Prev: Re: BSG 2003 (Long) Next: Re: BSG 2003 was Re: The NAC Navy Hymn

Re: BSG 2003 (Long)

From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 06:33:12 -0600
Subject: Re: BSG 2003 (Long)

> moving faster than
> the bullets? Wouldn't the same apply here?

It would not apply here. In atmospheric flight you
have to worry about air friction slowing down the

However, bullets-as-we-use-the-term have no thrusters, while the firing
platform does. You could be thrusting in the direction of fire, and more
than overcome the velocity difference imparted at firing.

On the other, other hand, space is full of plenty of other things to run
into; the whole ST concept of deflectors was created for this, and may
explain why beam weapons are necessary in space combat in all those
used' gratuitously examples mentioned elsewhere.

> ramjets

Air-breather, right? But you're probably thinking rocket-rounds.

Just out of curiosity, are we sure they're mg's? I know the visible
of light moving apparently at sublight make you assume so, but I must
missed where they were so designated.

And how about those non-dissipating Cylon missile trails?


PS Note, I'm avoiding those parts of the discussion not related to
FT use, but I will say I wish the camera folk would quit playing with
zoom lens and swinging the camera in the space scenes. Plot holes and
bother using the name Battlestar Galactica at all should be for another

Prev: Re: BSG 2003 (Long) Next: Re: BSG 2003 was Re: The NAC Navy Hymn