Problems with B5

[Ted C]

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.

Possibly because the fusion power plants of EarthForce and civilian starships require hydrogen for fuel, and Jupiter would be a rich source of hydrogen.

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.

Actually, building a large space station would not be all that difficult except in the logistics of getting the materials into place. Since it's in orbit, it's not under any severe gravitational stress. It's not mobile, so it doesn't suffer significant stress from engine thrust, either. EarthForce warships, despite being smaller, probably present more difficult technological problems.

An orbiting station is also a convenient place to dock and service large starships that are not capable of landing on a planet's surface. Atmosphere-capable shuttles aren't necessary for transferring people to and from such ships, either.

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.

I've messed around with fuel consumption issues on a few occasions. Basically, if they aren't radically increasing their fuel conscumption by firing high-energy weapons, any reasonably efficient fusion power supply should be able to supply a B5 starship for months without difficulty.

We have also seen a wide assortment of container ships stopping at B5 and flying about space (where they are occasionally attacked by pirates).

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.

It's not a particularly bad plan, but I suspect it would be easier to just give the ship a cylindrical hull and rotate the whole thing, at least for civilian ships. A warship might find it easier to aim it's weapons if they weren't constantly rotating.

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

The most egregious gaff in B5 is the fact that the gravity in C&C is backwards. The command staff stand on what should be, due to the way rotation simulates gravity, the ceiling.

[Enlightenment]

Heck, standing USN rules of engagement state that if an approaching aircraft turns five times to gain an positional advantage over the intercepting aircraft, it may be assumed that an attack is underway and the interceptor can be authorized to fire first. Permission to fire is still at the discretion of the battle group commander normally, but mind you this is in peacetime against any warplane from any power. A fire control lock is also grounds for firing under standing ROE.

Umm, aren't operational ROE supposed to be classified?

If those rules are parts of the current USN standing ROE it would seem that the trigger finger has got a lot more itchy since the cold war era. The Soviets made quite a habit of doing all that and worse (e.g. flying Bears w/ open bomb bays over CV[N]s); given that WWIII didn't break out it's a fair assumption that cold war ROEs regarding Soviet forces were considerably more strict.

In any case only a world class idiot (such as any member of Earth Alliance) would apply a traditional ROE to a first contact situation. First contact with a superior alien race is a situation where the people involved must put the lives of their species ahead of their own. If that means losing a few people in the contact group to accidents then so be it. The only thing a trigger-happy moron can do in this kind of situation is turn a misunderstanding or an accident into a war that the inferior race has no hope of winning.

Blame for the E-M war rests almost entirely on the hands of EF for not making it very clear to its officers that the good standing and survival of EA is much more important than a ship and its crew. All things considered EA got exactly what it deserved.

The portion of Minbari blame is limited to their severe inability to protect their national command authority from outside threats and their inability to operate a redundant command structure.

[Patrick Degan]

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.

It's not a particularly bad plan, but I suspect it would be easier to just give the ship a cylindrical hull and rotate the whole thing, at least for civilian ships. A warship might find it easier to aim it's weapons if they weren't constantly rotating.

Generally, it is feasible, though you would need a contrarotational flywheel or hubs to bleed away angular momentum transfer to the hull. But cyllindrical rotational sections would have made a hell of a lot more sense, like the ones on the Explorer-class vessels.

The most egregious gaff in B5 is the fact that the gravity in C&C is backwards. The command staff stand on what should be, due to the way rotation simulates gravity, the ceiling.

Hmmm...not quite. The C&C dome is positioned at the right point along the inner hub surrounding the main docking port, and with the deck oriented toward the outside radius. But the gravity in C&C should be considerably lesser than the rest of the station where the decks are much closer to the outer hull. Instead, they show constant gravity just about everywhere in the station except at the core shuttles, but I think this is one of the things we have to put down to artistic license. But here's one little gaffe they missed for production convenience —often, the starfield they show outside the C&C viewport is nothing but a static backdrop. Only occasionally did they do a CGI shot to show the starfield "rotating" outside.

Here's another one, from "War Without End (2)" —when Sinclair, Sheridan and co. had taken B4 into the time vortex, to pilot her to the past time zone, you still see a static starfield backdrop outside the C&C viewport. A definite goof there.

[Master of Ossus]

Why is it beyond that limit? There culture could view hiding your weapons as planning for a sneak attack, or keeping them covered as a sign of contempt for the enemy. There is absolutely no need for anything they do to relate to human cultures in any way.

"Culture" is not a universal escape clause, you know. Unsheathing a sword, unholstering a gun, opening gunports, all of these actions make it easier to commit violence. Therefore, they logically increase the threat level, and any intelligent species will recognize that fact.

It is not just "culture"; it is both logic and instinct. Name one animal in the entire animal kingdom which does not bare its weapons (whether they be fangs, claws, or whatever) as a precursor to violence. As I said before, there are limits to what you can chalk up to cultural differences, unless Minbari culture is explicitly defined as a culture of rampant stupidity.

Remember, though, that for the Minbari opening gunports is NOT a threat. When two Minbari ships meet each other, it is perfectly reasonable for them to open their gunports. Minbari do not kill Minbari.

Now, you can argue that it was a mistake for them to use such protocol in a first contact situation. It was. It was not an egregious mistake, however, and while it helps explain Jankowski's actions, it does not excuse them.

[oberon]

I thought the most egregious error was having the engines of the Starfuries way out there on pylons, instead of close to the center of mass

[Tsyroc]

I thought the most egregious error was having the engines of the Starfuries way out there on pylons, instead of close to the center of mass

I thought the engines were placed out there for manuverablity?

[Defiant]

If you have to grope for a stupidity, it is in the use of military vessels for first contact missions in the first place. When you want to parley, you send out an unarmed man to talk. It's risky, but it's one man's risk and not an entire nation's risk. Unfortunately, first contact protocols in B5 seem to have been derived from the stupidity of Star Trek, where they do the same thing.

If I remember correctly, Londo suggested that Earth do just that when they were talking about contacting the Minbari.

[Patrick Ogaard]

I thought the most egregious error was having the engines of the Starfuries way out there on pylons, instead of close to the center of mass

I thought the engines were placed out there for manuverablity?

The problem is that putting four big weights (like engines) far out from the center of gravity actually lessens maneuverability because more engine power has to be applied to spin the vessel around. Of course, one solution would be to say that the engines were made of an extremely durable but lightweight ceramic, keeping mass down as far as possible. The other solution would be to put the engines directly behind the cockpit and use low-mass tubes to direct maneuvering thrust out to where the engines are on an Aurora Starfury, but that would make the Aurora Starfury look like the product of an unhallowed mating between a steel drum and a lawn sprinkler.

[oberon]

that would be cool. they could call it the Pinwheel

[Stravo]

If you have to grope for a stupidity, it is in the use of military vessels for first contact missions in the first place. When you want to parley, you send out an unarmed man to talk. It's risky, but it's one man's risk and not an entire nation's risk. Unfortunately, first contact protocols in B5 seem to have been derived from the stupidity of Star Trek, where they do the same thing.

If I remember correctly, Londo suggested that Earth do just that when they were talking about contacting the Minbari.

Actually Londo said: "If you leave them alone they will leave you alone." The Centauri did not want Earth contacted the Minbari for many reasons, chief among them the trade relations they had with Earth, but there was also Londo's concern that the Earthers would get themsleves way in over their heads.

[Master of Ossus]

Incidently, that sending of military forces for FC is not limited to just the humans. The Minbari said that they mounted many expeditions to Vorlon space, none of which returned. It is also stated that the humans repeated their mistake of using military vehicles in scouting out Vorlon territory.

I think it has to do with the fact that the EA was trying to intimidate other races, and so they were trying to show off their big guns (much like Commodore Perry in Tokyo Bay). The problem for them was, the Minbari saw their biggest weapons and were not very impressed by them.

[Patrick Degan]

...was to send only one ship, unarmed. Instead, the Earth Alliance sent a task force headed by a militaristic buffon who lost his head when things turned difficult.

As for the Minbari... it seems that the whole "open gunports" policy derives from the traditions of the Warrior Caste. And, what if it wasn't simply a matter of misunderstanding? Remember, while the war was raging, Lenon bluntly put it to Moraan that "the Warrior Caste loves to win, and hates to lose" and suggested that they wanted to win a quick war against a weak enemy to maintain their aura of invincibility.

Could it be that the Warrior Caste were spoiling for a quick, easily winnable war against a bunch of primitives who certainly would never put up any sort of threat the Minbari could possibly worry about? And that they did not quite bank on Dukhat being killed with the first volley, which resulted in the passions of the Minbari spirialing so completely out of control?

[Crown]

Actually Londo said: "If you leave them alone they will leave you alone." The Centauri did not want Earth contacted the Minbari for many reasons, chief among them the trade relations they had with Earth, but there was also Londo's concern that the Earthers would get themsleves way in over their heads.

Londo: Minbari are not interested in alien affairs, or buisness. And I resent your implication

Also Londo did say: Then send one ship, one ship only. Anything more could be precieved as a threat. <adlibing> And once that happens, gentlemen I assure you they will not be returning home<adlib off>.

[Master of Ossus]

I doubt that the Minbari were just going around looking for people to crush. If they had been, they could have easily defeated the Centauri or the Narn or one of the League worlds. There would have been no need to seek out the humans.

Also, opening the gunports was to the Minbari no threat at all. Minbari do not kill Minbari, so if two Minbari ships were actually to power their weapons on each other than no one would fire in fear. They are confident in their most sacred law, and frequently bet their lives on the fact that it will be followed.

[Sea Skimmer]

Heck, standing USN rules of engagement state that if an approaching aircraft turns five times to gain an positional advantage over the intercepting aircraft, it may be assumed that an attack is underway and the interceptor can be authorized to fire first. Permission to fire is still at the discretion of the battle group commander normally, but mind you this is in peacetime against any warplane from any power. A fire control lock is also grounds for firing under standing ROE.

Umm, aren't operational ROE supposed to be classified?

If those rules are parts of the current USN standing ROE it would seem that the trigger finger has got a lot more itchy since the cold war era. The Soviets made quite a habit of doing all that and worse (e.g. flying Bears w/ open bomb bays over CV[N]s); given that WWIII didn't break out it's a fair assumption that cold war ROEs regarding Soviet forces were considerably more strict.

Technically ROW should be classified, but after several incidents, mainly the MiG-23 shoot downs in 1980 and the Airbus brought down over the Gulf in 1988, the standing ROE became public knowledge. However, what I have described is not the ROE all units are under today, they are simply those that are in force unless the ship/plane has been specifically different ones, which is rare outside of an active conflict zone.


Bears and the like were not fired on because they did not make hostile moves, and the only effective anti shipping weapons they had needed to be mounted on external hard points were they could be seen by interceptors. Remember, the ROE gave the battle group Commander authority to fire, they allow for him to use his judgment in the matter.

It was also rare that a Bear would actually fly over a Carrier or ship, normally they just flew alongside them and ahead or behind, rarely over in a position in which they could use a weapon.

If a bomber with a couple missiles on the wings approached a Carrier, it would have been shot down while 50 or more miles out. The Russians often flew with open bomb bays to prove that they did not have any weapons onboard. Notice, that the Soviets NEVER overflow western warship with dedicated strike aircraft like Tu-142s or Tu-22M's. They also NEVER over flew with multi plane formations.

The Soviet Union downed at least twenty-five American recon planes in the 1950s; another dozen in the 60s and often depth charged subs. WW3 didn't break out. It was understood by both sides that doing some things was acceptable, and some were not but no fuss was to be made about them.

[[BL]Phalanx]

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's to make it easier to monitor traffic of non-jump capable ships. Since most jump capable ships are rather large and expensive, this means usually only the military or the government can afford it.

That way, you won't just have terrorists posing as a civilian vessel coming through and hitting Earth.

Since the government builds and maintains the jump gates and hyperspace lanes, they can be assured that civilian traffic can only go where they allow it... the way roads and freeways today are built by the government. You can go off road... but try going "off-beacon" or something in B5, and you'll be lost in hyperspace forever. Or, you can take the long multi-lightyear route through normal space...

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.

Terraforming is rather difficult, as well. Also, even if you made the planet suitable for one set of aliens, it still wouldn't be suitable for another group. You'd still have to set up an "alien sector(s)". Finally... it would also mean you'd have to work from within a gravity well.

And really, even though B5 was sometimes crowded and overloaded, it still managed to support the demand. You don't need a whole planet if it's not going to be used.

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 hear of supply problems. One episode especially brings this to light, where B5 hires smugglers to get goods through Clark's blockade for them. We also see cargo ships and supply ships all the time. In "End Game", prior to the battle, we see atmospheric shuttles lifting off to dock with the Omega-class destroyers in orbit of Mars to drop off supplies.

Basically, you're wrong.

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.

It's do-able, but it's probably better not to have one if you can help it. The out-of-universe explanation is that of budget limitations. They couldn't afford to do zero-g scenes every time they had a scene aboard an EA warship.

On the other hand, the Hyperion-class cruisers and Nova-class dreadnaughts have no rotating sections...

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

For another thing, the Starfury is definitely sub-optimal... but then again so are many designs in sci-fi. Heck, many designs in *real life* are sub-optimal. It's just that designs in sci-fi tend to be less optimal than designs in real life would be.

*waves to those who know me*

[Andrew J.]

Do not practice thread-necromancy.

[fgalkin]

Indeed.

And, *poke*

Have a very nice day
-fgalkin

[starfury]

Hi and *POKE*

[Raptor 597]

Hi there.*Pokes the Newbie*

[Ender]

Hey BL. Good to see another intellegent person here. Most of our newbies are invaders or idiots like Sovereign

[[BL]Phalanx]

Intelligent? I think not. I'm a Fiver, an allegiance which quite clearly demonstrates my utter lack of sanity.

And to be frank, my impression is that this place doesn't find Fivers very intelligent. I hope I can live up to your expectations. After all, I wouldn't want to deprive you folks of the opportunity to make fun of someone to stoke your own egos.

[fgalkin]

Welcome to SD.net. Have a pleasant stay. Leave your sanity at the door.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Wong]

Intelligent? I think not. I'm a Fiver, an allegiance which quite clearly demonstrates my utter lack of sanity.

And to be frank, my impression is that this place doesn't find Fivers very intelligent. I hope I can live up to your expectations. After all, I wouldn't want to deprive you folks of the opportunity to make fun of someone to stoke your own egos.

His second post on the board and without a shred of provocation, he's already casting an enormous ad-hominem attack against the entire board. Oh, goody. This bodes so well for his willingness to debate objectively in future.

Mind you, this is the guy who thought IXJac's "weapons do not penetrate based on force or pressure" argument was a devastating critique of my website.

[Shinova]

Intelligent? I think not. I'm a Fiver, an allegiance which quite clearly demonstrates my utter lack of sanity.

And to be frank, my impression is that this place doesn't find Fivers very intelligent. I hope I can live up to your expectations. After all, I wouldn't want to deprive you folks of the opportunity to make fun of someone to stoke your own egos.

POKE Welcome ^_^


About your second paragraph:

This site's name is Stardestroyer.net. What else can you expect from a message board named that??

My only advice to you is: don't be a troll. Follow that, and you'll do fine here, even if your not a warsie.