Ranger One

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino
A fighter of the type depicted in To Dream and a Whitestar both operate in space, smartass, so propulsion systems, power plants, sensors and controls could all be tested in the small scale version and the lessons learned applied directly to the big one.

Ooh, an ad hom! I like it when my opponents in a debate start calling me names. It means they are running out of arguments.

Now, the idea that fighter-type propulasion systems, sensors, and controls can be directly scaled up to major ship components is ridiculous. I was a naval architecture major and know a bit about how these things work, and the number of things that can be directly scaled from super-small to large in ship design (and I bet even space ship design) are minimal. Perhaps some of the materials might be so tested, but you wouldn't build a fighter even then, you would build something more like a target barge.

A P-38 may not have been a testbed for an Iowa-class, but you can be damned sure that various things that went into the Iowas were tested first on smaller ships, just as today technologies that will eventually go into surface warships and submarines are being tested on dinky little one and two man testbeds. Fighters in the B5 universe are first and foremost spacecraft just like the big vessels, even if their role is that of fighter. The proper analogy to what I suggested would have been a PT boat or a destroyer, not an aircraft.

Well, um, no. Certainly there were no small-scale testbeds for the Iowa's propulasion system, none for her weapons, none for her control systems, and none for her weapons (bar the light stuff like the five-inchers and below. Of course, the Iowa wasn't a revolutionary ship like the White Stars. However, the test bed for the propulsion technology eventually used in the better equivelent for the White Stars, HMS Dreadnought, was a very large destroyer. It has to be. No PT boat could even have contained a scaled-down steam turbine system and boilers that would have provided any lessons to be applied to larger ships.

The design requirements for fighters and those for large ships are almost completely different. The fact that they operate in the same medium doesn't change the fact the propulsion for space fighters, for instance, will emphasize rapid acceleration and decelleration, compact size, and shielding for the pilot sitting right next to it. Fighter engines generally sacrifice endurance and maintainability to get those advantages, because they will be operating near a support ship or base. Ship engines will emphasize endurance and maintainability, while sacrificing small size and rapid speed change as necessary.

I guess someone had better explain to JMS's wife how things work in the B5 universe.

But now you are back to my original argument: that this was a highly contrived "coincidence." I never argued that she didn't "account" for these mysterious super-fighters, just that the acocunting wasn't credible to me - because you don't build fighters to test many large ship systems.

You, of course, may find it entirely credible. My post was purely about what I found non-credible, and that is all.

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino
Neither was the battle at the rift, where Shadow minions (not the Shadows themselves, see post above) were defending (not attacking) a strategic location in space (not an outpost)

I was referring to an attack on an outpost, while trying not to spooil the book.

[Joseph DeMartino]

Ooh, an ad hom! I like it when my opponents in a debate start calling me names. It means they are running out of arguments.

Actually I was just coming back here to change "smartass" to "wise guy" becuase I thought my assement of your tone might come off too strong. But having read your reply I think it exactly applies to your whole approach to this discussion, so I'll let it stand. It was never meant as an ad hominem attack, and is certainly no indication that I've run out of arguments. But if it makes you happy to be wrong about two more points, please, be my guest.

Regards,

Joe

[grumbler]

You were going to call me wise? Good of you to think of that!

I think the readers can judge our respective tones just fine, so I won't charactorize your tone and you can leave off charactorizing mine.

If you want to debate the issues, fine. If you want to engage in ad homs (because talking about a poster's "tone" is just another ad hominim) I have absolutely no interest.

[Dr Maturin]

This is cul.

[Andrew_Swallow]

Originally posted by grumbler
The design requirements for fighters and those for large ships are almost completely different. The fact that they operate in the same medium doesn't change the fact the propulsion for space fighters, for instance, will emphasize rapid acceleration and decelleration, compact size, and shielding for the pilot sitting right next to it. Fighter engines generally sacrifice endurance and maintainability to get those advantages, because they will be operating near a support ship or base. Ship engines will emphasize endurance and maintainability, while sacrificing small size and rapid speed change as necessary.

If you want a modern example try these two aircraft.

http://free-stock-photos.com/f-117-stealth-pictures.html

http://www.free-stock-photos.com/b2-stealth-bomber.html

The Merlin engine was used in several aircraft during World War 2.

[grumbler]

Well, Andrew, here is one even more applicable to the discussion at hand:

The Sea Shadow

I was involved in some of the early testing and specs for the ship (primarily the propulsion system requirement based on various missions). Note that the ship was an approximately half-scale model of what they wanted to build, because anyhing smaller wouldn't provide reliable info on the requirements for the full-sized ship. It was much more expensive to do it this way (as opposed to building a PT-boat sized ship) but that is because in ship design scaling of data is a real issue.

[NotKosh]

Originally posted by Joseph DeMartino
That's what he says in the preface to the book, but he later backed off that a tiny it and mentioned a figure of 90% or 95%. Don't forget, the show was still in production when the book was published, and then when the series went to TNT and Crusade was ramping up, he expected to be doing two to four B5 TV movies a year for the network. So I think he continued to refine his thinking about Sinclair and Valen and that some of his later ideas might have varied a bit from what was set down in the novels.

The other thing you have to understand about that book is when it came out.

That was one of the first batch of B5 books. Some would argue it is the only worthwhile one to read of the early (non-trilogy) books. A bunch of those books are down right dogs. In that light, it was the most canon in comparison to the others. The trilogies came much later, are are mostly canon, and for all intentions, should probably be considered canon.

[Andrew_Swallow]

The Babylon 5 fighters did not have jump engines so in that respect they were very different from the Whitestars.

[Andrew_Swallow]

Great looking ship. Was it the basis of the one used in the James Bond movie?

[B5_Obsessed]

Originally posted by Andrew_Swallow
Great looking ship. Was it the basis of the one used in the James Bond movie?

Of course. That ship's been on more covers of Popular Mechanics than I can remember.

[grumbler]

Originally posted by Andrew_Swallow
Great looking ship. Was it the basis of the one used in the James Bond movie?

Dunno about the james Bond movie (I haven't seen one in decades) but the "full-sized version" appeared in Red Storm Rising while this was still a very black project (it used to be moored in a covered barge in the Santa Barbara Islands and only came out at light), and there was a big security stink over that. Somebody, apparently, leaked at least some of the details on one of the missions we were examining.