get to Alpha Centauri would take four years ... meaning the next episode of Firefly would be due sometime in 2006 or 2007.

Dakota Smith

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.

TERAPH

Sunday, September 22, 2002 7:31 PM

While small energy weapons may be possible in this time, there are a few things to remember:

1) Those who lost the war and didn't join the Alliance probably don't have them (i.e., Mal and company);

2) Items that small would require manufacturing facilities not available on most of the outer worlds (things like the maglev for the train are probably made off-world and imported);

3) Because of the scale needed for manufacturing, it would be easier for the authorities to control and limit production and distribution. I can make a rifle in a machine shop in my basement; power cells and microprocessors need more elaborate facilities.

4) They are harder to repair. Sure, they have no moving parts, but they do have more elaborate construction (e.g., microprocessors and lasers). If your CD player and 1960s turn-table both broke, which would be simpler to fix if you had to do it yourself?

5) They're less efficient. Even if the technology to do it exists, it's still more power and complexity than a traditional firearm.

6) They're harder to reload. Access to electricity is not a guarantee, and the amount of power needed to run one of those weapons is a significant road block. If I'm trapped on some backwater planet, I'm more likely to find (or be able to construct) facilities to repair my pistol or knife. When the chip that controls the light intensity of my energy weapon dies, who's going to replace it?

I don't know the state of energy weapon technology on Firefly, but I'm betting it isn't good enough to possessed by the crew of Serenity or those with whom they interact.

RINGWRAITH

Sunday, September 22, 2002 7:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DakotaSmith:
Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
I believe it is implied (if it hasn't been stated directly) that FTL space travel does not exist in Firefly.

I'm confused, then. These various Earthlike planets aren't all in the Sol system, are they? They are working on the outer boundaries of an interstellar Alliance, correct?

If so, then they better have FTL spacecraft, or there's going to be a lot of time between episodes. I mean, for them just to get to Alpha Centauri would take four years ... meaning the next episode of Firefly would be due sometime in 2006 or 2007.

Those are some good points. I wonder how Joss is going to explain this? In the B5 universe there was no FTL technology but everyone used "hyperspace" to get from A-B faster.

Hope he can come up with an explanation for this one. I don't mind revolvers and such, that's cool, but he might have some 'splaining to do to explain how his ships get to their destinations quickly.

************************************************
"How will this end?"
"In fire."
--Babylon 5, 'The Coming of Shadows'
************************************************

DAKOTASMITH

Sunday, September 22, 2002 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by teraph:
Those who lost the war and didn't join the Alliance probably don't have them (i.e., Mal and company);

Um ... why?

The parallels to the American Civil War and the war with the Alliance are striking (I assume they're intentional). The South didn't lose all their arms back to the flintlock after losing to the North. Why would this be true of the browncoats?

Also, if this is the case, that the loser are being denied arms, there ought to be an enormous amount of money to be had by the Serenity's crew in just running guns to former browncoat worlds.

It's a truism that whenever government outlaws something, it creates a black market that gets filled (see Prohibition, the War on Some Drugs, victim disarmament, and so on). Surely this would be as true 500 years from now as it was 500 years ago.

Quote:
Items that small would require manufacturing facilities not available on most of the outer worlds (things like the maglev for the train are probably made off-world and imported);

You might have a point with this one.

Quote:
Because of the scale needed for manufacturing, it would be easier for the authorities to control and limit production and distribution. I can make a rifle in a machine shop in my basement; power cells and microprocessors need more elaborate facilities.

You might also have a point here. However, that simply increases the potential profit in gun-running, IMHO. If the Alliance is into victim disarmament that heavily, then a good directed energy weapon will be worth its weight in gold. An entire cargo hold full of them ought to buy a planet or two.

Quote:
They are harder to repair. Sure, they have no moving parts, but they do have more elaborate construction (e.g., microprocessors and lasers). If your CD player and 1960s turn-table both broke, which would be simpler to fix if you had to do it yourself?

I'll concede you that one outright. Good point.

Quote:
They're less efficient. Even if the technology to do it exists, it's still more power and complexity than a traditional firearm.

I'd argue that as we're on the threshold of directed energy weapons right now, in another 500 years, the complexity involved will be minimal.

Quote:
[bI don't know the state of energy weapon technology on Firefly, but I'm betting it isn't good enough to possessed by the crew of Serenity or those with whom they interact.

Again, it's 500 years in the future, building from a point -- right now -- when we're on the cusp of directed energy weapons. Indeed, if government will stop immorally regulating private firearms inventors out of existence, I'm certain that the next John Moses Browning out there will get me a directed-energy sidearm inside of ten years.

Dakota Smith

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.

MOJOECA

Sunday, September 22, 2002 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ringwraith:
Quote:
Originally posted by DakotaSmith:
I'm confused, then. These various Earthlike planets aren't all in the Sol system, are they? They are working on the outer boundaries of an interstellar Alliance, correct?

If so, then they better have FTL spacecraft, or there's going to be a lot of time between episodes. I mean, for them just to get to Alpha Centauri would take four years ... meaning the next episode of Firefly would be due sometime in 2006 or 2007.
Those are some good points. I wonder how Joss is going to explain this? In the B5 universe there was no FTL technology but everyone used "hyperspace" to get from A-B faster.

According to the v.o., it is a single solar system that they've found with lots of planets, lots of satellites that are Earth-like or terraformed to be so. Also Serenity keeps to the frontier planets/moons, so it's range of distance is limited there as well. No FTL is necessary.

--- Joe

TERAPH

Sunday, September 22, 2002 8:55 PM

Quote:
The parallels to the American Civil War and the war with the Alliance are striking (I assume they're intentional). The South didn't lose all their arms back to the flintlock after losing to the North. Why would this be true of the browncoats?

In the time of the Civil War, finding support for denying a man his arms would have been much harder. Also, Mal is one of the people who didn't want to be with the Alliance. That reduces his access to resources that would be available to people who a) support the Alliance and b) live closer to the Alliance's core worlds. It's not just a matter of the losers having their guns taken away. It's a matter of the losers not having access.

Quote:
Also, if this is the case, that the loser are being denied arms, there ought to be an enormous amount of money to be had by the Serenity's crew in just running guns to former browncoat worlds.

This assumes there is access to such items on a scale that would make the gun-running profitable.

In Prohibition, we outlawed something that could be made in a bath tub.

The war on drugs and restrictions on firearms do create a vacuum. However, there are forces that can fill that vacuum. Other nations may overlook or support the creation and transport of drugs and illegal weapons. But how many other powers are there besides the Alliance? Who is filling the void? It would have to be someone with the facilities to make these items.

This may be another reason that six-shooters are in vogue: They are easier to make and introduce into a very large market.

We also don't know yet what restrictions the Alliance places on manufacturing or trade. Unless there are more large powers (criminal, corporate or governmental) who operate in defiance of the Alliance, it would seem that there is only one power with the resources to create such weapons--and thus manage their distribution.

Quote:
I'd argue that as we're on the threshold of directed energy weapons right now, in another 500 years, the complexity involved will be minimal.

I disagree. Complexity is likely to increase over time. Just look at how much of a modern car is computer controlled, even compared to one made 20 years ago. GM is looking at a new car that is completely wire controlled (i.e., computers run everything).

Energy weapons, to work properly, would need to precisely control the energy. That would be done with computers--microchips or nanotech. Even when such manufacture becomes common-place, the facilities to do that manufacture would likely be controlled by the government with the resources to afford it.

I'll be interested, should the show take us into core Alliance territory, to see how advanced their technology is when compared to the outer worlds.

Quote:
Again, it's 500 years in the future, building from a point -- right now -- when we're on the cusp of directed energy weapons. Indeed, if government will stop immorally regulating private firearms inventors out of existence, I'm certain that the next John Moses Browning out there will get me a directed-energy sidearm inside of ten years.

Of course, the government is also likely to just hire the next John Moses Browning, and he'll make his gun for them. We may be on the verge of directed-energy weapons, but how likely is it that the public will ever use them? We've had shoulder-mounted anti-tank weapons for while, but I don't have one. (Yes, that was an extreme example.)

I could get one off the black market, but is it worth the cost and risk? The same question applies to Firefly. Is the market, availability, and effectiveness of these weapons great enough justify the risk in illegally making or transporting them?

I don't know. There's information we don't yet have about this world. Was there a Dark Age when the world took a step back in knowledge? Was there a world government that halted or slowed weapons production? Did resources become scarce? Were manufacturing facilities destroyed during the war? If this is like the Civil War, is there a massive Reconstruction un

DAKOTASMITH

Sunday, September 22, 2002 11:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by teraph:
Again, I don't know. I'm playing Devil's Advocate on some of this. It is certainly something with which we can have some fun theorizing and studying the possibilities.

I don't know, either -- and don't mistake my levelling these criticisms as major criticisms. As long as there ends up being a plausible reason for these things, I'll be happy.

I'm already happy with the show's libertarian bent as regards politics. That there is a continuing character who actually owns her own body thrills me no end -- and if Whedon really wants to make me happy, he can do a scene where a couple of the characters are lighting up a joint in their off hours and no one makes a bigger deal of it than one would having a beer.

I'm utterly thrilled with what I think is the first realistic portrayal of frontier worlds.

I'm really happy that no one onscreen, from the local sheriff to the Alliance jack-booted thugs, has tried to disarm anyone just for carrying.

I'm really thrilled that for once, there's an SF show in production that doesn't leave me hurling epithets like, "Goddamned Statist propaganda!" at my TV for an hour straight.

I think the show has a ton of potential, and the fact that I'm spending a fair amount of time trying to find mpegs of the episode "Serenity" is proof of that.

Dakota Smith

No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation.

SADGEEZER

Monday, September 23, 2002 3:55 PM

I'm surprised at you DekotaSmith!

You levelled such fine points and a very good argument and then you strangely decided you concede some.

Six shooters and pump action rifles in the 26th century is plain stupid! Yes, I know I’m a git for saying it, but I honestly believe that Joss Whedon made an idiotic oversight!

The only explanation I can think of for such stupidity is that there will be some fine (and lengthy) exposition that will explain things in the next few episodes.

To simply say that they use 'slug-chuckers' because they are low-tech naively assumes that there has been (in 500 years!) little advance in say the production of energy cells (batteries) or the production of alternative power sources - How many new power sources have we found in the last five hundred years?

NOBODY will think of firing a projectile weapon in 500 years. It's almost an impossible concept. The idea that someone would take the time and trouble to fabricate an intricate weapon (which in all probability could backfire and kill them) when they probably have cheap, rechargeable energy cells and a few disposable silicon chips, to put together a weapon which could demolish a house in the blink of an eye.

The question, which would you, find easier to repair, a phono record player or a CD is an incorrect analogy, you compare technology which is say 30 years difference, in Firefly, the difference is 500 years.

If a group of people are able to exist on a frontier, travel around on advanced trains and receive spaceships and visitors from other worlds, they will be able to afford the stunningly cheap resources such as a few silicon chips and a battery FAR more than the resources for smelting and fabricating 'slug chuckers'.

Can you imagine firing a six-shooter (or Zoe’s pump action rifle) on a spaceship! How stupid would that be! At least on Babylon 5 they had the idea of the PPG and much as I hate Star Trek, at least they made some effort to make conflict believable!

I personally believe that the use of projectile weapons (in case you hadn't guessed :) ) is a flawed one and that it's only our love for the venerable Mr Whedon that makes us want to defend his judgment.

I'm quite prepared to forgive the dude, if only for the silent Serenity in space. I think that takes nerve - the firearms stuff is just a cheap trick to spend less money!

The big question we should ask is? Will the Alliance have energy weapons? I really, really hope they do!

PS. DakotaSmith news.binaries.multimedia.scifi
has a poor copy of Serenity. I downloaded it this morning and it’s terrific! Much better than The Train Job.

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

HAPLO721

Monday, September 23, 2002 6:33 PM

I don't really see how using firearms on a spaceship would be that risky. Certainly a vessel constructed for the rigors of space travel would have a thick enough hull to take a .45 without rupturing! The only exception might be the windows, but those appear to only be installed on the bridge and may very well be constructed of a high-tech transparent metal or something that's nearly as resistant to gunfire.

HAPLO721

Monday, September 23, 2002 6:33 PM

These forums don't seem to notify you when your message has been posted...

SADGEEZER

Monday, September 23, 2002 6:40 PM

Hi haplo721.
(I just delete the duplicate post, that's all you can do I guess )

Quote:
Originally posted by Haplo721:
I don't really see how using firearms on a spaceship would be that risky. Certainly a vessel constructed for the rigors of space travel would have a thick enough hull to take a .45 without rupturing!

I meant firing inside a spaceship. If I shot someone with a .45 in the Serenity, it'd blow their head of and the bullet would probably richochet around the hull and knock my head off too. If not, you can bet it would do some pretty awfull damage to something!

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

MOJOECA

Monday, September 23, 2002 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
I personally believe that the use of projectile weapons (in case you hadn't guessed :) ) is a flawed one and that it's only our love for the venerable Mr Whedon that makes us want to defend his judgment.

I'm quite prepared to forgive the dude, if only for the silent Serenity in space. I think that takes nerve - the firearms stuff is just a cheap trick to spend less money!

He's not Steven Spielberg making "Minority Report." This is television. There's a limit to what he can afford. Plus, the "firearms stuff" is part of a western motif. Did you get that there was a motif?

--- Joe

SADGEEZER

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:
He's not Steven Spielberg making "Minority Report." This is television. There's a limit to what he can afford.

Wow! I hadn't thought of that!

Quote:
Originally posted by mojoeca:
Plus, the "firearms stuff" is part of a western motif. Did you get that there was a motif?

Hehe. Yep, I guess I got the root'n toot'n motif. It's the silly idea to put six-shooters and pump action rifles in a sci fi show set 500 years in the future that I don't get.

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. Are you saying it's ok to put something unrealistic in the show provided it fits with the motif? If so, then why aren't you complaining that there ain't any injuns? .... What about some cavalry with lots of blue clad soldiers carrying the US flag (with thirteen stars only o'course - coz there were only thirteen states then - he'd have to make it realistic now wouldn't he!?)

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

NOVAGRASS

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DakotaSmith:
Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
I believe it is implied (if it hasn't been stated directly) that FTL space travel does not exist in Firefly.

I'm confused, then. These various Earthlike planets aren't all in the Sol system, are they? They are working on the outer boundaries of an interstellar Alliance, correct?

If so, then they better have FTL spacecraft, or there's going to be a lot of time between episodes. I mean, for them just to get to Alpha Centauri would take four years ... meaning the next episode of Firefly would be due sometime in 2006 or 2007.

My theory is they used wormhole technology (not too far fetched) to send the "pioneers" into the Alliance solar system. My guess is a wormhole is made only on a very rare occasion, and the Earth is no longer a part of the Alliance system's concern (if it still exists, that is).

The planets are all in one solar system, ruled by 2 central planets, with many habitable moons available for terra-formation. Thus, FTL transportation might not be needed.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

NOVAGRASS

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:22 PM

Quote:

Are you saying it's ok to put something unrealistic in the show provided it fits with the motif?

There's a thing called artistic freedom, you may not have heard of it. It would be a good thing if you could suspend your disbelief a little to accomodate for that artistic expression.

I think it's absurd we are arguing the semantics of projectile weaponry in Firefly when we easily accept the fantasy (and that is what it is: FANTASY) of intelligent alien life (with space war-ships, no less) in every single other science fiction show ever (so maybe not every one, but you get my drift

).

Maybe I'm not seeing something...

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

SADGEEZER

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
The planets are all in one solar system, ruled by 2 central planets, with many habitable moons available for terra-formation. Thus, FTL transportation might not be needed.

Which would be born out by the comments of the two blue handed geezers at the end of The Train Job. They said, "We haven't travelled 87 million miles etc."

They made it sound as if it were a long way and yet, in terms of interstellar travel it's a few feet!

The only contradiction to that Novagrass, is the drunk dude in the bar at the beginning. He talked about the Alliance and the 'new Galaxy' - not sure how that fits.

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

HERITAGE

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:24 PM

As I understand it, current spacecraft have rather thin hulls, since the difference in pressure between inside and hard vacuum isn't actually that great; deepsea vessels require much thicker hulls. If you fired a slug-thrower or a laser in the Space Shuttle, everyone would proably die.

Firefly-era hulls might well be thicker and/or tougher - for one thing, radiation sheilding would be necessary, and since humanity has just ended a period of warfare, reinforced hulls would probably be a good idea. I'm betting there won't be any forcefields or sheilds either, so micrometeor impacts would require a pretty tough hull, too.

All that being said, the main reason for the guns, I'm sure, is for the western look. Also, the brutality of the frontier seems much grittier when you blow out someone's leg as opposed to neatly searing it.

Personally, none of the tech seems as advanced as I'd think it would be in 500 years - the ships strike me as being more what I'd expect to see in 200 years or less. I sometimes think they just choose the dates in SF without giving much thought to progress.

Mal: "Have you got time to do my hair?"
Inara: "Out."

MOJOECA

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:

I think it's absurd we are arguing the semantics of projectile weaponry in Firefly when we easily accept the fantasy (and that is what it is: FANTASY) of intelligent alien life (with space war-ships, no less) in every single other science fiction show ever (so maybe not every one, but you get my drift ).

More specifically, humanoid alien life. That most ludicrous assumption in all of sci-fi.

--- Joe

MOJOECA

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
Maybe I'm reading your post wrong. Are you saying it's ok to put something unrealistic in the show provided it fits with the motif? If so, then why aren't you complaining that there ain't any injuns? .... What about some cavalry with lots of blue clad soldiers carrying the US flag (with thirteen stars only o'course - coz there were only thirteen states then - he'd have to make it realistic now wouldn't he!?)

What Novagrass said. You can complain about scientific accuracy all you want, but it misses the point. Joss isn't holding this show up, saying "I have seen the future. And it is FIREFLY."

EDIT TO ADD:

Quote:
The only contradiction to that Novagrass, is the drunk dude in the bar at the beginning. He talked about the Alliance and the 'new Galaxy' - not sure how that fits.

Book's V.O. distinctly says "solar system." The drunk guy clearly was not "burdened with an overabundance of schooling." Also, the usage jibes with modern-day hyperbole. You don't really think the Miss Universe pageant is actually as inclusive as the title would suggest?

--- Joe

SADGEEZER

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:
I think it's absurd we are arguing the semantics of projectile weaponry in Firefly when we easily accept the fantasy (and that is what it is: FANTASY) of intelligent alien life (with space war-ships, no less) in every single other science fiction show ever (so maybe not every one, but you get my drift ).

There's science fiction and there's science fantasy. You should checkout the definitions.

I can't understand why you want to (interestingly) argue the finer points solar or stallar setting for the series - and yet you think it silly to talk about realism in the show!

The fact is (and nobody has come up with a viable arguiment yet) that some of the science in the show is unrealistic. If it's unrealistic then it's not science fiction - it's science fantasy or something else! That's all I'm trying to say.

Ok, ok. Let me explain it another way....

Another cool sci fi part of the show is the Serenity engins. They're like jet engines, they have turbines and exhaust manifolds and work in both the atmosphere and space (there is no air in space so you don't need exhaust manifolds). I think that this is an excellent bit of sci fi, it explains whey a ship can travel in space and land on the surface of the planet.

But, if they have the technology to build ships with multi-facetted engines, why are they using pump action shotguns and six-shooters to defend their lives! To me, that is unrealistic, it's sci fi for the motif's sake - I don't think that's a good thing.

You guys are being too defensive without being objective!

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

HERITAGE

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:40 PM

Personally, I'd like to believe that in the vastness of space, there is intelligent life out there - I just think that a) we'll probably never run into it, and b) if we did, it would be so unlike our concept of 'intelligence' as to be completely incomprehensible.

Mal: "Have you got time to do my hair?"
Inara: "Out."

MOJOECA

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
The fact is (and nobody has come up with a viable arguiment yet) that some of the science in the show is unrealistic. If it's unrealistic then it's not science fiction - it's science fantasy or something else! That's all I'm trying to say.

Okay, then it's science fantasy. End of discusion.

--- Joe

ZICSOFT

Monday, September 23, 2002 7:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Novagrass:

There's a thing called artistic freedom, you may not have heard of it. It would be a good thing if you could suspend your disbelief a little to accomodate for that artistic expression.

I think you mean artistic license. We're not talking about censorship here, we're talking about making little comprojses with realism. And you're right, every storyteller exercise artistic license. It's really not practical to tell a story, especially a science fiction story, without it.

But there's also an artistic concept that involves working within specified limits, and viewing those limits as an integral part of your work. There's a fancy word for it that escapes me, but you know what I mean. It's what poets do when they forgo the expressive freedom of prose for the arbitrary restrictions of verse. I've heard Josh Whedon say he was doing the same thing when he portrayed a lesbian relationship on Buffy within the restrictions imposed by WB's censors.

In Firefly, Whedon's doing much the same thing, with a lot more self-imposed restrictions, based on the assumptions of "hard" science fiction. It's a whole lot easier to do Science Fiction if you just make up your reality as you go along. That's become the accepted thing with other space TV shows -- and a big reason they've become so boring. But if you impose a lot of interesting rules upon yourself, you have more work to, but also a more satisfying result.

And of course, Mister Whedon was never one to take the easy way out!

Quote:

I think it's absurd we are arguing the semantics of projectile weaponry in Firefly when we easily accept the fantasy (and that is what it is: FANTASY) of intelligent alien life (with space war-ships, no less) in every single other science fiction show ever (so maybe not every one, but you get my drift ).

Aliens are not simply fantasy. They've been an accepted part of both science an literature for over 300 years, ever since it was discovered that earth was just one world of many. It's only in the last 50 years that scientists have begun to question the assumption that the universe is big enough to hold all those alien races. And it's only in the last decade that this questioning has been taken up by the more literate science fiction writers.

Firely is drastically better science fiction than Star Trek. But not just because Firefly has better science. If Star Trek just had a lot of bad science, it'd just be more artistic license. Star Trek uses bad science to hide behind, to allow sloppy writing and absence of simple logic and storytelling.

Also, when you're talking about Firefly and similar fiction, you have to account for the geek factor. Josh Whedon is a self-identified geek, and as such he's one of those people who actually enjoy arguing about obscure technical details. Like what kind of gun you can safely fire on a spaceship.

Since you, Dylan, seem to get terminally bored by such convesation, I would tend to identify you as a non-geek. Or at least a non-geek with respect to science, technology, and the "hard" varieties of science fiction. Which is perfectly OK, as long as you acknowledge that the geek and non-geek ways of looking at things are equally valid. And indeed, if Firefly is to succeed, it will have to appeal to both camps.

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

NOVAGRASS

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:

There's science fiction and there's science fantasy. You should checkout the definitions.

To be honest, I see no difference. Fiction is a made up story. Fantasy is a part of fiction. Therefore, Science Fantasy is a type of Science Fiction. Perhaps you're the one who should be looking up definitions?

Quote:
I can't understand why you want to (interestingly) argue the finer points solar or stallar setting for the series - and yet you think it silly to talk about realism in the show!

Hey, did I ever say I wasn't absurd? I believe I was making an observation that "we," meaning all of us (including myself), are holding a double standard. People seem to believe humanoid alien life is fine as a form of artistic license, but when guns are used, we get up in arms. This is what I find absurd, and I myself fall victim to it. I apologize if I was unclear.

Quote:
The fact is (and nobody has come up with a viable arguiment yet) that some of the science in the show is unrealistic. If it's unrealistic then it's not science fiction - it's science fantasy or something else! That's all I'm trying to say.

I have given up defending the realism of Firefly (as of yesterday, that is). For god's sake, it's just a TV show, I told myself.

I recognize that there are unrealistic elements in Firefly, and I will deal with them. Though, the firearms issue seems to bother me the least. (Narssistic personal note: What will bother me is when they explore the big cities (in Serenity we are briefly introduced to this) and the more unrealistic social elements of the series show up. I feel I will be in the minority when disecting the social structure, while I seem to be in the minority on evaluating the importance of the firearms issue. This could be due to the fact that I have studied future social developents, and seem to care little for the technological aspects. Alas, I will try to ignore this issue when it comes up)

Quote:
But, if they have the technology to build ships with multi-facetted engines, why are they using pump action shotguns and six-shooters to defend their lives! To me, that is unrealistic, it's sci fi for the motif's sake - I don't think that's a good thing.

The answer: Artistic license. I bring this up again. Joss Whedon set out not only to make a science fiction show. He set out to make a western as well. There are areas where these two genres will not overlap, and thusly, unrealistic elements for the sake of the story will be used.

Quote:
You guys are being too defensive without being objective!

You may have a point there

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

ZICSOFT

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:14 PM

Quote:
Book's V.O. distinctly says "solar system." The drunk guy clearly was not "burdened with an overabundance of schooling." Also, the usage jibes with modern-day hyperbole. You don't really think the Miss Universe pageant is actually as inclusive as the title would suggest?

God I hope not. Too many trademark hassles already!

You make a good point. It would make perfect sense for Drunk Guy to be as ignorant of cosmology as the TV Guide person who describe Firefly as an "intergalactic" adventure.

On the other hand, Book also tells us that there are hundreds of terraformed worlds. Hard to imagine a single solar system providing all these. And I don't recall Book specifically saying that all the worlds were in one solar system. But I might have missed that. Anyone got a transcript?

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

NOVAGRASS

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:

Also, when you're talking about Firefly and similar fiction, you have to account for the geek factor. Josh Whedon is a self-identified geek, and as such he's one of those people who actually enjoy arguing about obscure technical details. Like what kind of gun you can safely fire on a spaceship.

Since you, Dylan, seem to get terminally bored by such convesation, I would tend to identify you as a non-geek. Or at least a non-geek with respect to science, technology, and the "hard" varieties of science fiction. Which is perfectly OK, as long as you acknowledge that the geek and non-geek ways of looking at things are equally valid. And indeed, if Firefly is to succeed, it will have to appeal to both camps.

You make an interesting point, Zicsoft, one that I've never considered. You have caused me to think about a few things.

I believe I've realised something about my "geek" factor that I don't believe I've ever realised prior to this. Sure, I may not be interested in the technological aspects of fiction. I most certainly do find myself supremely bored by conversations of this nature.

I do, however, find myself often arguing about the more social aspects of things, much like the tech-geeks seem to argue over what would happen if you fired a gun inside of a spaceship. I find myself constantly drawn to the details of human life, and I suppose this is what draws me to Science Fiction. Perhaps this makes me a non-geek to the tech geeks out there because it seems very unusual for a social debate about science fiction to ever present itself. I apologize if I put off a bored attitude. I suppose this isn't the optimal place for me to be arguing, though it seems that because there are few social debators who enjoy science fiction, I must align myself with the tech debators, of which there are plenty in the science fiction communtiy.

--Dylan Palmer, aka NoVaGrAsS--Who, after re-reading his post, realises just how unbareably narcissistic he can be.

"Oh, shoot" - Mal

TINYTIMM

Monday, September 23, 2002 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
NOBODY will think of firing a projectile weapon in 500 years. It's almost an impossible concept.
Can you imagine firing a six-shooter (or Zoe’s pump action rifle) on a spaceship! How stupid would that be!

I disagree. For all the reasons listed in Traveller (The RPG) and the Dorsai series.

"The more they complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to stuff up the drain."

(BTW Zoe was carrying a Lever action. She should either get a longer stock or change ordnance.)

I suspect there are technological reasons for even the Alliance troops to be carrying common automatic weapons from the 20th Century.

Jeff
Who looked at crossbows last time he was at the sporting goods store. They work better than ever.

SADGEEZER

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
I disagree. For all the reasons listed in Traveller (The RPG) and the Dorsai series.

"The more they complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to stuff up the drain."

I see what your saying, but I honestly believe that a solid state gadget is less likely to break down than a mechanical one.

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
(BTW Zoe was carrying a Lever action. She should either get a longer stock or change ordnance.)

I stand corrected. Thanks.

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

ZICSOFT

Monday, September 23, 2002 9:57 PM

Quote:
I do, however, find myself often arguing about the more social aspects of things, much like the tech-geeks seem to argue over what would happen if you fired a gun inside of a spaceship.

Exactly.

I can't actually take credit for this theory of geekiness. It sort of grew up when I was listening to fans of Baroque music argue over whether JS Bach was a "music geek". (My opinion, he indeed, but he wasn't just a music geek.) I think every discipline has its "geeks", who pursue the technical details of it with a passion that everybody else finds a little scary.

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

TINYTIMM

Monday, September 23, 2002 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:
"The more they complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to stuff up the drain."

I see what your saying, but I honestly believe that a solid state gadget is less likely to break down than a mechanical one.

It's not Break Downs, it's counter measures and detection equipment. Let's say you've got a squad of 10 with a crew served weapon and the other 9 have 7 "kick sticks" each holding enough energy for 100 incapacitating hits at 400 meters.
The crew served weapon will have twice the power and range and cycle rate. Thats an awful lot of power stored in one place. If it's detectable at any reasonable range, everyone can locate your unit precisely. Weapons we have today will reliably land within 5 meters of target just using GPS. Bye bye troops.

This would immediately send everyone back to the museaums to find substitutes ASAP!

I would also assume the .22 LR rifle and Shotgun and combinations thereof will be around a very long time. Just because you can store ammo for many years and it will work very well.

Example: WWII aircraft exposed by land recovery in Holland. Kids found out they could clean up the guns and fire the ammo left under saltwater for 50 years! And that was mass produced wartime emergency standard ammo!

Jeff
Who fired WWII surplus ammo in an AC Spark Plug .50 caliber machinegun. The US Government was buying my ammo at the time....

ZICSOFT

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:14 AM

Not to mention the sensitivity of sold-state components to electromagnetic pulse attack. Right now, an EMP attack requires an atomic explosion, but I've heard talk of EMP weapons that use conventional explosives. And in the Firefly universe, they would seem to have some pretty cool magnetic technology, if that levitating train uses magnetisim to hover. So they could probably build an EMP weapon that doesn't use any explosive at all!

Consider this scenario:

Evil Genius: "Surrender, or my cyborg warriors with their pulse laser weapons will reduce your enclave to a molten puddle!"

Intrepid Rebels: "Nuts!" And they toss a single EMP grenade at the EG's army. Pulse lasers inoperative. Cyborgs unable to move a single cybernetic muscle. Single Intrepid Rebel, armed only with a can opener, takes EG and his entire army prisoner.

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

HOBBES

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 2:01 AM

Going back to Solar Systems (with hundreds of planets!) vs. Galaxy...

Maybe there are a few systems connected by wormholes. That way there is no hassle with FTL engines and the statement by the blue gove guys 87 million miles etc... as long as you count going inbetween wormholes as zero distance.

As for projectile weapons I'm willing to bet the Alliance has EMP weapons but also have EMP hardened guns while the poorer guys can't afford the EMP hardened guns so they do without.

May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May you be in heaven an hour before
The Devil knows you’re dead.

COWBOYINTHESTARS

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 2:48 AM

Delurking now, and to get right in the middle of a conversation -

A thought on how one solar system could have hundreds of earth-like worlds: According to my (admitedly sketchy) reasearch, a solar system with a blue sun, one of the hottest stars in existence, could have a biosphere (range for earth-like planets) hundreds or thousands of times wider then the biosphere for our sun, with room for hundreds of inhabitable planets. Of course, this is a cheat - blue suns are fast-burning, short-lived, and unlikely to have planets at all - but I can see Joss looking at a solar system with nearly endless frontier worlds and just thinking, "Cool!"

Besides, if there was FTL travel, the Independents would just pack up and find planets too far out for the Alliance to control.

MOJOECA

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 4:18 AM

Interesting. Joss has mentioned something about "blue sun." But wouldn't then everything in the system then be tinted blue?

--- Joe

VOIDPRIME

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 6:52 AM

i think SadGeezer is wrong about everyone carrying laser pistols 500 years in the future for the following reasons:

1: the Serenity is an unarmed cargo hauler.

2: revolvers and projectile weapons don't require power like say laser weapons. a projectile weapon is simple to make powder and bullets if one knows how and has the materials. lasers require power and it may be massive and impratical to have backpacks or a portable energy module that is heavier than the gun itself. projectiles probably are simpler to use in many situations because an EMP pulse fries electronic weapons like laser pistols.

3. Projectile weapons are probably cheaper than laser pistols.

4. Projectile weapons don't require much technology to build.

5. Projectile weapons don't require one to recharge an energy cell when there might be no power to recharge your weapon or can't buy one.

Those are the simple facts. projectile weapons will still be around 500 years in the future and probably mored advanced than now. But look at how it took the projectile weapon to develop. A long time. Have a better one.

Be Seeing You,
David Blackwell

ENTERLINE: http://enterline2.tripod.com/enterline

HOBBES

Tuesday, September 24, 2002 12:28 PM

The blue sun would tint everything blue. The system could, however, be double star system with the second star a yellow one. So we get the wider band of planets/moons able to be terraformed but we also get the yellow tint (at times).

And what about gravity...The moon (I think it's a moon, correct me if I'm wrong) in "The Train Job" seems to have earth gravity.

EDITED to make it semi-coherent and the gravity bit.

-------------------------------------------------
May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May you be in heaven an hour before
The Devil knows you’re dead.

SHUGGIE

Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:
The blue sun would tint everything blue. The system could, however, be double star system with the second star a yellow one. So we get the wider band of planets/moons able to be terraformed but we also get the yellow tint (at times).

And what about gravity...The moon (I think it's a moon, correct me if I'm wrong) in "The Train Job" seems to have earth gravity.

This is from the unaired pilot Serenity -

Select to view spoiler:

In the pilot, Serenity, it is clearly mentioned that there are hundreds of worlds in the same *solar system*.

Also there's a discussion about how some of the worlds are doing badly because (very rough paraphrase) "they do the basic terraforming, install the *artifical gravity* etc, and just drop a bunch of people on their with few supplies. Some are making it, some aren't"

Which speaks to both the gravity issue and the differing levels of technology one.

Shug

SHUGGIE

Thursday, September 26, 2002 8:02 PM

slight correction

Select to view spoiler:

they don't specifically mention *artificial* gravity - they just say that in the terraforming process they tried to make the worlds as similar to earth as possible. They list a number of elements one of which was gravity. Maybe it's a nitpick but that's not the same as artificial gravity - which would be an awesome technology.

That's what happens when I try to rely on my memory.

Shug

ZICSOFT

Thursday, September 26, 2002 9:29 PM

Indeed. They obviously do have artificial gravity, since Serenity always seems to have "up" and "down". But if there must be some practical limit to this tech. If they were able to fiddle with gravity on a planetary scale, they wouldn't bother with terraforming planets -- it'd be a lot easier to just build giant space habitats.

Forgive me for pointing this out: the opposite of artificial gravity is natural hilarity.

About moons: a moon is not necessarily smaller than Earth. A moon is just a non-luminous body that orbits a planet, which in turn is a non-luminous body that orbits a sun. (A luminous body is a sun, no matter what it orbits.) I think all the moons in our solar system are smaller than Earth, though maybe some of Jupiter's bigger moons come close.

Now, there's been talk of terraforming our moon, and Mars, which both have which relatively low gravity. But that'd be pretty hard -- the atmosphere isn't gonna stay put. Also, nobody on Firefly seems to have the kind of health issues you'd get from being raised on a high- or low-gravity world. So apparently all the worlds are roughly the same gravity as earth.

Here's my latest theory. Some time in the late 21st century, somebody discovers a solar system that's generally a lot more massive than ours. Now every sun has a kind of "life zone" -- the region where a planet is far enough away to keep water from boiling away, but not far enough to lock up all the water in ice deposits. There are three such planets in our own solar system, but one (Mars) is too small. Venus is about the right size, and might be terraformed in a century or two.

But why settle for just one new world when you can have hundreds? Because this new system has a bigger "life zone" (bigger sun) and a lot more rocky matter, there are a dozen or so planets that catch just the right amount of heat from the sun.

Better yet, the outer system contains about 20 gas giants. Like the gas giants in our own system (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune), these planets are almost-Suns. That is, they're not big enough to get a solar fusion cycle going. But they do put out some heat, and that's enough extra heat so that each gas giant has a life zone of its own. And each has another half-dozen Earth-sized moons.

None of these planets has an oxygen atmosphere. Which sounds bad -- but is actually a good thing. Free oxygen isn't stable -- it always reacts with something to form an oxide. So you only have free oxygen when you have life forms that turn the oxides back into free oxygen. (Like plants do.) And you don't want to settle a world that's evolved its own life -- it's bound to have evolved differently from Earth life, and even a small difference would create a dangerously toxic environment for your settlers.

So you start from scratch. Your first wave of colonists takes up residence in space habitats. They capture comets and carbonaceous asteroids and bombard the earth-sized planets and moons. This fertilizes the planets with enough water and complex chemicals to get life started. Then they seed the world with microbes and plants to kick-start the ecology. Finally, they sit back and wait for the next wave of colonists, which is timed to coincide with the completion of the teraforming process for the first few planets.

Now this kind of artificial ecology is not going to be very complicated. The complexity of earth's ecology, with its thousands of species of interdependent plants, animals, and microbes, took hundreds of millions of years to evolve. Maybe you can hurry the process a little -- but you can't compress all that evolution into the century or two before the second wave arrives. So you settle for a few basic life forms, just enough to keep the oxygen cycle going long enough for the settlers to introduce new species -- in particular, the crops and livestock on which they subsist.

This primitive, artificial ecology explains the bleak landscape on all the worlds Serenity visits.

JOSS, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

ZICSOFT

Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Heritage:
Personally, I'd like to believe that in the vastness of space, there is intelligent life out there - I just think that a) we'll probably never run into it, and b) if we did, it would be so unlike our concept of 'intelligence' as to be completely incomprehensible.

That's kind of a distinction without a difference. Maybe cockroaches are smarter than we are, but in such an alien way that we'll never appreciate their intelligence. So for our purposes, roaches remain stupid bugs, no matter how smart they are to each other.

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

ZICSOFT

Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:

I note we have available today mass produced rifles and pistols originally designed over the last 300 years, from flintlocks to Semi-auto pistols and rifles.

So now you got me curious: what's the oldest firearm design still in production? For actual use-in-anger or hunting, that is. Not "reproductions" sold only to collectors and re-enactors.

JOSH, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

SHUGGIE

Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:37 PM

Thanks for the explanation Zic.

The 'hundreds of planets' thing kinda bothered me because it seemed like they'd avoided the FTL trap by having just one system only to create a new one.

Shug

ZICSOFT

Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Shuggie:
Thanks for the explanation Zic.

The 'hundreds of planets' thing kinda bothered me because it seemed like they'd avoided the FTL trap by having just one system only to create a new one.

Shug

Well, I had fun writing it. Just remember that this is unauthorized Zicsoft Cosmology and in no way endorsed by Joss Whedon (TM), Mutant Enemy, or Fox Television!

JOSH^HS, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

TINYTIMM

Friday, September 27, 2002 12:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:

I note we have available today mass produced rifles and pistols originally designed over the last 300 years, from flintlocks to Semi-auto pistols and rifles.

So now you got me curious: what's the oldest firearm design still in production? For actual use-in-anger or hunting, that is. Not "reproductions" sold only to collectors and re-enactors.

Most states have hunting seasons for blackpowder rifles. A few even have them for cross bows as well as long bows. This means there are some very modern muzzleloading rifles available to hunters wanting a second season. Or in some cases third. Figure cap lock rifles have been around since 1800 or so.

In cartrige arms the Winchester 73 is still being copied. Wild Western shooting sports sill use pre-civil war ear Colt revolvers and some double barrel muzzle loading shotguns.

The best automatic pistol ever designed for self defense is the M1911 Colt Army Automatic designed by John Browning.

Jeff
Who still keeps a .45 Automatic Colt Pistol handy.

TINYTIMM

Friday, September 27, 2002 12:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:

I note we have available today mass produced rifles and pistols originally designed over the last 300 years, from flintlocks to Semi-auto pistols and rifles.

So now you got me curious: what's the oldest firearm design still in production? For actual use-in-anger or hunting, that is. Not "reproductions" sold only to collectors and re-enactors.

Most states have hunting seasons for blackpowder rifles. A few even have them for cross bows as well as long bows. This means there are some very modern muzzleloading rifles available to hunters wanting a second season. Or in some cases third. Figure cap lock rifles have been around since 1800 or so.

In cartrige arms the Winchester 73 is still being copied. Wild Western shooting sports sill use pre-civil war ear Colt revolvers and some double barrel muzzle loading shotguns.

The best automatic pistol ever designed for self defense is the M1911 Colt Army Automatic designed by John Browning.

Jeff
Who still keeps a .45 Automatic Colt Pistol handy.

TINYTIMM

Friday, September 27, 2002 12:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zicsoft:
Quote:
Originally posted by TinyTimm:

I note we have available today mass produced rifles and pistols originally designed over the last 300 years, from flintlocks to Semi-auto pistols and rifles.

So now you got me curious: what's the oldest firearm design still in production? For actual use-in-anger or hunting, that is. Not "reproductions" sold only to collectors and re-enactors.

Most states have hunting seasons for blackpowder rifles. A few even have them for cross bows as well as long bows. This means there are some very modern muzzleloading rifles available to hunters wanting a second season. Or in some cases third. Figure cap lock rifles have been around since 1800 or so.

In cartrige arms the Winchester 73 is still being copied. Wild Western shooting sports sill use pre-civil war ear Colt revolvers and some double barrel muzzle loading shotguns.

The best automatic pistol ever designed for self defense is the M1911 Colt Army Automatic designed by John Browning.

Jeff
Who still keeps a .45 Automatic Colt Pistol handy.

PTROPE

Saturday, September 28, 2002 7:06 AM

Actually more about the "solar system ..."

Technically, what they have isn't a "solar" system, because that's what we have here with our star, Sol. What they have is a stellar system, and that description also encompasses conglomerations of multiple stars in the same general area.

It's unfortunate that they put the VO on the show, at least as it's worded. It would also be nice if they gave a few more details about the area covered by the Alliance and frontier, and the speeds the society is capable of utilizing. But the evidence of the show just doesn't support the idea that it's a single star with hundreds of planets and moons that could be terraformed and thrive under a single sun. Mal's mention of the Reavers' having gone out to the edge of the galaxy also gives the impression that the Alliance is more than just the space around a single star; he didn't say the Reavers had gone to the rim of the system.

I hope the interpretation of "system" is a broad one, although I don't think the size of the space is going to make a difference with the stories that occur within it. Besides, if all of their ships are confined to speeds well below the speed of light, a single system of hundreds of worlds is effectively as large as a galactic quadrant; it's not the distance, so much as the time it takes to cross it.

On a cellular level, I'm really quite busy ...

THEGN

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 3:53 AM

I read about a two thirds of this thread, and it looks like everyone has great ideas.

Guns in space:
A firearm in space would have only one drawback, that I can see, and that would be the oxygen to combust the propellent. A gun in space would fire a chunk of lead that would continue to move outward in a perfectly straight line without the slightest decrease in speed. (See Newton's first law of motion) This means that anything you hit will be like hitting it at point-blank range. When you consider the physics of it, a projectile weapon could be amazingly destructive in space.

Energy weapons:
However, energy weapons are not particularly difficult to make or that much more complicated. The reasons we don't have them today is more because of politics then technology. Computers aren't needed to make or fire directed energy weapons. Lasers and Particle-Beams were being experimented with before computers were even capable of being used in that respect. I don't think energy weapons will ever replace the firearm, but 500 years in the future, they will probably be present somewhere. However, two very important problems with directed energy weapons are their limited use and their size. Energy weapons might never be small enough to hold in your hands, and they will only be completely effective in space, where atmospheres aren't present to attenuate their intensity.

An alternative to the energy weapon and the firearm:
There is another kind of weapon that is only in it's beginning stages of development today, but might someday become a common weapon especially in space, and that is the magnetic pulse weapon, or "rail-gun," which fires a ferromagnetic projectile using a magnetic pulse. In theory, this is capable of accelerating very massive projectiles to relativistic velocities. 500 years in the future, it will probably be this type of weapon that is the most effective.

But that's just my 2 cents.

WILLIAM08

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 4:15 AM

All responses very well thought out. Let me toss out another idea: most folks don't have advanced energy weapons because the Alliance won't allow such weapons to be traded and possessed on the frontier. It is in the interest of those in power to limit the weaponry accessible to those not in power.

William08

LOONYTOON

Tuesday, October 8, 2002 7:11 PM

As thegn mentioned, I`m willing to bet that gauss rifles will be an effective ship to ship armament.
They probably will not replace firearms.

Sadgeezer, have you ever SEEN what a 12 guage will do to an animal? You would be mighty surprised! With materiels that will probably be invented within 100 years, I could devise shotgun ammo that could kill a human out to 1500 yards. How much more performance do you need? In real world applications, an energy weapon would have little, if any, advantages over a projectile weapon. Shotguns are EXTREMELY versatile, already having loads ranging from the old standby 00 buck load, to little nastys such as AP(armor piercing) loads and flechettes(about a dozen sharp steel darts in a single cartridge), and non-lethal(on a good day) loads like rubber buckshot, and beanbags. Only someone completly unaware of the performance of a modern shotgun would say it will be obsolete within a milinnia.

REXRAYGUN

Wednesday, October 9, 2002 5:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ptrope:
It's unfortunate that they put the VO on the show, at least as it's worded.

I'd imagine the VO going away shortly, much as it did with Buffy. That is, of course, hoping that the show stays on the air, and I sure hope it does.

Rex!

SADGEEZER

Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by loonytoon:
Sadgeezer, have you ever SEEN what a 12 guage will do to an animal? You would be mighty surprised! With materiels that will probably be invented within 100 years, I could devise shotgun ammo that could kill a human out to 1500 yards. How much more performance do you need?

I've never shot an animal with a shotgun, but I've been clay pigeon shooting pleanty of times. I've never said that shotguns aren't districtive, Quite the opposite! Firing a shotgun on a spaceship would be crazy! You've not only kill whatever you would be aiming at, but the ricochet would probably kill you too and damage most of the instruments in the room.

In 500 years I would think that the projectile weapons of today would be obsolete because they used too many resources and required things like gunpowder and metal and worse still, that they would be iniscriminate in what they distroyed.

It's my guess that an energy weapon would be easier to produce, cheaper and could be used in a whole range of ways from demolition to entertainment. But it doesn't have to be laser weapons, they could use all sorts of energy - all of which would be easier to use better in terms of firepower and discrimination.

If I were to face you in a duel with a Star Trek phaser and you had a pump action shotgun, you would loose. You wouldn't be so much damaged as 'gone'.

Again, my point is, if people have the technology to fly around in spaceships as advanced as Firefly they would be able to use weapons which were more effective than shotguns and six-shooters. More importantly, they would have the determination to do so.

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

SADGEEZER

Thursday, October 10, 2002 7:25 PM

Ok, don't take my word for it, read what CNN say about the latest plans for laser weapons on US millitary aricraft.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/09/25/laser.weapon/index.html

Or Janes Defence Weekly.

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw020809_1_n.shtml

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

LOONYTOON

Thursday, October 10, 2002 8:38 PM

#1 question: If I where to face in a dual as you described, why would I automatically lose with the shotgun? At close range, the phaser has no advantage. You still have to hit me, which is just as hard, actually harder, with a phaser. The disintegration thing with phasers is scientifically impossible. If I was hit in the shoulder, and the beam had enough energy to vaporize the rest of my body, it would emit enough heat that it would encinerate the firers hand, at the least.

Collateral damage: Shotguns don`t ricochet as much as you think they do, and energy weapons would be worse, for several reasons. A energy weapon works from the transfer of energy and heat. Energy can be redirected by certain surfaces, such as a mirror. Put a mirror in the hot sun for an hour, and it is not nearly as hot as anything else, as it rediects the energy. Energy follows the path of least resistance. Give it somewhere else to go, and you are fine. Heat is emitted, which in most ideas, is what does the damage. Heat cannot be harnessed %100, there for bleed-off heat will damage anything heat sensetive, and electronics are quite sensitive.
EMP would be produced on the scale of wiping all electronics in the room, so it won`t destroy the instument like a shotgun, but it will wipe all memory, so its pretty damn useless. It would be much easier to shield against projectiles than energy.

In an atmoshere, a energy weapon would give away your position better than a neon sign!

As for resources, you are assuming energy is free. It takes quite a bit of energy to produce power, there is more than just flipping the light switch. Frontier planets would find it much easier to produce gunpowder than electricity.

And in the future, the shotgun would have no realistic range limitations compare to a energy weapon, and can deliver explosive and other exotic payloads.

LOONYTOON

Thursday, October 10, 2002 8:46 PM

Plus you are assuming science will advance at the same rate for 500 years. science advances in bursts, then people will go with very meager improvements for a while. New technology is quickly reaching a plataeu(sp), we will not keep learning new tech every day. Technology can only be advanced so far, befor you get the law of diminishing returns, where it would be faster and more ecomical to use the old tech, than develop new. Say you find a new world that it would take 40 years to get to, than spend 39 years figuring out tech to make the trip one year. You probably have been better off just using the old tech.

THEGN

Thursday, October 10, 2002 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
It's my guess that an energy weapon would be easier to produce, cheaper and could be used in a whole range of ways from demolition to entertainment. But it doesn't have to be laser weapons, they could use all sorts of energy - all of which would be easier to use better in terms of firepower and discrimination.

Well, your guess would be wrong then.

DEW are not easier to produce, and they are definitely not cheaper. Even at extreme power levels they are not as destructive as conventional explosives on warheads. They are not easier to use; they require a tremendous amount of energy to fire, a tremendous amount of energy to cool and computer circuitry to aim. Some of them require some very rare and expensive materials. Even many of the common materials used in them must be refined to extreme levels purity. Things like yttrium barium copper oxide-coated wire to make superconducting high temperature wire or conduction coils and 100+ kV generators just to power the thing. And when you're done firing it, you've got 50% or more of the energy from the blast still onboard, which must be dissapated as exhaust or you blow yourself up just firing it. Klystrons that could easily shatter and render your weapony useless. These kind of weapons use quantum effects that only manifest themselves at extremely tight tolerances. Tolerances that must be maintained during combat situations or your weapons stop functioning. And these are just some of the reasons why DEW are still on the drawing board and firearms have been around for 500 years. It is kind of bordering on ridiculous to claim that DEW are easier and cheaper to produce. History alone suggests that is absolutely not true.

In the absence of dilithium crystals, directed energy weapons will not likely replace firearms. I can't help but think that your only motivation behind this is to mold this show into Star Trek. And I really think that part of the attraction of this show is that it is not Star Trek.

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
If I were to face you in a duel with a Star Trek phaser and you had a pump action shotgun, you would loose. You wouldn't be so much damaged as 'gone'.

Except that a Star Trek phasers operates on some kind of magical technology that has never even been explained, and a shotgun is a real device. I could just as easily rewrite this statement thusly:

"If I were to face you in a duel with Zeus's Magical Lightening Bolt and you had a pump action shotgun, you would loose. You wouldn't be so much damaged as 'gone'. "

and it would continue to make as much sense. So you see in this regard, you are comparing apples to potatoes, magical potatoes even.

EDIT: I think I realize where you were going with this statement now, but I'm going to keep my original response, because it's funny.

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
Again, my point is, if people have the technology to fly around in spaceships as advanced as Firefly they would be able to use weapons which were more effective than shotguns and six-shooters. More importantly, they would have the determination to do so.

Maybe, maybe not. A great deal of that might depend on whether they have that kind of money; and in the end, the trade off is not that great, because firearms are still extremely destructive, and they would be even more destructive in space. Why spend all that extra resources on fancy weapons that have their own disadvantages, when you can get cheap and effective firearms? So I question whether they really would have that determination. You use the tools that are most effective for the least cost. If all your interested in is self-defense or killing someone, then a shotgun will do that as well as some huge DEW for a 100th the cost.

And it really is a very big assumption that DEW will ever be compact enough to hold in your hands. They really are very large devices and they require an enormous energy.

Not that I don't enjoy your idea

SADGEEZER

Thursday, October 10, 2002 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
If I were to face you in a duel with a Star Trek phaser and you had a pump action shotgun, you would loose. You wouldn't be so much damaged as 'gone'.
Except that a Star Trek phasers operates on some kind of magical technology that has never even been explained, and a shotgun is a real device. I could just as easily rewrite this statement thusly:

"If I were to face you in a duel with Zeus's Magical Lightening Bolt and you had a pump action shotgun, you would loose. You wouldn't be so much damaged as 'gone'. "

Ha ha, but not before I had fallen to my knees and prayed for forgiveness oh mighty one.

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
..and it would continue to make as much sense. So you see in this regard, you are comparing apples to potatoes, magical potatoes even.

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
....And it really is a very big assumption that DEW will ever be compact enough to hold in your hands. They really are very large devices and they require an enormous energy.

I honestly dissagree and have been very surprised to find that I'm in the minority (not that that's a bad thing. It was just a bit of a shock). There has been some news recently about how governments such as the US have plans to place laser weapons on millitary aircraft in the near future (i.e. like 5-10 years).

Quote:
Originally posted by Thegn:
Not that I don't enjoy your ideas. I do, as a matter fact, and I also like Star Trek and all their magical technology. But I just don't think you can make a case that science fictions has to always go that route. If old technology works, people continue to use it, especially in situations where money is scarce.

Thanks for that, I was beginning to feel like an antagonistic git! Though I personally don't like Star Trek (except the original) being a big Babylon 5 fan. I find that the tech in Star Trek is over the top and too full of technobabble.

I'm not sure I would agree with your last sentence though, but it's food for thought.

SadGeezers Guide to Firefly
http://www.sadgeezer.com/firefly

THEGN

Thursday, October 10, 2002 11:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
I honestly dissagree and have been very surprised to find that I'm in the minority (not that that's a bad thing. It was just a bit of a shock). There has been some news recently about how governments such as the US have plans to place laser weapons on millitary aircraft in the near future (i.e. like 5-10 years).

Yes, this is true, but one of the problems they are having with them is making them powerful enough, but still small enough to fit on a fighter jet. They still aren't there yet, but I think they have refined it close to the AF standards.

Now think about this. Let's use as an example the F15 Eagle. A fighterjet that would benefit from this technology, plus the F15 is a big plane; 64 ft long, 34 tons, and has a payload of 25000 lbs. That's bigger then almost anything before it. Now think that the developers are having trouble building directed energy weapons small enough to fit on the F15, and you'll understand what I mean when I say these things are big.

They're big and they're expensive. Only countries like the US could aford such a thing. They do have a lot of advantages that make them worth the cost, if you can aford them. But they won't replace firearms today, and I don't think there's any reason at the moment, beyond mere optimism, to assume they will replace them in the future.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Quote:
Originally posted by SadGeezer:
Thanks for that, I was beginning to feel like an antagonistic git! Though I personally don't like Star Trek (except the original) being a big Babylon 5 fan. I find that the tech in Star Trek is over the top and too full of technobabble.

Nah. Nothing wrong with being opinionated.

I actually do like Star Trek. The technology is a little magical, but if you assume a closed system, in which you postulate only Star Trek laws of physics, then it all seems to fall together, usually.

-----------
In the Dark Ages, Romano-Celtic Britannia was over-run by Viking-like cultures collectively called the Anglo-Saxons. They were led by warlords called Drytinns, and the greatest warriors among them were the Thegns.

REXRAYGUN

Sunday, October 20, 2002 5:18 AM

Jaynesville opened up some new info on this thread, at least to me. Stitch's shotgun made a strange whining sound when the pump action was worked. Nothing like a shotgun I've heard, but maybe some of you might have speculations?

Just my dos pesos,

Rex!

WIZARDOFAUS

Sunday, October 20, 2002 6:29 AM

'Scuse me, mates, but could I add something to this debate. This show hasn't aired where I live yet(it may never, shudder) but from what information I've gleaned from around this site it seems they do have energy weps, but they mount them on their spaceships
rather than carry handheld versions of them.

Not that I know that much about this, or anything in particular.

Does this crack you up as much as it cracks me up?

LOONYTOON

Monday, October 21, 2002 12:44 AM

I don`t recall any whining sound, it was just a sawed of winchester model twelve(maybe winchester will start making them again in 500 years?), though the magazine cap looked like a mossberg 500.

REXRAYGUN

Monday, October 21, 2002 3:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by loonytoon:
I don`t recall any whining sound, it was just a sawed of winchester model twelve(maybe winchester will start making them again in 500 years?), though the magazine cap looked like a mossberg 500.

If you have it on tape, listen to it agian. It made the sound the first time, when Stitch was talking to the Magistrate, and I thought it might just be me. Then it made the same sound again when Stitch cocked it again in the crowd. Definitely a whining or whirring sound, like a motor or something.

Just my dos pesos,

Rex!

LOONYTOON

Monday, October 21, 2002 3:59 AM

If you watch the crowd scene again, stitch never chambers another shell before pointing the gun at Mal, then you here the sound of a slide being racked. First production screwup I`ve seen so far.

FORGRAETJUSTICE

Thursday, October 24, 2002 4:20 PM

Those making the argument of guns vs. directed energy weapons might want to research a bit of both.

The major reason for not using directed energy weapons is: why bother?

1) DEWs are silent...well, so are guns with supressors. But a weapon doesn't have to be silent all the time...sometimes you want it to be loud.

2) DEWs are more powerful....totally moot point. Only a certain amount of energy is required to kill someone at a certain range. A personal defense weapon will never contain more energy than that. At present, we have fairly wimpy handgun ammunition (people regurlarly absorb multiple shots before dying). But with only a few improvemend in weapon design, I forsee future handguns delivering rifle-like performance in terms of lethality. There's only so much performance that people can use. We're starting to see this in the computer industry where people are no longer willing to shell out for the difference between 1.7GHZ and 2GHz because the extra power doesn't mean anything in a practical sense.

3) DEWs are cheaper to make or maintain.....I'd hate to burst this bubble, but the electronics/optics industry is constantly running on the edge of frightening economic problems. Silicon chips are NOT cheap to make. Not the way you think they are. A fab line can costs BILLIONS of dollars to maintain and run. YOUR single chip is only cheap because it costs the same to make one chip as it does an entire wafer full of them. But in order to turn a profit, chip companies run fabs constantly, because they cost so much to maintain that any time they aren't running loses a chip company money. This goes for mass-produced optics as well. If, eventually, you turn out more chips that people can use, you're losing money big time. The cost per transistor is lower than ever before, this is true. But the utility per transistor is still the same. A chip fab is a very complex thing requiring immense amounts of chemicals, infrastructure, personnel, etc. Chemically, a gun needs only black powder (at a bare minimum) or nitrocellulose.

What does this all mean? It means that by the time you order all the parts needed for a DEW, and had them imported, I could have some monkeys build an entire barn of AKs. There are 11-year old gunsmiths in Afghanistan who can build you a stout AK (I love my AK!) in a day or two. On a frontier world, not only does one not have access to the IMMENSE technological base of the fab line, but imports and trade can be *rare*. Tell you what. You go out to the middle of the Sahara, get on your sat phone and call up H&K. Tell them you want 100 G-36 rifles in front of you ASAP. Best of luck!

There's also no reason a firearm would be dangerous inside the hull of a thin-skinned ship. Just choose the proper bullet. Maybe something like Glaser or RBCS (maybe in the future, fragmenting ammo will actually be worth a damn).
There's one VERY good reason for using revolvers, pumps and lever actions in Firefly. Brass and magazines. Metal is a precious commodity outside of civilization. On a sparsely populated planet, such things would be hard to come by. In spaceship, or when far from resupply, you don't throw ANYTHING away. That includes mags and brass. Semi-autos, are, shall we say a bit wasteful, especially where magazines are concerned. Sure, they're cheaply produced, but why hurt yourself? This last point is just a theory. I'd love to see other firearm aficionados weigh in on it.

LOONYTOON

Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:19 PM

Very well put! I do have a few disagreements though. I would think an energy weapon would still be loud, as the intense heat and energy it would release would cause an explosive expansion of the surrounding air.
And I doubt we will ever see a portable DEW as powerful as a rifle or scattergun, as the more powerful they get, the more heat they give off.

Rexray, I rewatched the episode, and I do hear the whirring, but he also didn`t rack the slide before pointing the gun at Mal, and the show had already established it was a pump-action. In real life, stitch woulda pointed his empty-chambered weapon at mal, and mal woulda kicked his stupid ass for not knowing how to use his gun, than for thumping on Simon! But it did show the gun ejecting a spent plastic shotshell, so we know it works on the same principles as now.

FORGRAETJUSTICE

Friday, October 25, 2002 5:26 AM

Maybe the gun was used electronically ignited primers! Kind of like the Remington Etronix. If you think about it though, one of the major drawbacks to electrically-ignited firearms is having to keep and maintain a battery.

But....if you kept a batter or capacitor charged through applied kinetic energy from a pump or slide that also worked the weapon's action......

Holy crap! I just invented another patent! Time to wire up my red-dot sight, etc. etc to the gas piston!

LOONYTOON

Friday, October 25, 2002 5:53 PM

Ah, but would anyone buy your patent? I see no reason for a faster lock time on a shotgun, as its improvement in accuracy in a rifle is still miniscule(are benchrest shooters using etron-x?), but I`m the type of guy that still uses a .30-30 and would rather have a garand in combat than an M16!

REXRAYGUN

Saturday, October 26, 2002 9:46 AM

Possible Spoiler but involves our firearm discussion.

Select to view spoiler:

In tonight's episode "Out of Gas," the other crew's weapons make that whining "charging" sound again, which leads me to believe that they may look like regulat firearms, but these are not standard 21st century models.

Just my dos pesos,

Rex!

TINYTIMM

Saturday, October 26, 2002 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RexRaygun:
Quote:
Originally posted by loonytoon:
though the magazine cap looked like a mossberg 500.

If you have it on tape, listen to it agian. Definitely a whining or whirring sound, like a motor or something.

I've run the tape and can't hear the sound. Too many weeks in the Rock Band (they let me play the lights) I guess. It looked like a Mossberg 500 with the old wood "law enforcement" front grip.

Jeff
Who notes male pattern hearing loss is in the range where women scream. Survival mechanism?

TINYTIMM

Saturday, October 26, 2002 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RexRaygun:
Possible Spoiler but involves our firearm discussion.
Select to view spoiler:
In tonight's episode "Out of Gas," the other crew's weapons make that whining "charging" sound again, which leads me to believe that they may look like regulat firearms, but these are not standard 21st century models.

I still hear no whine. The Pirate Captain was carrying a factory long slide Browning P-35 (not currently in production). The gun Mal found on the suit was an old Browning Design from FN. Fired a cartridge called a 9mm Browning Long. It was one of the first hidden hammer semi-autos good for concealment. Sold mostly to Scandanavian militiaries before the 9mm Luger round became the world standard. Nice guns, obsolete ammo.

As to why the pirates backed down, "You'd have done the same to me." The worse enemy to fight is one with nothing to lose. PCP users are notoriously hard to stop because the higher mind functions are gone and they literally feel no pain.

Jeff
Who notes in the FFU (Firefly Universe) it is tough to force entry into a ship.

FORGRAETJUSTICE

Sunday, October 27, 2002 7:29 PM

Ok, true, the increase in accuracy is minimal, but think how much easier it is to use! I think we may underestimate the amount of muscle memory we work on when developing a proper trigger pull. Not only that, but while on shotguns an rifles, the advantage is minimal, havng a negligible pull from an electronic trigger might be helpful for any weapon you plan to use one-handed, and the penchant for using long-arms one handed in Firefly is just....uncanny.

Anyway, you can always charge up all the other electronic doo-hickeys that are so popular these days. (Funny...I'm the type who just sold a bolt-rifle to finance and AR-lower)

TINYTIMM

Sunday, October 27, 2002 11:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ForGraetJustice:
Not only that, but while on shotguns an rifles, the advantage is minimal, havng a negligible pull from an electronic trigger might be helpful for any weapon you plan to use one-handed, and the penchant for using long-arms one handed in Firefly is just....uncanny.

Perhaps it's a requirement for the security, shooter recognition system?

Jeff
Who suspects everyone.

RINGNECK

Monday, October 28, 2002 1:28 AM

Well, I think we might have overlooked a simple answer to why the guns have an old west look to them........ The people buying them want them too. I dont mean the prop department either.

Just because the rebellion is over doesnt mean all guns are forbidden. After the Civil War ended there were allowances for private weapons, we never completley banned the Indians from owning weapons on the reservations, and even in Soviet Russia those who lived in primitive areas were allowed to own certain kinds of guns.

So, if in the Firefly universe if guns arent illegal, maybe the trend in style has caused some companies to produce them with a western flair. Currently Marlin is producing lever action rifles that are modern designs, just with styling touches and features that resemble its offerings from a century ago. Right now, western looking weapons and very hightech style firearms are kind of the trend in the firearms market. The mass-market tastes of civillian buyers tends to drive gun design.

This has been adressed to, but here's my two cents on it, re; why they use projectile weapon technology 500 years in the future..... We arent told much about the weapons they are using, such as what kind of primers and propellants are used, how the ammunition works, ect. In the future they might be using materials like ceramics and plastics that we cant really concieve of now.

An interesting tidbit is that many weapons now are supposed to have a working life of several hundered years if treated well and gently used. So weapons made not to far from now might just end up being used in the far future if they are desperate for guns.

BradLaGrange

FORGRAETJUSTICE

Monday, October 28, 2002 5:16 AM

That's a good point about having guns shaped with a Western flair. They certainly are popular, even today! If the people flying around on the edges of space see themselves as frontiersmen (and they are) there's no reason they wouldn't tend to romanticize their weapons. We're guilty of that today to some extent.

I forsee firearms technology developing in the areas of propellant, terminal ballistics (the ability of a bullet to damage its target) and ergonomics. Of course, guns will always look like guns, since people always look like people. One thing I don't get: Remember Our Mrs. Reynolds, when Jayne says that Vera needs an oxygen atmosphere to fire? That shouldn't be true, right? Guns fire underwater...is there any reason a firearms wouldn't work in a vacuum? MSomething to do with air pressure? It's probably some silly safety feature that's useless.....much like....

Personalized Weapons technology! The "smart gun" is a fad that should probably die before its invented, and I have a good idea why they're not used in Firefly. First of all, their benefit is extremely limited. They're useful in enclosed environs where a limited number of people have weapons, and opponents do not. Prisons, and naval vessels come to mind. Their sole purpose is to prevent someone from using your own weapon against you. If the someones you expect to face have their own weapons, its a moot point. While Serenity is an enclosed environment, the crew isn't an organized, armed force that one would attack solely for the purpose of obtaining a weapon. And, presumably, they don't often carry on board, at least not openly. Just as easy to put a lock on the armory for them. Also, personalized weapons can be an extreme liability from a reliability standpoint. If electronic components are required to activate the weapon for firing, then certain electromagnetic, or purely magnetic jamming techniques could render a weapon useless.

I can see the Alliance using them, just as I can see modern-day corrections officers using them. But I doubt guys and girls like you and me ever will.

That said, does anyone have a digitized copy of Out of Gas they'd let me download? I missed it! :-(

RINGNECK

Monday, October 28, 2002 7:04 PM

Yeah, I mean I'm sure we'll have people wanting western looking guns for hundereds of years in the future. They remake all kinds of archaic weapons now that exist soley for the purpose of their eye-pleasing nature. The Ruger Black Hawk, Single Six and Vaquero six-shooters are big sellers, and for all the world look like old west wheel guns but they are completley differently built with modern internals and modern steel.

Its a moot point to argue why the Alliance uses HK's and SA's. The prop people wanted something that futuristic and military looking at the same time. Since they needed something that could be used to fire blanks, they couldnt just mold some lazer weapon out of plastics.

I kind of wish they did do like the prop department did in the original Planet of the Apes. In that movie they took WWII era M1 carbines and put them in brand new stocks. Really altered the appearence of the gun. Maybe they should have done that with the Alliance weapons.

Also, look at what they did to WWII era Thompson Submachine Guns in Aliens. Took me forever to figure out the identity of those guns.

BradLaGrange

FORGRAETJUSTICE

Monday, October 28, 2002 10:50 PM

I agree. The M41 Pulse rifle is quite possibly the best wacky movie-gun ever created.

DELVO

Monday, October 28, 2002 11:07 PM

Quote:
Remember Our Mrs. Reynolds, when Jayne says that Vera needs an oxygen atmosphere to fire? That shouldn't be true, right? Guns fire underwater...is there any reason a firearms wouldn't work in a vacuum?

He didn't say she needed oxygen, just "air". A sudden drop in temperature and pressure might do nasty things to lubricants and some of the small precision parts like springs.

SENSOU

Wednesday, October 30, 2002 2:28 AM

Here's my theroy: I know nothing about firearms. But I do know the importance of details in a story. Firefly is a western in addition to a sci-fi show. You cannot just say a show is this genre or that one, you have to show it. And how many cowboys have you seen with a phaser?

Sensou
Who is waiting for Jayne to pull out one of those Magnum(?) thingies, the ones that can stop a charging rhino!

MARK

Thursday, November 7, 2002 11:06 PM

I have three main points to mention here... I call them the Superiority point, the 1633 point and the OpSec point...

Superiority - A story by Arthur C Clarke where one army with the most up-to-date weapons imaginable is defeated by a less sophisticated force because its guns never work right and there are problems making them in quantity. This might explain the tendency to hold back the high-technology in Firefly as, if you really go for it with High Tech you might find yourself with a knife in the gut before you've had time to arm your fusion pulse cannon.

1633 is a good book. Read it... This point relates to Logistics. Remember, these people were fighting either an interplanetary or an interstellar war - We need a little clarification on this Joss!!! Anyway... Supplies, like parts for the Zap guns would have to be hauled all the way to the front from high-tech factories on other planets and it's not good to have such a long supply train. Let's say they choose to use guns that use brass cartridges (Or some high-tech subtitute)... That means you can ship bullets to the front line loaded with high tech propellant and high tech slugs, and then the people doing the fighting - if short of supplies - can police up the brass and refill them with simple steel slugs and home-brew black powder which will still work (Albeit less efficiently than the originals) and keep fighting. Whereas it's prettyhard to make a spare plasma containment field's control matrix out of spit and mud.

Then we have OpSec... If one side of a war comes up with a new Zap gun then they tend not to use it until they have decisive quantities... Perhaps while one side was still ramping up, the war was won. You never make a gift of supplies or knowledge to your enemy.

Let's add to all this that there are lots of flaws with weapons like lasers. An aerosol spray can disrupt a laserbeam and make it lose so much energy that it is no longer effective outside of a meter away. If these weapons came into service then both sides would blanket the battlefield with anti-laser vapour so there's no point in having them.

Lasers might be used by alliance troops in vacuum. A laser has no recoil and so is a VERY good choice for that environment. Plus there's no atmospheric attenuation of the beam.

Note, in Bushwhacked, The Alliance cruiser used missiles to destroy the ghost-ship. Lasers would have been more efficient... Just cut the ship into chunks. It's not like the thing would have offered any resistance... No, instead they use Missiles. Which suggests that those ships don't HAVE lasers... Although they do have artificial gravity which suggests the possibility of Grav-Lensed grasers for anti-ship work. But they might be rather energy hungry.

Questions? Comments?

Mark - Glad he can download Firefly rather than waiting for the UK showing

"Oops" Shannon Foraker - Ashes of Victory.

HOBBES

Saturday, November 9, 2002 11:53 PM

From the new weblog:

Quote:
...first glimpse of such technologies as a true laser pistol and a hovercraft.

http://www.fox.com/firefly/weblog.htm
for the whole thing.

Well it looks we're wrong, there are lasers.

By the way I enjoyed your points Mark (Good Arthur C. Clarke story, that and the Nine Billion Names of God are my favorite).

The High Tech point makes sense, like software there is probably a debugging phase that could not be done well in the middle of the war (now that it's over we might see more lasers when running into Alliance).

The 1633 point (another good book too): I see your point but from "Safe" it sounds like they're using energy packs (note the whine before firing in the gunfight scene). Batteries of some kind? The guns might still retain a switchover capicity though.

OpSec makes perfect sense, ties in with debugging the guns.

As for the flaws...again I agree with you. Also with using them in boarding actions/vacumn etc...

-------------------------------------------------
May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May you be in heaven an hour before
The Devil knows you’re dead.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE