Problems with B5

[Defiant]

First, let me state that I am a B5 fan. I think the writing is superior to most other sci-fi series (especially new-school Trek). Agree or disagree, that's my opinion.

That being said, there are points brought up in the series that I have problems with. I'd like to see what others have noticed, so I'll get the ball rolling with what I've seen:

1. Why in the f*ck would EarthGov put its main transfer point for the Sol system at Io? Io is the closest Galilean moon to Jupiter, and I know the space in the area is hit with everything from Jupiter's magnetic field to ejected material from Io. I would think that Mars would be a better choice, or how about having it at Luna in the first place.

2. If they wanted to have a place of diplomacy, why build a huge space station? Why not try to find a planet in neutral space that can be at least partially terraformed? The engineering feat of building a rotating space station 5 miles long (canon measurement, not one I share) would be incredible, even in the 23rd century.

3. B5 at least makes a passing attempt at realism when it comes to space combat. But why don't they ever encounter fuel problems? You see the White Star fleet flying all over the place, but you never hear of or even see a glimpse of tankers, fuel convoys, etc.

4. How feasible is it to have a ship with an independent rotating section? I think the Omega-class destroyers look cool, but somehow it seems wrong. I have a BS in Computer science, and only passing knowledge of engineering, so maybe I'm offbase with this one.

This is just a brief list of what I've always wondered about. Anyone got any others? Bring them on!

[Ender]

4. How feasible is it to have a ship with an independent rotating section? I think the Omega-class destroyers look cool, but somehow it seems wrong. I have a BS in Computer science, and only passing knowledge of engineering, so maybe I'm offbase with this one.

Aside from the massive engineering headache, there are still a few problems. One being a very nasty coreolis effect in the center. And then there is manuverability. Tell me, have you ever tried to push a gyroscope?

[Patrick Degan]

Aside from the massive engineering headache, there are still a few problems. One being a very nasty coreolis effect in the center. And then there is manuverability. Tell me, have you ever tried to push a gyroscope?

You can avoid the Coriolis Effect by rotating the habitation module at less than a full-g. One-third g would be sufficent to allow the crew to experience comfortable gravity to prevent their muscles deterioriating from prolonged zero-g while also protecting them from the buildup of a "water-hammer" in their own skulls (BTW, the Coriolis Effect is felt at the edge of radius, not the core, which is close to or at zero-g).

That factor is why you would have to have rotational sections on any spacecraft in which your crew will be out in space for extended periods of time, absent the invention of artificial gravity, that is.

My problem with the Omega-class design is in the rotational section. Not only does it magnify the problem of pushing against a gyroscope with two large masses continually swinging around the long axis at an extended distance from the centre of mass, it also presents a larger target profile —a cardinal error for a warship design. Mojo Leibowitz patterned the Omegas off the Leonov spacecraft from the movie 2010 because it "looked cool". But the cyllindrical rotational sections mounted on the exploration ship Cortez from the second season episode "A Distant Star" makes far more sense; simpler to build, requires less material, provides the same internal area uniformly, facilitates easy movement throughout the habitation module, and makes for a much smaller target profile overall. It also doesn't interfere with firing arcs close to the rotational section itself.

[paladin]

First, let me state that I am a B5 fan. I think the writing is superior to most other sci-fi series (especially new-school Trek). Agree or disagree, that's my opinion.

That being said, there are points brought up in the series that I have problems with. I'd like to see what others have noticed, so I'll get the ball rolling with what I've seen:

1. Why in the f*ck would EarthGov put its main transfer point for the Sol system at Io? Io is the closest Galilean moon to Jupiter, and I know the space in the area is hit with everything from Jupiter's magnetic field to ejected material from Io. I would think that Mars would be a better choice, or how about having it at Luna in the first place.

2. If they wanted to have a place of diplomacy, why build a huge space station? Why not try to find a planet in neutral space that can be at least partially terraformed? The engineering feat of building a rotating space station 5 miles long (canon measurement, not one I share) would be incredible, even in the 23rd century.

3. B5 at least makes a passing attempt at realism when it comes to space combat. But why don't they ever encounter fuel problems? You see the White Star fleet flying all over the place, but you never hear of or even see a glimpse of tankers, fuel convoys, etc.

4. How feasible is it to have a ship with an independent rotating section? I think the Omega-class destroyers look cool, but somehow it seems wrong. I have a BS in Computer science, and only passing knowledge of engineering, so maybe I'm offbase with this one.

This is just a brief list of what I've always wondered about. Anyone got any others? Bring them on!

dkdkdkd

1. According to background info I read on B5, the jump gate was placed at Jupiter to protect against invasion. It was thought that an invading fleet travelling from Jupiter would give Earth defenses time to prepare. Also, an invading fleet would be vulnerable if it used jump engines to get in closer. The fleet would need to time recharge their jump engines and power up weapons.

2. B5 was also suppose to be a "trading post" also. However, having the diplomatic functions on a ground station with a small orbiting station would be more practical.

3. I don't know about the other ships but Whitestars were suppose to use grav drives. The grav drive wouldn't require much fuel.

[Enlightenment]

1. Why in the f*ck would EarthGov put its main transfer point for the Sol system at Io? Io is the closest Galilean moon to Jupiter, and I know the space in the area is hit with everything from Jupiter's magnetic field to ejected material from Io. I would think that Mars would be a better choice, or how about having it at Luna in the first place.

No rational explanation above and beyond JMS not having a clue about the jovian radiation belts.

2. If they wanted to have a place of diplomacy, why build a huge space station? Why not try to find a planet in neutral space that can be at least partially terraformed? The engineering feat of building a rotating space station 5 miles long (canon measurement, not one I share) would be incredible, even in the 23rd century.

Politically the Babylon project makes no sense. The closest real life analogy would be the creation of the League of Nations and the UN, neither of which were built out in the middle of the ocean on 'neutral' territory. JMS has no clue about politics, either.

Technically, however, the station itself one of the more plausible feats of engineering in the series. Real-life paper designs exist for stations that make B5 look like a tin can. For instance, Gerrard O'Niel's Island Three weighs in at 7km in diameter and 30km in length.

What is insane about B5's design, however, is the design life. For the kind of investment necessary to build the thing it should have been designed to last at least a hundred years rather than just 25 years.

3. B5 at least makes a passing attempt at realism when it comes to space combat. But why don't they ever encounter fuel problems? You see the White Star fleet flying all over the place, but you never hear of or even see a glimpse of tankers, fuel convoys, etc.

Unfortunately ignoring logistics is par for the course in damn near all popular SF. B5 was really no exception.

4. How feasible is it to have a ship with an independent rotating section? I think the Omega-class destroyers look cool, but somehow it seems wrong.

There's nothing wrong with independent rotating sections per say, but the Omega design is little more than an example of how not to integrate a rotating section into a space warship. The rotating section is far too small and woefully underprotected. One goot hit in the bearings and the ship would tear itself apart. Given the geometry of the rotating section's hub, the fixed beam connecting the fore and aft sections could not be large enough to support the loads imparted during rapid turns. A real-life Omega would snap itself in two just in the act of turning.

I probably don't need to say why the rotating section should have been despun during combat...

[Darth Wong]

The shape of the rotating section is the biggest joke. Never mind the tactical concerns; let's look at what kind of moronically incompetent engineer would have chosen that shape. By making it rectangular (and having it rotate about the wrong axis!), it has a much larger moment of rotational inertia than it would have if it were cylindrical, rotating about its lengthwise axis.

Let's take a rectangular piece which is (for example) 400 metres long and 150 metres square. Its rotational moment of inertia I (rotating about an axis drawn perpendicular to its length, as in the show) would be M(a^2+b^2)/12 where a is length and b is width, so it would be I=15208M.

Now, let's take the rotational moment of inertia I for a rotating cylinder of roughly similar cross-section area (roughly 275m diameter) rotating about an axis drawn through its length. Rotational moment of inertia I for a thick-walled cylinder is 0.5M(R1^2+R2^2). Assume R2 is zero, ie- it's a solid cylinder, which is an easy way to approximate constant density. This gives us I=9453M. Note that the length would be the same.

In other words, if they made it a cylindrical rotating section instead of an elongated rectangular section, they could keep the same internal volume but they would cut the rotational moment of inertia by nearly 40%, not to mention reducing the head-on target profile from 400m wide to 275m wide (you B5 guys can plug in proper scaling figures for one of those ships at your leisure).

[Enlightenment]

One-third g would be sufficent to allow the crew to experience comfortable gravity to prevent their muscles deterioriating from prolonged zero-g

AFIAK there is no data on the long term health effects of low gravity. It is not known if 1/3rd g is sufficient to avoid the health affects associated with zero g.

Also, an invading fleet would be vulnerable if it used jump engines to get in closer. The fleet would need to time recharge their jump engines and power up weapons.

Laughable given that an entire wing of ships can ride in on a jump point opened by one ship. While that one ship is recharging its jump engines the others in the wing would have fully charged weapons at the ready.

2. B5 was also suppose to be a "trading post" also. However, having the diplomatic functions on a ground station with a small orbiting station would be more practical.

All things considered the diplomatic functions could have been better handled using the already-existing international/interstellar comm network.

3. I don't know about the other ships but Whitestars were suppose to use grav drives. The grav drive wouldn't require much fuel.

Even reactionless drives are bound by ke=0.5mv^2. While a reactionless drives by definition don't require any reaction mass, the energy required to impart a given delta-v is the same as with a traditional reaction drive. Getting 250,000 tonnes (a fair estimate for the mass of a White Star) up to one percent of the speed of light would require on the order of a ton of antimatter, for instance.

[Darth Wong]

Laughable given that an entire wing of ships can ride in on a jump point opened by one ship. While that one ship is recharging its jump engines the others in the wing would have fully charged weapons at the ready.

Even more laughable given "In the Beginning", when Minbari Sharlins each formed their own jump point into the solar system and were fully combat-capable the instant they came out.

[Stormbringer]

Even more laughable given "In the Beginning", when Minbari Sharlins each formed their own jump point into the solar system and were fully combat-capable the instant they came out.

Well, the gate was put there at the time Eath first got jump technology. They never realized ho many jump capable warships most major powers had. They thought all jump technology was bulky and expnsive lik theres. And eventually it just became the way it is.

2. If they wanted to have a place of diplomacy, why build a huge space station? Why not try to find a planet in neutral space that can be at least partially terraformed? The engineering feat of building a rotating space station 5 miles long (canon measurement, not one I share) would be incredible, even in the 23rd century.

Because any habitable planet is snapped up rather quicky. Yes there are a fair number of them but all those closes enough are somebodies already. And I'd imagine anythigeasily terraformed is likewise claimed. Even partial terraforming is a long process and very very expensive. EarthGov has been terraforming Mars for century or so and it's still no even close to habitable. It just isnt possible to find a suitable world.

[Patrick Degan]

AFIAK there is no data on the long term health effects of low gravity.

Not counting twenty five years of operational experience with men inhabiting space stations for increasing durations, of course...

It is not known if 1/3rd g is sufficient to avoid the health effects associated with zero g.

The effects of prolonged exposure to zero-g conditions, by contrast, are well known. Gravity, even if not at full Earth-normal levels, alleviates many of the muscle and bone loss effects attendant upon the total lack of gravity in the environment, or at the very least slows the degeneration to managable levels where drugs and regular physical exercise can keep the body reasonably healthy and intact through a long mission.

[Nephilim]

1. Why in the f*ck would EarthGov put its main transfer point for the Sol system at Io? Io is the closest Galilean moon to Jupiter, and I know the space in the area is hit with everything from Jupiter's magnetic field to ejected material from Io. I would think that Mars would be a better choice, or how about having it at Luna in the first place.

It was placed there to guard against invasion. Hyperspace is a dimension very close to our own, and therefore objects that are in realspace create mass shadows in hyperspace. Due to the gravity of Jupiter, this would be one of two locations that a race without the exact location of Sol would find the system. The objects they would either find would be Sol (in which they would jump directly into the sun) or Jupiter. By placing the jumpgate there, and basing parts of EarthForce there, there is a chance that an invasion will be stopped well ahead the enemy will even know the location of Earth itself.

2. If they wanted to have a place of diplomacy, why build a huge space station? Why not try to find a planet in neutral space that can be at least partially terraformed? The engineering feat of building a rotating space station 5 miles long (canon measurement, not one I share) would be incredible, even in the 23rd century.

B5 was also designed to be a trading station, evidence of this is all of the trading ships that you see around the station all the time.

3. B5 at least makes a passing attempt at realism when it comes to space combat. But why don't they ever encounter fuel problems? You see the White Star fleet flying all over the place, but you never hear of or even see a glimpse of tankers, fuel convoys, etc.

We don't know the operational range of B5 ships, it could be hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of light years. Since hyperspace travel is pretty fast, a ship such as the Whitestar capable of traversing the galaxy in a few weeks. They probably didn't need to be resupplied, and when they returned to their home port to be repaired ect (such as what happens with the Whitestar fleet) they get the supplies they need.

Mind you, they have shown tankers, tugs, and other ships. If there was a full scale war going on, this would be the case. But for a war such as the EA Civil War (since Earth is only about 10 light years away from B5) these ships were not needed since the range from B5 is very small.


I don't know much into the physics of a rotating section, so i'm not even going to go there

[CJvR]

2. If they wanted to have a place of diplomacy, why build a huge space station? Why not try to find a planet in neutral space that can be at least partially terraformed? The engineering feat of building a rotating space station 5 miles long (canon measurement, not one I share) would be incredible, even in the 23rd century.

The simple answer IMO would be political prestige. The EA had just been whipped like a dog by the Minbari and although officialy it had won everyone knew the real story. B5 was probably as much to restore EA prestige among the League worlds, Centauri & Narn as it was about improving diplomatic relations. B5 is much more impressive than a planetary base would have been even if a planet had been available.

[Patrick Degan]

The shape of the rotating section is the biggest joke. Never mind the tactical concerns; let's look at what kind of moronically incompetent engineer would have chosen that shape. By making it rectangular (and having it rotate about the wrong axis!), it has a much larger moment of rotational inertia than it would have if it were cylindrical, rotating about its lengthwise axis.

<snip>

In other words, if they made it a cylindrical rotating section instead of an elongated rectangular section, they could keep the same internal volume but they would cut the rotational moment of inertia by nearly 40%, not to mention reducing the head-on target profile from 400m wide to 275m wide (you B5 guys can plug in proper scaling figures for one of those ships at your leisure).

Well, Darth, looks like we were on the same wavelength here.

My problem with the Omega-class design is in the rotational section. Not only does it magnify the problem of pushing against a gyroscope with two large masses continually swinging around the long axis at an extended distance from the centre of mass, it also presents a larger target profile —a cardinal error for a warship design. Mojo Leibowitz patterned the Omegas off the Leonov spacecraft from the movie 2010 because it "looked cool". But the cyllindrical rotational sections mounted on the exploration ship Cortez from the second season episode "A Distant Star" makes far more sense; simpler to build, requires less material, provides the same internal area uniformly, facilitates easy movement throughout the habitation module, and makes for a much smaller target profile overall. It also doesn't interfere with firing arcs close to the rotational section itself.

BTW, several years ago, I had been at a SF convention down where I live where Mojo Leibowitz was one of the guests (when Foundation Imaging was still working on B5). The "looks cool" explanation was more or less his answer when I put the question to him about why the EarthForce destroyers were patterened off the ship in 2010.

[Patrick Degan]

The shape of the rotating section is the biggest joke. Never mind the tactical concerns; let's look at what kind of moronically incompetent engineer would have chosen that shape. By making it rectangular (and having it rotate about the wrong axis!), it has a much larger moment of rotational inertia than it would have if it were cylindrical, rotating about its lengthwise axis.

<snip>

In other words, if they made it a cylindrical rotating section instead of an elongated rectangular section, they could keep the same internal volume but they would cut the rotational moment of inertia by nearly 40%, not to mention reducing the head-on target profile from 400m wide to 275m wide (you B5 guys can plug in proper scaling figures for one of those ships at your leisure).

Well, Darth, looks like we were on the same wavelength here.

My problem with the Omega-class design is in the rotational section. Not only does it magnify the problem of pushing against a gyroscope with two large masses continually swinging around the long axis at an extended distance from the centre of mass, it also presents a larger target profile —a cardinal error for a warship design. Mojo Leibowitz patterned the Omegas off the Leonov spacecraft from the movie 2010 because it "looked cool". But the cyllindrical rotational sections mounted on the exploration ship Cortez from the second season episode "A Distant Star" make far more sense; simpler to build, requires less material, provides the same internal area uniformly, facilitates easy movement throughout the habitation module, and makes for a much smaller target profile overall. It also doesn't interfere with firing arcs close to the rotational section itself.

BTW, several years ago, I had been at a SF convention down where I live where Mojo Leibowitz was one of the guests (when Foundation Imaging was still working on B5). The "looks cool" explanation was more or less his answer when I put the question to him about why the EarthForce destroyers were patterened off the ship in 2010.

[Patrick Degan]

I was hitting some posting problems and the whole board seemed to vanish on me at one point.

[Crown]

1. Why in the f*ck would EarthGov put its main transfer point for the Sol system at Io? Io is the closest Galilean moon to Jupiter, and I know the space in the area is hit with everything from Jupiter's magnetic field to ejected material from Io. I would think that Mars would be a better choice, or how about having it at Luna in the first place.

Never thought of that either...hmmm.

2. If they wanted to have a place of diplomacy, why build a huge space station? Why not try to find a planet in neutral space that can be at least partially terraformed? The engineering feat of building a rotating space station 5 miles long (canon measurement, not one I share) would be incredible, even in the 23rd century.

Well a planet is a little more valuable than a space station and I would think that it wasn't considered practical. Also remember that B4 had engines and could be moved, wheter the others did as well we don't know, certainly B5 didn't so I am not really sure.

3. B5 at least makes a passing attempt at realism when it comes to space combat. But why don't they ever encounter fuel problems? You see the White Star fleet flying all over the place, but you never hear of or even see a glimpse of tankers, fuel convoys, etc.

We do see an explorer class space ship in season 2 re-supplying on B5, IIRC. Also when they broke away from Earth, Sheriden and co were always complaining about thier lack of spare parts and fuel for thier fighters, so I think that is covered enough.

4. How feasible is it to have a ship with an independent rotating section? I think the Omega-class destroyers look cool, but somehow it seems wrong. I have a BS in Computer science, and only passing knowledge of engineering, so maybe I'm offbase with this one.

I agree it was a stupid thing to do, Darth Wong pretty much crystalised what other people had been saying aswell.

AFIAK there is no data on the long term health effects of low gravity. It is not known if 1/3rd g is sufficient to avoid the health affects associated with zero g.

You are partially correct, we really don't know what kind of health effects will be caused by 1/3*g, however from the reports tabulated by NASA and RSA, we do know that in LEO (Low Earth Orbit) humans loose 5% of their bone "integrity" per (3 or 6)months. However should they be excercising this figure is reduced. So 1/3*g with excercise = better than 0g and no excersise. Trust me on this, our space design project this year is a mission to Mars and this is a major consideration for the type of mission we design.

This is just a brief list of what I've always wondered about. Anyone got any others? Bring them on!

My one major pet hate is how the Centauri were such pussies. I mean go on a rampage and concur all the shitty races, but one bloody station and primus goes boom!

And related to this is a JMS quote, when someone asks him wheter all the races advance to fist one status like the human in the episode where Sol goes nova, he said that the Centauri and the Narns do not. Now at first I thought that they had finally killed each other, howeve he goes on to say that they aren't dead. So my question is why the fuck do the Centauri not advance?! I mean is it because they were touched by the Shadows? Bid deal the Shadows were first ones too!!!

Anyway if anyone could answer that for me, please go ahead.

[Enlightenment]

AFIAK there is no data on the long term health effects of low gravity.

Not counting twenty five years of operational experience with men inhabiting space stations for increasing durations, of course...

Space stations in zero gravity. Zero gravity is not low gravity.

It is not known if 1/3rd g is sufficient to avoid the health effects associated with zero g.

The effects of prolonged exposure to zero-g conditions, by contrast, are well known. Gravity, even if not at full Earth-normal levels, alleviates many of the muscle and bone loss effects attendant upon the total lack of gravity in the environment, or at the very least slows the degeneration to managable levels where drugs and regular physical exercise can keep the body reasonably healthy and intact through a long mission.[/quote]

Cite, please. To the best of my knowledge the long term effects of gravities between 0 and 1 g is beyond the current limits of human understanding. It is hoped and suspected that fractional g environments will not incurr the same health risks as zero g environments, but it is by no means a given and as of yet no supporting evidence exists on way or the other.

[Crown]

Cite, please. To the best of my knowledge the long term effects of gravities between 0 and 1 g is beyond the current limits of human understanding. It is hoped and suspected that fractional g environments will not incurr the same health risks as zero g environments, but it is by no means a given and as of yet no supporting evidence exists on way or the other.

You are correct in that we don't know how much 1/3g will affect human health, although we do know what the effects are in micro gravity, LEO, and it's 5% degradation of bone mass per 6months. We also know that those who excersied had less degradation, or those who didn't had more can't remember which. So while we do not know what it would be like with 1/3g, we can interprolate that it would be better than in 0g.

Remember the longest successive stay in LEO was cosmonaut Valeri Polyakove in 1994-95 for 438 days, nearly 15months, (mir cosmonauts would average 3 months IIRC). And he provided a wealth medical infromation.

[Master of Ossus]

First, let me state that I am a B5 fan. I think the writing is superior to most other sci-fi series (especially new-school Trek). Agree or disagree, that's my opinion.

Great, so am I.

That being said, there are points brought up in the series that I have problems with. I'd like to see what others have noticed, so I'll get the ball rolling with what I've seen:

1. Why in the f*ck would EarthGov put its main transfer point for the Sol system at Io? Io is the closest Galilean moon to Jupiter, and I know the space in the area is hit with everything from Jupiter's magnetic field to ejected material from Io. I would think that Mars would be a better choice, or how about having it at Luna in the first place.

I have no idea. MAYBE for security reasons, but that is extraordinarily unlikely.

2. If they wanted to have a place of diplomacy, why build a huge space station? Why not try to find a planet in neutral space that can be at least partially terraformed? The engineering feat of building a rotating space station 5 miles long (canon measurement, not one I share) would be incredible, even in the 23rd century.

Most planets that are habitable are already being used as colonies during B5. After the Earth-Minbari War, Earth had lost virtually all of its territory. It is highly probable that they did not have a planet lying around that they could use as a place of diplomacy. Also, B4 was designed to be mobile, moving from different trouble spots. Perhaps, due to budget cuts, B5 became stationary at the last minute. This is in keeping with much of the rest of the show. Alternatively, it MAY be less expensive or difficult to use a space station. Remember that most B5 ships cannot freely enter and leave atmospheres. It takes special shuttles.

3. B5 at least makes a passing attempt at realism when it comes to space combat. But why don't they ever encounter fuel problems? You see the White Star fleet flying all over the place, but you never hear of or even see a glimpse of tankers, fuel convoys, etc.

Minbari ships might not use fuel. We're really not sure how their power system works (it appeared to be little blue crystals). Alternatively, White Stars (which were designed to operate individually, for obvious reasons), might carry enough fuel with them so as not to require frequent breaks. We are also not sure where they get fuel. It might just be harvested from hyperspace, or something.

4. How feasible is it to have a ship with an independent rotating section? I think the Omega-class destroyers look cool, but somehow it seems wrong. I have a BS in Computer science, and only passing knowledge of engineering, so maybe I'm offbase with this one.

Fairly feasible. It is the preferred method for creating Artificial gravity in spacecraft, right now.

This is just a brief list of what I've always wondered about. Anyone got any others? Bring them on!

[SirNitram]

AFIAK there is no data on the long term health effects of low gravity.

Not counting twenty five years of operational experience with men inhabiting space stations for increasing durations, of course...

Space stations in zero gravity. Zero gravity is not low gravity.

It is not known if 1/3rd g is sufficient to avoid the health effects associated with zero g.

The effects of prolonged exposure to zero-g conditions, by contrast, are well known. Gravity, even if not at full Earth-normal levels, alleviates many of the muscle and bone loss effects attendant upon the total lack of gravity in the environment, or at the very least slows the degeneration to managable levels where drugs and regular physical exercise can keep the body reasonably healthy and intact through a long mission.

Cite, please. To the best of my knowledge the long term effects of gravities between 0 and 1 g is beyond the current limits of human understanding. It is hoped and suspected that fractional g environments will not incurr the same health risks as zero g environments, but it is by no means a given and as of yet no supporting evidence exists on way or the other.[/quote]

Wow, you're stupid. Look up the effects of long stays on the 'MIR' space station before exercise routines were set in place. One of the Cosmonaughts from this period still can't walk on his own, due to the intense atrophy his muscles underwent.

[Wicked Pilot]

4. How feasible is it to have a ship with an independent rotating section? I think the Omega-class destroyers look cool, but somehow it seems wrong. I have a BS in Computer science, and only passing knowledge of engineering, so maybe I'm offbase with this one.

The rotating section part is really bad science. It is a huge violation of Newton's Third Law. Basically, if the habital section of B5 is rotating, than the spine should be rotating in the opposite direction. I believe it was in "Thirdspace" that it was said explicitly that power was needed to keep rotation going. If power is used to rotate the section, than whatever applies the force will rotate itself. For a real world analogy, think of a helicopter without it's tail rotor working, it spins. The same goes for the Omegas. Both the habital section and the main body should be rotating.

The producers really screwed up on B5 and the Omegas, but they did manage to get it right with Babylon 4. It had two rotating sections, one on the inside, one on the outside, that counterrotated. That design is what should have been used for B5.

It's good that JMS tried to make B5 somewhat plausible, but he really needed to get an actual scientist to help him. That way he could have avoided these elementry errors.

[Crown]

Wow, you're stupid. Look up the effects of long stays on the 'MIR' space station before exercise routines were set in place. One of the Cosmonaughts from this period still can't walk on his own, due to the intense atrophy his muscles underwent.

Easy there tiger. Ignorance isn't a crime SirNitram, don't need to be so aggresive, we can just cite examples as he asked and it will be okay. And which cosmanaut still can't walk? I think that you might be mistaken about that.

Muscle degeneration can be re-built, the only serious side effect is the degeneration of the bone's integrity. Valery Polyakov, the human who owns the record for the longest stay in space, 437 days, suffered huge bone degradation, however because he excersied 2 hours every day in space, he was able to walk and stand up under his own power after he landed...

[Darth Wong]

The rotating section part is really bad science. It is a huge violation of Newton's Third Law. Basically, if the habital section of B5 is rotating, than the spine should be rotating in the opposite direction.

True, although you could compensate by putting thrusters on the spine and retro-firing to keep it from rotating in the opposite direction. Not that this excuses the show; no such thrusters are mentioned or shown, but they would be necessary if the spine's mass is smaller than that of the rotating section, otherwise the spine would just spin up while the "rotating" section gains very little angular velocity.

I believe it was in "Thirdspace" that it was said explicitly that power was needed to keep rotation going.

Really? I hope they didn't imply that this power requirement was large. The only way to bleed off angular momentum is to emit some kind of matter or energy which carries this momentum away. Given ultra low-friction (presumably magnetic) bearings, you're not going to be transferring momentum to the spine or emanating a lot of heat from the bearings, so where is the rotational momentum and energy going?

If power is used to rotate the section, than whatever applies the force will rotate itself. For a real world analogy, think of a helicopter without it's tail rotor working, it spins. The same goes for the Omegas. Both the habital section and the main body should be rotating.

If the main body's mass is much greater than that of the rotating section, they can spin it up without too much rotation in the main body, and use thrusters to compensate (although the next question that comes to mind is why).

It's good that JMS tried to make B5 somewhat plausible, but he really needed to get an actual scientist to help him. That way he could have avoided these elementry errors.

Scientist? Hell, your average auto mechanic could have pointed some of these things out.

[Defiant]

Maybe what they should have done was built B5 on a small asteroid. It would have low enough surface gravity to not seriously interfere with any operations that are currently being done in zero-g (loading of cargo, etc). And they could have anchored the supports for the rotating section into the asteroid itself, so they wouldn't have to worry about counter-rotations from the rotating section (the asteroid would be far more massive than the rotating section itself). I wish I could draw well, because it would be far easier to show what I'm thinking instead of explaining it.

[Defiant]

Does anyone thing it would be feasible for EarthGov to be able to build such large capships in the first place? How would one go about mining the materials needed and getting them into orbit? And even if some of the materials are mined from asteroids, how would you assemble an Omega-class destroyer? Aren't there difficulties with welding in the vacuum of space?