Re: B5 and Sir Isaac

On Tue, Mar 18, 1997 at 10:15:58 PM, David Brewer wrote:

[much snipped for brevity's sake]
> So where is it written that the Newtonian thing is a big part of B5's 
> appeal? Is this just something zealous fanboys assert when recompiling

> their list of ten reasons why B5 is impirically superior to Star Trek?

> I've heard plenty of people rave about B5, the stories, the CGI etc.
but 
> never about the underlying physical principles. Why are people
asserting 
> that only a suitably Newtonian system will do justice to B5? 

I understand your point, and agree that in B5 Newtonian laws of motion
are 
observed mostly in the breach.	I stand by my earlier assertion that
Newtonian 
mechanics are important to the spririt of a B5 game, though, for the
following 
reason:

1) JMS has stated that scientific accuracy is a goal.

While oftentimes the perceived demands of television conflict with the
demands 
of physics, scientific accuracy has been stated as a goal and appears to
be 
observed more than most (if not all) other science fiction TV shows and 
movies.  The mere fact that the moving force behind the show says that 
scientific accuracy is an aim. I think, imparts a similar burden on
anyone 
designing a game based on the show.

[Yes, I know that "Star Trek" occasionally makes similar claims, but by
that I 
think they mean "we added a Heisenberg Uncertainty Compensator to the 
transporter schematic."]

2) There is nothing in the background to think it is non-Newtonian.

Earth Alliance ships, and the B5 station itself, do not have any sort of

artifical gravity, subspace fields, warp drive, or any other doubletalk.
 
Ships and B5 itself have large rotating sections to provide gravity-like

conditions.  C&C is supposedly in 1/3rd gravity (although how I don't
know, 
since it doesn't appear to rotate <grin>).  All-in-all, B5 is remarkably
clear 
of the pseudoscientific doubletalk which passes for science in much
science 
fiction.  [Lest anyone misunderstand, I don't have problems with
doubletalk 
per se, I just think that most SF handles it poorly, especially on TV:	
Writers get to the point where _anything_ can be justified by stringing
enough 
polysylabic words together.]

3) Ships perform maneuvers Newtonian-like maneuvers.

The Earthforce Starfuries are the best example of this.  With their long
arms 
and multiple thrusters, these are ships that are designed with Netwonian

movement in mind.  Also, on at least one occasion I can think of, we
have seen 
them accelerate to a given velocity and then coast, and then delecrate
by 
turning around.  I think I also remember seeing Starfuries fire while
coasting 
sideways in one of the first season episodes. 

There are clearly many examples of non-Newtonian movement in the show;
in 
fact, I don't doubt that the majority of the times we see ships move,
it's 
probably not explainable in strict (or even loose) Newtonian terms.  I
would 
chalk these up to the needs and limitations of television.  Some
compromises 
must be made, but I think in B5 game terms, they should be limited to
such 
playability constraints as a two-dimensional surface and pretending that
the 
thrust occurs in one impulse.

-- Chris Weuve	 [My opinions, not my employer's.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
mailto:caw@wizard.net (h)		http://www.wizard.net/~caw 
mailto:caw@intercon.com (w)		Fixes for AoG's B5 game, books,
mailto:chrisweuve@usa.net (perm)	stuff for sale and more