From:	Louis Barrera <lbarrera@****.NASA.GOV>
Subject:	DRAGONS AS NEXT NERPS?
Date:	Mon, 13 Mar 1995 10:07:06 -0700

This is in response to the hydrogen-dragon thoughts that have been cast
about recently. The amount of H2 required to lift 2000 kilos is enormous.
You don't see the Shuttle floating off its launch pad do you? Trying to
rationalize dragons is artificial to me. They are a manifestation, maybe of
Gaia. As far as bazooka's being a recent development, how long ago
have the chinese had rockets. And they've have a very old mythos
concerning dragons.

Unfortunately, I have never seen a photograph of a dragon, getting ready
to breathe or other, so I can't really say whether they need to "bloat up"
first. If you consider that they can breathe every action they have, they
would need to generate a drek load of hydrogen several times every
FIVE SECONDS to accomplish this. That's unrealistic, the chemical
reaction doesn't go that quick. Along with the fact that a hydrogen fire is
very difficult to see. Which would make the "typical" representations of
a conflagration coming from the creature's mouth overstated in the visual
context, if nothing else. They would also need a hellacious cooling
system in their mouths to keep from frying anything in the local.

In the Shadowrun world/game/reference frame/whatever, magic is NOT
ARTIFICIAL. Just as reptiles hibernate when the heliotropic energy is
insufficient to stir their metabolisms, dragons behavior similarly with the
magic energy level. The magic gene didn't express itself (except in a
very few rare cases) until the magic cycle had developed /grown
/increased to a certain extent. Read Ehran's speech for a refresher.
And as magic is natural, why not use it to cover, at least in part, the
dragon physiology.

As to why they don't all breathe fire, why don't they all look alike. Natural
selection didn't do it, as the dragon is probably the top of this world's
food chain. Human's may outnumber them, but so what. Wildebeast out
number lions. The key lies in their reason for being, what makes who
they are.

As far as FASA being wrong, they simply gave some outline stats. It's
up to US to determine exactness and raison d'etre. They leave plenty of
clues. I think we should try to stick somewhere in the ballpark.

- Rocket Scientist