[Acceleration] EA Atmospheric Shuttle

[SirNitram]

The question isn't whether an EA shuttle could endure hundreds of Gs, the question is whether the EA has engines that could accelerate a shuttle like that. And I don't think the EA has the engines to do it.

But there's evidence that they do.

Not including gravimetric engines, what is the evidence?

30 Gs for 30 seconds is all well and good but manned spacecraft aren't subjected to that level of G-force.

No *modern* manned spacecraft are subjected to that many g's. You don't know that the same holds true for manned spacecraft in B5.

EA without gravimetric engines don't have anyway to protect the against high Gs. Only Starfuries were designed to help the pilot handle high Gs.

Thank you for that pathetic peice of nonsense technobabble.

[paladin]

EA without gravimetric engines don't have anyway to protect the against high Gs. Only Starfuries were designed to help the pilot handle high Gs.

.........?

Um, when you have something new and *relevant* to say, I'll get back to you...

Does that mean you don't have evidence that can prove EA engines can accelerate an EA spacecraft at hundreds of Gs?

[Connor MacLeod]

Are you sure they have none at all? They do have EM shielding that can weaken energy weapons. They may have something that can weaken acceleration inside the ship to tolerable levels.

Some races have energy-based defenses, but the EA isn't one of them.

I'm pretty sure EA has no inertial dampening tech. At least, none is ever mentioned, and we know they don't have artificial gravity, so it would seem that they don't have inertial dampening tech.

This *might* be a case for them having it in some form, but like I said, the shuttle could've been unmanned.

I'm pretty sure it says somewhere Omegas have Energy Webs or something like that.

ITs not knownw hat E-webs are

[Connor MacLeod]

If the ship made hundreds of gees, it did. Nothing says that EA can't build ships or engines capable of it (it might amke sense for something unmanned - like probes, drones, missiles, etc.)

What this means is that it had to be unmanned to do so. MANNED ships have a limit to 10 gees (or maybe a few tens of gees at most), but an unmanned ship will have no real POTENTIAL limit on its accelerative capability (only what an EA ship can manage.)

[Connor MacLeod]

I am not sure.

Check the synopsis yourself.

http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/comic/006.html

"On the fifth day of searching, the ship's navigational systems and inertial dampers suddenly went offline. Garibaldi managed to crashland the ship, wrecking it, without killing everyone -- but Sanchez' leg was broken, and Foster didn't survive. Sanchez clearly blamed Garibaldi. "

This is on Mars, with Garibaldi and EA people (presumably it involves EA personnel.)

At teh bottom of the page, JMS says teh comics are canonical.

IT seems JMS wants EA to have inertial dampers.

I already suggested that as a possibility. It would still indicate that their engines have that kind of power.

Yes, it would. At least accross teh duration it worked (which would make sense given its a lift-off.)

[Connor MacLeod]

paladin, think for a moment:

we have a continuous scene of the ship making that kind of acceleration. Its impossible to rationalize without Inertial Damping tech - which EA may not have (although it seems canonical now, regardless what we think..)

There is nothing requiring that the EA shuttle be manned though, I think. (Which ep are we talking about and when was this?)

ITs also possible they were very close to the edge of the planet's atmosphere (or slightly in) - the actual "length" of the shot didnt seem to be much higher than a couple hundred km at MOST.. and maybe less than a hundred km.. With the timeframe its possible to get SOMEWHAT reasonable timeframes with this. I would only favor this if it turns out there IS some requirement for the ship to be manned.

If I remember, was this early in the ep, or later. Because I recall a scene showing an EA shuttle going up to the omega, and they were delivering telepaths that way :S

[[BL]Phalanx]

Does that mean you don't have evidence that can prove EA engines can accelerate an EA spacecraft at hundreds of Gs?

*looks at this entire thread*

Yeah, you're right, I haven't got any evidence at all... I'm just pulling these numbers straight out of my ass to make myself look like a dummy.

[Gil Hamilton]

I'm not sure this is very helpful, but I remember what you are talking about and the shot really really looked like a montage shot. A montage shot is when you have a continuous shot that keeps one element static but changes other portions to convey a passage of time. This type of shot is used, for example, with a guy working in a lab. One moment his working at a desk, then it transistions to him working with a centrifuge, then back to him at the desk again. This is all one continuous shot, with only the man and maybe something like a clock moving to indicate a passage of time. In the case of the EA shuttle was the unchanging element and they panned around it while the background was transistioning to a different position in the ships voyage. It was meant to convey a voyage without really showing the voyage in full. Was there any indication that only a small amount of time passed? From what I remember, Garibaldi and gang may well have been sitting on their tails waiting for the shuttle to get there.

[paladin]

I'm not sure this is very helpful, but I remember what you are talking about and the shot really really looked like a montage shot. A montage shot is when you have a continuous shot that keeps one element static but changes other portions to convey a passage of time. This type of shot is used, for example, with a guy working in a lab. One moment his working at a desk, then it transistions to him working with a centrifuge, then back to him at the desk again. This is all one continuous shot, with only the man and maybe something like a clock moving to indicate a passage of time. In the case of the EA shuttle was the unchanging element and they panned around it while the background was transistioning to a different position in the ships voyage. It was meant to convey a voyage without really showing the voyage in full. Was there any indication that only a small amount of time passed? From what I remember, Garibaldi and gang may well have been sitting on their tails waiting for the shuttle to get there.

That was a point I was trying to make earlier but thank you for explaining it better then I did.

[[BL]Phalanx]

I'm not sure this is very helpful, but I remember what you are talking about and the shot really really looked like a montage shot. A montage shot is when you have a continuous shot that keeps one element static but changes other portions to convey a passage of time. This type of shot is used, for example, with a guy working in a lab. One moment his working at a desk, then it transistions to him working with a centrifuge, then back to him at the desk again. This is all one continuous shot, with only the man and maybe something like a clock moving to indicate a passage of time. In the case of the EA shuttle was the unchanging element and they panned around it while the background was transistioning to a different position in the ships voyage. It was meant to convey a voyage without really showing the voyage in full. Was there any indication that only a small amount of time passed? From what I remember, Garibaldi and gang may well have been sitting on their tails waiting for the shuttle to get there.

Nope, that's not how it was. Garibaldi wasn't waiting for the shuttle to get there. The Clark-loyal forces were waiting for it. Garibaldi was headed for the bunkers, which were at least several hundred meters away and he had to get there undetected. We actually see the shuttle lift off the run way, and the camera follows it up, with the camera angle and position shifting to keep the shuttle in view. There were no static elements, as we get to see the shuttle from several angles, and the shuttle itself is maneuvering.

[[BL]Phalanx]

I get a scene but it has cuts in it, and you say it could have had time cut out of it. I get a scene that's one continuous shot and you say it could've been time lapsed.

What's next? What do you want from me? Do I need a certificate from the Great Maker?

[neoolong]

I get a scene but it has cuts in it, and you say it could have had time cut out of it. I get a scene that's one continuous shot and you say it could've been time lapsed.

What's next? What do you want from me? Do I need a certificate from the Great Maker?

It's the great art of film making. A scene could be put together many different ways to incorporate time in different. Which is why the way it is shot is important. And why its important to know.

[[BL]Phalanx]

It's the great art of film making. A scene could be put together many different ways to incorporate time in different. Which is why the way it is shot is important. And why its important to know.

Watch it yourself then. I already described it and it hasn't satisfied you guys.

Hell, though, when's the last time you heard of something like this being shot in fast-forward time-lapse? We've seen slow-motion done before, but generally when they want to accelerate something they simply do cuts within the scene.

Why can't I claim the opposite? How do you know it wasn't slow-motion?

[[BL]Phalanx]

Check the synopsis yourself.

http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/comic/006.html

"On the fifth day of searching, the ship's navigational systems and inertial dampers suddenly went offline. Garibaldi managed to crashland the ship, wrecking it, without killing everyone -- but Sanchez' leg was broken, and Foster didn't survive. Sanchez clearly blamed Garibaldi. "

This is on Mars, with Garibaldi and EA people (presumably it involves EA personnel.)

At teh bottom of the page, JMS says teh comics are canonical.

IT seems JMS wants EA to have inertial dampers.

That's odd then, but there you have it. Makes you wonder why they didn't have artificial gravity but they had inertial dampers. Could be any number of reasons, I guess. Maybe their inertial dampers weren't so much an artificial gravity field as a "force" field generator and it took alot of power to use, so it wasn't feasible for long-term use for artificial gravity, but only for when they accelerate.

Yes, it would. At least accross teh duration it worked (which would make sense given its a lift-off.)

Okay. You think this establishes a lower-limit for Starfury acceleration also? Logically Starfuries should be faster.

[Gil Hamilton]

Nope, that's not how it was. Garibaldi wasn't waiting for the shuttle to get there. The Clark-loyal forces were waiting for it. Garibaldi was headed for the bunkers, which were at least several hundred meters away and he had to get there undetected. We actually see the shuttle lift off the run way, and the camera follows it up, with the camera angle and position shifting to keep the shuttle in view. There were no static elements, as we get to see the shuttle from several angles, and the shuttle itself is maneuvering.

The Shuttle is the static element in the scene, like I said, with the camera panning around it. It's funny how you say there is no static elements in the scene then describe how the shuttle was the static element.
Like I said, the shot looked very very much like a montage shot. I've yet to see you explain why the shot had to be in real time.

[[BL]Phalanx]

The Shuttle is the static element in the scene, like I said, with the camera panning around it. It's funny how you say there is no static elements in the scene then describe how the shuttle was the static element.
Like I said, the shot looked very very much like a montage shot. I've yet to see you explain why the shot had to be in real time.

What do you mean by "static"?

The shot doesn't even begin with the shuttle, it begins by showing Garibaldi's team walking across the surface, and the pace of their walking is normal speed. Unless you can show that the shot was sped-up in *mid-shot*, then there's no reason to believe it was.

Besides, Connor posted evidence that EA has inertial dampening. Even if they didn't, the shuttle could've been unmanned. Either way, the scene as we saw it is very much "feasible"... it doesn't violate any physics as far as I know.

[Ted C]

In the episode "End Game", we see an EA atmospheric shuttle take off from the surface of Mars and go into orbit to dock with one of the Omega-class destroyers to offload its supplies. It is a single continuous shot with no cuts.

The shuttle reached the Omega from the surface in 25 seconds. Assuming a distance travelled of 400 kilometers to get into orbit, we're looking at an acceleration of 1280 meters/sec^2. This is 130 g's.

IMO, this number is stupid, but there you go.

If you conclude that an EarthForce shuttle with no technology for countering inertia made that climb in the time you said, you do get a stupid answer, since the pilot and everyone else on board would be squashed into jelly by the acceleration.

As I recall, there's actually a transition as the shuttle passes through the clouds, so you can't actually consider that an unbroken sequence.

[[BL]Phalanx]

If you conclude that an EarthForce shuttle with no technology for countering inertia made that climb in the time you said, you do get a stupid answer, since the pilot and everyone else on board would be squashed into jelly by the acceleration.

I just found out they do have technology for countering inertia. Connor posted evidence for it. The number isn't so stupid anymore.

As I recall, there's actually a transition as the shuttle passes through the clouds, so you can't actually consider that an unbroken sequence.

The shuttle is visible throughout.

Boy you guys are a tough crowd to please.

[SirNitram]

If a theory contradicts other canon evidence, we tend to not consider the theory viable.

[Connor MacLeod]

I just found out they do have technology for countering inertia. Connor posted evidence for it. The number isn't so stupid anymore.

Except that its also been siad from JMS (by particular interpretations) that humans can without present technology (and nuclear capability, I believe) wipe out the entire Earth, or even the united states. And that the Shadows have effectively infinite energy output in their beam weapons.

The problem with this is, that to my memory, EA doesnt have knowledge of gravity control until Season 5 or so, and not a decent working knowledge of it until ACTA/Crusade (recall the problems with the Excalibur.)

So that creates a problem of HOW this inertial damping effect is created - which may result in other limitations. (And also why this "Effect" cannot be used to generate some sort of "pseudo-gravity" enviroment, requiring EA to use rotating sections to simulate gravity.)

[[BL]Phalanx]

Except that its also been siad from JMS (by particular interpretations) that humans can without present technology (and nuclear capability, I believe) wipe out the entire Earth, or even the united states. And that the Shadows have effectively infinite energy output in their beam weapons.

What does that have to do with the comic you referenced?

The problem with this is, that to my memory, EA doesnt have knowledge of gravity control until Season 5 or so, and not a decent working knowledge of it until ACTA/Crusade (recall the problems with the Excalibur.)

It may not involve gravity control. It may be akin to magnetic fields, but in this case it interacts with all matter. I believe I read somewhere that we're working on something like that today, but it's not artificial gravity. Gravity will accelerate an object at more or less the same rate no matter its mass (unless you're talking about two planets or something...), whereas the field generates a fixed amount of force, and the more something masses, the greater the energy you'll have to expend on it.

So that creates a problem of HOW this inertial damping effect is created - which may result in other limitations. (And also why this "Effect" cannot be used to generate some sort of "pseudo-gravity" enviroment, requiring EA to use rotating sections to simulate gravity.)

It may be a matter of efficiency and power draw of the inertial dampening. Think of ancient ships, where the technology to manually propel a ship was there, but they'd still use sails to propel the ship.

[[BL]Phalanx]

If a theory contradicts other canon evidence, we tend to not consider the theory viable.

I agree. But with evidence that EA had inertial dampening tech at the time and the scene of the shuttle itself, there ain't much of a contradiction anymore.

[Gil Hamilton]

What do you mean by "static"?

Static; an unchanging, centrally displayed element within a shot or scene.

The shot doesn't even begin with the shuttle, it begins by showing Garibaldi's team walking across the surface, and the pace of their walking is normal speed. Unless you can show that the shot was sped-up in *mid-shot*, then there's no reason to believe it was.

Besides, Connor posted evidence that EA has inertial dampening. Even if they didn't, the shuttle could've been unmanned. Either way, the scene as we saw it is very much "feasible"... it doesn't violate any physics as far as I know.

I never said it was sped up, I said it was a montage shot. A montage shot is not merely a sped up shot, but makes use of transitions within a continuous shot to convey a passage of time. In this case, the shot started with the shuttle on the ground taking off, followed it to the the clouds, with the camera panning around it. As it broke the cloud line, the camera is pointed at the shuttle the whole time, and as it's pointed away from Mars, it transitioned to the shuttle near the Omegas with Mars in the distance. This is just to convey the passage of the shuttle without actually showing the entire journey. Appearently, their filmmaking skill was good enough that we are having this discussion.

[[BL]Phalanx]

Static; an unchanging, centrally displayed element within a shot or scene.

Well the shuttle was changing attitude and orientation during its flight. The thrusters varied too.

I never said it was sped up, I said it was a montage shot. A montage shot is not merely a sped up shot, but makes use of transitions within a continuous shot to convey a passage of time. In this case, the shot started with the shuttle on the ground taking off, followed it to the the clouds, with the camera panning around it. As it broke the cloud line, the camera is pointed at the shuttle the whole time, and as it's pointed away from Mars, it transitioned to the shuttle near the Omegas with Mars in the distance. This is just to convey the passage of the shuttle without actually showing the entire journey. Appearently, their filmmaking skill was good enough that we are having this discussion.

LOL. Well you know what? If the shuttle *hadn't* been constantly in frame (thus meaning it isn't "static" and isn't centrally displayed), someone could claim that in the moments we *couldn't* see the shuttle, time may have passed without us knowing (same with scene cuts).

Really, if *this* evidence ain't good enough, nothing will be...

*is exasperated*

[paladin]

This is for the minimum height of a low-orbit around Mars:

The Mars Odyssey's initial, elliptical orbit around the Red Planet will last 19 hours before it is adjusted by a series of delicate breaking maneuvers, called aerobreaking, until it skims over the planet's thin atmosphere.

In the end, the space probe will settle into a circular, two-hour orbit at an altitude of some 400 kilometers (250
miles) above the Martian surface.

In the episode "End Game", we see an EA atmospheric shuttle take off from the surface of Mars and go into orbit to dock with one of the Omega-class destroyers to offload its supplies. It is a single continuous shot with no cuts.

The shuttle reached the Omega from the surface in 25 seconds. Assuming a distance travelled of 400 kilometers to get into orbit, we're looking at an acceleration of 1280 meters/sec^2. This is 130 g's.

IMO, this number is stupid, but there you go.

using your numbers the shuttle at the end of the shot has a velocity of
115,200 km/hr.

final velocity = acceleration * time

final velocity = 1280 m/s^2 * 25 sec
final velocity = 32,000 m/s or 32 km/s or 115,200 km/hr

seems alittle fast if the shuttle needs to dock with an orbiting Omega, wouldn't you agree?

So, maybe the shot was suppose to be longer than 25 seconds.