B5 Tech Levels

[Allensh]

I could not find this information in the Universe of Babylon 5 book so...anyone have an idea what the tech levels of the various races mentioned in that book are? I think, based on homeworlds, that I know this, but I wanted to see what the assembled throng think

Allen

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

My guesses:

Earth Alliance: TL 10-11
Narn Regime: TL 11
Centauri Republic: TL 12-13
Minbari Federation: TL 14-15
League of Non-Aligned Worlds: TL 9-13
Vorlons and Shadows: TL 20+

 

[dmccoy1693]

My guesses:

Earth Alliance: TL 10-11
Narn Regime: TL 11
Centauri Republic: TL 12-13
Minbari Federation: TL 14-15
League of Non-Aligned Worlds: TL 9-13
Vorlons and Shadows: TL 20+

I agree on most, but here's my take:
Earth 11-12
Narn 10-11 (narns don't have gravity on their ships, but don't appear to have rotating sections, yet they have plenty of centauri, but they still are not earth's equals)
League 9-11 (depends on race)

 

[Valarian]

Earth Alliance: TL 10-11
Narn Regime: TL 11
Centauri Republic: TL 12-13
Minbari Federation: TL 14-15
League of Non-Aligned Worlds: TL 9-13
Vorlons and Shadows: TL 20+

I'd go with these estimates.

 

[rust]

I also agree, although I would give the Gaim Intelligence a higher TL (per-
haps TL 15) in biotechnology.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

The League is hard to judge. Several of the League ships seem to have Artificial Gravity which is higher tech in B5, but they don't have big empires. I would give just about every race a bump or drop in some specialized area.

I think Earth is a LOWER TL than Narn, although neither of them have AG. Narn have access to some Centauri tech, so that gives them a tech edge, but not a manufacturing edge.

I always got the impression that Earth tech was the lowest of the major powers, but they were also the most expansionistic and learning the fastest, hence their ability to adapt Shadow tech when no one else seems to do that (or want to). YMMV

 

[Lysander]

The League is hard to judge. Several of the League ships seem to have Artificial Gravity which is higher tech in B5, but they don't have big empires. I would give just about every race a bump or drop in some specialized area.

I think Earth is a LOWER TL than Narn, although neither of them have AG. Narn have access to some Centauri tech, so that gives them a tech edge, but not a manufacturing edge.

I always got the impression that Earth tech was the lowest of the major powers, but they were also the most expansionistic and learning the fastest, hence their ability to adapt Shadow tech when no one else seems to do that (or want to). YMMV

I tend to agree with the above but I assumed the Narn had AG-but, then again, I can't recall seeing Narn on shipboard moving about.

I had always assumed that because they never used rotating sections they had AG-but maybe they don't have the decalcification problems humans do in zero G.

 

[Stofsk]

I tend to agree with the above but I assumed the Narn had AG-but, then again, I can't recall seeing Narn on shipboard moving about.

Remember, the only time we have ever seen inside of a Narn ship it's been on the bridge during combat operations - all the crew are at their stations in their acceleration couches. Whether they have artificial gravity or not, this would be a sensible place for the crew to be and you can't use it as proof they don't have AG.

I had always assumed that because they never used rotating sections they had AG-but maybe they don't have the decalcification problems humans do in zero G.

To be brutally honest, the Omega-class destroyer's rotating section has got to be one of the most blatantly stupid depictions of the design to make it actually laughable. You would only have gravity at the ends of the section, and to get to the other end you have to go through zero gravity.

The worst part: they actually show smart rotating sections on their ships and stations like B5 or the Explorer ship. There is no excuse for the Omega to be so poorly designed (and I know the out-of-universe reason, the designers were inspired by the 2010 Russian space ship - but that doesn't stop the design from being stupid).

Given the idiocy of the Omega design, maybe Earth's TL should go down a notch to penalise them.

(And don't get me started on the Star Fury...)

 

[Lysander]

To be brutally honest, the Omega-class destroyer's rotating section has got to be one of the most blatantly stupid depictions of the design to make it actually laughable. You would only have gravity at the ends of the section, and to get to the other end you have to go through zero gravity.

The worst part: they actually show smart rotating sections on their ships and stations like B5 or the Explorer ship. There is no excuse for the Omega to be so poorly designed (and I know the out-of-universe reason, the designers were inspired by the 2010 Russian space ship - but that doesn't stop the design from being stupid).

Given the idiocy of the Omega design, maybe Earth's TL should go down a notch to penalise them.

(And don't get me started on the Star Fury...)

Actually one of the most practical rotation sections I have seen in ship design was in the Jovian Chronicles RPG for, I believe, the "Valiant" class ship (again, may be wrong on the name). The rotating section could flip out and spin when the ship was not under thrust. When thrusting it would flip down and provide whatever "G" the ship was generating from thrust to those crewman currently in that section.

Hard to describe but pretty ingenious when you looked at the ship plans. Take out the giant robots (which I do love - however impractical) and the Jovian Chronicles RPG offered up a great hard sci-fi pre-interstellar universe.

 

[The Chef]

may i ask whats wrong with the star fury?? i thought nasa were looking to develop a vehicle that pretty much did what the starfury did (ie manouvourbility not combat stuff)

i always thought the star fury was the best representation of a space fighter? am i wrong?

 

[Stofsk]

may i ask whats wrong with the star fury?? i thought nasa were looking to develop a vehicle that pretty much did what the starfury did (ie manouvourbility not combat stuff)

According to JMS... NASA has never come forward and said "Yeah, we get inspired in our work of designing spacecraft by watching TV shows."

Honestly, I know about this B5 urban legend and - to be perfectly blunt, if JMS actually did receive that telephone call it had to be a prank.

i always thought the star fury was the best representation of a space fighter? am i wrong?

Basically, think: why would you put four engine pods at the end of four 'wings'? It doesn't add to your maneoverability - you could just as easily put those engines closer to the centre and chuck the wings in the bin, if all you're doing is making a space-only fighter. Furthermore, those engines need fuel, and to be properly protected those wings need to be armoured - more armour, means less maneoverability. But the wings are totally unnecessary, you could ditch them, put the pods closer to the centre of the ship, and up-armour it all anyway, and you would still be better off than having the wings in place. For a design that was supposed to be un-aerodynamic, there's no reason to have them.

To give an idea of what I mean, look at an X-wing from Star Wars. Now the X-wing is supposed to be aerodynamic, that's why it retains the wings (they're called s-foils but a rose by any other name...) But look at where the engine pods are on an X-wing - they're closer to the fuselage. Which is where they should be. They can be protected by armour there and they're closer to where the fuel can be stored.

Finally, the pilot in a star fury has no way of looking behind him in combat. But that's a problem with a LOT of space fighters, and it isn't unique to the Star Fury. A pilot ought to have as much visual coverage as possible. Another thing is, I'm not sure if there's a HUD or not.

Look, if it was just a space utility vehicle... maybe not the most efficient design, but doable, but for a combat vehicle... There are heaps better.

 

[AndrewW]

Finally, the pilot in a star fury has no way of looking behind him in combat. But that's a problem with a LOT of space fighters, and it isn't unique to the Star Fury. A pilot ought to have as much visual coverage as possible. Another thing is, I'm not sure if there's a HUD or not.

If there is a HUD that could easy be setup to allow all around vision.

 

[The Chef]

Thanks thats put me in the picture,

on a completely different note, the star fury still looks cool!

Chef

 

[Stofsk]

Don't get me wrong, the Star Fury does look nice. (I think the Thunderbolt has it beat though)

 

[RojBlake]

Basically, think: why would you put four engine pods at the end of four 'wings'? It doesn't add to your maneoverability

It would actually increase your maneouverability. Think 'moment of force' and leverage. The engines being further out from the center of mass would make it easier for the engines to turn the craft.

Your real limitation to the perfomance of a fighter is the amount of G's the pilot can take. A drone or robot vessel would have the advantage here. Plus it wouldn't require the additional weight of pilot, couch, life support etc.

 

[Valarian]

Basically, think: why would you put four engine pods at the end of four 'wings'? It doesn't add to your maneoverability - you could just as easily put those engines closer to the centre and chuck the wings in the bin, if all you're doing is making a space-only fighter. Furthermore, those engines need fuel, and to be properly protected those wings need to be armoured - more armour, means less maneoverability. But the wings are totally unnecessary, you could ditch them, put the pods closer to the centre of the ship, and up-armour it all anyway, and you would still be better off than having the wings in place. For a design that was supposed to be un-aerodynamic, there's no reason to have them.

With the engine pods up on the wings, the thrust is placed further from the centre of gravity so that Starfury can rotate easily. The engine pods are bi-directional, they can channel thrust backwards (moving the 'fury forwards) or channel it forwards. When two thrusters are channelled forwards while the other two are channelled backwards, you get the quick spin (which allows a "Crazy Ivan" sort of manoeuvre in combat to check your rear). There are also smaller, manoeuvring vents at the side and top/bottom of the engine pod near to the forward firing vent. These would also add to the manoeuvrability. Personally, if anything, I think that the Starfury would be too manoeuvrable and would be unstable. Pilots would have to be very careful with the various thrust configurations or risk uncontrolled spinning.

The weapons and the pilot are placed close to the centre of gravity to allow minimal movement. The weapons are directly under (plasma cannon) and to the side (light plasma cannon) of the cockpit.

 

[lastbesthope]

I had always assumed that because they never used rotating sections they had AG-but maybe they don't have the decalcification problems humans do in zero G.

To be brutally honest, the Omega-class destroyer's rotating section has got to be one of the most blatantly stupid depictions of the design to make it actually laughable. You would only have gravity at the ends of the section, and to get to the other end you have to go through zero gravity.

Not so, you would getgravity on any deck in the rotating section, the strength of said gravity would vary proportionally to the distance from the centre of rotation IIRC (F=mrw^2 if I remember right)

And seconding what RojBlake and Valarian say about the dispersal of the engines on a Fury design.

LBH

 

[Stofsk]

Not so, you would getgravity on any deck in the rotating section, the strength of said gravity would vary proportionally to the distance from the centre of rotation IIRC (F=mrw^2 if I remember right)

I understand you'd get gravity on every deck of the rotating sections, however the gravity will be stronger at the ends and weaker as you get closer to the core, which won't have any gravity. There are other problems with the ship design, as detailed by a friend I know on another forum, who had this to say on the Omegas:

Actually, one of the worst warship designs to be fielded in SF would have to be the Omega-class destroyer from Babylon 5. The ship may look cool, but the design of its modular rotational section causes numerous problems not only from the standpoint of torsional stress and stability (as well as wasting energy) due to angular-momentum transfer to the central spaceframe, but also in terms of very bad combat design. The modules of the rotational section make it impossible for the ship to have full coverage of its firing arcs. No matter which angle you train the guns, part of the arc will be blocked by the ship's own structure, and the entire midsection of the vessel effectively becomes a large open target at least twice during the rotational cycle in which attacking fightercraft may approach close without facing overlapping fields of defensive fire from the destroyer.

Just on those grounds alone, the Omega is idiotic designing at its worst.

And here:

It's not that rotational modules on starships is unfeasible, but rather that the rotating section of the Omega-class destroyer is bad engineering. The far better concept that they had on B5 was the Explorer-class deep range survey ship in the second season episode "A Distant Star". with that vessel ( the EAS Cortez ), the rotational modules were cyllindrical and relatively small in proportion to the rest of the ship's structure.

The problem with the Omega design, as has been pointed out several times on this site, is that the section, instead of being a simple, clean cyllinder, is actually two large modules on either side of the central shaft. Not only do you have two large masses swinging around the central axis of the ship, which leads to multiple problems with ship's stability, it takes considerably more energy to accomplish the modules' moment of rotation than it would if you had a simple cyllinder. In addition, the two large masses block a significant segment of the firing arcs on either side of the vessel, leaving the midsection very vulnerable to attack —and the entire rotational section presents a much larger target profile. Not only that, you essentially have no passage from one module section to the other without first moving to the core section of the ship, which is very inefficent in terms of crew movement and equipment transfer from section to section.

Just about from every standpoint, the Omega represents idiot designing at its worst. I can't see how any engineering board in its right mind would sign off on this concept in the real world. There are far better ways to incorporate rotational gravity on a spaceship than that.

Bolded for emphasis: to get from one end to the other you have to go through varying gravities, until you reach the core where there would be no gravity; then the gravity picks up again as you make your way through the other section. Why would you design a ship like that, especially when EarthForce has a pretty good, workable ship design in the form of the Cortez Explorer?

And seconding what RojBlake and Valarian say about the dispersal of the engines on a Fury design.

Allow me to address everyone's points with what the good people at babtech-on-the-net have to say:

Your bashing of starfuries is wrong! For atmospheric craft, yes, but not for space craft! Let's put it this way: I can turn the steering wheel of a big-rig easier when I am holding the rim than I can when I'm holding close to the center. It is easier because you have leverage.

I bet you cannot turn the wheel of that 18 wheeler as quickly as I can the wheel on my firebird. With the engines on the wings, you do have leverage working for you. But you also have leverage working against you, because the massive engines are on the end of a rod. Take a short stick, and pick up a 1 pound weight, such that the weight is on the end of the stick away from you. Now do the same with a long stick.

A starfury is a first class lever - like a see-saw. A see-saw does not move very quickly.

Imagine if the wings on a starfury were a light-year long. Those engines would have to push a long way to turn the fighter a little bit. In fact, since the engines provide sublight travel only, it would take days to turn the fighter 1 degree. They are not that long, but the principle is the same.

You do get increased torque by placing the engines on the wingtips, because the mechanical advantage is increased. However, angular momentum is also gained, which outweighs the torque gained. There is a law called Conservation of Angular Momentum. Angular momentum is expressed Q=mvr. Conservation of Angular Momentum says that mv1r1=mv2r2 when a planet orbits the sun in an elipitcal path. This is why planets travel faster when they are closer to the sun. As r decreases, v must increase to keep the angular momentum constant. In other words, when the orbital radius decreases, the velocity of the planet increases.

This is why ice skaters spin faster when they pull their arms and legs in. This is why they slow down when they spread their arms and legs out.

No lever can give you both speed and power. Either one or the other. Second class levers give you power. An example is the wheel barrow. Third class levers give you speed. An axample is a screen door with a spring-loaded closing mechanism (not one of the hydraulic slow-closers). When you let go of the door, it closes fast, and actually "slams." A first class lever, like starfuries or see-saws, are used for balance. They provide neither speed nor power, if the force and resistance are the same distance from the fulcrum, as is the case with a starfury.

However, as you move mass away from the center of the fighter, you increase angular momentum. You are increasing r (radius) and m (mass), because the wings are more massive. Two variables out of three increase. Gee, I wonder what will happen to the third... It will go way down.

We are not talking about turning a large ship with a small engine, we are talking about turning a small ship with a large engine. When the engines are lit, they accelerate themselves at a certain rate. Let's assume the engines are identical on two ships; one has wingtip engines making the ship 5 meters wide, the other has wingtip engines making the ship 20 meters wide. Let's say they rotate 360 degrees. The engines on the first ship have to travel 15.7 meters. The engines on the second ship have to travel 62.8 meters, and move more mass in the process. Since it is moving more mass with the same amount of force, it will accelerate at a lower rate. Thus, it will take more than 4 times as long for the wide fighter to turn than the narrow fighter.

Are you saying that starfuries don't work?

Of course they work. They are good fighters. They are just an inefficient design. They are not the most realistic space fighters in SciFi, by far.

NASA knows more than you do, and they are building starfuries. They asked JMS' permission. They know more than you do. You are so stupid!

If this is even true, they are not building a high-performance starfighter.

Also, no-one has attempted to counter my other points, that those engine pods need to have fuel lines from the centre of mass where they're stored to the pods where they're burned. Four wings mean four fuel lines, and the problem you get is they each have to be armoured to prevent crippling or catastrophic damage being inflicted in the event of a glancing blow, and the problem is armour increases mass (which means you risk sacrificing maneuoverability). If you go without, your space fighter has several weak points that put the pilot's life in jeopardy.

There is also no way for the pilot to quickly turn his head to see if anyone is on his six. I know pilots in B5 often perform the 'crazy ivan' maneuovre to attack bogies on their six, but one wonders how they knew they were there. I suppose you could have rear cameras that lets a pilot know what's in store for him, but I'm just not comfortable with such a design. Imagine driving a car designed so that you can't turn your head and see what's behind you. No mirrors, no way to do a head check... what if something happened to the rear-mounted camera - easily conceivable in a combat situation - effectively your pilot would be blind.

I like the Star Fury, I just don't think it's all that great from a technical perspective.

 

[RojBlake]

Stofsk

I have to admit, your sources have certainly made some good points there. But as I mentioned before, I believe the problem is pilot durability. It's what limits the perfomance of fighter aircraft today. Pulling some high G's in a tight turn can leave a pilot splatted against the side of the cockpit.

So maneouverability beyond a certain point becomes academic. The technology is willing but the flesh is so weak.

Maybe the Narn have the a slight physical edge here. Races capable of producing gravity compensation would have a massive advantage.

All in my humble opinion of course. :wink:

 

[Stofsk]

Stofsk

I have to admit, your sources have certainly made some good points there. But as I mentioned before, I believe the problem is pilot durability. It's what limits the perfomance of fighter aircraft today. Pulling some high G's in a tight turn can leave a pilot splatted against the side of the cockpit.

So maneouverability beyond a certain point becomes academic. The technology is willing but the flesh is so weak.

Maybe the Narn have the a slight physical edge here. Races capable of producing gravity compensation would have a massive advantage.

All in my humble opinion of course. :wink:

Oh certainly, there is a limit to how maneouverable a space craft designed to be manned can be.

The concept of a space fighter may well be a sci-fi conceit; robot drone craft would be able to tolerate higher-gees and wouldn't have to waste space for life support systems for a fragile meatbag of a pilot.

But space fighters are so cool, though.