[aldo_14]

I know sod all about physics, but would accellerating an asteroid not increase the friction and hence heat on it when it entered the atmosphere, making it more likely to break up?  Or is there some sort of 'golden mean' involving the object velocity and the actual time it spends in re-entry heat that a mass driver could be used to achieve?

[karajorma]

You're right there. The speed you send it down at does make it more likely to explode in mid air. Unfortunately it isn't precisely necessary for it to hit the ground. In Tunguska the asteroid or comet detonated quite a few miles up.

Choice of asteroids also makes a difference. IIRC the iron asteroid that hit at Wabar in Saudi Arabia was about the size of a bus but caused the equivalent damage to a hiroshima style nuke.
The fact that the meteorite was mostly metal probably prevented an air burst.

[Falcon X]

Andreas Katsulas made that show.  The best line from B5 which typified B5 is, "Not everyone seems as he appears."  

I have to say my favorite part of B5 is the warships, especially the EA ships.  They aren't streamlined!  Sweet!  I have two favorite shows, the EAs attack on B5 and the freeing of Earth.  (I can't remember the show names... been a long time)  Seeing the Ag bust through that satellite... f***ing sweet.

[ZylonBane]

Originally posted by karajorma
2) Narn like Earth no doubt had a planetary defence system.

At the time of the rock attack, that defense system was already destroyed.

3) The Centauri have gravity based technology. They use it to power their ships. Accelerating a rock probably isn't that hard once you've got that kind of tech.[/b]

Rock is a hell of a lot denser than an air-filled tin can.

4) Why not deorbit the rocks you say. Transport the rocks through hyperspace and then drop them. Sounds easy. Except the problem is that when you move the rock through hyperspace you remove all of it's velocity.[/b]

False. Objects exit hyperspace at the same relative velocity they were moving in hyperspace.

6) Who says the Centauri discovered the nuke or ever built them?[/b]

Common sense says this. Discovering fission/fusion weapons is the high-energy physics equivalent of discovering fire. It's kind of hard not do to.

7) Accelerating the nukes to any kind of decent speed presents problems. No where in B5 did you see nuclear missiles used cause they are pretty much obsolete by the time of B5.[/b]

You see nukes in B5 (always used by John "Nukem" Sheridan, oddly), and you see missiles (G.O.D. satellites). There is no reason to assume some combination thereof doesn't exist in the B5 universe.

Anyway those are all the arguements I can be bothered to come up with for now.[/B]

They mostly seem to be, "What if a space-faring military didn't have something which in reality it probably would?" Welcome to the world of JMS logic.

[Hunter]

Just watching the scene from "Acts Of Sacrifice" where Ivanova plays the "Sex Human Way" thing with those aliens. That just absolutely cracked me up everytime

[ZylonBane]

You'd probably enjoy renting "Hexed" then.

Ivanova may rock, but Claudia Christian is borderline as an actress.

[Hunter]

Hey, it's nice to get some comedy now and again from Sci-Fi rather than what we have today in Enterforaprize. So maybe the humour isn't compatible with your "American" style comedy, but so so.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ZylonBane
Common sense says this. Discovering fission/fusion weapons is the high-energy physics equivalent of discovering fire. It's kind of hard not do to.

See many 18th century gun toting samurai? The Japanese knew damn well about gunpowder but chose not to use it. Maybe the Centauri learned about nukes but never used them in weapons for some reason.
Secondly you're assuming that the progress on Centauri Prime went along the same lines as they did on Earth. Suppose that the Centauri had already made it into space and invented primative lasers before they discovered nuclear power.

While the nuke might be a great weapon it was alreadly obsolete in many ways. The main use for nuclear power would be to provide the energy for bigger and more powerful beam weapons.
(Remember that the gap between advances in rocketry and first discoveries in radioactivity were less than 50 years apart and also that radioactivity was discovered completely by mistake).

Could B5 have been more scientifically accurate. Yep. Of course it could. However it's pretty mean to pick on one of the most scientifically accurate sci-fi show on TV when there are so many that are far worse

[ZylonBane]

Actually, by referring to real science, B5 exposes itself to much higher standards than shows that make up their tech. Fictional tech can behave however the creators see fit, but real-world tech must behave in a real-world fashion or people are going to call bull****. Like in the episode where Garibaldi shoots the Monster of the Week by dumping loose bullets in a steam pipe (or something like that).

And I never could figure out why they didn't password-protect their jump gate.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by ZylonBane
Actually, by referring to real science, B5 exposes itself to much higher standards than shows that make up their tech. Fictional tech can behave however the creators see fit, but real-world tech must behave in a real-world fashion or people are going to call bull****. Like in the episode where Garibaldi shoots the Monster of the Week by dumping loose bullets in a steam pipe (or something like that).

At least JMS had the balls to admit that that particular episode didn't work.  I don't see many Sci-fi show creators ever say that any part of their show is anything other than sheer brilliance.

And I never could figure out why they didn't password-protect their jump gate.

It's probably an all or nothing deal. Either you have a node in a certain place that allows any ship to jump in or you have no jump node at all. In A View From The Gallery they state that it takes a couple of days to shut down a node which sort of points to what I'm saying.

Secondly anything big enough to be a threat to B5 is generally capable of creating its own Jump node. At least by leaving the node unprotected (even if it could be protected) you know which direction the enemy is most likely to come from since they will probably use the jump node rather than simply jumping in right next to the station (although a couple of ships did do exactly that).

[ZylonBane]

Originally posted by karajorma
It's probably an all or nothing deal. Either you have a node in a certain place that allows any ship to jump in or you have no jump node at all. In A View From The Gallery they state that it takes a couple of days to shut down a node which sort of points to what I'm saying.

Oh GOD do not mention the bloody Laurel and Hardy episode. Ack. Ack ack ack ack ack. I'm still trying to scrub that from my brain (along with most of season 5).

The couple-day shutdown refers to the amount of time it takes to fully discharge the jump gate. However, the gate is controlled by a computer that accepts transmitted requests. This computer can -- and has been ("Signs and Portents") -- configured to reject requests. Yet except for that one episode they never seem to think of it.

Jump gate details were left painfully mushy on B5.

[Tar-Palantir]

Password protecting your jumpgate would only be useful if the attacking force couldn't generate a jump point without gates. Since most large military vessels (of the major races, don't know about the minors ones) can enter and exit hyperspace with the use of gates, the use of password protecting the gate would be questionable.

As a minor point, and using the case of B5 especally, if they had to evacuate in a hurry, you'ld have to give the password to each civilian vessel, which would slow thing down. Because someone could leak the 'password', you would not be able to give it out until the evaculation began.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma
You're right there. The speed you send it down at does make it more likely to explode in mid air. Unfortunately it isn't precisely necessary for it to hit the ground. In Tunguska the asteroid or comet detonated quite a few miles up.

Choice of asteroids also makes a difference. IIRC the iron asteroid that hit at Wabar in Saudi Arabia was about the size of a bus but caused the equivalent damage to a hiroshima style nuke.
The fact that the meteorite was mostly metal probably prevented an air burst.

To be fair, AFAIK there's never been any conclusive proof for what happened at Tunguska.

NB:  not much point password protecting the primary point of access to what is effectively a free trade station, is there?

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14


To be fair, AFAIK there's never been any conclusive proof for what happened at Tunguska.

NB:  not much point password protecting the primary point of access to what is effectively a free trade station, is there?

Well experiments have proved that something exploded in mid air over the place. The pattern of fallen trees is exactly that for a mid air explosion.

Now as to whether we are dealing with the explosion of a meteor/comet/alien space craft, well that's another matter

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


Well experiments have proved that something exploded in mid air over the place. The pattern of fallen trees is exactly that for a mid air explosion.
 

I remember seeing the pictures in a book.... don;t have it handy, but I remember that the blast pattern, and specfically the surviving trees, strongly resembled the aftereffects of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima blasts.

[karajorma]

Yep. "Little boy" was also an air-blast. It blew up 2000ft above Hiroshima.

[neo_hermes]

i thought only military jump nodes and Quarantine nodes used passwords.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by aldo_14


I remember seeing the pictures in a book.... don;t have it handy, but I remember that the blast pattern, and specfically the surviving trees, strongly resembled the aftereffects of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima blasts.

Well, no, not exactly... the A-bomb blasts were from directly overhead, and the bast pattern was roughly circular.  The pattern of fallen trees at Tunguska was more like a butterfly, indicating that the explosion was directional, i.e. came in from a certain direction.  I believe the angle of incidence was something like 35 degrees, though it's been a while since I saw that info.  Exactly like a shallow-approaching piece of interstellar debris, be it comet, asteroid, or whatever.  However, the blast did generate a lot of heat, so the trees were blackened pretty thuroughly.

I believe that the leading theory is that it was a comet; there was no physical debris left from the object after the explosion, and a comet would be the most likely thing to explode once it built up enough heat.  Asteroids break up, but they are still rocks... comets almost flash-boil and can explode when passing through a medium as dense as our atmosphere.

[karajorma]

I think Aldo was refering to the fact that the trees directly underneath the blast were still standing while the ones further out had been knocked down.

I tend to agree with the theory that it was a comet for the reasons you say.

[Gortef]

just as a sidenote... I like B5 too very much

carry on...