But the issue ALSO comes with a brand new map of the solar system complete with recent & upcoming IP missions . On it, some of the sidebar text mentions that the current count of moons in this system ALONE is a little over 170.
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY.
I'm thinking that although a star cluster is more likely, the idea of the single system is more & more viable, especially if you consider that gas giants like Heinlein & Georgia might be failed stars like Jupiter with excessive heat radiation.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, the count of 170 moons includes moons that look like THE Moon, moons that look like Titan, and moons that look like the little brown nuggets Mr. Bunny poops out on a regular basis. In our system, which is still considered an average star, there are only four, possibly five bodies which could possibly be changed to support open biospheres as on Earth: Venus, Mars, Titan, arguably Europa, and Earth itself. And even then, you're talking about some pretty serious science-fiction to make it happen.
I've no doubt that there are star systems out there with multiple planets potentially capable of openly supporting human life. But dozens, or hundreds? Even with terraforming, it's stretching it. There IS still a "habitable zone" and other basic factors to worry about.
posted
Although we don't have a lot of options, maybe we shouldn't assume that our solar system is the norm. We can guess they would have picked a system with an unusually high number of planets in the habitable zone (or at least close enough for terraforming) before they set out in the colony ships. The advanced but unexplained terraforming science employed by The Alliance (includes the above discussed gravity manipulation), so that even small rocks we might consider improbable hosts could be converted.
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Mark Nguyen: In our system, which is still considered an average star, there are only four, possibly five bodies which could possibly be changed to support open biospheres as on Earth: Venus, Mars, Titan, arguably Europa, and Earth itself.
What about Io?
-------------------- I haul cardboard and cardboard accessories
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Io is the most volcanically active body in the solar system. It's constantly warped by Jupiter's extreme gravity and magnetic field, and it's way too unstable. I cringe every time they mention the "Io Colony" on Babylon 5.
I agree with Mark; although it's certainly possible, it's still highly unlikely that there could be that many habitable bodies in a single star system.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Io is very close to Jupiter, whose tidal forces keep the place extremely tectonically and volcanically active. Jupiter itself is very radioactive (in fact, it's the ONLY planet in the system that gives off more energy than it recieves from the Sun), and Io has no measurable magnetosphere to protect itself. There is no heavy atmosphere despite the volcanoes going off all the time, either. Also, there's a unique phenomenon called the "Io flux tube", whereby a constant stream of charged particles (two TRILLION watts!!) flows between the moon and Jupiter. This renders the upper atmosphere of the moon constantly charged, prone to lightning, etc.
So no, Io isn't really posible. Well, unless you WANT to live on the surface of what is basically a constantly erupting volcano with nuclear weapons going off all the time.
Besides, wasn't most of the base in orbit of Io guarding the gate thingy? But dispite this weak idea, there is still a bit on the surface, which frankly, is about as likley as the Pope growing dreads, lighting a spliff and becoming a rasta.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
I was under the impression that the surface installation was on Ganemede, the Io base was always reffered to as the "Transfer point off Io", which to me implies a purely orbital facility.
posted
Still, I don't think jms put too much though into it. Perhaps said flux tube could power a massive jumpgate facility, or somehow facilitate entry into hyperspace. Hyperspace in B5 has always been a bit wonky anyway - have they EVER had an explanation as to why people simply can't travel from a gate at point A to their final destination at point B? All too often you had cargo ships or refugees or whatever getting attcked while they were flying in the middle of nowhere...
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: I was under the impression that the surface installation was on Ganemede, the Io base was always reffered to as the "Transfer point off Io", which to me implies a purely orbital facility.
I'm pretty sure that there were references to an actual colony on Io. It was always referenced in apparent equal status of importance to Mars as a colony. For example, William Edgars had an estate on Io. I find it hard to imagine that an "estate" would be on a space station... (ref)
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Well from that link I can't see anything to directly contradict the idea that the Io colony isn't on the surface itself. Who's to say that there isn't am orbiting space colony in a similar vein to the Babylon Stations (though obviously not as complex) in addition to the spinning wheel station that we saw? Which is probably little more than a customs checkpoint/EA outpost. Such a structure would be more geared towards commerce, trade and the mega-corps, which makes sense given that it'd be sat right next the Sol's Jumpgate and it'd be easy to imagine Edgars having an estate in a rotating cylinder.
Though I do agree with Mark so far as JMS probably didn't think in such great detail.
posted
I can certainly accept that the concept of Io being a full-fledged space colony, with the "transfer point" being a separate station, I think it's less likely considering the facts of the B5 universe. Consider that Babylon 5, the station, was considered a massive and expensive undertaking, and was barely worth the resources needed to keep it in operation. When there are two or three habitable moons within a literal stone's throw of Io, it makes very little sense for there to be an orbiting space colony holding tens of thousands of people.
Ah, well.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Babylon 5 was a threadbare, thrown together, scraping the bottom of the barrel operation, not because those stations are so dreadfully expensive and difficult to build, but because they had spent the budget and then some on the FOUR station before this one.
As to why build a space colony over Io when Europa, Callisto & Ganymede are right there (well, relativity) perhaps it's all about economics. It's right by the jumpgate for a whole system which means loads of traffic, traffic means there's a demand for R&R, currency exchange, business, trade, with all the support systems and profit that comes with it all. ...but we stray off topic.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
