ST vs SW!
cwic...@my-deja.com
side i'm on..
these two universe shouldn't be compared because the time and
technologie are sooo different it would be hard to tell even with years
of discussion which would come out on top, here's my opinion tho..
I think the ST universe would win an all out war vs the SW universe...
here's why
1) star trek ships have powerful shielding with the ability to change
freaquency (and all those other modifications the magically make in the
shows)
2) there are prolly 100 x time more ships in the star trek universe,
and counting the trillions of borg plus the 1000's of cubes the ST
univers has... (hehe)
3) the weaponry on the ST ships are much more powerful than those on
the SW ships ( refer to my first point... I know these really shouldn't
be compared but this is my opinion, I stated the first point so that no
one would get heated or angry at my post )
now to more general comments, you SW fans may be going what about 'the
force' well It may help a bit, but there aren't enough jedi's or darth
vaders to help the war in a big way.
what about the death star you say? well, it's too slow to hit anyship
in the ST univers, u might get lucky a few times, but we can program a
quantum torpedo to fly into the death star (x-wing run) and blow it up.
and what about cloaking... hehe don't forget that =)
and transporter technology... just beam in explosives or troops...
and hand to hand combat would be simple... phasers/disruptors are much
more powerful than blasters...
now what would you SW ppl do about changelings? hehe,
we can breed Gem Hadar and take over you men with borg drones =) so we
have an endless supply of troops =)
oh and Transwarp conduits and Sliptream technology are much faster than
hyper space.. ( so is warp 10 ) hehe
those are my points, the ones I can think of at the moment, there tones
of other small things I could think of.. but not at the moment...
oh here's one more point, which well could end the war if u think about
it
one Letter can win the war for sure for the ST universe
' Q ' the Q could just snap their fingers an *poof* there goes the SW
universe =) hehehe
well thank you for your time, i'd like you to bring up points like mine
and argue me in a nice way =)
-l8tr!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
bjorn_...@my-deja.com
cwic...@my-deja.com wrote:
> ok here goes... there is one point I'd like to make b4 I tell u which
> side i'm on..
Always room for one more, I guess. However, you should take the time to
read the FAQ first. It's at
> these two universe shouldn't be compared because the time and
> technologie are sooo different it would be hard to tell even with
years
> of discussion which would come out on top,
That's why we debate! The reason is that the fun never ends. :=)
>here's my opinion tho..
>
> I think the ST universe would win an all out war vs the SW universe...
> here's why
>
> 1) star trek ships have powerful shielding with the ability to change
> freaquency (and all those other modifications the magically make in
the
> shows)
They have vastly inferior shields when compared to a standard Imperator
Star Destroyer. Frequency - based shielding is a *weakness*, not an
asset.
> 2) there are prolly 100 x time more ships in the star trek universe,
> and counting the trillions of borg plus the 1000's of cubes the ST
> univers has... (hehe)
Heh... see Thelea's post on SW fleet strength. Even the Imperial lowest
estimates of fleet strength sits at 25 000 ISDs... while the Fed fleet
is estimated at 1000 - 4000 ships, tops.
I grant you that the Borg have extremely massive ships, but they are
*slow* and not very powerful for their size.
> 3) the weaponry on the ST ships are much more powerful than those on
> the SW ships
No evidence for, all evidence against. :) Asteroid calcs, BDZ calcs
(which have recently met with criticism, of course), the Gra Ploven
incident, etc... It all boils down to this:
A Galaxy-class ship has a maximum of 200,000 TJ of shields. A heavy
turbolaser on an ISD can easily penetrate this shielding with two
shots. In contrast, an ISD has a minimum of 100,000,000 TJ of shields.
It could withstand over 200 quantum torpedoes.
>( refer to my first point... I know these really shouldn't
> be compared but this is my opinion, I stated the first point so that
no
> one would get heated or angry at my post )
Excellent sentiment. Of course, all of us post more or less informed
opinions, but most tend to forget it. I like people who admit that they
speculate.
> now to more general comments, you SW fans may be going what about 'the
> force' well It may help a bit, but there aren't enough jedi's or darth
> vaders to help the war in a big way.
I don't agree here. The Force isn't that strategic - certainly not with
Palpatine dead n all...
> what about the death star you say? well, it's too slow to hit anyship
> in the ST univers,
It's impervious to almost any force in the ST universe barring
superbeings like Q. Its mission: to eradicate any enemy planet. It's
not designed to engage ships (even though its surface batteries easily
can shred any fleet). No enemy can survive if his planets are destroyed.
>u might get lucky a few times, but we can program a
> quantum torpedo to fly into the death star (x-wing run) and blow it
up.
This is something you're gonna see a lot, so I'm just going to go easy
on you - others will simply state the magical words:
"No evidence = no proof. Concession accepted." =)
> and what about cloaking... hehe don't forget that =)
...which SW ships have too, plus technology to detect it.
> and transporter technology... just beam in explosives or troops...
Transporters are stopped by just about anything: shields, radiation,
alloys...
> and hand to hand combat would be simple... phasers/disruptors are much
> more powerful than blasters...
Proof?
> now what would you SW ppl do about changelings? hehe,
The Empire has subjugated both shapechangers...
> we can breed Gem Hadar and take over you men with borg drones =) so we
> have an endless supply of troops =)
...and several cloaked species have gotten their asses whupped in
combat with Stormtroopers. :)
BTW, SW has cloning tech too. What's more, they've got flash-imprinting
techniques. That means that you can clone your best soldiers and
imprint the exact same personality on all of them. What would you do a
squadron of, say, forty Worfs, for example? =)
> oh and Transwarp conduits and Sliptream technology are much faster
than
> hyper space.. ( so is warp 10 ) hehe
Nope on both counts. Sorry to flatly contradict you like that, but
there it is.
> those are my points, the ones I can think of at the moment, there
tones
> of other small things I could think of.. but not at the moment...
>
> oh here's one more point, which well could end the war if u think
about
> it
>
> one Letter can win the war for sure for the ST universe
> ' Q ' the Q could just snap their fingers an *poof* there goes the SW
> universe =) hehehe
I agree. There are some others around too who could do that.
> well thank you for your time, i'd like you to bring up points like
mine
> and argue me in a nice way =)
>
> -l8tr!
>
Nice to get the opportunity to counter the usual arguments. :)
/ Björn Paulsen
"War never decides who's right, only who's left."
Strowbridge
>
> ok here goes... there is one point I'd like to make b4 I tell u which
> side i'm on..
Oh Chuck, you missed one!
Chuck will be here to point you to the FAQs.
C.S.Strowbridge
Eric
stress release, so here goes....
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 05:31:48 GMT, cwic...@my-deja.com wrote:
>ok here goes... there is one point I'd like to make b4 I tell u which
>side i'm on..
>
>these two universe shouldn't be compared because the time and
>technologie are sooo different it would be hard to tell even with years
>of discussion which would come out on top, here's my opinion tho..
The physical constants in both universes are the -same-. The power
requirements to shatter a planet are the same in Star Wars as they are
in Star Trek. Therefore, we -can- compare technologies.
>
>I think the ST universe would win an all out war vs the SW universe...
>here's why
>
>1) star trek ships have powerful shielding with the ability to change
>freaquency (and all those other modifications the magically make in the
>shows)
Star Wars ships have -very- powerful shielding as well (energy
shielding, specifically), and they aren't frequency-based, which is a
major flaw in ST shielding (the right frequency weapon will pass right
through them!).
>
>2) there are prolly 100 x time more ships in the star trek universe,
>and counting the trillions of borg plus the 1000's of cubes the ST
>univers has... (hehe)
*snort*laugh*snort* BWAHAHAHAHAAH
The Empire has 25,000 Imperator-class Star Destroyers -alone-. That's
more than the Romulans, Cardassians, Federation, and Klingons put
together. And the Star Destroyers are merely one arm of the
fleet--there are -millions- of other ships in the Imperial Starfleet
and Imperial Navies.
In fact, the 25,000 ISD figure may only count towards the
Starfleet--the navies; the ships that are tasked as local defense, may
have millions, if not billions, more ships.
>
>3) the weaponry on the ST ships are much more powerful than those on
>the SW ships ( refer to my first point... I know these really shouldn't
>be compared but this is my opinion, I stated the first point so that no
>one would get heated or angry at my post )
Erm, no, they aren't. The lowest-end estimation for a medium
turbolaser bolt is roughly 6700 terajoules, and it can fire at least
twice a second. Heavy turbolasers fire gigatons of energy per shot (4
-million- terajoules minimum).
Phasers are tactically equivalent to 30 terawatt plasma weapons (like
turbolasers), and much less powerful against dense armoring.
It's been estimated that an ISD should be able to withstand a
-thousand- photon torpedoes or 370 quantum torpedoes. No single ship
in the Federation carries that many, and in a war, Imperial starships
rarely attack alone.
Oh, and if a sizable Starfleet ship somehow traps an ISD and is able
to bring its shields down...being able to move thousands of times
faster than warp is a nice strategic advantage.
>
>now to more general comments, you SW fans may be going what about 'the
>force' well It may help a bit, but there aren't enough jedi's or darth
>vaders to help the war in a big way.
Depeneds what timeframe we extract the numbers from. At any time
before the Empire, we've got plenty of Jedi.
During the Empire, Vader and Palpatine are damn near enough.
Post-Empire, Skywalker is rebuilding the Jedi force.
And, if a Force user can kill someone at any distance merely by
talking to them through a transmission, a single Force user can easily
turn the tide of a war.
>
>what about the death star you say? well, it's too slow to hit anyship
>in the ST univers, u might get lucky a few times, but we can program a
>quantum torpedo to fly into the death star (x-wing run) and blow it up.
Who cares about it hitting ships? All it has to do is blow Earth the
fuck up, and the Federation would crumble.
As for programming a QT...they aren't nearly maneuverable enough to
fly down a trench and hit a 2 meter-wide target. Oh, and then there's
the problem of where ST is going to get the complete technical
readouts of the battlestation. The weakness isn't exactly obvious,
you know. A 2 meter target in a station 120 kilometers wide!
And the 2nd Death Star doesn't have such a vulnerability.
>
>and what about cloaking... hehe don't forget that =)
SW cloaking is superior. It's double-blind, sure, but the only way
you can detect a cloaked SW ship is through immensely sensitive
gravitational sensors. Something ST doesn't have.
You can detect ST cloaking by several different measures...engine
emissions, reactor radiation, wake turbulence, etc.
>
>and transporter technology... just beam in explosives or troops...
Stopped cold against shields.
Even if they beamed when shields are down, they'd have to
1) Contend with the Imperial captain being cautious and leaving when
his shields drop,
2) The fact that you simply couldn't beam in enough explosives to do
serious damage quickly,
3) The fact that any Federation/Klingon/Romulan/Dominion troops beamed
over would get slaughtered by Stormtroopers and automated defenses,
4) The fact that you have to get close to the target ship and drop
your own shields to transport, leaving you glaringly vulnerable to
attack. One heavy turbolaser hit will, at the -very- least completely
disable an unshielded Federation ship.
>
>and hand to hand combat would be simple... phasers/disruptors are much
>more powerful than blasters...
Even if it's true (and it's disputable), why vaporize/POOC someone
when burning a hole in them kills them just as dead?
Hand weapons only need to kill their target. They don't need to blow
it apart, vaporize it, etc. Just kill it. Phasers, blasters,
disruptors, glocks, .22 pistols, and .45 revolvers are all tactically
equivalent. They'll all kill you just as dead.
>
>now what would you SW ppl do about changelings? hehe,
Detect them with their sophisticated bio-scanners and eliminate them.
>
>we can breed Gem Hadar and take over you men with borg drones =) so we
>have an endless supply of troops =)
The Empire has a civilization of millions of inhabited worlds to draw
from. Trillions of available personnel.
Cloning centers are easily destroyed.
The Borg would not ally with -anyone- in such a fight. Even if they
would, they'd be nearly as helpless against the Empire as the
Alpha/Beta Quadrant species would be.
>
>oh and Transwarp conduits and Sliptream technology are much faster than
>hyper space.. ( so is warp 10 ) hehe
Transwarp is debatable, since it seems to vary from warp speed to a
few times faster than warp speed.
Slipstream is highly unstable, and still slower than hyperspace (you
can cross half the galaxy in a -day- in hyperspace. Didn't it take
Harry & Chakotay three days to cross ~40k lightyears?)
Warp 10 simply isn't possible (thanks to its side effects). Sorry.
>
>those are my points, the ones I can think of at the moment, there tones
>of other small things I could think of.. but not at the moment...
All typical newbie arguments shot down and buried ages ago.
>
>oh here's one more point, which well could end the war if u think about
>it
>
>one Letter can win the war for sure for the ST universe
>' Q ' the Q could just snap their fingers an *poof* there goes the SW
>universe =) hehehe
Q wouldn't get involved.
>
>well thank you for your time, i'd like you to bring up points like mine
>and argue me in a nice way =)
>
>-l8tr!
>
*yawn*
Eric
remove NO.SPAM.DAMMIT to mail
"Sufficiently advanced technology is often indistinguishable
from magic." - Clarke's Third Law
"My ethicator machine must've had a built-in moral compromise
spectral release phantasmatron! I'm a genuis!"
Strowbridge
>
> >They have vastly inferior shields when compared to a standard
> >Imperator Star Destroyer. Frequency - based shielding is a
> >*weakness*, not an asset.
>
> This is still under debate. And there is yet no proof that the
> Imperials don't use frequency bassed shields.
Yes it has been proven. Elim even posted the proof. Of course he said it
proved they DID use frequencies. But what can you do, he's an idiot.
C.S.Strowbridge
bjorn_...@my-deja.com
> >read the FAQ first. It's at
>
> http://ttm.choam.org/faq.html
Thanks, I forgot to include the address.
> >
> >They have vastly inferior shields when compared to a standard
Imperator
> >Star Destroyer. Frequency - based shielding is a *weakness*, not an
> >asset.
>
> This is still under debate.
Granted. I suppose what you could say is that it is not demonstrated to
necessarily be better.
>And there is yet no proof that the
Imperials
> don't use frequency bassed shields.
Occam's razor, I guess - if it isn't mentioned (and it isn't, AFAIK)
then it's
not a valid theory.
> >Heh... see Thelea's post on SW fleet strength. Even the Imperial
lowest
> >estimates of fleet strength sits at 25 000 ISDs... while the Fed
fleet
> >is estimated at 1000 - 4000 ships, tops.
>
> Well technicaly the lowest has been placed at 2,000 and the highest at
> 8,000.
Your correction is accepted. :)
> Both numbers are plausable bassed on the evidence on screne so
far.
Noted.
> We have not been able to get a number yet. Anyone know Bermans email
adress
> so we can ask?
Ah, what would the residents here say to *that*, I wonder?
> I grant you that the Borg have extremely massive ships, but they are
> >*slow* and not very powerful for their size.
>
> Depends on the way you look at it. They are out to assimilate not
destroy.
> Once they assimilate even one SW cap ship they will have all the tech
+
> crews knowledge on the tech/statagy/tactics.
Ah, I don't want to be irritating, but I still say that they, pound for
pound, are *significantly* weaker than Fed ships. At least three shots
of those big cannon, of which there are rather few, hit the Defiant and
didn't manage to destroy it. They are in my mind really floating cities,
not warships per se.
Once the Borg assimilate one SW cap ship they will have significantly
less than the Borg had against the Federation, who still whipped them in
the end.
> >> 3) the weaponry on the ST ships are much more powerful than those
on
> >> the SW ships
> >
> >No evidence for, all evidence against. :) Asteroid calcs (which one?
The
> one of the Imperators bridge being shattered by an asteriod meaning
that
> weapons such as torpedoes would have a feild day?) BDZ calcs (which
have
> recently met with criticism, of course)
> Be fair. There is doubt over the whole concept of BDZ's.
> , the Gra Ploven
> >incident, etc (The what?)
You know, the pacification act in <cough> Slave Ship, in which a Star
Destroyer kills a few coastal cities with vapor clouds by firing at the
water. Those limits are potentially lower than the asteroid calcs, which
is why I think that more people will accept them. </cynicism>
> It all boils down to this:
> >A Galaxy-class ship has a maximum of 200,000 TJ of shields
>
> Which have shown abilitys to withstand power far in excess of this
amount by
> modulating or changing frequencys to be more effictive in many ST
episodes
> throughout the series's.
Ah, more than 200 000 TJ? Where? (Fear not, I won't conveniently
"forget"...)
> A heavy
> >turbolaser on an ISD can easily penetrate this shielding with two
> >shots. In contrast, an ISD has a minimum of 100,000,000 TJ of
shields.
> >It could withstand over 200 quantum torpedoes.
> Your mixing the energy and partical shields again.
No reason to believe that the one isn't dependent on the other. Yes, an
asteroid broke through the bridge shield. However, that was after
spending an unknown period inside an asteroid field, with an unknown
number of asteroids hitting it, and unknown damage to its shields to
begin with.
> >I don't agree here. The Force isn't that strategic - certainly not
with
> >Palpatine dead n all...
>
> Don't put the force out yet. It may not be strategic in the usual
sense, but
> cool things like insight,
Tactically useful, I grant you.
> taking control of the other guys commander,
Pretty hard, though?
and
> vissions of the future make it more viable.
Yep. Though only an idiot would factor that into his planning unless he
had no other choice IMHO. It's too chancy.
[schnip]
> It's not designed to engage ships (even though its surface batteries
easily
> >can shred any fleet).
>> Assmung they can reach the enemy fleet.
>> No enemy can survive if his planets are destroyed.
>
> Except for pure spacefairing civilisations.
The Voth. Sorry, I didn't think of them.
"Surrender or we will destroy your planets!"
"Our what? You're saying you still use those? Pah!"
> >>u might get lucky a few times, but we can program a
> >> quantum torpedo to fly into the death star (x-wing run) and blow it
> >up.
> >
> >This is something you're gonna see a lot, so I'm just going to go
easy
> >on you - others will simply state the magical words:
> >"No evidence = no proof. Concession accepted." =)
> Damm, that get's used a lot here. Better get used to it.
Perhaps I should bring in the darker chants... "Ad Hominem! Ad Hominem!"
> >> and what about cloaking... hehe don't forget that =)
> >
> >...which SW ships have too, though less advanced.
>
> > plus technology to detect it.
>
> Very rare tech, only installed on certain bases + ships. And it is
unknown
> if ST ships are capable of mass dampaning.
Well, you're right about that it's rare. Though we don't know how rare
it is these days. Gravfield traps were uncommon because no cloaking
devices were used before the Thrawn trilogy. We'll see how things
develop in "The New Jedi Order".
And I'd say that AMRE *is* mass dampening. However, this isn't enough,
since the silhouette of the ship won't be changed. The CGT array will
simply report that there is a 400 meter long shape with the mass of
cardboard floating around there. That might make for some useful
confusion, though.
> >> and transporter technology... just beam in explosives or troops...
> >
> >Transporters are stopped by just about anything:
> > shields
> Yes. Though energy, not partical.
*nods* What about anticoncussion fields? Aren't they energy fields?
> > radiation
> Sometimes. Can be overcome if the signal is not a person. When
tranporting
> in antimatter to a SSD's engine room it does not realy matter if 80%
of it
> does not materilise properly.
Have there been any incidents of radiation completely blocking a
transport?
> alloys
> Only a few that I know of. Not even Neutromium can block it as far as
I
> know.
We'll just have to see...
> >> and hand to hand combat would be simple... phasers/disruptors are
much
> >> more powerful than blasters...
> >
> >Proof?
>
> Questionable proof, that stands up as it is offical not cannon.
Ah, that. Since canon information gives it an impressive but not huge
yield, a bit similar to that of the blaster rifle, I'll stick with that.
> >> now what would you SW ppl do about changelings? hehe,
> >
> >The Empire has subjugated both shapechangers...
>
> But the Changeling are a different race.
Yes, they are. I'm just saying that the Empire has dealt with such a
problem successfully.
> >> we can breed Gem Hadar and take over you men with borg drones =) so
we
> >> have an endless supply of troops =)
> >
> >...and several cloaked species have gotten their asses whupped in
> >combat with Stormtroopers. :)
>
> Such as? I don't remember any. Where from? Sourcebook, novel???
Ahh... I believe that would be the Defel and the Aar'aa, who all coexist
under the Empire AFAIK.
> >BTW, SW has cloning tech too. What's more, they've got
flash-imprinting
> >techniques. That means that you can clone your best soldiers and
> >imprint the exact same personality on all of them.
>
> To a limited extent. The technique is not 100% reliable. + Clones grow
much
> slower in SW then in ST. 3 days for Jem'Hadar I think is the number.
Hmm... that's right. The technique becomes reliable if the span is
extended; but that is, as you say, slow.
> What would you do against a
> >squadron of, say, forty Worfs, for example? =)
>
> Run.
> Or call 40 HIT-MAN's
LOL
Seems that his sig should be changed:
"Cloned Boyds are dime a dozen
It's the HIT-MAN's you have to
Watch out for."
> >> oh and Transwarp conduits and Sliptream technology are much faster
> >than
> >> hyper space.. ( so is warp 10 ) hehe
> >
> >Nope on both counts. Sorry to flatly contradict you like that, but
> >there it is.
>
> How? Look at my poast regarding transwarp. It is much faster then
> hyperdrive. And at a min, Slipstream is comparable to hyperdrive.
Voyager
> covered 200 LY in 40 mins using their first slipstream. 10,000 in 4
mins or
> so in their second, with their OWN drive.
Ah. Two questions:
* How fast is that?
* Where is the post you mention? I can't seem to find it.
> >> one Letter can win the war for sure for the ST universe
> >> ' Q ' the Q could just snap their fingers an *poof* there goes the
SW
> >> universe =) hehehe
> >
> >I agree. There are some others around too who could do that.
>
> Banned by the FAQ. No superbeings.
Yep. But he was right. :b
[snip]
/ Björn Paulsen
"Even little brother is watching you!"
-Krister Sundelin
Henning Rogge
>ok here goes... there is one point I'd like to make b4 I tell u which
>side i'm on..
>
> ....
Oh god... another shotgun approach...
shotgun approach = simply shouting many unproven sentences and demand
to disprove them all.
Next time bring some evidence with your opinions...
I only answer one of your points, because most has been already
answered...
>1) star trek ships have powerful shielding with the ability to change
>freaquency (and all those other modifications the magically make in the
>shows)
Here is a funny picture:
ST has a hole in it's shields... and they can move the hole around.
( it's a hole in the frequency spectrum ).
SW have shown no holes in their shields...
Why does the ability to move a hole in your defense around make you
superior to someone which has shown no hole in their defense ?
Henning Rogge ICQ 14862339
BIRGITHA JACOB
> They have vastly inferior shields when compared to a standard Imperator
> Star Destroyer. Frequency - based shielding is a *weakness*, not an
> asset.
> Heh... see Thelea's post on SW fleet strength. Even the Imperial lowest
> estimates of fleet strength sits at 25 000 ISDs... while the Fed fleet
> is estimated at 1000 - 4000 ships, tops.
> I grant you that the Borg have extremely massive ships, but they are
> *slow* and not very powerful for their size.
I belive he means the hole galaxy fleet.
> Transporters are stopped by just about anything: shields, radiation,
> alloys...
Alloys?
> Nope on both counts. Sorry to flatly contradict you like that, but
> there it is.
Hyperspace is faster then slipstream and transwarp but not Warp 10.
--
"Make love not war"
Ali Tavakoly
that does include allt he galaxies in SST that we know nothing about.
peace,
ali
Chuck
Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38BFE935...@home.com...
> cwic...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > ok here goes... there is one point I'd like to make b4 I tell u which
> > side i'm on..
>
> Oh Chuck, you missed one!
>
> Chuck will be here to point you to the FAQs.
Sheesh, this is a waste of electrons.
Anyway, official FAQ, answers damn near everything you said:
http://ttm.choam.org/faq.html
Second, Newbie FAQ, for anything new you're wondering:
http://pages.prodigy.net/csonn/faq.html
And finally, for some other issues (ala the Death Star vs. Quantum Torpedo
argument): http://pages.prodigy.net/csonn/claim.html
--
Chuck
Sci-Fi Debris: http://pages.prodigy.net/csonn/debris.html
Join the Star Wars vs. Star Trek Webring!
http://pages.prodigy.net/csonn/asvs.html
Chris O'Farrell
>Always room for one more, I guess. However, you should take the time to
>read the FAQ first. It's at
>> these two universe shouldn't be compared because the time and
>> technologie are sooo different it would be hard to tell even with
>years
>> of discussion which would come out on top,
>
>That's why we debate! The reason is that the fun never ends. :=)
>
>>here's my opinion tho..
>>
>> I think the ST universe would win an all out war vs the SW universe...
>> here's why
>>
>> 1) star trek ships have powerful shielding with the ability to change
>> freaquency (and all those other modifications the magically make in
>the
>> shows)
>
>They have vastly inferior shields when compared to a standard Imperator
>Star Destroyer. Frequency - based shielding is a *weakness*, not an
>asset.
This is still under debate. And there is yet no proof that the Imperials
don't use frequency bassed shields.
>> 2) there are prolly 100 x time more ships in the star trek universe,
>> and counting the trillions of borg plus the 1000's of cubes the ST
>> univers has... (hehe)
>
>Heh... see Thelea's post on SW fleet strength. Even the Imperial lowest
>estimates of fleet strength sits at 25 000 ISDs... while the Fed fleet
>is estimated at 1000 - 4000 ships, tops.
Well technicaly the lowest has been placed at 2,000 and the highest at
8,000. Both numbers are plausable bassed on the evidence on screne so far.
We have not been able to get a number yet. Anyone know Bermans email adress
so we can ask?
I grant you that the Borg have extremely massive ships, but they are
>*slow* and not very powerful for their size.
Depends on the way you look at it. They are out to assimilate not destroy.
Once they assimilate even one SW cap ship they will have all the tech +
crews knowledge on the tech/statagy/tactics.
>> 3) the weaponry on the ST ships are much more powerful than those on
>> the SW ships
>
>No evidence for, all evidence against. :) Asteroid calcs (which one? The
one of the Imperators bridge being shattered by an asteriod meaning that
weapons such as torpedoes would have a feild day?) BDZ calcs (which have
recently met with criticism, of course)
Be fair. There is doubt over the whole concept of BDZ's.
, the Gra Ploven
>incident, etc (The what?)
It all boils down to this:
>A Galaxy-class ship has a maximum of 200,000 TJ of shields
Which have shown abilitys to withstand power far in excess of this amount by
modulating or changing frequencys to be more effictive in many ST episodes
throughout the series's.
A heavy
>turbolaser on an ISD can easily penetrate this shielding with two
>shots. In contrast, an ISD has a minimum of 100,000,000 TJ of shields.
>It could withstand over 200 quantum torpedoes.
Your mixing the energy and partical shields again.
>>( refer to my first point... I know these really shouldn't
>> be compared but this is my opinion, I stated the first point so that
>no
>> one would get heated or angry at my post )
>
>Excellent sentiment. Of course, all of us post more or less informed
>opinions, but most tend to forget it. I like people who admit that they
>speculate.
>
>> now to more general comments, you SW fans may be going what about 'the
>> force' well It may help a bit, but there aren't enough jedi's or darth
>> vaders to help the war in a big way.
>
>I don't agree here. The Force isn't that strategic - certainly not with
>Palpatine dead n all...
Don't put the force out yet. It may not be strategic in the usual sense, but
cool things like insight, taking control of the other guys commander, and
vissions of the future make it more viable.
>> what about the death star you say? well, it's too slow to hit anyship
>> in the ST univers,
>
>It's impervious to almost any force in the ST universe barring
>superbeings like Q (Or species 8472) Its mission: to eradicate any enemy
planet. And damm it does a good job, if crudly.
It's not designed to engage ships (even though its surface batteries easily
>can shred any fleet).
Assmung they can reach the enemy fleet.
No enemy can survive if his planets are destroyed.
Except for pure spacefairing civilisations.
>>u might get lucky a few times, but we can program a
>> quantum torpedo to fly into the death star (x-wing run) and blow it
>up.
>
>This is something you're gonna see a lot, so I'm just going to go easy
>on you - others will simply state the magical words:
>"No evidence = no proof. Concession accepted." =)
Damm, that get's used a lot here. Better get used to it.
>> and what about cloaking... hehe don't forget that =)
>
>...which SW ships have too, though less advanced.
plus technology to detect it.
Very rare tech, only installed on certain bases + ships. And it is unknown
if ST ships are capable of mass dampaning.
>> and transporter technology... just beam in explosives or troops...
>
>Transporters are stopped by just about anything:
shields
Yes. Though energy, not partical.
radiation
Sometimes. Can be overcome if the signal is not a person. When tranporting
in antimatter to a SSD's engine room it does not realy matter if 80% of it
does not materilise properly.
alloys
Only a few that I know of. Not even Neutromium can block it as far as I
know.
>> and hand to hand combat would be simple... phasers/disruptors are much
>> more powerful than blasters...
>
>Proof?
Questionable proof, that stands up as it is offical not cannon.
>> now what would you SW ppl do about changelings? hehe,
>
>The Empire has subjugated both shapechangers...
But the Changeling are a different race.
>> we can breed Gem Hadar and take over you men with borg drones =) so we
>> have an endless supply of troops =)
>
>...and several cloaked species have gotten their asses whupped in
>combat with Stormtroopers. :)
Such as? I don't remember any. Where from? Sourcebook, novel???
>BTW, SW has cloning tech too. What's more, they've got flash-imprinting
>techniques. That means that you can clone your best soldiers and
>imprint the exact same personality on all of them.
To a limited extent. The technique is not 100% reliable. + Clones grow much
slower in SW then in ST. 3 days for Jem'Hadar I think is the number.
What would you do a
>squadron of, say, forty Worfs, for example? =)
Run.
Or call 40 HIT-MAN's
>> oh and Transwarp conduits and Sliptream technology are much faster
>than
>> hyper space.. ( so is warp 10 ) hehe
>
>Nope on both counts. Sorry to flatly contradict you like that, but
>there it is.
How? Look at my poast regarding transwarp. It is much faster then
hyperdrive. And at a min, Slipstream is comparable to hyperdrive. Voyager
covered 200 LY in 40 mins using their first slipstream. 10,000 in 4 mins or
so in their second, with their OWN drive.
>> those are my points, the ones I can think of at the moment, there
>tones
>> of other small things I could think of.. but not at the moment...
>>
>> oh here's one more point, which well could end the war if u think
>about
>> it
>>
>> one Letter can win the war for sure for the ST universe
>> ' Q ' the Q could just snap their fingers an *poof* there goes the SW
>> universe =) hehehe
>
>I agree. There are some others around too who could do that.
Banned by the FAQ. No superbeings.
>> well thank you for your time, i'd like you to bring up points like
>mine
>> and argue me in a nice way =)
>>
>> -l8tr!
>>
'I came, I tried, I failed.
I came again, I cheated, I won'
Chris O'Farrell.
yno...@hotmail.com
ICQ 57988212
Chris O'Farrell
bjorn_...@my-deja.com wrote in message <89p0l0$rbk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>> >read the FAQ first. It's at
>>
>> http://ttm.choam.org/faq.html
>
>Thanks, I forgot to include the address.
>
>> >
>> >They have vastly inferior shields when compared to a standard
>Imperator
>> >Star Destroyer. Frequency - based shielding is a *weakness*, not an
>> >asset.
>>
>> This is still under debate.
>
>Granted. I suppose what you could say is that it is not demonstrated to
>necessarily be better.
Taken.
>>And there is yet no proof that the
>Imperials
>> don't use frequency bassed shields.
>
>Occam's razor, I guess - if it isn't mentioned (and it isn't, AFAIK)
>then it's
>not a valid theory.
Also Taken. Though logic states when you have two different tech which have
the same purpose, and you know how one of them works but not the other,
logic assumes that that both work the same.
> >Heh... see Thelea's post on SW fleet strength. Even the Imperial
>lowest
>> >estimates of fleet strength sits at 25 000 ISDs... while the Fed
>fleet
>> >is estimated at 1000 - 4000 ships, tops.
>>
>> Well technicaly the lowest has been placed at 2,000 and the highest at
>> 8,000.
>
>Your correction is accepted. :)
Hey, I am not going to try and debate the fact (With the evidence to this
point) that the Federation can withstand 25,000 ISD's and all of their
millions of support ships :)
>> Both numbers are plausable bassed on the evidence on screen so
>far.
>
>Noted.
>
>> We have not been able to get a number yet. Anyone know Bermans email
>adress
>> so we can ask?
>
>Ah, what would the residents here say to *that*, I wonder?
I can guess.
>> I grant you that the Borg have extremely massive ships, but they are
>> >*slow* and not very powerful for their size.
>>
>> Depends on the way you look at it. They are out to assimilate not
>destroy.
>> Once they assimilate even one SW cap ship they will have all the tech
>+
>> crews knowledge on the tech/statagy/tactics.
>
>Ah, I don't want to be irritating, but I still say that they, pound for
>pound, are *significantly* weaker than Fed ships. At least three shots
>of those big cannon, of which there are rather few, hit the Defiant and
>didn't manage to destroy it. They are in my mind really floating cities,
>not warships per se.
Good point, but remember the Defiant is a combat ship specifically designed
to fight and kill Borg. Those shots may have been taken on the ablative
coverings. In BOBW, the small fleet assembled to take it on was destroyed
quick. As far as I know in FC, the large majority of the fleet built to
intercept the cube was killed.
>Once the Borg assimilate one SW cap ship they will have significantly
>less than the Borg had against the Federation, who still whipped them in
>the end.
They did not whip them. They barley managed to hang on with their teeth in
both cases. Both Borg attacks would have worked if not for the Enterprises
involvement.
>> >> 3) the weaponry on the ST ships are much more powerful than those
>on
>> >> the SW ships
>> >
>> >No evidence for, all evidence against. :) Asteroid calcs (which one?
>The
>> one of the Imperators bridge being shattered by an asteriod meaning
>that
>> weapons such as torpedoes would have a feild day?) BDZ calcs (which
>have
>> recently met with criticism, of course)
>> Be fair. There is doubt over the whole concept of BDZ's.
>> , the Gra Ploven
>> >incident, etc (The what?)
>
>You know, the pacification act in <cough> Slave Ship, in which a Star
>Destroyer kills a few coastal cities with vapor clouds by firing at the
>water. Those limits are potentially lower than the asteroid calcs, which
>is why I think that more people will accept them. </cynicism>
Oh ok.
Have we ever seen a ST ship fire into water? Apart from Voyagers attempt to
stop the Flyer in 30 days? Though in that they did say that if they fired
their phasers, it would cause a massive thermal technthingy (been a while
since I seen it).
>> It all boils down to this:
>> >A Galaxy-class ship has a maximum of 200,000 TJ of shields
>>
>> Which have shown abilitys to withstand power far in excess of this
>amount by
>> modulating or changing frequencys to be more effictive in many ST
>episodes
>> throughout the series's.
>
>Ah, more than 200 000 TJ? Where? (Fear not, I won't conveniently
>"forget"...)
In the carona of a star in Descent PT 2 using metaphasic shields.
>> A heavy
>> >turbolaser on an ISD can easily penetrate this shielding with two
>> >shots. In contrast, an ISD has a minimum of 100,000,000 TJ of
>shields.
>> >It could withstand over 200 quantum torpedoes.
>> Your mixing the energy and partical shields again.
>
>No reason to believe that the one isn't dependent on the other. Yes, an
>asteroid broke through the bridge shield. However, that was after
>spending an unknown period inside an asteroid field, with an unknown
>number of asteroids hitting it, and unknown damage to its shields to
>begin with.
True, but it still provides a baseline for the partical shields. That and
the fact that X-Wings with 2 dozen proton torps can colaspe a SW Partical
shield every time.
>> >I don't agree here. The Force isn't that strategic - certainly not
>with
>> >Palpatine dead n all...
>>
>> Don't put the force out yet. It may not be strategic in the usual
>sense, but
>> cool things like insight,
>
>Tactically useful, I grant you.
>
>> taking control of the other guys commander,
>
>Pretty hard, though?
Yeah. But it would be funny. Massive confussion and chaos.
>and
>> vissions of the future make it more viable.
>
>Yep. Though only an idiot would factor that into his planning unless he
>had no other choice IMHO. It's too chancy.
Palp did. He died. Luke did in Vission of the Future. His was preaty acurate
though.
>[schnip]
>
>> It's not designed to engage ships (even though its surface batteries
>easily
>> >can shred any fleet).
>>> Assmung they can reach the enemy fleet.
>>> No enemy can survive if his planets are destroyed.
>>
>> Except for pure spacefairing civilisations.
>
>The Voth. Sorry, I didn't think of them.
The Borg don't need planets, they just take them for resources which they
can obtain anyway becasue it is more efficent.
>"Surrender or we will destroy your planets!"
>"Our what? You're saying you still use those? Pah!"
"Oh.....wait a minuite'
[Wait.......]
"Ok.Surrender or we will destroy your ships! Ha HA"
>> >>u might get lucky a few times, but we can program a
>> >> quantum torpedo to fly into the death star (x-wing run) and blow it
>> >up.
>> >
>> >This is something you're gonna see a lot, so I'm just going to go
>easy
>> >on you - others will simply state the magical words:
>> >"No evidence = no proof. Concession accepted." =)
>> Damm, that get's used a lot here. Better get used to it.
>
>Perhaps I should bring in the darker chants... "Ad Hominem! Ad Hominem!"
Nope. Yawn. sWaRs/sTrEk RuLzE!. Don't use these.
>> >> and what about cloaking... hehe don't forget that =)
>> >
>> >...which SW ships have too, though less advanced.
>>
>> > plus technology to detect it.
>>
>> Very rare tech, only installed on certain bases + ships. And it is
>unknown
>> if ST ships are capable of mass dampaning.
>
>Well, you're right about that it's rare. Though we don't know how rare
>it is these days. Gravfield traps were uncommon because no cloaking
>devices were used before the Thrawn trilogy. We'll see how things
>develop in "The New Jedi Order".
>And I'd say that AMRE *is* mass dampening. However, this isn't enough,
>since the silhouette of the ship won't be changed. The CGT array will
>simply report that there is a 400 meter long shape with the mass of
>cardboard floating around there. That might make for some useful
>confusion, though.
Actualy I ment if the cloaking device has any mass dampaning properties.
>> >> and transporter technology... just beam in explosives or troops...
>> >
>> >Transporters are stopped by just about anything:
>> > shields
>> Yes. Though energy, not partical.
>
>*nods* What about anticoncussion fields? Aren't they energy fields?
As far as I know they are the same thing as Partical shields, just another
name for them.
>> > radiation
>> Sometimes. Can be overcome if the signal is not a person. When
>tranporting
>> in antimatter to a SSD's engine room it does not realy matter if 80%
>of it
>> does not materilise properly.
>
>Have there been any incidents of radiation completely blocking a
>transport?
>
I think there have been, But I can't remember the exact episodes off the top
of my head.
>> alloys
>> Only a few that I know of. Not even Neutromium can block it as far as
>I
>> know.
>
>We'll just have to see...
Oh yeah, there was Insurrection. Veins of something called 'Kelvanight' was
used to help block the transporters from locking on. Though these things can
be overcome with something like isolinier tag's, pattern enhancers or
emergeny transporter armbands.
>> >> and hand to hand combat would be simple... phasers/disruptors are
>much
>> >> more powerful than blasters...
>> >
>> >Proof?
>>
>> Questionable proof, that stands up as it is offical not cannon.
>
>Ah, that. Since canon information gives it an impressive but not huge
>yield, a bit similar to that of the blaster rifle, I'll stick with that.
Similar, but they are able to vaporise walls such as pure rock preaty easy
on ocassion.
>> >> now what would you SW ppl do about changelings? hehe,
>> >
>> >The Empire has subjugated both shapechangers...
>>
>> But the Changeling are a different race.
>
>Yes, they are. I'm just saying that the Empire has dealt with such a
>problem successfully.
Oh, Ok. Just set a world devastator on their world like in that fanfic.
>> >> we can breed Gem Hadar and take over you men with borg drones =) so
>we
>> >> have an endless supply of troops =)
>> >
>> >...and several cloaked species have gotten their asses whupped in
>> >combat with Stormtroopers. :)
>>
>> Such as? I don't remember any. Where from? Sourcebook, novel???
>
>Ahh... I believe that would be the Defel and the Aar'aa, who all coexist
>under the Empire AFAIK.
The Defel are not invisable. They in normal light just look like a shadow
standing up which looks like a humanoid. Jem'Hadar fully cloak, and can only
be seen at point blank range when they are moving. If they stand still, they
are perfactly invisable.
Don't have a clue who the Aar'aa are :(.
>> >BTW, SW has cloning tech too. What's more, they've got
>flash-imprinting
>> >techniques. That means that you can clone your best soldiers and
>> >imprint the exact same personality on all of them.
>>
>> To a limited extent. The technique is not 100% reliable. + Clones grow
>much
>> slower in SW then in ST. 3 days for Jem'Hadar I think is the number.
>
>Hmm... that's right. The technique becomes reliable if the span is
>extended; but that is, as you say, slow.
Though Yasalmari can be used to speed up the process. But does that
knowledge only extend to Thrawn and Pelleaon?
>> What would you do against a
>> >squadron of, say, forty Worfs, for example? =)
>>
>> Run.
>> Or call 40 HIT-MAN's
>
>LOL
>
>Seems that his sig should be changed:
>"Cloned Boyds are dime a dozen
> It's the HIT-MAN's you have to
> Watch out for."
>
>> >> oh and Transwarp conduits and Sliptream technology are much faster
>> >than
>> >> hyper space.. ( so is warp 10 ) hehe
>> >
>> >Nope on both counts. Sorry to flatly contradict you like that, but
>> >there it is.
>>
>> How? Look at my poast regarding transwarp. It is much faster then
>> hyperdrive. And at a min, Slipstream is comparable to hyperdrive.
>Voyager
>> covered 200 LY in 40 mins using their first slipstream. 10,000 in 4
>mins or
>> so in their second, with their OWN drive.
>
>Ah. Two questions:
>* How fast is that?
Well with T-Warp, we have an upper, but uncontradicted figure of a bit over
20,000 LY per hour. However this figure is only valid in the Borgs limited
network of TW conduites. These form like....a network of highways throughout
Borg space, allowing them to move assests quickly throughout their space,
but they can't alter the course of the 'highways' without building new ones.
THis is why many times in voyager we see many times, a Borg ship emerging
from a T-Warp conduite then proceading at high Warp to catch Voyager.
There is lower and higher values for slipstream. The lower value was taken
in a quoat by Janeway, '200 LY in 40 minuites'. This was from a number of
modifications based on the Alien ship that was posing as a Starfleet ship to
lure in Voyager. This is rougly comparable to Hyperdrive. The higher value
was taken from Voyagers use of their own degined experemental drive core,
bassed on Federation, Borg and other Tech. However although this drive gave
massive speed, it was unstable and Voyager was ultamatly destroyed a few
parsecs from the AQ, though this was averted due to people changing history.
>> >> one Letter can win the war for sure for the ST universe
>> >> ' Q ' the Q could just snap their fingers an *poof* there goes the
>SW
>> >> universe =) hehehe
>> >
>> >I agree. There are some others around too who could do that.
>>
>> Banned by the FAQ. No superbeings.
>
>Yep. But he was right. :b
True, but he would probably start a new civil war in the continum by doing
something like that.
Chris O'Farrell
>
>SW cloaking is superior. It's double-blind, sure, but the only way
>you can detect a cloaked SW ship is through immensely sensitive
>gravitational sensors. Something ST doesn't have.
>You can detect ST cloaking by several different measures...engine
>emissions, reactor radiation, wake turbulence, etc.
Just saw this.SW cloaking is NOT superior. It's double bind nature limits it
tactical uses to very specific situations and even then hardly anything
major can be done with it. And They are just not invisible to everything but
CGT arrays. You can pick them up by their ion trail.
Wake turbulence??? Not unless it's in some kind of nebular or something.
Same for SW. And there is not proof that ST does not have sensors
equivalent to CGT arrays. They have a broad selection of sensors on most of
their ships. SW sensors are combat designed and are less flexible. And who
is too say the cloaks are different per sea? ST ships may well be able to
pick up cloaked SW ships by your mentioned methods.
Jerry
cloaking devices on ST, which were ALSO double blind. TNG era cloaks are
tactically superior.
bjorn_...@my-deja.com wrote in message <89p0l0$rbk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
Larry Runacres
especially when its moving around!
Henning Rogge wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 05:31:48 GMT, cwic...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >ok here goes... there is one point I'd like to make b4 I tell u which
> >side i'm on..
> >
> > ....
>
> Oh god... another shotgun approach...
>
> shotgun approach = simply shouting many unproven sentences and demand
> to disprove them all.
>
> Next time bring some evidence with your opinions...
>
> I only answer one of your points, because most has been already
> answered...
>
> >1) star trek ships have powerful shielding with the ability to change
> >freaquency (and all those other modifications the magically make in the
> >shows)
>
Henning Rogge
wrote:
>Whoa, hold on there buddy, this is assuming that you can find the hole,
>especially when its moving around!
Is a hole, moving or not, better than no hole ?
Henning Rogge ICQ 14862339
pablo_sa...@my-deja.com
cwic...@my-deja.com wrote:
> ok here goes... there is one point I'd like to make b4 I tell u which
> side i'm on..
>
> technologie are sooo different it would be hard to tell even with
years
>
> I think the ST universe would win an all out war vs the SW universe...
> here's why
>
> freaquency (and all those other modifications the magically make in
the
> shows)
>
> and counting the trillions of borg plus the 1000's of cubes the ST
> univers has... (hehe)
>
This isn't a total everyone in SW vs. everyone in ST. Generally people
use the Empire vs. the Federation and any likely allies the feds could
find.
> 3) the weaponry on the ST ships are much more powerful than those on
> the SW ships ( refer to my first point... I know these really
shouldn't
> be compared but this is my opinion, I stated the first point so that
no
> one would get heated or angry at my post )
>
> now to more general comments, you SW fans may be going what about 'the
> force' well It may help a bit, but there aren't enough jedi's or darth
> vaders to help the war in a big way.
>
> what about the death star you say? well, it's too slow to hit anyship
> in the ST univers, u might get lucky a few times, but we can program a
> quantum torpedo to fly into the death star (x-wing run) and blow it
up.
Photon and quantum torps are not nearly maneuverable enough to hit the
exhaust port. You also seem to disregard the surface turbolaser
turrets designed specifically to destroy capital ships (such as almost
all of starfleet) and the wings and wings of Tie fighters that can be
used to pick off runabouts and the seldom used fed fighters.
>
> and what about cloaking... hehe don't forget that =)
>
The Imps could scan for engine emissions from the cloaked ship. Plus
the crystal gravity trap sensor device.
> and transporter technology... just beam in explosives or troops...
>
Transporters are insanely easy to disrupt. IMO, firing up a microwave
could easily stop one.
> and hand to hand combat would be simple... phasers/disruptors are much
> more powerful than blasters...
Wrong, but I'll humor you. Redshirts vs. stormtroopers is a no-
brainer. Weapons power would have a very small role in a troop
battle. Stormies are trained to do battle, whereas the BIR (boys in
red) are trained to use a tricorder.
> now what would you SW ppl do about changelings? hehe,
Doppray-Magno scanner, as seen in Shadows of the Empire. It can
determine about anything about the target you wish to know, including
his age, medical condition, and many other things. I don't think a
changeling could circumvent this.
> we can breed Gem Hadar and take over you men with borg drones =) so we
> have an endless supply of troops =)
There is a lovely website known as the ASVS FAQ. Please visit.
http://nccu1.acc.nccu.edu/~kynes/faq.html
> oh and Transwarp conduits and Sliptream technology are much faster
than
> hyper space.. ( so is warp 10 ) hehe
Hyperspace allows SW vessels to traverse a galaxy larger than ours in a
matter of a few days or weeks.
> those are my points, the ones I can think of at the moment, there
tones
> of other small things I could think of.. but not at the moment...
>
> oh here's one more point, which well could end the war if u think
about
> it
>
> one Letter can win the war for sure for the ST universe
> ' Q ' the Q could just snap their fingers an *poof* there goes the SW
> universe =) hehehe
See FAQ.
> well thank you for your time, i'd like you to bring up points like
mine
> and argue me in a nice way =)
Welcome to the newsgroup. I hope to God that you've never seen "The
Outrageous Okona."
> -l8tr!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." -Joseph
Stalin.
Dalton
>
> I'd say SW cloaking technology is at about the same level as the earliest
> cloaking devices on ST, which were ALSO double blind. TNG era cloaks are
> tactically superior.
>
And easily detectable.
--
Dalton
AIM: RobPDalton
ICQ: 50342303
Yeah, whatever.
Da ASVS Fanfic Archive: [http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fanfics]
BIRGITHA JACOB
--
"Make love not war"
> > now what would you SW ppl do about changelings? hehe,
>
> Doppray-Magno scanner, as seen in Shadows of the Empire. It can
> determine about anything about the target you wish to know, including
> his age, medical condition, and many other things. I don't think a
> changeling could circumvent this.
If a Founder take the form of a rock the scanners will read it as a rock.
> > oh and Transwarp conduits and Sliptream technology are much faster
> than
> > hyper space.. ( so is warp 10 ) hehe
>
> Hyperspace allows SW vessels to traverse a galaxy larger than ours in a
> matter of a few days or weeks.
How do you know that SW galaxy is bigger then our own?
Chuck
BIRGITHA JACOB <perj...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:01bf8620$17c62400$LocalHost@default...
The Star Wars galaxy's size was stated as being 120,000 ly in diameter.
bjorn_...@my-deja.com
> >>And there is yet no proof that the
> >Imperials
> >> don't use frequency bassed shields.
> >
> >Occam's razor, I guess - if it isn't mentioned (and it isn't, AFAIK)
> >then it's
> >not a valid theory.
>
> Also Taken. Though logic states when you have two different tech which
have
> the same purpose, and you know how one of them works but not the
other,
> logic assumes that that both work the same.
Good point. The differences, however are two: that Imperial shields show
a distinction between KE and EM, and that Federation shields show
frequency-dependence. Though unproven, I say that demonstrates a high
probability that these shields work somewhat differently.
> >Your correction is accepted. :)
>
> Hey, I am not going to try and debate the fact (With the evidence to
this
> point) that the Federation can withstand 25,000 ISD's and all of their
> millions of support ships :)
=) Thanks, that makes me feel so better.
...though of course that assumption is totally ad hoc. I won't accept
such ad hominem attacks from you. I am right, you are wrong, I won't
speak to you anymore. Thanks ever so much. </end TOWNMNBS> ;)
> >> We have not been able to get a number yet. Anyone know Bermans
email
> >adress
> >> so we can ask?
> >
> >Ah, what would the residents here say to *that*, I wonder?
>
> I can guess.
"De spirits say, dat be in violatin' de FAQ, mon... dat be bad mojo, an'
soon, HIT-MAN come callin'."
> >Ah, I don't want to be irritating, but I still say that they, pound
for
> >pound, are *significantly* weaker than Fed ships. At least three
shots
> >of those big cannon, of which there are rather few, hit the Defiant
and
> >didn't manage to destroy it. They are in my mind really floating
cities,
> >not warships per se.
>
> Good point, but remember the Defiant is a combat ship specifically
designed
> to fight and kill Borg. Those shots may have been taken on the
ablative
> coverings. In BOBW, the small fleet assembled to take it on was
destroyed
> quick. As far as I know in FC, the large majority of the fleet built
to
> intercept the cube was killed.
I'm not disputing that they are as effective as Fed phasers. However,
they *cannot* be significantly (ten times) more powerful than the
phasers on a GCS, since ablative armor has its limits too. If ablative
armor was strong enough to repel more than ten times the power of a GCS,
no one would have cared if the shields were lost. Shields would be
irrelevant.
> >Once the Borg assimilate one SW cap ship they will have significantly
> >less than the Borg had against the Federation, who still whipped them
in
> >the end.
>
> They did not whip them. They barley managed to hang on with their
teeth in
> both cases. Both Borg attacks would have worked if not for the
Enterprises
> involvement.
Yeah, that's right. Erase and correct - they inflicted heavy damage on
the cube's outer hull, and fluctuations in its power grid. That's some
serious damage when compared to what the Feds did at Wolf. :-)
But anyway, my point was that the Borg could be defeated (if not easily)
even though they had full knowledge of Fed tech.
[snip]
> Have we ever seen a ST ship fire into water? Apart from Voyagers
attempt to
> stop the Flyer in 30 days? Though in that they did say that if they
fired
> their phasers, it would cause a massive thermal technthingy (been a
while
> since I seen it).
I've toyed with the idea of using that in my Fanfic. If you follow the
NDF theory, it should vaporise humungous amounts of water, since, after
all, both hydrogen and oxygen are elements with low periodic numbers. My
personal opinion is that the Enterprise could phaser away the Dead Sea
in less than 2 minutes.
> >Ah, more than 200 000 TJ? Where? (Fear not, I won't conveniently
> >"forget"...)
>
> In the carona of a star in Descent PT 2 using metaphasic shields.
Uh, according to all calculations I've seen, the vessel would have
absorbed around 1500 TJ in the 5 minutes it spent there.
> >> A heavy
> >> >turbolaser on an ISD can easily penetrate this shielding with two
> >> >shots. In contrast, an ISD has a minimum of 100,000,000 TJ of
> >shields.
> >> >It could withstand over 200 quantum torpedoes.
> >> Your mixing the energy and partical shields again.
> >
> >No reason to believe that the one isn't dependent on the other. Yes,
an
> >asteroid broke through the bridge shield. However, that was after
> >spending an unknown period inside an asteroid field, with an unknown
> >number of asteroids hitting it, and unknown damage to its shields to
> >begin with.
>
> True, but it still provides a baseline for the partical shields. That
and
> the fact that X-Wings with 2 dozen proton torps can colaspe a SW
Partical
> shield every time.
Every time? AFAIK they succeeded in *destabilizing* the shield of a
Dominator for an instant. The destabilization occured right above an
active gravity well generator, which could easily have been the cause of
this weakness.
> >Pretty hard, though?
>
> Yeah. But it would be funny. Massive confussion and chaos.
=)
> >Yep. Though only an idiot would factor that into his planning unless
he
> >had no other choice IMHO. It's too chancy.
>
> Palp did. He died. Luke did in Vission of the Future. His was preaty
acurate
> though.
Palp was an egotist. Luke was desperate. :)
[snip]
> >The Voth. Sorry, I didn't think of them.
>
> The Borg don't need planets, they just take them for resources which
they
> can obtain anyway becasue it is more efficent.
Proof?
> >"Surrender or we will destroy your planets!"
> >"Our what? You're saying you still use those? Pah!"
>
> "Oh.....wait a minuite'
> [Wait.......]
> "Ok.Surrender or we will destroy your ships! Ha HA"
I can't think of any ultimatum to give the Voth that they'd ever
consider. Too cocky. And they do have powerful ships.
> >Perhaps I should bring in the darker chants... "Ad Hominem! Ad
Hominem!"
>
> Nope. Yawn. sWaRs/sTrEk RuLzE!. Don't use these.
Yep.
> >Well, you're right about that it's rare. Though we don't know how
rare
> >it is these days. Gravfield traps were uncommon because no cloaking
> >devices were used before the Thrawn trilogy. We'll see how things
> >develop in "The New Jedi Order".
> >And I'd say that AMRE *is* mass dampening. However, this isn't
enough,
> >since the silhouette of the ship won't be changed. The CGT array will
> >simply report that there is a 400 meter long shape with the mass of
> >cardboard floating around there. That might make for some useful
> >confusion, though.
>
> Actualy I ment if the cloaking device has any mass dampaning
properties.
It seems to be significantly less "watertight" than it should be, from
what I heard, though it's a good weapon.
> >*nods* What about anticoncussion fields? Aren't they energy fields?
>
> As far as I know they are the same thing as Partical shields, just
another
> name for them.
Curious. I'll check into that.
> >Have there been any incidents of radiation completely blocking a
> >transport?
> >
>
> I think there have been, But I can't remember the exact episodes off
the top
> of my head.
All right. If we find them, we could check the specifics.
> >We'll just have to see...
>
> Oh yeah, there was Insurrection. Veins of something called
'Kelvanight' was
> used to help block the transporters from locking on. Though these
things can
> be overcome with something like isolinier tag's, pattern enhancers or
> emergeny transporter armbands.
Yep, I remember that. Also, I remember the Caretaker episode where the
crew is stopped from beaming by some ore, IIRC.
> >Ah, that. Since canon information gives it an impressive but not huge
> >yield, a bit similar to that of the blaster rifle, I'll stick with
that.
>
> Similar, but they are able to vaporise walls such as pure rock preaty
easy
> on ocassion.
NDF. That is also why they were able to vaporize a stream of water
without damaging the conduit.
> >Yes, they are. I'm just saying that the Empire has dealt with such a
> >problem successfully.
>
> Oh, Ok. Just set a world devastator on their world like in that
fanfic.
Oh, god, that *stupid* SOB of a General... :)
> >Ahh... I believe that would be the Defel and the Aar'aa, who all
coexist
> >under the Empire AFAIK.
>
> The Defel are not invisable. They in normal light just look like a
shadow
> standing up which looks like a humanoid. Jem'Hadar fully cloak, and
can only
> be seen at point blank range when they are moving. If they stand
still, they
> are perfactly invisable.
*nod*
> Don't have a clue who the Aar'aa are :(.
In The Hutt Gambit. They aren't invisible either, but chameleons. But
invisibility and translucency can tactically be very similar. Remember
the Predator? He's not invisible. Your eye just doesn't latch onto him
until you see three red dots glowing on your torso. :)
> >Hmm... that's right. The technique becomes reliable if the span is
> >extended; but that is, as you say, slow.
>
> Though Yasalmari can be used to speed up the process. But does that
> knowledge only extend to Thrawn and Pelleaon?
I think Pellaeon told the Empire. He'd have no reason not to; the Empire
had no Spaarti cylinders left, so they'd not be likely to start a new
Clone War.
> >Ah. Two questions:
> >* How fast is that?
>
> Well with T-Warp, we have an upper, but uncontradicted figure of a bit
over
> 20,000 LY per hour. However this figure is only valid in the Borgs
limited
> network of TW conduites. These form like....a network of highways
throughout
> Borg space, allowing them to move assests quickly throughout their
space,
> but they can't alter the course of the 'highways' without building new
ones.
> THis is why many times in voyager we see many times, a Borg ship
emerging
> from a T-Warp conduite then proceading at high Warp to catch Voyager.
Hmmm. Didn't the Voyager in Dark Frontier collapse the conduit? That
might be tactically useful.
> There is lower and higher values for slipstream. The lower value was
taken
> in a quoat by Janeway, '200 LY in 40 minuites'. This was from a number
of
> modifications based on the Alien ship that was posing as a Starfleet
ship to
> lure in Voyager. This is rougly comparable to Hyperdrive. The higher
value
> was taken from Voyagers use of their own degined experemental drive
core,
> bassed on Federation, Borg and other Tech. However although this drive
gave
> massive speed, it was unstable and Voyager was ultamatly destroyed a
few
> parsecs from the AQ, though this was averted due to people changing
history.
I remember that. Yes, it was fast, didn't they get home in like 15
minutes?
> >Yep. But he was right. :b
>
> True, but he would probably start a new civil war in the continum by
doing
> something like that.
Hadn't thought of that...
Björn Paulsen
Penner: "That's what's wrong with the world today. No one shares
their drugs anymore."
(The official famous role playing lines)
Dalton
>
> Dalton wrote in message <38C187CF...@erols.com>...
> >Jerry wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd say SW cloaking technology is at about the same level as the earliest
> >> cloaking devices on ST, which were ALSO double blind. TNG era cloaks are
> >> tactically superior.
>
> sometimes detect cloaked ships while SW sensors are more about range, then
> resolution and capabilities.
>
You mean they're more fine-tuned and shit? Shorter range and higher
resolution? I can buy that.
> >And easily detectable.
> >
> >--
> >Dalton
> >AIM: RobPDalton
> >ICQ: 50342303
> >
> >Yeah, whatever.
> >
> >Da ASVS Fanfic Archive: [http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fanfics]
--
Dalton
AIM: RobPDalton
ICQ: 50342303
BEHIND YOU!
Chris O'Farrell
>> cloaking devices on ST, which were ALSO double blind. TNG era cloaks are
>> tactically superior.
Possible explanation: ST ships have better sensor arrays and are able to
sometimes detect cloaked ships while SW sensors are more about range, then
resolution and capabilities.
>And easily detectable.
Dalton
>
> --
> "Make love not war"
>
> > > now what would you SW ppl do about changelings? hehe,
> >
> > Doppray-Magno scanner, as seen in Shadows of the Empire. It can
> > determine about anything about the target you wish to know, including
> > his age, medical condition, and many other things. I don't think a
> > changeling could circumvent this.
> If a Founder take the form of a rock the scanners will read it as a rock.
>
> > > oh and Transwarp conduits and Sliptream technology are much faster
> > than
> > > hyper space.. ( so is warp 10 ) hehe
> >
> > Hyperspace allows SW vessels to traverse a galaxy larger than ours in a
> > matter of a few days or weeks.
> How do you know that SW galaxy is bigger then our own?
Stated in some official source that the SW galaxy is 120,000 ly in
diameter. Ours is roughly 100,000.
--
Dalton
AIM: RobPDalton
ICQ: 50342303
Hardship is 3am and no toilet paper.
Eric
<yno...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>and what about cloaking... hehe don't forget that =)
>>
>>SW cloaking is superior. It's double-blind, sure, but the only way
>>you can detect a cloaked SW ship is through immensely sensitive
>>gravitational sensors. Something ST doesn't have.
>>You can detect ST cloaking by several different measures...engine
>>emissions, reactor radiation, wake turbulence, etc.
>
>
>Just saw this.SW cloaking is NOT superior. It's double bind nature limits it
>tactical uses to very specific situations and even then hardly anything
>major can be done with it. And They are just not invisible to everything but
>CGT arrays. You can pick them up by their ion trail.
>
>Wake turbulence??? Not unless it's in some kind of nebular or something.
>Same for SW. And there is not proof that ST does not have sensors
>equivalent to CGT arrays. They have a broad selection of sensors on most of
>their ships. SW sensors are combat designed and are less flexible. And who
>is too say the cloaks are different per sea? ST ships may well be able to
>pick up cloaked SW ships by your mentioned methods.
>
>'I came, I tried, I failed.
>I came again, I cheated, I won'
>
>Chris O'Farrell.
>yno...@hotmail.com
>ICQ 57988212
>
It -is- superior. The double-blind nature is merely an annoying
side-effect. It's a -huge- strategic advantage for SW, quite similar
to hyperdrive. If you can't see your enemy, but your enemy can see
you (by sending out tiny stealthed probes or even unfurling a
stealthed passive antenna, you're screwed.
Of course, SW won't even need their cloak against ST. It's all a
matter of speed and power...
Ion trails are detectable because they're physical matter that leaves
the shield. It ain't a problem when the ship's engines aren't
activated, though.
Subspace does weird shit. Warp coils and engines have to dip into
subspace continually. Same with AMRE. This is bound to cause some
sort of disturbance in the surrounding subspace. Interstellar vacuum
isn't a perfect vacuum, either.
If ST had such fine gravitational detection available to them, cloaked
ships wouldn't pose a bit of a threat. When you can easily detect the
gravitational shadow from a tiny-assed 40 meter asteroid, you won't
have a lick of problems finding ships. We don't know quite how CGTs
work. For all we know, they detect the hyperspatial mass shadow of
objects. Something ST can't do at all.
SW sensors are combat designed and hardened, yes. But why would this
make them any less effective at spotting a cloaked ST ship? They're
-optimized- to detect enemy craft in the area. They don't need to be
able to map every pillar of a nebula or try to figure out what Q has
done to their ship today. The saying goes...jack of all trades,
master of none. ST sensors are jack of all trades. SW sensors are
the master at combat situations.
The ONLY way to detect cloaked SW ships is if they're moving or if
you've got a CGT (or if you've got a Jedi/Sith with you). ST sensors
aren't sensitive enough to detect the gravity made by a ship, and they
are incapable of detecting hyperspatial mass shadows.
Chuck
Dalton <dalto...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:38C20A94...@erols.com...
> > How do you know that SW galaxy is bigger then our own?
>
> Stated in some official source that the SW galaxy is 120,000 ly in
> diameter. Ours is roughly 100,000.
You know, it's sad but I learned a huge number of astronomical facts for my
college exams by memorizing that song from "Meaning of Life". For this
reason, I'll always remember the size of our galaxy.
--
Chuck
"We're NOT going to do this! We're not going to go bouncing off the walls
for ten minutes and wind up right back here with the same problem!" (Apollo
13)
Dalton
>
> Dalton <dalto...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:38C20A94...@erols.com...
> > > How do you know that SW galaxy is bigger then our own?
> >
> > Stated in some official source that the SW galaxy is 120,000 ly in
> > diameter. Ours is roughly 100,000.
> You know, it's sad but I learned a huge number of astronomical facts for my
> college exams by memorizing that song from "Meaning of Life". For this
> reason, I'll always remember the size of our galaxy.
ROTFLMAO!!!
--
Dalton
AIM: RobPDalton
ICQ: 50342303
After things go from bad to worse, the cycle will repeat itself.
Chris O'Farrell
<Snip>
>
>It -is- superior. The double-blind nature is merely an annoying
>side-effect.
Or a sign that it is less advanced.
It's a -huge- strategic advantage for SW, quite similar
>to hyperdrive. If you can't see your enemy, but your enemy can see
>you
Same with ST cloaks. Except they can actualy SEE when cloaked.
(by sending out tiny stealthed probes or even unfurling a
>stealthed passive antenna,
Which would have a good chance of being detected. AND has never been done in
any SW novel as far as I know.
you're screwed.
>Of course, SW won't even need their cloak against ST. It's all a
>matter of speed and power...
Stay on topic please
>Ion trails are detectable because they're physical matter that leaves
>the shield. It ain't a problem when the ship's engines aren't
>activated, though.
Um, so what do they do then? Put out breadcrumbs and hope the Federation
follow them to the cloaked ship?
>Subspace does weird shit. Warp coils and engines have to dip into
>subspace continually. Same with AMRE. This is bound to cause some
>sort of disturbance in the surrounding subspace. Interstellar vacuum
>isn't a perfect vacuum, either.
>If ST had such fine gravitational detection available to them, cloaked
>ships wouldn't pose a bit of a threat. When you can easily detect the
>gravitational shadow from a tiny-assed 40 meter asteroid,
Say what?
you won't
>have a lick of problems finding ships. We don't know quite how CGTs
>work. For all we know,
(and for all we don't know)
they detect the hyperspatial mass shadow of
>objects. Something ST can't do at all.
>SW sensors are combat designed and hardened, yes. But why would this
>make them any less effective at spotting a cloaked ST ship? They're
>-optimized- to detect enemy craft in the area. They don't need to be
>able to map every pillar of a nebula or try to figure out what Q has
>done to their ship today. The saying goes...jack of all trades,
>master of none. ST sensors are jack of all trades. SW sensors are
>the master at combat situations.
Proof that SW ships have better sensors? What makes them better in a combat
situation over ST ships?
>The ONLY way to detect cloaked SW ships is if they're moving
Or if you:
-Focus a intense Tacyon beam to scan for them
-Use the Dominions Anti-Proton tech to scan for them.
or if
>you've got a CGT (or if you've got a Jedi/Sith with you). ST sensors
>aren't sensitive enough to detect the gravity made by a ship
[Sigh] Any proof? In the tng 'The Neutral Zone', Worf states "I am picking
up an object.....It is large and moving, but I can not get a positive lock,
nor can I put it on the viewscreen.' He may well have been detecting the
ship by it's mass. The fact that they have never again been detected by this
means suggests that the cloaks have built in mass damaning abilitys.
, and they
>are incapable of detecting hyperspatial mass shadows.
And how would this matter? If the ship is not in Hyperspace why would you
need to try and detect it this way?
JONATHAN A WILLIS
> It -is- superior. The double-blind nature is merely an annoying
> side-effect.
Annoying side effect? Its a crippling limitation. The only applications
of cloaks seen in SW novels so far have been in specialised operations
designed around the cloaks limitations. Trek cloaks can be used to
augment regular tactics; surprise attacks, invisible strategic movement,
patrol or recon missions are examples.
> It's a -huge- strategic advantage for SW, quite similar
> to hyperdrive. If you can't see your enemy, but your enemy can see
> you (by sending out tiny stealthed probes or even unfurling a
> stealthed passive antenna, you're screwed.
ST cloaks do provide this advantage, but SW cloaks do not. No cloaked SW
ship has ever used an exposed sensor system to see while cloaked. In
Specter of the Past they even tried using complicated computer models to
get around the blindess limitation of a cloak (it didn't work), so the
problem can't be that easy to solve.
> Of course, SW won't even need their cloak against ST. It's all a
> matter of speed and power...
Separate topics.
> Ion trails are detectable because they're physical matter that leaves
> the shield. It ain't a problem when the ship's engines aren't
> activated, though.
So the cloaked ship cannot see and is only invisible if it doesn't fire
and doesn't move? Really useful.
> Subspace does weird shit. Warp coils and engines have to dip into
> subspace continually. Same with AMRE. This is bound to cause some
> sort of disturbance in the surrounding subspace. Interstellar vacuum
> isn't a perfect vacuum, either.
ST ships have EM, neutrino, subspace, interstellar gas, gravitational,
and subspace sensors, and they can only vaguely detect cloaked ST ships.
The cloak must therefore offer some means of disguising all of the
above, although it doesn't seem to protect from active tachyon sensors
(such as the network used in Redemption II), and isn't 100% perfect
versus any of the above.
> If ST had such fine gravitational detection available to them, cloaked
> ships wouldn't pose a bit of a threat. When you can easily detect the
> gravitational shadow from a tiny-assed 40 meter asteroid, you won't
> have a lick of problems finding ships. We don't know quite how CGTs
> work. For all we know, they detect the hyperspatial mass shadow of
> objects. Something ST can't do at all.
ST does have fine gravitational sensors (canon; how many times have they
detected "gravitational distortions") so the ST cloak must somehow
prevent the ships gravity from being detectable.
The idea of a CGT detecting a ships mass shadow, well the name implies
to me its a gravity sensor, but for the moment I guess this is unproven
either way. Although given Trek technical ingenuity it probably wouldn't
take them long to modify their grav sensors to detect hyperspace
shadows.
> SW sensors are combat designed and hardened, yes. But why would this
> make them any less effective at spotting a cloaked ST ship? They're
> -optimized- to detect enemy craft in the area. They don't need to be
> able to map every pillar of a nebula or try to figure out what Q has
> done to their ship today. The saying goes...jack of all trades,
> master of none. ST sensors are jack of all trades. SW sensors are
> the master at combat situations.
The jack of all trades idea makes them mcuh better at spotting cloaked
ships of any type. Any given cloak will be a mixture of devices, each of
which disguises a particular emission; for example the B-2 include a
radar invisible hull and various coolant devices to confuse IR sensors.
The more varied the opponents sensors, the harder it becomes to disguise
all the various emissions.
> The ONLY way to detect cloaked SW ships is if they're moving or if
> you've got a CGT (or if you've got a Jedi/Sith with you). ST sensors
> aren't sensitive enough to detect the gravity made by a ship, and they
> are incapable of detecting hyperspatial mass shadows.
The only _known_ way to detect SW cloaks is by CGT. If ST has some form
of sensor SW doesn't use (even if simply because its considered
obsolete) this may allow them to detect cloaked ships; subspace sensors
come immediately to mind, or perhaps the neutrino detectors.
Wayne Poe
On Sun, 5 Mar 2000, Eric wrote:
> The ONLY way to detect cloaked SW ships is if they're moving or if
> you've got a CGT (or if you've got a Jedi/Sith with you). ST sensors
> aren't sensitive enough to detect the gravity made by a ship, and they
> are incapable of detecting hyperspatial mass shadows.
Another thing. In "Balance of Terror", Kirk was going wait 'till the
cloaked ship passed through a comet's tail in order to detect it better
before attacking. 3 ISDs in SotP are HITCHED to a comet for over a MONTH,
fully cloaked and undetected!
Strowbridge
SW cloaks are NOT tactically useless, you just have to plan with them.
They'd be perfect for orbital attacks. Preprogram the flight paths and
attack while blind.
C.S.Strowbridge
Dalton
>
> Wayne Poe wrote:
>
> > > The ONLY way to detect cloaked SW ships is if they're moving or if
> > > you've got a CGT (or if you've got a Jedi/Sith with you). ST sensors
> > > aren't sensitive enough to detect the gravity made by a ship, and they
> > > are incapable of detecting hyperspatial mass shadows.
> >
> > Another thing. In "Balance of Terror", Kirk was going wait 'till the
> > cloaked ship passed through a comet's tail in order to detect it better
> > before attacking. 3 ISDs in SotP are HITCHED to a comet for over a MONTH,
> > fully cloaked and undetected!
>
> from external particles. Another example of this is Redemption II, where
> Data uses a low level torpedo burst to detect Romulan warbirds. But in
> both these cases the detection was marginal, since Kirk only wanted to
> "detect them better" (and Balance of Terror was a prototype cloak IIRC)
> and Data's tactic only worked due to some specialised technobabble.
>
> In a way the ISDs got lucky in SotP. If they were attached to the comet
> they would alter its mass, even if only slightly (how big was the
> comet?), and this would alter its orbit, which there is no way a cloak
> could disguise.
They didn't attach to the comet; they flew in tandem with it and
attached data tethers.
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303
Never underestimate the power of me.
JONATHAN A WILLIS
Kynes
> Wayne Poe wrote:
>
> > > The ONLY way to detect cloaked SW ships is if they're moving or if
> > > you've got a CGT (or if you've got a Jedi/Sith with you). ST sensors
> > > aren't sensitive enough to detect the gravity made by a ship, and they
> > > are incapable of detecting hyperspatial mass shadows.
> >
> > Another thing. In "Balance of Terror", Kirk was going wait 'till the
> > cloaked ship passed through a comet's tail in order to detect it better
> > before attacking. 3 ISDs in SotP are HITCHED to a comet for over a MONTH,
> > fully cloaked and undetected!
>
> they would alter its mass, even if only slightly (how big was the
> comet?), and this would alter its orbit, which there is no way a cloak
> could disguise.
Would it? This doesn't seem quite right -- I'm no physics student, but doesn't
the orbit depend on the speed and the mass of the *orbited* body?
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"It takes zero politically correct assholes to screw in a lightbulb, because
they are perpetually in the fucking dark."
- Dennis Miller
Wayne Poe
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, JONATHAN A WILLIS wrote:
> In a way the ISDs got lucky in SotP. If they were attached to the comet
> they would alter its mass, even if only slightly
No, they weren't attatched to it in a way that the comet was dragging them
or anything. They flew alongside it, and the tethers were only necessary
to give feedback to the ISDs to make sure they stayed in the same relative
osition behind the comet.
> (how big was the comet?),
I could be wrong, but I don't believe the size was stated.
> and this would alter its orbit, which there is no way a cloak could
> disguise.
Nope, they didn't.
Matthew Hyde
Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, JONATHAN A WILLIS wrote:
> > In a way the ISDs got lucky in SotP. If they were attached to the comet
> > they would alter its mass, even if only slightly
> No, they weren't attatched to it in a way that the comet was dragging them
> or anything. They flew alongside it, and the tethers were only necessary
> to give feedback to the ISDs to make sure they stayed in the same relative
> osition behind the comet.
when a ship is at anchor, the quartermasters keep watch on a circle with
the anchor at the center, and take bearings every
few minutes. The ship is allowed to rotate about the anchor. The goal is
to keep the circle stationary. If the anchor
starts dragging, then the circle shifts, and an emergency sea and anchor
detail is called to weigh anchor, the ship maneuvers back to its intended
spot, and they drop anchor again (one more reason they never shut down the
power plant when in an independent state--to be dead in the water and
drifting to a collision would be bad).
Why did I bring that up? Because, if human brains can hand-calculate their
relative bearings to certain objects, and by voice communication and
physical manipulation react in time to get a slow-moving ship to react to
a change in those relative bearings, I am wondering... Well, it's obvious
by now, isn't it? Why bother with tethers? Having the object move as well
only adds another dimension (or 2, or 3, or nothing that a computer can't
handle) to the problem.
--
Matt Hyde, math lab consultant
Michigan Tech math sciences
http://www.mathlab.mtu.edu/~mdoughy
Dalton
>
> Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Why did I bring that up? Because, if human brains can hand-calculate their
> relative bearings to certain objects, and by voice communication and
> physical manipulation react in time to get a slow-moving ship to react to
> a change in those relative bearings, I am wondering... Well, it's obvious
> by now, isn't it? Why bother with tethers? Having the object move as well
> only adds another dimension (or 2, or 3, or nothing that a computer can't
> handle) to the problem.
The tethers were not there to *attach* them. They were there for
*information*.
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303
Why is there never anything good on TV?
Wayne Poe
On 15 Mar 2000, Matthew Hyde wrote:
> > No, they weren't attatched to it in a way that the comet was dragging them
> > or anything. They flew alongside it, and the tethers were only necessary
> > to give feedback to the ISDs to make sure they stayed in the same relative
> > osition behind the comet.
> when a ship is at anchor, the quartermasters keep watch on a circle with
> the anchor at the center, and take bearings every
> few minutes. The ship is allowed to rotate about the anchor. The goal is
> to keep the circle stationary. If the anchor
> starts dragging, then the circle shifts, and an emergency sea and anchor
> detail is called to weigh anchor, the ship maneuvers back to its intended
> spot, and they drop anchor again (one more reason they never shut down the
> power plant when in an independent state--to be dead in the water and
> drifting to a collision would be bad).
>
> Why did I bring that up? Because, if human brains can hand-calculate their
> relative bearings to certain objects, and by voice communication and
> physical manipulation react in time to get a slow-moving ship to react to
> a change in those relative bearings, I am wondering... Well, it's obvious
> by now, isn't it? Why bother with tethers? Having the object move as well
> only adds another dimension (or 2, or 3, or nothing that a computer can't
> handle) to the problem.
Because remember, they are cloaked, and can't see or use sensors out of
that sphere. They also had to worry about not running into each other!
"My statements about your scientific ignorance and technical incompetence
aren't "assumptions". They are statements of fact. You have REPEATEDLY
proved yourself to have the scientific knowledge of an iguana."
---Michael Wong to Anton Polinger
Matthew Hyde
> [snip]
> > Why did I bring that up? Because, if human brains can hand-calculate their
> > relative bearings to certain objects, and by voice communication and
> > physical manipulation react in time to get a slow-moving ship to react to
> > a change in those relative bearings, I am wondering... Well, it's obvious
> > by now, isn't it? Why bother with tethers? Having the object move as well
> > only adds another dimension (or 2, or 3, or nothing that a computer can't
> > handle) to the problem.
> The tethers were not there to *attach* them. They were there for
> *information*.
I am not saying the tethers were there for the sole purpose of
attachment. I am responding to the claim that the tethers were there to
provide feeedback. Info that the sensors should be more than capable of
getting, and in the form of data that the computers should be more than
capable of computing.
Ya rat wanker, lmao.
Matthew Hyde
Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> wrote:
> On 15 Mar 2000, Matthew Hyde wrote:
> > > No, they weren't attatched to it in a way that the comet was dragging them
> > > or anything. They flew alongside it, and the tethers were only necessary
> > > to give feedback to the ISDs to make sure they stayed in the same relative
> > > osition behind the comet.
> > when a ship is at anchor, the quartermasters keep watch on a circle with
> > the anchor at the center, and take bearings every
> > few minutes. The ship is allowed to rotate about the anchor. The goal is
> > to keep the circle stationary. If the anchor
> > starts dragging, then the circle shifts, and an emergency sea and anchor
> > detail is called to weigh anchor, the ship maneuvers back to its intended
> > spot, and they drop anchor again (one more reason they never shut down the
> > power plant when in an independent state--to be dead in the water and
> > drifting to a collision would be bad).
> >
> > Why did I bring that up? Because, if human brains can hand-calculate their
> > relative bearings to certain objects, and by voice communication and
> > physical manipulation react in time to get a slow-moving ship to react to
> > a change in those relative bearings, I am wondering... Well, it's obvious
> > by now, isn't it? Why bother with tethers? Having the object move as well
> > only adds another dimension (or 2, or 3, or nothing that a computer can't
> > handle) to the problem.
> Because remember, they are cloaked, and can't see or use sensors out of
> that sphere. They also had to worry about not running into each other!
Ohhhhh, OK.
I don't watch these things, are you kidding! lol
Dalton
>
> Dalton <dalto...@erols.com> wrote:
> > Matthew Hyde wrote:
> > >
> > > Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > > relative bearings to certain objects, and by voice communication and
> > > physical manipulation react in time to get a slow-moving ship to react to
> > > a change in those relative bearings, I am wondering... Well, it's obvious
> > > by now, isn't it? Why bother with tethers? Having the object move as well
> > > only adds another dimension (or 2, or 3, or nothing that a computer can't
> > > handle) to the problem.
>
> > *information*.
>
> I am not saying the tethers were there for the sole purpose of
> attachment. I am responding to the claim that the tethers were there to
> provide feeedback. Info that the sensors should be more than capable of
> getting, and in the form of data that the computers should be more than
> capable of computing.
>
> Ya rat wanker, lmao.
>
Err, they can't use sensors while cloaked!
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303
"I don't have a clue." ---Elim Garak