LibriumArcana.Games

A thought, can we take the opening part of the film as literal truth?

We are seeing a dream, a dream of a young lady whose mind is fracturing and breaking under immense strain. Can it be trusted as a 100% factual recounting of history?

I hope not. It kicks the hell out of my suspension of disbelief.

And that it is pretty much impossible. You can explain away artificial gravity and such as technology, but a solar system cannot form that way...

The problem is that the way the solar system is set up has been confirmed by Joss Whedon, and it's about the only way to have the story setup in such a way to allow for so many planets without any FTL system.

Also, I would like to point out that while it is incredibly improbable to form a solar system is in such a way, it is not, in fact, impossible. FTL and artifical gravity, meanwhile, are effectively impossible under known physics. Logically speaking, it is MORE likely that a solar system similar to Joss Whedon's monstrosity will form than it is for FTL travel to exist under physics as we know it.

However, this comes to one of the major tenants of fiction writing: It's often easier to sell the impossible than the improbable. If it can be done, but it makes NO SENSE to do so, it's hard to sell. If it makes sense to do so, but is impossible in fact, people will accept it much more readily.

For example, virtually nobody questioned lightsabers. They're awesome, they're cool, and they're virtually impossible to make work.

EDIT: (had to run and cut the post short)

Meanwhile, when Morpheus used telescopic sights on his MP-5Ks in the second Matrix movie, holding them both Akimbo, everyone I saw the movie with scoffed and rolled their eyes.

I have to wonder why he didn't just set the thing in the solar system and portray it a thousand years from now, heavily populated and terraformed. A blue mars, for example. A collection of asteroids that have been settled. Jovian moons. Mercury, etc.

Stofsk wrote:I have to wonder why he didn't just set the thing in the solar system and portray it a thousand years from now, heavily populated and terraformed. A blue mars, for example. A collection of asteroids that have been settled. Jovian moons. Mercury, etc.

Not enough worlds overall, not enough space, not enough places he can claim are habitable. Terraforming Mercury is a pipe dream, pure and simple. There are maybe three or four moons in the entire solar system that could even come close to supporting life. It also doesn't allow him to change scenery or technology as much. Sure, it's unrealistic to have a super-system like he depicted, but working with existing space that's known allows people to point and go "Oh yeah right!". He can make up whatever he wants in his super system.

Mars can be terraformed. With superscience Venus can be terraformed (kinda). That's two planets in addition to the cleaning up on Earth.

Then you add the Moons, which frankly would be cool to see Mal et al doing a moonwalk in vac suits. Then you've got your Asteroid settlements, which can look pretty decent on the inside.

All of that would be better than hopping onto a STL exodus fleet because 'Earth was used up' and then coming out at the other end at a supersystem that has tons and tons of moons and planets - some of which, I remind you, were also terraformed before they could be settled.

If he's going to use magic terraforming to turn moons into life-breathing colonies, you can use the same magic on Jovian moons, Venus and Mars, the moons of Saturn and Uranus, Mercury etc.

NONE OF THIS WOULD BE A PROBLEM, if FTL could be confirmed to exist in Firefly. Firefly isn't hard SF. It doesn't need to deny FTL. But because it does, we're left with some puzzling incidents which we have to look at.

In my mind, if he wasn't going for the FTL idea, then he should have simply left things in the sol system. I'd love it if the old familiar terrain of Mars and so on could be used more often in today's sci-fi.

If he's going to use magic terraforming to turn moons into life-breathing colonies, you can use the same magic on Jovian moons, Venus and Mars, the moons of Saturn and Uranus, Mercury etc.

Once you get pass Saturn the sun is literally to far away to substain Terrain sytle life. Mercury is so close to the sun you don't need a match to start a bonfire. Venus could be done but you need to strip away the majority of the astmosphere first (I suggest slamming a large ice astaroid into it). Mars needs a greenhouse effect to thicken the astmosphere.

Let me see if I get this right - if one planet can be terraformed, any planet can be terraformed?

Come on, that's just plain silly. You can't use the same level of technology to terraform Mars to terraform Mercury. Mercury is a nasty little rock that has one side that faces the Sun and the other side that faces deep space. Its atmosphere, if you can call it that, is whatever solar ejecta it catches and forgets to let go.

The vast majority of objects orbiting Gas Giants are little more than glorified asteroids.

Yes, FTL would solve some of the problems in Firefly, but that's directly against canon, so we deal with it. He didn't want to work with Sol, so we deal with it. Also, like I said before, FTL is inherantly less realistic than a supersystem like he has depicted. It's less common (though it does have precedence in Sci-Fi).

Moreover, some of the plots that he wanted to do wouldn't have worked with FTL. Being hijacked between planets being one of them (and a fairly common one it was. To make it work with FTL, first you have to spend time explaining, on some level, how the FTL works and what limits it has. Then you have to explain why every jackass and his mother has an FTL interrupter.

Meanwhile, I have to admit, I went through the entire series and while watching it only idly wondered how they got from place to place, I assumed that they used some sort of weird form of FTL similar to Skylark's system, but the existance of a super solar system doesn't automatically ruin the show for me, in part because I've seen it before in Sci-Fi, and while it's really unlikely to EVER happen, it's still not as much of a leap as FTL.

And while someone will eventually come up with the argument of why was the Artificial Gravity and not FTL, the answer is simple: practicality, first for the show, and second for any universe where you have people living in spaceships for months or years at a time.

Serenity sadly never made it to german TV so I'm obviously a little hazy on the details (IOW I haven't the foggiest about the series) but why does being hijacked between planets become AUTOMATICALLY harder when you have FTL? Why would they need an FTL interrupter to hijack you mid-transit? Barring instantaneous FTL all you need is the ability to dock/shoot at/generally mess with another ship while FTL, which is easily achieved by having an FTL equipped ship yourself.
If there are particularities about the Serenity hijacking scenarios that preclude this by all means correct me but I don't see why it's generally infeasible.
That being said I ALSO don't see the problem with the giant solar system.
If it actually works, groovy. If it doesn't who cares? As Hotfoot pointed out, I find it vastly easier to buy stuff that is (as far as we know for now) impossible and makes sense than stuff than may be possible but is utterly retarded.
I know that the solar system in Asimov's Lucky Starr novels and Heinlein's works is not quite exactly the one we actually live in. I love them anyway. Why? Because they're internally consistent and make SENSE. And besides are great fun.

Most FTL drives don't allow for two strangers bumping in the dark, or running quietly. Star Trek gets away with this by not having true hyperspace as we know it.

There are several instances of Serenity being snuck up on in the middle of nowhere, even boarded, all without he crew knowing.

Hotfoot wrote:Let me see if I get this right - if one planet can be terraformed, any planet can be terraformed?

In a soft sci-fi setting - which is what Firefly/Serenity is - yes, absolutely.

Firefly posits dozens of moons that have 1g gravity, standard oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere, and is within the star's habitation range. Either all those moons are the same and are positioned in orbit around their suns via a rossete scheme - which begs the question of how such an unnatural alignment could be formed naturally, since Firefly doesn't have any alien superintelligent races - or the moons are spread all over the place but magic-terraforming can bring them all up to an earth standard.

Come on, that's just plain silly. You can't use the same level of technology to terraform Mars to terraform Mercury. Mercury is a nasty little rock that has one side that faces the Sun and the other side that faces deep space. Its atmosphere, if you can call it that, is whatever solar ejecta it catches and forgets to let go.

Who said anything about using the same gizmos to terraform A and B? Both examples would have different requirements. However, if Firefly as-is posits magic-terraformation technology, then I don't see why this is a problem.

The vast majority of objects orbiting Gas Giants are little more than glorified asteroids.

Which can be hollowed out and if enough volatiles left over can be turned into an asteroid settlement which rotates for centrifugal force to simulate gravity. On the other hand, Firefly already has gravitics.

In any case, this is yet another option.

Yes, FTL would solve some of the problems in Firefly, but that's directly against canon, so we deal with it. He didn't want to work with Sol, so we deal with it. Also, like I said before, FTL is inherantly less realistic than a supersystem like he has depicted. It's less common (though it does have precedence in Sci-Fi).

FTL is a sci-fi convention you just accept and move on with. If you do go hard SF then you have to be realistic: realistically, the kind of star system that Firefly posits - what is it, a trinary system, presumably with at least one F, G or K class with habitable planets orbiting them? each with dozens if not hundreds of moons that are fodder for the superterraformers? - is so improbable that we have to question how it can exist. That's the first problem. The second problem is, it must be close to Earth in order for the STL transports to make it there within a timeframe that takes into account the 500 years ahead figure given somewhere.

If it's so close to earth then what star is it? Why doesn't Joss name it? I mean he's done everything else thus far. There may be a list of likely candidates for the Firefly trinary system. And if there isn't, the farther you go the more improbable the setting is.

And while someone will eventually come up with the argument of why was the Artificial Gravity and not FTL, the answer is simple: practicality, first for the show, and second for any universe where you have people living in spaceships for months or years at a time.

Well practically, gravitics isn't a solution because it means your props are more expensive - to show flying cars you have to call it into the budget, CGI budget, and if you want a physical prop to show guys jumping into or getting out of you have to make that as well. nBSG didn't bother with gravitics and just had the 200 hostages put onto a fleet of trucks. This was no doubt a budget decision as it was a artistic one (Moore might say a truck is more visceral than a grav car and he may or may not be right, but the simple fact is you can rent a truck from a car dealership while you can't do anything of the sort with a grav car because it doesn't exist).

Hotfoot wrote:Most FTL drives don't allow for two strangers bumping in the dark, or running quietly. Star Trek gets away with this by not having true hyperspace as we know it.

There are several instances of Serenity being snuck up on in the middle of nowhere, even boarded, all without he crew knowing.

That's got nothing to do with FTL. There are plenty of FTL drives that have limitations that force you to travel interplanetary journeys STL.

Hotfoot wrote:Most FTL drives don't allow for two strangers bumping in the dark, or running quietly. Star Trek gets away with this by not having true hyperspace as we know it.
There are several instances of Serenity being snuck up on in the middle of nowhere, even boarded, all without he crew knowing.

I fail to see how that is an endemic problem of stardrive as opposed to specific incarnations of it (and the boarding problem is a lack of internal/sufficiently sensitive external sensors and has nothing to do with FTL in any way. Either you're going to notice or you're not). If you can detect other ships, maneuver to rendevouz, and dock I fail to see why it makes a difference wether you do so STL or FTL.
We know it's at least theoretically possible in Trek and it is DEFINITELY possible in B5.

frigidmagi wrote:

If he's going to use magic terraforming to turn moons into life-breathing colonies, you can use the same magic on Jovian moons, Venus and Mars, the moons of Saturn and Uranus, Mercury etc.

Once you get pass Saturn the sun is literally to far away to substain Terrain sytle life.

Which is why colonies out there are almost entirely asteroid settlements or underground settlements on moons that orbit the gasgiants. They'll have fusion fuel from the bountiful hydrogen or helium-3. They'll have water from the ice in say, Saturn's rings. It can work. It can actually be pretty stunning. (All the moons and so on in Firefly look the same. They're just the same real-estate with different names)

Mercury is so close to the sun you don't need a match to start a bonfire.

Yeah, but Mercury isn't the sort of place you plant trees. It's the sort of place that you make antimatter from countless solar arrays. Underground cities and so on.

Venus could be done but you need to strip away the majority of the astmosphere first (I suggest slamming a large ice astaroid into it). Mars needs a greenhouse effect to thicken the astmosphere.

This is where magic terraforming comes into effect. In order to show a Mars and Venus that can allow unprotected humans to wander about, you need to basically call it 'terraforming' and hope nobody asks how it worked.

Venus is more or less impossible. It has no magnetic field, it rotates way too slowly (it's day is longer than it's year), and the atmosphere is the closest thing to hell that one can imagine. But this is soft-sci-fi, so why not terraform it?

Mars is better. You can warm things up with solar mirrors, and start a greenhouse effect to gas up its atmosphere.

Other than that, Luna can be settled with underground cities. He-3 on its surface can power fusion reactors. Asteroid settlements can be found. And so on.

Batman wrote:That being said I ALSO don't see the problem with the giant solar system.
If it actually works, groovy. If it doesn't who cares? As Hotfoot pointed out, I find it vastly easier to buy stuff that is (as far as we know for now) impossible and makes sense than stuff than may be possible but is utterly retarded.

That's what I'm trying to get at. FTL is impossible but it makes more sense than a giant star system where all the orbiting bodies are within the habitation range of their parent star. We're talking moons that can be terraformed to earth standard (1g, standard atmosphere, warm for humans).

Question... Is there any reason why humans couldn't have moved the moons into the correct orbiting positions?

Stofsk wrote: That's what I'm trying to get at. FTL is impossible but it makes more sense than a giant star system where all the orbiting bodies are within the habitation range of their parent star.

No it doesn't. It WOULD make sense were it possible (because it would be useful as hell) but just because a system constellation like that is highly unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen.

We're talking moons that can be terraformed to earth standard (1g, standard atmosphere, warm for humans).

Artificial gravity (which I think exists in Serenity) is your friend.

Batman wrote:

Stofsk wrote:That's what I'm trying to get at. FTL is impossible but it makes more sense than a giant star system where all the orbiting bodies are within the habitation range of their parent star.

No it doesn't. It WOULD make sense were it possible (because it would be useful as hell) but just because a system constellation like that is highly unlikely doesn't mean it can't happen.

Never said it can't happen, but we're talking about massive terraforming of dozens of moons to be made habitable, while numerous earth like planets in the habitable range of their orbiting sun.

This is wildly improbable, and can only work with magic terraforming anyway. It also presents the problem a STL interstellar voyage would present. Namely, finding this fantastic trinary star system with it's bounty of earth like planets and moons, all within a certain range of Sol, and all of which were magically terraformed in a short timeframe.

We're talking moons that can be terraformed to earth standard (1g, standard atmosphere, warm for humans).

Artificial gravity (which I think exists in Serenity) is your friend.

Which is part of the 'magic terraforming' technology that I've already said has to exist. If you can do that to the Firefly planets/moons, you can do that to Mars, the Moon, the Jovian moons, and so on.

frigidmagi wrote:Question... Is there any reason why humans couldn't have moved the moons into the correct orbiting positions?

And again, if you can do this to the Firefly planets/moons, you can do this to Mars, the Moon, the Jovian moons, and so on.

All of which leaves you with Sol as your playground, no need for wildly improbable interstellar voyages and fantastic trinary star systems with dozens of planets and moons within the habitation range of their parent stars. The best part is you get to keep earth, without this Whedonism nonsense of it being "Used up."

This whole thread started because Frigid dared to question the opening narration which took place entirely within the head of a mentally traumatised young woman who could very well have been dreaming. River is presented as a highly imaginative person. I don't particularly like the idea that Firefly is set within one giant star system, which was arrived at via STL fleets of transports.

Either posit a setting with FTL and work within its limitations. It's a sci-fi convention, nobody other than Hard SF wankers are going to yell at you. Or you work within the confines of the Solar System. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean your setting will be Hard SF. But if it's set in our own backyard then things can be more comfortable and recognisable, and stuff like 'terraforming Mars/Venus and settling on the Moon/Asteroids" can be depicted without the need to create a single giant star system with dozens of life-bearing planets and moons that necessitate magic terraforming anyway.

frigidmagi wrote:Question... Is there any reason why humans couldn't have moved the moons into the correct orbiting positions?

It is a matter of power available. With powerful enough engines, yes indeed this can be done within a reasonable time frame. Retarding the orbital speed of a moon/planet will draw it closer to the body it orbits, and the opposite applies. With modern rockets it would take an incredible amount of time to even notice our efforts to move something moon sized, but really really powerful atomic rockets in the far future just might have the umph needed.

(I won't go into whether or not Whedon should have done X, Y or Z like some of the other members)

In response to your first question--yes, I have reason to accept River's memories as canon.

She is crazy, yes, but her problems seem to be more emotion control than memory. She cannot control what she feels, but has never been shown to misremember or reinvent the past. She is not sane though, and this is not my only reason.

There is no FTL. Something like that monster of a system must exist, therefore, even if River is wrong in the details, she is right in the broader sense. Either they found a wacky system, or found a potential system and made it even more wacky by moving things around or something. Just deal with it.

The Silence and I wrote:Just deal with it.

Actually, I don't have to 'just deal with it'. Firefly and Serenity are open to criticism just like everything under the sun. No FTL and whacky, monster star systems is just an example of Joss getting his shit wrong.

Because, yes, it can happen, it is possible (albeit not probable) to have a star system like that, but he nevertheless uses magictech to explain it away anyway - which completely invalidates the supposed-realism that is meant to be achieved.

My thought is this. It does not matter what we think Wheldon should have or should not have done. What matters is what is canon. Yes I dared questioned the opening narrivative. I dare to do alot of stuff, ask around. That being said, Silence brings up very good points, that River's truma is primary emotional in nature, therefore there is no reason to assume she invented the opening out of the whole cloth.

As for moving and maintaining the enviroments of the various moons and planets. I think I should point out something. We have never seen their gravity tech break down or even require maintainence. When every other system was shutting itself off on Serenity... Mal was not floating but walking.

This tells me that whatever they use to create artifical grav is prehaps the most reliable tech ever created by humanity and I wonder if it did not play a role in the creation of this solar system.

frigidmagi wrote:A thought, can we take the opening part of the film as literal truth?

We are seeing a dream, a dream of a young lady whose mind is fracturing and breaking under immense strain. Can it be trusted as a 100% factual recounting of history?[/quote]
Since this thread is getting derailed, my next post will reply to the OP.

To answer your question, no we cannot.

The reason for this is because any perspective that takes place within someone's mind or recollection is subjective. River might be dreaming, which makes her neural impulses effectively random. Human memory is fallible. We forget things, and stuff we do remember is prone to error, misremembering, or are outright false.

If it was dialogue between two people - Mal said to Wash "As you know, humanity found this giant star system blahblahblah" - we would still have to question its veracity; people can be wrong, they can get their facts wrong, they can be deliberately fucking with each other.

But as it stands, the opening narration is hard to reconcile with SoD because we're listening to something going on entirely within River's mind. Not to mention how the scene is obviously unreal, because there are reavers encountered in it.

Where is the supposed realism that is meant to be achieved coming from?
Is it something Joss Whedon actually said or is it just something inferred because 'NO FTL'='tries to be realistic'?

frigidmagi wrote:My thought is this. It does not matter what we think Wheldon should have or should not have done. What matters is what is canon. Yes I dared questioned the opening narrivative. I dare to do alot of stuff, ask around. That being said, Silence brings up very good points, that River's truma is primary emotional in nature, therefore there is no reason to assume she invented the opening out of the whole cloth.

Since River was essentially dreaming, and we don't understand a great deal of what dreaming actually is, I would put ALL of it under the skeptical umbrella. River's mind could have been making stuff up; that happens in dreams. It is clearly unreal, given the Reaver encounter; that happens in dreams. If it's referencing a prior memory - which is already suspect, given the unreality of the dreamscape - then she could be A) misremembering, not inconceivable given human memory is not infallible, or B) the teacher was wrong or C) the teacher was lying to them about it, which follows given how the teacher was lying to them about other parts of the history lesson (the Independents, the Reavers that don't exist etc).

What I'm seeing here is some people taking that one scene and declaring this must be the kind of universe Serenity is set in, forgetting the fact that it takes place inside River's head and has (from memory) no independent corroboration.