Points of Logic Departure

---

Against Babylon 5???  I have spent a small fortune studying the technology, and making it available on the internet for you to view and enjoy.

Why do you say that a Sharlin cruiser can be destroyed by 2-2 megaton bombs?

Because it is so.  The Black Star was a flagship of the Minbari, and it fell to 2 distant bombs, each having a yield of 2 megatons.  According to Sheridan's comments in Points of Departure, the last 2 megaton bomb destroyed three more Minbari heavy cruisers.

But that was a 23rd century megaton.  It may be different than 2 million tons of TNT.  It must be, since they should have better explosives in 300 years.

The kind of explosives used in 300 years is irrelevant.  A megaton is an exact unit of measurement.  It was originally based on TNT, but was changed years ago to 4186 terajoules.  A megaton is a megaton like a meter is a meter.  You are suggesting that megatons will be different in 300 years, but this is like saying a meter will be longer in 300 years.

A meter is a constant like c. MT is not, its just 1000*x eg 1MT (1000T) could be 1000T of feathers, 1000T of TNT or 1000T of some high as yet uninvented explosive. either way desturctive power ranges from 0 to infinity all in 1MT.

A megaton IS an exact measurement.  It is not derived from an equation.  It is exactly 4186 terajoules as I said.  I have recommended many times that people read the "Nuclear Weapons FAQ" by Carey Sublette.

A continuing source of confusion with nuclear weapons is the meaning of the word "ton". Normally this is used as a unit of mass or weight (a distinction I am going to ignore) in either the Metric, British Imperial, or U.S. Customary measurement systems (the last two both having two types of tons, short and long). In connection with nuclear weapons the term "ton" and its metric extensions (kiloton, megaton, etc.) are also used as units of explosive energy output or yield. The confusion is further heightened by the non-standard convention sometimes employed in the US or Britain of using the abbreviation MT (or Mt, or mt) to distinguish metric tons from short tons, while also using MT (or Mt, or mt)to mean "megaton".

The SI system does not use the ton, but it does recognize a metric unit of 1000 kg called the "tonne" (aka the metric ton). In this FAQ I use tonne to mean metric ton. Ton is used either to refer to the US/Imperial short ton, or for the energy yield of small explosions. Which is which should be apparent from context.

Now the units of explosive energy (megatons, kilotons, or even just tons, depending on yield) are derived from attempts to compare the explosive force of a bomb to conventional explosives, the original intention was to equate it with tons of trinitrotoluene (TNT) - a workhorse military explosive. This presented problems very quickly. To which tons does the comparison refer? And the explosive force of TNT is not exactly a universal constant. The energy release is affected by such things as charge density, degree of confinement, and temperature. Energy outputs ranging over 980-1100 calories/g are reported.

*To clarify the situation kilotons (megatons, etc.) were redefined to be a metric unit equal to exactly 10^12 calories (4.186x10^12 joules).* Thus treating kilotons as a metric mass measurement (kilotonnes) of TNT gives a value of 1000 c/g, well within the reported range, while treating it as "kilo short tons of TNT" gives 1102 c/g, at the extreme upper end of the reported range. Thus a kiloton can be called a "kilo metric ton of TNT" and a "kilo short ton of TNT" with about equal validity.

Note that the metric definition of kiloton refers to ALL of the energy immediately released by the device, regardless of form. Although chemical explosives release essentially all of their energy as kinetic or blast energy, only part of the energy in a nuclear explosion is released in this form (though under most conditions, it is the major part). Thus a kiloton nuclear explosion actually has significantly less blast effect than a kiloton chemical explosion.

Once a megaton, always a megaton.  It does not matter if Earthforce has antimatter explosives in the 23rd century (which they apparently don't).  If they are rated in megatons, we know their destructive potential.

But the Dark Star had it's shields down, because the crew saw no threat, and the Minbari are arrogant.

It's the Black Star.  There is no evidence that Minbari ships have "shields" at all.  And you don't approach a wounded animal without your defenses up.  Let alone a warship with living crew.

But the story was told by Londo, and he would tell it so that the Minbari look weak, making the Centauri seem stronger.

You mean like the scene where he openly tells us all that his government was afraid of the Minbari, even at their height of power?

In any event, Londo knows infinitely more about local technology, and this specific event, than you or I.  Four Minbari warships were destroyed by three bombs, each having a yield of 2 megatons.  Why do you try to rewrite the story?

Londo got other things wrong so why the not yeild:

1. Sheriden said that 3 other minbari warships were destroyed, yet in itb we only see one.

2. Sheriden said that the destress call he sent was fake, yet in itb it was a real distress call

3. The Narn crusier that was destroyed in itb with only a few shots from a VORCHAN(spell?) yet in a B5 episode(name?) it
took two VORCHANs  with alot more shots to take one down
 

1. Sheridan said that four warships were destroyed.  However, this is not an inconsistency.  There was a bomb left, and surely someone would come looking for the flagship.  Logic suggests that the last bomb was used to destroy the three heavy cruisers that came looking for the Black Star.
2. Sheridan said nothing about a distress signal in Points of Departure, which is the episode you are referring to - Listen to the discussion.
3. The Narn ship in In the Beginning was taken by surprise, and was waiting for orders from G'Kar when they were fired upon.  The episode you did not know the name of is called Acts of Sacrifice.

Yes it was.

No it wasn't.  You are biased!

View it here.

I don't see the destruction of the Black Star.  Where do you get off saying it happened?

Because it did.  How do you think Sheridan got the name "Starkiller?"  How do you think Ivanova got shrapnel from the Black Star to give to Sheridan as a gift?  And what do you mean about me being biased?  Biased for what?  I report what happened.  You deny it.  Now who is biased?

You are so simple minded.  It is not a simple problem of the Black Star absorbing so much energy from the bombs!  I understand this, but you...

Actually, it's a lot like that.  Two bombs detonated, each having a yield of 2 megatons.  This means that a total of 16744 terajoules of energy is released.  This energy spreads out in all directions, so simple geometry dictates that the Black Star only absorbs a small percentage of this energy.  The energy does not multiply when you throw water on it.  16744 terajoules are put out by the bombs, period.  If asteroids get knocked around, or whatever, only 16744 terajoules are released.  Everything that happens to the Black Star is a result of that energy release.  There is not an amplifier in between.

But an asteroid hit the Black Star, and it delivered more energy than the bomb did - that's why the Black Star was destroyed.  But even so, for the asteroid to be pushed around like that, the bomb had to be 785,000 megatons.

785,000 megatons?  Are we talking about the Shadow Planet Killer?  For that basketball-sized bomb to release 785,000 megatons, it would have to hold at least 36500 kilograms (~80000 pounds) of matter/antimatter reactants!  I doubt that bomb the man was carrying around weighed eighty thousand pounds.  And it was a fusion bomb, not a matter/antimatter device.

80,000 pounds minimum???

In any event, if an asteroid was sent hurtling into the Black Star by the bomb, then the asteroid is more resilient than the Black Star.  The Black Star was destroyed by less energy than the asteroid absorbed.

My car would not be seriously damaged by the detonation of a nuke 3500 meters away!  The Black Star should be much tougher than my car.

At 3500 meters (not necessarily the correct distance), a 2 megaton bomb would deliver about 54.4 megajoules of energy per square meter of frontal area on the target.  If we assume that your car has 3 square meters of frontal area, it would absorb about 163 megajoules of energy.  This is about half the amount of energy carried by a heavy modern battleship round (armor-piercing) at point blank range.  Or several tank rounds.  It would not damage your car?

But it's different kinds of energy.  Your comments about the tank rounds are misleading.

Does 160 megajoules = 160 megajoules?  Yes.  If 160 megajoules of energy hit your car, about 160 megajoules worth of work would be done on your car.  It matters not what kind of energy.  True, a kinetic energy delivery would cause more damage because momentum is involved, but no more than 160 megajoules of work would be done; the same as with 160 megajoules of radiation.  Different effects, but similar magnitude.  If one kind of energy will destroy your car, do you think that a different "kind" of energy of equal magnitude will just bounce off?

The existance of Omega class destroyers disproves your ASSUMPTION that 23rd century megatons are the same as megatons today!

Once a megaton, always a megaton.  What does an Omega class destroyer have to do with this event?

The rotation of the rotating section produces 2 megatons of power.

Power is not rated in megatons.  And what does this, if even correct, have to do with anything?

I refuse to believe that Minbari ships are that weak!

If the bombs didn't destroy the Black Star, what did?  Did the Black Star spontaneously explode for no reason at the same time that the bombs detonated?

Do you know how much energy 2 megatons is?  Do you realise?

Sheridan was familiar with Minbari ships.  They had been attacking his fleet for the few days before this event.  When he "hit on the idea of mining the asteroid field," he told the crew that this gave them "a fighting chance to take them out with us."  So, he doesn't think it is such a stretch for the 2 megaton bombs to destroy a Minbari warcruiser.

Why do you say that a 500 megaton bomb can destroy a Battlecrab?

Because that happened in the show.

No it didn't.  Go to b5tech.com and read what really happened.

If you prefer that document to mine, then go there.  I call it as I see it.  If I agreed with Brandon's commentaries, I would not have written my own documents that present different conclusions than his.

His methods and mine are not reconcilable.  For example, when In the Beginning aired, he was convinced that the Black Star scene was a script error.  He got together a petition for Mr. Strazynski to "re-dub" the line with the "correct" yield (of 20 megatons or 2 gigatons, I forget).  The movie aired again, and he asked everyone to watch it again, and see the true version.  The movie was identical to the first airing.  I taped it both times.

This guy was furious, and stated "JMS has sold us out!  He does not care about the fans!"

This is totally against the scientific method.  The way I see the scientific method in SciFi analysis is this:

• Identify the problem (how durable is the Black Star, for example)
• Gather relevant data (make on-screen measurements, etc.)
• Formulate a hypothesis (project upper and lower limits on the event)
• Empirically test the hypothesis (do the set limits stand up to other evidence from the show?)

It is also circular logic - The Black Star was not destroyed by a pair of 2 megaton bombs because the Black Star can't be destroyed by a pair of 2 megaton bombs.

It was on my television.

Also note that this petition was an attempt to actually change the evidence to suit one's own purposes.

There are a few other things that we do differently.  But I think he has gotten much, much better over the years, and now our methods are more alike.  I wonder if this has something to do with his studies in engineering...

I can account for every Battlecrab in the scene, and none were destroyed.  Many fighters flew out of the fireball!

I've never seen anyone account for this ship:

You planted the image of that vessel into that image!

No I didn't.  I just circled it.  Watch it yourself.

Just be cause its unaccounted for does not mean it was destroyed it could have carried on, phased out or just moved out the way.

There was debris that was definitely from a "battlecrab."  There was also the remains of a "battlecrab's main body" easily visible coming in the camera's direction away from the explosion.  At least one "battlecrab" was destroyed.  So, if you can "account for" all of the others, it must be this one.  In any event, your attempts to "account for" all of them is faulty, because you cannot "account for" this one.  You cannot prove that this vessel was not destroyed by "accounting for" it.  I can prove that at least one was destroyed, because there was debris that can only come from a "battlecrab."  I have provided my evidence.  The burden of proof is on you to disprove the evidence I present.  Unless you can account for that ship, you have no case.

Besides, G'Kar knew how much energy it takes to destroy a Shadow vessel, because he had been in combat with them in Walkabout, which was a previous episode.  And he was very confident about the bombs when he delivered them, and later when he said that the bombs would "vaporise us along with the enemy."

Why do you say that only 10% of the bomb's energy hits the Battlecrab?  The Inverse Square Law says that 65% hit it.

In the image above, only the area silhouetted in black would absorb energy from the bomb.  The Inverse Square Law is only applicable to radiation *absorbed*.  The rest, that spreads out into infinity, is completely irrelevant.  From many sources I've reviewed on the subject, The Rehabilitation Specialist's Handbook gives the simplest, most clear definition (in Physical Therapy we use radiation as a therapeutic modality):

The intensity of the electromagnetic radiation received (RR) varies inversely with the square of the distance (D) from the source of the radiation.

Physical Agents, my agent modalities guide, gives a picture with the commentary:

And there is another law that is important, the Cosine Law:

Maximal radiation is applied when the source of radiation is at a right angle to the patient.  The applied radiation is directly proportional to the cosine of the angle formed by the patient's body with the source of radiation.

You are so laughable!  A patient of yours is not a Shadow vessel!^_^  Why don't you get a physics book, and take the definition from that, stupid?  Do like B5tech, and use the law the way it should be!  PHYSICal THERAPY does not equal PHYSICS!^_^  This ruins your credibility.  I'll tell everyone, and no one will listen to you!  You are wrong, wrong, wrong!

Red herring.

Physical Therapy is largely based on physics and other real sciences.  In other words, not only do we study the Inverse Square Law, we use it.  I have only used ultraviolet radiation a few times, but I can if indicated.

You don't use it regularly?  AH HA!  You don't use it, so you are not a reliable source!  Your site is disproven by all other sites!

Another red herring.  I am the only B5 commentator I know of who has ever used it professionally anyway.

But I still don't understand.  The Inverse Square Law...

Is not the deciding factor.  Let's look at an illustration I put together.

Now, let's look at the Inverse Square Law.  It says that the intensity of radiation received is determined by the distance from the radiation source.

The Inverse Square Law can be applied to the radiation that actually strikes the target.  But it does not determine the amount of destructive energy a target absorbs from an exploding bomb by itself.  And do either of these targets have contact with over half of the lines from the bomb?  What if I made a target as tall as the whole page?  Still half the energy will go the other way.  And some on the same side of the page will be directed at such a severe upward or downward angle that it will not contact the target.  So, it is virtually impossible for a target to absorb as much as 50% of a bomb's energy.  Unless the bomb is a shaped charge.

That is why you use the surface area of the target.  HA!

The surface area has nothing to do with it.  It's the frontal area.  This is the two-dimensional area of the aspect of the target facing the bomb.  This is the only part of the target that can absorb energy from the bomb.  And only one spot, if any, is at a 90 degree angle to the bomb.  The rest is subject to the Cosine Law.  In the image above, the area on the left of each block will absorb energy from the bomb.  But the absorption of energy of the blocks is not proportional to their size.  All angles less than 90 degrees are subject to the Cosine Law.

Let's say the large block has 5 times as much frontal area as the smaller block (just a guess), it would absorb much more energy than the smaller block, but not 5 times as much.  This is because most of the energy is subject to the Cosine Law.  Actually, all but one of the intersecting lines are subject to the Cosine Law.  So it is virtually impossible to determine exactly how much energy is absorbed by a target.  But we can determine an upper limit.

If I cut a bunch of grooves in the front of the block, the surface area will be increased.  But will more energy hit the target?  Will more of the lines in the images above hit the block?  No.  The surface area is not applicable.

What if the bomb explodes while in contact with the target?

Same thing.  If you hug a bomb, you will not absorb more than half the energy.  Some of it will escape between your arms and body, between your legs, down, up, away from you, etc.  In one of the Hot Shots movies, Saddam Hussein catches a bomb in his lap.  If this bomb exploded, he would not absorb half of the energy.

But there were at least 50 bombs.  So, 50/3 asteroids = 16 bombs per asteroid.

Sheridan asked "Which of our bombs are in the area?"  Delenn said "Five, seven, and twelve."  We then see three explosions.  3 bombs = 3 explosions.  The rest of the bombs were out of range.  Sheridan had the bombs spread out, because he had no way of knowing where the Shadows and Vorlons would appear.

Why do you argue about the Whitestar's size?  Tim Earls, who supervised the special effects, says it is 476.5 meters long.

He did not supervise special effects.  He made concept drawings.  His own drawing scales to a ~260 meter length in the "Babylon 5 Security Manual."  And in that drawing, the windows on the bridge of the Whitestar are as tall as the big hallway everyone walks through.  His reasons for scaling up of his numbers were that the crew would be unable to walk upright through the passageway to the bridge, and that the ship has to be large enough to accomodate 4 Minbari fighters.  I have proven that the ship is large enough for either of these tasks even if it is ~165 meters in length.

Let's look at Tim Earls' chart that points to a ~260 meter length.

Using this scaled drawing, the bridge windows are as tall as the large main hallway!

Whitestars must be significantly smaller than a Centauri "Vorchan" destroyer/medium cruiser by default.  Whitestars surprise even the Shadows that they can form a hyperspace vortex independently.  Centauri warships of this design do so routinely.  Thus, this type of Centauri warship must dwarf a Whitestar.  Mr. Earls can give whatever size he wants, but it won't change the size seen in the show.  That is the only size that is important to me.

And there is no mention of a Tim Earls in the credits at the end of the show until seasn 5.

But this is the official size.  The original intent is more important that the outcome.

It is not the official size.  He also says that the Excalibur is well over 3,000 meters long, while in the show, a 1 1/4 mile length is given.  Does he outweigh evidence from the show?  If I decided to build a 3,000 square foot house that turned out to be only 2,000 square feet, would you buy it with a price tag that assumes a 3,000 square foot house?  Why not?  You said that original intent is more important than the outcome.  I counter with "But it has to be 3,000 square feet, or I would not be able to hang all of my clothes in the closets." Does this change anything?  Or do you believe the surveyors?  Maybe I don't hang all of my clothes in the closet.  Maybe I leave them hanging over chairs, or piled up on the floor?

For the record, the official length for some Babylon 5 vessels are given in Issue 10 of the Official Babylon 5 Magazine April 1999.

Babylon 5 - approx. 8 km
Excalibur - approx. 1,620 m
Minbari Cruiser - approx. 600 m
Whitestar - approx. 275 m

Biased for what?

Because you are the author of Turbolaser Commentaries, a Star Wars website!

What does that have to do with my Babylon 5 studies?

You are biased!  You want to make Star Wars look big and Babylon 5 look small!

Are you serious?  I don't need to do anything to make Star Wars technology appear more advanced than Babylon 5 technology.  A Ranger named Ericsson said that the Shadow Planet Killer contained "Thousands of megatons times thousands of missiles."  He went on to say that the SPK would kill all of the planet's inhabitants in 10-12 hours.  If we assume that the SPK delivered a hundred thousand megatons times a hundred thousand missiles over the course of 10 hours, we're looking at an average firepower of a little less than 1.2 billion terawatts.

Official sources say that an Imperial Star Destroyer can melt the surface of a habitable planet.  The respected Michael Wong calculates that this requires a lower limit of 610 million terawatts.  Thus, even with a generous estimate for the firepower of the SPK, and a lower limit on the firepower of an ISD; the SPK is about twice as powerful as an ISD.  Of course, Dr. Curtis Saxton, astrophysicist, calculated a more conservative 500 million terawatts (on purpose).  This number, even though very conservative, is about 82% of Michael's number (which is conservative itself).  Dr. Saxton says that the true energy requirement "could be a hundred or a thousand times greater."  So, both of the above numbers could be conservative by 100 times or even 1000 times!

Thus, while giving the SPK every advantage, ISDs are about half as powerful; more realistic numbers for the  Star Destroyer are orders of magnitude greater than that of the Shadow Planet Killer.

You are crazy!

These are not my numbers.  One is a canon description of the SPK that I multiplied by ten thousand times; and the other is an official description of an Imperial Stardestroyer.

Now I know you are biased.  I don't believe anything else you say!

In any event, it makes sense, because ISDs melt the surface of a planet.  The SPK just shoots them to shreds.  In other words, a stardestroyer does orders of magnitude more damage to a planet worldwide.

The Death Star destroys entire shielded planets in fractions of a second.  The Vorlon planet killer left survivors on the ground after attacks, and the Shadow planet killer takes half-a-day to make a planet uninhabitable.

A Shadow Battlecrab could cut an ISD in half in a couple of seconds!

I doubt that.  A Stardestroyer should be able to repel the firepower of a sister ship for at least a few minutes.  If a "Battlecrab" had as much firepower as an ISD, the SPK would never have been built.  Even with it's lower limit of firepower, an ISD can cause massive extinction of life on a habitable planet in about 12 minutes, delivering as much energy as the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.  If a "Battlecrab" could do this, the SPK would be superfluous.

Why do you say that Earthforce weapons are limited to 200 megawatts?

Earthforce definately has weapons that are more powerful.  But 200 megawatts is enough to be respectable.  It must at least be a medium-sized weapon.  After all, it is a 200 megawatt pulse cannon that defends Babylon 5's cargo bay.  It was the addition of these pulse cannons and interceptors that bolstered the station's firepower so that it could "take on a warship."

Ivonova said the weapon was in the cargo bay, so it must be an anti-personnel cannon.

An anti-personnel cannon?  Did you know that 200 megawatts is comperable to the sustained firepower of an Iowa Class battleship?

Note the people standing under the guns.  If you look closely, you can see more standing beside the guns.  I have seen these up close.  Touched them, climbed into the turrets, etc.  They are huge.  The hole in the end of each barrel is 16 inches in diameter!  They fire projectiles that weigh as much as a small car accurately for distances up to 20 miles!  Click on the image for a larger view.  The Alabama is not an Iowa class battleship, but is in a class just below it.  The Alabama is actually South Dakota class, and it's firepower, and looks, are comperable to the Iowa class.

Babylon 5 has few major targets to be attacked.  It is basically empty space, or civilian quarters.  Vital targets are the communications tower, Command and Control, the fusion reactor, the shuttle bay, and the cargo bay.

Why is the cargo bay a target?  Would an enemy want to destroy some boxes?  LOL!

Because it is an opening into the station.  A medium sized warship could easily lob a bomb through that opening and blow off the front part of the station.  This would be particularly easy because they could approach from the front of the station, and avoid the broadside weapons.  But no ships did this in the entire series.  No bombing runs by fighters.  Why not?  Because anyone with any sense would put a heavy weapon in the opening to defend against attackers.

Make no mistake, the cargo bay would be a primary target if not heavily defended.

And besides, Ivanova was threatening the freighers' ships, not themselves.  She said "And if you have an accident, we'll repair your ships."

If you believe everything said on the show, Ivonova is God!  HA!

This just proves how melodramatic she is.  Proves the efficacy of the 200 megawatt cannon.  Ivanova makes bold threats.

But what is seen is more important that what is said.  The VPK is HUGE!  It is much larger than 3-4 miles like Marcus says.  Vorlon Dreadnaughts look like SPECKS next to the VPK!  How could you be so stupid as to think that Marcus is right?

How large is a "Dreadnaught?"  How large is a "speck?"  At 3-4 miles wide or long, the VPK is much larger than the cylindrical Babylon 5.  Babylon 5 also dwarfs starships, or even entire Centauri fleets.  The VPK should dwarf Babylon 5, hence your "specks."  And if they look like "specks," how do you discern if they are "dreadnaughts," fighters, or transports?  If all you see are specks, they might all be fighters.

But the data is inconsistent, you dummy!  You cannot believe everything you see on screen, or everything you hear.  There are inconsistencies!

If there are inconsistencies, as you say, how do we know what is proper?  Most fanatical fans feel that the bigger numbers are correct, and the smaller ones are "inconsistent."

For example, when Ivonova threatens a freighter captain with a 200 megawatt pulse cannon (the type of weapon that the station was upgraded to mount), it becomes an "inconsistency," or an antipersonnel cannon that she would use to mow down the crew.  Why can't it be taken at face value?  They will see a large Minbari warcruiser and a smaller warcruiser in the same episode; and the smaller one becomes an inconsistency.  How can this be justified?  What if the big one is an inconsistency?  After all, the official length is 600 meters.  Not 1600, but 600.  So why is the smaller one an "inconsistency?"

More objectively, Sheridan said that the Black Star was "huge, monstrous."  He had seen other Minbari warcruisers.  In the same scene, he said that he had destroyed the Black Star and three heavy cruisers.  But we have only seen one modern Minbari warcruiser design.  It makes more sense to say that they have more than one class of capital warship (and they should), but they all have a similar shape.  This is not such a stretch of the imagination, since even 1000 year-old Minbari warships look very similar to their modern designs.  And I have identified three distinct classes of Drazi ships that look similar at first glance.

And why is Marcus' statement about the VPK an inconsistency?  He saw it up close, and even scanned it.  He knows infinitely more about it than we do.

It seems to me that almost every piece of information that gives us a clue about the level of technology in the show, the size of starships, and the level of military might are dismissed or called inconsistencies.  Examples include:

• The 200 megawatt pulse cannon
• The Black Star's destruction by two distant bombs having a yield of 2 megatons apiece
• The destruction of a Shadow "Spider" by the detonation of a 500-600 megaton bomb
• The VPK's 3-4 mile across size estimate
• The Whitestar's awe-inspiring ability to open a jump point (smaller than a Centauri "Vorchan" by default)
• The SPK did not destroy a planet's mass; it killed all of the inhabitants in half-a-day
• Ivanova asked for help evacuating inhabitants of planets that had been attacked by the VPK
• Londo destroyed over 100 Shadow vessels by detonating 3 bombs
• The Centauri mass driver attack lasted over 4 days, and only killed 5-6 million Narns
• G'Kar donated several 500-600 megaton bombs to the "Army of Light," which were considered very powerful.  The Minbari were part of the "Army of Light," but did not donate any such bombs.
• Earthforce could only gather 35 Omega Class destroyers to defend our solar system against Sheridan's assault.
• Earth controls 14 solar systems.
• Babylon 5 is slightly longer than 5 miles, and dwarfs almost all starships seen in the show by a large margin.
• Commander Sinclair says in the opening credits during the whole first season that Babylon 5 is "two million, five hundred thousands tons of spinning metal."
• The Trigati's fusion reactors.  Many say that Ivanova's statement was invalid, because she does not know what kind of power source the Minbari use.  But if she didn't know what it was, how did she know that it was going critical?
• Even the "Great Machine" on Epsilon 3 is powered by fusion reactors.
• Sheridan told an ISN reporter that Earthforce would stand little chance against the Minbari, Centauri, or Vorlons.
• It is very difficult for any ships of the younger races (including the Mnbari) to destroy a Shadow vessel.  It is even difficult for Vorlon warships.  But it is very easy for a 500-600 megaton bomb to destroy a Shadow vessel.
• Sheridan felt it was necessary to detonate two such bombs with the impact of the crashing Whitestar, instead of simply firing the weapons.
• The Whitestar required several shots to destroy a row of shuttles on Mars.  The little boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima was rated at 15 kilotons, and leveled 60,000 buildings.
• Ditto for the bombing of Centauri Prime, which involved scores of ships, firing weapons that did orders of magnitude less damage than the Little Boy bomb.

Why do you under-rate the number of ships Earthforce has?  Everyone knows they have over 20,000 ships!

20,000 ships?  Earth controls 14 solar systems.  That means that each system of planets is patrolled by over 1,400 warships!  If each system had 10 planets, each planet would be patrolled by 140 warships!  So why was the blockade of 6 Omega Class destroyers at Proxima 3 such a big deal?  Why could Earthforce only pull in 35 destroyers to defend our home solar system against Sheridan's fleet?  Did they leave thousands of ships out on patrol while Sheridan attacked Earth?  Maybe 20,000 counting Starfuries.  Sure, ships have registry numbers in the tens of thousands; but the USS Alabama's registry number was BB-60, and the United States did not have 60 battleships during WWII.

But what about the comments in In the Beginning, about 20,000 entering the battle, and 200 coming out?

That was likely Earthforce personnel, not ships.  This was the last remnants of Earth's military, and some of those evacuated.  Lennier said that these were the few remaining ships, and that they "were not an obstacle."  I would not call 20,000 ships a "few," even by galactic standards.

And the episode you are looking for is A Late Delivery from Avalon.  Dr Franklin told "King Aurthur" that "20,000 of our best went in, a little over 200 survived."  By the context of the conversation, he was talking about people.

A total of around 250,000 Humans were killed in the entire ~4 year war.  That is comperable to destroying Babylon 5 alone.  If 20,000 capital ships were destroyed at the Battle of the Line (most of the ships did not survive), and if each ship only had 20 crew members, you've already killed more people than died in the entire war.  Earthforce warships have several hundred crew members.  Omega class destroyers have 1000 crew members.

By the way, there was no mention of the number of ships in In the Beginning.

Why do you under-rate the Centauri mass drivers?  They obviously made gigaton impacts on the surface of the planet!  Stupid.

No they didn't.  If that were the case, the Narns would never last 4 days.  Considering that the Narn population largely survived, my estimates are very generous.

They survived because they were underground, stupid.  And I know they were gigaton impacts, because I can track an asteroid all the way from a ship to the ground.  They traveled from high orbit to the ground in X seconds.  Then, they made fireballs hundreds of miles across.

It is impossible to visually track an asteroid that size from that far away.  The same ship must have launched the asteroid hitting the ground moments before, and it impacts about the time the one just launched gets out of sight.

The Narns did not have time to dig enough holes in the ground to hide the entire population.  If this is even possible, it would take years.  Even if they were underground, it is irrelevant.  A gigaton impact would probably kill them anyway.  Actually a 575 kiloton impact probably would too.  But even if they survived the impact, they would starve to death.  A bombing as intense as the one I described in the mass driver page would significantly change the climate of the Narn homeworld.  Plants would die, then herbivores, then carnivores, and progressively up the food chain.  A significant fraction of the Narn population would die over the following months.

And those fireballs are not fireballs.  Did you know that when Trinity (the first atomic bomb detonated) exploded, the light was so intense that it could cause temporary blindness in someone watching from 10 miles away?  Trinity was ~20 kilotons, or about 30 times less intense than my upper limits for the mass drivers.

But the climate of the Narn homeworld did change significantly, and 5-6 million Narns is a significant fraction of the population!  5-6 million is more than a few, my friend!  I've always said you were biased!  Now you are trying to downplay the powerful mass drivers!  Everything you say is flawed!  Your credibility just went right out the window!

The climate did not change as significantly as it would if the bombing was as intense as my generous estimates indicate.  As for 5-6 million Narns being a significant fraction of the population: How many people live in New York City alone?  How about Dallas, or Houston?  I could plan the dropping of one asteroid from each of the 12 ships on North America, and shatter the 5-6 million number in a few minutes, assuming each one delivered 575 kilotons to it's target.  And remember that Delenn said that she had to sacrifice millions to save billions.  A few million is not a significant fraction of a few billion.

The Excalibur is more powerful than you say.  The first asteroid was shot under level 1 firepower.  This means that there are more levels that are more powerful.  HA!  And the second test destroyed a huge asteroid.  The novel says it is as large as a Whitestar cruiser on page 69!  Let's see, 475.6/2 = 237.8 meter RADIUS.  4/3*pi*r^3 = 56,327,978 cubic meters!  This means that the main beam has at least 3,369,089 terrawatts of firepower!  HA!  Take that you Warsie, Trekkie, biased freak!

But level 2 was the big guns that drain the ship's power.  HA!  This means that there are no levels in between.  HA!  Are the Whitestar and the circle in this image equal in size?  What if that represents a sphere?

There are 4 guns on the front of the ship that are more powerful than a Whitestar!  Sheridan said so.  There are dozens of weapons on the ship, so the Excalibur is more powerful than a fleet of Whitestars.  By your calculations, the four guns on the front of the ship have at least 50,000 terawatts of firepower!

This is based on the Whitestar's generous upper limit of firepower.  And 4 guns fired, doing little more damage than a Whitestar can do in the same amount of time.  A Whitestar can channel all of it's firepower through the main gun, so each of the four cannons on the front of the Excalibur is a little more than 1/4 as powerful as the Whitestar's main weapon.

You don't understand 3-dimensional scaling.  You have no comprehension of perspective!  You can't tell how large these ships are, because you don't know how far away they are!  I own Lightwave, so I know more about it than you do.  You think counting pixels is evidence!  HA!  What is a pizel by the way?  And what are these upper and lower limits you keep talking about?  What if it is a middle limit?  Besides, I know someone who works on the special effects for the show.  He told me that a Sharlin is 1600 meters long.  But don't tell anyone, because he wasn't supposed to tell me.  He gave me a copy of the original mesh used.  Here it is - go measure it!

I don't know how many times I've been told this by so-called 3-D modelers.  They don't know what a pixel is???  How do they make 3-D models without knowing what a pixel is?  Put you face to the computer screen.  See those millions of little dots?  Those are pixels  They make up the images on your computer monitor, TV screen, etc.  Since they are what actually makes up a picture on your TV or monitor, are very small, and are directly countable, they are perfect for scaling.  Just open your image editor, and move your curser around on the screen.  See those little numbers changing so rapidly in the corner?  Those numbers are showing you exactly what pixel your curser is on.

Pixels are the fundamental unit that should be used for scaling something you cannot physically measure, but have a picture of.  Every image on your TV is made up of thousands of pixels.  Everything you see on your monitor is made up of pixels.  When you change the resolution on your monitor from 640x480 to 800x600, or vice-versa, you are changing the number of pixels on your screen.  Ever seen a website that says "This site is best viewed at 800x600?"  That means that your monitor is 800 pixels wide and 600 pixels tall.  That is more precise than measuring it with a ruler.  Smaller unit = more precision.  It is more precise to measure your height in inches than in miles.

And what do you mean I don't have any comprehension of perspective?  This is what my scaling is based on!  You find an object of known size, and compare to objects that are nearer or farther away.  This produces upper and lower limits.  For example, when Jim Lovell of Apollo 13 held his thumb in front of the moon, it appeared bigger than the moon.  It is not, but the moon is so far away that it looks smaller than his thumb.  In other words, the moon has a lower limit of X percent of Jim's thumb width, and Y percent of Jim's thumb length.  It is much larger, but it cannot be smaller, under any circumstances, no matter what kind of software you own!  That is why it is called a lower limit.

Or the Whitestar cannot be larger than Z percent of the width of Babylon 5's front section.

Since the Whitestar is closer, it "looks bigger" in relation to Babylon 5 than it really is.  So, if it looks bigger than it is, it cannot possibly be bigger than it looks!  So, the size it "looks" is the upper limit, because it cannot be this big.  Under no circumstances can it be bigger.

You keep producing upper and lower limits until you get a clear picture of the size of an object.  This is perspective and distance working for your advantage.

OK.  But that is just an upper limit for that image!  Another image might produce a different upper limit, or even a middle limit!

That is why you scale many different images of the same object.  There is no such thing as a middle limit.

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.

GOD can vaporise the entire eastern seaboard of North America!  That means that the beams deliver anywhere from 58 gigatons to 5 teratons.  The officer said that the beam would "wipe out most of the eastern seaboard."  Wipe out means to vaporise.

The senator said that the defense grid could "level forty percent of the planet's surface."  No mention of vaporising or melting.  And leveling 40 percent of the planet's surface is inconsistent with the melting or vaporising of a significant fraction of a continent.  It is certain that the officer meant that the beams would level the eastern seaboard.