Gunnery Pod (spoilers)

**DONOTDELETE** · Jan 22, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Fineous:
Ahh, but in "In the beginning" You can clearly see that no one really is sure whether or not to believe any of that. I mean, there is a clear prophecy left by Valen, that in 1000 years the war would come again, and the time is approaching rapidly, and STILL they do not believe it. They do not even seem to be worried at all. Precisely because there has been no challenge to them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That one doesn't believe that something serious will come up doesn't mean that one isn't prepared to meet something that does come up. By your logic, there would be no reason for the Minbari to have a fleet of War Cruisers big enough to fight the Earth-Minari war. You still have to be able to respond to anything that does come up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It is one thing to know intellectually that there is something out there that can take you out. It is quite another thing to be able to convince the military. Look at the Earth. Totally convinced that there is nothing out there that can seriously threaten them 'coz the Dilgar were so easy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Look at earth. I don't see the US tossing its whole nuclear arsenal just because they can bomb just about anyone into the ground with conventional means.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Why should the Minbari be anything different. To them it has been over 1000 years since anyone has been able to threaten them. Even at the height of the republic the Centauri were afraid of the Minbari, and they are arguably the next most powerful of the 'known' (I.E. known before the shadow war) races. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1000 years isn't that much time for the Minbari (remember Delenn in "Deconstruction of Falling Stars") And there are still the Vorlons.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Hell, look at us. Most carriers still use f-14s fer christ sake, and those things are ANCIENT in terms of modern jet fighters. They are, however, good enough to get the job done. And they are cheap to produce compared to much more modern, cutting edge, technology. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. But you forget that they are meant to fight on the planet, and we have the planet mapped pretty much 100%. The chance that anything shows up against which the f-14 cannot get the job than is practically zero. That is not the case for the Minbari, and least of all for a ship supposed to operate in uncharted territory on its own.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I'm not saying the Minbari don't have better ways. I am just saying that on low end ships, ships designed to scout and run away, NOT to fight, there is no need for them. What they have is good enough.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Murphy's Laws of Combat: No battle plan survives contact with the enemy. You need a CHANCE to run away. When you are space junk the moment you come out of hyperspace, you won't do much running away. A scout ship more than ANY other ship has to be ready to run into surprises. And that includes nasty surprises.

------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?

(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)

Natron · Jan 22, 2002

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but here I go.

What if the weapons pod on the Liandra was one of a kind?

Maybe the Liandra was used to test it, but the Minbari have since ditched the idea, but decided to leave it on the Liandra. It was already hooked up to the weapons systems so maybe taking it out was too much of a hassle.

Also, Sarah wasn't in the weapons pod on the Enfalli. Somebody else could have been in it, but it might not have had a one.

This brings up a question: why was Sarah so familiar with the system? She didn't undergo any training using it (that we saw).

I'm thinking that Rangers are trained in different kinds of ships, which would have variations on their position. (Engineers would be trained with different engines/reactors), so Sarah would have been trained in using different weapons systems.

This would lead me to believe that the Liandra was not the only ship with the weapons pod (which would conflict with what I said above) (why train Rangers to use it if it's only on one ship?) Either all the same class of ships as the Liandra have the pod, or maybe more do.

I hope that isn't to confusing.

Thoughts...?

------------------
"We live for the one, we die for the one."

**DONOTDELETE** · Jan 22, 2002

I think Charles J. Cohen's fascinating post on the advantages of a VR weapons system could just well be the final word on the matter...

Sarah may well have got it right after all

------------------
'I plan to live forever, or die trying' - Villa Blake's 7

KoshN · Jan 23, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lyta:
Judging from the last few posts, it sounds like people think KoshN wrote that extremely lengthy and well thought out post (which does have a JoeD-esqe quality to it). He was merely reposting the post that was originally written by Charles J. Cohen (with permission). I am sure KoshN does not want to take credit for anything Mr. Cohen wrote so you should probably direct your comments to him (even though he may not participate in these boards) or at least give credit where credit is due.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly, and that's why I put that header in BOLD at the beginning. I just thought this guy looks like somebody who has some professional knowledge in the field, and all the folks who are reading this thread might benefit from seeing this P.O.V. That's all.

This is the first chance I had to read this thread since I posted Cohen's material. I'm not going to correct every single post where the posters who thought I wrote it.

I'll just say it here, once.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lyta:
My point in asking people read Mr. Cohen's review is to give another perspective on the matter from what could be considered an "expert" in the field.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this is why I asked for permission, got it, and posted it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lyta:
PS: This confusion about who posted what is exactly why I did not repost Mr. Cohen's review ... not to mention the length.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How could there be confusion? I put that big thing in bold, right at the beginning. I put all the "Original Message" header in there. Argh!

------------------
KoshN
-------------
Vorlon Empire

"To Live and Die in Starlight"
pilot movie for "Babylon 5 - The Legend of the Rangers"
January 19, 2002 at 9PM & 11PM EST, January 20, 2002 at 5PM on The Sci-Fi Channel (US).
http://www.scifi.com/b5rangers/

**DONOTDELETE** · Jan 23, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by orac:
I think Charles J. Cohen's fascinating post on the advantages of a VR weapons system could just well be the final word on the matter...

Sarah may well have got it right after all

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How so? The post only addresses the situation once the weapons control officer is in the pod. There's nothing about the time lost for her to get into the pod. Another problem is that the post compares the system seen with what we have today as opposed to technology seen in the series. The comparison made is with standard computer interfaces and not, for example, holographic displays.

------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?

(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)

hypatia · Jan 23, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by GKarsEye:
Especially with that last part about Miriam's body, right?

(Don't worry, hypatia, I won't let you like me for too long

)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you. You are a true gentleman, GkarsEye.

------------------
"The Bible is a book: it is a good book, but is is not the only book" - Inherit the Wind

"I do not believe that the same God who
has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."—Galileo

hypatia@b5fan.b5lr.com

SwiftBiscuit · Jan 23, 2002

Irmo: >> Try steering the car through an obstacle course. You will find an overhead view much appreciated. <<
Not really.

Yes you could see the whole course at all times, but you would be able to drive more effectively if you had the car's point of view. You could see your braking point approach and the turn-in point looming, you could apply the power at exactly the right time as you pass the apex. Basically you would hit your markers more precisely because you would only be inches away - if you had the overall view you could be tens of feet away.
You could do the driving of the car much more precisely with an involved point of view.

In this specific case, there are other ways to make the operator aware of things behind them. buzzing sounds located at their position, or a sense of touch on the back of their head/back/legs - hell, make the operator telepathic and you open up a whole new way to communicate with them

Visual guides are great for television, but reactions to non-visual guides are acceptable too.

LondosHair · Jan 23, 2002

I really have enjoyed reading this particular post... mostly because it makes me chuckle. Here we are, trying to logically express the benefits of such a gunnery pod, drawing upon all that we know of physics, technology, psychology, and physiology.

Yet this is science fiction! Of course there's the important element of science to discuss, but let's not forget the fiction! Fiction! As in imaginary! Not real!

Is it safe to say that any technology which we cannot duplicate by today's standards is therefore, in the strictest sense, fiction? String Theory, while accepted and taught by many a professor and physicist, is still fiction because it hasn't been proven yet. Warp drive (matter/antimatter propulsion) is still fiction, even though it's feasible.

The same goes for the infamous Gunnery Pod. It's fiction. We can't make one today. And that's what makes it so cool.

------------------
-Londo's Hair
"Vir, intelligence has nothing to do with politics!"

[This message has been edited by LondosHair (edited January 23, 2002).]

**DONOTDELETE** · Jan 23, 2002

Most technology which can be imagined can also be built, even if not today. With some compromises, you could *almost* build it. Components:

1. Semi-spherical projection screen, no artificial gravity.
2. Ordinary projection devices, no holography.
3. Software to project. Rotate the image, not the person.
4. Software to observe/recognize gestures, perhaps even eyes.
5. Software and sensors to get the image from somewhere.

It would not be a feasible weapons control system, but a clumsy demonstration. There would be inaccuracies in both input (gesture and eye movement recognition) and output (ordinary projection versus holograms) -- but it would work if you would pump in enough money. As we have no *serious* spaceships today, it would also lack useful applications.

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited January 23, 2002).]

Nukemall · Jan 23, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lennier:
Most things that can be imagined can also be made. With some compromises, you could *alsmost* build it. Components:

1. Semi-spherical projection screen, no artificial gravity.
2. Ordinary projection devices, no holography.
3. Software to project. Rotate the image, not the person.
4. Software to observe/recognize gestures, perhaps even eyes.
5. Software to and sensors to observe the surroundings.

It would not become a feasible weapons control system due to inaccuracies in both input (gesture and eye movement recognition) and output (ordinary projection versus holograms) -- but it would work if you would pump in enough money. As we have no *serious* spaceships today, it would also lack useful applications.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking something along the lines of:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Harness and rope
<LI>Two old bath-tubs
<LI>Paint and paintbrush
<LI>Imagination
[/list]

------------------
"And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning." - Winston Churchill
--
yan@ranger.b5lr.com

Fineous · Jan 23, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That one doesn't believe that something serious will come up doesn't mean that one isn't prepared to meet something that does come up. By your logic, there would be no reason for the Minbari to have a fleet of War Cruisers big enough to fight the Earth-Minari war. You still have to be able to respond to anything that does come up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the huge number of advanced cruisers they have is precisely why they are not attacked by anyone. That does not mean, however, that they need to have every one of their ships be super advanced at the very height of their technological knowhow.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Yes. Look at earth. I don't see the US tossing its whole nuclear arsenal just because they can bomb just about anyone into the ground with conventional means.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what you are saying here since it seems to me you are arguing my point, that there is no need to use bigger more advanced stuff when the older out of date stuff will suffice.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>1000 years isn't that much time for the Minbari (remember Delenn in "Deconstruction of Falling Stars") And there are still the Vorlons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true, they live a very long time, and thus develop a lot more slowly. This does not change the fact that they are much more advanced than everyone else.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Yes. But you forget that they are meant to fight on the planet, and we have the planet mapped pretty much 100%. The chance that anything shows up against which the f-14 cannot get the job than is practically zero. That is not the case for the Minbari, and least of all for a ship supposed to operate in uncharted territory on its own.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

O.K. I admit it was a somewhat weak analogy. Analogies are virtually by definition weak, since they are not dealing specifically with the subject. However, your example of why it was weak still doesn't stand up. Just because we are stuck on the planet at the moment, doesn't mean that an f-14 pilot can't come up against something much more advanced. And it may well be on a routine patrol when they interrupt some foreign government making overtures to a new war. By your example we should immediately ditch every f-14 and replace with newer and more improved planes just on the off chance that a ship out there could be the one in the middle of the start of a new war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Murphy's Laws of Combat: No battle plan survives contact with the enemy. You need a CHANCE to run away. When you are space junk the moment you come out of hyperspace, you won't do much running away. A scout ship more than ANY other ship has to be ready to run into surprises. And that includes nasty surprises.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and to my mind the best way of being ready for nasty surprises, when in a scout ship, is to run away. Because if you are in a small scout ship, and the enemy is greatly superior to you, then you are dead anyway. Running away is your only chance.

BTW, thanks for the interesting and civil discussion. I must admit I do like the difference between B5 fans and fans of other shows where interesting discussions can often degrade into incoherent screaming matches of 'oh yeah, well because you said that you suck', 'oh yeah, well you suck even more, and you are an idiot 'coz you disagree with me!' B5 fans seem on the whole to be much more intelligent.

Hmm, of course I am a B5 fan, so, obviously it must be true. . .

------------------
"In the Beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
-Douglas Adams 'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy'

Ranger One · Jan 23, 2002

I can live with the gunnery pod as long as they cut down (i.e. eliminate) any screaming from Sarah Cantrell. It didn't induce groaning from me, which I fully expected it would when I first read about it on aint-it-cool-news.

Nukemall · Jan 23, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> 1000 years isn't that much time for the Minbari (remember Delenn in "Deconstruction of Falling Stars") <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Delenn appeared in the 2362 broadcast (100 years after the B5 events). She was already long gone by 2762, when certain elements on Earth were trying to create holographic propaganda.

------------------
"And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning." - Winston Churchill
--
yan@ranger.b5lr.com

Nukemall · Jan 23, 2002

Double post

[This message has been edited by Nukemall (edited January 23, 2002).]

**DONOTDELETE** · Jan 23, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SwiftBiscuit:

Not really.

Yes you could see the whole course at all times, but you would be able to drive more effectively if you had the car's point of view. You could see your braking point approach and the turn-in point looming, you could apply the power at exactly the right time as you pass the apex. Basically you would hit your markers more precisely because you would only be inches away - if you had the overall view you could be tens of feet away.
You could do the driving of the car much more precisely with an involved point of view. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You argue from a position of a known course. You don't have any markers if you don't know what's coming at you. Which is precisely why getting an overview of what you are dealing with is very useful.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
In this specific case, there are other ways to make the operator aware of things behind them. buzzing sounds located at their position, or a sense of touch on the back of their head/back/legs - hell, make the operator telepathic and you open up a whole new way to communicate with them

Visual guides are great for television, but reactions to non-visual guides are acceptable too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In this specific case, we're talking about shooting, not driving, which will be handled by someone else. But anyway:

Guides alert you, but they don't necessarily make you able to immediately act. An overview point of view does. Guides can also confuse you if they alert you at inopportune moment.

------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?

(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)

**DONOTDELETE** · Jan 23, 2002

Well, it is a step backward, but as far as Mimbari Tech goes like a thousand years, not 20 years. First, the already pointed out- have to jump down the "rabbit hole", if they are suprised they are dead.
Secondly, how much energy do you think it takes to keep her suspended at her center of gravity and yet allow subtle motions of her body to move her 360 on the X, Y, and Z axis. Anything, even things in space, need to find the balance between tech, and practicality especially from a military stand point, so you can keep the darn thing running.
Next you have the added energy and sensors required to track her movement, if you lose a sensor a turret isn't going to turn.
Now it may not be hordes of energy but its still wasted, when every erg of power is needed why waste it on what is ultimately a very neat, but unnecessary toy.
The Earth Mimbari War wasn't a whole lot more than 20 years prior to b5ltr and the tech displayed in the fighters and crusiers seems far more practical. One of the things that was cool about B5 to start with was that the science was believeable, no "Heisenberg Compensators" and other technobable IMHO.

____________________
"...you moon faced assasin of joy!"
Londo

------------------

**DONOTDELETE** · Jan 23, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Fineous:

No, the huge number of advanced cruisers they have is precisely why they are not attacked by anyone. That does not mean, however, that they need to have every one of their ships be super advanced at the very height of their technological knowhow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What you are arguing is an invitation for a hit and run attack by others on isolated ships. Space is big, and the War Cruisers can't be everywhere, and a ship out on the edge that can't take care of itself is a target ripe for picking. And there will be much rejoicing as the big, invincible Minbari get their posterior spanked. Look around you at the reactions elsewhere to, for example, the incident that served as a basis for "Black Hawk Down"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'm not sure what you are saying here since it seems to me you are arguing my point, that there is no need to use bigger more advanced stuff when the older out of date stuff will suffice. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are arguing keeping stuff that won't suffice because you have stuff that does.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> This is true, they live a very long time, and thus develop a lot more slowly. This does not change the fact that they are much more advanced than everyone else. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It however affects how easily they forget what happened 1000 years ago.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> O.K. I admit it was a somewhat weak analogy. Analogies are virtually by definition weak, since they are not dealing specifically with the subject. However, your example of why it was weak still doesn't stand up. Just because we are stuck on the planet at the moment, doesn't mean that an f-14 pilot can't come up against something much more advanced. And it may well be on a routine patrol when they interrupt some foreign government making overtures to a new war. By your example we should immediately ditch every f-14 and replace with newer and more improved planes just on the off chance that a ship out there could be the one in the middle of the start of a new war. {/QUOTE]

Nope. Even though the F-14 can encounter advanced aircraft, these are still known components and protocols can be developed on how to deal with them.

Yes, and to my mind the best way of being ready for nasty surprises, when in a scout ship, is to run away. Because if you are in a small scout ship, and the enemy is greatly superior to you, then you are dead anyway. Running away is your only chance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, that assumes having a chance. If during the time you work on getting out of there (e.g. opening another jumpgate), the enemy can do what it wants, your chances are much smaller than if you can discourage further approach with a snap shot.

As someone said on the newsgroup re:the question if it's feasible to have a weapon always loaded, regarding his experience on a fast attack sub, being the first one to shoot can make the difference between being the one to survive or not. There's no need for anyone to be vastly superior to the Minbari. But if a ship goes out into uncharted space, it is silly to assume it will be dealing with what is known. That's not the point of going into previously uncharted territory. It has to be able to deal with whatever it encounters. And if that means shooting someone else out of space before he does it to you, then the ship should be able to do so.

Assume the following scenario: The Liandra opens a jumpgate and encounters a comparatively small, very fast moving vessel that immediately fires, but misses. Sensors indicate you don't really want to be hit by that weapon, though the craft doesn't look very sturdy. If you open a jumpgate you risk a)being hit while opening/entering it, with possibly disastrous consequences b)the ship might follow you into hyperspace. As you weigh your options, sensors indicate the ship is preparing to fire again. It hasn't responded to any attempts at communication. Wouldn't it be very useful to be able to blow the critter out of space before he gets to fire again?
But by the time the WCO has jumped into the pod, there'll be no ship anymore.

------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?

(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)

**DONOTDELETE** · Jan 23, 2002

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nukemall:

Delenn appeared in the 2362 broadcast (100 years after the B5 events). She was already long gone by 2762, when certain elements on Earth were trying to create holographic propaganda.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. Which is an example of Minbari living far longer than humans. Which means 1000 years isn't that much time and that many generations as it is for us, and thus knowledge from 1000 years ago is fresher because 1000 years "isn't that much time"

------------------
If I tell you my name is Lorien, what good is that?

(Whatever happened to Mr. Garibaldi?)

etj4eagle · Jan 23, 2002

Question: Is there any power up delay for the weapon systems on Minbari ships. While I don't believe it has been addressed other than the need to open weapon ports. But I am wondering if there might be a delay, because if there is then the delay in getting into the pod might be academic. But say it takes 5 seconds to power up the weapon systems, open and deploy the guns and it takes her 5 seconds to get from her normal duty station to the gunnery pod, then there is no problem.

We know that B5 takes a few seconds to deploy its defense grid and that at least handheld PPG's take a bit to power up their capacitator. This delay would be at least the delay between firing full powered shots out of the guns, which gives you the time to fully charge the capacitators. Now I don't think this issue has ever been really thought about during the show, so there are probably inconsistancies. About the closest we got was the design flaw in the Victory Class ships.

------------------
-Eagle

**DONOTDELETE** · Jan 24, 2002

Personally, even though I think the weapons pod thing is a good idea, I thought it looked really retarded. The whole punching and kicking thing, it was a real turn off and probably the only thing I didn't like about the telemovie. However, I suppose I can get use to it should it become a series.

------------------
Nothing's the same anymore.

rogeralmond.com

Gunnery Pod (spoilers)

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Beyond the rim

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Super Moderator

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

Regular

Regular

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Regular

Member

Beyond the rim

Regular

Regular

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

New member

**DONOTDELETE**

Guest

Share this page

We value your privacy

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE