EDITOR'S NOTES

This section of the the BABYLON 5 TECH-MANUAL is designated to the task of trying to apply real science to the fictional universe of "Babylon 5." It is important to note however that Babylon 5 is indeed, just a TV show and while based in real science there are MANY blatant inconsistancies, and isolated errors which defy logic or contradict other events in the show. As such, in an effort to come to what I beleive to be the truth, I have tried to take into account all the available facts, weed out the errors and find an "average" that fits the majority of the available facts.

Some have laid claim that by dismissing the errors that I am negating the credibility of the work, but I fervantly disagree with this close minded attitude. After all, all science fiction series have errors which fans frequently, quickly and properly dismiss all the time. Shows like "Star Trek", "Star Wars", "Farscape" and any other sci-fi series you can imagin, are chalked full of mistakes.

For example in "Star Trek" the constant and horrific abuse of scientific units is a virtual nightmare fans dismiss out of hand all the time. "Star Trek" writers constantly are confusing joules, watts and dynes (energy, power, force respectivly), or weight with explosive yeild (tons with megatons in "Once Upon a Time"). Other serious errors includes describing Duranium as a "metal alloy" but also can be found as a raw ore... problem is there is no such thing as an alloy ore. For more information about errors in "Star Trek" secienc, click HERE.

Beyond that, we have many little things fans are quick to ignore like velocity and acceleration (i.e. trans-warp speeds) being capable of "evolving" crewman into a lower form of life, pheromones having an effect on people outside their own species (a genetic imposibility), or an chemical injection being capable of protecting the human body from radiation - and serious fans dismiss the "official" Star Trek technical manual right out of hand. And least we forget that "Star Trek's" signitory technology - transporters - are a complete scientific improbability.

In "Star Wars" fans completely dismiss the fact that the interior sets of the Millennium Falcon would never fit inside the ship. This was infamously noted in TESB when Lando took an elevator up two levels to get to the top of the Falcon, in order to rescue the dangling Luke from Cloud City... only problem being that the Falcon's interior is only ONE level in height. Fans are also quick to dismiss the satement from Star Wars related matterials that Imperial ships use fusion reactors, a so-called fact still to be found toted on their official web page.

Other errors to be found in "Star Wars" include laser bolts moving at sub-light speeds, laser beams being able to converge at a single point (like the beam fired by the Death Star), light sabers being able to "stop" light at a predifined distance, laws of aerodinamics and physics there of being completely ignored (X-Wings moving through space like they are in atmosphere - TIE Fighters being able to fly in atmosphere at all).

Now, please don't mistake the statements above as being a knock against "Star Trek" or "Star Wars." Examples above are simply basic, canon facts that just go to show a person that all science fiction series have their good days and bad days when it comes to the subject of "realism." When confronted by these obivious and some times outrageous cock-ups, we fans do what we do best - ignore it or rationalize it away.

If we see a window on a Galaxy class Starship that does not corrispond to the size of the window seen on the set, do we shrink or enlarge the ship to fit, or do we accept the canon figures and ignore the mistake? If we see the sets of the Millennium Falcon don't fit inside the ship, do we suddenly create an elaborate excuse, or blow it off?

Or what if we see two ships, and we know the size of both, but they are not shown in proper proportion in ONE scene, do we re-write the size chart and throw out every other scene to make it fit? Whether it's the Minbari War-Cruiser next to an Nova class Dreadnought, or the Enterprise-D next to a Contellation class starship, the answer is NO.

I applogize for the lengthy exposition, but I felt it was necessary to nip this is the bud now, rather than later. I think that Michael Wong put it best when he stated that shows like Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, Galactica or any other sci-fi series is no more fundementaly realistic than the cartoon Transformers. Again, sorry for the exposition, I hope you enjoy reading over my research.