marieredd wrote:I think one of the things I liked best about Battlestar Galactica is the same reason I liked FireFly and CD--it may be sci-fi, but it's realistic. I can believe the designs and the technology as something in the near future and possible...not like the hoverboards in Back to the Future 2.
The tech level is very believable. And if we end up surpassing some of it, 700 years is probably far enough into the future to claim a short dark age or technological decline at some point.
I won't say that all the designs are the most easily plausible (Froggy's "toroidal death zone" comment regarding engine placement comes to mind), But even with that, the models are well done, and the story and other shinies definitely make up for the slight implausibility.
(and one can also posit that there are thrusters and some sort of mass-reducing element to the stabilizers that compensates for the imbalance (cf. ST:DS9 s01e01 where maneuvering thrusters were be used for rapid propulsion with the help of a subspace field that reduced the station's effective mass). Hey, I didn't say that it totally destroyed plausibility, just that it made plausibility a wee bit harder.)
On a separate topic, David, thanks for the fillers. Quick and easy stuff like this seems a good balance between taking the needed time for other things and keeping people interested. (Note that I have no idea how much time it takes to dredge up the old stuff and annotate it, but I'm guessing that it's far, far less than an actual story page.)