GALAXY CLASS STARSHIP vs IMPERIAL CLASS STAR DESTROYER
val...@vgernet.net
THIS A COMPARISON OF THE IMPERIAL CLASS STAR DESTROYER AND GALAXY CLASS STAR DESTROYER. All
information is FACT. As taken from the Star Wars Technical Journal,Star Wars Essential guide to vehichles, The Star Trek TNG
Technichal Manual(both interactive and book versions), the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Omnipedia. I make no
decisions on the winner. I leave that up to your own universe choice.
LENGTH:
The Galaxy Class Star ship is 641 meters in length. The Star Destroyer is 1.6 kilometers or 1600 meters.
CREW:
The Galaxy Class has above 950 people onboard. This number varies according to current assignment. Some of which are
civilians.There are approximately 70 officers above the rank of lieutenant onboard. The Star Desroyer has a standard crew
complement 37085. 4520 of which are officers. 9700 are ground troops. 1000 are pilots of landing and ground assault vehichles.
There are also many onboard who simply maintain the vast interior.
POWER SOURCE:
There is far to much technobabble behind the Galaxy Class’s energy core for me to detail here. But I will go as far as to say it
puts off at maximum production up to 2 terrawatts of energy via matter/antimatter annihilation. This powers all primary energy
systems. There are also Fusion reators used to power the impulse drives but they are a secondary powersource only. The Star
Destroyer also has a good bit of babble behind it but no exact numbers. Although it uses exclusivly fusion it is on a scale that
produces as much if not more power than the Galaxy Class’s main energy source. The Destrotyer’s primary solar fusion
ionization reactor is described as producing as much enery as a small star. It should be noted that the Destroyers energy core
takes up a proportionally larger area than the Galaxy Class’s energy core.
AUXILARY CRAFT:
Transporters are the primary means of reaching planetary surfaces from a Galaxy Classs ship. Shuttles are used when they are
above 40,000 kilometers from a destination. The Standard complement of shuttles on a Galaxy class is 40 vehichles (not
including Captains yacht and possible saucer seperation). 12 of which are shuttlepods for short range and extravehicular repairs
without warp capability or weapons. 3 are runabouts with a max speed of warp 4.7 and several type 5 phaser implacements. 10
are standard personnel shuttles with a top speed of warp 2. 10 are cargo shuttles with a top speed of warp 2.2. There are also
five specialty craft onboard that have yet to be defined. Cargo and personnel shuttles have sheilds but no standard armamanet.
They can be equiped with 2 type 5 phaser emitters for special missions. Onboard a Star Destroryer there are 3 TIE fighter
squadrons, 2 TIE interceptor squadrons, 1 TIE bomber squadron, 8 Lambda-class Imperail shuttles, 15 stormtrooper transports, 5
assault gunboats, 15 landing barges, 20 AT-AT walkers and 30 AT-ST walkers. In an attack all of the TIE craft (save the
bombers) would be launched along with the gunboats. Although TIE type craft are fast they move at sublight so they would not be
faster FTL (faster than light) sensors and only the TIE intercetors are equiped with sheilds. Each TIE fighter is equiped with twin
blaster cannons for armament. Each TIE interceptor is armed with four blaster cannons.
SUBLIGHT TRAVEL.:
Although both ships are capable of sublight speeds in excess of .30c the Galaxy class is far more manuverable. Impulse engines
are the sublight drives aboard Galaxy class ships. Impulse engines propel the ship by exhausting fusion reactants. On a Star
Destroyer sublight propulsion is done in much the same way except that force isn’t as tightly focused.
FASTER THAN LIGHT TRAVEL:
This is an area of EXTREME incompatability. Imperial Star Destroyers use hyperspace travel vs a Galaxy Class’s warp
propulsion systems. Warp is very well defined. Hyperspace in SW is not. But we do know that once in hyperspace a ship can
cross the Galactic disk in weeks(with the type 2 hyperdrive aboard the Star Destroyer). The Galaxy class would take about 15
years at it’s maximum warp of 9.6 (it is impossible. but we will say it just for the sake of argument) to cross half the galactic disk. It
is aso unknown whether hyprspace and subspace are similar or the something.My personal theory is that they are the same.
Warp has a ship distorting or warping the barrier between the 2 continuums of real and subspace contstantly(hence the name
continuum distortion propulsion) in order to push the ship along beyond light speed (this also explains why trek ships remain in
“realspace”) and hyperdrive would, in a unified theory, transfer and HOLD a ship in the hyperspace(or subspace) allowing it to
glid along a shorter path. In Star Wars it is constantly mentioned that complicated calculations must be made before the jump to
hyperspace takes place. This being because it is so fast. This is not nessecary for warp because it is much slower.
SENSORS:
The Galaxy class has subspace sensors which allow for FTL sensing. From all available info although there is FTL communication
SW there is no FTL scanning. This is clealy demonstrated during the SW movies and books when ever anyone mentions
hyperspace. This would mean that a ship at warp would be invisible to a Star Destroyer. But a destroyer in hyperspace could be
detected by a Galaxy class
WEAPONS:
This the area of greatest debate. Phasers and Turbolasers are not entirly unalike in there effect. They both basiclly disrupt things on a
molecular level. But how they are produced is entirly different. Turbolasers use a laser to excite the intial reaction after which firing a
beam tighly focused enrgy packets, Whereas phasers use a treknobabble term called the rapid nadion effect allowing the energy
produced to cause matter to disassociate. All things considered I would say that a turbolaser ofthe same size as a phaser would be
less powerful. BUT an Imperial Star Destroyer has many 60 turbolaser implacements. All together they are on par with all of a Galaxy
class’s phaser arrays. Then there are 60 ion cannons on a Destroyer. They are used mainly in the disabling of other ships for capture.
Galaxy class ships also have photon torpedeos. These would be a major advantage since they work by detonating matter and
antmatter and are like nothing in SW.
SHEILDS
This is a category where both ships would be even. It takes a hell of alot to punch threw a Destroyer or a Galaxy Class Starships
sheilds. The only major difference is that the Destroyer’s would have a greater power surplus.Destroyers also have a weakness in
that there sheild dome is so open to attack.
TRACTOR BEAMS
In Star Wars tractor beams are much different than there Trek counterparts. Firstly the ones in Star Wars are not visible to the naked
eye. Secondly they work on an entirly different priciple and thirdly they not capable of locking onto smaller objects. Trek tractors work
on more of its own technobabble. They work by focusing a linear graviton beam.
In the end both ships would have advantages. The Galaxy class has better sensors, manuverability, and photon torpedeos. The Star
Destroyer would have a better power source, more weapons and the possibility of launching TIE craft on suicide runs. So it would
come down to the commanders who knew how to use there advantages and there enemies weaknesses. If the Destroyer was
commanded by Grand Admiral Thrawn(a brilliant stradagist) he might be able to beat the Galaxy class with a chump at the helm. But a
Galaxy class commanded by Picard (or even Riker who did defeat the Borg) against Thrawn might be more even match .
Capt. Cronan Thompson
USS Zefram Cochrane
Star Trek Newsletter/RPG
E-mail for info
val...@vgernet.net
Cronan's Word of Wisdom #36.The mother of all fuck ups is shooting your self in the foot with a waffle. Think about it . How in all hell
do you shoot yourself with a waffle?!?
Cronan's Word of Wisdom #54.When you put on underwear straight from the dryer it feels GOOOOOOOOD
PROTEST THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
Wayne Poe
On 11 Jun 1996 val...@vgernet.net wrote:
> THIS A COMPARISON OF THE IMPERIAL CLASS STAR DESTROYER AND GALAXY CLASS
STAR DESTROYER. All > information is FACT. As taken from the Star Wars
Technical Journal,Star Wars Essential guide to vehichles, The Star Trek
TNG > Technichal Manual(both interactive and book versions), the Star Trek
Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Omnipedia. I make no > decisions on the
winner. I leave that up to your own universe choice.
Very good comparisons here. However two points need revision:
> SENSORS: > The Galaxy class has subspace sensors which allow for FTL
sensing. From all available info although there is FTL communication > SW
there is no FTL scanning. This is clealy demonstrated during the SW movies
and books when ever anyone mentions > hyperspace. This would mean that a
ship at warp would be invisible to a Star Destroyer. But a destroyer in
hyperspace could be > detected by a Galaxy class
When the Millenium Falcon escaped the Death Star, the Imperials
sucessfully tracked it to Yavin 4.
> TRACTOR BEAMS > In Star Wars tractor beams are much different than there
Trek counterparts. Firstly the ones in Star Wars are not visible to the
naked > eye. Secondly they work on an entirly different priciple and
thirdly they not capable of locking onto smaller objects. Trek tractors
Wrong. The Death Star had no problem locking on to the Millenium Falcon.
When TIEs return to their respective Star Destroyers, a tractor beam
leads them into the hangar.
Chung, Peter W.
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.96061...@filmgate.h4h.com>, Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> writes...
>STAR DESTROYER. All > information is FACT. As taken from the Star Wars
>Technical Journal,Star Wars Essential guide to vehichles, The Star Trek
>TNG > Technichal Manual(both interactive and book versions), the Star Trek
>Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Omnipedia. I make no > decisions on the
>winner. I leave that up to your own universe choice.
>
>
>
>sensing. From all available info although there is FTL communication > SW
>there is no FTL scanning. This is clealy demonstrated during the SW movies
>and books when ever anyone mentions > hyperspace. This would mean that a
>ship at warp would be invisible to a Star Destroyer. But a destroyer in
>hyperspace could be > detected by a Galaxy class
>
>sucessfully tracked it to Yavin 4.
Neither sounds exactly consistent. If I remember correctly, the Falcon had
a tracking device attached in ANH (someone should check this.) And also,
the Imperials are usually pretty good in calculating hyperspace end-points
based on the vector of the hyperspace ship. Secondly, a Trek ship probably
can't detect a hyperspace ship, but could detect them dropping out or
compute its destination (if they knew what algorythm the Imperials use.)
Third, a SW ship could detect a ship at warp, but unfortunately because of
light-speed propagation delays, would only know after the warp ship already
shot by.
>
>> TRACTOR BEAMS > In Star Wars tractor beams are much different than there
>Trek counterparts. Firstly the ones in Star Wars are not visible to the
>naked > eye. Secondly they work on an entirly different priciple and
>thirdly they not capable of locking onto smaller objects. Trek tractors
>
>Wrong. The Death Star had no problem locking on to the Millenium Falcon.
>When TIEs return to their respective Star Destroyers, a tractor beam
>leads them into the hangar.
Odd, we don't know how the two respective systems work. Strange that we
can make a comparison.
Later...
Precursor
val...@vgernet.net wrote:
>THIS A COMPARISON OF THE IMPERIAL CLASS STAR DESTROYER AND GALAXY CLASS STAR DESTROYER. All
>information is FACT. As taken from the Star Wars Technical Journal,Star Wars Essential guide to vehichles, The Star Trek TNG
>Technichal Manual(both interactive and book versions), the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Omnipedia. I make no
>decisions on the winner. I leave that up to your own universe choice.
>LENGTH:
>The Galaxy Class Star ship is 641 meters in length. The Star Destroyer is 1.6 kilometers or 1600 meters.
[snip]
>AUXILARY CRAFT:[snip]
Onboard a Star Destroryer there are 3 TIE fighter
>squadrons, 2 TIE interceptor squadrons, 1 TIE bomber squadron, 8 Lambda-class Imperail shuttles, 15 stormtrooper transports, 5
>assault gunboats, 15 landing barges, 20 AT-AT walkers and 30 AT-ST walkers. In an attack all of the TIE craft (save the
>bombers) would be launched along with the gunboats. Although TIE type craft are fast they move at sublight so they would not be
>faster FTL (faster than light) sensors and only the TIE intercetors are equiped with sheilds. Each TIE fighter is equiped with twin
>blaster cannons for armament. Each TIE interceptor is armed with four blaster cannons.
[snip]
>WEAPONS:
>This the area of greatest debate. Phasers and Turbolasers are not entirly unalike in there effect. They both basiclly disrupt things on a
>molecular level. But how they are produced is entirly different. Turbolasers use a laser to excite the intial reaction after which firing a
>beam tighly focused enrgy packets, Whereas phasers use a treknobabble term called the rapid nadion effect allowing the energy
>produced to cause matter to disassociate. All things considered I would say that a turbolaser ofthe same size as a phaser would be
>less powerful. BUT an Imperial Star Destroyer has many 60 turbolaser implacements. All together they are on par with all of a Galaxy
>class’s phaser arrays. Then there are 60 ion cannons on a Destroyer. They are used mainly in the disabling of other ships for capture.
>Galaxy class ships also have photon torpedeos. These would be a major advantage since they work by detonating matter and
>antmatter and are like nothing in SW.
>SHEILDS
>This is a category where both ships would be even. It takes a hell of alot to punch threw a Destroyer or a Galaxy Class Starships
>sheilds. The only major difference is that the Destroyer’s would have a greater power surplus.Destroyers also have a weakness in
>that there sheild dome is so open to attack.
[snip]
>In the end both ships would have advantages. The Galaxy class has better sensors, manuverability, and photon torpedeos. The Star
>Destroyer would have a better power source, more weapons and the possibility of launching TIE craft on suicide runs. So it would
>come down to the commanders who knew how to use there advantages and there enemies weaknesses. If the Destroyer was
>commanded by Grand Admiral Thrawn(a brilliant stradagist) he might be able to beat the Galaxy class with a chump at the helm. But a
>Galaxy class commanded by Picard (or even Riker who did defeat the Borg) against Thrawn might be more even match .
>Capt. Cronan Thompson
>USS Zefram Cochrane
>Star Trek Newsletter/RPG
>E-mail for info
>val...@vgernet.net
Your research was well done. I do have a couple points to make on the
ISD. (I'll stay away from the Galaxy-class info because that is not my
forte...)
AUXILLIARY CRAFT: There are indeed 6 TIE squadrons aboard (each
squadron having 12 TIE's) in generally the configuration you describe.
There is room for variation there, typically one Interceptor squadron
being replaced by TIE/r-fc's-- a recon/fire control version of the
flat-winged TIE whose function is similar to that of modern-day AWACS
aircraft.
This squadron may in some cases be a training squadron of standard
TIE's. (The final stage of an Imperial pilot's training requires him
to fly under "combat conditions" [read: a real battle] ; apparently,
if he survives, he graduates...
The bit about TIE Interceptors having shields is just plain wrong.
They are unshielded like normal TIE's but are faster and have more
firepower (4 cannons instead of 2).
Gunboats (or "Blastboats", depending on your source,) are not
necessarily standard complement, but may very well be onboard. They
*do* have shields, and are meant to fill the gap between fighters &
capital-scale craft.
TIE Bombers, by the way, also do not have shields, but their hull is
heavily armored, as they were meant to withstand groundfire when doing
surface strikes.
WEAPONS: You mentioned ST photon torpedoes, but nothing at all about
SW solid weapons. The ISD has no solid weapon launchers; these weapons
are all delivered by its bomber/gunboat complement. There is some
contradiction in SW literature as to the power & use of these weapons,
but I think the general consensus is that there are these 4:
Concussion Missiles: Small, fast homing missiles with a potent
warhead meant for anti-fighter work and everyday ground-support
strikes. [Carried by TIE Bombers & Gunboats]
Proton Torpedoes: Debatable as to whether or not these are guided
(selectable, perhaps?), Torpedoes carry low-yield nuclear warheads and
are certainly not quite as powerful as ST photon torps. [Carried by
TIE Bombers, sometimes by Gunboats]
Heavy Rockets/Heavy Bombs: Two variations on the same weapon, they
carry HIGH-yield (probably nuclear) explosives meant for crippling
capital ships. Both are unguided, the difference being the Rocket
sacrifices some warhead space for a propulsion motor to provide a
little speed, whereas the Bomb is simply a ballistic warhead that
travels on the same trajectory & speed as when it is released.
[Carried on TIE Bombers ONLY]
*Note that TIE Bombers don't have ALL these weapons every time they
launched; they are loaded according to the mission.*
Again, all this info on SW solid weapons is arguable, because the
literature is contradictory. [In the TIE Fighter PC Game, for
instance, TIE's & TIE Interceptors are capable of being fitted w/
Conc.Missiles, an anomoly that is present nowhere else. Also, the
actual power of Proton Torps is ambiguious-- etc,etc,etc...
Be aware, however, that a Star Destroyer's fighter wing would likely
be a force to be reckoned with in a potential conflict w/ a Galaxy (or
ANY Fed ship, for that matter. The earth-based Federation seems to
have completely abandoned the reasoning for fightercraft in a naval
conflict. A last thing to keep in mind is that unlike the Star Trek
keyboard/computer contolled small craft, SW fighters are controlled by
a pilot with a joystick/yoke who has every reason to move in radical,
random maneuvers, and who is flying a TIE, which is built specifically
for speed & maneuverability. It is likely ST computer predictors will
have a hard time keeping up with this.
SHIELDS: SW shields are slightly different than ST shields in that in
SW they are made up of flat "sections" that closely follow the
contours of the ship, as opposed to the "bubble" sometimes visible in
ST. No adv/disadv, just a difference. SW craft never have to lower
their combat shields to perform any sort of action <I don't feel like
getting into the technical aspects of this, just go figure..:) >. You
are right about the ISD's shield generators being in an exposed
position; of course you have to get through the shields first...
Last, keep in mind that once a Federation ship's shields fail, any
damage to the actual hull has generally catastrophic results. Star
Destroyers, on the other hand, have TONS of mass, armor, and
reinforced/redundant construction, so even without shields are able to
absorb a considerable amount of punishment.
I'll wrap this up here, since it's already gone on longer than I meant
it to. I just wanted to add what I could to your near-complete
research...
Imperial Communique #001045.92v
Confirmed:SEND;TRANS60/64;RECV
Context:6E6;AOPT;ASYS;ROPT
Phasecycle:PSEG144513567390290;LINE
"Do you prefer another target; a military target?
Then name the system!"
Mike Dicenso
On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Wayne Poe wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Jun 1996 val...@vgernet.net wrote:
>
> > THIS A COMPARISON OF THE IMPERIAL CLASS STAR DESTROYER AND GALAXY CLASS
> STAR DESTROYER. All > information is FACT. As taken from the Star Wars
> Technical Journal,Star Wars Essential guide to vehichles, The Star Trek
> TNG > Technichal Manual(both interactive and book versions), the Star Trek
> Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Omnipedia. I make no > decisions on the
> winner. I leave that up to your own universe choice.
>
> Very good comparisons here. However two points need revision:
>
>
> > SENSORS: > The Galaxy class has subspace sensors which allow for FTL
> sensing. From all available info although there is FTL communication > SW
> there is no FTL scanning. This is clealy demonstrated during the SW movies
> and books when ever anyone mentions > hyperspace. This would mean that a
> ship at warp would be invisible to a Star Destroyer. But a destroyer in
> hyperspace could be > detected by a Galaxy class
>
> When the Millenium Falcon escaped the Death Star, the Imperials
> sucessfully tracked it to Yavin 4.
Errr, not quite. "Are you sure the homing beacon is secure aboard their
ship?" -Tarkin inquiring to Vader in ANH.
> > TRACTOR BEAMS > In Star Wars tractor beams are much different than there
> Trek counterparts. Firstly the ones in Star Wars are not visible to the
> naked > eye. Secondly they work on an entirly different priciple and
> thirdly they not capable of locking onto smaller objects. Trek tractors
>
> Wrong. The Death Star had no problem locking on to the Millenium Falcon.
> When TIEs return to their respective Star Destroyers, a tractor beam
> leads them into the hangar.
Not really, the DS tractor beam is never stated as requiring a lock. It
could easily be just a giant widespread field sweeping space around it. It
might be that the captured ship in question blunders into the field just
as the Falcon did in ANH. The issue is confusing because the Falcon is
then guided into the hanger bay in a very precise manner, but yet it
seemed as though the Falcon just blundered into the field, which
apparently is always on.
-Mike
val...@vgernet.net
>Your research was well done. I do have a couple points to make on the
>ISD. (I'll stay away from the Galaxy-class info because that is not my
>forte...)
>
>AUXILLIARY CRAFT: There are indeed 6 TIE squadrons aboard (each
>squadron having 12 TIE's) in generally the configuration you describe.
>There is room for variation there, typically one Interceptor squadron
>being replaced by TIE/r-fc's-- a recon/fire control version of the
>flat-winged TIE whose function is similar to that of modern-day AWACS
>aircraft.
> This squadron may in some cases be a training squadron of standard
>TIE's. (The final stage of an Imperial pilot's training requires him
>to fly under "combat conditions" [read: a real battle] ; apparently,
>if he survives, he graduates...
> The bit about TIE Interceptors having shields is just plain wrong.
>They are unshielded like normal TIE's but are faster and have more
>firepower (4 cannons instead of 2).
equipped these craft with sheilds. This is mentioned in the Star Wars essential
Guide to Vehichlesand Vessels and the books Heir to the Empire, Dark Force
Rising and The Last command all by Timothy Zahn
>necessarily standard complement, but may very well be onboard. They
>*do* have shields, and are meant to fill the gap between fighters &
>capital-scale craft.
> TIE Bombers, by the way, also do not have shields, but their hull is
>heavily armored, as they were meant to withstand groundfire when doing
>surface strikes.
capital ship
avoid phaser fire
>SHIELDS: SW shields are slightly different than ST shields in that in
>SW they are made up of flat "sections" that closely follow the
>contours of the ship, as opposed to the "bubble" sometimes visible in
>ST. No adv/disadv, just a difference. SW craft never have to lower
>their combat shields to perform any sort of action <I don't feel like
>getting into the technical aspects of this, just go figure..:) >. You
>are right about the ISD's shield generators being in an exposed
>position; of course you have to get through the shields first...
>Last, keep in mind that once a Federation ship's shields fail, any
>damage to the actual hull has generally catastrophic results. Star
>Destroyers, on the other hand, have TONS of mass, armor, and
>reinforced/redundant construction, so even without shields are able to
>absorb a considerable amount of punishment.
Turbolasers at vaporization unsheilded matter
>I'll wrap this up here, since it's already gone on longer than I meant
>it to. I just wanted to add what I could to your near-complete
>research...
semirecent comparison of vessels. The most recent comparision would have to
include TIE defenders and TIEDroid fighters.
Capt. Cronan Thompson
USS Zefram Cochrane
Star Trek Newsletter/RPG
E-mail for info
val...@vgernet.net
And God said onto Jesus, "Go forward my son and hide the bones of giant lizards."
And Jesus replied onto his father in heaven, "What a big fucking lizard lord."
And Jesus hid the bones for 20 days and nights
And the God said onto Jesus, "You have done well."
Cronan's Word of Wisdom #29.Play nice
Cronan's Word of Wisdom #53.In the newest edition of the COMMERCIAL BIBLE, Jesus was delivered by Santa Claus,and the
Easter Bunny helped him roll the rock away from the cave on easter
craig edward malmgren
Of course everyone is assuming that it is only one star destroyer,
most of the time destroyers travel in groups of four.
O-dog
On Jun 12, 1996 09:25:09 in article <Re: GALAXY CLASS STARSHIP vs IMPERIAL
CLASS STAR DESTROYER>, 'Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com>' wrote:
>
>
>On 11 Jun 1996 val...@vgernet.net wrote:
>
>> THIS A COMPARISON OF THE IMPERIAL CLASS STAR DESTROYER AND GALAXY CLASS
>STAR DESTROYER. All > information is FACT. As taken from the Star Wars
>Technical Journal,Star Wars Essential guide to vehichles, The Star Trek
>TNG > Technichal Manual(both interactive and book versions), the Star Trek
>Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Omnipedia. I make no > decisions on the
>winner. I leave that up to your own universe choice.
>
>Very good comparisons here. However two points need revision:
>
>
>> SENSORS: > The Galaxy class has subspace sensors which allow for FTL
>sensing. From all available info although there is FTL communication > SW
>there is no FTL scanning. This is clealy demonstrated during the SW movies
>and books when ever anyone mentions > hyperspace. This would mean that a
>ship at warp would be invisible to a Star Destroyer. But a destroyer in
>hyperspace could be > detected by a Galaxy class
>
>When the Millenium Falcon escaped the Death Star, the Imperials
>sucessfully tracked it to Yavin 4.
>
>> TRACTOR BEAMS > In Star Wars tractor beams are much different than there
>Trek counterparts. Firstly the ones in Star Wars are not visible to the
>naked > eye. Secondly they work on an entirly different priciple and
>thirdly they not capable of locking onto smaller objects. Trek tractors
>
>Wrong. The Death Star had no problem locking on to the Millenium Falcon.
>When TIEs return to their respective Star Destroyers, a tractor beam
>leads them into the hangar.
Even though the idea of all these ships squaring off against each other may
seem really nifty there is no way to make an accurate comparison of all
theses totally different ships. Here on earth where people have enough
problems to determine which fighter jet is better, the f-16 or mig-29.
These controversy I about to planes that are real and can be analyzed much
more than two fictional spaceships. So it is fun to make theses types of
comparisons one cannot take it out of proportion and nit-pick at all the
little details. Thats just my two cents on the subject.
Bryan Bzdula
In <4pk5ib$6...@news.wizvax.net> val...@vgernet.net writes:
>
>THIS A COMPARISON OF THE IMPERIAL CLASS STAR DESTROYER AND GALAXY
CLASS STAR DESTROYER. All
>information is FACT. As taken from the Star Wars Technical
Journal,Star Wars Essential guide to vehichles, The Star Trek TNG
>Technichal Manual(both interactive and book versions), the Star Trek
Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Omnipedia. I make no
>decisions on the winner. I leave that up to your own universe choice.
>FASTER THAN LIGHT TRAVEL:
>This is an area of EXTREME incompatability. Imperial Star Destroyers
use hyperspace travel vs a Galaxy Class’s warp
>propulsion systems. Warp is very well defined. Hyperspace in SW is
not. But we do know that once in hyperspace a ship can
>cross the Galactic disk in weeks(with the type 2 hyperdrive aboard the
Star Destroyer). The Galaxy class would take about 15
>years at it’s maximum warp of 9.6 (it is impossible. but we will say
it just for the sake of argument) to cross half the galactic disk. It
>is aso unknown whether hyprspace and subspace are similar or the
something.My personal theory is that they are the same.
>Warp has a ship distorting or warping the barrier between the 2
continuums of real and subspace contstantly(hence the name
>continuum distortion propulsion) in order to push the ship along
beyond light speed (this also explains why trek ships remain in
>“realspace”) and hyperdrive would, in a unified theory, transfer and
HOLD a ship in the hyperspace(or subspace) allowing it to
>glid along a shorter path. In Star Wars it is constantly mentioned
that complicated calculations must be made before the jump to
>hyperspace takes place. This being because it is so fast. This is not
nessecary for warp because it is much slower.
My personal theory is that hyperspace is very similar to a transwarp
conduit. Remember when the E used the Borg transwarp conduit to reach
the delta quadrant? What did it look like while they were in the
conduit? It looked very similar to a hyperspace "tunnel".
>WEAPONS:
>This the area of greatest debate. Phasers and Turbolasers are not
entirly unalike in there effect. They both basiclly disrupt things on a
>molecular level. But how they are produced is entirly different.
Turbolasers use a laser to excite the intial reaction after which
firing a
>beam tighly focused enrgy packets, Whereas phasers use a treknobabble
term called the rapid nadion effect allowing the energy
>produced to cause matter to disassociate. All things considered I
would say that a turbolaser ofthe same size as a phaser would be
>less powerful. BUT an Imperial Star Destroyer has many 60 turbolaser
implacements. All together they are on par with all of a Galaxy
>class’s phaser arrays. Then there are 60 ion cannons on a Destroyer.
They are used mainly in the disabling of other ships for capture.
>Galaxy class ships also have photon torpedeos. These would be a major
advantage since they work by detonating matter and
>antmatter and are like nothing in SW.
Ever notice how SW lasers have a tendency to blow things up? Not just
ships, but trees, cameras, planets, etc. I don't know how disruption on
the molecular level could cause this. Any ideas?
>SHEILDS
>This is a category where both ships would be even. It takes a hell of
alot to punch threw a Destroyer or a Galaxy Class Starships
>sheilds. The only major difference is that the Destroyer’s would have
a greater power surplus.Destroyers also have a weakness in
>that there sheild dome is so open to attack.
The major flaw in SW sheilds that you didn't point out was their
failure to block matter. The Falcon got pelted with asteroids and
meteors in ANH and ESB. And a squad of X and Y wings flew right through
the Death Stars magnetic sheilding, and the thermal exhaust port on the
DS was ray sheilded, meaning it stops energy but not matter, which was
why they had to use proton torpedoes. Plus in ESB when the Falcon flew
right towards the bridge of the SD, the captian ducked. If that were
the E, Picard wouldn't have flinched because the Falcon would have just
bounced off.
-Bryan
-"Apology accepted, Captain Needah."-
Chung, Peter W.
prec...@gnn.com (Precursor) wrote:
>val...@vgernet.net wrote:
[snip]
>Be aware, however, that a Star Destroyer's fighter wing would likely
>be a force to be reckoned with in a potential conflict w/ a Galaxy (or
>ANY Fed ship, for that matter. The earth-based Federation seems to
>have completely abandoned the reasoning for fightercraft in a naval
>conflict. A last thing to keep in mind is that unlike the Star Trek
Part of this stems from "how useful would a fighter be in Trek?"
Below a certain size, they are liabilities with no capability to
absorb a hit or last long enough to deliver a strike while under fire
from practically "never-miss" phasers and photon torpedoes... The
smallest successful types are not the fighters (or shuttles or
Rnuabouts) but the PT-boats like the Defiant and Bird-of-Preys as far
as Trek has done. To put a hundred or so unshielded, sublight
fighters against the dead-eye aim of a Fed cap ship would be just
throwing away pilots and material, IMO.
>keyboard/computer contolled small craft, SW fighters are controlled by
>a pilot with a joystick/yoke who has every reason to move in radical,
>random maneuvers, and who is flying a TIE, which is built specifically
>for speed & maneuverability. It is likely ST computer predictors will
>have a hard time keeping up with this.
This has been gone over quite a bit, actually. Fed and Romulan
fire-control is 99.9% against sublight targets, fast or slow, large or
tiny. The only way you can dodge a Fed or Romulan weapon attack is to
keep moving at warp speeds ("Journey to Babel", "Elaan of Troyus").
>SHIELDS: SW shields are slightly different than ST shields in that in
>SW they are made up of flat "sections" that closely follow the
>contours of the ship, as opposed to the "bubble" sometimes visible in
>ST. No adv/disadv, just a difference. SW craft never have to lower
I remember seeing the Falcon's aft deflector shield clearly light up
when it took a direct hit from TL fire from a pursuing ISD (TESB).
>their combat shields to perform any sort of action <I don't feel like
>getting into the technical aspects of this, just go figure..:) >. You
>are right about the ISD's shield generators being in an exposed
>position; of course you have to get through the shields first...
Which leads to the question of why asteroids, Rebel fighters (ROTJ),
the Falcon (TESB) have no problem penetrating the shields of ISDs.
>Last, keep in mind that once a Federation ship's shields fail, any
>damage to the actual hull has generally catastrophic results. Star
Generally, that's because the weapon hitting it is powerful enough to
obliterate it, I suppose.
>Destroyers, on the other hand, have TONS of mass, armor, and
>reinforced/redundant construction, so even without shields are able to
>absorb a considerable amount of punishment.
Of course the same could be argued for the Kazon Battlewagon (quite
larger than a ISD) in "Basics" which exploded under 3 photon torpedoes
and a few phaser shots.
------------------------------------------------------------
"Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the
general, the more he contributes to maneuver, the less he
demands in slaughter." - Churchill.
LLOUISE
Let's just look at the numbers. Take the total number aboard a standard
Fedaration ship, divide it by half or three-quarters (fighter pilots
require more training and skill) and put that number of SW fighters
against a ST ship. Look at the number of ships DS9 destroyed with all
their rotatiting turrets and such. I don't recall the number, but the SW
fighters would be a forminable foe in forminable numbers.
Wayne Poe
On 13 Jun 1996, Bryan Bzdula wrote:
> The major flaw in SW sheilds that you didn't point out was their
> failure to block matter. The Falcon got pelted with asteroids and
> meteors in ANH and ESB. And a squad of X and Y wings flew right through
> the Death Stars magnetic sheilding, and the thermal exhaust port on the
> DS was ray sheilded, meaning it stops energy but not matter, which was
> why they had to use proton torpedoes. Plus in ESB when the Falcon flew
> right towards the bridge of the SD, the captian ducked. If that were
> the E, Picard wouldn't have flinched because the Falcon would have just
> bounced off.
You're wrong here, Bryan. The asteroids bounced off the shields of the
Falcon in TESB. If they didn't, the Falcon would have been hulled. If you
want absolute proof of this, read the novelization of ANH. Get to the
part where the Millenium Falcon returns to normal space at Alderaan's coords.
I quote, and paraphrase! :
"Gigantic chunks of glowing stone appeared out of the nothingness, barely
shunted aside by the ship's deflectors. The strain caused the MF to begin
shuddering violently."
"Only the fact that the cautious Solo always emerged from supralight
travel with his deflectors up-just in case any of many unfriendly folks
might be waiting for him-had saved the freighter from instant destruction."
Wayne Poe
On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Mike Dicenso wrote:
> > > SENSORS: > The Galaxy class has subspace sensors which allow for FTL
> > sensing. From all available info although there is FTL communication > SW
> > there is no FTL scanning. This is clealy demonstrated during the SW movies
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > When the Millenium Falcon escaped the Death Star, the Imperials
> > sucessfully tracked it to Yavin 4.
>
> Errr, not quite. "Are you sure the homing beacon is secure aboard their
> ship?" -Tarkin inquiring to Vader in ANH.
TARKIN: Are they away? VADER: They have just made the jump into hyperspace.
You're not following what I disputed. Irregardless of the homing beacon,
the Imperials are STILL CAPABLE of tracking it through hyperspace.
Something that was said to be impossible above.
> > > TRACTOR BEAMS > In Star Wars tractor beams are much different than there
> > Trek counterparts. Firstly the ones in Star Wars are not visible to the
> > naked > eye. Secondly they work on an entirly different priciple and
> > thirdly they not capable of locking onto smaller objects. Trek tractors
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Wrong. The Death Star had no problem locking on to the Millenium Falcon.
> > When TIEs return to their respective Star Destroyers, a tractor beam
> > leads them into the hangar.
>
> Not really, the DS tractor beam is never stated as requiring a lock. It
> could easily be just a giant widespread field sweeping space around it. It
you're not saying the DS couldn't lock on anything, could you? Besides,
what was disputed was above, that SW tractors "are not capable of locking
onto smaller objects."
Good to see you back, Mike!
Wayne
Chung, Peter W.
Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> wrote:
>On 13 Jun 1996, Bryan Bzdula wrote:
>> The major flaw in SW sheilds that you didn't point out was their
>> failure to block matter. The Falcon got pelted with asteroids and
>> meteors in ANH and ESB. And a squad of X and Y wings flew right through
>> the Death Stars magnetic sheilding, and the thermal exhaust port on the
>> DS was ray sheilded, meaning it stops energy but not matter, which was
>> why they had to use proton torpedoes. Plus in ESB when the Falcon flew
>> right towards the bridge of the SD, the captian ducked. If that were
>> the E, Picard wouldn't have flinched because the Falcon would have just
>> bounced off.
>You're wrong here, Bryan. The asteroids bounced off the shields of the
>Falcon in TESB. If they didn't, the Falcon would have been hulled. If you
>want absolute proof of this, read the novelization of ANH. Get to the
>part where the Millenium Falcon returns to normal space at Alderaan's coords.
Then why could Solo tell the difference between the asteroid ( either
quite small or a glancing blow, mind you) and a laser hit by the
*sound* it made striking ... the hull? Curious :)
And of course it still doesn't explain the Falcon latching onto the
ISD in TESB, but thats for another day :)
Chung, Peter W.
llo...@aol.com (LLOUISE) wrote:
>Let's just look at the numbers. Take the total number aboard a standard
>Fedaration ship, divide it by half or three-quarters (fighter pilots
>require more training and skill) and put that number of SW fighters
>against a ST ship.
Lets say for the heck of it, we send 430 TIEs at say a
Consitution-class ship, movie-era. A TIE is probably not going to do
any damage to its shields, just because the Enterprise has taken hits
that far exceed the power of even ISD firepower (ref. "Balance of
Terror" and "Deadly Years"). 430 TIE's won't do any better.
>Look at the number of ships DS9 destroyed with all
>their rotatiting turrets and such. I don't recall the number, but the SW
>fighters would be a forminable foe in forminable numbers.
You must be refering to "Way of The Warrior" where DS-9 was under
attack from a fleet of Klingon Warships (not fighters, mind you.) A
good portion of the smaller Bird-Of-Preys were destroyed outright and
the larger Battlecruisers and Vor'cha Attack Cruisers were falling
one-by-one.
The problem any force will have against a Fed or Romulan capital ship
is its 99.9% accuracy at sublight targets. To even have a chance to
dodge would require moving at FTL speeds. Of the major Trek powers,
only the Klingons prefer to use manual aiming and the Dominion's
Jem'hedar ships tend to miss evading targets.
The primary reason that fighters are so dominant in SW is because
SW-fire-control systems are extremely poor. Remember the
manual-targeting of fighters done by the gun-crew on the Falcon and
the TL-turrets on the DS in ANH? No wonder they were missing the
fighters and the only thing that could deal with them are other
fighters.
And in a more recent episode of Voyager (bleh) in "Basics", a Kazon
battlewagon which is quite a bit more massive than a ISD was destroyed
with 3 photon torpedoes and a few phaser shots.
Precursor
st...@jetson.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>from practically "never-miss" phasers and photon torpedoes... The
Fed and Romulan
>fire-control is 99.9% against sublight targets, fast or slow, large or
>tiny.
"Never-miss"? "99.9%" hit accuracy? Come on now, you sound like a
spokesman for a galactic arms dealer!
>I remember seeing the Falcon's aft deflector shield clearly light up
>when it took a direct hit from TL fire from a pursuing ISD (TESB).
Yeah, I know that scene. It's an aft shield hit. If I remember
correctly, it was also a hit that wiped out the rear deflectors,
prompting Han to turn and "attack" the ISD. There are other scenes in
SW (like the Battle of Hoth) where there seem to be random flak-like
explosions around the ships. These IMO are also shield hits.
Also, for those of you who don't know some of the more obscure
knowledge about the Falcon, the shield generators it carries are
capital-ship scale, stolen from <I think> Kuat Drive Yards. [ref: Star
Wars Source Book] He can't keep them up all the time because of energy
consumption reasons, but they do allow the MF to withstand hits that
would destroy most stock light freighters. This probably has an effect
on most people's perception of the power of turbolasers.
>Which leads to the question of why asteroids, Rebel fighters (ROTJ),
>the Falcon (TESB) have no problem penetrating the shields of ISDs.
OK, tech mode on-- :)
There are two types of shielding in SW; particle (or "magnetic")
shielding, and ray/energy shielding. Ray shielding is only found on
military craft (in fact it is usually illegal on civilian ships) and
stops only energy-- solid matter can pass through. These shields are
always up during combat and there is no reason to drop them. These are
the shields that would probably block ST transporter beams....(I saw
that subject in another thread)
Now it is obvious that SW ships can fire through their own shields--
they do it all the time, and there is no explanation given. My guess
is that the shields are polarized, or modulated in some way to let
energy pass through in one direction only. Anybody who has any
thoughts on this please let me know.
Particle/magnetic shielding is what you see the Rebel fighters pass
through on their way to attack the 1st Death Star (remember the
turbulence?), and also what cover the opening of SW landing bays. They
keep atmosphere in while having their power regulated to let ships
pass through. These shields are found on all ships as a matter of
necessity to deflect micro-meteors and such. On military ships they
can be cranked up when there is a danger of attack by solid weapons (a
rarity in SW), but they are not infallible, and something with
constant directional thrust will eventually get through, and an
inanimate object with enough mass could break through. That was the
danger in the asteroid field: some of those asteroids were BIG...
>>Last, keep in mind that once a Federation ship's shields fail, any
>>damage to the actual hull has generally catastrophic results. Star
>Generally, that's because the weapon hitting it is powerful enough to
>obliterate it, I suppose.
>>Destroyers, on the other hand, have TONS of mass, armor, and
>>reinforced/redundant construction, so even without shields are able to
>>absorb a considerable amount of punishment.
>Of course the same could be argued for the Kazon Battlewagon (quite
>larger than a ISD) in "Basics" which exploded under 3 photon torpedoes
>and a few phaser shots.
Who can say that this Kazon battlewagon isn't just a huge empty shell
with some catwalks & control rooms inside? Any body ever seen a
diagram of one?
Also, only 3 torpedoes? It seems like Trek weapons have a problem with
consistency too. At the end of ST VI, a saw that Bird of Prey take
about 6 or 7 torp hits in succesion before it exploded, and unless I'm
wrong, a Bird of Prey is a pretty small ship in the ST universe, not
to mention being obsolete in that movie!
[Cool scene, though! :) ]
Jim Bitterman
In article <4pk5ib$6...@news.wizvax.net>, val...@vgernet.net says...
>
>THIS A COMPARISON OF THE IMPERIAL CLASS STAR DESTROYER AND GALAXY CLASS STAR DESTR
>OYER. All
>information is FACT.
FACT? Wow, and here I thought Star Trek and Star Wars were
fictional! :-) :-)
Please be more careful when choosing what SW and ST groups to
'spam' with this 'versus' stuff. For the Trek groups, it
is iffy that it belongs in the DS9 or Voyager groups, and it
definitely doesn't belong in the rec.arts.startrek.fandom
group.
If I had my way, the only Trek group this would be in is
rec.arts.startrek.TECH
Adrian
Precursor wrote:
> Also, only 3 torpedoes? It seems like Trek weapons have a problem with
> consistency too. At the end of ST VI, a saw that Bird of Prey take
> about 6 or 7 torp hits in succesion before it exploded, and unless I'm
> wrong, a Bird of Prey is a pretty small ship in the ST universe, not
> to mention being obsolete in that movie!
> [Cool scene, though! :) ]
You have to take into account that not only was that bird of prey
advanced (firing while cloaked), but the torps back then were probably
less powerfull than those voyager carries. Remember how the
Enterprise destroyed the BOP in Generations with just a few torps. Plus,
the torps in ST VI were not locked on to the ship, just an explosion, so
they had a less devastating effect than if they had targetted the
engines. With the Kazon ship, the torps were targetted at specific areas
and were thus more efficient. Plus, how do you know the explosion wasn't
just delayed? I mean, when the Kazon ship exploded it didn't fly apart
instantly. Perhaps the BOP only needed a few torps to become innoperable,
and the extra ones just HASTENED the explosion.
David W. Webb
Wayne Poe wrote:
>
> > SENSORS: > The Galaxy class has subspace sensors which allow for FTL
> sensing. From all available info although there is FTL communication > SW
> there is no FTL scanning. This is clealy demonstrated during the SW movies
> and books when ever anyone mentions > hyperspace. This would mean that a
> ship at warp would be invisible to a Star Destroyer. But a destroyer in
> hyperspace could be > detected by a Galaxy class
>
> sucessfully tracked it to Yavin 4.
My memory is at times faulty, so I may be wrong about this, but didn't
the Death Star crew install a homing device on the MF?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. Webb
dw...@ti.com
"He who dies with the most toys still dies." -unknown
Any correlation between my opinions and those of Texas Instruments is
purely coincidental. (I don't speak for TI)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dicenso
On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Wayne Poe wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Mike Dicenso wrote:
>
> > > > SENSORS: > The Galaxy class has subspace sensors which allow for FTL
> > > sensing. From all available info although there is FTL communication > SW
> > > there is no FTL scanning. This is clealy demonstrated during the SW movies
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > > When the Millenium Falcon escaped the Death Star, the Imperials
> > > sucessfully tracked it to Yavin 4.
> >
> > Errr, not quite. "Are you sure the homing beacon is secure aboard their
> > ship?" -Tarkin inquiring to Vader in ANH.
>
> TARKIN: Are they away? VADER: They have just made the jump into hyperspace.
>
> You're not following what I disputed. Irregardless of the homing beacon,
> the Imperials are STILL CAPABLE of tracking it through hyperspace.
> Something that was said to be impossible above.
What needs to be worked out is wether the beacon is able to transmit
through hyperspace, or *AFTER* the Falcon reached the Yavin system. Which
is it? Otherwise one can still say that nothing can be tracked through
hyperpace, but when the ship in question exits, it's destination can be
know *IF* there is a homing beacon on board. The problem with settling
this question is the conversations on the DS, and Falcon concerning this
matter are very contridictory.
>
> > > > TRACTOR BEAMS > In Star Wars tractor beams are much different than there
> > > Trek counterparts. Firstly the ones in Star Wars are not visible to the
> > > naked > eye. Secondly they work on an entirly different priciple and
> > > thirdly they not capable of locking onto smaller objects. Trek tractors
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > Wrong. The Death Star had no problem locking on to the Millenium Falcon.
> > > When TIEs return to their respective Star Destroyers, a tractor beam
> > > leads them into the hangar.
> >
> > Not really, the DS tractor beam is never stated as requiring a lock. It
> > could easily be just a giant widespread field sweeping space around it. It
>
> you're not saying the DS couldn't lock on anything, could you? Besides,
> what was disputed was above, that SW tractors "are not capable of locking
> onto smaller objects."
>
Here we run into a problem that Vladimir pointed out to me, the pacing of
the SW movies does'nt allow for any real understanding of the tech
involved. Much of what we know of is based on observation, and very
contridictory at that. Is the DS capable of a tractor lock? Could be, but
the general wide spread field works as well. Now one possible explantation
would be that there is a wide spread field that grabs a ship and draws it
in close enough where smaller beams do the final guidence into an
available docking bay.
> Good to see you back, Mike!
>
> Wayne
>
>
To quote the female Cenobite from Hellbound:Hellraiser,"We have *ALWAYS*
been here".
-Mike
Chris Kintz
On 12 Jun 1996 18:48 CDT, st...@rosie.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.96061...@filmgate.h4h.com>, Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> writes...
>>
>>
>>On 11 Jun 1996 val...@vgernet.net wrote:
>>
>>> THIS A COMPARISON OF THE IMPERIAL CLASS STAR DESTROYER AND GALAXY CLASS
>>STAR DESTROYER. All > information is FACT. As taken from the Star Wars
>>Technical Journal,Star Wars Essential guide to vehichles, The Star Trek
>>TNG > Technichal Manual(both interactive and book versions), the Star Trek
>>Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Omnipedia. I make no > decisions on the
>>winner. I leave that up to your own universe choice.
>>
>>Very good comparisons here. However two points need revision:
>>
>>
>>> SENSORS: > The Galaxy class has subspace sensors which allow for FTL
>>sensing. From all available info although there is FTL communication > SW
>>there is no FTL scanning. This is clealy demonstrated during the SW movies
>>and books when ever anyone mentions > hyperspace. This would mean that a
>>ship at warp would be invisible to a Star Destroyer. But a destroyer in
>>hyperspace could be > detected by a Galaxy class
>>
>>When the Millenium Falcon escaped the Death Star, the Imperials
>>sucessfully tracked it to Yavin 4.
>
>Neither sounds exactly consistent. If I remember correctly, the Falcon had
>a tracking device attached in ANH (someone should check this.) And also,
>the Imperials are usually pretty good in calculating hyperspace end-points
>based on the vector of the hyperspace ship. Secondly, a Trek ship probably
>can't detect a hyperspace ship, but could detect them dropping out or
>compute its destination (if they knew what algorythm the Imperials use.)
>Third, a SW ship could detect a ship at warp, but unfortunately because of
>light-speed propagation delays, would only know after the warp ship already
>shot by.
Okay. I checked, and SW technology shows that they CAN see a ship
moving at FTP (well, Hyperspace, anyway) speed.
In ROTJ, in the scene where Han Solo and Leia are in the control room
on Endor moon. Leia looks at the control panel and says "Han...
hurry! The fleet will be here any moment!" Then Chewie, at
blasterpoint, has a couple of Imperials go up against the wall. In
this scene, above a the left-most Imperial, you'll see a monitor
screen above his right shoulder. On this screen you'll see a mass of
blue dots moving towards a planetary-shaped object, with words(?)
flashing in red and orange around it.
One can only assume that this monitor is some sort of hyperspace
tracking device, monitoring the incoming rebel fleet, as the fleet
drops out of hyperspace AFTER the monitor is shown.
It must be some sort of new device, as the rebels were so surprised
that they Imperials knew they were even on the way:
Londo: "There has to be some of reading that shield, up or down."
Londo's Co-Pilot: <alien speech>
Londo: "How could they be jamming us if they know that......
that we're coming....break off the attack!"
Adm Akbar: "It's a trap!"
-Chris
Christopher Kintz (cki...@aloha.com) (http://www.aloha.com/~ckintz)
Orbital Death Ray Strike Coordinates - Lat:21.343N, Lng:157.908W, Hgt:167ft.
ADVERTISEMENT: Use Chris' email proofreading service! Any unsolicited
commercial email sent to cki...@aloha.com will be proofread and sent back
to you, along with a invoice for $200 for every 500 words proofread. I
accept VISA, MASTERCARD, CHECK, and MONEY ORDERS. By sending me
commercial email, you signal understanding and acceptance of these terms.
James Strocel
st...@jetson.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>Which leads to the question of why asteroids, Rebel fighters (ROTJ),
>the Falcon (TESB) have no problem penetrating the shields of ISDs.
Well, a Jem Hadar warship was fully able to penetrate the Odysssey's
shields in DS9. Both ships were destroyed. Shields are probably very
iffy contraptions.
JLF
>
>> Who can say that this Kazon battlewagon isn't just a huge empty shell
>>with some catwalks & control rooms inside? Any body ever seen a
>>diagram of one?
>
>Of course the exact same argument could be made of an Imperial Star
>Destroyer. Perhaps it is mostly a huge shell with giant flight
>hangars inside it?
>
Well, at last count from what I've seen and read, a Star Destroyer holds about 33,000
people.
Then again,
>with the E-A having virtually little or no shields, full power photon
>usage is quite questionable.
>
>
How do you figure this would play a part? If I understand correctly, photon torpedo tubes are
basically like huge guns working with magnets? If you've ever played MechWarrior 2 the best
anaolgy would be a gauss rifle (sorry, best thing I could think of for comparison). Course, I'm
going to have to check up on this, but I believe if the torpedo tubes are based on magnetic
acceleration (for lack of a better word usage) they should be able to fire even when the ship is
on minimal power settings.
- Jamie
Chung, Peter W.
prec...@gnn.com (Precursor) wrote:
>st...@jetson.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>>from practically "never-miss" phasers and photon torpedoes... The
> Fed and Romulan
>>fire-control is 99.9% against sublight targets, fast or slow, large or
>>tiny.
> "Never-miss"? "99.9%" hit accuracy? Come on now, you sound like a
>spokesman for a galactic arms dealer!
The accuracy question came up in the number of threads and so far as
Trek is concerned, 99.9% accuracy at sublight for a Fed Cap ship still
holds true.
>>Which leads to the question of why asteroids, Rebel fighters (ROTJ),
>>the Falcon (TESB) have no problem penetrating the shields of ISDs.
> OK, tech mode on-- :)
>There are two types of shielding in SW; particle (or "magnetic")
>shielding, and ray/energy shielding. Ray shielding is only found on
>military craft (in fact it is usually illegal on civilian ships) and
>stops only energy-- solid matter can pass through. These shields are
>always up during combat and there is no reason to drop them. These are
>the shields that would probably block ST transporter beams....(I saw
>that subject in another thread)
>Particle/magnetic shielding is what you see the Rebel fighters pass
>through on their way to attack the 1st Death Star (remember the
>turbulence?), and also what cover the opening of SW landing bays. They
>keep atmosphere in while having their power regulated to let ships
>pass through. These shields are found on all ships as a matter of
>necessity to deflect micro-meteors and such. On military ships they
>can be cranked up when there is a danger of attack by solid weapons (a
>rarity in SW), but they are not infallible, and something with
Hmm, then why are not proton missiles and concussion missiles used
more often against ISD's if they normally operate with "ray
shielding"?
>constant directional thrust will eventually get through, and an
>inanimate object with enough mass could break through. That was the
>danger in the asteroid field: some of those asteroids were BIG...
Still, how does that account for the Falcon parking on a ISD in TESB
or the fighters destroying the shield generator in ROTJ?
>>>Last, keep in mind that once a Federation ship's shields fail, any
>>>damage to the actual hull has generally catastrophic results. Star
>>Generally, that's because the weapon hitting it is powerful enough to
>>obliterate it, I suppose.
>>>Destroyers, on the other hand, have TONS of mass, armor, and
>>>reinforced/redundant construction, so even without shields are able to
>>>absorb a considerable amount of punishment.
>>Of course the same could be argued for the Kazon Battlewagon (quite
>>larger than a ISD) in "Basics" which exploded under 3 photon torpedoes
>>and a few phaser shots.
> Who can say that this Kazon battlewagon isn't just a huge empty shell
>with some catwalks & control rooms inside? Any body ever seen a
>diagram of one?
Of course the exact same argument could be made of an Imperial Star
Destroyer. Perhaps it is mostly a huge shell with giant flight
hangars inside it?
> Also, only 3 torpedoes? It seems like Trek weapons have a problem with
>consistency too. At the end of ST VI, a saw that Bird of Prey take
>about 6 or 7 torp hits in succesion before it exploded, and unless I'm
>wrong, a Bird of Prey is a pretty small ship in the ST universe, not
>to mention being obsolete in that movie!
A Bird-of-Prey at the time of ST6 was considered front-line (we first
see them in ST3). It was quite damaged (if not destroyed) from the
first hit, the remaining 4 photons were for good measure. Then again,
with the E-A having virtually little or no shields, full power photon
usage is quite questionable.
------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Huber
In article <Pine.SOL.3.93.960612140404.16296B-100000@seds> Mike Dicenso <mdic...@SEDS.LPL.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>Not really, the DS tractor beam is never stated as requiring a lock. It
>could easily be just a giant widespread field sweeping space around it. It
>might be that the captured ship in question blunders into the field just
>as the Falcon did in ANH. The issue is confusing because the Falcon is
>then guided into the hanger bay in a very precise manner, but yet it
>seemed as though the Falcon just blundered into the field, which
>apparently is always on.
>-Mike
Most likely, the fighter that the Falcon encountered made contact with
the DS before it was destroyed. It seems also likely that small tractor
emmitters are used for the precision work of placing something in a
hanger, just as in ST. The question I have is, if Kenobi intended to
convince the DS crew that they had abandoned ship long before? Who
would have been on boards to extend the landing gear and shut down the
engines? Unless it would automatically extend the gear and shut down
automatically based on ground proximity.
Bill Huber
o_...@usa.pipeline.com
On Jun 13, 1996 22:19:36 in article <Re: GALAXY CLASS STARSHIP vs IMPERIAL
CLASS STAR DESTROYER>, 'llo...@aol.com (LLOUISE)' wrote:
>Let's just look at the numbers. Take the total number aboard a standard
>Fedaration ship, divide it by half or three-quarters (fighter pilots
>require more training and skill) and put that number of SW fighters
>fighters would be a forminable foe in forminable numbers.
loses all knowledge of who they are or what their mission is. In this
episode there is a war between two low-tech but space-faring races and one
does the brain-washing of the enterprise and gives it false information
about their mission. So to make a long story short the enterprise faces
dozens of small attack fighters without shields and very little armor.
These small fighters in numbers are wiped out by the enterprise as if
nothing stood in its way. Theses small fighters are very much like tie
fighters would be to a galaxy class starship. Also in this episode after
disposing of the tiny attack fighters they reach a huge startbase. Riker or
Data remarks that it could be destroyed with one photon torpedo. Now the
way they showed this station made it seem extremely huge and it would have
to have all of the armor in the world but only one photon torpedo what have
done it in. Remember that a standard photon torpedo at high yield has 1.5
kg of antimatter that makes about a 65 megaton explosion. This is much
bigger than standard nuclear devices. So I think that even with the huge
amount of fighters on a Star Destroyer that it would get annihilated
against a galaxy class starship...
O-dog
Bill Huber
>When the Millenium Falcon escaped the Death Star, the Imperials
>sucessfully tracked it to Yavin 4.
Only through the use of a hidden tracking beacon. OTOH, in ROTJ, the
Rebel fleet is on a display screen in the shield control room just
before re-entering normal space. There is no indication of the range
capability of the system.
Bill Huber
Identity Crisis
Chung, Peter W. wrote:
> prec...@gnn.com (Precursor) wrote:
>
> >constant directional thrust will eventually get through, and an
> >inanimate object with enough mass could break through. That was the
> >danger in the asteroid field: some of those asteroids were BIG...
>
> or the fighters destroying the shield generator in ROTJ?
How about replacing "Mass" with "Momentum"? It makes sense both in the
contect of the examples stated (ships and missiles, etc., move much
faster than asteroids) and physics.
Steve
+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Identity Crisis |
| Stephen Richard Pugh |
| pto...@meta.physics.ox.ac.uk stephe...@balliol.ox.ac.uk |
| http://meta.physics.ox.ac.uk/~ptolemy |
+---------------------------------+----------------------------------+
Identity Crisis
> > >inanimate object with enough mass could break through. That was the
> > >danger in the asteroid field: some of those asteroids were BIG...
> >
> > or the fighters destroying the shield generator in ROTJ?
>
> How about replacing "Mass" with "Momentum"? It makes sense both in the
> contect of the examples stated (ships and missiles, etc., move much
> faster than asteroids) and physics.
Ooops, for the benifit of the scientifically (?) illiterate I should
have said that momentum (p) = mass (m) x velocity (v)
Steve.
PS I should have trimmed the newsgroups as well, have now.
Precursor
st...@jetson.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>> "Never-miss"? "99.9%" hit accuracy? Come on now, you sound like a
>>spokesman for a galactic arms dealer!
>The accuracy question came up in the number of threads and so far as
>Trek is concerned, 99.9% accuracy at sublight for a Fed Cap ship still
>holds true.
Alright, if you say so. Like I said at the beginning of this thread,
my knowledge of the details of ST tech lore is minimal. It certainly
does strike me as being a little on the wildly optimistic side of
"reality":) though--- a nice, perfect universe where governments can
afford such niceties as the Prime Directive, and can get away with
surrendering their flagship every season or so...
But I digress:
On military ships they
>>can be cranked up when there is a danger of attack by solid weapons (a
>>rarity in SW), but they are not infallible, and something with
>Hmm, then why are not proton missiles and concussion missiles used
>more often against ISD's if they normally operate with "ray
>shielding"?
As I said, the ray shielding is always up, the particle shielding can
be strengthened or lowered depending on the situation. It is very
likely that the resistance offered by particle shielding would
detonate the missiles prematurely. (Of course, if the particle
shielding happens to be deactivated, there will be a direct hull hit,
but then we would be back to the armor/mass question below.)
>>constant directional thrust will eventually get through, and an
>>inanimate object with enough mass could break through. That was the
>>danger in the asteroid field: some of those asteroids were BIG...
Point taken from another response: should read "...object with enough
MOMENTUM could break through..."
>Still, how does that account for the Falcon parking on a ISD in TESB
>or the fighters destroying the shield generator in ROTJ?
In the Falcon's case, I would think it rather obvious: it flew
through; like a ship going into a docking bay or the X-wings fighting
their way toward the Death Star, depending on how strong the shield
was at the time. It could do that because it had "constant directional
thrust" so that it wouldn't be shunted aside like an inanimate object
would be. Again, large inanimate objects with enough momentum could
get through with enough velocity to damage the ship.
(That happened in ESB; the large asteroid about half the size of
the conning tower that didn't look like it even slowed down before
creaming the superstructure of some ISD...)
As for the A-wings vs. the Executor's shield generators-- I'm
currently participating in another thread on the Destruction of the
Executor on this NG (rassm). To make this as short as I can, the
consensus is that those fighters didn't take out the shield generators
all by themselves; they opportunized on a ship reeling under a capital
scale bombardment, probably with the help of a wave or two of B-wings.
[Ackbar's order to Rebel Fleet: "Concentrate firepower on that Super
Star Destroyer..."]
In order for the tiny A-wings to make that dive, the shields in that
location would've had to have been severely weakened or failed. The
destruction of that generator then collapsed the bridge shields
completely, which left the Executor open for the next hit... it goes
on & on.
I'm not sure about Federation shields, but SW shields, being made up
of sections with separate generators, can be angled to maximize
protection in desired directions. They also tend to fail in sections,
rather than all drop at once.
>> Who can say that this Kazon battlewagon isn't just a huge empty shell
>>with some catwalks & control rooms inside? Any body ever seen a
>>diagram of one?
>Of course the exact same argument could be made of an Imperial Star
>Destroyer. Perhaps it is mostly a huge shell with giant flight
>hangars inside it?
I refer you to the Star Wars Technical Journal, in which there is an
interior diagram of an ISD. The only wide open spaces are the docking
bay areas concentrated immediately around the two bays visible on the
forward ventral section of the ship. The rest of the craft is built as
solid & as dense as a fortress.
I would not have asked that point about the Kazon ship if I knew
the Star Destroyer wouldn't stand up to the same logic.
[In response to another post, my replies are no longer sent to
startrek.current or startrek.fandom: Any futher such post will be
forwarded to COMPNOR-Coalition for Improvements: Modification,
and the poster will earn a stormtrooper escort to
ISB-Commission of Operations: Re-Education.]
CESAR FIGUEIREDO PIMENTEL(leic)
On 13 Jun 1996, LLOUISE wrote:
> Let's just look at the numbers. Take the total number aboard a standard
> Fedaration ship, divide it by half or three-quarters (fighter pilots
> require more training and skill) and put that number of SW fighters
> against a ST ship. Look at the number of ships DS9 destroyed with all
> their rotatiting turrets and such. I don't recall the number, but the SW
> fighters would be a forminable foe in forminable numbers.
>
>
You must be joking.. in first place, a GC Starship is considered to be a
science purposed ship and its shields, phasers and photon torpedos are
only for pure defense, after all, the United Federation is a peaceful
empire. You dont see Federation fleets going around conquering planets, do
you? PLUS the one thousand and something population of the enterprise, for
instance, is almost ALL civilians.. yeah, those who ocupate the sauccer
seection.. And most important of all, who said that power means
greaterness?! The Federation fights for noble ideals, war is not the
answer to the universe, you know..
PS: Star Fleet personnel do all by themselves, they dont need something
called the FORCE to help them, they got the FILOSOFY
val...@vgernet.net
> Okay. I checked, and SW technology shows that they CAN see a ship
> moving at FTP (well, Hyperspace, anyway) speed.
Wrong. I don't know where you checked but it wasn't anywhere like the Tech Journal or vehichle guide
>
> In ROTJ, in the scene where Han Solo and Leia are in the control room
> on Endor moon. Leia looks at the control panel and says "Han...
> hurry! The fleet will be here any moment!" Then Chewie, at
> blasterpoint, has a couple of Imperials go up against the wall. In
> this scene, above a the left-most Imperial, you'll see a monitor
> screen above his right shoulder. On this screen you'll see a mass of
> blue dots moving towards a planetary-shaped object, with words(?)
> flashing in red and orange around it.
Leia knew they were coming because she hadto have the sheild down by a cerain time
>
> One can only assume that this monitor is some sort of hyperspace
> tracking device, monitoring the incoming rebel fleet, as the fleet
> drops out of hyperspace AFTER the monitor is shown.
Wrong. Once something goes to hyperspace you only track it with a transmitter.
>
> It must be some sort of new device, as the rebels were so surprised
> that they Imperials knew they were even on the way:
The rebels were surprised ecause the emperor had spies leak the new informatiom to them so he knew and allerted his fleet
>
> Londo: "There has to be some of reading that shield, up or down."
> Londo's Co-Pilot: <alien speech>
> Londo: "How could they be jamming us if they know that......
> that we're coming....break off the attack!"
> Adm Akbar: "It's a trap!"
Exactly. The trap was set via spies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Capt. Cronan Thompson
USS Zefram Cochrane
Star Trek Newsletter/RPG
E-mail for info
val...@vgernet.net
And God said onto Jesus, "Go forward my son and hide the bones of giant lizards."
And Jesus replied onto his father in heaven, "What a big fucking lizard lord."
And Jesus hid the bones for 20 days and nights
And the God said onto Jesus, "You have done well."
1: Anything you consider to be offensive is your own fault
2: Thinking while reading this e-mail is illegal and should be
reported immediately to somebody named Billy Bob Bo Jim
3: If you should happen to fall asleep during this book don’t
feel bad, I fell asleep writing it
4: Do not, I repeat do not allow this book to fall into Enemy
hands.
5: By reading thus far you have doomed to insanity so you
PROTEST THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
Chung, Peter W.
jstr...@uniserve.com (James Strocel) wrote:
>st...@jetson.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>>Which leads to the question of why asteroids, Rebel fighters (ROTJ),
>>the Falcon (TESB) have no problem penetrating the shields of ISDs.
>Well, a Jem Hadar warship was fully able to penetrate the Odysssey's
>shields in DS9. Both ships were destroyed. Shields are probably very
>iffy contraptions.
Episode "The Jem'hedar" and the idiot Capt. Keogh *lowered* his
shields to allow the jem'hedar to *ram*. (Fed shields weren't adapted
against phased-polaron fire until after "The Search".)
Chung, Peter W.
prec...@gnn.com (Precursor) wrote:
>st...@jetson.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>>> "Never-miss"? "99.9%" hit accuracy? Come on now, you sound like a
>>>spokesman for a galactic arms dealer!
>>The accuracy question came up in the number of threads and so far as
>>Trek is concerned, 99.9% accuracy at sublight for a Fed Cap ship still
>>holds true.
>Alright, if you say so. Like I said at the beginning of this thread,
>my knowledge of the details of ST tech lore is minimal. It certainly
>does strike me as being a little on the wildly optimistic side of
>"reality":) though--- a nice, perfect universe where governments can
>afford such niceties as the Prime Directive, and can get away with
>surrendering their flagship every season or so...
Its no better than having a ISD getting clobbered by an asteroid or
losing the Falcon cause it landed on your back or missing more than
half your shots when you are supposedly the very "accurate and
precise" gunner of an Imperial Star Destroyer :) Still, the accuracy
holds true (and that's on-screen canon material, nothing from books.)
Oh, you did leave out that Fed Captains also gets the women every
episode also :)
> On military ships they
>>>can be cranked up when there is a danger of attack by solid weapons (a
>>>rarity in SW), but they are not infallible, and something with
>>Hmm, then why are not proton missiles and concussion missiles used
>>more often against ISD's if they normally operate with "ray
>>shielding"?
>As I said, the ray shielding is always up, the particle shielding can
>be strengthened or lowered depending on the situation. It is very
>likely that the resistance offered by particle shielding would
>detonate the missiles prematurely. (Of course, if the particle
>shielding happens to be deactivated, there will be a direct hull hit,
>but then we would be back to the armor/mass question below.)
That still doesn't answer the question. Irregardless of whether the
particle shielding is up or not, why aren't missiles used more often
(or at all) against ISDs? Are SW missiles that ineffective against
ISD's that their use is not even considered in most cases?
>>>constant directional thrust will eventually get through, and an
>>>inanimate object with enough mass could break through. That was the
>>>danger in the asteroid field: some of those asteroids were BIG...
>Point taken from another response: should read "...object with enough
>MOMENTUM could break through..."
Hmm. Perhaps SW should reconfigure their tractors to act as
long-range deflectors to move the asteroids out of the way before
becoming a hazard. (Like nav deflectors seen in "Paradise Lost",
"ST1:TMP"). Of course, I'm curious to see how long SW shields would
hold up under the pressure of two giant doors ala "Relics".
>>Still, how does that account for the Falcon parking on a ISD in TESB
>>or the fighters destroying the shield generator in ROTJ?
>In the Falcon's case, I would think it rather obvious: it flew
>through; like a ship going into a docking bay or the X-wings fighting
>their way toward the Death Star, depending on how strong the shield
>was at the time. It could do that because it had "constant directional
>thrust" so that it wouldn't be shunted aside like an inanimate object
>would be. Again, large inanimate objects with enough momentum could
>get through with enough velocity to damage the ship.
> (That happened in ESB; the large asteroid about half the size of
>the conning tower that didn't look like it even slowed down before
>creaming the superstructure of some ISD...)
Hmm, that explains a lot of SW shields. Quite a difference.
Apparently SW shields are quite different from ST shields when used to
protect against physical attacks.
>As for the A-wings vs. the Executor's shield generators-- I'm
>currently participating in another thread on the Destruction of the
>Executor on this NG (rassm). To make this as short as I can, the
>consensus is that those fighters didn't take out the shield generators
>all by themselves; they opportunized on a ship reeling under a capital
>scale bombardment, probably with the help of a wave or two of B-wings.
>[Ackbar's order to Rebel Fleet: "Concentrate firepower on that Super
>Star Destroyer..."]
>In order for the tiny A-wings to make that dive, the shields in that
>location would've had to have been severely weakened or failed. The
Why is that? Wouldn't the tine A-Wings under "constant directional
thrust" be able to penetrate the shields irregardless of their
condition to take shots at the shield generator? If the Falcon could
land on a perfectly undamaged ISD in TESB, there isn't any reason why
the A-Wings couldn't penetrate the shields of the SSD and take out the
shield generators...
>destruction of that generator then collapsed the bridge shields
>completely, which left the Executor open for the next hit... it goes
>on & on.
>I'm not sure about Federation shields, but SW shields, being made up
>of sections with separate generators, can be angled to maximize
>protection in desired directions. They also tend to fail in sections,
>rather than all drop at once.
On quite a few occasions, Fed shields have been seen with
hull-conforming shields rather than bubbles (TOS,ST2,ST6, Klingon
ships) and are refered to by specific shield arcs.
>>> Who can say that this Kazon battlewagon isn't just a huge empty shell
>>>with some catwalks & control rooms inside? Any body ever seen a
>>>diagram of one?
>>Of course the exact same argument could be made of an Imperial Star
>>Destroyer. Perhaps it is mostly a huge shell with giant flight
>>hangars inside it?
>I refer you to the Star Wars Technical Journal, in which there is an
I could refer you to a Tech Manual too, but I don't trust them that
much (if I could, then where was the Falcon's backup hyperdrive in
TESB? -SW Sourcebook). How about an onscreen diagram from a movie or
something?
>interior diagram of an ISD. The only wide open spaces are the docking
>bay areas concentrated immediately around the two bays visible on the
>forward ventral section of the ship. The rest of the craft is built as
>solid & as dense as a fortress.
> I would not have asked that point about the Kazon ship if I knew
>the Star Destroyer wouldn't stand up to the same logic.
Technically, it doesn't. Given how many fighters, assault barges,
assault vehicles the ISD is reputed to have onboard, a lot of that
space is just going to go to hangars and cargo bays. The densest
portions of the ship will most likely be the conning tower/box
structures on the dorsal aft and the engineering section. Remember
the gun ports of the ISD as seen in ANH? Quite spacious. Overall, a
ISD is basically a giant aircraft carrier with assualt troop support
facilities which would make a fair portion open spaces. So you see,
without onscreen material, you are in the same boat as in regards to
interior configuration of a ISD :)
Chung, Peter W.
cki...@aloha.com (Chris Kintz) wrote:
>On 12 Jun 1996 18:48 CDT, st...@rosie.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>>In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.96061...@filmgate.h4h.com>, Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> writes...
>>>
>>>
>>>On 11 Jun 1996 val...@vgernet.net wrote:
[snip]
>>>> SENSORS: > The Galaxy class has subspace sensors which allow for FTL
>>>sensing. From all available info although there is FTL communication > SW
>>>there is no FTL scanning. This is clealy demonstrated during the SW movies
>>>and books when ever anyone mentions > hyperspace. This would mean that a
>>>ship at warp would be invisible to a Star Destroyer. But a destroyer in
>>>hyperspace could be > detected by a Galaxy class
>>>
>>>When the Millenium Falcon escaped the Death Star, the Imperials
>>>sucessfully tracked it to Yavin 4.
>>
>>Neither sounds exactly consistent. If I remember correctly, the Falcon had
>>a tracking device attached in ANH (someone should check this.) And also,
>>the Imperials are usually pretty good in calculating hyperspace end-points
>>based on the vector of the hyperspace ship. Secondly, a Trek ship probably
>>can't detect a hyperspace ship, but could detect them dropping out or
>>compute its destination (if they knew what algorythm the Imperials use.)
>>Third, a SW ship could detect a ship at warp, but unfortunately because of
>>light-speed propagation delays, would only know after the warp ship already
>>shot by.
>Okay. I checked, and SW technology shows that they CAN see a ship
>moving at FTL (well, Hyperspace, anyway) speed.
>In ROTJ, in the scene where Han Solo and Leia are in the control room
>on Endor moon. Leia looks at the control panel and says "Han...
>hurry! The fleet will be here any moment!" Then Chewie, at
>blasterpoint, has a couple of Imperials go up against the wall. In
>this scene, above a the left-most Imperial, you'll see a monitor
>screen above his right shoulder. On this screen you'll see a mass of
>blue dots moving towards a planetary-shaped object, with words(?)
>flashing in red and orange around it.
Hmm. On the wide-screen version, they look at it and you get a
full-screen insert. THe mass of blue dots are blinking, but not
moving. Those could either be the detected hyperspace exit-points of
the Rebel fleet, or they could be the symbols for the Imperial fleet
waiting to ambush the Rebels. Afterall, it would be odd to label
enemy forces a "friendly" color like blue.
As for Leia's comment about the fleet, they were operating on a
timetable, the look at that screen may have been a look at the shield
status.
>One can only assume that this monitor is some sort of hyperspace
>tracking device, monitoring the incoming rebel fleet, as the fleet
>drops out of hyperspace AFTER the monitor is shown.
>It must be some sort of new device, as the rebels were so surprised
>that they Imperials knew they were even on the way:
>Londo: "There has to be some of reading that shield, up or down."
>Londo's Co-Pilot: <alien speech>
>Londo: "How could they be jamming us if they know that......
> that we're coming....break off the attack!"
>Adm Akbar: "It's a trap!"
What of the Emperor's little dialogue with Luke, "I let the rebels
know about the shield generator and I know their fleet is coming, all
according to my plan, hehehe..." (paraphrasing). The Emperor had set
this up quite a bit ahead of time.
Chung, Peter W.
j...@exis.net (JLF) wrote:
>>
>>> Who can say that this Kazon battlewagon isn't just a huge empty shell
>>>with some catwalks & control rooms inside? Any body ever seen a
>>>diagram of one?
>>
>>Of course the exact same argument could be made of an Imperial Star
>>Destroyer. Perhaps it is mostly a huge shell with giant flight
>>hangars inside it?
>>
> Well, at last count from what I've seen and read, a Star Destroyer holds about 33,000
>people.
Yes, I've even seen some (Star Wars SourceBook) list it with 37000 men
and 9700 troops. However, because it has to support 80+ starfighters,
auxiliary craft, troops (training area), landing/assualt barges, store
ground assualt vehicles (AT-ATs, etc) it is literally a big aircraft
carrier /assualt command ship as well as a ship-of-the-line. Looking
roughly at some SW tech schematics (semi-canon/non-canon sources) we
can get a general idea. With the large opening near the ventral
midsection, it is mostly empty space, so we have to look and guess
that the ighter hangars are nearby, as well as the assault vehicle
holding facilities. THese sections will be very large and
accomadating (based on how SW treats hangar areas). The densest areas
will probably be near the aft (engineering) and the tower/box
structures of the dorsal aft for crew quarters. If we put say a
Galaxy-class ship next to one for comparison (I happen to have 3-d
models for both) we can see in volume, the Galaxy-class is a little
more than the conning tower/box structures of the ISD, yet the
Galaxy-class is rated to carry 15,000 (according to the semi-canon TM,
indirectly glossed upon in "Devil's Due") in emergencies. So it may
very well be that an ISD is fairly open to allow carrying of all its
fighters, etc. The large crew would most likely be packed like
sardines as on any traditional warship, IMO.
> Then again,
>>with the E-A having virtually little or no shields, full power photon
>>usage is quite questionable.
>>
>>
>How do you figure this would play a part? If I understand correctly, photon torpedo tubes are
>basically like huge guns working with magnets? If you've ever played MechWarrior 2 the best
>anaolgy would be a gauss rifle (sorry, best thing I could think of for comparison). Course, I'm
>going to have to check up on this, but I believe if the torpedo tubes are based on magnetic
>acceleration (for lack of a better word usage) they should be able to fire even when the ship is
>on minimal power settings.
Well, photon torpedoes are actually physical projectiles with
guidance, maneuvering thrusters, warp sustainer, and a antimatter
warhead. We can see several versions of the basic torpedo pod. (Like
when they load them in ST2, SPocks' coffin in ST3, once in TNG in
"Data's Day" where they are silver in color instead of black...) For
the most part, torpedoes can be set to various power levels
(Terminology ranges from "Full Power" in "Ultimate Computer" to
"Setting-16" in "Redemption" where the torpedoes acted little more
than as flares). We know that they use antimatter as a warhead
because they mention so in ST7:Gen. Under certain combat conditions,
like when shields are down and the target is point-blank range, there
is the possibility a full power photon torpedo will get you as well as
them (assuming their explosion does get you either) from "Q-Who?".
However, because the warhead draws its supply from the ship's AM
reserves, if there is significant damage to warp system, torpedoes may
be fired dry, since even unloaded they are still capable of doing a
certain amount of damage ("In Theory").
Christopher L. Schierer
In article <4prq8j$3...@news-e2c.gnn.com>, Precursor <Precursor> wrote:
>st...@jetson.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>
>
>>Of course the same could be argued for the Kazon Battlewagon (quite
>>larger than a ISD) in "Basics" which exploded under 3 photon torpedoes
>>and a few phaser shots.
> Who can say that this Kazon battlewagon isn't just a huge empty shell
>with some catwalks & control rooms inside? Any body ever seen a
>diagram of one?
> Also, only 3 torpedoes? It seems like Trek weapons have a problem with
>consistency too. At the end of ST VI, a saw that Bird of Prey take
>about 6 or 7 torp hits in succesion before it exploded, and unless I'm
>wrong, a Bird of Prey is a pretty small ship in the ST universe, not
>to mention being obsolete in that movie!
> [Cool scene, though! :) ]
>
firing while cloaked... Also it could be an issue of where you hit it...
IE: Firing three torps at one spot already weakened by phasers vs, 6 shots
in different locations on the shields. They WERE being attacked from two sides
so say 2 torps from each side crumples the shields, the 3rd's make the kill?
Besides the 'homing' torp may have hit in a third location (engine area).
Anyone ever wonder why they don't make standard torps like this?
Homing weapons that is, it would seem very useful in the universe where
cloaked ships abound. Just like in the movie, you'd only need one to hit and
illuminate your target... heck they wouldn't even need to be destructive, just
like phosphorus to coat and illuminate your target.
Just my $0.02.
Chris Schierer
"...deep in their souls, men just want to watch stuff go 'bang'"-Dave Barry
>
>
Bubba
>TARKIN: Are they away? VADER: They have just made the jump into hyperspace.
>You're not following what I disputed. Irregardless of the homing beacon,
>the Imperials are STILL CAPABLE of tracking it through hyperspace.
>Something that was said to be impossible above.
No they can't. If a ship suddenly disappears from their sensors, it
PROBABLY went into hyperspace, don't you think?
-Bubba
,,,
(0 0)
+---------------------oOO----(_)----oOO----------------+
| .+''''''+. | |
| Bubba | 9 out of 10 men who try |
| `+,,,,+' | Camels prefer women. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Ryan M Rasmussen
I would like to add that while Star Destroyers have more power, the
technology on a Galaxy-class vessel appears to be more sophisticated.
When I watched the Star Wars movies, it appeared that turbolasers are
aimed manually. On Star Trek TNG the computer does the targeting and
tracking, much like the Navy's AEGIS system. This, combined with the
Enterprises maneuverability, in my opinion, would give the Enterprises a
much greater advantage in battle. It would simply get in more hits and more
accurate hits.
My $ .02
P.S. Could someone send me info on a canonical, compact source of
information on Star Wars space vessels?
Thanks!
Ryan Rasmussen
rasm...@freenet.msp.mn.us
Ryan M Rasmussen
> Also, only 3 torpedoes? It seems like Trek weapons have a problem with
> consistency too. At the end of ST VI, a saw that Bird of Prey take
> about 6 or 7 torp hits in succesion before it exploded, and unless I'm
> wrong, a Bird of Prey is a pretty small ship in the ST universe, not
> to mention being obsolete in that movie!
> [Cool scene, though! :) ]
In Star Trek: Generations they used this same clip of stock footage. In
this case it took ONE photon from the Enterprise, not 6 or 7.
Ryan Rasmussen
rasm...@freenet.msp.mn.us
Chung, Peter W.
beb...@business.utah.edu (Bill Huber) wrote:
>In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.96061...@filmgate.h4h.com> Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> writes:
>>When the Millenium Falcon escaped the Death Star, the Imperials
>>sucessfully tracked it to Yavin 4.
>Only through the use of a hidden tracking beacon. OTOH, in ROTJ, the
>Rebel fleet is on a display screen in the shield control room just
>before re-entering normal space. There is no indication of the range
>capability of the system.
Out of curiosity, why would the Imperials label the ships as "blue", a
friendly color? And what about the massive Imperial fleet? Shouldn't
those blue counters be Imperial ships instead?
Chung, Peter W.
sh...@cornell.edu (Simon H. Lee) wrote:
>In article <4pv1v1$r...@masala.cc.uh.edu>,
>>However, that analogy doesn't fit Trek torpedoes. They're generally
>>unarmed and unloaded with AM fuel which is drawn from their resevers.
>>Unlike missiles (say a AIM-9), photorps do not carry a warhead until
>>the reactants (AM) is injected into it prior to launch. This gives
>>the operator quite a bit of control as to the yield of the torpedo.
>>However, if the warp system is severely damaged, lines to the weapons
>>taken out or if your ship is vulnerable to the effects of your own
>>torpedo at close-range, then the torpedo's ability will be greatly
>>reduced because of circumstances.
> Here I go back into this thread again, yay.
Yay.
> Hmm...my copy of the Tech Manual's far away right now, but aren't
>the torps fitted with something like a "standard 1.5 kg antimatter
>payload"? Seeing as the antimatter pods are on the bottom of the ship and
>the torp launcher is about twelve decks higher, I don't think they would
>have a feed line for AM running through the secondary hull just to feed the
>torps.
> Torps will draw on their fuel reserves if they have to make a
>really long-range trip to target, but that doesn't happen all that often in
>Trek... certainly not in the movies where the ships are at rock-throwing
>range.
Of course, if you can pick up a copy of the TM, you can find that it
also says that they aren't injected with AM until launching time.
Secondly, if torpedoes came "pre-loaded" as you suggest, it would be
impossible to retune the yield on the fly, prior to launch ("The
Ultimate Computer", "Redemption"). Third, you can check that photorps
by themselves without AM is still quite dangerous as noted in "In
Theory". Lastly, you may have confused photon torpedoes with quantum
torpedoes. Apparently the quantum torpedoes are using actual warheads
("Starship Down") without any need for priming/injecting AM.
>>>The second, third, and fourth torps
>>>were probably set up with their usual charges, say 75% yield, and off
>they
>>>go. I don't think the torp launchers require that much power anyway.
>>> What about ST:II where NOBODY's torpedoes do much of anything?
>>
>>ST2 is pretty easy. Look at Khan's first run. Cosmetic, but pinpoint
> Good points there.
> Then again, there's III... the Enterprise was destined to become
>23rd-century razor blades in a scrapyard when Scotty automated a lot of it
>and "didn't expect to take her into combat." Still, there were a few
>torpedoes aboard for defense... maybe they were thinking of using them as
>probe casings or something, but usually if the weapons are around some
>real live warheads will be too...we don't see anyone stripping the ship
Again, you missed the point. You're the captain of the Enterprise
running with shields *down*. You suspect a cloaked ship is going to
decloak point-blank in front of you (which it did.) Are you going to
fire *full power* photons at it, risking a really neat, but large
explosion that could engulf your unshielded Enterprise? I would think
not.
>down in the few days before they steal it. In any case, three torps don't
>even dent the hull of the BoP, just mess its systems up...temporarily.
>That looks more like a convenient writing cover-up and special-effects
>excessiveness... Kirk anticipated the ship decloaking, but I doubt anyone
>sitting in a badly-damaged ship with few functioning systems would go for
>much less than completely crippling the Klingons...if Kirk wanted survivors
>to interrogate about why the Klingons were visiting Mutara and the
>torpedoes were actually variable-yield and as powerful as they should have
>been, why fire THREE torps at a ship which didn't have any shields anyway?
It was actually two photon torps. Notice their effect was mostly
disabling/warning shots. Notice Kirk attempted to raise shields and
bluff the Klingons into backing off? Of course the same could be
asked when Kirk could have kicked Kruge off the cliff, but did not
(immediately). Bottomline, Kirk had no reason to kill the Klingons.
There was no state of war like in "Errand of Mercy". Even for the
sake of revenge for the death of his son, Kirk kept a cool head
(except for self-destructing the Enterprise :) )
Still, I see where you are trying to take this, but really, you have
to find a better example to knock down the photon torpedoes fired from
a Fed Cap ship. But, in case we try to examine ST5:TFF, Kirk's
Enterprise is called to fire a photorp onto his position planet-side.
Uhm, Sulu doesn't want a promotion that bad :). Or whatabout ST6?
Already answered that :) ST7:Generations? Alright, you've got me
there. Klingon photon torpedo? Thank goodness it wasn't from a Fed
Cap ship.
As always, happy to add IMO :)
Rob Sierakowski
GONK could take 'um both out :)
Rob
O-dog
On Jun 14, 1996 04:34:44 in article <Re: GALAXY CLASS STARSHIP vs IMPERIAL
CLASS STAR DESTROYER>, 'o_...@usa.pipeline.com' wrote:
>On Jun 13, 1996 22:19:36 in article <Re: GALAXY CLASS STARSHIP vs IMPERIAL
>CLASS STAR DESTROYER>, 'llo...@aol.com (LLOUISE)' wrote:
>
>
>>Let's just look at the numbers. Take the total number aboard a standard
>>Fedaration ship, divide it by half or three-quarters (fighter pilots
>>require more training and skill) and put that number of SW fighters
>>against a ST ship. Look at the number of ships DS9 destroyed with all
>>their rotatiting turrets and such. I don't recall the number, but the SW
>>fighters would be a forminable foe in forminable numbers.
>
>
>i forget the name of the episode but it was one where the entire
enterprise
>loses all knowledge of who they are or what their mission is. In this
>episode there is a war between two low-tech but space-faring races and one
>does the brain-washing of the enterprise and gives it false information
>about their mission. So to make a long story short the enterprise faces
>dozens of small attack fighters without shields and very little armor.
>These small fighters in numbers are wiped out by the enterprise as if
>nothing stood in its way. Theses small fighters are very much like tie
>fighters would be to a galaxy class starship. Also in this episode after
>disposing of the tiny attack fighters they reach a huge startbase. Riker
or
>Data remarks that it could be destroyed with one photon torpedo. Now the
>way they showed this station made it seem extremely huge and it would have
>to have all of the armor in the world but only one photon torpedo what
have
>done it in. Remember that a standard photon torpedo at high yield has 1.5
>kg of antimatter that makes about a 65 megaton explosion. This is much
>bigger than standard nuclear devices. So I think that even with the huge
>amount of fighters on a Star Destroyer that it would get annihilated
>against a galaxy class starship...
>
>
>O-dog
>
>
does anyone have anythoughts on what i wrote...no one had replied to this
or attacked my stance...
thanks
--
Felipe a.k.a. O-dog
o_...@pipeline.com
"If the vibe was suicide then you would press the button"
Mark Sidloi
Chung, Peter W. wrote:
> Of course the same could be argued for the Kazon Battlewagon (quite
> larger than a ISD) in "Basics" which exploded under 3 photon torpedoes
> and a few phaser shots.
>
The Kazon 'Battlewagon' is smaller than an ISD. Remember that Voyager
is only 11 decks with a crew of approx 120. This means that Voyager is
smaller than the original USS Enterprise. Keep this in mind the next
time you want to compare the sizes of two different ships.
Mark
Mark Sidloi
In ST Gn the Bird's shields dropped when they cloaked. Also, the ship's
design is 20 years old. In ST VI, the bird of prey was of current
design. While its shields must have been down when the first torpedo
hit{the ship was initially cloaked}, they may have been raised
afterwards.
Also, we have seen in TNG how the ratio between hull and shield strength
at least in Klingon ships has slanted in favor of shields. In Redemption
II, the Bortas fired one disruptor shot at each of the two attacking
birds of prey. Those were the only two shots it fired in the whole
battle. The first bird of prey had lowered its shields and was instantly
destroyed. The second had enough time to re-raise its shield and it
recieved only minor damage.
Also, Birds of Prey have grown in size, as shown by their increased crew
complements. In the late 22nd Century, the birds had about "a dozen
officers and men" [Sulu ST III]. In the 23rd Century, the Pagh, which
was the ship which Riker interned aboard in 2nd season had over 30 crew
members.
Mark
Chung, Peter W.
Mark Sidloi <msi...@accent.net> wrote:
>Chung, Peter W. wrote:
>Mark
Say Mark, did you miss the "twin Voyagers" episode? Voyager has *at
least* 15 decks. And if you bothered to check its posted dimensions,
its actually a tad longer than the movie-Enterprise (300m+) and
Voyager was stated to be 130m wide in one episode, so in length and
width it is comparable to the movie-Enterprise, although Voyager is a
few decks less than the movie-Enterprise.
Now look at the shot in "Basics" where Voyager goes in really close
under a Kazon Battlewagon and you'll see that the Kazon ship is
extremely large, with overall volume exceeding an ISD.
Peter
Chris Kintz
>The question I have is, if Kenobi intended to
>convince the DS crew that they had abandoned ship long before? Who
>would have been on boards to extend the landing gear and shut down the
>engines?
Ummm.. the ship's computer? C-3P0 was able to "talk" to the Falcon's
computer.
-Chris
rais...@atc.ameritel.net
In article <31c1c4d4...@news.aloha.com>, cki...@aloha.com wrote:
->
->It must be some sort of new device, as the rebels were so surprised
->that they Imperials knew they were even on the way:
->
->Londo: "There has to be some of reading that shield, up or down."
->Londo's Co-Pilot: <alien speech>
->Londo: "How could they be jamming us if they know that......
-> that we're coming....break off the attack!"
->Adm Akbar: "It's a trap!"
->
Sorry, the only reason they knew the rebels were coming was because the
emperor wanted them to find them.
Emp: It was I who allowed the alliance to know the location... blah,blah,blah.
And of course the emp. saw when they would most likely be coming.
Emp: Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
The only time I have noticed any kind of FTL detection is when they drop OUT
or INTO hyperspace.
R.M.
Chris Kintz
>>Only through the use of a hidden tracking beacon. OTOH, in ROTJ, the
>>Rebel fleet is on a display screen in the shield control room just
>>before re-entering normal space. There is no indication of the range
>>capability of the system.
>
>Out of curiosity, why would the Imperials label the ships as "blue", a
>friendly color? And what about the massive Imperial fleet? Shouldn't
>those blue counters be Imperial ships instead?
Why would you assume that the Imperials would label "enemies" in Red
and "friendlies" in Blue? Just because that's they color scheme *we*
use?
Anyway, the words and symbology flashing around the fleet was in
orange and yellow. What more do you want?
Heck, in TIE FIGHTER (the game), Imperial units (friendlies) are shown
in the radar as red. Rebel units (enemies) are green.
Check out the Heechee series of books. Early on, they describe about
how the Heechee used a different color coding system then we did (ie,
red didn't mean 'bad') and while they weren't sure, it was widely
assumed that 'blue' meant 'danger!'.
-Chris
Chung, Peter W.
cki...@aloha.com (Chris Kintz) wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jun 1996 04:10:55 GMT, st...@jetson.uh.edu (Chung, Peter
>W.) wrote:
>>>Only through the use of a hidden tracking beacon. OTOH, in ROTJ, the
>>>Rebel fleet is on a display screen in the shield control room just
>>>before re-entering normal space. There is no indication of the range
>>>capability of the system.
>>
>>Out of curiosity, why would the Imperials label the ships as "blue", a
>>friendly color? And what about the massive Imperial fleet? Shouldn't
>>those blue counters be Imperial ships instead?
>Why would you assume that the Imperials would label "enemies" in Red
>and "friendlies" in Blue? Just because that's they color scheme *we*
>use?
Hmm, my fault, sometimes its quite easy to attribute qualities to
others.
>Anyway, the words and symbology flashing around the fleet was in
>orange and yellow. What more do you want?
Well, the words aren't "around the blue dots" persay. Still, that
doesn't explain where the Imperial fleet is does it? Nor does the
screen diagram quite corroberate with the actual arrival vectors of
the Rebel fleet (being 90 degrees off). Of course, if the DS image
was only a symbolic representation with no correlation to its correct
attitude, then, it would be acceptable for the blue dots to represent
the Rebel fleet. But what of the Imperial ships? They are no where
to be found on the display.
>Heck, in TIE FIGHTER (the game), Imperial units (friendlies) are shown
>in the radar as red. Rebel units (enemies) are green.
Hmm, that's interesting. I played X-Wing, great game. I'll have to
look into it.
>Check out the Heechee series of books. Early on, they describe about
>how the Heechee used a different color coding system then we did (ie,
>red didn't mean 'bad') and while they weren't sure, it was widely
>assumed that 'blue' meant 'danger!'.
Steve
>running with shields *down*. You suspect a cloaked ship is going to
>decloak point-blank in front of you (which it did.) Are you going to
>fire *full power* photons at it, risking a really neat, but large
>explosion that could engulf your unshielded Enterprise? I would think
>not.
>
Of course, you are ignoring the possibility of firing the torps and
raising the shields while they are in flight, or just raising the shields
and firing. ST shields go up almost instantly (they can "pop up"
instantly when the ship is subjected to a supprise attack) so don't give
me any "time lag" arguments.
ST torps are as weak as cannonballs. The movies and TV show prove it.
>>down in the few days before they steal it. In any case, three torps don't
>>even dent the hull of the BoP, just mess its systems up...temporarily.
>>That looks more like a convenient writing cover-up and special-effects
>>excessiveness... Kirk anticipated the ship decloaking, but I doubt anyone
>>sitting in a badly-damaged ship with few functioning systems would go for
>>much less than completely crippling the Klingons...if Kirk wanted survivors
>>to interrogate about why the Klingons were visiting Mutara and the
>>torpedoes were actually variable-yield and as powerful as they should have
>>been, why fire THREE torps at a ship which didn't have any shields anyway?
>
>It was actually two photon torps. Notice their effect was mostly
>disabling/warning shots.
Notice that you don't answer his question. Why two? Why not just one
set to the proper yeild? Those torps were at maximum power, and that is
all of the damage that they do.
>bluff the Klingons into backing off? Of course the same could be
>asked when Kirk could have kicked Kruge off the cliff, but did not
>(immediately). Bottomline, Kirk had no reason to kill the Klingons.
>There was no state of war like in "Errand of Mercy". Even for the
>sake of revenge for the death of his son, Kirk kept a cool head
>(except for self-destructing the Enterprise :) )
>
So why shoot at them in the first place? He could have raised shields
and told them to get the hell out of the system, a stratagy that would
have worked much better than the one he tried. It wasn't untill the E
had been shot and it's shields down that the Klingon captain began to
think that the E was hurt. If the full power Enterprise radioed them and
said "Hi, we know you are there, now go away" the klingons would have
fled in an instant. (They almost did anyway.)
>Still, I see where you are trying to take this, but really, you have
>to find a better example to knock down the photon torpedoes fired from
>a Fed Cap ship. But, in case we try to examine ST5:TFF, Kirk's
>Enterprise is called to fire a photorp onto his position planet-side.
>Uhm, Sulu doesn't want a promotion that bad :). Or whatabout ST6?
>Already answered that :)
Not to my satisfaction. It took 5 torps to knock out a BOP. FIVE. in
an all-out no holds barred fight to the death, we are to believe that two
sheilded ships fired unarmed torpedoes at their deadly adversary? If the
feds dont fire armed torps in those circumstances, when DO they arm the
things? Why didn't they use phasersa if hey were worried about the trops
blast? Also, the BOP's engines had orders of magnitude more anti-matter
than the torps would have had, and neither ship was damaged by the
detonating BOP. Kirk and Sulu would not have feared arming their
weapons.
>ST7:Generations? Alright, you've got me
>there. Klingon photon torpedo? Thank goodness it wasn't from a Fed
>Cap ship.
>
It makes perfect sense compared to every other torp fired on the show.
Those torps hit with the same strength as all of the others, i.e.
cannonballs.
--
"Your scientists have yet to discover how neural networks
create self consciousness, let alone how the human brain
processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three
dimensional phenomenon known as perception. Yet you,
somehow, brazenly declare that "seeing is believing."
Man in Black
Precursor
st...@jetson.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>Oh, you did leave out that Fed Captains also gets the women every
>episode also :)
Too true; sounds like a GREAT time to attack that otherwise engaged
captain!
BAWHOOM!!
[from his quarters:] "Number One?"
"He's on the holodeck playing his trombone, Captain."
"Data?"
"He's painting an abstract representation of Spot."
[Lithe, shapley female hand draws captain back into quarters]
"Counselor, accomodate our visitors' needs and don't address their
pathological need for conquest. While you're at it, transmit our
surrender."
[Cabin door snaps shut; Imperial March begins playing in background]
:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
>That still doesn't answer the question. Irregardless of whether the
>particle shielding is up or not, why aren't missiles used more often
>(or at all) against ISDs? Are SW missiles that ineffective against
>ISD's that their use is not even considered in most cases?
Pretty much. Enough of them could start to wear down the shields, I
would imagine.
>>>>constant directional thrust will eventually get through, and an
>>>>inanimate object with enough mass could break through. That was the
>>>>danger in the asteroid field: some of those asteroids were BIG...
>>Point taken from another response: should read "...object with enough
>>MOMENTUM could break through..."
>Hmm. Perhaps SW should reconfigure their tractors to act as
>long-range deflectors to move the asteroids out of the way before
>becoming a hazard.
Not an entirely new concept; a young officer in the Zahn trilogy
attempted to use a tractor beams to "shear" debris out of the way so
he could lock on to a fleeing fighter. In the heat of the moment, it
didn't work, but it could've... In the asteroid field, probably just a
matter of too many rocks and only 10 TB projectors.
>"ST1:TMP"). Of course, I'm curious to see how long SW shields would
>hold up under the pressure of two giant doors ala "Relics".
The shields probably wouldn't stop the doors for very long, but of
course again, ISD hulls are many, many times more substantial than a
Fed hull. The question would be how long that would hold up.
>>In order for the tiny A-wings to make that dive, the shields in that
>>location would've had to have been severely weakened or failed. The
>Why is that? Wouldn't the tine A-Wings under "constant directional
>thrust" be able to penetrate the shields irregardless of their
>condition to take shots at the shield generator?
Ray shielding...
>>I refer you to the Star Wars Technical Journal, in which there is an
>I could refer you to a Tech Manual too, but I don't trust them that
>much (if I could, then where was the Falcon's backup hyperdrive in
>TESB? -SW Sourcebook). How about an onscreen diagram from a movie or
>something?
[snip]
>facilities which would make a fair portion open spaces. So you see,
>without onscreen material, you are in the same boat as in regards to
>interior configuration of a ISD :)
Wait a minute; what started this whole thread in the first place was a
Trekker cross-posting a well done comparison of a Galaxy & an ISD.
His material came from several sources, *including* SW/ST literature.
Since SW on-screen time is only 3 movies long, and given Lucas's
tendency to move the plot briskly along without stopping along the way
for explanations, SW tech information HAS to be pulled from the
novels, RPG, tech manuals, etc.
Otherwise, the only thing I can reliably discuss about the ISD is that
it's big, grey, slow, generally moves in the direction of the pointy
end, and always has theme music in the background...
Doug Fortunato
In article <4q3r7k$k...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>, Steve <sec...@psu.edu> writes:
>st...@jetson.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>>running with shields *down*. You suspect a cloaked ship is going to
>>decloak point-blank in front of you (which it did.) Are you going to
>>fire *full power* photons at it, risking a really neat, but large
>>explosion that could engulf your unshielded Enterprise? I would think
>>not.
>>
>
>raising the shields while they are in flight, or just raising the shields
>and firing. ST shields go up almost instantly (they can "pop up"
>instantly when the ship is subjected to a supprise attack) so don't give
>me any "time lag" arguments.
>
>ST torps are as weak as cannonballs. The movies and TV show prove it.
While it's true ST shields "pop up" in response to surprise attack, it is not
the full combat shields...it's a lesser system that has been called the
deflector shields on several occasions (ST V:TFF...cloaked warbird & no one
knows until someone notices the auto-deflectors are up and Kirk had to order to
raise shields...there are a few other times, but I can't recall the specific
episodes where comments to the point of "our deflectors just came up" followed
by the captain ordering red alert and shields to full). Since deflectors are
weak and intended to take the sting off of what is usually a phaser/disruptor
type attack, a full yield phototorp explosion would probably cause severe
damage. Also, since torps are capable of warp travel, raising immediately
after firing would also be too slow. BTW, torps are not weak in the movies or
the shows. For example, in ST:TMP 1 torp vaporizes an asteroid about the size
of the refit Enterprise (approx. 300m in diameter).
>
{SNIP}
>>It was actually two photon torps. Notice their effect was mostly
>>disabling/warning shots.
>
>Notice that you don't answer his question. Why two? Why not just one
>set to the proper yeild? Those torps were at maximum power, and that is
>all of the damage that they do.
I'll answer the question...it was 2 torps that were scavenged. The Enterprise
was due to be scrapped. According to the novelization (which is just as legit
as the SW novelizations), Scotty had to bleed engine anti-matter into the
phototorp injector system and then use probe casings (which are really just
modified phototorps). The decommissioned Enterprise was stripped of all live
ordinance...her phaser coils and anti-matter engine pods were due to be used in
another ship (probably the nearly completed USS Yorktown which became E-A).
Scotty fudged up a few weak torps in case of trouble which he admitted the
Enterprise wasn't prepared for. They were probably as powerful as Scotty could
get them considering probes carry less m/a-m due to the sensor arrays packed in
the warhead. Depending on the type of probe Scotty had to use, the max yield
would vary from about 25%-75% of normal.
>
>>bluff the Klingons into backing off? Of course the same could be
>>asked when Kirk could have kicked Kruge off the cliff, but did not
>>(immediately). Bottomline, Kirk had no reason to kill the Klingons.
>>There was no state of war like in "Errand of Mercy". Even for the
>>sake of revenge for the death of his son, Kirk kept a cool head
>>(except for self-destructing the Enterprise :) )
>>
>
>So why shoot at them in the first place? He could have raised shields
>and told them to get the hell out of the system, a stratagy that would
>have worked much better than the one he tried. It wasn't untill the E
>had been shot and it's shields down that the Klingon captain began to
>think that the E was hurt. If the full power Enterprise radioed them and
>said "Hi, we know you are there, now go away" the klingons would have
>fled in an instant. (They almost did anyway.)
>
I don't think you watched all of the movie...Kirk had to show force (the only
thing a Klingon really understands as Worf has recounted dozens of times). The
Klingons weren't going to just leave even though they were seen because they
had 3 Federation hostages. Kruge knew he had the upper hand so long as he had
the hostages...by calling Kirk's bluff, Kruge had nothing to lose...if Kirk
destroyed the BOP in a battle, the hostages would be killed by their guards and
Kirk loses...if Kirk submits or gets defeated, Kruge gets the hostages, Kirk,
the Enterprise, and Genesis...a grand-slam (of course Kruge didn't think Kirk
would destroy the ship because he could never beam off 430 people w/o Kruge
knowing).
>
>>Still, I see where you are trying to take this, but really, you have
>>to find a better example to knock down the photon torpedoes fired from
>>a Fed Cap ship. But, in case we try to examine ST5:TFF, Kirk's
>>Enterprise is called to fire a photorp onto his position planet-side.
>>Uhm, Sulu doesn't want a promotion that bad :). Or whatabout ST6?
>>Already answered that :)
>
>Not to my satisfaction. It took 5 torps to knock out a BOP. FIVE. in
>an all-out no holds barred fight to the death, we are to believe that two
>sheilded ships fired unarmed torpedoes at their deadly adversary? If the
>feds dont fire armed torps in those circumstances, when DO they arm the
>things? Why didn't they use phasersa if hey were worried about the trops
>blast? Also, the BOP's engines had orders of magnitude more anti-matter
>than the torps would have had, and neither ship was damaged by the
>detonating BOP. Kirk and Sulu would not have feared arming their
>weapons.
It did not take 5 torps to destroy the BOP...5 torps were used to destroy the
BOP. This is more than semantics...let me explain. Enterprise fires a homing
torp. To do this, McCoy and Spock add a special sensor module. Notice how it
seems slightly heavy in McCoy's hands...say about 1.5-2.0 kg. The max weight
of a phototorps warhead (reactant and additional sensors) is 3.0 kg (normal
torp has no extra sensors and 1.5 kg of each matter and anti-matter). This
means a total reactant of half to a third of usual meaning the strongest the
torp would be is 50% of normal. Thus, the homing torp was little more than a
tracer designed to point out the target for further destruction. The homing
torp was so weak it didn't even knock out the BOP's cloak (Sulu had to order to
target the explosion, not the emergent BOP). Now the question of why 4 more
torps. Actually, it was 2 from each ship. Excelsior fired because Sulu wasn't
sure if Enterprise was able to fire again having been seriously damaged before
Excelsior arrived. Enterprise fired because Kirk was unsure if Excelsior would
pick up on his trick and because Excelsior had also taken a good deal of
pinpoint damage. Excelsior was also not originally lined up with the BOP (at
least according to the exterior view just prior to torp launch) and Kirk may
even have thought she wouldn't have a shot if Sulu delayed on the firing while
trying to figure out what Kirk was up to with the "blind" torp and explosion.
Now it becomes a question of why 2 torps from each ship. The most likely
reason is because 2 torps gives a wider yield and since they were firing on an
indistinct part of the ship, 2 torps would more adequately ensure complete
vaporization (it would have to be complete to ensure no chance of prototype
wreckage remaining to be used again or modified). Another possibility is just
to make absolutely sure no wreckage survived...complete vaporization, however,
I think accuracy was the prime concern. The reason it seems that the BOP
survives the 4 impacts of the torps and then explodes is more a cinematic
explanation. If the explosions and firing were to be in "real" time, all 4
torps would have hit simultaneously (or very nearly so) and the explosion would
have taken about one second from launch to dust (the ships were close and torps
travel at about .5-.75c when not in warp)...this would have made a dull
special effect. Instead, time is slowed so you can see 4 seperate hits and a
several second explosion...something that should have taken all of a fraction
of a second. Thus, my earlier statement that 4 torps destroyed the BOP, but
the BOP was not destroyed by 4 torps is explained...4 torps did the job,
although 1 direct hit or 2 off center hits would have more than sufficed.
>
>
>>ST7:Generations? Alright, you've got me
>>there. Klingon photon torpedo? Thank goodness it wasn't from a Fed
>>Cap ship.
>>
>
>It makes perfect sense compared to every other torp fired on the show.
>Those torps hit with the same strength as all of the others, i.e.
>cannonballs.
>
Actually, the Klingon torps can be explained. First, the BOP didn't just use
torps, but also (and more often) disruptors. Also, this was a 70 year old ship
with 70 year old (probably scavanged) armaments. Also, the BOP was a 12-person
B'rel-class ship...a very small craft probably fitted with micro-torps such as
a Runabout is. This means old and weak torps to boot. No wonder they had to
have the shield frequency...otherwise their full complement probably wouldn't
have damaged the shields. So it isn't all that far-fetched that the Klingon
torps sucked and did very little damage. The whole scene was rather silly
anyway, what with no one starting the random nutational shield program designed
to counter Borg adaptiveness...effectively cutting-off the only chance for the
BOP.
>--
>
>"Your scientists have yet to discover how neural networks
>create self consciousness, let alone how the human brain
>processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three
>dimensional phenomenon known as perception. Yet you,
>somehow, brazenly declare that "seeing is believing.""
>
>
This quote sounds very familiar...would the Man in Black be the one from Stephen
King's Dark Tower series??? It's been a while since I read it, but it sounds
like something from it.
Doug Fortunato
*******************************************************************************
Douglas J. Fortunato * "Do you mean I have to die in order to
Philosophy Major * talk to you about your views on death?"
Univ. of Massachusetts-Dartmouth *
North Dartmouth, MA * "Yes."
*
E-Mail: S146...@UMASSD.EDU * -Dr. Leonard McCoy and Capt. Spock, ST IV
*******************************************************************************
Mike Dicenso
On Fri, 14 Jun 1996, James Strocel wrote:
> st...@jetson.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>
>
> >Which leads to the question of why asteroids, Rebel fighters (ROTJ),
> >the Falcon (TESB) have no problem penetrating the shields of ISDs.
>
> Well, a Jem Hadar warship was fully able to penetrate the Odysssey's
> shields in DS9. Both ships were destroyed. Shields are probably very
> iffy contraptions.
>
>
>
Nope, the Jem' Hadar ship hit an unshielded Odyssey, the shields having
been taken offline due to their inability to stop the phased polaron beams
the Jem' Hadar ships were firing at them.
-Mike
Mike Dicenso
On Fri, 14 Jun 1996, Bill Huber wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.93.960612140404.16296B-100000@seds> Mike Dicenso <mdic...@SEDS.LPL.Arizona.EDU> writes:
>
> >Not really, the DS tractor beam is never stated as requiring a lock. It
> >could easily be just a giant widespread field sweeping space around it. It
> >might be that the captured ship in question blunders into the field just
> >as the Falcon did in ANH. The issue is confusing because the Falcon is
> >then guided into the hanger bay in a very precise manner, but yet it
> >seemed as though the Falcon just blundered into the field, which
> >apparently is always on.
> >-Mike
>
> Most likely, the fighter that the Falcon encountered made contact with
> the DS before it was destroyed. It seems also likely that small tractor
> emmitters are used for the precision work of placing something in a
> hanger, just as in ST. The question I have is, if Kenobi intended to
> convince the DS crew that they had abandoned ship long before? Who
> would have been on boards to extend the landing gear and shut down the
> engines? Unless it would automatically extend the gear and shut down
> automatically based on ground proximity.
>
> Bill Huber
>
>
>
The Falcon never destroyed the TIE it encountered. Han had just begun the
process of chasing it down when the DS tractor beam caught them. How could
the TIE inform the DS they where there when Chewie had jammed it's
transmissions? You've also managed to answer your own question, in order
for the ruse of adandoning ship to work, they'd have had to set the Falcon
to auto pilot. After all they actually went through the trouble of
jetisoning escape pods why would they forget that?
-Mike
LLOUISE
Subject: Re: GALAXY CLASS STARSHIP vs IMPERIAL CLASS STAR DESTROYER
From: o_...@usa.pipeline.com
Date: 14 Jun 1996 04:34:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4pqq54$f...@news2.h1.usa.pipeline.com>
Allow me to diverge from the "Galaxy Class vs. Imperial Class Star
Destroyer", since my SW knowledge is quite limited. My point is take a
BUNCH of fast-at-sub-light, and maneuverable fighters (seceral hundred)
outfitted with torpedoes and warp capability. As was pointed out, only a
few would have to get through. Don't know how fast the targeting on
Galaxy class can compensate for multiple targets (very fast, I know) but
with hundreds at low warp or near light speeds, somethings gonna get
through. Also fighters would have other uses like getting into enemy
territories and hitting ground based targets.
Timothy Barbeisch
[snip]
> Nope, the Jem' Hadar ship hit an unshielded Odyssey, the shields having
> been taken offline due to their inability to stop the phased polaron beams
> the Jem' Hadar ships were firing at them.
> -Mike
Yeah that was a big time mistake. If the captan had'nt took his shields
down to get more power for phaser's the Jem Hadar could'nt have rammed
the ship.
----
http://members.aol.com/TBarbeisch
bied...@tri-town.net
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend,
to the death, your right to say it." - Voltaire
Wayne Poe
> >> Who can say that this Kazon battlewagon isn't just a huge empty shell
> >>with some catwalks & control rooms inside? Any body ever seen a
> >>diagram of one?
> >
> >Of course the exact same argument could be made of an Imperial Star
> >Destroyer. Perhaps it is mostly a huge shell with giant flight
> >hangars inside it?
No, there are blueprints of the ISD in the Star Wars Technical Manual.
Wayne Poe
On 16 Jun 1996, O-dog wrote:
> >episode there is a war between two low-tech but space-faring races and one
> >dozens of small attack fighters without shields and very little armor.
> >These small fighters in numbers are wiped out by the enterprise as if
> >nothing stood in its way. Theses small fighters are very much like tie
> >fighters would be to a galaxy class starship. Also in this episode after
> does anyone have anythoughts on what i wrote...no one had replied to this
> or attacked my stance...
Here ya go, o-Dog!
First off TIEs are not "low tech" to Star Trek science; they exceed it.
In "Spock's Brain", the ship the brain stealing bimbo flys is ion
powered, which makes Scotty reply something like: "They can sure teach us
a thing or two!" (Something like that. Either way, he had a hard on for
the ion ship!) Now, of course, you know that TIE stands for Twin Ion
Engines, right? :)
James Strocel
cki...@aloha.com (Chris Kintz) wrote:
>It must be some sort of new device, as the rebels were so surprised
>that they Imperials knew they were even on the way:
>Londo: "There has to be some of reading that shield, up or down."
>Londo's Co-Pilot: <alien speech>
>Londo: "How could they be jamming us if they know that......
> that we're coming....break off the attack!"
>Adm Akbar: "It's a trap!"
It was probably some form of a planetary shield, like on Hoth.
Apparently, they're next to impossible to knock down. The empire uses
these things with 900 torpedo launchers called "torpedo spheres" to
take them down. Usually, they'll just send down AT-AT's tho'
Rachel Ong
In article <Pine.SGI.3.91r.960615233014.24675A-100000@freenet> Ryan M Rasmussen <rasm...@freenet.msp.mn.us> writes:
>In Star Trek: Generations they used this same clip of stock footage. In
>this case it took ONE photon from the Enterprise, not 6 or 7.
>Ryan Rasmussen
>rasm...@freenet.msp.mn.us
That's cos it was cloaked (causing reduction in shield power). This Bird of
Prey was not of the new & improved model in ST VI
Chung, Peter W.
In article <4q3r7k$k...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>, Steve <sec...@psu.edu> writes...
>st...@jetson.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>>Again, you missed the point. You're the captain of the Enterprise
>>running with shields *down*. You suspect a cloaked ship is going to
>>decloak point-blank in front of you (which it did.) Are you going to
>>fire *full power* photons at it, risking a really neat, but large
>>explosion that could engulf your unshielded Enterprise? I would think
>>not.
>>
>
>Of course, you are ignoring the possibility of firing the torps and
>raising the shields while they are in flight, or just raising the shields
>and firing. ST shields go up almost instantly (they can "pop up"
>instantly when the ship is subjected to a supprise attack) so don't give
>me any "time lag" arguments.
Uhm Steve, you're the Captain of the BOP sneaking up on the Enterprise,
hey it just raised its shields. I don't think you're sneaking up on the
Enterprise anymore. As far as the instant shields, the ship can auto
raise standard deflectors, but it still takes time to go to full power
shields as evidenced in ST2.
>
>ST torps are as weak as cannonballs. The movies and TV show prove it.
So whatabout that Enterprise-sized asteroid that got vaporized with
a single photon torpedo in the 1st movie? Or the various large objects
the photons have blown up quite satisfactorarily over the years? I think
you just really want to knock down the photorps through a little misdirection
here and there. "The movies and TV show prove it", really counters your
"cannonball" assertion.
>>>down in the few days before they steal it. In any case, three torps don't
>>>even dent the hull of the BoP, just mess its systems up...temporarily.
>>>That looks more like a convenient writing cover-up and special-effects
>>>excessiveness... Kirk anticipated the ship decloaking, but I doubt anyone
>>>sitting in a badly-damaged ship with few functioning systems would go for
>>>much less than completely crippling the Klingons...if Kirk wanted survivors
>>>to interrogate about why the Klingons were visiting Mutara and the
>>>torpedoes were actually variable-yield and as powerful as they should have
>>>been, why fire THREE torps at a ship which didn't have any shields anyway?
>>
>>It was actually two photon torps. Notice their effect was mostly
>>disabling/warning shots.
>
>Notice that you don't answer his question. Why two? Why not just one
>set to the proper yeild? Those torps were at maximum power, and that is
>all of the damage that they do.
I thought I did, but not to your satisfaction. Why fire one, or three?
Who knows. You could ask the same question about Sisko in "The Emissary"
where he fires all his torpedoes to try and bluff the Cardassians. Two
is about as right a number as any. In anycase, those weren't anywhere close
to a full power torpedo as you imagined it, if they were, the Enterprise
would have been destroyed alot earlier in the movie. And just what is the
"proper yield" anyway? When was the last time Kirk engaged a BOP since his
tenure at the Academy? I really doubt he knew and went the safe road and
underguessed the warhead yield.
>>bluff the Klingons into backing off? Of course the same could be
>>asked when Kirk could have kicked Kruge off the cliff, but did not
>>(immediately). Bottomline, Kirk had no reason to kill the Klingons.
>>There was no state of war like in "Errand of Mercy". Even for the
>>sake of revenge for the death of his son, Kirk kept a cool head
>>(except for self-destructing the Enterprise :) )
>>
>
>So why shoot at them in the first place? He could have raised shields
>and told them to get the hell out of the system, a stratagy that would
>have worked much better than the one he tried.
Since the Grissom was not there and Kirk had suspect that their was
a Klingon, you can assume that there is a state of hostility and a
combat zone (afterall, the Genesis planet is a *restricted* locale).
Then again, all the more reason for the nice warning shots. If Kirk
raised shields, then he would have no idea what the BOP was going to do,
and since Kirk was in a hurry to get Spock, the quickest way is to let
the Klingons make the first move, as he did here and again in ST6 when
he fought Chang's BOP over Khitomer.
>It wasn't untill the E
>had been shot and it's shields down that the Klingon captain began to
>think that the E was hurt. If the full power Enterprise radioed them and
>said "Hi, we know you are there, now go away" the klingons would have
>fled in an instant. (They almost did anyway.)
It appears that the moment that Enterprise raised shields is when Scotty
announced the problem with going into combat. Nevertheless, just telling
the Klingons to "go away" without doing *something* to convince them does
not work, remember "Friday's Child" or "Elaan of Troyus"? Nice try though.
>
>>Still, I see where you are trying to take this, but really, you have
>>to find a better example to knock down the photon torpedoes fired from
>>a Fed Cap ship. But, in case we try to examine ST5:TFF, Kirk's
>>Enterprise is called to fire a photorp onto his position planet-side.
>>Uhm, Sulu doesn't want a promotion that bad :). Or whatabout ST6?
>>Already answered that :)
>
>Not to my satisfaction. It took 5 torps to knock out a BOP. FIVE. in
>an all-out no holds barred fight to the death, we are to believe that two
>sheilded ships fired unarmed torpedoes at their deadly adversary? If the
Ahem. Do you not remember that the E-A had virtually *no* shields? We are
reminded several times of this "problem" in the movie.
>feds dont fire armed torps in those circumstances, when DO they arm the
>things?
I have a suspicion that the first torpedo was near half powered (assuming
that it didn't mistaken a Fed ships gas trail), still the first torpedo
killed "everyone" on the BOP. The remaining ones were more of an
insurance, although the vaporization of the BOP sorta leaves very little
evidence of the Klingon involvement in the assassination.
>Why didn't they use phasersa if hey were worried about the trops
>blast?
That's a good question for which I have no particular answer :)
>Also, the BOP's engines had orders of magnitude more anti-matter
>than the torps would have had, and neither ship was damaged by the
>detonating BOP. Kirk and Sulu would not have feared arming their
>weapons.
That depends on the explosion effects. Kirk would have some fear,
afterall, the E-A was shieldless at that point. Whether Sulu knew
any better is unknown. Still, a ship exploding from getting blown up
by enemy fire is alot less than self-destructing, in this case, since there
was no atmosphere to tranfer a shockwave back, and the BOP was farther away
than in ST3, allowing a safer distance for the E-A. And of course, you
are arguing the situation after the battle, since Kirk and Sulu would have
no solid idea how powerful the BOP's explosion would have been. Would lower
yield torpedoes suited more? Perhaps.
>
>>ST7:Generations? Alright, you've got me
>>there. Klingon photon torpedo? Thank goodness it wasn't from a Fed
>>Cap ship.
>>
>
>It makes perfect sense compared to every other torp fired on the show.
Dunno. I treat different ships as having different weapons with different
capabilities (and why not, if we look at DS9, a photorp from the station
kills a BOP easily, but several from a Galaxy-class would be needed, or
a Nebula-class Phoenix with one or two torpedoes takes out a Cardassian
warship, but a torpedo from a Maquis ship chips its paint. ("Way of the
Warrior", "Generations", "The Wounded", "Caretaker").
>Those torps hit with the same strength as all of the others, i.e.
>cannonballs.
I've made quite a few counter arguments, and for the most part, your
cannonball assertion needs more evidence. I suggest for the maximum
amount of support for your assertion, find an example where a photon torpedo
fired is not under any particular situational or environmental limitation
(ie open space, reasonable probablility of destroying target) and operated
like a "cannonball". A hint is to look at any weapon (applicable to SW
or ST or any SF) and see the conditions it was fired in and determine
what its intended effect was and whether there were any firing considerations
placed on it.
To conclude, almost all of the situations presented in the movies restricted
alot of the ability of the weapons they fired. The only time you're ever
seen them cut loose a full powered photorp is in the first movie (the
Klingons vs V'ger and the Enterprise vs Asteroid). Perhaps you would like
to try the series, since the odds of a super slip up by the writers and
FX guys at Paramount are much higher (seriously).
Chung, Peter W.
prec...@gnn.com (Precursor) wrote:
>st...@jetson.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>>Oh, you did leave out that Fed Captains also gets the women every
>>episode also :)
>Too true; sounds like a GREAT time to attack that otherwise engaged
>captain!
> BAWHOOM!!
> [from his quarters:] "Number One?"
> "He's on the holodeck playing his trombone, Captain."
> "Data?"
> "He's painting an abstract representation of Spot."
> [Lithe, shapley female hand draws captain back into quarters]
> "Counselor, accomodate our visitors' needs and don't address their
> pathological need for conquest. While you're at it, transmit our
> surrender."
> [Cabin door snaps shut; Imperial March begins playing in background]
> :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)
ROTFLMAO!
Actually, this would be a *plausible* scene from TNG. Scary :)
>>That still doesn't answer the question. Irregardless of whether the
>>particle shielding is up or not, why aren't missiles used more often
>>(or at all) against ISDs? Are SW missiles that ineffective against
>>ISD's that their use is not even considered in most cases?
>Pretty much. Enough of them could start to wear down the shields, I
>would imagine.
Well, since they are re-releasing SW as Special Editions and planning
the Prequels, SW canon has an oppurtunity to change drastically. So
who knows, perhaps they will add those effects into the SEs...
>>>>>constant directional thrust will eventually get through, and an
>>>>>inanimate object with enough mass could break through. That was the
>>>>>danger in the asteroid field: some of those asteroids were BIG...
>>>Point taken from another response: should read "...object with enough
>>>MOMENTUM could break through..."
>>Hmm. Perhaps SW should reconfigure their tractors to act as
>>long-range deflectors to move the asteroids out of the way before
>>becoming a hazard.
> Not an entirely new concept; a young officer in the Zahn trilogy
>attempted to use a tractor beams to "shear" debris out of the way so
>he could lock on to a fleeing fighter. In the heat of the moment, it
>didn't work, but it could've... In the asteroid field, probably just a
>matter of too many rocks and only 10 TB projectors.
>>"ST1:TMP"). Of course, I'm curious to see how long SW shields would
>>hold up under the pressure of two giant doors ala "Relics".
> The shields probably wouldn't stop the doors for very long, but of
>course again, ISD hulls are many, many times more substantial than a
>Fed hull. The question would be how long that would hold up.
Would be neat to find out. The Dyson sphere was supposedly composed
of a "neutronium-alloy". So it could be construed as very "dense".
>>>In order for the tiny A-wings to make that dive, the shields in that
>>>location would've had to have been severely weakened or failed. The
>>Why is that? Wouldn't the tine A-Wings under "constant directional
>>thrust" be able to penetrate the shields irregardless of their
>>condition to take shots at the shield generator?
> Ray shielding...
But that didn't stop the Falcon from getting close enough to land on
an ISD. What would ray shielding do the A-Wings?
>>>I refer you to the Star Wars Technical Journal, in which there is an
>>I could refer you to a Tech Manual too, but I don't trust them that
>>much (if I could, then where was the Falcon's backup hyperdrive in
>>TESB? -SW Sourcebook). How about an onscreen diagram from a movie or
>>something?
>[snip]
>>facilities which would make a fair portion open spaces. So you see,
>>without onscreen material, you are in the same boat as in regards to
>>interior configuration of a ISD :)
> Wait a minute; what started this whole thread in the first place was a
>Trekker cross-posting a well done comparison of a Galaxy & an ISD.
>His material came from several sources, *including* SW/ST literature.
My mistake then. I treat manuals more like hypothesis and theories
that are confirmed or refuted on-screen. I had originally answered
the first post with criticism of both the Fed and the SW
interpretation that was layed out. For the most part I try to keep it
to onscreen canon materials, for both genres.
>Since SW on-screen time is only 3 movies long, and given Lucas's
>tendency to move the plot briskly along without stopping along the way
>for explanations, SW tech information HAS to be pulled from the
>novels, RPG, tech manuals, etc.
> Otherwise, the only thing I can reliably discuss about the ISD is that
>it's big, grey, slow, generally moves in the direction of the pointy
>end, and always has theme music in the background...
Well, its not that bad. Another SW poster (a while ago in a previous
ST/SW thread) posted these interesting figures:
ANH: Rebel fighters intercepting Death Star from Yavin-4, approx
acceleration 9 to 18 Km/s^2.
ROTJ: Rebel fleet approx. accelerations based on time exiting
hyperspace and then breaking off attack of DS2 approx 36 Km/s^2.
and a few others when I can find them...
So, actually quite a few extrapolations can be made from the movies :)
Chung, Peter W.
Steve <sec...@psu.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>ST torps are as weak as cannonballs. The movies and TV show prove it.
[snip]
>Notice that you don't answer his question. Why two? Why not just one
>set to the proper yeild? Those torps were at maximum power, and that is
>all of the damage that they do.
[snip]
>It makes perfect sense compared to every other torp fired on the show.
>Those torps hit with the same strength as all of the others, i.e.
>cannonballs.
Oh, one more thing here that you could use to figure out the weapon
settings of the photon torpedoes used in the movies (at least for the
older gen)
ST1:TMP
1. Photorp from Enterprise destroys large asteroid (Enterprise-size,
at least)
ST2:TWOK
1. Khan's opening attack establishes a base-line for low-powered,
disabling photorp in initial attack, since it produced little cosmetic
damage, but considerable disabling damage inside the Enterprise.
2. Khan's second photorp produces a near-miss (damaged photon
controls from earlier damage), yet the explosion was sufficient to
rock the Enterprise. Anywhere from mid- to full-yield.
3. Khan's third torpedo, clean miss. He was out for blood, so it's
yield could have been easily full.
4. Enterprise fires photorp 1 and 2, both penetrating and exploding
with more strength than Khan's 1st photorp, so these torpedoes were
set with a higher yield, still, no reason to go for a kill at that
range in a gaseous nebula (and Kirk was still thinking about boarding
the Reliant... wow.)
ST3:TSFS
1. BOP accidently destroys Grissom when their well-aimed
Klingon-style photorp caused a core breach.
2. Enterprise's 2 photorps did nearly identical amounts of damage to
the BOP at point-blank as Khan's 1st low-yield disabling torpedo did
to the Enterprise in the previous movie. You can figure the yield
setting here. Enterprise's shields were down at the time.
3. BOP's new weapon officer fires a disabling round to the
Enterprise's impulse and warp nacelles, disabling the automation
center.
ST5:TFF
1. BOP's Klingon-style torpedo misses E-A as it warps away.
2. E-A fires a photon torpedo at Kirk and party's position on the
planet below. Low yield unless Sulu really wanted that promotion.
ST6:TUC
1. BOP fires Federation-style (probably supplied by the Fed
conspirators) torpedoes (2) and lightly damages unshielded Klingon
Battlecruiser. Since Gen. Chang was onboard the ship at the time, it
is doubtful that he would have wanted to sacrifice his life and
allowed his comrades in the cloaked BOP to use full power torpedoes.
2. Klingon Battlecruiser threatens to use photorp. Chekov's reaction,
"If we do not raise shields, and we are hit with our shields down, we
will not be able to return fire" says quite alot.
3. Chang's BOP puts 18 Federation-style photon torpedoes into the
Enterprise, with one breaching (burn-through) of the shield. You can
assume that Chang was using full-powered strikes and from all the
scenes shown, firing at a relatively safe distance away.
4. E-A's gas-homing torpedo strikes cloaked BOP, killing everyone (on
the bridge at least, and since it is the type Kirk stole before that
had a small crew, then at least 80% of the small crew were dead from
the explosion). The remaining 4 photons from the E-A and Excelsior
ripped the ship apart, although Kirk's ship had little or no
shielding. Settings could be anywhere from medium to full-power,
depending on whether how much Kirk wanted to singe his ship at that
range.
ST7:GEN
1. D-12 BOP fires a Klingon-style torpedo through the E-D's shields
and does damage more consistent with the explosive effects of Kirk's
low-powered torpedoes used in the Mutara Nebula.
2. E-D fires aft photon torpedo(s) (Riker orders a salvo, but only one
fires) hits the just cloaking, near-shieldless BOP and "destroys" it.
Historically, Klingon BOP's when they cloak their shields actually
stay up for a period of time, unlike Romulan cloaks do. This can be
seen in "Redemption" and "Rules of Engagement". Of course, E-D's
shields are still up, so explosion damage from torpedoes or the BOP
would be protected from.
Timothy Manley
In rec.arts.startrek.tech Ryan M Rasmussen <rasm...@freenet.msp.mn.us>
said:
>I would like to add that while Star Destroyers have more power, the
technology
>on a Galaxy-class vessel appears to be more sophisticated. When I watched
the
>Star Wars movies, it appeared that turbolasers are aimed manually. On Star
Trek
>TNG the computer does the targeting and tracking, much like the Navy's
AEGIS
>system. This, combined with the Enterprises maneuverability, in my
opinion,
>would give the Enterprises a much greater advantage in battle. It would
simply
>get in more hits and more accurate hits.
>
>My $ .02
>
>P.S. Could someone send me info on a canonical, compact source of
information
>on Star Wars space vessels?
>
>Thanks!
>
>Ryan Rasmussen
>rasm...@freenet.msp.mn.us
There are two books out now 1) the SW tech manual - really a 'picture
book' of the movies ships & equipment with some technojargon tossed in but
no real numbers. 2) the ships of SW - this one seems to include
ships/vehicles from the books as well as the movies, a lot of line drawings
with some jargon, but, still, no hard numbers. Neither of these are
anywhere near the completeness of the TNG TM, ang, IMHO, not even close to
the quality of the TOS TM.
--
tim
val...@vgernet.net
> t...@tuna.hooked.net (Timothy Manley) writes:
>
> There are two books out now 1) the SW tech manual - really a 'picture
> book' of the movies ships & equipment with some technojargon tossed in but
> no real numbers. 2) the ships of SW - this one seems to include
> ships/vehicles from the books as well as the movies, a lot of line drawings
> with some jargon, but, still, no hard numbers. Neither of these are
> anywhere near the completeness of the TNG TM, ang, IMHO, not even close to
> the quality of the TOS TM.
>
> --
> tim
>
>>>>
Star Warshas less tech info because it doesn't exactly have 30 yrs indecipherale and contradictory crap behind it. I know for a fact
that as a self styled collecter of SciFi rech manuals that half the stuff in all Star Trek tech manuals is repeated over and over again.
But I will grant you that the Star Wars tech manuals are more pretty pictures than substance. Thankfully Star Wars tech has been
very well defined in the novels. Although the Star Wars books are fewer they tend to beof mucvh higher quality with much more
detail.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Capt. Cronan Thompson
USS Zefram Cochrane
Star Trek Newsletter/RPG
E-mail for info
val...@vgernet.net
And God said onto Jesus, "Go forward my son and hide the bones of giant lizards."
And Jesus replied onto his father in heaven, "What a big fucking lizard, lord."
And Jesus hid the bones for 20 days and nights
And the God said onto Jesus, "You have done well."
1: Anything you consider to be offensive is your own fault
2: Thinking while reading this e-mail is illegal and should be
reported immediately to somebody named Billy Bob Bo Jim
3: If you should happen to fall asleep during this book don’t
feel bad, I fell asleep writing it
4: Do not, I repeat do not allow this book to fall into Enemy
hands.
5: By reading thus far you have doomed to insanity so you
PROTEST THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT
Keith Morrison
Doug Fortunato wrote:
> >"Your scientists have yet to discover how neural networks
> >create self consciousness, let alone how the human brain
> >processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three
> >dimensional phenomenon known as perception. Yet you,
> >somehow, brazenly declare that "seeing is believing.""
> >
> >
> This quote sounds very familiar...would the Man in Black be the one from Stephen
> King's Dark Tower series??? It's been a while since I read it, but it sounds
> like something from it.
The Man in Black from "Jose Chung's From Outer Space" episode
of the X-Files. Spoken with dramatic flair by Jesse "The Body"
Ventura, with lurking assistance from Alex Trebek.
--
Keith Morrison
t0...@unb.ca
Timothy Barbeisch
> That's cos it was cloaked (causing reduction in shield power). This Bird of
> Prey was not of the new & improved model in ST VI
Yeah but the one from ST VI was from the 23ed Centrey so it's primative
weapon's would'nt even put a dent in the 1701D's sheild's. In fact JLP
would just trace the weapon's fire to where it came from and blow the
rust bucket away. Why did'nt Kirk think of that?
Steve
st...@rosie.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>>Of course, you are ignoring the possibility of firing the torps and
>>raising the shields while they are in flight, or just raising the shields
>>and firing. ST shields go up almost instantly (they can "pop up"
>>instantly when the ship is subjected to a supprise attack) so don't give
>>me any "time lag" arguments.
>
>Uhm Steve, you're the Captain of the BOP sneaking up on the Enterprise,
>hey it just raised its shields. I don't think you're sneaking up on the
>Enterprise anymore. As far as the instant shields, the ship can auto
>raise standard deflectors, but it still takes time to go to full power
>shields as evidenced in ST2.
>
In TOS (Errand of mercy), a klingon surprise attack was stopped when the
E's shields "poped up" before any of the crew knew they were under
attack. The sheilds raised themselves to full power in an instant. Of
course, as we both know, anything from TOS would mop the floor with
anything from TNG, judging from screen FX.
>>
>>ST torps are as weak as cannonballs. The movies and TV show prove it.
>
>So whatabout that Enterprise-sized asteroid that got vaporized with
>a single photon torpedo in the 1st movie? Or the various large objects
>the photons have blown up quite satisfactorarily over the years? I think
That torp was close enough to TOS to have kept some power. (BTW, the
asteroid was blown apart, not vaporized) Later torps are all much
weaker.
>>Not to my satisfaction. It took 5 torps to knock out a BOP. FIVE. in
>>an all-out no holds barred fight to the death, we are to believe that two
>>sheilded ships fired unarmed torpedoes at their deadly adversary? If the
>
>Ahem. Do you not remember that the E-A had virtually *no* shields? We are
>reminded several times of this "problem" in the movie.
>
The BOP had several warheads worth of anti-matter left on board when it
blew, and much, much more anti-matter in its engines. If the E was so
vulnerable to even one full power torpsedo, why wasn't it annihilated by
the detonating BOP? The BOP would have exploded with the force of many
torpsedoes, and the E was undamaged by the blast. Kirk is rather
experienced at space combat, and would be able to tell if he would be
putting his ship in danger with a torp. Since we know that there was no
danger from one lowly torp, we should assume Kirk knew this as well.
>>Why didn't they use phasersa if hey were worried about the trops
>>blast?
>
>That's a good question for which I have no particular answer :)
>
I have a very good answer. The torps are much more powerful than the
phasers.
>>Also, the BOP's engines had orders of magnitude more anti-matter
>>than the torps would have had, and neither ship was damaged by the
>>detonating BOP. Kirk and Sulu would not have feared arming their
>>weapons.
>
>That depends on the explosion effects. Kirk would have some fear,
>afterall, the E-A was shieldless at that point. Whether Sulu knew
>any better is unknown. Still, a ship exploding from getting blown up
>by enemy fire is alot less than self-destructing,
Why is that? Anti-matter must be prevented from detonating, when the
ship loses containment, the AM goes kablooey.
in this case, since there
>was no atmosphere to tranfer a shockwave back, and the BOP was farther away
>than in ST3, allowing a safer distance for the E-A.
So, full power torps would have been no danger at all then.
And of course, you
>are arguing the situation after the battle, since Kirk and Sulu would have
>no solid idea how powerful the BOP's explosion would have been. Would lower
>yield torpedoes suited more? Perhaps.
Compared to the BOP blast, they would have been firecrackers.
>To conclude, almost all of the situations presented in the movies restricted
>alot of the ability of the weapons they fired. The only time you're ever
>seen them cut loose a full powered photorp is in the first movie (the
>Klingons vs V'ger and the Enterprise vs Asteroid). Perhaps you would like
>to try the series, since the odds of a super slip up by the writers and
>FX guys at Paramount are much higher (seriously).
>
Despite all of the importance you give to the yield strength of the
torps, not one word of movie time is given to this subject.
If I could, I would name you the scientific consultant for the ST shows
and movies. (You have displayed knowledge of real physics on more than
one occation) You are trying to defend people who know a hell of a lot
less about their own show than you do, which is why you need so much
convoluted thought to come up with reasonable answers. My hostility
twords ST is caused by the poor writing and declining imagination behind
the show. I loved the Enterprise from TOS. It's weapons could destroy
cities, it could push huge rocks around, it didn't have a speed limit,
ect. The technology in TNG and the movies has been castrated to a sad
degree. I want to see weapons that make 20th century weapons look
primitive. I could rant for a while, sorry.
Daniel Hoyt
In <4psqp7$n...@atlas.uniserve.com> jstr...@uniserve.com (James
>>the Falcon (TESB) have no problem penetrating the shields of ISDs.
>
>Well, a Jem Hadar warship was fully able to penetrate the Odysssey's
>shields in DS9. Both ships were destroyed. Shields are probably very
>iffy contraptions.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Feds drop their shields as they
couldn't stop the Jem'Hadar weapons and were therefore ineffective?
--Dan
O-dog
On Jun 17, 1996 15:57:32 in article <Re: GALAXY CLASS STARSHIP vs IMPERIAL
CLASS STAR DESTROYER>, 'Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com>' wrote:
>
>
>On 16 Jun 1996, O-dog wrote:
>
>> >episode there is a war between two low-tech but space-faring races and
one
>
>> >These small fighters in numbers are wiped out by the enterprise as if
>> >nothing stood in its way. Theses small fighters are very much like tie
>> >fighters would be to a galaxy class starship. Also in this episode
after
>> does anyone have anythoughts on what i wrote...no one had replied to
this
>> or attacked my stance...
>
>Here ya go, o-Dog!
>
>First off TIEs are not "low tech" to Star Trek science; they exceed it.
>In "Spock's Brain", the ship the brain stealing bimbo flys is ion
>powered, which makes Scotty reply something like: "They can sure teach us
>a thing or two!" (Something like that. Either way, he had a hard on for
>the ion ship!) Now, of course, you know that TIE stands for Twin Ion
>Engines, right? :)
your using information from 78 years before the galaxy class starship so
by then ion engines would be obsolete. It doesn’t matter how fast the
little ships are either as long as the are not ftl then there is no problem
for the Enterprise to target then and shoot them with their phasers. A tie
fighter gets destroyed by one or two normal hits from an x-wing so the
phasers on a galaxy class starship or any other would rip apart tie
fighters at will. That would leave just the Enterprise and a Star Destroyer
to duke it out. But also if I remember correctly today’s modern day
scientist have been experimenting with ion based propulsion for some time.
The concept behind it is quite simple. You ionize particles and direct them
for thrust. So that would make ion engines on a Tie fighter not that much
of a big deal
--
Felipe a.k.a. O-dog
o_...@pipeline.com
"If the vibe was suicide then you would press the button"
Chung, Peter W.
Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> wrote:
Which have never made it to the screen... of course this could change
with either the SEs, or the prequels.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Battle should no longer resemble a bludgeon fight, but should
be a test of skill, a maneuver combat, in which is fulfilled
the greatest principle of suprise by striking 'from an unexpected
direction against an unguarded spot.'" - Thoughts of War.
Albert
Chung, Peter W. wrote:[deleted stuff about accuracy of Fed weapons]
> > On military ships they
> >>>can be cranked up when there is a danger of attack by solid weapons (a
> >>>rarity in SW), but they are not infallible, and something with
>
> >>Hmm, then why are not proton missiles and concussion missiles used
> >>more often against ISD's if they normally operate with "ray
> >>shielding"?
>
> >As I said, the ray shielding is always up, the particle shielding can
> >be strengthened or lowered depending on the situation. It is very
> >likely that the resistance offered by particle shielding would
> >detonate the missiles prematurely. (Of course, if the particle
> >shielding happens to be deactivated, there will be a direct hull hit,
> >but then we would be back to the armor/mass question below.)
>
> That still doesn't answer the question. Irregardless of whether the
> particle shielding is up or not, why aren't missiles used more often
> (or at all) against ISDs? Are SW missiles that ineffective against
> ISD's that their use is not even considered in most cases?
To actually answer the question, proton torpedoes, concussion missiles, heavy
bombs/rockets, and other missile-type weapons are still used by SW quite extensively.
Zahn used them and since all SW products are basically considered to be canon till
proven "un-canon". The TIE Fighter game and the officially approved Dark Horse Comics
both use torps extensively against capital ships.
Due to the nature of these weapons though, they need to be used in quantity to
completely disable the whole ship. They can be used to precision strike to weaken
certain sections of an ISD. They seem to act like photon torpedoes in terms of the
effect on ISDs, but on a smaller scale. If SW shielding goes down, missile weapons
and lasers can be equally effective in destructive capability. Only difference is the
amount of kinetic energy.
The only reason I can guess at about the lack of missile usage in the SW movies is
that missiles are $$expensive$$. And the Rebels need to finance their war with
limited resources unlike the SSD building Empire (which costs as much as an average
Gross product of a Star system to maintain!).
> >>>constant directional thrust will eventually get through, and an
> >>>inanimate object with enough mass could break through. That was the
> >>>danger in the asteroid field: some of those asteroids were BIG...
>
> >Point taken from another response: should read "...object with enough
> >MOMENTUM could break through..."
>
> Hmm. Perhaps SW should reconfigure their tractors to act as
> long-range deflectors to move the asteroids out of the way before
> becoming a hazard. (Like nav deflectors seen in "Paradise Lost",
> "ST1:TMP"). Of course, I'm curious to see how long SW shields would
> hold up under the pressure of two giant doors ala "Relics".
Due to the relative size of an ISD (about 1.9 km long?) the current crop of Fed ships
are much less massive. The size of the asteriods the ISD was encountering and
frequency of asteroids lends to the conclusion that that particular asteroid field was
pretty dense. Also, we see the Falcon taking a bumpy ride through the asteroids due
to hitting the smaller rocks. SW shields are most likely limited in area of effect.
Whenever a ST ship is hit by something, the ship "rocks".
> >>Still, how does that account for the Falcon parking on a ISD in TESB
> >>or the fighters destroying the shield generator in ROTJ?
>
> >In the Falcon's case, I would think it rather obvious: it flew
> >through; like a ship going into a docking bay or the X-wings fighting
> >their way toward the Death Star, depending on how strong the shield
> >was at the time. It could do that because it had "constant directional
> >thrust" so that it wouldn't be shunted aside like an inanimate object
> >would be. Again, large inanimate objects with enough momentum could
> >get through with enough velocity to damage the ship.
>
> > (That happened in ESB; the large asteroid about half the size of
> >the conning tower that didn't look like it even slowed down before
> >creaming the superstructure of some ISD...)
>
> Hmm, that explains a lot of SW shields. Quite a difference.
> Apparently SW shields are quite different from ST shields when used to
> protect against physical attacks.
Obviously they're less attuned to physical penetration and more concentrated on
energy.
> >As for the A-wings vs. the Executor's shield generators-- I'm
> >currently participating in another thread on the Destruction of the
> >Executor on this NG (rassm). To make this as short as I can, the
> >consensus is that those fighters didn't take out the shield generators
> >all by themselves; they opportunized on a ship reeling under a capital
> >scale bombardment, probably with the help of a wave or two of B-wings.
> >[Ackbar's order to Rebel Fleet: "Concentrate firepower on that Super
> >Star Destroyer..."]
>
> >In order for the tiny A-wings to make that dive, the shields in that
> >location would've had to have been severely weakened or failed. The
>
> Why is that? Wouldn't the tine A-Wings under "constant directional
> thrust" be able to penetrate the shields irregardless of their
> condition to take shots at the shield generator? If the Falcon could
> land on a perfectly undamaged ISD in TESB, there isn't any reason why
> the A-Wings couldn't penetrate the shields of the SSD and take out the
> shield generators...
>
> >destruction of that generator then collapsed the bridge shields
> >completely, which left the Executor open for the next hit... it goes
> >on & on.
>
> >I'm not sure about Federation shields, but SW shields, being made up
> >of sections with separate generators, can be angled to maximize
> >protection in desired directions. They also tend to fail in sections,
> >rather than all drop at once.
>
> On quite a few occasions, Fed shields have been seen with
> hull-conforming shields rather than bubbles (TOS,ST2,ST6, Klingon
> ships) and are refered to by specific shield arcs.
>
> >>> Who can say that this Kazon battlewagon isn't just a huge empty shell
> >>>with some catwalks & control rooms inside? Any body ever seen a
> >>>diagram of one?
>
> >>Of course the exact same argument could be made of an Imperial Star
> >>Destroyer. Perhaps it is mostly a huge shell with giant flight
> >>hangars inside it?
>
> >I refer you to the Star Wars Technical Journal, in which there is an
>
> I could refer you to a Tech Manual too, but I don't trust them that
> much (if I could, then where was the Falcon's backup hyperdrive in
> TESB? -SW Sourcebook). How about an onscreen diagram from a movie or
> something?
>
> >interior diagram of an ISD. The only wide open spaces are the docking
> >bay areas concentrated immediately around the two bays visible on the
> >forward ventral section of the ship. The rest of the craft is built as
> >solid & as dense as a fortress.
> > I would not have asked that point about the Kazon ship if I knew
> >the Star Destroyer wouldn't stand up to the same logic.
>
> Technically, it doesn't. Given how many fighters, assault barges,
> assault vehicles the ISD is reputed to have onboard, a lot of that
> space is just going to go to hangars and cargo bays. The densest
> portions of the ship will most likely be the conning tower/box
> structures on the dorsal aft and the engineering section. Remember
> the gun ports of the ISD as seen in ANH? Quite spacious. Overall, a
> ISD is basically a giant aircraft carrier with assualt troop support
> facilities which would make a fair portion open spaces. So you see,
> without onscreen material, you are in the same boat as in regards to
> interior configuration of a ISD :)
Ugh, and I guess it would be a engineering nightmare to try to do the blueprints of
the Emperor's now-defunct flagship, the Eclipse (complete with Death Star laser!)
David W. Webb
Steve wrote:
>
> st...@rosie.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
> >And of course, you
> >are arguing the situation after the battle, since Kirk and Sulu would have
> >no solid idea how powerful the BOP's explosion would have been. Would lower
> >yield torpedoes suited more? Perhaps.
>
> Compared to the BOP blast, they would have been firecrackers.
I've been following this discussion, but it seems to me that at least one
item has been left out.
Photon torpedoes are matter-antimatter devices. It's reasonable to assume
(at least IMO) that they are analogous to shaped-charge explosive of our
time. If this were not true, then the ST authors waste their time by
building and firing both matter and antimatter when they can just fire
antimatter spreads at an enemy ship.
I think that for the same reason a pound of gunpowder can be contained in
such a way as to burn quickly but gently, or to explode violently, the
BOP and other starship explosions did no damage for the following reasons:
1: They aren't designed to explode with destructive effect.
2: They weren't close enough to do serious damage.
I can see holes in this train of thought. In TOS, I remember that the
E's scuttling devices were supposed to be able to destroy everything
in a sector. This would argue against point 2, but I don't think it
argues against point 1. Scuttling charges are designed to explode
with maximum destructive effect. Uncontrolled destruction of a starship
probably doesn't achieve this effect, IMO.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David W. Webb
dw...@ti.com
"He who dies with the most toys still dies." -unknown
Any correlation between my opinions and those of Texas Instruments is
purely coincidental. (I don't speak for TI)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Bell
Chung, Peter W. <st...@jetson.uh.edu> wrote:
>Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> wrote:
>
>>> >> Who can say that this Kazon battlewagon isn't just a huge empty shell
>>> >>with some catwalks & control rooms inside? Any body ever seen a
>>> >>diagram of one?
>>> >
>>> >Of course the exact same argument could be made of an Imperial Star
>>> >Destroyer. Perhaps it is mostly a huge shell with giant flight
>>> >hangars inside it?
>
>
>Which have never made it to the screen... of course this could change
>with either the SEs, or the prequels.
Bear in mind that Star Wars canon is completely different from Star Trek
canon. Lucasfilm has kept much tighter control over its SW properties than
Paramount did when ST was young. Hence most SW fans find less need to
exclude written works than ST fans. Also, the sum total of aired Star
Wars material is about 6 hours, plus the 2 Ewok adventures. Star Trek
has orders of magnitude more. So the various reference books created for
the SW universe can probably be considered on par with the ST Tech
Manual in terms of argument support.
Joshua
--
Joshua Bell d i m e n s i o n X
jsb...@dnx.com --------------------------
http://www.dnx.com/jsbell/ http://www.dimensionx.com/
Daniel Hoyt
In <31C9B6...@ti.com> "David W. Webb" <dw...@ti.com> writes:
>1: They aren't designed to explode with destructive effect.
>
>2: They weren't close enough to do serious damage.
>
>I can see holes in this train of thought. In TOS, I remember that the
>E's scuttling devices were supposed to be able to destroy everything
>in a sector. This would argue against point 2, but I don't think it
>argues against point 1. Scuttling charges are designed to explode
>with maximum destructive effect. Uncontrolled destruction of a
starship
>probably doesn't achieve this effect, IMO.
The only time I remember hearing an estimate of the Enterprise's
destructive force (in an explosion) was in "The Deadly Years." In that
episode, Kirk was bluffing to get the Romulans off his back. The only
evidence we have the Enterprise's explosive ability is from STIII (i.e.
- just enough to kill the ship). However, Mr. Scott's Guide to the
Enterprise states that there are two self-destruct modes on the
Enterprise. The first one just renders the ship a lifeless hulk, a la
STIII. The second method releases containment on the anti-matter
containment bottles (i.e. - everything within several hundred thousand
kilometers goes boom). My theory on the small explosions of ships
(notice the old Enterprises are never hurt by explosions near them) is
due to the fact that the final blast the shatters the ship spreads the
matter/antimatter too thinly to result in enough contact in a space
close enough to the ship to damage it. Why this is changed in TNG is
beyond me.
--Dan
Jones
Star Wars uses classic claser cannons
Trek uses Phased Energy Rectifictation (Phaser). Lasers are shit to them.
Jones
the shit was moving. as you look, the first torpedo is aft port, second
is from fore starbord,
Chung, Peter W.
jsb...@dimensionx.com (Joshua Bell) wrote:
>Chung, Peter W. <st...@jetson.uh.edu> wrote:
>>Wayne Poe <lo...@h4h.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> >> Who can say that this Kazon battlewagon isn't just a huge empty shell
>>>> >>with some catwalks & control rooms inside? Any body ever seen a
>>>> >>diagram of one?
>>>> >
>>>> >Of course the exact same argument could be made of an Imperial Star
>>>> >Destroyer. Perhaps it is mostly a huge shell with giant flight
>>>> >hangars inside it?
>>
>>>No, there are blueprints of the ISD in the Star Wars Technical Manual.
>>
>>Which have never made it to the screen... of course this could change
>>with either the SEs, or the prequels.
>Bear in mind that Star Wars canon is completely different from Star Trek
>canon. Lucasfilm has kept much tighter control over its SW properties than
>Paramount did when ST was young. Hence most SW fans find less need to
>exclude written works than ST fans. Also, the sum total of aired Star
>Wars material is about 6 hours, plus the 2 Ewok adventures. Star Trek
>has orders of magnitude more. So the various reference books created for
>the SW universe can probably be considered on par with the ST Tech
>Manual in terms of argument support.
And of course the ST Tech Manual is about as useful as a book of
should of been, could of been, already confirmed, and denied as far as
its connection to the Trek series. I tend to believe it being canon
when it makes it to the screen. Still its not to bad, Lucas is
releasing the Special Editions with extra footage, plus his prequels
which undoubtedly will add more information about SW...
jack...@bright.net
On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:38:38 -0500,
David W. Webb <dw...@ti.com> wrote:
[re:starship explosions]
>
>1: They aren't designed to explode with destructive effect.
>
>2: They weren't close enough to do serious damage.
>
>I can see holes in this train of thought. In TOS, I remember that the
>E's scuttling devices were supposed to be able to destroy everything
>in a sector. This would argue against point 2, but I don't think it
>argues against point 1. Scuttling charges are designed to explode
>with maximum destructive effect. Uncontrolled destruction of a starship
>probably doesn't achieve this effect, IMO.
>
>David W. Webb
>dw...@ti.com
I think you are referring to Corbomite, which was a bluff.
-Jack
James Watson
> > > (That happened in ESB; the large asteroid about half the size of
> > >the conning tower that didn't look like it even slowed down before
> > >creaming the superstructure of some ISD...)
> >
Isn't it possible that the shields in SW don't extend like a
bubble, but instead hug the surface of the ship like a second skin?
This would answer why fighters can pass so close to ships without
impacting shields.
The DS 2's shields WERE a bubble though. See the hologram in
ROTJ for this.
Joe Schulte
Steve (sec...@psu.edu) wrote:
: st...@rosie.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
: >>Of course, you are ignoring the possibility of firing the torps and
: >>raising the shields while they are in flight, or just raising the shields
: >>and firing. ST shields go up almost instantly (they can "pop up"
: >>instantly when the ship is subjected to a supprise attack) so don't give
: >>me any "time lag" arguments.
: >
: >Uhm Steve, you're the Captain of the BOP sneaking up on the Enterprise,
: >hey it just raised its shields. I don't think you're sneaking up on the
: >Enterprise anymore. As far as the instant shields, the ship can auto
: >raise standard deflectors, but it still takes time to go to full power
: >shields as evidenced in ST2.
: >
: In TOS (Errand of mercy), a klingon surprise attack was stopped when the
: E's shields "poped up" before any of the crew knew they were under
: attack. The sheilds raised themselves to full power in an instant. Of
: course, as we both know, anything from TOS would mop the floor with
: anything from TNG, judging from screen FX.
Neat. So, the E's computers could...
1) detect the firing of a phaser
2) interpret (somehow) FTL sensory data
3) take that data and analyze it
4) and raise shields
in the time that a FTL (or, at worst) lightspeed weapon could actually
strike a ship? Exactly how far were the Klingons away? Zillions of
kilometers?
: The BOP had several warheads worth of anti-matter left on board when it
: blew, and much, much more anti-matter in its engines. If the E was so
: vulnerable to even one full power torpsedo, why wasn't it annihilated by
: the detonating BOP? The BOP would have exploded with the force of many
: torpsedoes, and the E was undamaged by the blast. Kirk is rather
: experienced at space combat, and would be able to tell if he would be
: putting his ship in danger with a torp. Since we know that there was no
: danger from one lowly torp, we should assume Kirk knew this as well.
Silly boy! It's called shitty writing!
: >was no atmosphere to tranfer a shockwave back, and the BOP was farther away
: >than in ST3, allowing a safer distance for the E-A.
: So, full power torps would have been no danger at all then.
Let's also remember that shockwaves are different from pure energy. Does
anyone actually think that a kilogram of antimatter anniahlating fifty
feet from the Space Shuttle Colombus would have no effect? Of course not.
--
*************************************************************************
* I don't know what the Third World War * http://www.cris.com/~joeschul/*
* will be fought with. But the Fourth * index.html for nude celebs *
* World War will surely be fought with * and henati manga. *
* sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein * Updated fairly feequently *
*************************************************************************
Joes...@cris.com
aw...@lafn.org
In <31C452...@accent.net>, Mark Sidloi <msi...@accent.net> writes:
>
> The Kazon 'Battlewagon' is smaller than an ISD. Remember that Voyager
>is only 11 decks with a crew of approx 120. This means that Voyager is
>smaller than the original USS Enterprise. Keep this in mind the next
>time you want to compare the sizes of two different ships.
>
>Mark
I must agree: the Kazon ships are WAY SMALLER than Star Destroyers. You
should look at schematics for the ISD before you jump to any conclusions.
D.C.
Precursor
James Watson <wat...@iamerica.net> wrote:
>> > > (That happened in ESB; the large asteroid about half the size of
>> > >the conning tower that didn't look like it even slowed down before
>> > >creaming the superstructure of some ISD...)
>> >
> Isn't it possible that the shields in SW don't extend like a
>bubble, but instead hug the surface of the ship like a second skin?
Yes, I proposed that elsewhere in this thread; that SW shields are
made up of flat "sections" that closely conform to the contours of the
ship. They can be 'angled' in certain directions and tend to fail in
sections, rather than all at once ("we've lost our starboard deflector
shields!").
> This would answer why fighters can pass so close to ships without
>impacting shields.
Maybe, but SW shields are composed of two types: ray/energy shielding,
and magnetic/physical shielding. Magnetic shields are used primarily
for debris deflection & hangar integrity functions ("we're passing
through their magnetic shields!") and allow physical matter to pass
through fairly easily. Unless of course their power is cranked up
considerably, and even then is not infallible.
I'm not really disagreeing with you, but just contend that fighters
pass through large scale shielding without much problem anyway; ray
shielding doesn't affect them (only their laserfire) and they can pass
through even strong magnetic shields with only some turbulence (UNLESS
the mag shields were extraordinarily strong; see below)
> The DS 2's shields WERE a bubble though. See the hologram in
>ROTJ for this.
The reason that shield was a bubble is because it was projected from
Endor's surface & was meant to protect the entire station from close
fighter infiltration during its construction (while the reactor core
was still vulnerable-- keep in mind that the 2nd DS, when completed,
wouldn't have had the same fatal design flaw as the first.)
It was also apparently a massively strong [planetary-scale] magnetic
shield that completely prevented solid matter (ie. fighters) from
passing through it, hence the need to knock it out before the Rebels
flew in.
Also; yes, the Emperor allowed the Rebellion to learn of the shield
generator's location, but he had meant for them to be captured there--
he certainly didn't plan for them to actually destroy it!
Imperial Communique #001045.92v
Confirmed:SEND;TRANS60/64;RECV
Context:6E6;AOPT;ASYS;ROPT
Phasecycle:PSEG144513567390290;LINE
"Do you prefer another target; a military target?
Then name the system!"
Chung, Peter W.
aw...@lafn.org wrote:
Say DC, did you miss the "twin Voyagers" episode? Voyager has *at
least* 15 decks. And if you bothered to check its posted dimensions,
its actually a tad longer than the movie-Enterprise (300m+) and
Voyager was stated to be 130m wide in one episode, so in length and
width it is comparable to the movie-Enterprise, although Voyager is a
few decks less than the movie-Enterprise.
Now look at the shot in "Basics" where Voyager goes in really close
under a Kazon Battlewagon and you'll see that the Kazon ship is
extremely large, with overall volume exceeding an ISD.
Robert Hubby
James Watson (wat...@iamerica.net) wrote:
: > > > (That happened in ESB; the large asteroid about half the size of
: > > >the conning tower that didn't look like it even slowed down before
: > > >creaming the superstructure of some ISD...)
:
: Isn't it possible that the shields in SW don't extend like a
: This would answer why fighters can pass so close to ships without
: impacting shields.
:
: The DS 2's shields WERE a bubble though. See the hologram in
: ROTJ for this.
That shield was projected from the moon, and they probably couldn't be
accurate enough to make it hug the surface without risking damage to the
station. Also note that DS1 had a projected force field...
Wedge: We're passing through the magnetic field...hold tight! Switch your
deflectors on "Double Front."
Presumably, there's a "Destructive interferance" effect when two such fields
meet each other, allowing ships to pass through each other's fields to a
limited extent.
This happens in Star Trek, too. The "Shields" are usually only effective
against energy beams (Phasers, Disruptors, and PTs) while the "Deflectors"
are what turns aside spaceships, asteroids, etc. Some ships have deflectors
that are actually a part of their shields (The robots' ship in that Voyager
episode for example, not only stopped transporters, but bounced shuttles as
well.)
R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
"When you sit on a hot stove for a minute, it seems like an hour.
When you sit with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute.
That's relativity." - Einstein
Robert Hubby
craig edward malmgren (air...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Of course everyone is assuming that it is only one star destroyer,
: most of the time destroyers travel in groups of four.
Not to mention the possibility of a base ship (Superstar Destroyer or Death
Star)
R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
"You should never, ever doubt what nobody is sure about." - Willie Wonka
Robert Hubby
Chung, Peter W. (st...@jetson.uh.edu) wrote:
:
: Part of this stems from "how useful would a fighter be in Trek?"
: Below a certain size, they are liabilities with no capability to
: absorb a hit or last long enough to deliver a strike while under fire
: from practically "never-miss" phasers and photon torpedoes... The
: smallest successful types are not the fighters (or shuttles or
: Rnuabouts) but the PT-boats like the Defiant and Bird-of-Preys as far
: as Trek has done. To put a hundred or so unshielded, sublight
: fighters against the dead-eye aim of a Fed cap ship would be just
: throwing away pilots and material, IMO.
:
The accuracy comes from the fact that the computer almost always does the
targeting all by itself. The Klingons prefer the "Hands on" approach, which
is why they tend to miss a little more often (They get more satisfaction
from personally directing the shots, though.)
R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
"Eureka is greek for 'this bath is too hot.'" - The Doctor
Robert Hubby
Mark Sidloi (msi...@accent.net) wrote:
: Also, we have seen in TNG how the ratio between hull and shield strength
: at least in Klingon ships has slanted in favor of shields. In Redemption
: II, the Bortas fired one disruptor shot at each of the two attacking
: birds of prey. Those were the only two shots it fired in the whole
: battle. The first bird of prey had lowered its shields and was instantly
: destroyed. The second had enough time to re-raise its shield and it
: recieved only minor damage.
Remember that it was Worf at the targeting station. The first shot obviously
hit a vital component (From the angle and place it hit, I would say the
Engine Room) while the second shot was "Spread out" by the shields. The
Bortas may be a capital ship with massive firepower, but even it's main
disruptors can only do so much damage in one shot. Shields have a spreading
effect that tends to make it virtually impossible to damage a specific
system with just one shot. Worf was, no doubt, going for a quick kill on
both ships, but the second shot just wasn't fast enough.
R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
"Mechanics who can't fix a car...politicians who can't think...
The salesmen who won't leave me alone...the waiter who forgot my
drink...BOOT TO THE HEAD! (Na! Na!)" The Frantics.
Robert Hubby
Mike Dicenso (mdic...@SEDS.LPL.Arizona.EDU) wrote:
: The Falcon never destroyed the TIE it encountered. Han had just begun the
: process of chasing it down when the DS tractor beam caught them. How could
: the TIE inform the DS they where there when Chewie had jammed it's
: transmissions? You've also managed to answer your own question, in order
: for the ruse of adandoning ship to work, they'd have had to set the Falcon
: to auto pilot. After all they actually went through the trouble of
: jetisoning escape pods why would they forget that?
Actually, the escape pod was never there. Han (That crafty old space fox)
knew that it might always be good to be able to claim that someone had
ejected.
R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
"I'd Doze by the fireside, dreaming of cyanide, never a worry or a
care! And how can one measure, the infinite pleasure, of dreaming
of the electric chair! (Aside: Some people found it SHOCKING!)"
- Mr. Applegate, (DAMN YANKEES)
Robert Hubby
rais...@atc.ameritel.net wrote:
: In article <31c1c4d4...@news.aloha.com>, cki...@aloha.com wrote:
:
: The only time I have noticed any kind of FTL detection is when they drop OUT
: or INTO hyperspace.
:
Commander: We've detected an energy shield (Blah, Blah)...strong enough to
deflect any bombardment.
Vader: We've been detected. Admiral (Deadmeat) came out of lightspeed too
close to the system...
R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
"From this day forth, all toilets in the kingdom will be
called...Johns!" - Patrick Stuart as King Richard.
Robert Hubby
Somebody wrote:
: >>Secondly, a Trek ship probably
: >>can't detect a hyperspace ship, but could detect them dropping out or
: >>compute its destination (if they knew what algorythm the Imperials use.)
Hyperspace drive research was dropped when Warp was perfected. I think that
Kirk's little "Wormhole Accident" in STTMP was basically a short hyperspace
jump. The ST universe folks gave up the long range possibilities of
Hyperspace Jumps because Warp Drive allowed a short range (and safer)
alternative, without lots of fiddly computations and the possibility of
"Flying right through a star or bouncing too close to a supernova." This
would mean that, like most wormhole effects, a ship coming out of hyperspace
would create an elevated level of neutrinos at it's arrival point.
R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
"Ye canna change the laws o' physics (laws o' physics, laws o' physics)
Ye canna change the laws o' physics, laws o' physics, Jim!"
- Scotty's voice in "Star Trekking."
Robert Hubby
Precursor (prec...@gnn.com) wrote:
: Otherwise, the only thing I can reliably discuss about the ISD is that
: it's big, grey, slow, generally moves in the direction of the pointy
: end, and always has theme music in the background...
And it has BIG guns.
R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
"You ask so many questions...what answer should I choose?
Is it Schizoid Paranoia or just Existential Blues?" - T-bone.
"Only those who claim to be completely sane are truly mad." - Redwood
Robert Hubby
: of a "neutronium-alloy". So it could be construed as very "dense".
:
Though not as dense as some of the ST writers. "Neutronium" is supposedly
compacted Neutrons. Like what you find in a Neutron star. That's dense all
right. So dense that anything the size of the D.S. made out of it would
collapse under its own gravity and form a black hole. Oops. :)
R.A.H. Elf of the redwoods, Sonoma Valley, Breakfast Cereal Country.
California, the Land of Fruits, Nuts, and Flakes!
(And I'm one of the Nutty Flakes!)
I moved here from Alaska, too. Does that make me a Frosted Flake?
Joe Schulte
Robert Hubby (rah...@sonic.net) wrote:
: rais...@atc.ameritel.net wrote:
: : In article <31c1c4d4...@news.aloha.com>, cki...@aloha.com wrote:
: :
: : The only time I have noticed any kind of FTL detection is when they drop OUT
: : or INTO hyperspace.
: :
: Commander: We've detected an energy shield (Blah, Blah)...strong enough to
: deflect any bombardment.
: Vader: We've been detected. Admiral (Deadmeat) came out of lightspeed too
: close to the system...
Which is, of course, exactly what he said.
Hello? McFly?
Joe Schulte
Robert Hubby (rah...@sonic.net) wrote:
: Somebody wrote:
: : >>Secondly, a Trek ship probably
: : >>can't detect a hyperspace ship, but could detect them dropping out or
: : >>compute its destination (if they knew what algorythm the Imperials use.)
: Hyperspace drive research was dropped when Warp was perfected. I think that
: Kirk's little "Wormhole Accident" in STTMP was basically a short hyperspace
: jump. The ST universe folks gave up the long range possibilities of
: Hyperspace Jumps because Warp Drive allowed a short range (and safer)
: alternative, without lots of fiddly computations and the possibility of
: "Flying right through a star or bouncing too close to a supernova." This
: would mean that, like most wormhole effects, a ship coming out of hyperspace
: would create an elevated level of neutrinos at it's arrival point.
Excuse me? Are you the next Einstein, or have you been seeing how many
bowls you can smoke before going online?
First of all, can you tell me what the fuck an elevated level of neutrinos
at a ship's arrival point means, and why *ANYONE* should care? There's an
elevated level of mass at the ship's arrival point, too (it's called "the
ship"), but who cares?
The simple fact is that Han Solo can cross the galaxy in a few days at
most - it will take the Voyager 70 years to cross a quarter of it.
Fiddly computations? Shit, let's see what happens if the Enterprise tries
to fly through a planet. Oh. Death.
Chung, Peter W.
Steve <sec...@psu.edu> wrote:
>st...@rosie.uh.edu (Chung, Peter W.) wrote:
>>>Of course, you are ignoring the possibility of firing the torps and
>>>raising the shields while they are in flight, or just raising the shields
>>>and firing. ST shields go up almost instantly (they can "pop up"
>>>instantly when the ship is subjected to a supprise attack) so don't give
>>>me any "time lag" arguments.
>>
>>Uhm Steve, you're the Captain of the BOP sneaking up on the Enterprise,
>>hey it just raised its shields. I don't think you're sneaking up on the
>>Enterprise anymore. As far as the instant shields, the ship can auto
>>raise standard deflectors, but it still takes time to go to full power
>>shields as evidenced in ST2.
>>
>In TOS (Errand of mercy), a klingon surprise attack was stopped when the
>E's shields "poped up" before any of the crew knew they were under
>attack. The sheilds raised themselves to full power in an instant. Of
>course, as we both know, anything from TOS would mop the floor with
>anything from TNG, judging from screen FX.
My mistake. After looking back at ST2, the auto deflectors weren't
used (friendly ship, computer and crew had no reason...) Yeah,
"Errand of Mercy" did have the ship auto-raise shields when it first
detected an unidentified approaching ship. And as far as TOS kicking
butt, yeah :)
>>>
>>>ST torps are as weak as cannonballs. The movies and TV show prove it.
>>
>>So whatabout that Enterprise-sized asteroid that got vaporized with
>>a single photon torpedo in the 1st movie? Or the various large objects
>>the photons have blown up quite satisfactorarily over the years? I think
>That torp was close enough to TOS to have kept some power. (BTW, the
>asteroid was blown apart, not vaporized) Later torps are all much
>weaker.
Okay, more like pulverized :)
However, later torps (in the 6 movies) were never used in a situation
that could be considered viable for "full-power" firings, IMO.
The seventh movie? I don't know. :)
>>>Not to my satisfaction. It took 5 torps to knock out a BOP. FIVE. in
>>>an all-out no holds barred fight to the death, we are to believe that two
>>>sheilded ships fired unarmed torpedoes at their deadly adversary? If the
>>
>>Ahem. Do you not remember that the E-A had virtually *no* shields? We are
>>reminded several times of this "problem" in the movie.
>>
>The BOP had several warheads worth of anti-matter left on board when it
>blew, and much, much more anti-matter in its engines. If the E was so
>vulnerable to even one full power torpsedo, why wasn't it annihilated by
>the detonating BOP?
Most likely the rate or reaction from the exploding BOP was less than
a full-power torpedo explosion. (That's in hindsight after watching
the scene again. I am adjusting my position about the reasoning
behind this scene :)
>The BOP would have exploded with the force of many
>torpsedoes, and the E was undamaged by the blast.
Well, we don't know if the E-A was damaged in the blast or not. The
ship could have still been rocked by shockwaves (of the Trekphysics
kind :) )
>Kirk is rather
>experienced at space combat, and would be able to tell if he would be
>putting his ship in danger with a torp. Since we know that there was no
>danger from one lowly torp, we should assume Kirk knew this as well.
Well, this could work several ways. Kirk's first torpedo pretty much
killed the bridge crew of the BOP and most likely alot of the
remaining crew. (But Kirk may not have known positively.)
-If the remaining torpedoes fired by the E-A and Ex were at full
power, there was the consideration of being damaged from your own
torpedoes.
-If the BOP detonated from a direct hit to its AM tanks/pods there was
a good chance that the explosion could damage your ship (this stems
from the observed effects of a direct hit from a photon torpedo to one
of Voyager's ejected AM pods in "Resolutions?") Although the strength
of the BOP's explosion is questionable, since they tend to have small
explosions as seen in "Way of the Warrior", "Redemption", etc.
IMO, it would have been preferable to "help" the BOP explode, but not
to inflict undue harm on the E-A with the use of full-power torpedoes
(the Excelsior was fine, as far as we can tell.)
>>>Why didn't they use phasersa if hey were worried about the trops
>>>blast?
>>
>>That's a good question for which I have no particular answer :)
>>
>I have a very good answer. The torps are much more powerful than the
>phasers.
Well, that would be true. I would just like to figure out why it
wasn't used when there was the oppurtunity for it.
>>>Also, the BOP's engines had orders of magnitude more anti-matter
>>>than the torps would have had, and neither ship was damaged by the
>>>detonating BOP. Kirk and Sulu would not have feared arming their
>>>weapons.
>>
>>That depends on the explosion effects. Kirk would have some fear,
>>afterall, the E-A was shieldless at that point. Whether Sulu knew
>>any better is unknown. Still, a ship exploding from getting blown up
>>by enemy fire is alot less than self-destructing,
>Why is that? Anti-matter must be prevented from detonating, when the
>ship loses containment, the AM goes kablooey.
Still, there is a difference in how quickly the AM reacts to go
kablooey :) A torpedo most likely slams the reactants together for
efficiency, but, AM stored in tanks would more likely "rupture" (from
damage) and react at a far slower rate than say if the AM tanks or
pods were deliberately used to self-destruct (like dropping the
containment field or something more premeditated.)
>in this case, since there
>>was no atmosphere to tranfer a shockwave back, and the BOP was farther away
>>than in ST3, allowing a safer distance for the E-A.
>So, full power torps would have been no danger at all then.
Not necessarily, there was no atmosphere in ST2 where Kahn fired a
torpedo to discourage the Enterprise from entering the Nebula, yet the
miss did pass back a "shockwave" to the Enterprise. There is always
the mystical "subspace shockwave" to contend with.
> And of course, you
>>are arguing the situation after the battle, since Kirk and Sulu would have
>>no solid idea how powerful the BOP's explosion would have been. Would lower
>>yield torpedoes suited more? Perhaps.
>Compared to the BOP blast, they would have been firecrackers.
Depends on how the BOP blows up :)
>>To conclude, almost all of the situations presented in the movies restricted
>>alot of the ability of the weapons they fired. The only time you're ever
>>seen them cut loose a full powered photorp is in the first movie (the
>>Klingons vs V'ger and the Enterprise vs Asteroid). Perhaps you would like
>>to try the series, since the odds of a super slip up by the writers and
>>FX guys at Paramount are much higher (seriously).
>>
>Despite all of the importance you give to the yield strength of the
>torps, not one word of movie time is given to this subject.
?
>If I could, I would name you the scientific consultant for the ST shows
>and movies. (You have displayed knowledge of real physics on more than
>one occation)
If they offered the job, I'd take it and make changes to the series
and return it back to the TOS-days (of combat, at least) and
definitely censor any phrase requiring the use of "phase-inverter" etc
:)
>You are trying to defend people who know a hell of a lot
>less about their own show than you do, which is why you need so much
>convoluted thought to come up with reasonable answers.
Yep :)
The funny thing is that when they put out the next movie (ST8) I'll
bet its going to be terrible (if any of these story rumors are even
remotely accurate or if its being written by the same people who wrote
"Generations".) I've seen the Entertainment TOnight sneak peaks and
it doesn't look good...
>My hostility
>twords ST is caused by the poor writing and declining imagination behind
>the show. I loved the Enterprise from TOS. It's weapons could destroy
>cities, it could push huge rocks around, it didn't have a speed limit,
>ect. The technology in TNG and the movies has been castrated to a sad
>degree. I want to see weapons that make 20th century weapons look
>primitive. I could rant for a while, sorry.
I've done that on RAST for a while. Mostly about what you've said.
Still, lately saw a few improvements, but not a lot. Oh well :)
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Authority without wisdom is like a heavy axe without an edge,
fitter to bruise than polish."
Bubba
>most - it will take the Voyager 70 years to cross a quarter of it.
Well, its entirely possible that the Galaxy in which SW is set is a
lot smaller that the milkey way.
-Bubba
*******************************************************************
When they took the second amendment, I remained silent because I have no guns.
When they took the fourth amendment, I remained silent because I deal no drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment, I remained silent because I am innocent.
Now they're taking the first amendment and I remain silent because I no longer
have the right to speak.
Anonymous...
********************************************************************
Adam Breier
It seems like the last bunch of messages have pertained much more to this
universe than to the one we usually discuss. (No offense--just thought
I'd point that out)