Talk:Propulsion in the Re-imagined Series/Archive 1

This article comprises the bulk of the original FTL article and elements from a past larger article version of Science in the Re-imagined Series, broken out for later expansion and page size considerations. --Spencerian 08:14, 11 October 2006 (CDT)

capitalization of "jump"

Why is the word "jump" capitalized so often? Both as noun and verb. I could barely understand capitalizing the noun, and even then it's not a proper noun. But writing "Jump" as verb doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It boggles my mind and just looks silly. Maybe it's just me and I'm overreacting (because I find it annoying), but I correct it wherever I see it.
The only reason I can think of is one or two references in the BSG Season 1 Companion where it is written with a capital letter. But I consider that a typo and not some kind of official standard. --Serenity 16:06, 30 October 2006 (CST)

I am inclined to agree with you, and I also normally correct, erm change, it when I see it. --CalculatinAvatar^(C-T) 17:16, 30 October 2006 (CST)

I have tended to capitalize it in the psat, but now if I do, it's only as part of the phrase, "FTL Jump." However, it may be a point of emphasis that is not necessary, although the term may not be easily distinctive without proper context when describing the event (A lot of people have taken up my "bad" habits.) --Spencerian 17:44, 30 October 2006 (CST)

The capitalization bugs me as well. --Peter Farago 18:14, 30 October 2006 (CST)

I've rediscovered why I've done this practice: The show captions consistently capitalize "Jump" when speaking of such in FTL. It makes sense in context for them to differentiate it as it would here. Using lowercase implies a diminutive or generic use, for which this does not apply. It would be best here to use "FTL Jump" and not "Jump" except in dialogue accounts, but I believe we should avoid genericizing this. --Spencerian 11:50, 9 November 2006 (CST)

Continuing the discussion from the Hybrid page. I don't see the need to distinguish its uses. It's not like we are talking of characters jumping around a lot. "FTL Jump" might be ok though, even if it still looks weird to me, but "Jump" alone not so much IMHO. So as you said, if people insist on capitalizing it, they should better add the "FTL" . Though I still think it's pointless --Serenity 08:03, 17 November 2006 (CST)

My recent edit

I've removed a large amount of content. Before you revert me I'd like to point out that extensive discussion of wormholes is pointless as no allusion to them is made in the show and I see no reason to make that assumption. Additionally the physics references are a bit clumsy in those sections. On arrival all ships are brought to an arbitray frame of reference (which leads to the removal of the second footnote as it's clearly wrong). Faster than light is no misnomer in terms of physical displacement per unit time (velocity) as opposed to distance travelled per unit time (speed), the latter being compleltely unimportant in the context. "Electromagnetic and centripetal energies" is incorrect as neither term refers to any energy.

I notice in the history the use of "centrifugal" was corrected to "centripetal", stating "centrifugal is a misnomer - centripetal is the correct term". To this person I suggest you look up the definitions of the words centrifugal, centripetal and misnomer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Niles (talk • contribs).

Niles, welcome. As the series generally doesn't get into technobabble and tries to base its technology on theory, rather than fantasy or pseudoscience such as "warp drive," I don't see the justification of the edit. Using wormhole theory (as our scientists tell it) to give a possible, logical explanation of the FTL principles of the show is acceptable speculation per the wiki's citation policy, under "derived content." The use of FTL in the show supports the wormhole principle in many, many episodes, with few continuity errors. I appreciate your commentary, but rather than deletion of the central premise, it would be better to add dissenting information that supports your view. I will restore the article's original content based on this, but I encourage you to add your dissent in an encyclopedic way, with its supporting sources. --Spencerian 09:36, 17 November 2006 (CST)

Huh, what? Warp drive is neither fantasy, nor pseudoscience. It's a fully realized scientific theory, right down to the math involved. It's existed since 1995. In fact, it's more real that folding space. -- 3DMaster 06:53, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

'As the series generally doesn't get into technobabble and tries to base its technology on theory, rather than fantasy or pseudoscience such as "warp drive," I don't see the justification of the edit.

The show doesn't "base" its technology on anything, theory or otherwise; it just is and that's precisely the justification for the edit. A possible explanation? Why not include all of them, even the technobabble ones? While the wormhole concept is a possible explanation it is not probable (inconsistency with visual effects) and hence discussion of "possible" theories in this article is extraneous to the factual data it should contain.

' it would be better to add dissenting information that supports your view.' The article's not a forum for discussion. If you're after half-baked rationalizations of sci-fi technology you watch lesser shows than BSG, the BSG wiki should be held to similar standards, in my opinion. - --Niles 19:04, 11 December 2006 (CST)

Hi Niles, welcome to the Wiki. Thank you for your comments, contributions and concerns, though I will firmly suggest that you consider your tone when addressing other contributors. Spencerian is correct in that possible, logical explanation is acceptable speculation per policy; this does not, in any way, discount adding other explanations, as long as they are reasonably proved and cited. I've also gone over the history of the article in question and have found that you've removed a substantial amount of the article, without discussing it before you did so. While you did implement some great corrections to the article, I firmly believe that simply discussing such a drastic move prior to implementing it would have been beneficial, and may have ended up in further developing the article (such as adding other scientific means of FTL deployed in the series) instead of reducing the article. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 20:57, 11 December 2006 (CST)

Discussions regarding theories posted in the article

I'm probably opening a can of worms by doing this, but I believe it is necessary. Barring any official word from the producers, or even Kevin Grazier, we should probably remove the "underpinning" theory, or thoroughly revise the piece so as to include thorough sourcing with information from reputable scientific journals. So let's begin discussing this issue. Thank you. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate} 09:03, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

I agree. I only recently found Grazier's tech blog that speaks about some of this and can be revised. The screen evidence suggests wormhole, but we need Grazier's information to source it. His blog also illuminates content of the Computers in the Re-imagined Series article, too, and I've been hoping to get time to update/amend that as well. --Spencerian 10:51, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Uh, what does reputable scientific journals have got to do with anything? It's nice that they're scientific, reputable and no doubt nifty; but what a scientist says has no bearing on a tv show. The only ones who can say exactly how jumpdrive works, are the writers/creators/producers of the show. Even than, it should be taken with a grain of salt until it is actually said and shown in-show - that is, if you demand that only facts and nothing but facts about the show are present in the wiki. --3DMaster 06:33, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

If you clicked on the link provided, you'd understand that Dr. Kevin Grazier is the scientific advisor to the Re-imagined Series. Short of Ron Moore himself and maybe a handful of co-producers and writers such as Bradley Thompson (who visits this wiki personally on occasion to answer pertinent questions of the show), there is no higher authority. Grazier is a true "rocket scientist" and has probably forgotten more about science than any of us contributors know. Don't misconstrue about how the wiki's objectives are as they pertain to facts. Grazier's information is already based on scientific principles that he has already referenced and sourced, so we can take what he says with far more than just a grain of salt. The key here is to use what he has said and written to better improve the RDM articles. No one says this is an easy task, nor is the wiki intended to be "perfect" when you and others first arrive. So you are invited to help, now that you've (ad nauseum) identified a problem, and other contributors are trying now to improve matters based on your comments. Hint: You can't fix an article's problem by just editing its talk page.. --Spencerian 09:35, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

I realize that the show's producers do not spend time dwelving into the scientifics of faster-than-light travel, however, a bit of speculation by fans, especially those who know physics and cosmology, can be a healthy thing. That is after all, how much of the physics and mechanics behind the fiction of warp drive in the Star Trek universe came to be.

That being said, I would like to take a moment to introduce a few key variables to faster-than-light theory absent from this conversation that confirm many of the common observations from the series. First and foremost, I couldn't help but notice that the concept of gravity is missing from these discussions, despite it's fundamental importance to an interspatial fold. It is fundamental to note that the system's parent star creates a substantial gravity well that has an incredible affect on the interspatial folding process. In fact, each source of gravity acting on the space around it would have an impact from stars, to planets, even to asteroids.

The best way to explain this concept is to illustrate it. So imagine a perfect line between a star and a battlestar. Imagine for a minute that your final destination is perfectly along this line, in another solar system, with the battlestar in the middle of the three points. You would not need to adjust for the curve of the fold because there is no deflection for gravity. You would simply require more energy to overcome gravity's affect on the fold. However, if your battlestar, the nearest star, and your final destination form a triangle, then any interspatial fold you could create would be naturally drawn toward the nearby star, hence curving it (Einstein himself proved that even space itself cannot escape the pull of gravity), and your calculations would have to reflect that if you wanted to reach your final destination and not have your fold fall into the star.

Take the concept of a blind jump with random calculations within a solar system. If it weren't for gravity, plotting FTL calculations would be a simple matter of plugging in a physics formula for interspatial folding and inputing a set of coordinates. It is therefore logical to assume that for a random set of jump calculations not adjusted for gravity, an FTL jump would on the vast majority of occasions put you in the middle of, or nearby a star, frying your battlestar. This explains why a blind jump is so dangerous and why jump calculations must be so precise. The effect could be so substantial that even planets, other nearby stars, or the overall gravitation of the galaxy could drastically affect your jump calculations. --OrionFour 04:27, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Especially if you were to say... jump into a planet's atmosphere. Insanity! (In terms of proximity to a gravity well.)--Steelviper 04:35, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

That'd be Exodus, Part II all over again (I wouldn't mind though ;) ). Seriously, though, Steelviper's right you don't need to jump right inside a celestial body: jumping near them will also kill you, as you won't be able to 'escape' their gravity. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 17:14, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

Cinematography

I was just curious, does anyone know how they achieve that effect when they shoot inside the ship during a jump? It's like the scene stretches out somehow. It doesn't look like computer graphics to me so there must be some way to achieve that effect on film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PhoenixHacker (talk • contribs).

It's an interesting effect and really adds atmosphere to a scene. It's called a Dolly zoom (Hitchcock effect) and in basic explanations its just when you zoom and move the camcorder at the same time. --Mercifull ^{(Talk/Contribs)} 18:08, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Flash Color

This may be just me, but did anyone notice that there used to be a red and blue flash in the first bunch of episodes when ships would jump, and then began to be a general white flash in latter episodes? Is this even worth noting?--DuMan 16:51, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

That's correct IIRC. Red/blue flashes were used in "33", don't know where they started using white, though. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 02:08, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

It's more blue/white than pure white now. --Serenity 05:15, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Sublight Propulsion

In the miniseries, Tyrol explicitly mentions reactors and rad (radiation) buffers when scavenging the Mark II Vipers from the museum. Wouldn't this mean that the Colonial sublight engines used in Vipers (or possibly all ships) are based on nuclear power?

--Rapturous 13:28, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Hi, Rapturous. It's not quite clear. The Miniseries does note that, but later the series continually uses and notes the importance of tylium as the fuel. You might have something in that we haven't yet found sufficient data to define how tylium is burned. For instance, the RCS thrusters could burn tylium directly, but the main engines of the various ships may process the fuel in a different way. It's just that virtually nothing has been officially defined in circumstance and/or dialogue as yet in the show. It's not likely that tylium is a nuclear fuel; Gaius Baltar's description of it appears to contradict that, but tylium has weird properties not found in any real-world Earth counterpart that any of our contributors have recognized yet. It is probable that the main engines are a type of nuclear-augmented engine (based on that one miniseries note) but tylium is (1) definitely the fuel source, and (2) is a liquified refined product from ore (see Dirty Hands). To have nuclear substances however, bring up a contradiction: Why would an engine need two fuels to operate (tylium and, say, plutonium)? Any nuclear substances in such an engine would likely be a catalyst to help burn the tylium efficiently, perhaps. But again, all this is based on a lot more speculation than which is allowed in the articles. You bring up an interesting question...one I may ask using a new official source contact I recently received... --Spencerian 09:01, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

It's also possible that the nuclear material is used to generate electrical energy. Maybe with some sort of radio-isoptope thermal generator. Though electrical energy could also be obtained with the use of the heat from the tylium burning, an RTG would provide energy independent of engine use. --Serenity 09:47, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

That has some sense but I think it has better application in BSG context. American manned spacecraft since Gemini use fuel cells for non-propulsive energy for powering the ship's electrical system. Maybe the ships use RPG-like devices for electrical power (necessitating the need to put "rad buffers" to, perhaps, put the RPG in dormancy while in the museum) but have to pull them to give electrical power. Tylium remains the fuel. This has a good reference (albeit quasi-speculative since electrical batteries could also apply here): After Lee Adama destroys the first Cylon missile that chased Colonial Heavy 798 in the miniseries, his ship lost almost all electrical power with the blast. Don't know if the blast was something that would down his RPG from an EMP (if a nuclear-tipped missile), but its something to consider. --Spencerian 10:49, 17 September 2007 (CDT)

That's what I meant. I wasn't referring to electrical propulsion, but to the electrical system. DRADIS, life support, computers, etc. Though I guess it was just some throwaway line that sounded nice. --Serenity 12:05, 17 September 2007 (CDT)