Enterprise NX-01 vs. Invisible Hand
Michael Ejercito
battle with General Grievous's Invisible Hand, victory defined as
destruction of the opponent?
Michael
Ari Allyn-Feuer
the NX-01 to indicate that it had the slightest hope against the IH,
except possibly via mutual destruction by ramming it at warp speeds.
The IH has numerous fighters against whom the NX-01 has no significant
defense, equipped with buzz droid missiles the NX-01 could not outrun
or outmanuever except by a warp jump. The NX-01 has powerful weaponry
against which the NX-01 has no concievable defense, engines capable of
intercepting the NX-01 no matter which way it runs, and boarding craft
and shock troops capable of overwhelming the guards on the NX-01.
The way I read it, it's a total rout, and not even a very amusing total
rout.
Do you see something which indicates otherwise?
Ari Allyn-Feuer.
Michael Ejercito
Hand.
Michael
Ari Allyn-Feuer
explode harmlessly against the IH's shields. The same for these beam
weapons.
Unless you can provide convincing evidence that the weaponry employed
by the NX-01 is superior to, for example, TNG-era weaponry by at least
a full order of magnitude. Then it might get fun.
When the IH starts firing back, the NX-01 will be pulverized almost
immediately, and unable to run away. The NX-01 has only warp 5, where
warp 9~=9000c. The IH has demonstrated capabilities in the range of
several hundred thousand c at least. NX-01 is trapped. The batteries
on the IH are, I contend, equivalent to those of an ISD1, because they
were of a nature markedly superior to those of the contemporaneous VSD,
which was phased out in favor of the ISD. Michael wong makes a
lowest-order firepower estimate for the medium guns of an ISD of 30
terawatts sustained per battery. This would imply a total of of 1.8
petawatts of sustained firepower for the IH, given 60 medium batteries
per ISD. Startrek.com lists a power of 500 gigajoules for the NX-01,
but how they've managed to put power in joules is beyond me. Let's
assume they mean 500 gigawatts, shall we? These estimates put the IH
ahead in the firepower column by a factor of about 3600 to one, with
similar advantages in shielding implied by the ability to face
comparable foes.
You also have to figure in the influence of the IH's fighters, against
which the NX-01 has no demonstrated defense. These fighters are
capable of launching buzz droid missiles, which could interfere with
the NX-01's machinery. You have yet to address this.
The weaponry of the NX-01 appears to be inferior by a great margin, and
the battle remains in my eyes a total rout.
Michael Ejercito
Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
> Torpedoes which we have no reason to belive would do anything but
> explode harmlessly against the IH's shields. The same for these beam
> weapons.
And yet a starfigher's beam weapons took down the shields protecting
the landing deck of the ship.
>
> Unless you can provide convincing evidence that the weaponry employed
> by the NX-01 is superior to, for example, TNG-era weaponry by at least
> a full order of magnitude. Then it might get fun.
I just have to show it is up to par with the weapons of Anakin
Skywalker's Jedi starfighter.
>
> When the IH starts firing back, the NX-01 will be pulverized almost
> immediately, and unable to run away. The NX-01 has only warp 5, where
> warp 9~=9000c. The IH has demonstrated capabilities in the range of
> several hundred thousand c at least. NX-01 is trapped. The batteries
> on the IH are, I contend, equivalent to those of an ISD1, because they
> were of a nature markedly superior to those of the contemporaneous VSD,
> which was phased out in favor of the ISD. Michael wong makes a
> lowest-order firepower estimate for the medium guns of an ISD of 30
> terawatts sustained per battery. This would imply a total of of 1.8
> petawatts of sustained firepower for the IH, given 60 medium batteries
> per ISD. Startrek.com lists a power of 500 gigajoules for the NX-01,
> but how they've managed to put power in joules is beyond me. Let's
> assume they mean 500 gigawatts, shall we? These estimates put the IH
> ahead in the firepower column by a factor of about 3600 to one, with
> similar advantages in shielding implied by the ability to face
> comparable foes.
And how were those figures calculated? Not to imply that the IH's
weapons are incapable of piercing the NX-01's hull, but where did those
figures come from?
>
> You also have to figure in the influence of the IH's fighters, against
> which the NX-01 has no demonstrated defense. These fighters are
> capable of launching buzz droid missiles, which could interfere with
> the NX-01's machinery. You have yet to address this.
>
The Enterprise NX-01 is more capable of hitting smaller ships than
the Death Star's turbolasers. It will not be enough to deal with a full
complement of droid fighters, given the sheer size of the IH.
Michael
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Michael Ejercito wrote:
> Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
> > Torpedoes which we have no reason to belive would do anything but
> > explode harmlessly against the IH's shields. The same for these beam
> > weapons.
>
> And yet a starfigher's beam weapons took down the shields protecting
> the landing deck of the ship.
I think I'll delurk to add a few comments you two seem to have missed:
This is the only viable strategy for the NX-01 in this case. Use
overloaded phase cannons to take down the hanger bay shields, and then
dump maxed out yeild photonic torpedoes into it, and hope to ignite the
ludicrisly volatile fuel stored or transfered in lines near there (as
per the second-order canon of the screenplay).
As for a comparison of firepower; in AoTC Jango Fett's Slave-I's
blasters could not do much more than shatter half the volume of
oblate-shaped asteroids that were only about 8-12 long. Assuming solid
iron, and the asteroids being perfect spheres, that would give
Slave-I's guns a generous upper limit firepower of around 20 GJ (200
GW). Presumably Slave-I has superior firepower over the much smaller
Jedi starfighters Anakin and Obi-Wan were flying in RoTS. So I see few
issues here in that regard since as early as "Silent Enemy", the NX-01
has demonstrated the ability to fire her forward phase cannon batteries
simultaneously for a combined firepower of 1 terawatt, and sustain fire
for at least 3 seconds of dwell time for an equal number of terajoules.
The problem however becomes one of the NX-01 getting close enough, and
locating the shield generators.
> > Unless you can provide convincing evidence that the weaponry employed
> > by the NX-01 is superior to, for example, TNG-era weaponry by at least
> > a full order of magnitude. Then it might get fun.
> I just have to show it is up to par with the weapons of Anakin
> Skywalker's Jedi starfighter.
> >
> > When the IH starts firing back, the NX-01 will be pulverized almost
> > immediately, and unable to run away. The NX-01 has only warp 5, where
> > warp 9~=9000c. The IH has demonstrated capabilities in the range of
> > several hundred thousand c at least. NX-01 is trapped. The batteries
> > on the IH are, I contend, equivalent to those of an ISD1, because they
> > were of a nature markedly superior to those of the contemporaneous VSD,
> > which was phased out in favor of the ISD. Michael wong makes a
> > lowest-order firepower estimate for the medium guns of an ISD of 30
> > terawatts sustained per battery. This would imply a total of of 1.8
> > petawatts of sustained firepower for the IH, given 60 medium batteries
> > per ISD. Startrek.com lists a power of 500 gigajoules for the NX-01,
> > but how they've managed to put power in joules is beyond me. Let's
> > assume they mean 500 gigawatts, shall we? These estimates put the IH
> > ahead in the firepower column by a factor of about 3600 to one, with
> > similar advantages in shielding implied by the ability to face
> > comparable foes.
> And how were those figures calculated? Not to imply that the IH's
> weapons are incapable of piercing the NX-01's hull, but where did those
> figures come from?
I have to ask that as well, too. First off, the Invisible Hand never
once demonstrated such hyperspace speeds. When the story picks up in
the novelization as well as the movies, it is in very low orbit about
Courscant in the midst of a pitched battle, and naturally the ship
crashed, so we don't see it jump. Now I'am not saying that the IH can't
go to hyperspace, but I would like to see what the justification for
the "hundreds of thousands of c" number just seemingly randomly tossed
out here, not to mention the seemingly random firepower figures, and
not just another Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Not too mention, Ari didn't cite anything other than Startrek.com for
the NX-01 phase cannon's capabilities. In "Silent Enemy", Trip and Reed
find a way to boost up the phase cannons' power by a factor of 10 by
directly powering them from the ship's impulse engines. So the 500 GJ
number is really something of a lower limit. Combined with the
above-mentioned fact that the ship can fire at least two cannons at a
time, and you have 10 terawatts or better for the NX-01's phase cannon
firepower.
But that's neither here nor there; the NX-01 has top speeds calculated
generally around 1,500 to 1,800c based on a 12 ly run made in 3 days in
"Cease Fire" [ST:ENT2], and 25 ly run made in less than a week in
"Horizon" [ST:ENT2]. Call it 1,700c.
Now, the flaw in the FTL argument cited here is this: the nature of
warp versus hyperdrive. The NX-01 can sustain warp, while still being
permeable to realspace. The Earth ship can also enter and exit nearly
at will. Contrast this with hyperdrive where once the IH enters
hyperspace, it is NOT permeable to realspace, and has no way to track
the NX-01 once underway until it can come out of HS, and get some kind
of bearing. To add to the IH's problems in this area, it also
canonically takes a minute or more to calculate a hyperspace jump. Even
if the IH is faster in HS than the NX-01 is in warp by any significant
measure, it would be a silly comedy ala Spaceballs of the IH attempting
extremely dangerous hyperspeed hops, trying to stay somewhere ahead of
the NX-01, hoping all the while the Earth ship doesn't change course,
or actually bothers to come to a stop and fight with the IH instead of
detouring around it.
The only hope the IH has of stopping the NX-01 from escaping is to
englobe it with enough fighters and buzz droids to block it from safely
going to warp. However the NX-01 has demonstrated herself to be fairly
maneuverable, even when flying low in a terrestrial planet or gas
giant's atmosphere. This is a big advantage in being able to dodge
shots from the IH's turbolaser batteries.
> >
> > You also have to figure in the influence of the IH's fighters, against
> > which the NX-01 has no demonstrated defense. These fighters are
> > capable of launching buzz droid missiles, which could interfere with
> > the NX-01's machinery. You have yet to address this.
> >
> The Enterprise NX-01 is more capable of hitting smaller ships than
> the Death Star's turbolasers. It will not be enough to deal with a full
> complement of droid fighters, given the sheer size of the IH.
I would ask if we have any information of the use of buzz droids
against heavily armored capital ships. It takes the buzz droids about a
couple of minutes just to do some modest damage to a tiny 4.5 meter
long fighter. I certainly don't recall any relevant passages from the
RoTS novelization on this matter.
As for targeting fighter craft, the NX-01 shouldn't have too many
issues with that, but the IH will be able to overwhelm her with dozens
of fighters as the Suliban and Tholians have done in episodes like
"Shockwave" and "Future Tense".
Overall though, if the NX-01 does not escape to warp and keep going,
she will likely be slowly overwhelmed by turbolasers, fighters, and
buzz droids, unless she can knock out the hanger bay shields, and
dedonate the volatile fuel stores.
Anyway, have fun! :-)
-Mike
Ari Allyn-Feuer
>> Torpedoes which we have no reason to belive would do anything but
>> explode harmlessly against the IH's shields. The same for these beam
>> weapons.
> And yet a starfigher's beam weapons took down the shields protecting
>the landing deck of the ship.
Those, if you would recall, were simply the shields over the maw of the
landing bay. The generator was open, unshielded, to space. Surely
you're not suggesting that the main shield generator is located lust to
the left of a minor docking bay and is completely open to space? Or
perhaps that the IH, known at that point to be in dire straits in
battle against the VSDs, had full shields in operation? No, that was
just a mild retention forcefield, and the generator was unshielded
because the main shields had been shredded in the long battle
beforehand.
>> Unless you can provide convincing evidence that the weaponry employed
>> by the NX-01 is superior to, for example, TNG-era weaponry by at least
>> a full order of magnitude. Then it might get fun.
> I just have to show it is up to par with the weapons of Anakin
>Skywalker's Jedi starfighter.
If we are to follow your analogy, we will have to assume that the main
shields were conveniently demolished by a fleet of VSDs on the
enterprise's side, and that they were around to finish the IH
afterward. Even with the shields down, the IH's armor would
necessitate long periods of sustained fire to bring it down with
weapons as small as those on the Enterprise, time during which the IH
could pulverise the Enterprise.
>> When the IH starts firing back, the NX-01 will be pulverized almost
>> immediately, and unable to run away. The NX-01 has only warp 5, where
>> warp 9~=9000c. The IH has demonstrated capabilities in the range of
>> several hundred thousand c at least. NX-01 is trapped. The batteries
>> on the IH are, I contend, equivalent to those of an ISD1, because they
>> were of a nature markedly superior to those of the contemporaneous VSD,
>> which was phased out in favor of the ISD. Michael wong makes a
>> lowest-order firepower estimate for the medium guns of an ISD of 30
>> terawatts sustained per battery. This would imply a total of of 1.8
>> petawatts of sustained firepower for the IH, given 60 medium batteries
>> per ISD. Startrek.com lists a power of 500 gigajoules for the NX-01,
>> but how they've managed to put power in joules is beyond me. Let's
>> assume they mean 500 gigawatts, shall we? These estimates put the IH
>> ahead in the firepower column by a factor of about 3600 to one, with
>> similar advantages in shielding implied by the ability to face
>> comparable foes.
> And how were those figures calculated? Not to imply that the IH's
>weapons are incapable of piercing the NX-01's hull, but where did those
>figures come from?
The ISD turbolaser analysis I used comes from the website of Michael
Wong, a canadian engineer who is among the most thorough analysts
engaged in this debate. His website is www.stardestroyer.net, and the
specific page is http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html
The methodology involved the asteroid vaporisation scenes in TESB, and
using their energy requirements as lower-limit energy yields for the
TLs.
>> You also have to figure in the influence of the IH's fighters, against
>> which the NX-01 has no demonstrated defense. These fighters are
>> capable of launching buzz droid missiles, which could interfere with
>> the NX-01's machinery. You have yet to address this.
> The Enterprise NX-01 is more capable of hitting smaller ships than
>the Death Star's turbolasers. It will not be enough to deal with a full
>complement of droid fighters, given the sheer size of the IH.
Precisely. The ability of the Enterprise to hit some fighters with its
main batteries and destroy them is pretty much insignificant because
the IH can pump out hundreds of them. What is needed for a fighter
screen is hundreds of TLs or rapidly tracking point defense laser
cannon, such as those of a Lancer Frigate.
The NX-01 cannot win via attack, and has no concievable defense.
Michael Ejercito
Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
> >Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
> >> Torpedoes which we have no reason to belive would do anything but
> >> explode harmlessly against the IH's shields. The same for these beam
> >> weapons.
>
> > And yet a starfigher's beam weapons took down the shields protecting
> >the landing deck of the ship.
>
> Those, if you would recall, were simply the shields over the maw of the
> landing bay. The generator was open, unshielded, to space. Surely
> you're not suggesting that the main shield generator is located lust to
> the left of a minor docking bay and is completely open to space? Or
> perhaps that the IH, known at that point to be in dire straits in
> battle against the VSDs, had full shields in operation? No, that was
> just a mild retention forcefield, and the generator was unshielded
> because the main shields had been shredded in the long battle
> beforehand.
located to the left of the minor docking bay and completely open the
space.
The strategy for the NX-01 is to go AROUND the main shields by
taking out the hangar bay shield and then firing into the hangar bay.
Remember that during WW2, the Maginot Line was never breached.
>
> >> Unless you can provide convincing evidence that the weaponry employed
> >> by the NX-01 is superior to, for example, TNG-era weaponry by at least
> >> a full order of magnitude. Then it might get fun.
>
> > I just have to show it is up to par with the weapons of Anakin
> >Skywalker's Jedi starfighter.
>
> If we are to follow your analogy, we will have to assume that the main
> shields were conveniently demolished by a fleet of VSDs on the
> enterprise's side, and that they were around to finish the IH
> afterward. Even with the shields down, the IH's armor would
> necessitate long periods of sustained fire to bring it down with
> weapons as small as those on the Enterprise, time during which the IH
> could pulverise the Enterprise.
after the shields covering the hangar bay.
Actually executing the strategy would be a bitch though.
Michael
Spyderizer
> Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Michael
>
Holy shit, it's 1999 again.
Wouter Valentijn
Okay, everybody start watching the moon right now...
--
Wouter Valentijn
www.wouter.cc
www.nksf.nl
www.zeppodunsel.nl
liam=mail
"The world that denies thee, thou inhabit.
The peace that ignores thee, thou corrupt.
Chaos. I remain, as ever, thy faithful, degenerate son."
Ethan Rayne, 'Halloween' (Buffy The Vampire Slayer)
Ari Allyn-Feuer
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
> Michael Ejercito wrote:
> > Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
> > > Torpedoes which we have no reason to belive would do anything but
> > > explode harmlessly against the IH's shields. The same for these beam
> > > weapons.
> >
> > And yet a starfigher's beam weapons took down the shields protecting
> > the landing deck of the ship.
>
> I think I'll delurk to add a few comments you two seem to have missed:
>
>
> This is the only viable strategy for the NX-01 in this case. Use
> overloaded phase cannons to take down the hanger bay shields, and then
> dump maxed out yeild photonic torpedoes into it, and hope to ignite the
> ludicrisly volatile fuel stored or transfered in lines near there (as
> per the second-order canon of the screenplay).
You seem to be under the impression that the hanagr bay shields are
completely separate from the main shields, and that their areas of
coverage do no not overlap. We know from the main scene that a
separate generator exists, but it is very unlikely that its generator
would be left unshielded by the main shield. Surely it is better
design to make a shield covering all areas of the ship, with redundancy
over the docking bay, than to have separate generators for
non-overlapping areas with the generators unshielded in the gap? No,
you still have to deal with the main shields. And you have provided no
evidence that the Ent-nx-01 could dent them.
> As for a comparison of firepower; in AoTC Jango Fett's Slave-I's
> blasters could not do much more than shatter half the volume of
> oblate-shaped asteroids that were only about 8-12 long. Assuming solid
> iron, and the asteroids being perfect spheres, that would give
> Slave-I's guns a generous upper limit firepower of around 20 GJ (200
> GW). Presumably Slave-I has superior firepower over the much smaller
> Jedi starfighters Anakin and Obi-Wan were flying in RoTS. So I see few
> issues here in that regard since as early as "Silent Enemy", the NX-01
> has demonstrated the ability to fire her forward phase cannon batteries
> simultaneously for a combined firepower of 1 terawatt, and sustain fire
> for at least 3 seconds of dwell time for an equal number of terajoules.
> The problem however becomes one of the NX-01 getting close enough, and
> locating the shield generators.
Fine. Let's give you that, and multiply it by 10. If fact, let's
assume that the NX-01 can put out 3 terwatts sustained, forever, with
full range of motion, and that the IH will take a full minute to begin
firing, and that the IH has no shield recharge whatsoever. In that
time, the NX-01 can put out 180 TJ of energy into the shields. This
will not breach the main shields of the IH, unless you're willing to
suggest that the IH's shields could be leveled by 6 TL shots, about 3%
of its own broadside salvo. You're still stuck. When the minute is
up, the NX-01 is finished.
Let's assume that the NX-01 can handle a minute of its own sustained
fire, or 180 TJ, surely greater than any demonstrated capability. That
is equivalent to 6 TL blasts from the IH, about 3% of a broadside
repeatable once per second at peak output. If we give the IH's gunners
a measly 1%, it would take only 3 seconds to kill the NX-01.
I'm not appealing to authority but to prior estimations, with open
calculations, on a public website, www.stardestroyer.net. I have
already provided a link to the source of the firepower estimates. The
speed estimates are simple in their derivation. It has been well
demonstrated that it is possible to travel from a core planet to an
outer rim planet within the same day. Assuming that the SW galaxy is
the size of our own (some estimates suggest it is larger) and that the
"outer rim" is halfway to the edge, going those 25000 LY in 24 hours
requires a velocity of 9,125,000c. The IH must be able to make
1,000,000c, or else it would be outrun by a factor of 10 by the Slave
1, the Naboo senatorial yacht, Anakin's starfighter, Palpatine's
shuttle; the list goes on and on.
> Not too mention, Ari didn't cite anything other than Startrek.com for
> the NX-01 phase cannon's capabilities. In "Silent Enemy", Trip and Reed
> find a way to boost up the phase cannons' power by a factor of 10 by
> directly powering them from the ship's impulse engines. So the 500 GJ
> number is really something of a lower limit. Combined with the
> above-mentioned fact that the ship can fire at least two cannons at a
> time, and you have 10 terawatts or better for the NX-01's phase cannon
> firepower.
Fine. You're still talking about a number about 1/6 of 1% of what the
IH can dish out. I'll let you multiply by 10, and then by 2, and then
assume continuous fire where we see bursts, because it doesn't matter.
> But that's neither here nor there; the NX-01 has top speeds calculated
> generally around 1,500 to 1,800c based on a 12 ly run made in 3 days in
> "Cease Fire" [ST:ENT2], and 25 ly run made in less than a week in
> "Horizon" [ST:ENT2]. Call it 1,700c.
Call it 10,000c. It's still only 1% of what the IH can make.
> Now, the flaw in the FTL argument cited here is this: the nature of
> warp versus hyperdrive. The NX-01 can sustain warp, while still being
> permeable to realspace. The Earth ship can also enter and exit nearly
> at will. Contrast this with hyperdrive where once the IH enters
> hyperspace, it is NOT permeable to realspace, and has no way to track
> the NX-01 once underway until it can come out of HS, and get some kind
> of bearing. To add to the IH's problems in this area, it also
> canonically takes a minute or more to calculate a hyperspace jump. Even
> if the IH is faster in HS than the NX-01 is in warp by any significant
> measure, it would be a silly comedy ala Spaceballs of the IH attempting
> extremely dangerous hyperspeed hops, trying to stay somewhere ahead of
> the NX-01, hoping all the while the Earth ship doesn't change course,
> or actually bothers to come to a stop and fight with the IH instead of
> detouring around it.
OK. I concede that if it gets out of weapons range in warp, I haven't
the knowledge to prove that the NX-01 couldn't get away. It's possible
that it has a significant chance of doing so, but it's irrelevant to
our topic. This was a fight. I may be able to outrun Mike Tyson, but
if we start boxing, I'm toast. Besides, the IH could vastly exceed the
running away prowess of the NX-01, if it needed to, which it doesn't.
Too, it has probe droids which could aid in a search. They found the
rebels on Hoth, in a small compound on an insignificant planet, one of
millions in the galaxy. Anyways, once the fight begins, the NX-01
won't outlive its captain's order to retreat.
> The only hope the IH has of stopping the NX-01 from escaping is to
> englobe it with enough fighters and buzz droids to block it from safely
> going to warp. However the NX-01 has demonstrated herself to be fairly
> maneuverable, even when flying low in a terrestrial planet or gas
> giant's atmosphere. This is a big advantage in being able to dodge
> shots from the IH's turbolaser batteries.
Even with only 1% accuracy, IH kills NX-01.
> > >
> > > You also have to figure in the influence of the IH's fighters, against
> > > which the NX-01 has no demonstrated defense. These fighters are
> > > capable of launching buzz droid missiles, which could interfere with
> > > the NX-01's machinery. You have yet to address this.
> > >
> > The Enterprise NX-01 is more capable of hitting smaller ships than
> > the Death Star's turbolasers. It will not be enough to deal with a full
> > complement of droid fighters, given the sheer size of the IH.
>
> I would ask if we have any information of the use of buzz droids
> against heavily armored capital ships. It takes the buzz droids about a
> couple of minutes just to do some modest damage to a tiny 4.5 meter
> long fighter. I certainly don't recall any relevant passages from the
> RoTS novelization on this matter.
"modest damage"? You must be joking! They shut down Obi-Wan's
fighter! And there's no reason to assume they would be fazed by a warp
jump, either, once on the hull.
As far as relevant passages, how about references to the IH as the one
"swarming with buzz droids"? It would seem to suggest that they have
some utility against larger ships, since thousands would be of little
use against fighters. Any delivery system involving self-propelled
launch from the bare hull couldn't hit a fighter anyway.
> As for targeting fighter craft, the NX-01 shouldn't have too many
> issues with that, but the IH will be able to overwhelm her with dozens
> of fighters as the Suliban and Tholians have done in episodes like
> "Shockwave" and "Future Tense".
Precisely.
> Overall though, if the NX-01 does not escape to warp and keep going,
> she will likely be slowly overwhelmed by turbolasers, fighters, and
> buzz droids, unless she can knock out the hanger bay shields, and
> dedonate the volatile fuel stores.
No. She will die within seconds.
> Anyway, have fun! :-)
> -Mike
Ari Allyn-Feuer
Ari Allyn-Feuer
Michael Ejercito wrote:
> Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
> > >Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
> > >> Torpedoes which we have no reason to belive would do anything but
> > >> explode harmlessly against the IH's shields. The same for these beam
> > >> weapons.
> >
> > > And yet a starfigher's beam weapons took down the shields protecting
> > >the landing deck of the ship.
> >
> > Those, if you would recall, were simply the shields over the maw of the
> > landing bay. The generator was open, unshielded, to space. Surely
> > you're not suggesting that the main shield generator is located lust to
> > the left of a minor docking bay and is completely open to space? Or
> > perhaps that the IH, known at that point to be in dire straits in
> > battle against the VSDs, had full shields in operation? No, that was
> > just a mild retention forcefield, and the generator was unshielded
> > because the main shields had been shredded in the long battle
> > beforehand.
> Of course I am not implying that the main shield generator is
> located to the left of the minor docking bay and completely open the
> space.
> The strategy for the NX-01 is to go AROUND the main shields by
> taking out the hangar bay shield and then firing into the hangar bay.
> Remember that during WW2, the Maginot Line was never breached.
We have every reason to believe that the IH's main shields cover the
Bay shield generators. Your "Maginot Line" encircles France
completely. No tanks in the woods here.
> >
> > >> Unless you can provide convincing evidence that the weaponry employed
> > >> by the NX-01 is superior to, for example, TNG-era weaponry by at least
> > >> a full order of magnitude. Then it might get fun.
> >
> > > I just have to show it is up to par with the weapons of Anakin
> > >Skywalker's Jedi starfighter.
> >
> > If we are to follow your analogy, we will have to assume that the main
> > shields were conveniently demolished by a fleet of VSDs on the
> > enterprise's side, and that they were around to finish the IH
> > afterward. Even with the shields down, the IH's armor would
> > necessitate long periods of sustained fire to bring it down with
> > weapons as small as those on the Enterprise, time during which the IH
> > could pulverise the Enterprise.
> The strategy for the NX-01 is NOT tio go after the main shields, but
> after the shields covering the hangar bay.
> Actually executing the strategy would be a bitch though.
Your strategy is predicated on an incorrect assumption. The IH does
not have areas of its hull which include shield generators open to
space. In addition, it is unwise to assume that killing a docking bay
would kill the IH. It took a lot of pounding before dying.
I posted you a link. Click on it and read it. The estimate I used is
the lowest of the asteroid vaporisation derived energies.
>
> Michael
Ari Allyn-Feuer.
Ari Allyn-Feuer
> warp versus hyperdrive. The NX-01 can sustain warp, while still being
> permeable to realspace. The Earth ship can also enter and exit nearly
> at will. Contrast this with hyperdrive where once the IH enters
> hyperspace, it is NOT permeable to realspace, and has no way to track
> the NX-01 once underway until it can come out of HS, and get some kind
> of bearing. To add to the IH's problems in this area, it also
> canonically takes a minute or more to calculate a hyperspace jump. Even
> if the IH is faster in HS than the NX-01 is in warp by any significant
> measure, it would be a silly comedy ala Spaceballs of the IH attempting
> extremely dangerous hyperspeed hops, trying to stay somewhere ahead of
> the NX-01, hoping all the while the Earth ship doesn't change course,
> or actually bothers to come to a stop and fight with the IH instead of
> detouring around it.
> The only hope the IH has of stopping the NX-01 from escaping is to
> englobe it with enough fighters and buzz droids to block it from safely
> going to warp. However the NX-01 has demonstrated herself to be fairly
> maneuverable, even when flying low in a terrestrial planet or gas
> giant's atmosphere. This is a big advantage in being able to dodge
> shots from the IH's turbolaser batteries.
> Overall though, if the NX-01 does not escape to warp and keep going,
> she will likely be slowly overwhelmed by turbolasers, fighters, and
> buzz droids, unless she can knock out the hanger bay shields, and
> dedonate the volatile fuel stores.
>
> Anyway, have fun! :-)
> -Mike
Besides, running away is of no utility to the NX-01. Victory is for
this thread defined as destruction of the opponent. The best that the
NX-01 could possibly do is a draw. A *battle* would be a rout.
Ari Allyn-Feuer.
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
That's nice. However, the true canon of the movies shows us quite a
different picture with regards to the Invisible Hand's shields. If the
IH shielding worked the way that you claim it does, Anakin's tactic of
shooting out the shield generator next to the docking bay wouldn't have
worked at all, and the two starfighters would have either crashed
against it, or Anakin would've had to pull up, and leave Obi-Wan to his
fate. So it appears very possible that the NX-01 can circumvent the
main shields, at least where that particular hanger bay is concerned,
and we know that the NX-01's phase cannons and photonic torpedoes are
vastly more powerful than anything on Anakin's starfighter.
> > As for a comparison of firepower; in AoTC Jango Fett's Slave-I's
> > blasters could not do much more than shatter half the volume of
> > oblate-shaped asteroids that were only about 8-12 long. Assuming solid
> > iron, and the asteroids being perfect spheres, that would give
> > Slave-I's guns a generous upper limit firepower of around 20 GJ (200
> > GW). Presumably Slave-I has superior firepower over the much smaller
> > Jedi starfighters Anakin and Obi-Wan were flying in RoTS. So I see few
> > issues here in that regard since as early as "Silent Enemy", the NX-01
> > has demonstrated the ability to fire her forward phase cannon batteries
> > simultaneously for a combined firepower of 1 terawatt, and sustain fire
> > for at least 3 seconds of dwell time for an equal number of terajoules.
> > The problem however becomes one of the NX-01 getting close enough, and
> > locating the shield generators.
>
> Fine. Let's give you that, and multiply it by 10. If fact, let's
> assume that the NX-01 can put out 3 terwatts sustained, forever, with
> full range of motion, and that the IH will take a full minute to begin
> firing, and that the IH has no shield recharge whatsoever. In that
> time, the NX-01 can put out 180 TJ of energy into the shields. This
> will not breach the main shields of the IH, unless you're willing to
> suggest that the IH's shields could be leveled by 6 TL shots, about 3%
> of its own broadside salvo. You're still stuck. When the minute is
> up, the NX-01 is finished.
Unnecessary. As already proven, the NX-01 only has to concentrate on
the hanger bay shield generator. Of course, you're TL shot estimates
are not even close to what anyone would call a "lower limit" anyway.
> Let's assume that the NX-01 can handle a minute of its own sustained
> fire, or 180 TJ, surely greater than any demonstrated capability. That
> is equivalent to 6 TL blasts from the IH, about 3% of a broadside
> repeatable once per second at peak output. If we give the IH's gunners
> a measly 1%, it would take only 3 seconds to kill the NX-01.
Do you have any evidence on how much damage an NX-class starship's
polarized hull plating can handle, or are you just pulling numbers out
of your ass?
The firepower estimates are based on a possibly incorrect scaling of
the asteroids by Brian Young (note that particular document is more
than 5 years old, and there has been little done to update it, or
provide better screencaps, ect). Wong merely supplies some assistance
in the article. Furthermore, the canon of AoTC severely limits the
speed of Amidala's yacht down to a few thousand c, but to be generous,
I've always been willing to assume the trip took an hour for it to
cross the "less than a parsec" distance, and so we can assume a maximum
canon speed of 29,000c. The lower limit is calculated here:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSaotcparsec.html
This does not bode well for the ludicris SW speeds Warsies try to tout
as being in the millions of c range. But as I said, we can presume that
considerably less than a day went by, as RSA concludes, but a
significant enough passage of time occurs as the sky outside the Senate
building is noticably darker suggesting about an hour went by. These
are my own conclusions, of course, as I can make my own determinations
using the evidence. Also a 29,000c speed for an average SW ship allows
for a reasonably sized Galactic Republic and later Empire. It also
allows for sufficent exploration of the SW galaxy in the 1,000 year
lifetime of the Republic and the overall 25,000 some-odd year span of
galactic civilization as a whole, whatever it's size, though it's
probably not nearly as big as the non-canon EU 120,000 ly number.
At any rate, it's moot, as I've already pointed out, but you seem to
have ignored. The mechanics of the two very different drives makes any
FTL combat between them impossible, and it actually gives a very
significant tactical and strategic advantage to the NX-01 here.
> > Not too mention, Ari didn't cite anything other than Startrek.com for
> > the NX-01 phase cannon's capabilities. In "Silent Enemy", Trip and Reed
> > find a way to boost up the phase cannons' power by a factor of 10 by
> > directly powering them from the ship's impulse engines. So the 500 GJ
> > number is really something of a lower limit. Combined with the
> > above-mentioned fact that the ship can fire at least two cannons at a
> > time, and you have 10 terawatts or better for the NX-01's phase cannon
> > firepower.
>
> Fine. You're still talking about a number about 1/6 of 1% of what the
> IH can dish out. I'll let you multiply by 10, and then by 2, and then
> assume continuous fire where we see bursts, because it doesn't matter.
>
> > But that's neither here nor there; the NX-01 has top speeds calculated
> > generally around 1,500 to 1,800c based on a 12 ly run made in 3 days in
> > "Cease Fire" [ST:ENT2], and 25 ly run made in less than a week in
> > "Horizon" [ST:ENT2]. Call it 1,700c.
>
> Call it 10,000c. It's still only 1% of what the IH can make.
Which is irrelevant, even granting that, given the vast differences in
the mechanics of the
two drives. If you ignore that, then there's lots of things we can
start ignoring that are important, and start making stuff up off the
top of our heads.
> > Now, the flaw in the FTL argument cited here is this: the nature of
> > warp versus hyperdrive. The NX-01 can sustain warp, while still being
> > permeable to realspace. The Earth ship can also enter and exit nearly
> > at will. Contrast this with hyperdrive where once the IH enters
> > hyperspace, it is NOT permeable to realspace, and has no way to track
> > the NX-01 once underway until it can come out of HS, and get some kind
> > of bearing. To add to the IH's problems in this area, it also
> > canonically takes a minute or more to calculate a hyperspace jump. Even
> > if the IH is faster in HS than the NX-01 is in warp by any significant
> > measure, it would be a silly comedy ala Spaceballs of the IH attempting
> > extremely dangerous hyperspeed hops, trying to stay somewhere ahead of
> > the NX-01, hoping all the while the Earth ship doesn't change course,
> > or actually bothers to come to a stop and fight with the IH instead of
> > detouring around it.
>
> OK. I concede that if it gets out of weapons range in warp, I haven't
> the knowledge to prove that the NX-01 couldn't get away. It's possible
> that it has a significant chance of doing so, but it's irrelevant to
> our topic. This was a fight. I may be able to outrun Mike Tyson, but
> if we start boxing, I'm toast. Besides, the IH could vastly exceed the
> running away prowess of the NX-01, if it needed to, which it doesn't.
> Too, it has probe droids which could aid in a search. They found the
> rebels on Hoth, in a small compound on an insignificant planet, one of
> millions in the galaxy. Anyways, once the fight begins, the NX-01
> won't outlive its captain's order to retreat.
The IH has no probe droids ala those seen in TESB. Could you cite a
canon sources, such as one of the movies, or the novelizations, and or
screenplay that suggests such a capability? Also, you'd be a fool for
fighting Tyson on his own terms. I would fight him in a way he'd have
difficulty dealing with. What you want is the NX-01 to slug it out with
the IH, and what Ejercito and I have suggested is a surgical strike at
a potential weak point. This is what the Rebels did to the first Death
Star. By your logic, the Rebels could only have attacked the DS1 with
brute force, and would lose.
> > The only hope the IH has of stopping the NX-01 from escaping is to
> > englobe it with enough fighters and buzz droids to block it from safely
> > going to warp. However the NX-01 has demonstrated herself to be fairly
> > maneuverable, even when flying low in a terrestrial planet or gas
> > giant's atmosphere. This is a big advantage in being able to dodge
> > shots from the IH's turbolaser batteries.
>
> Even with only 1% accuracy, IH kills NX-01.
Proof please? And don't keep citing Brian Young's TL Commentaries page
like a mantra. Try to come up with your own conclusions and the
rationale behind them, please. Your assumption is that the NX-01 cannot
survive being hit even once or twice by the IH's TL batteries,
regardless of size. I would like you to provide some justification that
it cannot. We know from the 3rd season Xindi story arc, and the battles
seen in the fourth season that the NX-01 can survive hits from the
weapons of more advanced and powerful ships for a fairly extended
period of time.
> > > >
> > > > You also have to figure in the influence of the IH's fighters, against
> > > > which the NX-01 has no demonstrated defense. These fighters are
> > > > capable of launching buzz droid missiles, which could interfere with
> > > > the NX-01's machinery. You have yet to address this.
> > > >
> > > The Enterprise NX-01 is more capable of hitting smaller ships than
> > > the Death Star's turbolasers. It will not be enough to deal with a full
> > > complement of droid fighters, given the sheer size of the IH.
> >
> > I would ask if we have any information of the use of buzz droids
> > against heavily armored capital ships. It takes the buzz droids about a
> > couple of minutes just to do some modest damage to a tiny 4.5 meter
> > long fighter. I certainly don't recall any relevant passages from the
> > RoTS novelization on this matter.
>
> "modest damage"? You must be joking! They shut down Obi-Wan's
> fighter! And there's no reason to assume they would be fazed by a warp
> jump, either, once on the hull.
They didn't tear the ship to pieces small. They had to spend about two
minutes messing around before they even began effecting Obi-Wan's
starfighter's systems. If that wasn't bad enough, the really severe
damage to his fighter came not from the buzz droids, but from Anakin's
attempts to clear the buzz droids from the fighter.
Now, take this and apply it to the NX-01 with polarized hull plating
more than 10 cm thick
> As far as relevant passages, how about references to the IH as the one
> "swarming with buzz droids"? It would seem to suggest that they have
> some utility against larger ships, since thousands would be of little
> use against fighters. Any delivery system involving self-propelled
> launch from the bare hull couldn't hit a fighter anyway.
Then why didn't we see them being deployed against the Republic
cruisers? If they were so extremely effective against large, armored
and shielded captial ships, the fight would have been a horrible rout
of the the Republic navy. As it was, the battle seemed to largely be a
stand-off. So I would counter, based on the damage done to Obi-Wan's
starfighter, that the buzz droids are an anti-starfighter weapon, not
anti-capital ship. Assuming the IH has time to launch it's fighters and
the buzz droids, it would indeed take thousands of the little mites to
successfully engage even a ship of the NX-01's size, and even then they
must contend with the polarized hull plating.
> > As for targeting fighter craft, the NX-01 shouldn't have too many
> > issues with that, but the IH will be able to overwhelm her with dozens
> > of fighters as the Suliban and Tholians have done in episodes like
> > "Shockwave" and "Future Tense".
>
> Precisely.
Of course that presumes that the fighters get launched in time to
prevent the NX-01 from striking at the hanger bay.
> > Overall though, if the NX-01 does not escape to warp and keep going,
> > she will likely be slowly overwhelmed by turbolasers, fighters, and
> > buzz droids, unless she can knock out the hanger bay shields, and
> > dedonate the volatile fuel stores.
>
> No. She will die within seconds.
Except that it may not be that simple, Ari. The NX-01 in a straight-up,
duke 'em out fight will likely lose to the IH, but if the NX-01 can
dodge and survive long enough, she can get in and kill the shield over
the main hanger bay, and then ignite the super-volatile fuel lines
nearby with full-yeild photonic torpedoes. That's where the warp drive
advantage comes in. The NX-01 can stay away from the IH long enough to
examine their sensor readings, and then determine the best way to
attack it.
-Mike
Graeme Dice
> Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
<snip>
>
> Unnecessary. As already proven, the NX-01 only has to concentrate on
> the hanger bay shield generator. Of course, you're TL shot estimates
> are not even close to what anyone would call a "lower limit" anyway.
Yes, the TESB asteroid calculations are a lower limit. The upper limit
places Star Wars firepower well above the planet destroying level.
>>Let's assume that the NX-01 can handle a minute of its own sustained
>>fire, or 180 TJ, surely greater than any demonstrated capability. That
>>is equivalent to 6 TL blasts from the IH, about 3% of a broadside
>>repeatable once per second at peak output. If we give the IH's gunners
>>a measly 1%, it would take only 3 seconds to kill the NX-01.
>
>
> Do you have any evidence on how much damage an NX-class starship's
> polarized hull plating can handle, or are you just pulling numbers out
> of your ass?
Do you have any evidence on how much damage an NX-class starship's
polarized hull plating can handle, or are you just pulling numbers out
of your ass?
Unless the Enterprise NX-01 can handle 200 gigaton nukes, it will be
destroyed by a single shot from a clone wars era troop transport. The
answer, of course, is that it can't handle that, because not even the
Enterprise D, not even a Borg Cube, can handle that kind of firepower.
The Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-sections book illustrates
quite nicely that the Acclamator troop transports sport multiple weapons
capable of 200 gigaton shots. Even using the unofficial Star Trek
technical manual, a TNG era photon torpedo has a theoretical maximum
yield of 64 megatons. The NC1701-D couldn't survive a single hit, let
alone the NX-01.
> The firepower estimates are based on a possibly incorrect scaling of
> the asteroids by Brian Young (note that particular document is more
> than 5 years old, and there has been little done to update it, or
> provide better screencaps, ect).
I take it that you've been reading Guardian 2000's, aka DarkStar's, aka
Robert Scott Anderson's st-vs-sw.net website. Please stop. That site
is based on lies, misrepresented quotes, and the rantings of an insane
lunatic.
Further, the age of an analysis does not matter one bit, and the fact
that you imply that it does betrays that you aren't competent enough to
calculate those numbers yourself.
> Wong merely supplies some assistance
> in the article. Furthermore, the canon of AoTC severely limits the
> speed of Amidala's yacht down to a few thousand c,
And how many times do they cross the entire galaxy in a single day in
Revenge of the Sith?
>but to be generous,
> I've always been willing to assume the trip took an hour for it to
> cross the "less than a parsec" distance, and so we can assume a maximum
> canon speed of 29,000c. The lower limit is calculated here:
>
> http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSaotcparsec.html
Thanks for admitting that you have been reading Darkstar's bullshit.
Until you stop quoting him, you are doing nothing more than fanatically
following a known lunatic.
> At any rate, it's moot, as I've already pointed out, but you seem to
> have ignored. The mechanics of the two very different drives makes any
> FTL combat between them impossible, and it actually gives a very
> significant tactical and strategic advantage to the NX-01 here.
The _only_ time that warp drive has _ever_ been used tactically was the
single, solitary time that the Picard maneuver worked. Since the NX-01
is not captained by Picard, that's quite irrelevant.
> The IH has no probe droids ala those seen in TESB. Could you cite a
> canon sources, such as one of the movies, or the novelizations, and or
> screenplay that suggests such a capability?
You are arguing in alt.startrek.vs.starwars. As such, we use the canon
policies of the organizations that own the universes, not Dorkstar's. I
see that he still hasn't removed his misrepresentation of a quote from
me, so he is still just as despicable as ever.
>I would fight him in a way he'd have
> difficulty dealing with. What you want is the NX-01 to slug it out with
> the IH, and what Ejercito and I have suggested is a surgical strike at
> a potential weak point.
The NX-01 has no way of determining what the weak point is.
> Proof please? And don't keep citing Brian Young's TL Commentaries page
> like a mantra. Try to come up with your own conclusions and the
> rationale behind them, please.
Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections. A canon source that
proves that troop transports in the clone wars can output 200 gigaton
blasts.
>We know from the 3rd season Xindi story arc, and the battles
> seen in the fourth season that the NX-01 can survive hits from the
> weapons of more advanced and powerful ships for a fairly extended
> period of time.
Those are ships that are roughly as dangerous as a blaster pistol to the
vastly superior SW technology base.
> They didn't tear the ship to pieces small. They had to spend about two
> minutes messing around before they even began effecting Obi-Wan's
> starfighter's systems.
Are you claiming that a scene which lasted for less than thirty seconds
total toook more than two minutes? Perhaps you should lay off the
hashish. It's distorting your timesense.
> Of course that presumes that the fighters get launched in time to
> prevent the NX-01 from striking at the hanger bay.
Which, of course, presumes that the NX-01 can even catch the Invisible
Hand at sublight speeds, or is even capable of scanning the ship.
Graeme Dice
> Michael Ejercito wrote:
<snip>
> As for a comparison of firepower; in AoTC Jango Fett's Slave-I's
> blasters could not do much more than shatter half the volume of
> oblate-shaped asteroids that were only about 8-12 long.
I'm sorry, are you seriously comparing the light weapons on a shuttle
sized ship to the heavy weapons on a capital ship? Are you trying to
make us laugh hysterically?
> But that's neither here nor there; the NX-01 has top speeds calculated
> generally around 1,500 to 1,800c based on a 12 ly run made in 3 days in
> "Cease Fire" [ST:ENT2], and 25 ly run made in less than a week in
> "Horizon" [ST:ENT2]. Call it 1,700c.
Yes, we know that it has to dawdle around the galaxy for hundreds of
years while the Star Wars ships cross it in less than a day.
>The NX-01 can sustain warp, while still being
> permeable to realspace.
Of course, this is utterly useless, since it can't fight except when
it's sublight.
>Even
> if the IH is faster in HS than the NX-01 is in warp by any significant
> measure, it would be a silly comedy ala Spaceballs of the IH attempting
> extremely dangerous hyperspeed hops, trying to stay somewhere ahead of
> the NX-01, hoping all the while the Earth ship doesn't change course,
> or actually bothers to come to a stop and fight with the IH instead of
> detouring around it.
No, what will actually happen is that the Invisible Hand will note that
the NX-01 is running away from it. It will then enter hyperspace,
proceed to Earth, and begin an orbital bombardment of the planet. As
soon as the NX-01 leaves the engagement, it loses, because it has no way
of stopping the superior SW ship from destroying any immobile target it
chooses.
Graeme Dice
Graeme Dice
Nah, it's just another person who's less educated and less intelligent
than he thinks he is, and who actually believes the tripe spewed forth
by Guardian 2000.
Michael Ejercito
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
> > Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > As for a comparison of firepower; in AoTC Jango Fett's Slave-I's
> > blasters could not do much more than shatter half the volume of
> > oblate-shaped asteroids that were only about 8-12 long.
>
> I'm sorry, are you seriously comparing the light weapons on a shuttle
> sized ship to the heavy weapons on a capital ship? Are you trying to
> make us laugh hysterically?
Slave-I. It has enough firepower to take down the hangar bay shields.
Of course, it should be noted that Anakin was able to take down the
hangar bay shields in ROTS because he had ARC-170's covering his tail.
As skilled a pilot as he is, he would not have been able to do it if it
was a one-on-one battle between him and the Invisible Hand. Captain
Archer and his crew would not fare much better in a one-on-one battle
with the Invisible Hand.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
> > Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Unnecessary. As already proven, the NX-01 only has to concentrate on
> > the hanger bay shield generator. Of course, you're TL shot estimates
> > are not even close to what anyone would call a "lower limit" anyway.
>
> Yes, the TESB asteroid calculations are a lower limit. The upper limit
> places Star Wars firepower well above the planet destroying level.
It is not like the Invsible Hand has a superlaser as part of its
armament.
>
> >>Let's assume that the NX-01 can handle a minute of its own sustained
> >>fire, or 180 TJ, surely greater than any demonstrated capability. That
> >>is equivalent to 6 TL blasts from the IH, about 3% of a broadside
> >>repeatable once per second at peak output. If we give the IH's gunners
> >>a measly 1%, it would take only 3 seconds to kill the NX-01.
> >
> >
> > Do you have any evidence on how much damage an NX-class starship's
> > polarized hull plating can handle, or are you just pulling numbers out
> > of your ass?
>
> Do you have any evidence on how much damage an NX-class starship's
> polarized hull plating can handle, or are you just pulling numbers out
> of your ass?
>
> Unless the Enterprise NX-01 can handle 200 gigaton nukes, it will be
> destroyed by a single shot from a clone wars era troop transport. The
> answer, of course, is that it can't handle that, because not even the
> Enterprise D, not even a Borg Cube, can handle that kind of firepower.
> The Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-sections book illustrates
> quite nicely that the Acclamator troop transports sport multiple weapons
> capable of 200 gigaton shots. Even using the unofficial Star Trek
> technical manual, a TNG era photon torpedo has a theoretical maximum
> yield of 64 megatons. The NC1701-D couldn't survive a single hit, let
> alone the NX-01.
We never see Acclamator troop transports dish out that much
firepower. Furthermore, it is plain silly for troop transport to have
such firepower, considering that it is like equipping C-5 Galaxies with
20 megaton hydrogen bombs. Gigaton or even megaton level firepower
would be reserved for ships like Star Destroyers or Galaxy-class
starships.
Of course, we DO know that the NX-01 is vulnerable to firepower
from smaller ships like Suliban cell ships, as we saw in the ENT
episode "Shockwave". I doubt no one would imply that the turbolasers of
the Invisible Hand are much weaker than the beam weapons of the Suliban
cell ships.
They have sensors.
Of course, it should be noted that the NX-01 can ONLY win by a
surgical strike, while the Invisible Hand simply has to use its droid
fighters and turbolasers. It is somewhat like a single X-Wing versus
the Death Star.
Michael
Lord Edam de Fromage
meje...@hotmail.com says...
> We never see Acclamator troop transports dish out that much
> firepower. Furthermore, it is plain silly for troop transport to have
> such firepower, considering that it is like equipping C-5 Galaxies with
> 20 megaton hydrogen bombs. Gigaton or even megaton level firepower
> would be reserved for ships like Star Destroyers
Actually, you've got that the wrong way round.
Acclamators are a planetary assault ship (and described as such in
primary literature). People only refer to them as "troop transports"
when they want to draw attention away from some of the key design
requirements of such a ship.
Of course it carries troops. Not much point assaulting a planet if you
can't carry troops to secure it once you've taken it. But it's a
*planetary* assault ship. It has to assault planets. Unless the pro-SW
crowd want to change their stance on planetary defenses, that means it
has to be able to deal with planet type weaponry which have the
potential for far greater power reserves than any ship-bound weapons.
There is no indication Acclamators are late-comers to planetary assaults
either, so these would be the ships that are in there first, softening
up hard defenses. They don't turn up after all the work is done just to
drop off a few troops.
As many pro-SW debaters have gone to great lengths to prove in the past,
many SW planets are infact shielded, and at the very least canonically
have the ability to shield defensive weaponry such as ion cannon, so
this ship must be designed to take on *shielded* installations,
something we know for a fact that later ships such as ISDs cannot manage
easily. A single shot from a planet-bound gun was enough to wipe out an
ISD at Hoth. Hardly what you want happening to your most important
assets in the middle of a fight, is it?
The introduction of Acclamator assault ships without accompanying
vessels to deal with the business end of the assault actually allows for
a reduction in firepower of later ships designed with less concentration
on planetary assault and a greater concentration on control of space.
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
I gotta love the way that you guys can't really answer to anything
except to flame and spew the religious mantra of Wong and Poe. Oh yeah,
anyone who disagrees with you is obviously uneducated and less
intelligent that the pro-Wars side (sarcasm dripping)! Nope, it's the
same old shit over again. Can't win an arguement so you either attack
with ad hominems, or mistate what the opposition is saying. In that
respect, Robert Anderson is dead on accurate.
-Mike
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
> > Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > As for a comparison of firepower; in AoTC Jango Fett's Slave-I's
> > blasters could not do much more than shatter half the volume of
> > oblate-shaped asteroids that were only about 8-12 long.
>
> I'm sorry, are you seriously comparing the light weapons on a shuttle
> sized ship to the heavy weapons on a capital ship? Are you trying to
> make us laugh hysterically?
Oh please, spare me. It would be a real change of pace if you Rabid
Warsies would stop mistating your opponent in your childish quest to
"win at any cost". I was comparing the firepower of Jango's Slave-I to
the NX-01 and to Anakin's starfighter (convient how you snipped that
part when you quoted me). Slave-I is clearly not just a shuttle, and it
represents a realistic upper limit to potential starfighter firepower
given it's much larger size compared to the Jedi starfighters, and even
the later X-wings and Y-wings.
> > But that's neither here nor there; the NX-01 has top speeds calculated
> > generally around 1,500 to 1,800c based on a 12 ly run made in 3 days in
> > "Cease Fire" [ST:ENT2], and 25 ly run made in less than a week in
> > "Horizon" [ST:ENT2]. Call it 1,700c.
>
> Yes, we know that it has to dawdle around the galaxy for hundreds of
> years while the Star Wars ships cross it in less than a day.
Which again, is irrelevant to the thread, or the applications of that
to the tactics each ship would use against each other.
> >The NX-01 can sustain warp, while still being
> > permeable to realspace.
>
> Of course, this is utterly useless, since it can't fight except when
> it's sublight.
Really? When was this ever brought up as a tactic, the idea that the
NX-01 might say, warp strafe the IH? Oh yeah, never! By the way, the
NX-01 can fight at warp, this was established as early as "Shockwave"
[ST:ENT2]. But then again, I can't expect too much in the way of
honesty, or the acknowledgement of canon facts to get in your way, now
can?
> >Even
> > if the IH is faster in HS than the NX-01 is in warp by any significant
> > measure, it would be a silly comedy ala Spaceballs of the IH attempting
> > extremely dangerous hyperspeed hops, trying to stay somewhere ahead of
> > the NX-01, hoping all the while the Earth ship doesn't change course,
> > or actually bothers to come to a stop and fight with the IH instead of
> > detouring around it.
>
> No, what will actually happen is that the Invisible Hand will note that
> the NX-01 is running away from it. It will then enter hyperspace,
> proceed to Earth, and begin an orbital bombardment of the planet. As
> soon as the NX-01 leaves the engagement, it loses, because it has no way
> of stopping the superior SW ship from destroying any immobile target it
> chooses.
When was the fate of Earth a factor in the victory conditions, hmmm?
How would the IH even be aware of such a thing? Also I have to get a
kick out of how you're trying to misrepresent me. But I guess Robert
Scott Anderson was right all along about you people...
But anyway, presumably the two ships just happen to meet somewhere or
somewhen. As has been pointed out, and has already been agreeded to,
the NX-01 does not stand a chance in a straight up fight. But it can
maneuver far better than the IH can, and if it can discover the
hangerbay shield weakness, it might be able to pull off a win.
There, was that so very hard to understand, Graeme?
-Mike
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
> > Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > As for a comparison of firepower; in AoTC Jango Fett's Slave-I's
> > blasters could not do much more than shatter half the volume of
> > oblate-shaped asteroids that were only about 8-12 long.
>
> I'm sorry, are you seriously comparing the light weapons on a shuttle
> sized ship to the heavy weapons on a capital ship? Are you trying to
> make us laugh hysterically?
Oh please, spare me. It would be a real change of pace if you Rabid
Warsies would stop mistating your opponent in your childish quest to
"win at any cost". I was comparing the firepower of Jango's Slave-I to
the NX-01 and to Anakin's starfighter (convient how you snipped that
part when you quoted me). Slave-I is clearly not just a shuttle, and it
represents a realistic upper limit to potential starfighter firepower
given it's much larger size compared to the Jedi starfighters, and even
the later X-wings and Y-wings.
> > But that's neither here nor there; the NX-01 has top speeds calculated
> > generally around 1,500 to 1,800c based on a 12 ly run made in 3 days in
> > "Cease Fire" [ST:ENT2], and 25 ly run made in less than a week in
> > "Horizon" [ST:ENT2]. Call it 1,700c.
>
> Yes, we know that it has to dawdle around the galaxy for hundreds of
> years while the Star Wars ships cross it in less than a day.
Which again, is irrelevant to the thread, or the applications of that
to the tactics each ship would use against each other.
> >The NX-01 can sustain warp, while still being
> > permeable to realspace.
>
> Of course, this is utterly useless, since it can't fight except when
> it's sublight.
Really? When was this ever brought up as a tactic, the idea that the
NX-01 might say, warp strafe the IH? Oh yeah, never! By the way, the
NX-01 can fight at warp, this was established as early as "Shockwave"
[ST:ENT2]. But then again, I can't expect too much in the way of
honesty, or the acknowledgement of canon facts to get in your way, now
can?
> >Even
> > if the IH is faster in HS than the NX-01 is in warp by any significant
> > measure, it would be a silly comedy ala Spaceballs of the IH attempting
> > extremely dangerous hyperspeed hops, trying to stay somewhere ahead of
> > the NX-01, hoping all the while the Earth ship doesn't change course,
> > or actually bothers to come to a stop and fight with the IH instead of
> > detouring around it.
>
> No, what will actually happen is that the Invisible Hand will note that
> the NX-01 is running away from it. It will then enter hyperspace,
> proceed to Earth, and begin an orbital bombardment of the planet. As
> soon as the NX-01 leaves the engagement, it loses, because it has no way
> of stopping the superior SW ship from destroying any immobile target it
> chooses.
When was the fate of Earth a factor in the victory conditions, hmmm?
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
> > Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Unnecessary. As already proven, the NX-01 only has to concentrate on
> > the hanger bay shield generator. Of course, you're TL shot estimates
> > are not even close to what anyone would call a "lower limit" anyway.
>
> Yes, the TESB asteroid calculations are a lower limit. The upper limit
> places Star Wars firepower well above the planet destroying level.
Not really. Brian Young's numbers are based on the possibility that the
asteroids in the famous "clearing the asteroids from the ISD's path"
scene are in the 20 to 40 meter range. Those scalings I've found to be
highly questionable, regardless of whether or not you think the
asteroids are being vaporized, shattered, or something in-between.
Using the bolt's diameter (not the length, as Young does), then
comparing that to the anti-captial ship TLs on the DS and elsewhere
(those bolts are seldom wider than a meter), as an alternate means of
scaling, I've seldom found the TESB asteroids to be bigger than 10
meters on the long axis, and more likely less than 5 meters.
Furthermore, the actual time it takes for the bolt to destroy the
asteroids is slightly longer than the 1/10th of a second some Warsies
like to toss out. It's more like a 1/4 of a second based on 8 frames
average for each asteroid, and then divided into 24 frames per second
(it'll be slightly different if you use PAL instead of NTSC). Thus the
TL firepower's REAL lower limits are somewhere between 1-10 TW a shot,
which is highly generous given the pronounced oblate shape of the
asteroids in question.
While you may disagree with my methodology, which is fine, I find it
rather disturbing that few have bothered to look more closely at
Brian's work, and the fact that it hasn't been really updated (I know
Brian has had some issues, so I understand why he hasn't been able to
do anything more). You complain about me reading Scott's site, yet you
are willing accept the SND and TL Commentaries as if they were gospel.
If you like, I can discuss this further with you in email in a
*civilized* fashion.
> >>Let's assume that the NX-01 can handle a minute of its own sustained
> >>fire, or 180 TJ, surely greater than any demonstrated capability. That
> >>is equivalent to 6 TL blasts from the IH, about 3% of a broadside
> >>repeatable once per second at peak output. If we give the IH's gunners
> >>a measly 1%, it would take only 3 seconds to kill the NX-01.
> >
> >
> > Do you have any evidence on how much damage an NX-class starship's
> > polarized hull plating can handle, or are you just pulling numbers out
> > of your ass?
>
> Do you have any evidence on how much damage an NX-class starship's
> polarized hull plating can handle, or are you just pulling numbers out
> of your ass?
Of course. But I'am not the one making the strongly implied claim that
a single shot from the IH's TLs will utterly disable or destroy the
NX-01, now am I? ;-)
So let's see Ari show (his?) before I show mine.
> Unless the Enterprise NX-01 can handle 200 gigaton nukes, it will be
> destroyed by a single shot from a clone wars era troop transport. The
> answer, of course, is that it can't handle that, because not even the
> Enterprise D, not even a Borg Cube, can handle that kind of firepower.
> The Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-sections book illustrates
> quite nicely that the Acclamator troop transports sport multiple weapons
> capable of 200 gigaton shots. Even using the unofficial Star Trek
> technical manual, a TNG era photon torpedo has a theoretical maximum
> yield of 64 megatons. The NC1701-D couldn't survive a single hit, let
> alone the NX-01.
Nice of you to cite non-canon sources all over the place. The AoTC ICS,
is of course, of highly questionable canon status. Now I you'll scream
bloody murder like a Creationist being told the Bible isn't correct,
but let's try to stay with the real canon, which has nothing at all
like the insanely over-inflated firepower Warsies claim for SW ships
(the Death Star excepted, of course).
> > The firepower estimates are based on a possibly incorrect scaling of
> > the asteroids by Brian Young (note that particular document is more
> > than 5 years old, and there has been little done to update it, or
> > provide better screencaps, ect).
>
> I take it that you've been reading Guardian 2000's, aka DarkStar's, aka
> Robert Scott Anderson's st-vs-sw.net website. Please stop. That site
> is based on lies, misrepresented quotes, and the rantings of an insane
> lunatic.
That's a laugh, dude. I was involved in this long before this ng was
even a glimmer in the eye of most of you kids. I've followed the
debate, and I can see for myself that calling Robert a liar, ect is
nothing more than a gross act of hypocrisy. And for a pro-ST site, his
is suprisingly far more balanced on the give-and-take than SDN any day
of the week.
> Further, the age of an analysis does not matter one bit, and the fact
> that you imply that it does betrays that you aren't competent enough to
> calculate those numbers yourself.
>
> > Wong merely supplies some assistance
> > in the article. Furthermore, the canon of AoTC severely limits the
> > speed of Amidala's yacht down to a few thousand c,
>
> And how many times do they cross the entire galaxy in a single day in
> Revenge of the Sith?
Canon source? Maybe a novelization quote that puts Mustafar on the far
side of the SW galaxy from Courscant? If we went by the AoTC speed of
29,000c, Mustafar is no more than 5 ly distant from Courscant. At any
rate, to state once again, the mechanics of how warp works and how
hyperdrive works are so completely different that FTL combat is out,
except for the NX-01 holding some distance away from the IH while it
tries to find a weakness to exploit.
> >but to be generous,
> > I've always been willing to assume the trip took an hour for it to
> > cross the "less than a parsec" distance, and so we can assume a maximum
> > canon speed of 29,000c. The lower limit is calculated here:
> >
> > http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSaotcparsec.html
>
> Thanks for admitting that you have been reading Darkstar's bullshit.
> Until you stop quoting him, you are doing nothing more than fanatically
> following a known lunatic.
Of course I've read Scott's site (by the way, ad hominem attack noted),
as I have read SDN. As for your ad hominem attack you just leveled at
me, I do not "fanatically follow" anyone. I make my own choices.
However, Scott's analysis of AoTC, is very concise,a nd does set a
lower limit to SW speeds. That being said, and to reiterate MY
interpretation of AoTC, I am willing to believe only an hour, not a day
went by, and that gives us 29,000c. This is the only thing close to a
canon quote about SW speeds and the distance between two seperate
worlds/star systems in the whole of 6 movies that isn't simple
hyperbole. This even supersedes the crossing of "hundreds of light
years" in the secondary canon RoTJ novelization by the Rebel fleet to
get from Sullust to Endor, though the lower limits for that trip fit
in well with the expected possible ranges for hyperdrive speed as
AoTC's Naboo yacht run have shown us.
> > At any rate, it's moot, as I've already pointed out, but you seem to
> > have ignored. The mechanics of the two very different drives makes any
> > FTL combat between them impossible, and it actually gives a very
> > significant tactical and strategic advantage to the NX-01 here.
>
> The _only_ time that warp drive has _ever_ been used tactically was the
> single, solitary time that the Picard maneuver worked. Since the NX-01
> is not captained by Picard, that's quite irrelevant.
Which is blatently false as "Elann of Troyius" [TOS3] demonstrates with
at least two clear cut statements of the Klingon D-7 battlecruiser
strafing the impulse power-only
Enterprise-1701. We also have similar tactics used in "Balance of
Terror" [TOS1], with the Enterprise fighting a sublight or low-FTL
Romulan warbird with superior warp speed, and the Orion attack ship in
"Journey to Babel" [TOS2] strafing the lower warp speed Enterprise, and
finally the E-1701's strafe attack with photon torpedoes against the
apparently sublight S.S. Woden freighter in "The Ultimate Computer"
[TOS2].
Now the question really becomes, can the NX-01 do that. Possibly.
> > The IH has no probe droids ala those seen in TESB. Could you cite a
> > canon sources, such as one of the movies, or the novelizations, and or
> > screenplay that suggests such a capability?
>
> You are arguing in alt.startrek.vs.starwars. As such, we use the canon
> policies of the organizations that own the universes, not Dorkstar's. I
> see that he still hasn't removed his misrepresentation of a quote from
> me, so he is still just as despicable as ever.
You mean the polices that you guys (the Warsie majority of the time)
voted into being, regardless of whether or not it was true. I've also
done my own research on this, and frankly, I find that with only a few
exceptions, Scott's version of the canon policy is the correct one for
the SW universe as it's creator and owner, George Lucas, has stated it
to be. The only misrepresentations seen thus far, has been largely from
the Warsie side of things.
If you wish to disprove this, then I would strongly recommend changing
the way you respond to me ASAP.
> >I would fight him in a way he'd have
> > difficulty dealing with. What you want is the NX-01 to slug it out with
> > the IH, and what Ejercito and I have suggested is a surgical strike at
> > a potential weak point.
>
> The NX-01 has no way of determining what the weak point is.
Sensors. You know, the same ones that can read alien DNA from several
km away, as per "Silent Enemy".
> > Proof please? And don't keep citing Brian Young's TL Commentaries page
> > like a mantra. Try to come up with your own conclusions and the
> > rationale behind them, please.
>
> Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections. A canon source that
> proves that troop transports in the clone wars can output 200 gigaton
> blasts.
*Snort*. Non-canon, or at least of such a lower level canon that it
can't be taken seriously when compared to George Lucas' true story as
shown us in the movies and the novelizations, not the EU, or fanboy
wanking fantasies.
> >We know from the 3rd season Xindi story arc, and the battles
> > seen in the fourth season that the NX-01 can survive hits from the
> > weapons of more advanced and powerful ships for a fairly extended
> > period of time.
>
> Those are ships that are roughly as dangerous as a blaster pistol to the
> vastly superior SW technology base.
Proof? None. The SW tech base, even going by your so-called lower
limits, is a few TW per shot from a TL, the NX-01 can ramp up phase
cannon power to 10 TW for the forward battery, and considerably more,
if photonic torpedoes are available. Considering that the Klingons and
others consider the NX-01's phase cannons to be weak, and that the
NX-01 has withstood their weapons, it stands to some reason that the
NX-01 withstand one or two small TL shots at the very least with it's
polarized hull armor. Also, once again, the target is not the main
shields, far from it, it is the weak point of the hanger bay and it's
seperate shielding.
> > They didn't tear the ship to pieces small. They had to spend about two
> > minutes messing around before they even began effecting Obi-Wan's
> > starfighter's systems.
>
> Are you claiming that a scene which lasted for less than thirty seconds
> total toook more than two minutes? Perhaps you should lay off the
> hashish. It's distorting your timesense.
Ah, more ad hominem attacks. Perhaps you could could provide a
correction without resorting to such childness? I think not. The more
you do this, the more you only go to prove Robert Scott Anderson
correct about the true nature of Warsies. But then again, maybe I have
far too much faith in you as a person.
> > Of course that presumes that the fighters get launched in time to
> > prevent the NX-01 from striking at the hanger bay.
>
> Which, of course, presumes that the NX-01 can even catch the Invisible
> Hand at sublight speeds, or is even capable of scanning the ship.
Apparently it can. There has been no true canon proof that the IH or
any SW ship at sublight even approaches what ST ships can do. Also ,
there is no proof that the IH can block the NX-01 from making a scan,
at least before hostilities break out.
-Mike
Ari Allyn-Feuer
Are you suggesting that the main shields of the IH were at full
strength when Anakin hit that generator? The nature of the battle it
had just been through suggest otherwise. If the shields were even up,
the range Anakin was at suggests that he could penetrate them with his
fighter, as the rebels did the DS1. It would be impossible for the
NX-01, many times larger, to do that. Also, they would be vulnerable
to the TLs in a way he wasn't, because he could turn with incredible
swiftness and was aided by force sense, and was piloting a much smaller
target. The target profile is like a JetSki vs. a destroyer.
To summarize:
The shields will be up and covering the bay door generators.
The NX-01 will neither be able to breach the main shields or go through
them.
The IH will be much better able to hit the NX-01 that it was Anakin,
and will be concentrating exclusively on it.
The NX-01 will have no fighter screen.
There is no significant chance.
> Michael
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Well, that's a good point, but let's see if your idea is backed up by
the canon of the movie or the novelization. The movie, of course, seems
to pick up in the middle of the battle, and gives little or no
indication of how long the battle had been going on to that point, or
what condition the IH was in when Anakin shoots out the hanger bay
shield generator.
The novelization has the following important fact established:
page 45 has this from Grievous: "We should have had him outsystem hours
ago!" (this establishes that the battle was at least two hours old.)
>From the movie: Grievous: "Prepare for attack."
Pilot: "All batteries fire! Fire!"
This would seem to indicate that the Invisible Hand had not seem much
combat up to that point.
>From page 89 of the novelization: "Strike Group Five had deployed in a
triangle around Mas Ramdar, maintaining a higher orbit to pin Invisible
Hand deep in Courscant's gravity well. Turbolasers blasted against
Invisible Hand's faltering shields."
This part of the battle is not exactly shown in the movie as it is
portrayed in the novelization, but in both movie and novelization it
takes place well after Anakin's destroying of the hanger bay shield
generator, and thus tells us that until that moment the IH's shields
were in likely in reasonable shape until she got pounded on by the Mas
Ramdar and the supporting battlegroup.
In both movie and novelization, the IH does not have any really serious
trouble until after it engages the Mas Ramdar Republic cruiser.
Using this evidence, I would be of the opinion still that the hanger
bay shields, and the overall main shields (if they actually exist that
way), are seperate, and that one does not overlap over the other,
probably as a necessary evil when conducting fighter launch and
recovery ops.
Therefore the NX-01 still has a shot (no pun intended) at damaging or
destroying the IH.
> To summarize:
>
> The shields will be up and covering the bay door generators.
As demonstrated above, that is not necessarily true at all.
> The NX-01 will neither be able to breach the main shields or go through
> them.
> The IH will be much better able to hit the NX-01 that it was Anakin,
While this is true, the NX-01 is still very maneuverable for it's size,
and appears to be much faster at sublight than the IH.
> and will be concentrating exclusively on it.
> The NX-01 will have no fighter screen.
If the IH can get it's fighters launched in time. However, there is the
possibility of the NX-01 being able to stay at warp, then simply
strafes the IH's fighter cover, and finally makes it's run on the IH's
hanger bay.
> There is no significant chance.
Maybe not much, but a little bit better than you think. The trick is
that the NX-01 can, but only by fighting smart, not engaging the
Invisible Hand head-on in a brute force contest.
-Mike
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
>>I'm sorry, are you seriously comparing the light weapons on a shuttle
>>sized ship to the heavy weapons on a capital ship? Are you trying to
>>make us laugh hysterically?
>
> We know that NX-01 has at least as much firepower as Jango Fett's
> Slave-I. It has enough firepower to take down the hangar bay shields.
No, we don't. Unless Slave I was the ship used in the attack, we really
don't know have much of a comparison point. Of course, we also don't
know how much damage the actual shields on the IH had taken before the
force field keeping air in went down.
Graeme Dice
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
>>I'm sorry, are you seriously comparing the light weapons on a shuttle
>>sized ship to the heavy weapons on a capital ship? Are you trying to
>>make us laugh hysterically?
>
>
> Oh please, spare me. It would be a real change of pace if you Rabid
> Warsies would stop mistating your opponent in your childish quest to
> "win at any cost". I was comparing the firepower of Jango's Slave-I to
> the NX-01 and to Anakin's starfighter (convient how you snipped that
> part when you quoted me).
I'm not mistating your argument. I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is
to compare the heavy weapons used against the IH during the battle to
the weapons aboard a starfighter.
>Slave-I is clearly not just a shuttle, and it
> represents a realistic upper limit to potential starfighter firepower
> given it's much larger size compared to the Jedi starfighters, and even
> the later X-wings and Y-wings.
And yet, an upper limit to starfighter power tells us absolutely nothing
about how much damage the actual shields on the IH can withstand, as
opposed to the forcefield we see on every hangar bay in Star Wars.
>>Yes, we know that it has to dawdle around the galaxy for hundreds of
>>years while the Star Wars ships cross it in less than a day.
>
>
> Which again, is irrelevant to the thread, or the applications of that
> to the tactics each ship would use against each other.
There are no tactical applications for warp for the NX-01. It can't
fire from warp at a non-warp target, and the Picard maneuver won't be
invented for another few hundred years.
>>Of course, this is utterly useless, since it can't fight except when
>>it's sublight.
>
>
> Really? When was this ever brought up as a tactic, the idea that the
> NX-01 might say, warp strafe the IH? Oh yeah, never!
You're a trekkie, and one who thinks that the warp drive is a useful
tactical weapon, so of cours you are going to bring up "warp strafing"
at some point. As for tactical use of warp, that's useless, since the
NX-01 would have to outrange the IH for there to be any reason at all to
use the warp drive.
> By the way, the
> NX-01 can fight at warp, this was established as early as "Shockwave"
> [ST:ENT2]. But then again, I can't expect too much in the way of
> honesty, or the acknowledgement of canon facts to get in your way, now
> can?
Please provide an accurate (ie. not derived from Darkstar's website)
description of the precise scene you are referring to. It will
undoubtedly refer to a ship at warp fighting another ship at warp.
> When was the fate of Earth a factor in the victory conditions, hmmm?
You seemed to think that running away didn't mean that the NX-01 had
lost. I was simply pointing out that it means that it did.
Graeme Dice
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
>>Nah, it's just another person who's less educated and less intelligent
>>than he thinks he is, and who actually believes the tripe spewed forth
>>by Guardian 2000.
>
>
> I gotta love the way that you guys can't really answer to anything
> except to flame and spew the religious mantra of Wong and Poe.
I am perfectly capable of performing every single one of the
calculations that Mike Wong has performed. There is no need to repeat
that work, however, when one can look at the basic assumptions, agree
with those, then see that there are no math errors. As for Wayne Poe,
he primarily collects, organizes, clarifies, documents and adds to the
primary arguments that have taken place in this newsgroup. How does the
fact that his collection of arguments that has been growing for 6-8
years matches the primary arguments of the newsgroup they came from show
anything useful?
> Oh yeah,
> anyone who disagrees with you is obviously uneducated and less
> intelligent that the pro-Wars side (sarcasm dripping)!
Darkstar _is_ less educated and less intelligent that the pro-Wars side,
and most of the pro-Trek side. He doesn't have a single university
degree, and he's spent most of his time arguing science with a Wars
supporting PhD. student, a Trek supporting person who's completed his
Phd., a Wars supporting engineer, A Trek supporting physicist, and at
least one neutral teacher.
I suggest that you go and read both
http://www.daltonator.net/fuq/trolls/g2k.html
and
http://www.galactec.com/kynes/rsa.html
in order to find out just what a lunatic he is.
Graeme Dice
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
>>Yes, the TESB asteroid calculations are a lower limit. The upper limit
>>places Star Wars firepower well above the planet destroying level.
>
> Of course, the topic is not about anyone going after the Death Star.
> It is not like the Invsible Hand has a superlaser as part of its
> armament.
Doesn't need it. The superlaser causes enough damage to destroy a
planet 100 million times over and has twice the power of the imperial
fleet per General Dodonna's briefing. There are no more than 1000 ships
in the Imperial fleet per Han Solo. Thus, each ship in the Imperial
Fleet has more than enough firepower to destroy a planet.
> We never see Acclamator troop transports dish out that much
> firepower.
Doesn't matter, it's in a canon source.
Furthermore, it is plain silly for troop transport to have
> such firepower, considering that it is like equipping C-5 Galaxies with
> 20 megaton hydrogen bombs.
Doesn't matter, it's in a canon source.
>>>The firepower estimates are based on a possibly incorrect scaling of
>>>the asteroids by Brian Young (note that particular document is more
>>>than 5 years old, and there has been little done to update it, or
>>>provide better screencaps, ect).
>>
>>I take it that you've been reading Guardian 2000's, aka DarkStar's, aka
>>Robert Scott Anderson's st-vs-sw.net website. Please stop. That site
>>is based on lies, misrepresented quotes, and the rantings of an insane
>>lunatic.
>>
>>Further, the age of an analysis does not matter one bit, and the fact
>>that you imply that it does betrays that you aren't competent enough to
>>calculate those numbers yourself.
Your implicit concession has been accepted.
>>>Wong merely supplies some assistance
>>>in the article. Furthermore, the canon of AoTC severely limits the
>>>speed of Amidala's yacht down to a few thousand c,
>>
>>And how many times do they cross the entire galaxy in a single day in
>>Revenge of the Sith?
Your implicit concession has been accepted.
>> >but to be generous,
>>
>>>I've always been willing to assume the trip took an hour for it to
>>>cross the "less than a parsec" distance, and so we can assume a maximum
>>>canon speed of 29,000c. The lower limit is calculated here:
>>>
>>>http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSaotcparsec.html
>>
>>Thanks for admitting that you have been reading Darkstar's bullshit.
>>Until you stop quoting him, you are doing nothing more than fanatically
>>following a known lunatic.
Your implicit concession has been accepted.
>>>The IH has no probe droids ala those seen in TESB. Could you cite a
>>>canon sources, such as one of the movies, or the novelizations, and or
>>>screenplay that suggests such a capability?
>>
>>You are arguing in alt.startrek.vs.starwars. As such, we use the canon
>>policies of the organizations that own the universes, not Dorkstar's. I
>>see that he still hasn't removed his misrepresentation of a quote from
>>me, so he is still just as despicable as ever.
Your implicit concession has been accepted.
>>>difficulty dealing with. What you want is the NX-01 to slug it out with
>>>the IH, and what Ejercito and I have suggested is a surgical strike at
>>>a potential weak point.
>>
>>The NX-01 has no way of determining what the weak point is.
>
> They have sensors.
> Of course, it should be noted that the NX-01 can ONLY win by a
> surgical strike, while the Invisible Hand simply has to use its droid
> fighters and turbolasers. It is somewhat like a single X-Wing versus
> the Death Star.
What on Earth does the fact that the NX-01 has sensors tell us? I have
sensors. I have about five different types in fact. The U.S.S. Nimitz
has a rather sophisticated sensor suite, can it scan the Invisible Hand
and determine what the weakness is? An AWACS plane also has sensors,
can it do the same? The mere presence of sensors does not imply that
those sensors have the required level of ability. To assume that they
do is a golden mean fallacy.
Graeme Dice
Ari Allyn-Feuer
I have insulted no one.
I think the TESB asteroid calculations are valid, because the
assumptions made there are reasonable and the conclusion follows
logically from the premises. I will continue to think they are valid
until you can show that either the logic is flawed or the assumptions
are incorrect. You have thus far failed to do this, but I invite you
to try.
Ari Allyn-Feuer.
Ari Allyn-Feuer
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
> Graeme Dice wrote:
> > mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
> > > Michael Ejercito wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > As for a comparison of firepower; in AoTC Jango Fett's Slave-I's
> > > blasters could not do much more than shatter half the volume of
> > > oblate-shaped asteroids that were only about 8-12 long.
> >
> > I'm sorry, are you seriously comparing the light weapons on a shuttle
> > sized ship to the heavy weapons on a capital ship? Are you trying to
> > make us laugh hysterically?
>
> Oh please, spare me. It would be a real change of pace if you Rabid
> Warsies would stop mistating your opponent in your childish quest to
> "win at any cost". I was comparing the firepower of Jango's Slave-I to
> the NX-01 and to Anakin's starfighter (convient how you snipped that
> part when you quoted me). Slave-I is clearly not just a shuttle, and it
> represents a realistic upper limit to potential starfighter firepower
> given it's much larger size compared to the Jedi starfighters, and even
> the later X-wings and Y-wings.
OK. The Slave 1 is a realistic upper limit to starfighter firepower.
>From this it follows that the NX-01's main beam weapons are capable of
destroying the bay shield generators at close range if the main shields
are down or from inside the main shields. This concession, however, is
irrelevant to the IH's defense. The NX-01 hasn't a hope against the
main shields, and could not possibly get inside them, owing to size.
The weakness you hope to exploit does not exist. I have said this many
times, and you have not yet answered it. What convinces you that the
main shields were in place and that Anakin fired from outside them?
> > > But that's neither here nor there; the NX-01 has top speeds calculated
> > > generally around 1,500 to 1,800c based on a 12 ly run made in 3 days in
> > > "Cease Fire" [ST:ENT2], and 25 ly run made in less than a week in
> > > "Horizon" [ST:ENT2]. Call it 1,700c.
> >
> > Yes, we know that it has to dawdle around the galaxy for hundreds of
> > years while the Star Wars ships cross it in less than a day.
>
> Which again, is irrelevant to the thread, or the applications of that
> to the tactics each ship would use against each other.
Yes and no. It means that the IH can comfortably disengage, while
maintaining sensor contact, and be out of hyperspace and launching
fighters in ambush by the time the NX-01 realizes it has arrived,
having moved through the NX-01's sensor radius in seconds.
> > >The NX-01 can sustain warp, while still being
> > > permeable to realspace.
> >
> > Of course, this is utterly useless, since it can't fight except when
> > it's sublight.
>
> Really? When was this ever brought up as a tactic, the idea that the
> NX-01 might say, warp strafe the IH? Oh yeah, never! By the way, the
> NX-01 can fight at warp, this was established as early as "Shockwave"
> [ST:ENT2]. But then again, I can't expect too much in the way of
> honesty, or the acknowledgement of canon facts to get in your way, now
> can?
I haven't seen the episode, but I'll concede that for now. The NX-01
can fight at warp. It just won't help against the IH, nor will warp
strafing catch the IH off-guard. Repeated strafing would not hurt the
IH because its shields must of necessity recharge faster than the
NX-01's guns can fire in order to have so much energy deflection
capacity. Also, the permeability of the NX-01 to realspace while in
wark means the IH can hit it in warp. Maybe not very well, but it is
not defenseless against a warp strafe. If ever in danger, the IH can
jump out of system and reasess while maintaining sensors.
Finally, you forget the IH's tractor beam. ST canon suggests that
acceleration to near c precedes a warp jump, and the IH's tractors
could prevent that, forcing the NX-01 to remain sublight once engaged.
> > >Even
> > > if the IH is faster in HS than the NX-01 is in warp by any significant
> > > measure, it would be a silly comedy ala Spaceballs of the IH attempting
> > > extremely dangerous hyperspeed hops, trying to stay somewhere ahead of
> > > the NX-01, hoping all the while the Earth ship doesn't change course,
> > > or actually bothers to come to a stop and fight with the IH instead of
> > > detouring around it.
> >
> > No, what will actually happen is that the Invisible Hand will note that
> > the NX-01 is running away from it. It will then enter hyperspace,
> > proceed to Earth, and begin an orbital bombardment of the planet. As
> > soon as the NX-01 leaves the engagement, it loses, because it has no way
> > of stopping the superior SW ship from destroying any immobile target it
> > chooses.
>
> When was the fate of Earth a factor in the victory conditions, hmmm?
> How would the IH even be aware of such a thing? Also I have to get a
> kick out of how you're trying to misrepresent me. But I guess Robert
> Scott Anderson was right all along about you people...
You're right here; this is ship on ship, no other targets, no other
resources, no other supplies. It was disingenuous of Mr. Dice to say
otherwise, as that consideration is irrelevant to the thread.
> But anyway, presumably the two ships just happen to meet somewhere or
> somewhen. As has been pointed out, and has already been agreeded to,
> the NX-01 does not stand a chance in a straight up fight. But it can
> maneuver far better than the IH can, and if it can discover the
> hangerbay shield weakness, it might be able to pull off a win.
I disagree strenuously, for the reasons explained above.
> There, was that so very hard to understand, Graeme?
Let's not be patronizing...
> -Mike
Ari Allyn-Feuer
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
>>Yes, the TESB asteroid calculations are a lower limit. The upper limit
>>places Star Wars firepower well above the planet destroying level.
>
<snip>
>Thus the
> TL firepower's REAL lower limits are somewhere between 1-10 TW a shot,
> which is highly generous given the pronounced oblate shape of the
> asteroids in question.
Then you'll be able to post a link to the files you use for your
detailed image analysis, so that we can confirm or deny your results.
> While you may disagree with my methodology, which is fine, I find it
> rather disturbing that few have bothered to look more closely at
> Brian's work, and the fact that it hasn't been really updated (I know
> Brian has had some issues, so I understand why he hasn't been able to
> do anything more). You complain about me reading Scott's site, yet you
> are willing accept the SND and TL Commentaries as if they were gospel.
No, I'm willing to accept them because I've checked their numbers
numerous times in the past six years.
> If you like, I can discuss this further with you in email in a
> *civilized* fashion.
You can discuss it on the newsgroup in public, or not at all.
>>Do you have any evidence on how much damage an NX-class starship's
>>polarized hull plating can handle, or are you just pulling numbers out
>>of your ass?
>
>
> Of course. But I'am not the one making the strongly implied claim that
> a single shot from the IH's TLs will utterly disable or destroy the
> NX-01, now am I? ;-)
That's not an implied claim, that's a direct claim. The IH has
firepower on par with SW ships, and SW ships canonically have hundred
gigaton heavy weapons. TNG era photon torpedoes are kiloton to megaton
range at best given their performance, and I hope that you are not going
to claim that the NX-01 can withstand thousands of TNG photon torpedoes
at once?
> Nice of you to cite non-canon sources all over the place. The AoTC ICS,
> is of course, of highly questionable canon status.
No, it's canon status is not questionable at all. The only people who
would wish to question its canon status are those rampant trekkies who's
self-esteem is directly proportional to how relatively powerful their
pet universe is.
>Now I you'll scream
> bloody murder like a Creationist being told the Bible isn't correct,
> but let's try to stay with the real canon, which has nothing at all
> like the insanely over-inflated firepower Warsies claim for SW ships
> (the Death Star excepted, of course).
I'm happy to deal witht the real canon, so I'll continue to use the
AOTC:ICS.
>>I take it that you've been reading Guardian 2000's, aka DarkStar's, aka
>>Robert Scott Anderson's st-vs-sw.net website. Please stop. That site
>>is based on lies, misrepresented quotes, and the rantings of an insane
>>lunatic.
>
>
> That's a laugh, dude. I was involved in this long before this ng was
> even a glimmer in the eye of most of you kids.
Prove it. I'll expect a link to a post that is readily identifiable as
one of yours in one of the trek newsgroups from before this group was
created in the mid-nineties. Heck, a post from before The Phantom
Menace to this newsgroup would suffice.
> I've followed the
> debate, and I can see for myself that calling Robert a liar, ect is
> nothing more than a gross act of hypocrisy.
Then he's taken down the statement where he claims that I provided a
quote to him? No? Then he's still lying. Has he recanted his claims
about mysterious green rings that only he can see in the Alderaan
>And for a pro-ST site, his
> is suprisingly far more balanced on the give-and-take than SDN any day
> of the week.
Why
> Canon source? Maybe a novelization quote that puts Mustafar on the far
> side of the SW galaxy from Courscant? If we went by the AoTC speed of
> 29,000c, Mustafar is no more than 5 ly distant from Courscant.
The "AOTC speed" as you call it, is hardly canon. Please supply the
specifics of how it was calculated.
> At any
> rate, to state once again, the mechanics of how warp works and how
> hyperdrive works are so completely different that FTL combat is out,
> except for the NX-01 holding some distance away from the IH while it
> tries to find a weakness to exploit.
Then you'll be able to show that the NX-01 has any chance of finding a
weakness.
> Of course I've read Scott's site (by the way, ad hominem attack noted),
> as I have read SDN. As for your ad hominem attack you just leveled at
> me, I do not "fanatically follow" anyone.
You are attempting to use his canon rules. As such, you are fanatically
following him. As I am dealing directly with your arguments, I am
insulting you, not providing ad hominem arguments. I'll continue to
insult Guardian 2000 as long as cowardly hides on his webpage where he
can moderate away anything he doesn't like.
> I make my own choices.
> However, Scott's analysis of AoTC, is very concise,a nd does set a
> lower limit to SW speeds. That being said, and to reiterate MY
> interpretation of AoTC, I am willing to believe only an hour, not a day
> went by, and that gives us 29,000c. This is the only thing close to a
> canon quote about SW speeds and the distance between two seperate
> worlds/star systems in the whole of 6 movies that isn't simple
> hyperbole.
You're either a liar, incompetent, or you haven't actually watched AOTC.
Perhaps you should note the scene which illustrates the location of
Kamino compared to the rest of the galaxy. Or are you going to claim
that the SW galaxy is miraculously smaller than our own?
>This even supersedes the crossing of "hundreds of light
> years" in the secondary canon RoTJ novelization by the Rebel fleet to
> get from Sullust to Endor, though the lower limits for that trip fit
> in well with the expected possible ranges for hyperdrive speed as
> AoTC's Naboo yacht run have shown us.
Is it a direct, irreconciliable contradiction? Nope. Then it doesn't
supercede anything. Please try and actually learn the ground rules
before you come here and tell us that we are all wrong.
> Which is blatently false as "Elann of Troyius" [TOS3] demonstrates with
> at least two clear cut statements of the Klingon D-7 battlecruiser
> strafing the impulse power-only
> Enterprise-1701.
Wrong. The distance between the two ships is clearly not decreasing at
supralight speeds. Sulu is able to read the distance out in multiples
of thousands of kilometres. This would be impossible were the ship
actually closing at warp speeds.
>We also have similar tactics used in "Balance of
> Terror" [TOS1], with the Enterprise fighting a sublight or low-FTL
> Romulan warbird with superior warp speed,
I see, so the Enterprise, despite starting extremely close to the
Romulan ship, and despite the fact that it was supposedly travelling at
warp 5, didn't manage to overtake the Bird of Prey that was travelling
less than c for over 22 seconds. Hmmm. Either the Enterprise wasn't
actually at warp for much of the chase, or the Bird of Prey was.
> and the Orion attack ship in
> "Journey to Babel" [TOS2] strafing the lower warp speed Enterprise,
Both ships were at warp. How does this illustrate warp strafing of a
non-warp target?
> and
> finally the E-1701's strafe attack with photon torpedoes against the
> apparently sublight S.S. Woden freighter in "The Ultimate Computer"
> [TOS2].
No, the ship is stated to be "slow moving". Now, I don't know about
you, but what good is a sub-light interstellar freighter that's several
decades away from home?
I see that you've bought Darkstar's lies about the scenes in TOS.
> You mean the polices that you guys (the Warsie majority of the time)
> voted into being, regardless of whether or not it was true.
Perhaps you should go ask Lord Edam de Fromage, who is the most
prominent Trek supporter on this newsgroup what he thinks of the canon
rules. Or just look up a few of his responses to Mike3 on the topic of
canonicity.
When the canon rules were initially voted in, the trek and wars sides
were very nearly equal in numbers. In fact, the earliest versions of
the rules were created when the newsgroup was overwhelmingly pro-ST.
> I've also
> done my own research on this, and frankly, I find that with only a few
> exceptions, Scott's version of the canon policy is the correct one for
> the SW universe as it's creator and owner, George Lucas, has stated it
> to be. The only misrepresentations seen thus far, has been largely from
> the Warsie side of things.
Have you read the actual quotes at www.asvs.org, or only Darkstar's
altered versions?
> If you wish to disprove this, then I would strongly recommend changing
> the way you respond to me ASAP.
As long as you continue to paly Darkstar's lapdog, I'll treat you with
as much respect as I would treat him.
>>The NX-01 has no way of determining what the weak point is.
>
> Sensors. You know, the same ones that can read alien DNA from several
> km away, as per "Silent Enemy".
Have these sensors ever been shown to detect a weak point behind
shielding on a significantly advanced ship?
> *Snort*. Non-canon, or at least of such a lower level canon that it
> can't be taken seriously when compared to George Lucas' true story as
> shown us in the movies and the novelizations, not the EU, or fanboy
> wanking fantasies.
It has been clarified to be at a canon level equal with the
novelizations. I know that Darkstar likes to wrap it up with sophistry,
but here it is:
"The first two Incredible Cross-Sections books were conceived to explore
bold new territory in the Star Wars universe, taking a rare look inside
more vehicles and vessels than we had ever seen before, and doing in in
unprecedented detail. These books would represent the most thorough
research ever done on these vehicles and would receive Lucasfilm's
formal imprimatur as CANON (emphasis mine). These volumes would
henceforth be sent out to licensees as reference guides and would become
useful manuals for Industrial Light & Magic, where some of the artwork
influenced details in Episodes I and II." doesn't bother to admit that
Also, you might want to read what an actual neutral site has to say
about canon. You'll note that it actually provides more weight to the
various EU materials than the ASVS policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-canon
>>Those are ships that are roughly as dangerous as a blaster pistol to the
>>vastly superior SW technology base.
>
>
> Proof? None. The SW tech base, even going by your so-called lower
> limits, is a few TW per shot from a TL, the NX-01 can ramp up phase
> cannon power to 10 TW for the forward battery, and considerably more,
> if photonic torpedoes are available.
That's a light TL you realize, of which an ISD has several hundred, and
which is at least two orders of magnitude less powerful than a heavy TL,
the bolt of which is approximately a third the length of an ISD (~600 m).
>Also, once again, the target is not the main
> shields, far from it, it is the weak point of the hanger bay and it's
> seperate shielding.
Please prove that the hangar bay has separate shielding that is not
simply the force field seen on every hangar bay in every SW ship in space.
> Ah, more ad hominem attacks.
Wrong. I told you that your timing was wrong. I then insulted you. If
you can't handle low-key insults, then please get off of the newsgroup.
I'm sure you can find plenty of forums all over the internet where
moderators will coddle you and protect the stupid from being driven out.
Driving them off, is of course, the only way to deal with an idiot,
because they aren't smart enough to realize when they are wrong.
> Apparently it can. There has been no true canon proof that the IH or
> any SW ship at sublight even approaches what ST ships can do.
What can ST ships do then? We know that 1/4 impulse is barely enough
acceleration to move the constitution class Enterprise a single ship
length in several seconds from the Spacedock scene.
> Also ,
> there is no proof that the IH can block the NX-01 from making a scan,
> at least before hostilities break out.
There's no proof that such a scan would reveal anything at all other
than a shielded ship with a forcefield over a hangar bay door.
Lord Edam de Fromage
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu says...
> > You are arguing in alt.startrek.vs.starwars. As such, we use the canon
> > policies of the organizations that own the universes, not Dorkstar's. I
> > see that he still hasn't removed his misrepresentation of a quote from
> > me, so he is still just as despicable as ever.
>
> You mean the polices that you guys (the Warsie majority of the time)
> voted into being, regardless of whether or not it was true.
Yeah. right.
the canon policy was developed through consensus (at a time when the
group had a far larger trek bias, BTW) with the intention of explaining
why we use what we use. "voting" appeared long after our policy on
acceptable source was decided, and merely confirmed what everyon agreed.
There was very little disagreement on our defined sources until Darkstar
got upset at being ridiculed on this group and went on a crusade to
object to everything we ever created.
Of each acceptable source the question has been asked
"Is this official Star Wars fact?"
And in each case, the decision has been "yes".
In some cases it is emphatically "yes", in others it is "yes, but...".
Even RSA accepts that there is more to Star Wars than what George made.
I've also
> done my own research on this, and frankly, I find that with only a few
> exceptions, Scott's version of the canon policy is the correct one for
> the SW universe as it's creator and owner, George Lucas, has stated it
> to be. The only misrepresentations seen thus far, has been largely from
> the Warsie side of things.
RSA's version of the canon policy is *purely* canon. Most people who are
still or have ever contributed to this newgroup would agree that RSA's
ideas on canon are correct as far as "what is George's Star Wars" goes.
But it leaves out most of what makes star wars the expansive universe
that has kept it going for thirty years (or rather, revived it when
George was ready to milk it for all it was worth). This isn't just
"fanboy wank", but it's stuff that George Lucas himself has described as
part of the star wars saga. To us, that's good enough to answer "yes"
when we ask "is this official star wars fact?"
You've been lurking here for years on and off, and I know you have been
involved in the debate elsewhere, so I'm fairly certain you are fully
aware of what we use and why but if there is anything specific you
disagree with on www.asvs.org, or mike3's attempts to forward RSA's
arguments late last year I'm sure we could explain our reasoning to you.
( with regards to "is this official star trek fact?", we also do the
same for star trek, only in that case the decision (long before voting,
at a time when the group was far more pro-Trek than it was even when RSA
first turned up) was that "is this Star Trek fact" would be limited to
"only if it's live action", per the www.startrek.com website.
Michael Ejercito
Graeme Dice wrote:
> Michael Ejercito wrote:
>
> > Graeme Dice wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>Yes, the TESB asteroid calculations are a lower limit. The upper limit
> >>places Star Wars firepower well above the planet destroying level.
> >
> > Of course, the topic is not about anyone going after the Death Star.
> > It is not like the Invsible Hand has a superlaser as part of its
> > armament.
>
> Doesn't need it. The superlaser causes enough damage to destroy a
> planet 100 million times over and has twice the power of the imperial
> fleet per General Dodonna's briefing. There are no more than 1000 ships
> in the Imperial fleet per Han Solo. Thus, each ship in the Imperial
> Fleet has more than enough firepower to destroy a planet.
planet all on its own?
I perused several web sites on Star Trek vs. Star Wars, and some of
them have pretty good explanations as to why the TPM-era Old Republic
would squash the TNG-era Federation in a total war, but none have EVER
claimed that a ship like the Invisible Hand could blow up a planet.
> > firepower.
>
> Doesn't matter, it's in a canon source.
>
> Furthermore, it is plain silly for troop transport to have
> > such firepower, considering that it is like equipping C-5 Galaxies with
> > 20 megaton hydrogen bombs.
>
> Doesn't matter, it's in a canon source.
kind of firepower.
find the shield generator? They are quite capable of targeting the
weapons on other ships.
The problem NX-01 would have in a total battle with the Invisble
Hand is NOT locating the shield generator; it is avoiding being blown
apart by droid fighters and turbolasers and missiles before it can
destroy the shield generator.
Michael
Ari Allyn-Feuer
Michael Ejercito wrote:
> Graeme Dice wrote:
> > Michael Ejercito wrote:
> >
> > > Graeme Dice wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >>Yes, the TESB asteroid calculations are a lower limit. The upper limit
> > >>places Star Wars firepower well above the planet destroying level.
> > >
> > > Of course, the topic is not about anyone going after the Death Star.
> > > It is not like the Invsible Hand has a superlaser as part of its
> > > armament.
> >
> > Doesn't need it. The superlaser causes enough damage to destroy a
> > planet 100 million times over and has twice the power of the imperial
> > fleet per General Dodonna's briefing. There are no more than 1000 ships
> > in the Imperial fleet per Han Solo. Thus, each ship in the Imperial
> > Fleet has more than enough firepower to destroy a planet.
> Then why build a Death Star if an ISD was capable of blowing up a
> planet all on its own?
> I perused several web sites on Star Trek vs. Star Wars, and some of
> them have pretty good explanations as to why the TPM-era Old Republic
> would squash the TNG-era Federation in a total war, but none have EVER
> claimed that a ship like the Invisible Hand could blow up a planet.
We don't claim that either. We only claim that the only upper limits
which have been placed on the firepower of ISDs by canon are in the
range of planetary destruction. You appear to be claiming that
planetary destruction functions as an upper limit because its presence
in ISD would obviate the DSs. I can agree to that for now. The IH,
however, has no need to destroy a planet, just the NX-01. It will do
that quite well.
You must also consider that Mr. Dice is probably being facetious in
claiming the thoroughly debunked "1000 ships" comment as a useful
source.
> > > firepower.
> >
> > Doesn't matter, it's in a canon source.
> >
> > Furthermore, it is plain silly for troop transport to have
> > > such firepower, considering that it is like equipping C-5 Galaxies with
> > > 20 megaton hydrogen bombs.
> >
> > Doesn't matter, it's in a canon source.
> I watched all six movies, and no Acclamator EVER demonstrated that
> kind of firepower.
It doesn't matter. A canonical source shows this, and is not
contradicted by higher levels of canon, therefore it is fact according
to the canon policy of this NG. Are you proposing to change it? If
so, please explain why.
You neglect to remember the observed jamming capabilities of SW ships,
as dmeonstrated by the ability of the DSII to jam the active sensors of
the entire rebel fleet in ROTJ. ST sensors are most likely
underpowered relative to their SW cousins, and will probably be more
susceptible to jamming.
Even if the NX-01 gets wind of the bay shield generator, it will be
unable to hit it. Even if it hits it, yopu have provided no evidence
that detonation of the bay fuel would destroy the IH. Ignoring these
problems horts your case.
> Michael
Ari Allyn-Feuer
Ari Allyn-Feuer
Michael Ejercito wrote:
> Graeme Dice wrote:
> > Michael Ejercito wrote:
> >
> > > Graeme Dice wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >>Yes, the TESB asteroid calculations are a lower limit. The upper limit
> > >>places Star Wars firepower well above the planet destroying level.
> > >
> > > Of course, the topic is not about anyone going after the Death Star.
> > > It is not like the Invsible Hand has a superlaser as part of its
> > > armament.
> >
> > Doesn't need it. The superlaser causes enough damage to destroy a
> > planet 100 million times over and has twice the power of the imperial
> > fleet per General Dodonna's briefing. There are no more than 1000 ships
> > in the Imperial fleet per Han Solo. Thus, each ship in the Imperial
> > Fleet has more than enough firepower to destroy a planet.
> Then why build a Death Star if an ISD was capable of blowing up a
> planet all on its own?
> I perused several web sites on Star Trek vs. Star Wars, and some of
> them have pretty good explanations as to why the TPM-era Old Republic
> would squash the TNG-era Federation in a total war, but none have EVER
> claimed that a ship like the Invisible Hand could blow up a planet.
We don't claim that either. We only claim that the only upper limits
which have been placed on the firepower of ISDs by canon are in the
range of planetary destruction. You appear to be claiming that
planetary destruction functions as an upper limit because its presence
in ISD would obviate the DSs. I can agree to that for now. The IH,
however, has no need to destroy a planet, just the NX-01. It will do
that quite well.
You must also consider that Mr. Dice is probably being facetious in
claiming the thoroughly debunked "1000 ships" comment as a useful
source.
> > > firepower.
> >
> > Doesn't matter, it's in a canon source.
> >
> > Furthermore, it is plain silly for troop transport to have
> > > such firepower, considering that it is like equipping C-5 Galaxies with
> > > 20 megaton hydrogen bombs.
> >
> > Doesn't matter, it's in a canon source.
> I watched all six movies, and no Acclamator EVER demonstrated that
> kind of firepower.
It doesn't matter. A canonical source shows this, and is not
contradicted by higher levels of canon, therefore it is fact according
to the canon policy of this NG. Are you proposing to change it? If
so, please explain why.
> >
You neglect to remember the observed jamming capabilities of SW ships,
as dmeonstrated by the ability of the DSII to jam the active sensors of
the entire rebel fleet in ROTJ. ST sensors are most likely
underpowered relative to their SW cousins, and will probably be more
susceptible to jamming.
Even if the NX-01 gets wind of the bay shield generator, it will be
unable to hit it. Even if it hits it, yopu have provided no evidence
that detonation of the bay fuel would destroy the IH. Ignoring these
problems hurts your case.
> Michael
Ari Allyn-Feuer
Chuck
<grd...@NOSPAM.sasktel.net> wrote:
>mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
>> That's a laugh, dude. I was involved in this long before this ng was
>> even a glimmer in the eye of most of you kids.
>
>Prove it. I'll expect a link to a post that is readily identifiable as
>one of yours in one of the trek newsgroups from before this group was
>created in the mid-nineties. Heck, a post from before The Phantom
>Menace to this newsgroup would suffice.
>
Oh, Mike's an old school Trekkie all right. Wayne can probably tell a
few stories. I believe an ISD was supposed to be less than a
kilometer in size...
Chuck
"You can't keep him locked up like an animal!"
"No, we're keeping him locked up because he's a big freak."
Chuck
<mi...@trek-wars.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
I'd also add that RSA's own forays into the official Trek and Wars
boards have continued to affirm that the adopted position of ASVS is
correct. We did learn one thing new, which is that Trek canon may not
be an absolute; that they will disregard inconvenient canon if it's
going to get in the way, but obviously that's not a policy we can
implement, since a) we have no way of knowing what they would
disregard, and b) it lends itself to cherry-picking data.
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Chuck wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:04:47 GMT, Graeme Dice
> <grd...@NOSPAM.sasktel.net> wrote:
>
> >mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
>
> >> That's a laugh, dude. I was involved in this long before this ng was
> >> even a glimmer in the eye of most of you kids.
> >
> >Prove it. I'll expect a link to a post that is readily identifiable as
> >one of yours in one of the trek newsgroups from before this group was
> >created in the mid-nineties. Heck, a post from before The Phantom
> >Menace to this newsgroup would suffice.
> >
> Oh, Mike's an old school Trekkie all right. Wayne can probably tell a
> few stories. I believe an ISD was supposed to be less than a
> kilometer in size...
Man, the hypocrisy oozing from you guys is just disgusting. Yeah, Wayne
can tell a few stories, like how he's had his ugly ass handed to him on
more than one occasion. But that's neither here nor there. As for the
ISD scaling issue, it's been done to death, and I'am quite convinced of
the evidence against the 1.6 km size, except in a few instances. But
then again, as I'am seeing here, especially with the little fantasies
you people have concocted to convince yourselves your lies and wanking
have been correct and true all these years, the truth is something
you'd rather not acknowledge. If distorting, insulting, and outright
lies, are your order of the day, then you truely are lost.
This thread has been an excellent case in point; neither Ejercito, nor
I have stated anything like what Dice attributed to us! Same goes for
Ari, who also has picked up this unwholesome habit of distorting the
opposition's statements. I wanted to see how far you people would start
going. Now I know.
Neither Ejercito, nor I stated that in a straight up, duke-em-out
fight, the NX-01 would win against the IH. Never once! When asked for
real canon evidence, you pick a fanwank book of questionable accuracy
and canon to back anything up. You speak of us disregarding canon when
it's inconvenient, yet routinely do so all the time yourselves. You
won't even admit to the possibility of the NX-01 carrying out an attack
on the IH's hanger bay shield generator, and succeeding. You people are
as bad as Creationists, and use the tactics of the Scientologists in
attacking your detractors.
Oh and another thing, it's funny how you require ever increasing
standards for the pro-Trek side of an argument, but require so little
for your own. Everything Robert said was true, has been proven. Thank
you.
-Mike
Ari Allyn-Feuer
I can assure you that I have not intentionally misrepresented your
statements. Since the record of our debate is public, it stands to
reason that you should be able to quote off my "distortions" for public
view. If you can produce such, I will apologize, because that was not
my intention.
> Neither Ejercito, nor I stated that in a straight up, duke-em-out
> fight, the NX-01 would win against the IH. Never once! When asked for
> real canon evidence, you pick a fanwank book of questionable accuracy
> and canon to back anything up. You speak of us disregarding canon when
> it's inconvenient, yet routinely do so all the time yourselves. You
> won't even admit to the possibility of the NX-01 carrying out an attack
> on the IH's hanger bay shield generator, and succeeding. You people are
> as bad as Creationists, and use the tactics of the Scientologists in
> attacking your detractors.
It's possible. I admitted to the possibility. It's just that the
available evidence suggests strongly that your scenario is unlikely to
a degree which makes it reasonable to say that it wouldn't happen.
As to the canon policy, you are butting heads against the consensus
canon policy of this newsgroup. The ICS books are considered low canon
here, and we will use them as such. However, you disregard the TESB
asteroid calculations, which were cited and crosslinked to you. You
refuse to accept them, but also refuse to cite your specific objections
aside from some vague talk about scaling. You acknowledge a value one
tenth the value of the lowest lower limit there cited, without
explaining why you do not accept the calculations as such. The ICS is
not our only source.
> Oh and another thing, it's funny how you require ever increasing
> standards for the pro-Trek side of an argument, but require so little
> for your own. Everything Robert said was true, has been proven. Thank
> you.
When you calculate, I raise issues, and expect you to answer. When I
calculate or cite another's calculations and you object, I expect you
to raise issues so I can answer.
> -Mike
Ari Allyn-Feuer
Chuck
>
>Chuck wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:04:47 GMT, Graeme Dice
>> <grd...@NOSPAM.sasktel.net> wrote:
>>
>> >mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
>>
>> >> That's a laugh, dude. I was involved in this long before this ng was
>> >> even a glimmer in the eye of most of you kids.
>> >
>> >Prove it. I'll expect a link to a post that is readily identifiable as
>> >one of yours in one of the trek newsgroups from before this group was
>> >created in the mid-nineties. Heck, a post from before The Phantom
>> >Menace to this newsgroup would suffice.
>> >
>> Oh, Mike's an old school Trekkie all right. Wayne can probably tell a
>> few stories. I believe an ISD was supposed to be less than a
>> kilometer in size...
>
>Man, the hypocrisy oozing from you guys is just disgusting.
And this is hypocritical because I said.... what? This is my first
comment in this thread and about you, it hardly contradicts anything
I've said or done. But "hypocrisy" is just such a fun word to say,
isn't it? Lord knows Scooter trots it out at every opportunity.
> Yeah, Wayne
>can tell a few stories, like how he's had his ugly ass handed to him on
>more than one occasion. But that's neither here nor there. As for the
>ISD scaling issue, it's been done to death, and I'am quite convinced of
>the evidence against the 1.6 km size, except in a few instances. But
>then again, as I'am seeing here, especially with the little fantasies
>you people have concocted to convince yourselves your lies and wanking
>have been correct and true all these years, the truth is something
>you'd rather not acknowledge. If distorting, insulting, and outright
>lies, are your order of the day, then you truely are lost.
*Yawn*
If you didn't want to discuss the past, you shouldn't have been so
quick to play the "I'm a veteran card."
>
>Oh and another thing, it's funny how you require ever increasing
>standards for the pro-Trek side of an argument, but require so little
>for your own. Everything Robert said was true, has been proven. Thank
>you.
>-Mike
I've heard Scooter douchebags like you before, and I'll continue to
hear them long after you stop posting. Maybe your position on the ISD
has changed, but you're still using the same old tactics.
Scooter's a nut, not because of what he says, but because his little
choo-choo's gone chugging around the bend. You hitch your wagon to
his star you're going to quickly find out it's a black hole.
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
> mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
>
> > Graeme Dice wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>Yes, the TESB asteroid calculations are a lower limit. The upper limit
> >>places Star Wars firepower well above the planet destroying level.
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >Thus the
> > TL firepower's REAL lower limits are somewhere between 1-10 TW a shot,
> > which is highly generous given the pronounced oblate shape of the
> > asteroids in question.
>
> Then you'll be able to post a link to the files you use for your
> detailed image analysis, so that we can confirm or deny your results.
Of course. But I must ask you this; will you be willing to accept it as
a viable alternative to Brian Young's now very out of date thesis?
Let's also go further, will you also, if I were to ask, aid in
providing images? I know you would for a fellow Warsie.
> > While you may disagree with my methodology, which is fine, I find it
> > rather disturbing that few have bothered to look more closely at
> > Brian's work, and the fact that it hasn't been really updated (I know
> > Brian has had some issues, so I understand why he hasn't been able to
> > do anything more). You complain about me reading Scott's site, yet you
> > are willing accept the SND and TL Commentaries as if they were gospel.
>
> No, I'm willing to accept them because I've checked their numbers
> numerous times in the past six years.
Really? Could you post your verification of Young's work. By the way,
could you also fill me in on Young's technical background training that
qualifies him for this? I noticed you're so-called arguements are
devolving into Appeal to Authority Fallacy, so before we go on, could
you provide those, please?
> > If you like, I can discuss this further with you in email in a
> > *civilized* fashion.
>
> You can discuss it on the newsgroup in public, or not at all.
Oh really? Why are you making this into such a false dilemma choice?
There is little or no reason we cannot discuss this on our own in
email.
> >>Do you have any evidence on how much damage an NX-class starship's
> >>polarized hull plating can handle, or are you just pulling numbers out
> >>of your ass?
> >
> >
> > Of course. But I'am not the one making the strongly implied claim that
> > a single shot from the IH's TLs will utterly disable or destroy the
> > NX-01, now am I? ;-)
>
> That's not an implied claim, that's a direct claim. The IH has
> firepower on par with SW ships, and SW ships canonically have hundred
> gigaton heavy weapons. TNG era photon torpedoes are kiloton to megaton
> range at best given their performance, and I hope that you are not going
> to claim that the NX-01 can withstand thousands of TNG photon torpedoes
> at once?
There is no canon evidence of gigaton weapons on the IH nor any other
SW ship, except the Death Star.
Oh, and if you wish to continue further, please stop this shit with
attempting place words in my mouth. I have never stated, nor intend to
state anything about the NX-01 being able to withstand thousands of
hits from TNG-era torpedoes. Given the possibility of gigaton range
TNG-era torpedoes, I would truely think that unlikely...
Of course, there's no doubt you'll foam at the mouth and scream that
gigaton yeild TNG era torpedoes are not possible. But hey, truth is not
something Warsies have ever been interested in. At any rate, I'am still
waiting for Ari to provide me with real evidence that the NX-01 is
incapable of withstanding a few shots of a few terawatts.
> > Nice of you to cite non-canon sources all over the place. The AoTC ICS,
> > is of course, of highly questionable canon status.
>
> No, it's canon status is not questionable at all. The only people who
> would wish to question its canon status are those rampant trekkies who's
> self-esteem is directly proportional to how relatively powerful their
> pet universe is.
Ah, once again you resort to Ad Hominem attacks. If anyone disagrees
with this, they must be "rampant trekkies who's self-esteem is directly
proportional to how powerful their pet universe is". Well, if that
isn't the most ironic statement I've ever heard, I don't know what the
hell is. Take out "trekkie", and put "warsie" in it's place, and you
have everything right on.
AoTC ICS is non-canon, or of such a low-level of canon it not a factor.
The reason it's such a big deal to you and the other Warsies because it
just conveniently is what you wanted to hear in the debates. So of
course it's canon, and you'll distort any statements made that you
think'll make it seem as though it is some kind of canon that
supersedes everthing else, even the movies themselves!
0> >Now I you'll scream
> > bloody murder like a Creationist being told the Bible isn't correct,
> > but let's try to stay with the real canon, which has nothing at all
> > like the insanely over-inflated firepower Warsies claim for SW ships
> > (the Death Star excepted, of course).
>
> I'm happy to deal witht the real canon, so I'll continue to use the
> AOTC:ICS.
Which isn't my problem since the AoTC:ICS isn't canon.
> >>I take it that you've been reading Guardian 2000's, aka DarkStar's, aka
> >>Robert Scott Anderson's st-vs-sw.net website. Please stop. That site
> >>is based on lies, misrepresented quotes, and the rantings of an insane
> >>lunatic.
> >
> >
> > That's a laugh, dude. I was involved in this long before this ng was
> > even a glimmer in the eye of most of you kids.
>
> Prove it. I'll expect a link to a post that is readily identifiable as
> one of yours in one of the trek newsgroups from before this group was
> created in the mid-nineties. Heck, a post from before The Phantom
> Menace to this newsgroup would suffice.
Sure, just do a Google or Dejanews search. Or go ask Wayne. There's no
love lost between us, even though we once were on better terms.
Those were the innocent days, I'll tell you... But like Palpatine's
insidious plan to overthrow the Republic and the Jedi, you could see
the seeds being sown of the Warsie's jihad against all of us infidels.
> > I've followed the
> > debate, and I can see for myself that calling Robert a liar, ect is
> > nothing more than a gross act of hypocrisy.
>
> Then he's taken down the statement where he claims that I provided a
> quote to him? No? Then he's still lying. Has he recanted his claims
> about mysterious green rings that only he can see in the Alderaan
Really?
> >And for a pro-ST site, his
> > is suprisingly far more balanced on the give-and-take than SDN any day
> > of the week.
>
> Why
Because he actually concedes real advantages to SW technology and
holdings. You would be hard pressed to find as much so for STon SDN.
> > Canon source? Maybe a novelization quote that puts Mustafar on the far
> > side of the SW galaxy from Courscant? If we went by the AoTC speed of
> > 29,000c, Mustafar is no more than 5 ly distant from Courscant.
>
> The "AOTC speed" as you call it, is hardly canon. Please supply the
> specifics of how it was calculated.
Of course it's canon, as much so as you claim Brian Young's numbers are
for TL firepower. I've already given specifics, and where I derived it
from. Is there anything more you would like to know, or are you just
trying to red herring this into nitpicking?
As it is, I'am being extraordinarly generous given the overwhelming
evidence to the contrary.
> > At any
> > rate, to state once again, the mechanics of how warp works and how
> > hyperdrive works are so completely different that FTL combat is out,
> > except for the NX-01 holding some distance away from the IH while it
> > tries to find a weakness to exploit.
>
> Then you'll be able to show that the NX-01 has any chance of finding a
> weakness.
Are you truely willing to accept that? Why would it's sensors be
blocked, especially in the opening confrontation when the two ships
meet for the first time, and scan each other? Why, even with SW jamming
up, would that necessarily have an effect on the NX-01's sensors?
> > Of course I've read Scott's site (by the way, ad hominem attack noted),
> > as I have read SDN. As for your ad hominem attack you just leveled at
> > me, I do not "fanatically follow" anyone.
>
> You are attempting to use his canon rules. As such, you are fanatically
> following him. As I am dealing directly with your arguments, I am
> insulting you, not providing ad hominem arguments. I'll continue to
> insult Guardian 2000 as long as cowardly hides on his webpage where he
> can moderate away anything he doesn't like.
I came to that largely on my own. As for you you little fuckwit, why
don't you stop sucking Poe and Wong's teat, and actually provide real
arguements instead of just repeating their shit over and over again?
> > I make my own choices.
> > However, Scott's analysis of AoTC, is very concise,a nd does set a
> > lower limit to SW speeds. That being said, and to reiterate MY
> > interpretation of AoTC, I am willing to believe only an hour, not a day
> > went by, and that gives us 29,000c. This is the only thing close to a
> > canon quote about SW speeds and the distance between two seperate
> > worlds/star systems in the whole of 6 movies that isn't simple
> > hyperbole.
>
> You're either a liar, incompetent, or you haven't actually watched AOTC.
> Perhaps you should note the scene which illustrates the location of
> Kamino compared to the rest of the galaxy. Or are you going to claim
> that the SW galaxy is miraculously smaller than our own?
You are either, insane, a cock-sucking sycophant, or incompetant.
Likely all of those. As anyone with an ounce of honesty (that pretty
much leaves out you and most of the pro-Wars and their so-called
pro-Trek quislings) can see, Obi-Wan points to the Riche Maze after he
locates Kamino's supposed position. By the way, what is the actual
relation of Kamino as shown in that map to anything else. Answer:
NONE!. No other planet is shown. All we know is that Kamino is "beyond
the outer rim". Obi-Wan does not at any time show us Courscant or
Tatooine or any other planet. Of course, knowing you and your bizzare,
fanboy wet-dream ideas on what's canon, I can see that you're thinking
it's whatever's in the DK books, or the EU maps.
What's also very interesting about the map, Kamino's position and the
Riche Maze, is that we also know that Kamino is supposed to be "12
parsecs south" of there. If we scale area outlined from where Obi-Wan
points in the supposed SW galaxy to where he points in the Riche Maze
in what appears to be a smaller one, then compare that to the overall
diameter of the SW galaxy, you wind up with the SW galaxy being some
200-300 ly wide! So using that particular example isn't a good one, not
to mention, where Obi-Wan points, and the map zooms into are not the
same spot in the SW galaxy.
I think the better example to use is the Naboo Yacht map, in which the
zoom-in there gives a better impression of size. At least 30,000 ly
wide.
> >This even supersedes the crossing of "hundreds of light
> > years" in the secondary canon RoTJ novelization by the Rebel fleet to
> > get from Sullust to Endor, though the lower limits for that trip fit
> > in well with the expected possible ranges for hyperdrive speed as
> > AoTC's Naboo yacht run have shown us.
>
> Is it a direct, irreconciliable contradiction? Nope. Then it doesn't
> supercede anything. Please try and actually learn the ground rules
> before you come here and tell us that we are all wrong.
I'am not really interested in your "ground rules". A bunch of babies
playing power games is what it amounts to.
> > Which is blatently false as "Elann of Troyius" [TOS3] demonstrates with
> > at least two clear cut statements of the Klingon D-7 battlecruiser
> > strafing the impulse power-only
> > Enterprise-1701.
>
> Wrong. The distance between the two ships is clearly not decreasing at
> supralight speeds. Sulu is able to read the distance out in multiples
> of thousands of kilometres. This would be impossible were the ship
> actually closing at warp speeds.
In some of the examples, you would be correct, however, in at least two
examples, you are wrong. But I wouldn't expect you to care about truth
here, now would I?
In the third pass, Sulu does not call out any distances, the ship is
hit, and Spock says the battlecruiser is doing "greater than warp 7".
A little detail like facts can't bother you.
> >We also have similar tactics used in "Balance of
> > Terror" [TOS1], with the Enterprise fighting a sublight or low-FTL
> > Romulan warbird with superior warp speed,
>
> I see, so the Enterprise, despite starting extremely close to the
> Romulan ship, and despite the fact that it was supposedly travelling at
> warp 5, didn't manage to overtake the Bird of Prey that was travelling
> less than c for over 22 seconds. Hmmm. Either the Enterprise wasn't
> actually at warp for much of the chase, or the Bird of Prey was.
When in BoT did the Enterprise start off at warp 5? Are you perhaps
mistaking this for "The Deadly Years" where the warbirds surround and
keep up with the E-1701, which is cruising across the Neutral Zone at
warp 5?
Or were you perhaps thinking of when the E-1701 was matching the
warbird's speed and course early on? Oh and there's this:
Kirk: "The question remains. Can we engage them with a reasonable
possibility of victory?"
Scotty: "No question. Their power is simple impulse."
Kirk: "We can outrun them?"
Stiles: "To be used in chasing or retreating... Sir."
In battle, after the Enterprise survives the plasma weapon this occurs:
Kirk: "Let's get them before before we enter the Neutral Zone. Full
ahead, Mr Sulu. Maximum warp."
Sulu: "Ahead, sir. Maximum."
Kirk: "Phasers, stand by."
Stiles: "At this distance?"
Kirk: "Their weapon takes all their energy. They must become visible in
order to launch it."
Stiles: "A phaser hit at this distance would be wild luck."
As you can see, the warbird was inferior to the E-1701 in speed and
power, whether it was at warp or simply sublight, the Enterprise chased
it down from maximum warp speed.
> > and the Orion attack ship in
> > "Journey to Babel" [TOS2] strafing the lower warp speed Enterprise,
>
> Both ships were at warp. How does this illustrate warp strafing of a
> non-warp target?
As I said, it is possible to strafe a lower speed target, be that
target lower warp or sublight. What about that did you fail to
understand?
> > and
> > finally the E-1701's strafe attack with photon torpedoes against the
> > apparently sublight S.S. Woden freighter in "The Ultimate Computer"
> > [TOS2].
>
> No, the ship is stated to be "slow moving". Now, I don't know about
> you, but what good is a sub-light interstellar freighter that's several
> decades away from home?
An automated one, with no crew to worry about such things. We know from
"Where No Man Has Gone Before", that freighters called on the Delta
Vega lithium cracking station every 20 years. So such things are
important to someone.
> I see that you've bought Darkstar's lies about the scenes in TOS.
I can come to my own conclusions, thank you very much. Of course, given
what I've seen here these last few days, his "lies", simply mean that
you don't like the truth. But then again, that's not suprising that
you've bought into Wong and Poe's lies, and miscreant tactics.
> > You mean the polices that you guys (the Warsie majority of the time)
> > voted into being, regardless of whether or not it was true.
>
> Perhaps you should go ask Lord Edam de Fromage, who is the most
> prominent Trek supporter on this newsgroup what he thinks of the canon
> rules. Or just look up a few of his responses to Mike3 on the topic of
> canonicity.
Unfortunately, Edam has shown he's a bit of a quisling.
> When the canon rules were initially voted in, the trek and wars sides
> were very nearly equal in numbers. In fact, the earliest versions of
> the rules were created when the newsgroup was overwhelmingly pro-ST.
Would that make it right, then, assuming you are correct? Was voting
Hamas into power in the Palestine Territories right? Was voting Adolph
Hitler into power correct?
> > I've also
> > done my own research on this, and frankly, I find that with only a few
> > exceptions, Scott's version of the canon policy is the correct one for
> > the SW universe as it's creator and owner, George Lucas, has stated it
> > to be. The only misrepresentations seen thus far, has been largely from
> > the Warsie side of things.
>
> Have you read the actual quotes at www.asvs.org, or only Darkstar's
> altered versions?
How, pray tell did Robert alter Mr. Lucas interview from the August
2005 Starlog interview? For that matter, using your own twisted
"logic", how do I know that you haven't twisted around the quotes.
Given what I've seen and personally experianced, Dice, you'll pardon me
for being extremely skeptical of your word.
> > If you wish to disprove this, then I would strongly recommend changing
> > the way you respond to me ASAP.
>
> As long as you continue to paly Darkstar's lapdog, I'll treat you with
> as much respect as I would treat him.
>
> >>The NX-01 has no way of determining what the weak point is.
> >
> > Sensors. You know, the same ones that can read alien DNA from several
> > km away, as per "Silent Enemy".
>
> Have these sensors ever been shown to detect a weak point behind
> shielding on a significantly advanced ship?
Why is that necessary? It was able to detect something as miniscule as
the DNA of aliens inside a starship, a starship that had deflector
shielding of it's own. Also, your concept of SW shielding seems at odds
with SW canon, too. Remember that shields in SW are not being overall
bubbles, but conformal, and also can be angled. Like ST shields, they
can collapse in indivdual sections ("We're losing a deflector shield").
Why would the IH not have individual shields given that?
> > *Snort*. Non-canon, or at least of such a lower level canon that it
> > can't be taken seriously when compared to George Lucas' true story as
> > shown us in the movies and the novelizations, not the EU, or fanboy
> > wanking fantasies.
>
> It has been clarified to be at a canon level equal with the
> novelizations. I know that Darkstar likes to wrap it up with sophistry,
> but here it is:
> "The first two Incredible Cross-Sections books were conceived to explore
> bold new territory in the Star Wars universe, taking a rare look inside
> more vehicles and vessels than we had ever seen before, and doing in in
> unprecedented detail. These books would represent the most thorough
> research ever done on these vehicles and would receive Lucasfilm's
> formal imprimatur as CANON (emphasis mine). These volumes would
> henceforth be sent out to licensees as reference guides and would become
> useful manuals for Industrial Light & Magic, where some of the artwork
> influenced details in Episodes I and II." doesn't bother to admit that
> Also, you might want to read what an actual neutral site has to say
> about canon. You'll note that it actually provides more weight to the
> various EU materials than the ASVS policy.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-canon
Wikipedia is an unreliable source as it has been compromised on
numerous occasions. Surely you remember the John Seigenthaler Sr.
scandal that happen 2 months ago? Reminder here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm
Could you please cite a neutral source, one that cannot be compromised
as Wikipedia can be? The August 2005 Starlog issue is a good example of
something that someone can look at for themselves. I've seen that, by
the way, and I know that Robert did not alter it, other than to scan
the relevant passages, and then enlarge them.
As for ILM using some of the EU material, or in this case making use of
the ICS books as reference. I wouldn't take as meaning they're canon
any more than I would the various Star Trek reference materials, or the
tossing of TAS references into live-action Trek makes that series
canon.
> >>Those are ships that are roughly as dangerous as a blaster pistol to the
> >>vastly superior SW technology base.
> >
> >
> > Proof? None. The SW tech base, even going by your so-called lower
> > limits, is a few TW per shot from a TL, the NX-01 can ramp up phase
> > cannon power to 10 TW for the forward battery, and considerably more,
> > if photonic torpedoes are available.
>
> That's a light TL you realize, of which an ISD has several hundred, and
> which is at least two orders of magnitude less powerful than a heavy TL,
> the bolt of which is approximately a third the length of an ISD (~600 m).
Which is irrelevant since the TLs on an ISD are not what is necessarily
in quesiton, and we did not see "hundreds" of TLs being fired by the
Invisible Hand. Maybe a few dozen at most.
> >Also, once again, the target is not the main
> > shields, far from it, it is the weak point of the hanger bay and it's
> > seperate shielding.
>
> Please prove that the hangar bay has separate shielding that is not
> simply the force field seen on every hangar bay in every SW ship in space.
Ask yourself this; If there is some big overall shield around the IH,
how did Anakin, as well as Obi-Wan's crippled starfighter, make it
through this all-encompassing main shield? If it was in place, as it
apparently was at the time Anakin and Obi-Wan destroy the hanger
shield, then how was the comparatively weak weapons on Anakin's ship
punch through it to the hanger bay shield generator? The big broadsides
battle with the Mas Randar does not occur until well after this, and
the IH seems to have seen little direct action up to that point in the
hours long fight.
> > Ah, more ad hominem attacks.
>
> Wrong. I told you that your timing was wrong. I then insulted you. If
> you can't handle low-key insults, then please get off of the newsgroup.
> I'm sure you can find plenty of forums all over the internet where
> moderators will coddle you and protect the stupid from being driven out.
> Driving them off, is of course, the only way to deal with an idiot,
> because they aren't smart enough to realize when they are wrong.
Well, dickshit, if you want to prove yourselves, you've done a
piss-poor job. There is supposed to be a thing called Nettiqute. But
being one of Wong and Poe's personal asslickers, I can't expect you to
know or care about such things. Yeah, you pathetic excuse for an
abortion, I can dish it out. I'am not RSA, and unlike him, I don't care
if I use YOUR tactics right back against you. And unlike SDN, you
worthless little bitch, where you can call for Wong and Poe to kick me
off. I don't give a shit over the worthless rules you 'tards set up
here for the same reason you don't care about tossing insults around.
This ain't a moderated ng. I had hoped for reason here, and to maybe,
just maybe see if Robert was wrong. Again, thanks for proving he was
right all this time, Dice.
Oh, don't like it? Leave. That's what your master, Wayne Poe, did when
I whipped his sorry ass on rec.arts.starttrek.tech over 5 years ago
when he whined and pissed over the NX-01 having a viewscreen.
> > Apparently it can. There has been no true canon proof that the IH or
> > any SW ship at sublight even approaches what ST ships can do.
>
> What can ST ships do then? We know that 1/4 impulse is barely enough
> acceleration to move the constitution class Enterprise a single ship
> length in several seconds from the Spacedock scene.
Which is to be expected given that the ship was heavily damaged.
Context is important, you know. Oh yes, and impulse power at warp .5
will take you from Earth to Jupiter in less than 2 hours, as per
ST:TMP. Impulse in "The Best of Both Worlds part II", was enough to
take the E-D from Saturn to Earth in 19 minutes.
> > Also ,
> > there is no proof that the IH can block the NX-01 from making a scan,
> > at least before hostilities break out.
>
> There's no proof that such a scan would reveal anything at all other
> than a shielded ship with a forcefield over a hangar bay door.
It can tell you how strong the shields protecting the hanger bay doors
are, where that particular shield is being located from... Nope,
nothing potentially important.
-Mike
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
> mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
> > Graeme Dice wrote:
> > > Spyderizer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Michael Ejercito wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Post it here then.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Michael
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Holy shit, it's 1999 again.
> > >
> > > Nah, it's just another person who's less educated and less intelligent
> > > than he thinks he is, and who actually believes the tripe spewed forth
> > > by Guardian 2000.
> >
> > I gotta love the way that you guys can't really answer to anything
> > except to flame and spew the religious mantra of Wong and Poe. Oh yeah,
> > anyone who disagrees with you is obviously uneducated and less
> > intelligent that the pro-Wars side (sarcasm dripping)! Nope, it's the
> > same old shit over again. Can't win an arguement so you either attack
> > with ad hominems, or mistate what the opposition is saying. In that
> > respect, Robert Anderson is dead on accurate.
> > -Mike
>
> I have insulted no one.
No, and for that I salute you. But I do note that you have mistated the
arguements of your opposition. Please note again that neither Ejercito,
nor I have stated that in a full out battle the NX-01 would win. Far
from it. However, there is a possible way to win, and that is what I am
arguing ( I think Ejercito is, too).
> I think the TESB asteroid calculations are valid, because the
> assumptions made there are reasonable and the conclusion follows
> logically from the premises. I will continue to think they are valid
> until you can show that either the logic is flawed or the assumptions
> are incorrect. You have thus far failed to do this, but I invite you
> to try.
The TESB calculations are based on only one scaling, Ari. For an
alternate scaling means, take a look at the width of the TLs (not their
length, which is one of Brian's yardsticks), then compare that to other
scalable objects we've seen in the trilogy. In one case, you can
compare the Death Star anti-capital ship TL beams as they pass between
the wings and near the fuselages of the X-wing in ANH. What you will
see, is that the TL bolt widths are rarely larger than the "in-take" of
an X-wing, which in turns means they are usually sub-meter in size.
This is one thing that seems reasonably constant throughout the OT and
the PT. This is also oddly enough, something that Brian Young seemed
to miss in his TL Commentaries analysis. Although the images found on
TLC are not the greatest, they do show one TL bolt hitting an asteroid:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/middlebolt.
This gives us the asteroid with the bolt only a scant frame or two from
being impacted by the TL bolt. As it is in the background relative to
the camera, it will only provide us with an upper limit of the
asteroid's size. So the second image:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/astvapo1.jpg
The bolt has hit, the asteroid is in the process of breaking up and
possibly being vaporized. Compare this to the first image, and you will
see that the asteroid width has expanded from it's original size, even
though the camera has not changed position (moving closer or further
away relative to the objects) in any discernable way. So the bolt
diameter (the trailing end of it) is likely the correct width, the
asteroid material's intital stages of rapid expansion outward add an
element of uncertainty here. The low-resolution makes for additional
problems.
But this being all I have to work with, I'll try and come up with a
reasonable scaling of the asteroids. In the first image the asteroid is
about 40 pixels on the long axis, while the bolt's "head" is some 9
pixels at it's widest. So a ratio of 4.49 to 1. Assuming 1 full meter
for the bolt, this still means the asteroid is only some 4.5 meters
wide on the long axis. So that's 47.71 meters cubed, assuming a perfect
sphere in shape, which the asteroid is clearly not. But to be fair
here, we'll go with the sphere for maximum energy/power. As with Brian
Young, and to be additionally fair, I'll assume solid iron as well.
Volume: 47.71m^3
Mass: 375,668.54 kg
Heat Capacity of iron: 447J/kg
Intial temperature: ~200 K
Final temperature: 1,853 K
Energy for vaporization of 1 kg of iron: 7.6 megajoules
If I did my math right, I get 277.54 gigajoules for melting the
asteroid. Multiply that by the 1/4 a second time taken to destroy the
asteroid by the bolt for 1.11 TW. Vaporization energies work out
roughly to 2.855 terajoules, or 11.4 TW.
This is all quick back-of-the-envelop stuff, so if I missed something,
my apologies. At any rate, this represents a generous upper level
estimate as the asteroid is oblate as anyone can see in the image, and
the TL bolt is probably sub-meter in width. Also, since I used the the
first image, with the TL bolt in the background, the asteroid is likely
to be further reduced slightly in size as a result.
So again, in conclusion, I believe based on this evidence, that Brian
has not looked fully at all the possibilities, and that the asteroids
being supposedly vaporized in the scene in question are no where near
as large as he claims. I further believe that new, higher quality
images are required, and new analysis made.
-Mike
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Lord Edam de Fromage wrote:
> In article <1140043338.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu says...
>
>
>
> > > You are arguing in alt.startrek.vs.starwars. As such, we use the canon
> > > policies of the organizations that own the universes, not Dorkstar's. I
> > > see that he still hasn't removed his misrepresentation of a quote from
> > > me, so he is still just as despicable as ever.
> >
> > You mean the polices that you guys (the Warsie majority of the time)
> > voted into being, regardless of whether or not it was true.
>
> Yeah. right.
>
> the canon policy was developed through consensus (at a time when the
> group had a far larger trek bias, BTW) with the intention of explaining
> why we use what we use. "voting" appeared long after our policy on
> acceptable source was decided, and merely confirmed what everyon agreed.
> There was very little disagreement on our defined sources until Darkstar
> got upset at being ridiculed on this group and went on a crusade to
> object to everything we ever created.
No, he was attacked because he refused to carry the banner toted around
by the dominant pro-SW faction, and their quislings. He disagreed,
showed a strong body of evidence in support, and made generally good
arguements. What you're really saying, Michael, is that he came along
and rocked the boat with a unique point of view, and you and the others
didn't like it. Unlike the net.kooks that I've had the misfortune to
encounter on the real sci. heirarchy ngs, Robert has rigerously
followed the principles of rational debate, and the scientific method.
He has shown a rational alternate explanation than those being touted
by the pro-Wars camp, and backed it up with real evidence. That's all.
> Of each acceptable source the question has been asked
>
> "Is this official Star Wars fact?"
>
> And in each case, the decision has been "yes".
>
> In some cases it is emphatically "yes", in others it is "yes, but...".
>
> Even RSA accepts that there is more to Star Wars than what George made.
I think that's a bit off. Robert would agree that the levels of canon
include some material that goes beyond the movies, true. However, where
he disagrees in in what is included in that list. But to paraphase what
Steve Sansweet said in the SW Encyclopedia. For the true story of Star
Wars, we must look to the movies, and ONLY the movies. Also, because
Lucas is still very much in control of that true story, and has not
abdicated to anyone that I know of, what he says goes. Mr. Lucas has
made it very plain in the August 2005 interview what he thinks about
how the canon for Star Wars works, and he quite clearly noted that it
was the same for SW EU books as it is for ST ones .
> I've also
> > done my own research on this, and frankly, I find that with only a few
> > exceptions, Scott's version of the canon policy is the correct one for
> > the SW universe as it's creator and owner, George Lucas, has stated it
> > to be. The only misrepresentations seen thus far, has been largely from
> > the Warsie side of things.
>
> RSA's version of the canon policy is *purely* canon. Most people who are
> still or have ever contributed to this newgroup would agree that RSA's
> ideas on canon are correct as far as "what is George's Star Wars" goes.
> But it leaves out most of what makes star wars the expansive universe
> that has kept it going for thirty years (or rather, revived it when
> George was ready to milk it for all it was worth). This isn't just
> "fanboy wank", but it's stuff that George Lucas himself has described as
> part of the star wars saga. To us, that's good enough to answer "yes"
> when we ask "is this official star wars fact?"
But then, that's not what George Lucas is actually saying, now is it?
Whatever Lucas did say, maybe 10, 15, or 25 years ago was correct in
that regard, but is clearly is not the case now, if it ever was. What I
have seen, and continue to see is Warsies bend ass backwards trying to
spin doctor Lucas quotes in order to make it seem as though Lucas loves
and approves of the EU as canon. Even before I was really aware of
Robert's evidence on SW canon only including the movies, the scripts,
the novelizations, and the radio dramas, I happened to hear Steve
Sansweet at the 2001 San Diego ComicCon say in answer to a fan's
question that the EU was a seperate universe, and that's why characters
like Admiral Thrawn would not be seen in the PT because as far as Lucas
was concerned they didn't exist. That got me rethinking things SW and
the debate in general.
It also seems that the militant pro-Wars group has managed to corrupt
and delude some of the pro-Trek people into buying into that perverse
point of view.
> You've been lurking here for years on and off, and I know you have been
> involved in the debate elsewhere, so I'm fairly certain you are fully
> aware of what we use and why but if there is anything specific you
> disagree with on www.asvs.org, or mike3's attempts to forward RSA's
> arguments late last year I'm sure we could explain our reasoning to you.
I understand what some people THINK the so-called rules were for. But
it is clear they were used to undermine the situation. People were
voted into power, essentially, and from there everything went from
stalemate to the Warsies in complete control as if this place were
indeed a moderated ng.
Do you wonder WHY the place has so little traffic? You cut your own
damn throats. The insidious nature of the rules, masquerading under the
guise the scientific method, combined with the flaming of anyone who
dares to question the idea that the Federation might have a chance at
fighting the Empire is flame, no matter whether or not that person
shows their work, or what their credentials may be.Then a supposedly
canonized book claims firepower figures for SW ships a thousand times
that of the Federation's is written, and just by sheer coincidence the
author just happens to give lots of thanks to known pro-Wars debators.
Gee.... Then we have Dice patroling this almost empty ng just waiting
for a pro-ST poster to show up who doesn't happen to agree with the
unspoken rule that the Empire automatically defeats the Federation
because that's what Wong, Young, and Poe's "evidence" says should
happen.
Is there something wrong with this picture?
I would say so... This truely IS facism!
> ( with regards to "is this official star trek fact?", we also do the
> same for star trek, only in that case the decision (long before voting,
> at a time when the group was far more pro-Trek than it was even when RSA
> first turned up) was that "is this Star Trek fact" would be limited to
> "only if it's live action", per the www.startrek.com website.
It's easy to understand the ST canon policy since, unlike SW, it's
fairly clearly spelled out for all to see. Unfortunately, even if
George Lucas came onto www.starwars.com, and posted video and an
article on the offical policy, certain Warsies would never accept it,
no matter what. I think you mean well, Michael, but I have to agree in
part with Robert in that your "gentle persuasion, and go along with it
all" when dealing with the opposition just isn't working.
As for myself, I'am just poking around here to amuse myself, and see
how things are. The status quo needs a little shaking up from
time-to-time. ;-)
-Mike
Spyderizer
> Graeme Dice wrote:
>>
>>Nah, it's just another person who's less educated and less intelligent
>>than he thinks he is, and who actually believes the tripe spewed forth
>>by Guardian 2000.
>
>
> I gotta love the way that you guys can't really answer to anything
> except to flame and spew the religious mantra of Wong and Poe. Oh yeah,
> anyone who disagrees with you is obviously uneducated and less
> intelligent that the pro-Wars side (sarcasm dripping)! Nope, it's the
> same old shit over again. Can't win an arguement so you either attack
> with ad hominems, or mistate what the opposition is saying. In that
> respect, Robert Anderson is dead on accurate.
> -Mike
I'm not pro wars.
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
even if you wish to except the so-called rules for this ng. But please
understand that I didn't vote for said rules, nor have I been given any
opportunity to vote for them (is there a yearly or quarterly vote on
this?). Furthermore, this not being an moderated ng, I have no
particular reason to have to abide by them, though you and the other
may wish to do so. That and I simply don't see some of the material
that some of you here are using as canon. So on that point, I'am afraid
we must agree to disagree and leave it at that.
If you wish to try and provide a rationale for me to change my opinion,
I'll respect your right to do so, as long as it is not what Dice is
doing with insults. And of course I reserve the right to respectfully
reject an argument.
By the way, just so we can make something productive out of all this
bickering, what do you think of my rough alternative analysis of the
TESB asteroid destruction?
-Mike
Ari Allyn-Feuer
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
> That's fine, Spyderizer. I respect your position in the debate, and
> even if you wish to except the so-called rules for this ng. But please
> understand that I didn't vote for said rules, nor have I been given any
> opportunity to vote for them (is there a yearly or quarterly vote on
> this?). Furthermore, this not being an moderated ng, I have no
> particular reason to have to abide by them, though you and the other
> may wish to do so. That and I simply don't see some of the material
> that some of you here are using as canon. So on that point, I'am afraid
> we must agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I admire your civility, but wish you would find it in yourself to
maintain it in all your relations here.
> If you wish to try and provide a rationale for me to change my opinion,
> I'll respect your right to do so, as long as it is not what Dice is
> doing with insults. And of course I reserve the right to respectfully
> reject an argument.
>
> By the way, just so we can make something productive out of all this
> bickering, what do you think of my rough alternative analysis of the
> TESB asteroid destruction?
I think that acceptance of your scalings will require more evidence to
cover holes in your reasoning. You assume that no halo effect is
observed, and that the entire observed diameter is all ray width.
Also, scaling from beam width seems rather silly, just because the
comparison is so different. The use of rough equalities is more neat.
Your scalings must be reconciled with those of Wong and Poe, resolving
the canonical contradiction, but until you provide reasoning countering
theirs on their scaling measurements, I am likely to accept their
technique over yours. Finally, you ignore the scalings in their larger
estimates. Establishing a smaller lower limit doesn't ob viate a
larger lower limit.
Alternate scalings are an interesting addition to the conversation, but
yours need more substantiation.
> -Mike
Ari Allyn-Feuer.
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
> mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
> > That's fine, Spyderizer. I respect your position in the debate, and
> > even if you wish to except the so-called rules for this ng. But please
> > understand that I didn't vote for said rules, nor have I been given any
> > opportunity to vote for them (is there a yearly or quarterly vote on
> > this?). Furthermore, this not being an moderated ng, I have no
> > particular reason to have to abide by them, though you and the other
> > may wish to do so. That and I simply don't see some of the material
> > that some of you here are using as canon. So on that point, I'am afraid
> > we must agree to disagree and leave it at that.
>
> I admire your civility, but wish you would find it in yourself to
> maintain it in all your relations here.
If you'll notice, I maintain civility with those who maintain it with
me in the first place. I must reiterate, I am not Robert Scott
Anderson, and unlike him, I don't "turn the other cheek", as it were.
If someone, like Dice, wishes to use "smashmouth" tactics, they'd
better damn well be prepared for me to do the same in return.
> > If you wish to try and provide a rationale for me to change my opinion,
> > I'll respect your right to do so, as long as it is not what Dice is
> > doing with insults. And of course I reserve the right to respectfully
> > reject an argument.
> >
> > By the way, just so we can make something productive out of all this
> > bickering, what do you think of my rough alternative analysis of the
> > TESB asteroid destruction?
>
> I think that acceptance of your scalings will require more evidence to
> cover holes in your reasoning. You assume that no halo effect is
> observed, and that the entire observed diameter is all ray width.
Actually, I did. I include the the halo effect, if it is visibly
observed to be present (not all of the blaster and TL bolts have this).
In the case of scaling off the width of the ANH bolts, if you wish to
have 1 meter plus sized TL bolts, it is quite necessary to include the
halo. Also, the bright white "flash" effect of the TL hitting the
asteroid in the second image is one of the reason, in additon to the
expansion of the asteroid's material, that I chose not to use it.
But here's an interesting experiment for you, Ari. Scale the ANH
anti-capital ship TL bolts *without* the so-called "halo effect", then
apply that to the TL bolts seen in the "clearing a path" scene. You'll
wind up with a substantially smaller asteroid since the bolts are now
clearly sub-meter in width.
> Also, scaling from beam width seems rather silly, just because the
> comparison is so different. The use of rough equalities is more neat.
> Your scalings must be reconciled with those of Wong and Poe, resolving
> the canonical contradiction, but until you provide reasoning countering
> theirs on their scaling measurements, I am likely to accept their
> technique over yours. Finally, you ignore the scalings in their larger
> estimates. Establishing a smaller lower limit doesn't ob viate a
> larger lower limit.
Actually, let us be very clear here; what Wong and Poe are using as
scaling is simply Brian Young's method, and there is no "canonical
contradiction" here. Have you considered that it is Young's method
which is flawed? Remember that Brian is using asteroid scalings against
the 30 meter Falcon as seen during the chase scenes with the Avenger,
then retconning those scalings back to the ones in the "clearing a
path" scene, which is what I'am analysing. However they do not take
into account that the TL bolts are far too wide (or the asteroids too
small) to support a 20 meter asteroid, much less a 40 meter one in the
"clearing of a path" scene. I don't know about you, but there is only
one or two times in all of the OT that an ISD TL exceeded a few meters
in size, and that is not to be found with the TL bolts being fired
here, nor in ANH with the Death Star TLs.
For an idea of what I'am talking about here, look at the TL
Commentaries' Characteristic page images. Ignore the length business,
and look at the width of the beams relative to the Falcon:
http://stardestroyer.net/tlc/Characteristics/index/html
http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Characteristics/flpass2.jpg
I don't know about you, but there are no multi-meter wide bolts flying
around there, especially in comparison to the Falcon herself, which is
not likely to be more than 24 meters wide.
There is also another way to scale the bolts fired, the ISD trench
wall. Assuming a 1.6 km ISD, the trench wall should average out at some
20 meters. The TL bolt fired here is just barely visible a few frames
back when first fired.
> Alternate scalings are an interesting addition to the conversation, but
> yours need more substantiation.
I think I've provided sufficent substantiation. Perhaps you should
provide a more in-depth description of why the Young method of scaling
is so superior, and what areas my analysis (which I admit freely is
only a rough one) I might have missed. As it is, the overall thesis
seems pretty solid, and only requires minor modification based on the
few objections raised so far.
-Mike
Graeme Dice
> Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
<snip>
> The TESB calculations are based on only one scaling, Ari. For an
> alternate scaling means, take a look at the width of the TLs (not their
> length, which is one of Brian's yardsticks), then compare that to other
> scalable objects we've seen in the trilogy. In one case, you can
> compare the Death Star anti-capital ship TL beams as they pass between
> the wings and near the fuselages of the X-wing in ANH.
Thanks for admitting that you have used the Death Star turbolasers
blasts to size turbolaser blasts from completely different turrets on a
completely different class of ships. That's hardly a valid assumption.
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
>>Doesn't need it. The superlaser causes enough damage to destroy a
>>planet 100 million times over and has twice the power of the imperial
>>fleet per General Dodonna's briefing. There are no more than 1000 ships
>>in the Imperial fleet per Han Solo. Thus, each ship in the Imperial
>>Fleet has more than enough firepower to destroy a planet.
>
> Then why build a Death Star if an ISD was capable of blowing up a
> planet all on its own?
Because planetary shielding on a rebel base can deflect any bombardment
from an ISD.
>>Doesn't matter, it's in a canon source.
>
> I watched all six movies, and no Acclamator EVER demonstrated that
> kind of firepower.
The ICS is a lower canon source.
> What makes you think the sensors of the NX-01 would be unable to
> find the shield generator? They are quite capable of targeting the
> weapons on other ships.
Really? You have an episode where they've managed to target shield
generators on any of their opponents?
> The problem NX-01 would have in a total battle with the Invisble
> Hand is NOT locating the shield generator; it is avoiding being blown
> apart by droid fighters and turbolasers and missiles before it can
> destroy the shield generator.
Then it can never win, since it would first have to get through the
shields before it can attack the atmospheric force field generator.
Graeme Dice
> Chuck wrote:
<snip>
>>Oh, Mike's an old school Trekkie all right. Wayne can probably tell a
>>few stories. I believe an ISD was supposed to be less than a
>>kilometer in size...
>
>
>As for the
> ISD scaling issue, it's been done to death, and I'am quite convinced of
> the evidence against the 1.6 km size, except in a few instances.
Then present this evidence.
> This thread has been an excellent case in point; neither Ejercito, nor
> I have stated anything like what Dice attributed to us!
Bullshit. You've stated that the Enterprise NX-01 would be able to
defeat the IH in any kind of fight. This would require it to actually
be able to damage the ship when its shields were up.
>When asked for
> real canon evidence, you pick a fanwank book of questionable accuracy
> and canon to back anything up.
It's a canon book. If you wish to change newsgroup policy, the
procedure is clearly outlined in the ASVS R&R.
>You speak of us disregarding canon when
> it's inconvenient, yet routinely do so all the time yourselves. You
> won't even admit to the possibility of the NX-01 carrying out an attack
> on the IH's hanger bay shield generator, and succeeding.
We won't admit to it because that's NOT HOW THE INVISIBLE HAND WAS
DESTROYED IN THE FIRST PLACE!
> Oh and another thing, it's funny how you require ever increasing
> standards for the pro-Trek side of an argument, but require so little
> for your own. Everything Robert said was true, has been proven. Thank
> you.
We require proof from the rampant trekkies because they don't bother to
document their sources. The wars sources and arguments are mostly
clearly documented, and we tend to be more than happy to provide that
documentation to you should you request it.
I'm also quite happy to accept your concession on every single one of my
rebuttals that you ignored.
Graeme Dice
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
>>Then you'll be able to post a link to the files you use for your
>>detailed image analysis, so that we can confirm or deny your results.
>
>
> Of course. But I must ask you this; will you be willing to accept it as
> a viable alternative to Brian Young's now very out of date thesis?
> Let's also go further, will you also, if I were to ask, aid in
> providing images? I know you would for a fellow Warsie.
No, I won't provide you with images. You can perform your own research,
and if you don't actually have the images, then you are most likely
lying when you claim to have performed the analysis yourself.
> Really? Could you post your verification of Young's work. By the way,
> could you also fill me in on Young's technical background training that
> qualifies him for this? I noticed you're so-called arguements are
> devolving into Appeal to Authority Fallacy, so before we go on, could
> you provide those, please?
Can you point out any mistakes in Young's work? Nope? Then his
qualifications are irrelevant.
>>You can discuss it on the newsgroup in public, or not at all.
>
>
> Oh really? Why are you making this into such a false dilemma choice?
> There is little or no reason we cannot discuss this on our own in
> email.
I refuse to deal with cowards who want to hide from the public. Even if
you did email me your arguments, I would be oblidged to post them to the
newsgroup so that everybody could critique them.
> There is no canon evidence of gigaton weapons on the IH nor any other
> SW ship, except the Death Star.
Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections.
> Oh, and if you wish to continue further, please stop this shit with
> attempting place words in my mouth. I have never stated, nor intend to
> state anything about the NX-01 being able to withstand thousands of
> hits from TNG-era torpedoes.
Yes, you certainly have, because you are claiming that the NX-01 could
withstand hits from weaponry on the Invisible Hand. Those are hits from
weaponry that could easily vapourize a Borg Cube in a single broadside,
so it would have to be able to withstand TNG era weaponry to withstand
an assault from the IH.
>Given the possibility of gigaton range
> TNG-era torpedoes, I would truely think that unlikely...
TNG era photorps are megaton range at best. Given their poor observed
performance, they are more likely to be kiloton range.
> AoTC ICS is non-canon, or of such a low-level of canon it not a factor.
Please read www.asvs.org. If you wish to continue arguing here, then
you are oblidged to follow the consensus on the canon rules.
>So of
> course it's canon, and you'll distort any statements made that you
> think'll make it seem as though it is some kind of canon that
> supersedes everthing else, even the movies themselves!
Bullshit. It's correct until directly and irreconciliably contradicted.
Till you can show such a contradiction, it stands.
>>>I've followed the
>>>debate, and I can see for myself that calling Robert a liar, ect is
>>>nothing more than a gross act of hypocrisy.
>>
>>Then he's taken down the statement where he claims that I provided a
>>quote to him? No? Then he's still lying. Has he recanted his claims
>>about mysterious green rings that only he can see in the Alderaan
>
>
> Really?
I'm asking you if he has recanted those claims? If he hasn't, then he's
still a liar.
> Of course it's canon, as much so as you claim Brian Young's numbers are
> for TL firepower. I've already given specifics, and where I derived it
> from. Is there anything more you would like to know, or are you just
> trying to red herring this into nitpicking?
No, you haven't given specifics at all. Please provide them.
> Are you truely willing to accept that? Why would it's sensors be
> blocked, especially in the opening confrontation when the two ships
> meet for the first time, and scan each other? Why, even with SW jamming
> up, would that necessarily have an effect on the NX-01's sensors?
It would have an effect because the SW universe is about on par with the
Voth technology wise.
> I came to that largely on my own. As for you you little fuckwit, why
> don't you stop sucking Poe and Wong's teat, and actually provide real
> arguements instead of just repeating their shit over and over again?
You're obviously a dipshit and a liar, since I've already provided far
more evidence than any reasonable person would require to show that the
AOTC:ICS is a canon source.
>Obi-Wan points to the Riche Maze after he
> locates Kamino's supposed position.
Yes he does, what's the problem with that.
>By the way, what is the actual
> relation of Kamino as shown in that map to anything else. Answer:
> NONE!. No other planet is shown. All we know is that Kamino is "beyond
> the outer rim". Obi-Wan does not at any time show us Courscant or
> Tatooine or any other planet.
I see, so now your entire argument depends on your completely
unsupported assumption that the core worlds aren't near the galactic
core. How nice it must be in your world.
> I think the better example to use is the Naboo Yacht map, in which the
> zoom-in there gives a better impression of size. At least 30,000 ly
> wide.
Thanks for confirming that they can cross 30,000 light years in a matter
of hours.
>>Is it a direct, irreconciliable contradiction? Nope. Then it doesn't
>>supercede anything. Please try and actually learn the ground rules
>>before you come here and tell us that we are all wrong.
>
>
> I'am not really interested in your "ground rules". A bunch of babies
> playing power games is what it amounts to.
Then you are a worthless waste of time, and you should simply leave the
newsgroup, since you aren't interested in honest debate.
> In some of the examples, you would be correct, however, in at least two
> examples, you are wrong. But I wouldn't expect you to care about truth
> here, now would I?
>
> In the third pass, Sulu does not call out any distances, the ship is
> hit, and Spock says the battlecruiser is doing "greater than warp 7".
>
> A little detail like facts can't bother you.
I like it when trekkies ignore that the ship was also supposedly at warp
while Sulu _was_ reading off the distances.
> Or were you perhaps thinking of when the E-1701 was matching the
> warbird's speed and course early on? Oh and there's this:
Yes, I was. The Warbird clearly had supralight engines if the
Enterprise was not able to catch it in less than a second.
> Kirk: "We can outrun them?"
>
> Stiles: "To be used in chasing or retreating... Sir."
Clearly even Kirk doesn't expect to use Warp strafing.
> As you can see, the warbird was inferior to the E-1701 in speed and
> power, whether it was at warp or simply sublight, the Enterprise chased
> it down from maximum warp speed.
How is that relevant? Unless it was from a ship at warp to a non-warp
target, you've simply told us what we've known for years. That ST ships
can fire from warp to another ship at warp, or from sublight to another
ship at sublight. They never mix the two.
>> > and the Orion attack ship in
>>
>>>"Journey to Babel" [TOS2] strafing the lower warp speed Enterprise,
>>
>>Both ships were at warp. How does this illustrate warp strafing of a
>>non-warp target?
>
>
> As I said, it is possible to strafe a lower speed target, be that
> target lower warp or sublight. What about that did you fail to
> understand?
Thanks for admitting that this, like all your other examples is not a
case of a ship at warp strafing a non-warp target. Concession accepted.
>>No, the ship is stated to be "slow moving". Now, I don't know about
>>you, but what good is a sub-light interstellar freighter that's several
>>decades away from home?
>
>
> An automated one, with no crew to worry about such things. We know from
> "Where No Man Has Gone Before", that freighters called on the Delta
> Vega lithium cracking station every 20 years. So such things are
> important to someone.
I asked you to prove that the ship was sublight, not to repeat your
unsupported assertion that it was based on nothing more than a claim
that it was slow-moving.
> I can come to my own conclusions, thank you very much. Of course, given
> what I've seen here these last few days, his "lies", simply mean that
> you don't like the truth. But then again, that's not suprising that
> you've bought into Wong and Poe's lies, and miscreant tactics.
It's amusing that you are so worked up about Wong and Poe. It makes it
blatantly obvious that you're Scooter's latest emissary. That's
especially true when Mike Wong hasn't even been a member of this
newsgroup for the entire time I've been here, and when the only reason
you bring up Wayne Poe is because Darkstar has a personal vendetta
against him.
> Unfortunately, Edam has shown he's a bit of a quisling.
Thanks for admitting that you are quite proficient at ad hominem attacks.
> Would that make it right, then, assuming you are correct? Was voting
> Hamas into power in the Palestine Territories right? Was voting Adolph
> Hitler into power correct?
Please take your idiotic arguments and get the fuck out of here. If you
want to change the rules, then you can work within the rules to change
them. If there's any support from more than the half dozen Scooter
teat-suckers who have shown up here since he fled with his tail between
his legs, you should surely be able to get the rules changed.
> How, pray tell did Robert alter Mr. Lucas interview from the August
> 2005 Starlog interview? For that matter, using your own twisted
> "logic", how do I know that you haven't twisted around the quotes.
> Given what I've seen and personally experianced, Dice, you'll pardon me
> for being extremely skeptical of your word.
Darkstar claims that I provided him with a quote. I did not.
> Why is that necessary?
Because the ship does not have the capability to do something until it's
demonstrated similar capabilities in one of the episodes.
> Why would the IH not have individual shields given that?
Please prove that it was a shield generator that was hit, instead of
merely the atmospheric force field generator that we can see is standard
on SW ships.
> Wikipedia is an unreliable source as it has been compromised on
> numerous occasions. Surely you remember the John Seigenthaler Sr.
> scandal that happen 2 months ago? Reminder here:
That's a red herring. If there was any serious disagreement with the
Wikipedia article, then it would have been significantly changed in the
past year. It hasn't.
>The August 2005 Starlog issue is a good example of
> something that someone can look at for themselves. I've seen that, by
> the way, and I know that Robert did not alter it, other than to scan
> the relevant passages, and then enlarge them.
Then you'll note that the ICS is a canon source. Thanks for playing,
but you lose.
> Ask yourself this; If there is some big overall shield around the IH,
> how did Anakin, as well as Obi-Wan's crippled starfighter, make it
> through this all-encompassing main shield?
Because the ship had already lost its shielding system in the battle.
> Well, dickshit, if you want to prove yourselves, you've done a
> piss-poor job. There is supposed to be a thing called Nettiqute.
Netiquette deals with formatting. If you are one of the whiners who
can't handle being insulted, which is very clear from the vitriol laden
keyboard diarrhea you've posted below this, then you might believe
otherwise. I'll just snip your insults, since they aren't very
impressive, and aren't really worth reading. After all, I know that
you'll be gone from here in a couple of months, convinced that the evil
warsies are out to get you.
> Which is to be expected given that the ship was heavily damaged.
No, you bloody liar, that would be Star Trek VI, where the Enterprise
was hardly damaged at the beginning of the movie.
> It can tell you how strong the shields protecting the hanger bay doors
> are, where that particular shield is being located from... Nope,
> nothing potentially important.
I always like the rampant trekkie assumption that SW shield generators
are located outside of the shields. This assumption is never backed up
by any kind of evidence other than vague claims that it must be like
that. Or maybe you'd like to reference the X-Wing games?
Graeme Dice
<snip>
> He has shown a rational alternate explanation than those being touted
> by the pro-Wars camp, and backed it up with real evidence. That's all.
Really? He was being rational when he claimed that the Death Star
produced glowing rings around Alderaan that only he could see? he
provided evidence when he refused to ever supply his arguments, and
simply made the repeated claim that he had already shown them?
> Do you wonder WHY the place has so little traffic? You cut your own
> damn throats.
No, the place has no traffic because the newbies started going to
stardestroyer.net instead of here. You'll notice that there are still
plenty of versus arguments that have taken place there in the past few
years.
>The insidious nature of the rules, masquerading under the
> guise the scientific method, combined with the flaming of anyone who
> dares to question the idea that the Federation might have a chance at
> fighting the Empire is flame, no matter whether or not that person
> shows their work, or what their credentials may be.
The only pro-trek debater who has posted here in the past six with any
more credentials than a high-school diploma is Lord Edam de Fromage.
>Then a supposedly
> canonized book claims firepower figures for SW ships a thousand times
> that of the Federation's is written, and just by sheer coincidence the
> author just happens to give lots of thanks to known pro-Wars debators.
I love the fact that you actually think there was some sort of a
conspiracy. He thanked pro-wars people because those are the people who
happen to have the most knowledge about Star Wars.
> Gee.... Then we have Dice patroling this almost empty ng just waiting
> for a pro-ST poster to show up who doesn't happen to agree with the
> unspoken rule that the Empire automatically defeats the Federation
> because that's what Wong, Young, and Poe's "evidence" says should
> happen.
I love it. Somebody who betrays their ignorance (Who is so ignorant
that he uses Google Groups no less.) by claiming that I am somehow
"patrolling" this newsgroup because I happen to have it my subscribed
list of newsgroups in my email client. Of course, it makes sense
anybody silly enough to use google groups to read a newsgroup would
think that it was time-consuming to keep up, but then, we don't need to
pander to incompetents.
> As for myself, I'am just poking around here to amuse myself, and see
> how things are. The status quo needs a little shaking up from
> time-to-time. ;-)
I love it. The trekkie even adds the standard claim that: "I'm not
actually taking this argument seriously."
Graeme Dice
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Nice of you to ignore my response to Ari, Graeme. Any other attempts at
misrepresenting your opposition you'd like to do today?
If you look at the TESB TL shots, as per the images provided in my
posting in response to Ari's concerns, you can clearly see that the TL
bolts being fired from the ISD Avenger's trench wall match up with a
fairly high degree with those of the Death Star anti-capital ship TL's
width, when scaled against the Millennium Falcon. None of those bolts
come anywhere near the multi-meter width required to have 20-40 meter
wide asteroids in the infamous "clearing a path" scene.
Do you have an example of the brim trench area TLs that are so wide,
Graeme?
-Mike
Graeme Dice
> That's fine, Spyderizer. I respect your position in the debate, and
> even if you wish to except the so-called rules for this ng. But please
> understand that I didn't vote for said rules, nor have I been given any
> opportunity to vote for them (is there a yearly or quarterly vote on
> this?).
Perhaps you should actually read the rules then. They are, as I've
pointed out to you already, at www.asvs.org.
>Furthermore, this not being an moderated ng, I have no
> particular reason to have to abide by them, though you and the other
> may wish to do so.
> If you wish to try and provide a rationale for me to change my opinion,
> I'll respect your right to do so, as long as it is not what Dice is
> doing with insults. And of course I reserve the right to respectfully
> reject an argument.
I love it. We haven't had a TJ clone here for ages now.
> By the way, just so we can make something productive out of all this
> bickering, what do you think of my rough alternative analysis of the
> TESB asteroid destruction?
It's crap, but that's to be expected from a trekkie that's desperate to
shore up their pet universe.
Graeme Dice
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
>
>>mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
>>
>>>Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>The TESB calculations are based on only one scaling, Ari. For an
>>>alternate scaling means, take a look at the width of the TLs (not their
>>>length, which is one of Brian's yardsticks), then compare that to other
>>>scalable objects we've seen in the trilogy. In one case, you can
>>>compare the Death Star anti-capital ship TL beams as they pass between
>>>the wings and near the fuselages of the X-wing in ANH.
>>
>>Thanks for admitting that you have used the Death Star turbolasers
>>blasts to size turbolaser blasts from completely different turrets on a
>>completely different class of ships. That's hardly a valid assumption.
>
>
> Nice of you to ignore my response to Ari, Graeme. Any other attempts at
> misrepresenting your opposition you'd like to do today?
Did you just use the death star bolt to scale the asteroid? Yep. How
am I misrepresenting you when I'm simply pointing out that what you've
chosen to do is ridiculous.
>
> If you look at the TESB TL shots, as per the images provided in my
> posting in response to Ari's concerns, you can clearly see that the TL
> bolts being fired from the ISD Avenger's trench wall match up with a
> fairly high degree with those of the Death Star anti-capital ship TL's
> width, when scaled against the Millennium Falcon.
Oh, I didn't think that you were actually foolish enough to try and
scale the turbolasers against the Falcon. That argument was discredited
5 years ago. The minimum possible diameter (as I calculated it back in
Jan. of 2001) for the Light TL is about 2 m.
>None of those bolts
> come anywhere near the multi-meter width required to have 20-40 meter
> wide asteroids in the infamous "clearing a path" scene.
You know what? Even if your scaling was correct, it only reduces the
LTL firepower by an order of magnitude. That puts it still in the same
range as Star Trek Technical Manual photorps, which are more powerful
than the actual ones seen onscreen.
> Do you have an example of the brim trench area TLs that are so wide,
> Graeme?
The brim trench is about 37 m high on the ISD2. In
http://homepage.usask.ca/~gdd851/tlpixel.jpg the trench is 17 pixels
high, while the LTL has a diameter of approximately 2-3 pixels.
Therefore the LTL has a diameter of approximately 4-6 m.
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
>
> > Graeme Dice wrote:
> >
> >>mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
> >>
> >>>Ari Allyn-Feuer wrote:
> >>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>The TESB calculations are based on only one scaling, Ari. For an
> >>>alternate scaling means, take a look at the width of the TLs (not their
> >>>length, which is one of Brian's yardsticks), then compare that to other
> >>>scalable objects we've seen in the trilogy. In one case, you can
> >>>compare the Death Star anti-capital ship TL beams as they pass between
> >>>the wings and near the fuselages of the X-wing in ANH.
> >>
> >>Thanks for admitting that you have used the Death Star turbolasers
> >>blasts to size turbolaser blasts from completely different turrets on a
> >>completely different class of ships. That's hardly a valid assumption.
> >
> >
> > Nice of you to ignore my response to Ari, Graeme. Any other attempts at
> > misrepresenting your opposition you'd like to do today?
>
> Did you just use the death star bolt to scale the asteroid? Yep. How
> am I misrepresenting you when I'm simply pointing out that what you've
> chosen to do is ridiculous.
Why ridiculous, given that the TL on the Death Star were intended
primarily for repelling Capital ships? Also pointing out an issue which
is no longer really an issue is kind of disengenious.
> > If you look at the TESB TL shots, as per the images provided in my
> > posting in response to Ari's concerns, you can clearly see that the TL
> > bolts being fired from the ISD Avenger's trench wall match up with a
> > fairly high degree with those of the Death Star anti-capital ship TL's
> > width, when scaled against the Millennium Falcon.
>
> Oh, I didn't think that you were actually foolish enough to try and
> scale the turbolasers against the Falcon. That argument was discredited
> 5 years ago. The minimum possible diameter (as I calculated it back in
> Jan. of 2001) for the Light TL is about 2 m.
Really? Could you link to your work, or perhaps post it here. Even if
that were correct, doubling the asteroid to 9 meters hardly puts it in
the range of 20-40 meters.
> >None of those bolts
> > come anywhere near the multi-meter width required to have 20-40 meter
> > wide asteroids in the infamous "clearing a path" scene.
>
> You know what? Even if your scaling was correct, it only reduces the
> LTL firepower by an order of magnitude. That puts it still in the same
> range as Star Trek Technical Manual photorps, which are more powerful
> than the actual ones seen onscreen.
Actually, the ones seen on screen are often more powerful than the 64
MT TNG TM number. But that's another argument for another time. At any
rate, I fail to see how 1-11 TW as the minimum lower limit places a
light TL in the range of 268,800 TW torpedo.
> > Do you have an example of the brim trench area TLs that are so wide,
> > Graeme?
>
> The brim trench is about 37 m high on the ISD2. In
> http://homepage.usask.ca/~gdd851/tlpixel.jpg the trench is 17 pixels
> high, while the LTL has a diameter of approximately 2-3 pixels.
> Therefore the LTL has a diameter of approximately 4-6 m.
Where do you get the 37 m tall number for the brim trench? Also, I
tossed that little postage stamp pic into Photoshop, enlarged it
1,600%. What I find is that the trailing edge of the bolt closest to
the lower rim of the trench area it is originating from is indeed 2
pixels at the *widest* point closest to the trench rim (although if
this is from the same sequence of images I believe it comes from, the
bolt starts off much smaller than this, and this is the second frame of
the bolt in transit). The bolt's trailing edge does not have a 3rd
pixel to count, unless you were to count across diagonally. So that
means actually that the bolt is NO GREATER than 4.35 meters wide (17/2
= 8.5 divided into 37 = 4.35). However, looking more closely at the
image, the bolt trailing edge actually goes farther back until it
becomes only 1 pixel wide. This means 37/17 = 2.176 meters wide for the
bolt, not 4.35 m. Also, I don't know exactly were you measured the 17
pixel height of the trench from. I got 21-25 pixels from rim to rim,
which would reduce the bolt down further in size to 1.48 to 1.76 m
wide. So you found an example of a 1.5 to 2 meter wide bolt (likely an
overestimate).
By the way, thank you for your feedback, this has been most
enlightening and fun. It's better to discuss these issues out than
trade insults. :-)
-Mike
JJ
Even done it twice. Usually to yell and scream that US currency hasn't been
gold based since WWII.
Then I realize, one of the few things that ever really gets replies to it
are the most idiotic troll topics out there.
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
>
> > Chuck wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>Oh, Mike's an old school Trekkie all right. Wayne can probably tell a
> >>few stories. I believe an ISD was supposed to be less than a
> >>kilometer in size...
> >
> >
> >As for the
> > ISD scaling issue, it's been done to death, and I'am quite convinced of
> > the evidence against the 1.6 km size, except in a few instances.
>
> Then present this evidence.
Chuck is refered to my scaling work done some 10 years ago during the
original Galaxy Class Starship versus Imperial Star Destroyer thread.
It took an unusually large Falcon to get 1,600 meters.
I scaled the Falcon on the back of the ISD Avenger, and found that the
ISD was less than one 1km at 900 meters, and not likely more than 1.2
km after scaling the Falcon with the section of the conning tower it is
clamped on to. The problem is in getting a reasonable scaling of the
Falcon. I found that with the usual 27 to 30 meter Falcon scalings, the
Avenger was not much more than 1,000 m as that section of the ISD
conning tower (note I'am not refering to the globes) sidewalls work out
to a difference of 35 to 1 compared with the Avenger's overall length.
A great aid in this was the beautiful foldout sideview photo of the
TESB ISD model from the Star Wars Technical Journal. Unlike the image
seen here:
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdflank1.jpg
...the SWTJ centerfold is almost a perfect side-on view of the ISD's
starboard side.
The SWTJ ISD measures 25.75" long, the sidewalls some .73". So 35:1 is
the ratio. Of course, back in '96, I relied also on the Star Wars
Sketchbook size comparison drawing, but that is not now a canon source,
so it cannot be considered except to give us an idea of the FX artist's
original intentions with regards to the ISD size.
> > This thread has been an excellent case in point; neither Ejercito, nor
> > I have stated anything like what Dice attributed to us!
>
> Bullshit. You've stated that the Enterprise NX-01 would be able to
> defeat the IH in any kind of fight. This would require it to actually
> be able to damage the ship when its shields were up.
More lies on your part. Thank you again for proving your dishonesty. At
no point did either of us state anything of the sort. Both myself and
Ejercito gave very specific conditions for the NX-01 to win against the
IH. As everyone agreed, the NX-01 would not win, in a straight-up
fight. But we found a way for it to be possible, however unlikely. We
were discussing the fine details of that, and how many IH TLs the NX-01
might be able to survive before you jumped in. So far, I see no reason
the NX-01 could not survive at least a few light or medium TL hits
based on the scalings I've done using TL bolt diameters, which only
show 1-11 TW for the brim trench TLs. The NX-01 could survive to get in
close enough by dodging and taking a few hits, take out the hanger
shield generators,then lob a volley of photonic torps in there and
hopefully ignite the fuel, which destroys the IH.
> >When asked for
> > real canon evidence, you pick a fanwank book of questionable accuracy
> > and canon to back anything up.
>
> It's a canon book. If you wish to change newsgroup policy, the
> procedure is clearly outlined in the ASVS R&R.
It's irrelevant whether or not ASVS "rules" say it is or is not. Lucas
has said what he thinks is canon for the SW universe, and AoTC ICS
wasn't included.
> >You speak of us disregarding canon when
> > it's inconvenient, yet routinely do so all the time yourselves. You
> > won't even admit to the possibility of the NX-01 carrying out an attack
> > on the IH's hanger bay shield generator, and succeeding.
>
> We won't admit to it because that's NOT HOW THE INVISIBLE HAND WAS
> DESTROYED IN THE FIRST PLACE!
But the scenario outlined IS possible, based on the canon information
provided in the movie, the script, and the novelization (which I
outlined those in detail in my exchanges with Ari). Fact: we know that
a fighter can destroy a shield generator for the hanger bay. Fact: we
know that it is possible to fly into the hanger with fighters before
the blast doors slam close, therefore it is possible to fire a volley
of torpedoes into it. Fact: according to the script, there are volatile
fuel ducts relatively close the hanger bay, that can lead to the IH's
destruction, if the fuel is ignited with mere blaster bolt shots.
> > Oh and another thing, it's funny how you require ever increasing
> > standards for the pro-Trek side of an argument, but require so little
> > for your own. Everything Robert said was true, has been proven. Thank
> > you.
>
> We require proof from the rampant trekkies because they don't bother to
> document their sources. The wars sources and arguments are mostly
> clearly documented, and we tend to be more than happy to provide that
> documentation to you should you request it.
Which I have requested, but oddly you seem unable to provide. You're
"documentation"
thus far is mostly in the form of fanboy wank, and distortions of the
non-canon EU. Now you did later on provide an interesting exchange on
scaling the TL bolts against the Avenger, but it was flawed, as I
pointed out. So, for that I do thank you, and wish you would continue
along those lines as that actually gets us closer to truth.
> I'm also quite happy to accept your concession on every single one of my
> rebuttals that you ignored.
Actually, that ought to be my line, Graeme. Note that I did answer
quite a bit, and you then continued to demand more and more from me, no
matter what, and then in return refused to answer most of my requests
for information, except to invoke the ICS, which is of highly
questionable canon status. So kettle, pot, black, ect. As I said, it's
kind of sad that you went to such lengths to prove Robert right. ;-)
-Mike
Aron Kerkhof
>> Gee.... Then we have Dice patroling this almost empty ng just waiting
>> for a pro-ST poster to show up who doesn't happen to agree with the
>> unspoken rule that the Empire automatically defeats the Federation
>> because that's what Wong, Young, and Poe's "evidence" says should
>> happen.
>
>I love it. Somebody who betrays their ignorance (Who is so ignorant
>that he uses Google Groups no less.) by claiming that I am somehow
>"patrolling" this newsgroup because I happen to have it my subscribed
>list of newsgroups in my email client. Of course, it makes sense
>anybody silly enough to use google groups to read a newsgroup would
>think that it was time-consuming to keep up, but then, we don't need to
>pander to incompetents.
Well, I've always said we should invite the new pro-ST initiates in,
make them some hot cocoa, snuggle a bit, spoon, making cooing noises,
maybe neck a bit, THEN slide the dagger in. The emotional damage is
way more severe that way.
NOTE: "Dagger", in this case, is not intended to be a phallic symbol.
Nor is "sliding...in", in this case, innuendo. Let's not go there.
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Aron Kerkhof wrote:
> Well, I've always said we should invite the new pro-ST initiates in,
> make them some hot cocoa, snuggle a bit, spoon, making cooing noises,
> maybe neck a bit, THEN slide the dagger in. The emotional damage is
> way more severe that way.
>
> NOTE: "Dagger", in this case, is not intended to be a phallic symbol.
> Nor is "sliding...in", in this case, innuendo. Let's not go there.
That's okay, you die of the poison I injected into your bloodstream
while you were attempting to woo me... Oh, and your dagger is too blunt
and dull. ;-)
-Mike
Aron Kerkhof
No, see, you went there. That was the *opposite* of what you were
supposed to do. Sheesh.
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Oh, did I also tell you I poisoned *both* cups of cocoa? After all, I
have spent the last few years building up an immunity to Iocane
powder... :-)
-Mike
Graeme Dice
> Graeme Dice wrote:
<snip>
You have both claimed that the NX-01 would be able to damage the force
field generator that keeps the atmosphere in the hangar bay. To do
that, it would first have to take down the shields first. It's
perfectly honest for me to point out that you claimed that the NX-01
would be able to damage the IH when you are claiming that it would be
able to damage the IH.
> Both myself and
> Ejercito gave very specific conditions for the NX-01 to win against the
> IH.
What's the point of your argument then? If the NX-01 can only win in a
fight after another SW ship has already taken down the shields on the
IH, then the chance of the NX-01 winning is so small that dwelling on it
makes no sense.
>The NX-01 could survive to get in
> close enough by dodging and taking a few hits, take out the hanger
> shield generators,then lob a volley of photonic torps in there and
> hopefully ignite the fuel, which destroys the IH.
Except that it has to take down the shield generators first before it
can take down the force field generator that keeps the atmosphere in.
>>It's a canon book. If you wish to change newsgroup policy, the
>>procedure is clearly outlined in the ASVS R&R.
>
>
> It's irrelevant whether or not ASVS "rules" say it is or is not. Lucas
> has said what he thinks is canon for the SW universe, and AoTC ICS
> wasn't included.
No, it's not irrelevant what the rules say, because the rules are based
on the actual canon policies of Paramount and Lucasfilm. The AOTC;ICS
is G-level canon, and no amount of lies on your part will ever change
that fact.
> But the scenario outlined IS possible, based on the canon information
> provided in the movie, the script, and the novelization (which I
> outlined those in detail in my exchanges with Ari).
Then outline them again.
> Fact: we know that
> a fighter can destroy a shield generator for the hanger bay.
Blatant lie. You've not provided any evidence that it was a shield
generator that was destroyed.
>Fact: we
> know that it is possible to fly into the hanger with fighters before
> the blast doors slam close, therefore it is possible to fire a volley
> of torpedoes into it.
A completelyassumption. Star Trek torpedoes travel slower than SW
fighters as you can see them take multiple seconds to cross distances
that are less than a kilometre.
>Fact: according to the script, there are volatile
> fuel ducts relatively close the hanger bay, that can lead to the IH's
> destruction, if the fuel is ignited with mere blaster bolt shots.
Since when is the script a usable source of information? The actual
filmed movie is usable, and the novelization is usable. The script is
only usable where it matches the movie.
> Which I have requested,
No, you haven't made any such requests.
>but oddly you seem unable to provide. You're
> "documentation"
> thus far is mostly in the form of fanboy wank, and distortions of the
> non-canon EU.
I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion of the EU material. It's
valid evidence until such time as you can convince a super-majority of
the people in this newsgroup that the canon policies should be changed
away from their currently correct versions to Darkstar's misrepresentations.
>>I'm also quite happy to accept your concession on every single one of my
>>rebuttals that you ignored.
>
>
> Actually, that ought to be my line, Graeme.
No, it's my line, since you're the one making the claims, and its your
job to provide the evidence to support those claims. You failed to
provide any response to several points that I made, so you have
implicitly conceded that my points were correct.
> Note that I did answer
> quite a bit, and you then continued to demand more and more from me, no
> matter what,
It is your job to prove your claims, so far, you've barely provided any
evidence whatsoever.
>and then in return refused to answer most of my requests
> for information, except to invoke the ICS, which is of highly
> questionable canon status.
I invoked the ICS because its status is only questionable to dipshits
who's self-esteem depends on Star Trek defeating Star Wars.
Graeme Dice
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Graeme Dice wrote:
> mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote:
>
> > That's fine, Spyderizer. I respect your position in the debate, and
> > even if you wish to except the so-called rules for this ng. But please
> > understand that I didn't vote for said rules, nor have I been given any
> > opportunity to vote for them (is there a yearly or quarterly vote on
> > this?).
>
> Perhaps you should actually read the rules then. They are, as I've
> pointed out to you already, at www.asvs.org.
I have have. Why should I have to wait a whole 30 days to vote (do I
actually have to wait 30 days or post for 30 consecutive days or what
here?)? I also still find this very peculiar that I should even have to
vote on something like this at all given this ng is not a moderated
one. In other words, the rules are just there, with no authority really
to back them up, other than what people willingly wish to accept, or
rather are forced into accepting by local zealots. So while I think
there's some good stuff in those rules, I cannot, and will not accept
the canon SW definitions since they appear to run directly counter to
what George Lucas himself is saying is valid for his universe.
Now if you want this to be a moderated ng, I suggest you take the
necessary steps in doing so. Otherwise I just say to you: "Nice rules,
so what?"
> >Furthermore, this not being an moderated ng, I have no
> > particular reason to have to abide by them, though you and the other
> > may wish to do so.
>
> > If you wish to try and provide a rationale for me to change my opinion,
> > I'll respect your right to do so, as long as it is not what Dice is
> > doing with insults. And of course I reserve the right to respectfully
> > reject an argument.
>
> I love it. We haven't had a TJ clone here for ages now.
Of course, I haven't had the opportunity to slam a Transcend clone like
yourself in a while... ;-)
> > By the way, just so we can make something productive out of all this
> > bickering, what do you think of my rough alternative analysis of the
> > TESB asteroid destruction?
>
> It's crap, but that's to be expected from a trekkie that's desperate to
> shore up their pet universe.
Ah, concession accepted.
-Mike
mdic...@seds.lpl.arizona.edu
> You have both claimed that the NX-01 would be able to damage the force
> field generator that keeps the atmosphere in the hangar bay. To do
> that, it would first have to take down the shields first. It's
> perfectly honest for me to point out that you claimed that the NX-01
> would be able to damage the IH when you are claiming that it would be
> able to damage the IH
Yes, damaging the shield generators is possible with just the weapons
on a small starfighter as per page 37 of the RoTS novelization:
"Energy flared from his cannons, and the shield emitters at the right
side of the hangar door exploded into scrap."
We know from AoTC that Jango's Slave-I, a ship well-equipped for it's
size for combat, could fire blaster shots that could only be a few tens
of gigajoules, and a couple hundred gigawatts at best. Saying that
Anakin's starfighter weapons are more powerful is unfounded. Further,
we know the NX-01 is capable of outputting 10 TJ (as per "Silent
Enemy" [ST:ENT1]) from it's forward phase cannon batteries, therefore
it is possible for it to destroy the IH's hangerbay shield generators,
and possibly ignite the fuel mentioned in the script and destroy or
severely damage the ship as per page 39:
ANAKIN and OBI-WAN use their lightsabers and cut a large circle in the
floor. [...]
The TWO JEDI cut their way down several floors into a large generator
room. Huge EXPLOSIONS outside the ship have caused several large pipes
overhead to break, and fluid is spewing everywhere. The Jedi get up and
turn off their lightsabers. ANAKIN dips his hand into the fluid and
sniffs it.
OBI-WAN: . . . fuel. The slightest charge from our sabers will send
this ship into oblivion. That's why they've stopped shooting."
You have done nothing to really rebute this; just handwaved around
about some non-existant overall uber-shields the IH supposedly has.
> > Both myself and
> > Ejercito gave very specific conditions for the NX-01 to win against the
> > IH.
> What's the point of your argument then? If the NX-01 can only win in a
> fight after another SW ship has already taken down the shields on the
> IH, then the chance of the NX-01 winning is so small that dwelling on it
> makes no sense.
There is no evidence on your part that says the IH had it's shields
taken down before Anakin's fighter fired on the hanger bay shields.
This "overall shield" fallacy you and the other pro-Wars people have
cooked up is unsupported by anything other than the non-canon material,
if even that. You might as well be saying that the Rebel plan to
destroy the DS1 in ANH is not worth considering, either for the same
reasons. It may be a difficult task to do, but it was and is possible.
The same true of the NX-01 fighting the IH. It IS possible to destroy
the IH by taking down the shields protecting the bay, and then lobbing
torpedoes into it. As pointed out above with real canon evidence, this
is can be done.
> > close enough by dodging and taking a few hits, take out the hanger
> > shield generators,then lob a volley of photonic torps in there and
> > hopefully ignite the fuel, which destroys the IH.
> Except that it has to take down the shield generators first before it
> can take down the force field generator that keeps the atmosphere in.
Again, as you keep asking of me; provide some real canon evidence of
these all-encompassing uber-shields you claim exists around the IH. The
IH does not fight the Ras Ramdar until much later than this.
> No, it's not irrelevant what the rules say, because the rules are based
> on the actual canon policies of Paramount and Lucasfilm. The AOTC;ICS
> is G-level canon, and no amount of lies on your part will ever change
> that fact.
Bullshit. The very man who created and still is very much in control of
things; George Lucas has stated otherwise, not once but several times.
But here's the most damning and recent quote yet:
"STARLOG: The Star Wars Universe is so large and diverse. Do you ever
find yourself confused by the subsidiary material that's in the novels,
comics, and other offshoots?
LUCAS: I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I
don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my
world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is
they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or
something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When
I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we
decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe
and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent
with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to
go off in other directions."
- George Lucas, Flannelled One, Aug. 2005 - "New Hopes" interview in
Starlog #337
So, uh, who's lying here again, Graeme? George Lucas?
> > But the scenario outlined IS possible, based on the canon information
> > provided in the movie, the script, and the novelization (which I
> > outlined those in detail in my exchanges with Ari).
> Then outline them again.
Already done above. You can also go back through the thread and read
the previous outline I provided Ari. But for now, I'd like to see you
actually answer those instead of trying to handwave away things, or
make more ridiculous demands for evidence already provided.
> > Fact: according to the script, there are volatile
> > fuel ducts relatively close the hanger bay, that can lead to the IH's
> > destruction, if the fuel is ignited with mere blaster bolt shots.
> Since when is the script a usable source of information? The actual
> filmed movie is usable, and the novelization is usable. The script is
> only usable where it matches the movie.
Since when is it not? And by whom do decide that the script is
unusuable in this instance? The only contradiction to the movie is
Anakin and Obi Wan running through the fuel ducts in the first place.
But something eventually lead to the IH's destruction in the movie well
AFTER the battle with RSS Mas Ramdar. Explosive fuel and or atmospheric
entry, or internal systems failure are the only likely canidates in
this situation, and the script explicitly describes the volatile fuel.
> >Fact: we
> > know that it is possible to fly into the hanger with fighters before
> >the blast doors slam close, therefore it is possible to fire a volley
> > of torpedoes into it.
> A completelyassumption. Star Trek torpedoes travel slower than SW
> fighters as you can see them take multiple seconds to cross distances
> that are less than a kilometre.
Just as we have seen torpedoes cover millions of km in minutes
(examples: ST:TMP with the Klingons firing on V'Ger, and "Half a Life"
[TNG4]). So your point being exactly.... what? That photon(ic)
torpedoes can be fired at varible speeds?
>but oddly you seem unable to provide. You're
> >"documentation"
> > thus far is mostly in the form of fanboy wank, and distortions of the
> > non-canon EU.
>I don't give a rat's ass about your opinion of the EU material. It's
> valid evidence until such time as you can convince a super-majority of
> the people in this newsgroup that the canon policies should be changed
> away from their currently correct versions to Darkstar's misrepresentations.
What majority? There's a whole whopping 4-5 people left on this ng,
myself included! But then again, that hardly matters since this ng
isn't really moderated, either...
Also, I'd like you to explain to me why, over and over again, why the
above-provided quote from Mr. Lucas himself to the third-party Starlog
magazine represents "Darkstar's misrepresentations"? How can any
reasonable person come up with anything other than that the man who
still controls his creation is stating anything other than that the EU
is non-canon?
Did I miss another, more recent interview perhaps where Mr. Lucas
decided otherwise, Graeme?
> > Which I have requested,
> No, you haven't made any such requests.
Well, I most certainly am now. So how about it? Well, to be fair, you
did properly respond to my analysis of the TL bolt widths. So I do
thank you for that, and wish you to continue to do so more often.
> > for information, except to invoke the ICS, which is of highly
> > questionable canon status.
> I invoked the ICS because its status is only questionable to dipshits
> who's self-esteem depends on Star Trek defeating Star Wars.
No, it's only canon to little Warsies who need desperately to
over-inflate their numbers otherwise they can't win, or at least
achieve a reasonable margin of victory over ST. But the real fact of
the matter is that George Lucas, the guy who not only created Star
Wars, but also is still very much in control of the whole great big
sheebang has said that ICS is not canon. So how can I not consider it
as anything other than "questionable canon", Graeme?
-Mike
SS13
>No, it's not irrelevant what the rules say, because the rules are based
>on the actual canon policies of Paramount and Lucasfilm. The AOTC;ICS
>is G-level canon, and no amount of lies on your part will ever change
>that fact.
E2:ICS bis NOT G-level, Holocron sets it at C-Level. But Holocron is
NOT SW canon policy , either; by saying that he is not BOUND by it,
Lycas directly says it is not canon.
Note also that in no case can offshoot books be used to "creative
reinterpret" tha movies. We know that ICS overestimates "slave 1" and
other things by the factor of 10000-20000 at least. Downscaling other
values by this factor gives us 10 MT for acclamator main cannons - on
par with photonic torpedoes.
As for canon policy, the absurdity of including books on one side while
excluding them on other is clear.
Note also that there are EU novels setting TJs as full output of ISDs.
I also have a SW game where an ISD is taken down by 160 X-Wing shots.
The EU "quasi-canon" (i.e. "not really canon") admittance is sign of
double ignorance: towards Lucas and towards half of the EU materials
itself.
The firepower limit of SW may be obtained from MF not being able to
vaporise a Tie in 2 shots. This is sub-KT for a fighter and below 10
KT for DS1's smaller TLs.