Re: B5 and Sir Isaac - Reply

In message <01IGREJ2YR4O9GXAA1@avion.stsci.edu> "Out of my mind. Back in
five minutes." writes:
> >If you can show me a 'Fury turn 90 degrees and apply main thrusters
> >to give a centripetal force, 
> 
> Eek. I don't wanna be in a 'Fury which does that, thanks.  ;-)

OK, I'll bite. Why not?

> >or even just to slide diagonally, I'll
> 
> Now diagnolly we can do, but why use the main thrusters when the side
> thrusters will do the job for you? Diagnol has been shown (albeit ever
> so briefly, and you *could* interpret it as a 'swoop' since it happens
so
> fast and you don't get to see full follow-through - at least in the ep
> I'm thinking of at the moment [signs&portents]) but uses the side
thrusters.

Fair point. "Diagonal" was a misused term here, because I was 
thinking in game terms (so we *can* yank this back to a gaming
discussion) where movement is parcelled out into discrete increments. 
I suppose I meant "parabolically". If you're going from A to B, but 
pointing toward C then the fastest way to get to B is to rotate
your craft towards a point beyond B and burn those engines so's you
get to B toot-sweet in a parabola. In a game this comes out of the
wash as a diagonal slide. This is, in my limited experience, how
things move in rotate-and-thrust-from-behind Newtonian games.

> I'll have to go back at some point here and rigorously rewatch
'Severed
> Dreams' again to check their stuff.

Did that. Some Starfuries "go turret", and the second group of
Earthforce ships "go 180". I'm not mechanic enough to consider
exactly what the effect of those humungous gyroscopes would be
when they spin to astern...

In message <01IGREB4YMFM9GXAA1@avion.stsci.edu> "Out of my mind. Back in
five minutes." writes:
> >> Sorry, clarification: I was referring to the doubletalk polysylabic
words
> >> strung together.
> >
> >Oh, I knew what you were referencing, I was wondering if I was
> >inferring correctly what you were implying...
> 
> Okay. I wouldn't want you to infer an implication that was implied for
> inference when the implying was to be inferred otherwise.

Me neither. I thought that I was inferring something that was not 
deliberately implied for inference. I inferred from the context, not
the reference.

> >> Okay, it's a fine line 'tween the two. I put B5 in the category of
Science
> >> Fiction. I put a lot of stuff more fantastic like what Star Trek
has become
> >> (esp the more recent movies) into Science Fantasy.
> >
> >Star Trek is *more* fantastic?... than a titanic battle between
> >good and evil?... in which our protagonists are destined to play
> >major roles, lead great alliances in war, defeat evil, rule 
> >decaying empires, fulfill prophesies, die heroically in garish CGI?
> 
> Well...Star Trek has met God...

True... but in B5 we have a program often described as a steal from
J.R.R. Tolkien, and it would be difficult to be more fantastic. Nor
does anyone on Trek live on the Tower of Babel (that's Babel-on-5).

They both, I note, have irritatingly large numbers of prominent
elves.

> and they keep coming up with this damned
> reset button that I simply cannot find *any*where in real life! (a few
> people I'd like to use it on, too ;)

OK, now you *have* lost me.

-- 
David Brewer