ISD vs DS9
BIRGITHA JACOB
so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
--
"Live long and prosper"
Commander Thelea
DS9 is a heavily armed station by Federation and Alpha Quadrant
standards, but has poor targeting systems, absolutely no
manuverability, and weak shields and hull armour.
However, the biggest problem is that even if Imperial weapons
are short range, it doesn't matter against a target that can't
escape. And against a target that can't manuver, the heavy
cannons can fire on it again and again with excellent accuracy
from point-blank range.
Therefore, the contest is unquestionable: One ISD could destroy
DS9.
The ONLY hope of the Alpha and Gamma Quadrant powers is their
manuverability and range advantage...
And space stations lack both of those.
Marina O'Leary
"Ut Veniant Omnes!"
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Chris O'Farrell
> standards, but has poor targeting systems,
Perhaps, relative to multipule fast moving targets per weapons bank at short
and long range, it hit less then 100% of the targets. The novalisation talks
about this somewhat.
Then again,against one 1.6 klick battleship, they are hardly going to miss.
absolutely no
> manuverability,
Welllllll they sorta have
some.......................................................
and weak shields
They were able to survive constant bombardment from a fleet of klingon
warships without a problem until they soecificaly targeted the sheild
generators which were not fully installed, hence they were penetrated when
they fired a concentrated volley at the generators.
and hull armour.
True. But it was never designed to be a battlestation.
>
> However, the biggest problem is that even if Imperial weapons
> are short range, it doesn't matter against a target that can't
> escape. And against a target that can't manuver, the heavy
> cannons can fire on it again and again with excellent accuracy
> from point-blank range.
Same with DS9. AND with all those torpedo launchers spitting out volleys at
the kinds of speeds shown in WOTW.......
> Therefore, the contest is unquestionable: One ISD could destroy
> DS9.
Possibly yes. Chances would be improved if they used fighters to divert
firepower away from the ISD and split the defences.
> The ONLY hope of the Alpha and Gamma Quadrant powers is their
> manuverability and range advantage...
Not ONLY hope. DS9 fire rate is a BIG advantage. SD's have never been seen
to fire at high rates from single guns.
Olivier Malek
A single ISD vs. DS9 is a whole other story. DS9 outguns it completely. And
cardassian stations are known to have very stong hull.
BIRGITHA JACOB <perj...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:01bfae8a$1cf373a0$LocalHost@default...
Strowbridge
> A single ISD vs. DS9 is a whole other story. DS9 outguns it
> completely. And cardassian stations are known to have very stong hull.
But DS9 can only generate 790 TW of power, total.
The TL Bolt that was used to vaporize the asteroid in TESB contained
more than 1000 TJ of energy.
C.S.Strowbridge
Weyoun the Dancing Borg
has STORNG shields. it wisthstod an attack from several kilingons ships
(several DOZEN) and a massive attack fromt he Jem-Hadar and Cardassians, a
flet of hundreds of ships.
--
"The strength of a nation is not measured by it's ability to fight wars. It
is measured by it's ability to prevent them."
Gene Roddenberry
weyounthed...@hotmail.com
Commander Thelea <Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:11b3b578...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
> In article <01bfae8a$1cf373a0$LocalHost@default>, "BIRGITHA
> JACOB" <perj...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> >DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on
> all levels,
> >so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
> >--
> >"Live long and prosper"
> >
> >
>
> DS9 is a heavily armed station by Federation and Alpha Quadrant
> standards, but has poor targeting systems, absolutely no
> manuverability, and weak shields and hull armour.
>
> However, the biggest problem is that even if Imperial weapons
> are short range, it doesn't matter against a target that can't
> escape. And against a target that can't manuver, the heavy
> cannons can fire on it again and again with excellent accuracy
> from point-blank range.
>
> Therefore, the contest is unquestionable: One ISD could destroy
> DS9.
>
> The ONLY hope of the Alpha and Gamma Quadrant powers is their
> manuverability and range advantage...
>
Olivier Malek
advanced tech, the Imperials
could do the same kind of damage with less energy. Something the ST galaxy
has learned over the years.
A bullet with a special form can fly further and be more destructive than a
plain round bullet. With the equal size of
energy put into it. ST uses a special feature of a certain particle
(whatever it is) in it's phasers to deliver a massive
amount of energy without putting so much in it. We do the same thing today,
with nuclear power for example. The only
thing we do is starting a chain reaction with a few neutrons. And control
it, so the immense power can be harvested.
SW weapons are totally inefficient energy wasting weapons. All of the SW
galaxy is. They build fucking big
starbases (DS) to destroy planets, but in the mean time, a few ISD's can BDZ
the planet and have the same effect in a matter of hours.
Orbital Shielding or not. If TL's were as powerful as calculated, they
should be able to destroy any orbital shield with a few ISD's and they
never had to loose billions of lives and millions of tonnes of valubale
resources in the destruction of DS2.
Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3905E5B7...@home.com...
Kyle
the Imperials
> could do the same kind of damage with less energy. Something the ST galaxy
> has learned over the years.
> A bullet with a special form can fly further and be more destructive than a
> plain round bullet. With the equal size of
> energy put into it. ST uses a special feature of a certain particle
> (whatever it is) in it's phasers to deliver a massive
> amount of energy without putting so much in it. We do the same thing today,
> with nuclear power for example. The only
> thing we do is starting a chain reaction with a few neutrons. And control
> it, so the immense power can be harvested.
SW uses tibana gas. A laser is used to induce a reaction in the gas that
releases the plasma.
> SW weapons are totally inefficient energy wasting weapons. All of the SW
> galaxy is. They build fucking big
> starbases (DS) to destroy planets, but in the mean time, a few ISD's can BDZ
> the planet and have the same effect in a matter of hours.
Not if the planet is shielded.
> Orbital Shielding or not. If TL's were as powerful as calculated, they
> should be able to destroy any orbital shield with a few ISD's
BS assumption.
If the TLs are as powerful as calculated then orbital shields should be
even stronger.
--
Kyle Knopf
Strowbridge
> Power comsumption on the Imperial side is unnessecairly high.
Unfortunately for you even if the efficiency of BOTH sides is in favour
of DS9, the ISD will STILL out power DS9.
Think of it this way.
1.) DS9 Produces 790 TW. 100% of that power goes into the shield system.
2.) An ISD vapourized an asteroid in TESB. That took at least 1500 TJ of
energy. If we assume 100% efficiency the bolt contains 1500 TJ of
energy. (Any less efficiency increases the energy of the bolt.)
3.) Now, lets say the shields work in such a way that they don't need to
stop the energy coming at them, just redirect it enough so it doesn't
hit the station. (NOTE: This is NOT true, canon events prove it false.)
Lets also say that the amount of energy needed to deflect the weapons is
only 10% of the energy of the weapon.
4.) Lets say ALL the ISD's weapons are the small Trench Cannons.
Even if all those are correct then the ISD would only need to hit with
(roughly) one in 13 shots to overwhelm the shields.
C.S.Strowbridge
Weyoun the Dancing Borg
those phasers can vapourise a Jem'Hadar battlebug or BoP in under a second.
With their shields fully up.
That's strong.
--
"The strength of a nation is not measured by it's ability to fight wars. It
is measured by it's ability to prevent them."
Gene Roddenberry
Chuck
Weyoun the Dancing Borg <wey...@btinternet.com.DESPAM> wrote in message
news:8e53cq$aen$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> says who it can generate only that much power?
The Deep Space Nine Technical Manual, page 45. And that's assuming all six
reaction chambers are functioning at peak performance.
--
Chuck
"Are you willing to die for stupidity? You see, I am, if it'll teach you
something." -187
Strowbridge
>
> says who it can generate only that much power?
The DS9:TM
> those phasers can vapourise a Jem'Hadar battlebug or BoP in under a
> second. With their shields fully up.
>
> That's strong.
No, that's a really weak ship.
C.S.Strowbridge
pablo_sa...@my-deja.com
"BIRGITHA JACOB" <perj...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on all
levels,
> so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
Im may carry 5000 torpedoes, but it can't lauch them all at the same
time. It could survive maybe HALF a broadside, and the ISD can easily
unleash that before the DS9 can respond.
> --
> "Live long and prosper"
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
pablo_sa...@my-deja.com
"Chris O'Farrell" <yno...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > DS9 is a heavily armed station by Federation and Alpha Quadrant
> > standards, but has poor targeting systems,
>
at short
> and long range, it hit less then 100% of the targets. The
novalisation talks
> about this somewhat.
>
> Then again,against one 1.6 klick battleship, they are hardly going to
miss.
>
> absolutely no
> > manuverability,
> Welllllll they sorta have
> some.......................................................
?????
> and weak shields
>
> They were able to survive constant bombardment from a fleet of klingon
> warships without a problem until they soecificaly targeted the sheild
> generators which were not fully installed, hence they were penetrated
when
> they fired a concentrated volley at the generators.
An ISD broadside unleashes as much or more energy as a Klingon fleet.
> and hull armour.
>
> True. But it was never designed to be a battlestation.
Wasn't it a mining station?
> >
> > However, the biggest problem is that even if Imperial weapons
> > are short range, it doesn't matter against a target that can't
> > escape. And against a target that can't manuver, the heavy
> > cannons can fire on it again and again with excellent accuracy
> > from point-blank range.
>
> Same with DS9. AND with all those torpedo launchers spitting out
volleys at
> the kinds of speeds shown in WOTW.......
>
> > Therefore, the contest is unquestionable: One ISD could destroy
> > DS9.
>
> Possibly yes. Chances would be improved if they used fighters to
divert
> firepower away from the ISD and split the defences.
>
> > The ONLY hope of the Alpha and Gamma Quadrant powers is their
> > manuverability and range advantage...
>
> Not ONLY hope. DS9 fire rate is a BIG advantage. SD's have never been
seen
> to fire at high rates from single guns.
They only need one or two volleys. Being generous (ISD cannons can
fire once a second, but I'll give it once every two seconds) it can
probably destroy the DS9 in four to eight seconds. And, if they
approached from a position where the DS9 had a poor firing arc, they
wouldn't suffer all that much damage.
pablo_sa...@my-deja.com
"Weyoun the Dancing Borg" <wey...@btinternet.com.DESPAM> wrote:
> no, an ISD hs a short range. Int heory ds9 has a range of 300 000 km.
and it
> has STORNG shields. it wisthstod an attack from several kilingons
ships
> (several DOZEN) and a massive attack fromt he Jem-Hadar and
Cardassians, a
> flet of hundreds of ships.
You have lapsed into a newbie-esque stupor. I cant undrstant a werd u
r sying!
> --
> "The strength of a nation is not measured by it's ability to fight
wars. It
> is measured by it's ability to prevent them."
>
> Gene Roddenberry
>
> weyounthed...@hotmail.com
> Commander Thelea <Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:11b3b578...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
> > In article <01bfae8a$1cf373a0$LocalHost@default>, "BIRGITHA
> > JACOB" <perj...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> > >DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on
> > all levels,
> > >so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
> > >--
> > >"Live long and prosper"
> > >
> > >
> >
> > DS9 is a heavily armed station by Federation and Alpha Quadrant
> > standards, but has poor targeting systems, absolutely no
> > manuverability, and weak shields and hull armour.
> >
> > However, the biggest problem is that even if Imperial weapons
> > are short range, it doesn't matter against a target that can't
> > escape. And against a target that can't manuver, the heavy
> > cannons can fire on it again and again with excellent accuracy
> > from point-blank range.
> >
> > Therefore, the contest is unquestionable: One ISD could destroy
> > DS9.
> >
> > The ONLY hope of the Alpha and Gamma Quadrant powers is their
> > manuverability and range advantage...
> >
> > And space stations lack both of those.
> >
> > Marina O'Leary
> >
> > "Ut Veniant Omnes!"
> >
> >
> > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network
> *
> > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
> >
>
>
pablo_sa...@my-deja.com
"Olivier Malek" <malek....@ping.be> wrote:
> Power comsumption on the Imperial side is unnessecairly high. With
more
He didn't say that the blast took 1000 TJ to generate, he said the
blast itself generated that.
> advanced tech, the Imperials
> could do the same kind of damage with less energy. Something the ST
galaxy
> has learned over the years.
They must have been skipping Tactics 101 to go learn technology from
Doc Brown (Back to the Future)
> A bullet with a special form can fly further and be more destructive
than a
> plain round bullet. With the equal size of
> energy put into it. ST uses a special feature of a certain particle
> (whatever it is) in it's phasers to deliver a massive
> amount of energy without putting so much in it.
>We do the same thing today,
> with nuclear power for example. The only
> thing we do is starting a chain reaction with a few neutrons. And
control
> it, so the immense power can be harvested.
>
> SW weapons are totally inefficient energy wasting weapons. All of the
SW
> galaxy is. They build fucking big
> starbases (DS) to destroy planets, but in the mean time, a few ISD's
can BDZ
> the planet and have the same effect in a matter of hours.
The DS is a weapon of absolute terror! I cannot understand people that
don't realize that. Why is it terrifying? It is 160 kilometers wide
and can reduce a planet into asteroids in a *single blast*.
> Orbital Shielding or not.
Actually, a planetary shield with some orbital defense stations and
planetary guns can seriously mess up a bombardment force.
> If TL's were as powerful as calculated, they
> should be able to destroy any orbital shield with a few ISD's and they
> never had to loose billions of lives and millions of tonnes of
valubale
> resources in the destruction of DS2.
No. SW shields are actually powerful enough to resist the power of
turbolasers. This tells you something about SW power.
> Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3905E5B7...@home.com...
> > Olivier Malek wrote:
> >
> > > A single ISD vs. DS9 is a whole other story. DS9 outguns it
> > > completely. And cardassian stations are known to have very stong
hull.
> >
> > But DS9 can only generate 790 TW of power, total.
> > The TL Bolt that was used to vaporize the asteroid in TESB contained
> > more than 1000 TJ of energy.
> >
> > C.S.Strowbridge
>
>
pablo_sa...@my-deja.com
kyl...@netzero.net wrote:
> Olivier Malek wrote:
> the Imperials
> > could do the same kind of damage with less energy. Something the ST
galaxy
> > has learned over the years.
destructive than a
> > plain round bullet. With the equal size of
> > energy put into it. ST uses a special feature of a certain particle
> > (whatever it is) in it's phasers to deliver a massive
> > amount of energy without putting so much in it. We do the same
thing today,
> > with nuclear power for example. The only
> > thing we do is starting a chain reaction with a few neutrons. And
control
> > it, so the immense power can be harvested.
>
that
> releases the plasma.
>
the SW
> > galaxy is. They build fucking big
> > starbases (DS) to destroy planets, but in the mean time, a few
ISD's can BDZ
> > the planet and have the same effect in a matter of hours.
>
>
they
> > should be able to destroy any orbital shield with a few ISD's
>
> If the TLs are as powerful as calculated then orbital shields should
be
> even stronger.
It's interesting to note that because SW planetary shields can resist a
massed ISD bombardment for extended periods of time, logically, they
could resist a Starfleet armada for a very very long time. More than
enough time for a Fleet to come in and pound the invaders into stardust.
> --
> Kyle Knopf
Dalton
>
> DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on all levels,
> so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
It's also stationary.
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303
"Heh...uh...Hi, Mister Killer. Gee, I'm sorry
I- *THWACK!*: --Martin Short, "Innerspace"
Da ASVS Fanfic Archive: [http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fanfics]
Da ASVS FUQ: [http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fuq]
Eframepilot
>In article <01bfae8a$1cf373a0$LocalHost@default>,
>> DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on all
>levels,
>> so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
>
>time. It could survive maybe HALF a broadside, and the ISD can easily
>unleash that before the DS9 can respond.
>
pablo_sa...@my-deja.com
jt...@cornell.edu (Eframepilot) wrote:
> In article <8e57b7$702$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, pablo_sanchez2000@my-
deja.com wrote:
> >In article <01bfae8a$1cf373a0$LocalHost@default>,
> > "BIRGITHA JACOB" <perj...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> >> DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on all
> >levels,
> >> so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
> >
> >Im may carry 5000 torpedoes, but it can't lauch them all at the same
> >time. It could survive maybe HALF a broadside, and the ISD can
easily
> >unleash that before the DS9 can respond.
> >
> Can it? We never saw that rate of fire at Endor or anywhere else.
All it has to do is fire all of the guns on the port or starboard side
at the same time. This is called a "broadside"
Eframepilot
reason NOT to they will NEVER do it" rule, WILL it?
Kynes
> so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
Given that each torpedo is 24MT, so 5000 would release 5E20 J. Given that a
single ISD carries around 1E26 watts of total firepower based on the ANH briefing
and the BTM numbers which support it, I doubt that the full complement of torpedoes
aboard DS9 could bring down even a *single* Star Destroyer.
--
-LK!
[ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
"Discussions which lack moral or normative assessments are rarely interesting."
- Emily Cuatto
Kynes
> Not ONLY hope. DS9 fire rate is a BIG advantage. SD's have never been seen
> to fire at high rates from single guns.
They don't have to. Each ship carries over 200 TL batteries -- even if they only
fire a few at a time, as we see in ANH while trying to capture the Tantive IV,
they can get a rate of fire of about 5 shots per second.
Kynes
> no, an ISD hs a short range.
ROTJ indicates otherwise. See the Battle of Endor, where long-range fire is exchanged.
Further, the short range fire is criticized by an officer, who is understandably shocked
that the ships were engaging at such close range.
> Int heory ds9 has a range of 300 000 km.
Which is a lie.
> and it
> has STORNG shields.
Strong by Federation standards, maybe...
> it wisthstod an attack from several kilingons ships
> (several DOZEN) and a massive attack fromt he Jem-Hadar and Cardassians, a
> flet of hundreds of ships.
"Dangerous to your Starfleet, commander -- NOT to this battleship."
Chris O'Farrell
<pablo_sa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8e57mh$7ii$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39058b66$0$23...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>,
> "Chris O'Farrell" <yno...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > DS9 is a heavily armed station by Federation and Alpha Quadrant
> > > standards, but has poor targeting systems,
> >
> at short
> > and long range, it hit less then 100% of the targets. The
> novalisation talks
> > about this somewhat.
> >
> > Then again,against one 1.6 klick battleship, they are hardly going to
> miss.
> >
> > absolutely no
> > > manuverability,
> > Welllllll they sorta have
> > some.......................................................
>
> ?????
Well they sorta have thrusters..........
> > and weak shields
> >
> > They were able to survive constant bombardment from a fleet of klingon
> > warships without a problem until they soecificaly targeted the sheild
> > generators which were not fully installed, hence they were penetrated
> when
> > they fired a concentrated volley at the generators.
>
> An ISD broadside unleashes as much or more energy as a Klingon fleet.
Yes........
Depends of the size of the fleet.
> > and hull armour.
> >
> > True. But it was never designed to be a battlestation.
>
> Wasn't it a mining station?
Yep. Never designed to defend itself. It had heeps of ships in the system to
do this.
> > >
> > > However, the biggest problem is that even if Imperial weapons
> > > are short range, it doesn't matter against a target that can't
> > > escape. And against a target that can't manuver, the heavy
> > > cannons can fire on it again and again with excellent accuracy
> > > from point-blank range.
> >
> > Same with DS9. AND with all those torpedo launchers spitting out
> volleys at
> > the kinds of speeds shown in WOTW.......
> >
> > > Therefore, the contest is unquestionable: One ISD could destroy
> > > DS9.
> >
> > Possibly yes. Chances would be improved if they used fighters to
> divert
> > firepower away from the ISD and split the defences.
> >
> > > The ONLY hope of the Alpha and Gamma Quadrant powers is their
> > > manuverability and range advantage...
> >
> > Not ONLY hope. DS9 fire rate is a BIG advantage. SD's have never been
> seen
> > to fire at high rates from single guns.
>
> They only need one or two volleys. Being generous (ISD cannons can
> fire once a second, but I'll give it once every two seconds) it can
> probably destroy the DS9 in four to eight seconds.
Um ok. I have said this before and I will say it again. There is NO Cannon
evidence that they can fire broadsides every second. There in fact, is
plently of offical evidence that shows the ships when they DO fire
broadsides they fire once every 5 or so seconds MINIMUM. There is NO proof
of the often toated broadside every second in offical, cannon or even non
offical sources.
And, if they
> approached from a position where the DS9 had a poor firing arc, they
> wouldn't suffer all that much damage.
Yes but as they approached they would be being pounded by photons
continuasly. If they could knock out the shields, then the phasers become
highly useful.
Chris O'Farrell
> 2.) An ISD vapourized an asteroid in TESB. That took at least 1500 TJ of
> energy. If we assume 100% efficiency the bolt contains 1500 TJ of
> energy. (Any less efficiency increases the energy of the bolt.)
And in Call to arms, there is a nice shot of a phaser turning 2 JH attack
fighters into clouds of plasma with a direct hit, shields and all.
Now if you think about it, the fact that a ISD did the same with a massive
amount more power meens only 1 thing.
SW weapons are increadable inificcient compared to ST ones. If one class 12
phaser battery which has far less total power comming into it then a PTC on
an ISD can do the same thing AS that cannon, it meens that their weapons
watt for watt are more destructive.
Kynes
> Power comsumption on the Imperial side is unnessecairly high.
More lies from cultists who just can't grasp the level to which Imperial
technology has advanced over 25,000 years. Here we go again.
> With more
> advanced tech, the Imperials
> could do the same kind of damage with less energy.
TLs use the most direct and obvious form of destruction that comes to mind
for a beam weapon -- a heat ray. The energy transfer is total -- all of the
energy from the beam is absorbed by the target. A 2700 TJ TL bolt is going
to deliver that much energy to the target, period.
> Something the ST galaxy
> has learned over the years.
The Federation has unfortunately had to resort to cheap work-arounds like NDF,
which do not guarantee the same destructive power against all targets. While
it is understandable for such a primitive and backwards civilization, it is
certainly in no way *superior* to the massively powerful turbolasers employed
by the Empire.
> A bullet with a special form can fly further and be more destructive than a
> plain round bullet. With the equal size of
> energy put into it.
Two weapons which input the same amount of energy into the target can do that
much damage, period. ST seems to except this rule with its NDF effect, but
this is not actually the case -- most of the energy of NDF comes *from the
target*, not the beam itself.
> We do the same thing today,
> with nuclear power for example. The only
> thing we do is starting a chain reaction with a few neutrons. And control
> it, so the immense power can be harvested.
The "immense power" you're talking about comes from the reaction material
itself. Uranium naturally bleeds off energy in the form of radioactivity.
We are not getting something for nothing -- we're just harnessing energy
that's already there, much as NDF does.
However, material dependency has *extreme* weaknesses. NDF doesn't work well
on armor or shields. It is best employed against simple low-atomic-number
substances like carbon and rocks of various sots.
> SW weapons are totally inefficient energy wasting weapons.
This is simply a lie. While it may seem like "waste" to a cultist more
accustomed to 1.02GW phaser strips, it is a fact of life in the Imperial
war machine, where ships have shields which would not be threatened by the
head-on ramming of a Federation starship.
> All of the SW
> galaxy is. They build fucking big
> starbases (DS) to destroy planets, but in the mean time, a few ISD's can BDZ
> the planet and have the same effect in a matter of hours. Orbital Shielding
> or not. If TL's were as powerful as calculated, they
> should be able to destroy any orbital shield with a few ISD's and they
> never had to loose billions of lives and millions of tonnes of valubale
> resources in the destruction of DS2.
This only demonstrates the power of planetary shielding. Of course, this is
the *natural* assumption -- a planet is huge, and far more important than
any individual ship, and should thus have shielding which can protect it even
from a fleet of starships. Only in the backward and primitive Federation
society do planets go totally unprotected, vulnerable to attacks -- by the
Breen, for example.
Chris O'Farrell
Well technicaly it would be:
"Dangerous to your Station, commander -- NOT to this battleship."
Chris O'Farrell
> The Federation has unfortunately had to resort to cheap work-arounds like
NDF,
> which do not guarantee the same destructive power against all targets.
While
> it is understandable for such a primitive and backwards civilization, it
is
> certainly in no way *superior* to the massively powerful turbolasers
employed
> by the Empire.
NDF is NOT a cheap workaround. It is a weapons system that results in far
more destruction for unit of power used.
Imperial weapons, considering they have had 25,000 YEARS to work on new
system and the Federation only a few hundred, are crude.
All that makes them so powerful is the fact that they pump so much f&#*@&%
power into them.
>
> > A bullet with a special form can fly further and be more destructive
than a
> > plain round bullet. With the equal size of
> > energy put into it.
>
> Two weapons which input the same amount of energy into the target can do
that
> much damage, period. ST seems to except this rule with its NDF effect, but
> this is not actually the case -- most of the energy of NDF comes *from the
> target*, not the beam itself.
True.
> > We do the same thing today,
> > with nuclear power for example. The only
> > thing we do is starting a chain reaction with a few neutrons. And
control
> > it, so the immense power can be harvested.
>
> The "immense power" you're talking about comes from the reaction material
> itself. Uranium naturally bleeds off energy in the form of radioactivity.
> We are not getting something for nothing -- we're just harnessing energy
> that's already there, much as NDF does.
>
> However, material dependency has *extreme* weaknesses. NDF doesn't work
well
> on armor
Proof?
or shields.
Well then. All those times they used phasers to blast shields down must
obvesiously be invalid.
Could you explain this better please??
It is best employed against simple low-atomic-number
> substances like carbon and rocks of various sots.
>
> > SW weapons are totally inefficient energy wasting weapons.
>
> This is simply a lie. While it may seem like "waste" to a cultist more
> accustomed to 1.02GW phaser strips, it is a fact of life in the Imperial
> war machine, where ships have shields which would not be threatened by the
> head-on ramming of a Federation starship.
Um yes.
> > All of the SW
> > galaxy is. They build fucking big
> > starbases (DS) to destroy planets, but in the mean time, a few ISD's can
BDZ
> > the planet and have the same effect in a matter of hours. Orbital
Shielding
> > or not. If TL's were as powerful as calculated, they
> > should be able to destroy any orbital shield with a few ISD's and they
> > never had to loose billions of lives and millions of tonnes of valubale
> > resources in the destruction of DS2.
>
> This only demonstrates the power of planetary shielding. Of course, this
is
> the *natural* assumption -- a planet is huge, and far more important than
> any individual ship, and should thus have shielding which can protect it
even
> from a fleet of starships. Only in the backward and primitive Federation
> society do planets go totally unprotected, vulnerable to attacks -- by the
> Breen, for example.
This is a matter of resources. They only have 150 planets to draw resources
from. The resources to build, maintain and use planatary shields in a time
were strategicly warp speed negates their use to a degree can be better used
in building a fleet of starships.
Olivier Malek
<pablo_sa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8e589q$873$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...> > the Imperials
> > > could do the same kind of damage with less energy. Something the ST
> galaxy
> > > has learned over the years.
> destructive than a
> > > plain round bullet. With the equal size of
> > > (whatever it is) in it's phasers to deliver a massive
> thing today,
> > > with nuclear power for example. The only
> > > thing we do is starting a chain reaction with a few neutrons. And
> control
> > > it, so the immense power can be harvested.
> >
> that
> > releases the plasma.
> >
> the SW
> > > galaxy is. They build fucking big
> > > starbases (DS) to destroy planets, but in the mean time, a few
> ISD's can BDZ
> > > the planet and have the same effect in a matter of hours.
> >
> >
> they
> > > should be able to destroy any orbital shield with a few ISD's
> >
> > If the TLs are as powerful as calculated then orbital shields should
> be
> > even stronger.
>
> It's interesting to note that because SW planetary shields can resist a
> massed ISD bombardment for extended periods of time, logically, they
> could resist a Starfleet armada for a very very long time. More than
> enough time for a Fleet to come in and pound the invaders into stardust.
Transporters could be useful here. There is no way that an entire shielded
planet
has no spots were the shield is less powerful of even small gaps.The
interference of the planet's own magnetic
field, atmosphere and of course, it's star would be able to remove the
shielding on a few places. A few square meters
is enough for a transporter beam to get through and beam in a nuke or so. Or
biological
weaponry.
> > --
> > Kyle Knopf
Olivier Malek
Weyoun the Dancing Borg <wey...@btinternet.com.DESPAM> wrote in message
> says who it can generate only that much power?
>
second.
> With their shields fully up.
>
> That's strong.
A Jem'Hadar fighter is not an Imperial ship. Therefore it says nothing of
which effect phasers will have against an Imperial Ship. I think that's what
we are here debating.
Olivier Malek
Kyle <kyl...@freewwweb.com> wrote in message
news:3905FF0D...@freewwweb.com...
> SW uses tibana gas. A laser is used to induce a reaction in the gas that
> releases the plasma.
Right. What is plasma ? The atom's core (nucleus I think) without it
electrons. To achieve this,
you'll need an immense high temperature. I thought it was several millions
degree celcius. Just to
make the laser (which is not a phaser , just plain laser) heat the gas
enough, it must have an immense
energy source. Several Terrawatts of energy will be required for a single
TL bolt. ST can do the same
thing with only 1 GW. Says something about efficiency doesn't it.
BTW : Efficiency is what today's tech is all about. Trying to go as far as
possible with less power. ST has
obviously achieved this. SW hasn't and never will. The tech they use has
reached it's upper limit. There
is nothing more they can make better on TL's. ST tech is still young.
lordsh...@my-deja.com
In article <8e47b9$7l7$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>,
"Weyoun the Dancing Borg" <wey...@btinternet.com.DESPAM> wrote:
> no, an ISD hs a short range. Int heory ds9 has a range of 300 000 km.
and it
> has STORNG shields. it wisthstod an attack from several kilingons
ships
> (several DOZEN) and a massive attack fromt he Jem-Hadar and
Cardassians, a
> flet of hundreds of ships.
>
> --
> "The strength of a nation is not measured by it's ability to fight
wars. It
> is measured by it's ability to prevent them."
>
> Gene Roddenberry
>
> weyounthed...@hotmail.com
> Commander Thelea <Lusankya...@Aol.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:11b3b578...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
> > In article <01bfae8a$1cf373a0$LocalHost@default>, "BIRGITHA
> > JACOB" <perj...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> > >DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on
> > all levels,
> > >so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
> > >--
> > >"Live long and prosper"
> > >
> > >
> >
> > DS9 is a heavily armed station by Federation and Alpha Quadrant
> > standards, but has poor targeting systems, absolutely no
> > manuverability, and weak shields and hull armour.
> >
> > However, the biggest problem is that even if Imperial weapons
> > are short range, it doesn't matter against a target that can't
> > escape. And against a target that can't manuver, the heavy
> > cannons can fire on it again and again with excellent accuracy
> > from point-blank range.
> >
> > Therefore, the contest is unquestionable: One ISD could destroy
> > DS9.
> >
> > The ONLY hope of the Alpha and Gamma Quadrant powers is their
> > manuverability and range advantage...
> >
> > And space stations lack both of those.
> >
> > Marina O'Leary
> >
> > "Ut Veniant Omnes!"
> >
> >
> > * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network
> *
> > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
> >
>
>
lordsh...@my-deja.com
"BIRGITHA JACOB" <perj...@swipnet.se> wrote:
> DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on all
levels,
> so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
> --
> "Live long and prosper"
>
ROFL! One ISD could smoke DS9. They would just pull up in a position
that lets them hit with all their heavy turbolasers, put everything
into the front deflectors, launch fighters, and pound away.
I mean, FIFTY of them would remove DS9 from existence in one volley.
Strowbridge
> > DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on all
> > levels, so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
>
> Given that each torpedo is 24MT, so 5000 would release 5E20 J. Given
> that a single ISD carries around 1E26 watts of total firepower based
> on the ANH briefing and the BTM numbers which support it, I doubt that
> the full complement of torpedoes aboard DS9 could bring down even a
> *single* Star Destroyer.
Even if use the lower number of 1E20 for a ISD Broadside then the entire
payload of DS9 would equal 10 seconds of ISD firing. This is MUCH lower
than the time it took for ships to be destroyed in RotJ.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
>
> > 1.) DS9 Produces 790 TW. 100% of that power goes into the shield
> > system.
> > 2.) An ISD vapourized an asteroid in TESB. That took at least 1500
> > TJ of energy. If we assume 100% efficiency the bolt contains 1500 TJ
> > of energy. (Any less efficiency increases the energy of the bolt.)
>
> And in Call to arms,
<SNIP!>
EFFICIENCY DOESN'T MATTER ONE BIT! WHY ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT IT?
We aren't calculating the energy USED by the weapon, just the energy
needed to created the observed effect. So if the weapons are only 1%
efficient then they'll be 150,000 TJ weapons instead of 1500 TJ weapons.
This doesn't matter.
C.S.Strowbridge
Graeme Dice
>
<snip>
> >
> > They only need one or two volleys. Being generous (ISD cannons can
> > fire once a second, but I'll give it once every two seconds) it can
> > probably destroy the DS9 in four to eight seconds.
>
> Um ok. I have said this before and I will say it again. There is NO Cannon
> evidence that they can fire broadsides every second. There in fact, is
> plently of offical evidence that shows the ships when they DO fire
> broadsides they fire once every 5 or so seconds MINIMUM. There is NO proof
> of the often toated broadside every second in offical, cannon or even non
> offical sources.
Yes their is, the guns themselves can fire multiple times per second if
you watch them chasing the MF.
>
> And, if they
> > approached from a position where the DS9 had a poor firing arc, they
> > wouldn't suffer all that much damage.
>
> Yes but as they approached they would be being pounded by photons
> continuasly. If they could knock out the shields, then the phasers become
> highly useful.
Photons that can't even hit slow moving point-blank Klingon ships (Way
of the Warrior), we see at least twice as many miss as hit.
Graeme Dice
--
"When you reach for the stars, you may not quite get one, but you
won't come up with a handful of mud either."
— Leo Burnett.
Graeme Dice
>
> <pablo_sa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8e589q$873$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<snip>
> > It's interesting to note that because SW planetary shields can resist a
> > massed ISD bombardment for extended periods of time, logically, they
> > could resist a Starfleet armada for a very very long time. More than
> > enough time for a Fleet to come in and pound the invaders into stardust.
>
> Transporters could be useful here. There is no way that an entire shielded
> planet
> has no spots were the shield is less powerful of even small gaps.The
> interference of the planet's own magnetic
> field, atmosphere and of course, it's star would be able to remove the
> shielding on a few places. A few square meters
> is enough for a transporter beam to get through and beam in a nuke or so. Or
> biological
> weaponry.
If the planet's shield is strong enough to withstand BDZ level
bombardment, and the DS1 for a fraction of a second, then any magnetic
anomalies that can disrupt it will be powerful enough to stop
transporter use, ala ST:6. Or the planet will be like Coruscant, with
multiple layers of redundant shielding.
Graeme Dice
--
"Why is it that if someone tells you that there are 1 billion
stars in the universe you will believe them, but if they tell you
a wall has wet paint you will have to touch it to be sure ?"
Graeme Dice
>
> Kyle <kyl...@freewwweb.com> wrote in message
> news:3905FF0D...@freewwweb.com...
>
> > SW uses tibana gas. A laser is used to induce a reaction in the gas that
> > releases the plasma.
>
> Right. What is plasma ? The atom's core (nucleus I think) without it
> electrons. To achieve this,
> you'll need an immense high temperature. I thought it was several millions
> degree celcius.
10,000 deg C is normal Plasma.
> Just to
> make the laser (which is not a phaser , just plain laser) heat the gas
> enough, it must have an immense
> energy source. Several Terrawatts of energy will be required for a single
> TL bolt. ST can do the same
> thing with only 1 GW. Says something about efficiency doesn't it.
>
Yet, perhaps there are upper limits on phaser power, so the Imps have
chosen to go for raw power.
> BTW : Efficiency is what today's tech is all about. Trying to go as far as
> possible with less power. ST has
> obviously achieved this. SW hasn't and never will. The tech they use has
> reached it's upper limit. There
> is nothing more they can make better on TL's. ST tech is still young.
You say this with such certainity, SW ships _are_ more efficient than ST
ships, they have less crew per cubic metre. Besides, at a certain level
of power generation technology, efficiency becomes irrelevant.
Henning Rogge
<yno...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>NDF is NOT a cheap workaround. It is a weapons system that results in far
>more destruction for unit of power used.
>Imperial weapons, considering they have had 25,000 YEARS to work on new
>system and the Federation only a few hundred, are crude.
>All that makes them so powerful is the fact that they pump so much f&#*@&%
>power into them.
The problem is that the NDF is no direct energy transfer. It can be
superior in some cases, but you will waste energy to produce the NDF
effect and there might be a way to completely block the NDF effect.
Maybe that's the way why the SW galaxy use direct energy transfer
weapons. For every trick is something you can do against it.
Henning Rogge ICQ 14862339
visit my MacKenzie Corporation Webpage on mackenzie.xodox.net
( for Palladium Rifts Role Playing Game )
pablo_sa...@my-deja.com
"Olivier Malek" <malek....@ping.be> wrote:
>
> <pablo_sa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8e589q$873$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > kyl...@netzero.net wrote:
> > > Olivier Malek wrote:
> > > the Imperials
> > > > could do the same kind of damage with less energy. Something
the ST
> > galaxy
> > > > has learned over the years.
> > > > A bullet with a special form can fly further and be more
> > destructive than a
> > > > plain round bullet. With the equal size of
> > > > energy put into it. ST uses a special feature of a certain
particle
> > > > (whatever it is) in it's phasers to deliver a massive
> > > > amount of energy without putting so much in it. We do the same
> > thing today,
> > > > with nuclear power for example. The only
> > > > thing we do is starting a chain reaction with a few neutrons.
And
> > control
> > > > it, so the immense power can be harvested.
> > >
gas
> > that
> > > releases the plasma.
> > >
of
> > the SW
> > > > galaxy is. They build fucking big
> > > > starbases (DS) to destroy planets, but in the mean time, a few
> > ISD's can BDZ
> > > > the planet and have the same effect in a matter of hours.
> > >
> > > Not if the planet is shielded.
> > >
> > > > Orbital Shielding or not. If TL's were as powerful as
calculated,
> > they
> > > > should be able to destroy any orbital shield with a few ISD's
> > >
> > > BS assumption.
> > > If the TLs are as powerful as calculated then orbital shields
should
> > be
> > > even stronger.
> >
resist a
> > massed ISD bombardment for extended periods of time, logically, they
> > could resist a Starfleet armada for a very very long time. More
than
> > enough time for a Fleet to come in and pound the invaders into
stardust.
>
> Transporters could be useful here. There is no way that an entire
shielded
> planet
> has no spots were the shield is less powerful of even small gaps.The
> interference of the planet's own magnetic
> field, atmosphere and of course, it's star would be able to remove the
> shielding on a few places. A few square meters
> is enough for a transporter beam to get through and beam in a nuke or
so. Or
> biological
> weaponry.
I haven't heard of such holes in any references, and I doubt that a ST
ship would be able to beam something down, due to jamming, natural
factors, and defense fleets.
Plus, I've seen that Starfleet has sort of reluctance to use weapons of
mass destruction on civilian populations.
> > > --
> > > Kyle Knopf
pablo_sa...@my-deja.com
jt...@cornell.edu (Eframepilot) wrote:
> In article <8e5jlt$kk4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, pablo_sanchez2000@my-
deja.com wrote:
> >In article <8e5hlp$s0k$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu>,
> > jt...@cornell.edu (Eframepilot) wrote:
> >> In article <8e57b7$702$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, pablo_sanchez2000@my-
> >deja.com wrote:
> >> >In article <01bfae8a$1cf373a0$LocalHost@default>,
> >> >> DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on
all
> >> >levels,
> >> >> so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
> >> >
same
> >> >time. It could survive maybe HALF a broadside, and the ISD can
> >easily
> >> >unleash that before the DS9 can respond.
> >> >
> >> Can it? We never saw that rate of fire at Endor or anywhere else.
> >
> >All it has to do is fire all of the guns on the port or starboard
side
> >at the same time. This is called a "broadside"
> >
> But can it? Or, going by the "if we don't see them do it and they
have no good
> reason NOT to they will NEVER do it" rule, WILL it?
It can. And it will, and does. In the novels, the ISDs most often
either fire all of their forward guns, or shoot a broadside. In "I,
Jedi" a series of ISD Mk. II broadsides completely destroy a midsize
battleship.
Kynes
> > "Dangerous to your Starfleet, commander -- NOT to this battleship."
>
> Well technicaly it would be:
>
> "Dangerous to your Station, commander -- NOT to this battleship."
Or:
"Dangerous to your battlestation, Commander -- NOT to this star fleet."
For a perfect juxtaposition. :)
Kynes
>
> > The Federation has unfortunately had to resort to cheap work-arounds like
> NDF,
> > which do not guarantee the same destructive power against all targets.
> While
> > it is understandable for such a primitive and backwards civilization, it
> is
> > certainly in no way *superior* to the massively powerful turbolasers
> employed
> > by the Empire.
>
> more destruction for unit of power used.
That *sometimes* results in this. When NDF has no reactant matter, such as
against shields (a common defense even in the primitive Federation) or when
that reactant matter is of a high atomic number (i.e. starship armor) it's
fairly useless.
Hmm... worthless against shields AND hull armor... yeah, that NDF is great
stuff. It's a workaround. I understand that. The Federation cannot be expected
to display the same level of advancement as a civilization that has been
spacefaring for 25,000 years.
> Imperial weapons, considering they have had 25,000 YEARS to work on new
> system and the Federation only a few hundred, are crude.
They're not crude, they're SIMPLE. And that's where their strength is. Tell me,
what's the weakness of turbolasers? How can you nullify their effects? What's
the magin bean?
I'll answer for you: There isn't one. Unlike phasers, which have numerous
Achilles' heels -- such as the fact that they rely almost entirely on NDF for
their destructive power, and can be counteracted by a frequency-based shield --
turbolasers are a simple brute force weapon.
There is NOTHING wrong with that. Nuclear missiles are brute force weapons, too.
So are guns. So are explosives. Brute force may not win you any diplomat awards,
but it certainly does win wars.
> All that makes them so powerful is the fact that they pump so much f&#*@&%
> power into them.
Ya think? Say what you will, this is the best option. By putting X amount of
power IN to a weapon, you ensure you can't get less than X OUT of it. The
Federation puts little energy into their weapons, relying on the target to do
most of the damage to itself. This is not prudent.
> > The "immense power" you're talking about comes from the reaction material
> > itself. Uranium naturally bleeds off energy in the form of radioactivity.
> > We are not getting something for nothing -- we're just harnessing energy
> > that's already there, much as NDF does.
> >
> > However, material dependency has *extreme* weaknesses. NDF doesn't work
> well
> > on armor
>
> Proof?
"The TM states that 2.4TJ is sufficient to vaporize one cubic metre of
tritanium which is used in starship hulls, so if phasers were equivalent to
30,000 TW of EM radiation they would vaporize 12,500 cubic metres of
Federation tritanium starship armor every second! This obviously doesn't
happen- phasers appear to destroy less than 5 cubic metres of starship armor
per second of continuous impact, so they seem to be tactically equivalent to
1-10 TW lasers. This is undoubtedly due to the negative impact of heavy
transuranium elements on the NDF chain reaction."
-- From http://www.stardestroyer.net/Tech/Beam/Beam1.html
Don't believe me? Check out ST2, where the Reliant fires upon the Enterprise's
unshielded hull.
> > or shields.
>
> Well then. All those times they used phasers to blast shields down must
> obvesiously be invalid.
> Could you explain this better please??
I didn't say that they were USELESS against shields, I simply stated the obvious.
NDF doesn't work when you have no reactant matter -- literally no nuclei to
disrupt! A shield is a massless energy field, and so provides no reactant matter.
Whatever energy you put into a phaser beam, you will get out against a shield --
but NO MORE. This is where NDF fails.
> > > SW weapons are totally inefficient energy wasting weapons.
> >
> > This is simply a lie. While it may seem like "waste" to a cultist more
> > accustomed to 1.02GW phaser strips, it is a fact of life in the Imperial
> > war machine, where ships have shields which would not be threatened by the
> > head-on ramming of a Federation starship.
>
> Um yes.
Of course, you are aware that I don't actually believe that 1.02GW is the maximum
SEM power of the E-D's phaser arrays. But it IS low compared to Imperial weapons.
> > This only demonstrates the power of planetary shielding. Of course, this
> is
> > the *natural* assumption -- a planet is huge, and far more important than
> > any individual ship, and should thus have shielding which can protect it
> even
> > from a fleet of starships. Only in the backward and primitive Federation
> > society do planets go totally unprotected, vulnerable to attacks -- by the
> > Breen, for example.
>
> This is a matter of resources. They only have 150 planets to draw resources
> from.
No, it's a matter of technology. The Federation was stated to be "centuries"
away from planetary shielding technology in "When the Bough Breaks."
> The resources to build, maintain and use planatary shields in a time
> were strategicly warp speed negates their use to a degree can be better used
> in building a fleet of starships.
Really? Say that a full planetary shield would cost the Federation the resources
of 25 full starships. For the cost of those 25 starships, Earth could be made
*invulernable* to enemy attack, because the Federation is NOWHERE close to being
able to create a planet-destroying superweapon.
It's better to have a minor boost to the war effort than to make invincible your
home world, your base of operations? To make the kind of terror attacks like the
ones made by the Breen impossible and ineffective? I think not.
Kynes
> Right. What is plasma ? The atom's core (nucleus I think) without it
> electrons. To achieve this,
> you'll need an immense high temperature. I thought it was several millions
> degree celcius. Just to
> make the laser (which is not a phaser , just plain laser) heat the gas
> enough, it must have an immense
> energy source. Several Terrawatts of energy will be required for a single
> TL bolt. ST can do the same
> thing with only 1 GW. Says something about efficiency doesn't it.
Can do the SAME THING? Really? Then why was Picard petrified about the possibility
of entering an asteroid field in "Pegasus?" If he could vape the incoming
asteroids left and right, as he should be able to according to you, then why the
fear?
Because TLs are infinitely superior to phasers.
Phong Nguyen
<malek....@ping.be> wrote:
There are no gaps in the shield. If there were, an orbiting fleet could
take advantage of it and begin bombing through the surface or launching
high-yield guided torpedoes.
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 25/4/00 7:36 pm:
> Olivier Malek wrote:
>
>> A single ISD vs. DS9 is a whole other story. DS9 outguns it
>> completely. And cardassian stations are known to have very stong hull.
>
> But DS9 can only generate 790 TW of power, total.
> The TL Bolt that was used to vaporize the asteroid in TESB contained
> more than 1000 TJ of energy.
3 letters Strowbtidge : NDF. Oh and photorps as well. They're not dependent
on the station's reactors.
--
Jonathan
AIM: BoydClone | STvsSW website: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/index.html
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 26/4/00 6:20 am:
> "BIRGITHA JACOB" <perj...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
> news:01bfae8a$1cf373a0$LocalHost@default...
>> DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on all levels,
>> so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
> Given that each torpedo is 24MT, so 5000 would release 5E20 J. Given that a
> single ISD carries around 1E26 watts of total firepower based on the ANH
> briefing and the BTM numbers which support it, I doubt that the full
> complement of torpedoes aboard DS9 could bring down even a *single* Star
> Destroyer.
Strength of ray shields is irrelevant. Strength of particle shields is what
is important and they are significantly weaker. A VSD can be brought down by
around 20 Protorps and a couple of CMs. If we call that 25 and say they each
have a yield of 10MT, which is being extremely generous, then a VSD can only
handle 250MT. That's 11 photorps.
Now on to the ISD. They lose shields after 64 protorps so that's 640MT.
That's 27 photorps. Given that DS9 has 5000 of them, I don't foresee too
many problems bringing down an ISD.
Andras Otto Schneider
<ky...@choam.org> wrote:
> "Weyoun the Dancing Borg" <wey...@btinternet.com.DESPAM> wrote in
message news:8e47b9$7l7$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> > no, an ISD hs a short range.
>
> ROTJ indicates otherwise. See the Battle of Endor, where long-range fire
is exchanged.
> Further, the short range fire is criticized by an officer, who is
understandably shocked
> that the ships were engaging at such close range.
I will add, again, the fact that Ackbar himself was horrified at the
thought of a short range engagement. "No one has ever gone nose to nose at
that range,..." . Plus there was the Imperial officer eager to engage well
before the Rebel fleet closed the range
>
> --
> -LK!
> [ ky...@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ]
>
AOS
Due to a clerical error, three(3) Imperator class Star Destroyers have been
classified as comm-links and are now for sale as Naval surplus for 12
credits each.
Andras Otto Schneider
wrote:
> Kynes wrote:
> >
> > "BIRGITHA JACOB" <perj...@swipnet.se> wrote
>
> > > DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on all
> > > levels, so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
> >
> > Given that each torpedo is 24MT, so 5000 would release 5E20 J. Given
> > that a single ISD carries around 1E26 watts of total firepower based
> > on the ANH briefing and the BTM numbers which support it, I doubt that
> > the full complement of torpedoes aboard DS9 could bring down even a
> > *single* Star Destroyer.
>
> Even if use the lower number of 1E20 for a ISD Broadside then the entire
> payload of DS9 would equal 10 seconds of ISD firing. This is MUCH lower
> than the time it took for ships to be destroyed in RotJ.
>
> C.S.Strowbridge
5000 torpedoes equal 120,000mt effective. that is exactly the power
calculated by Saxton to complete a BDZ in one hour per _second_. I prefer
a 2.5 hour( a few) duration, giving 48,000mt/sec output(2e20j sustained).
you would have to get the entire payload of DS9 to strike within 2.5
seconds to exceed it's shielding. note that my 2e20j is 10% of the 2e21j
hyperjump energy estimate based on _Earth_ nations. So it appears to be
well within the reactor energy production capacity.
Strowbridge
> >> A single ISD vs. DS9 is a whole other story. DS9 outguns it
> >> completely. And cardassian stations are known to have very stong
> >> hull.
> >
> > But DS9 can only generate 790 TW of power, total.
> > The TL Bolt that was used to vaporize the asteroid in TESB contained
> > more than 1000 TJ of energy.
>
> 3 letters Strowbtidge : NDF. Oh and photorps as well. They're not
> dependent on the station's reactors.
1.) NDF is dependent on the target, so shields will reduce the effect.
2.) Ph-Torps have 3 orders of magnitude lower yield than ISD shields.
3.) You are ignoring the problems with shields, which don't benefit from
the magical pixie dust of NDF.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
> >> DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on all
> >> levels, so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
>
> > Given that each torpedo is 24MT, so 5000 would release 5E20 J. Given
> > that a single ISD carries around 1E26 watts of total firepower based
> > on the ANH briefing and the BTM numbers which support it, I doubt
> > that the full complement of torpedoes aboard DS9 could bring down
> > even a *single* Star Destroyer.
>
> Strength of ray shields is irrelevant. Strength of particle shields is > what is important
To quote Wong:
The TESB novelization described a "steady rain" of asteroids, and Anakin
Skywalker: The Story of Darth Vader said that "turbolaser gunners
blasted the largest rocks; those they missed impacted against the bow
shields like multi-megaton compression bombs."
C.S.Strowbridge
Lord Edam de Fromage
>Ya think? Say what you will, this is the best option. By putting X amount
of
>power IN to a weapon, you ensure you can't get less than X OUT of it.
That's our 'Lies' Kynes. Scientific Genius Extraordinaire
>I didn't say that they were USELESS against shields, I simply stated the
obvious.
>NDF doesn't work when you have no reactant matter -- literally no nuclei
to
>disrupt! A shield is a massless energy field, and so provides no reactant
matter.
>Whatever energy you put into a phaser beam, you will get out against a
shield --
>but NO MORE. This is where NDF fails.
Yet shields have been shown to withstand Photorp blasts etc (measured in
high TJ), whilst (according to you) phasers are rated at 2GWish max. So,
if we are to believe the claims you make on this newsgroup then NDF must
have an effect against shields, even though there is no matter to interact
with. They are only putting a few GW in, but getting a few TW against the
shields
>> This is a matter of resources. They only have 150 planets to draw
resources
>> from.
That's wrong. It must be 150 member worlds - 150 worlds that have a seat
in whatever passes for a senate, because in TOS humanity (NOT the
federation) covered a thousand of worlds (TOS:Metamorphosis, Kirk states "
we are on a thousand planets and spreading out" when asked how many
planets *humanity* was on by cochrange)
>No, it's a matter of technology. The Federation was stated to be
"centuries"
>away from planetary shielding technology in "When the Bough Breaks."
Shit. Of. The Bull.
You tried this one before, and I showed you werre lying then. Want a
re-cap?
K:It was stated in When The bough Breaks the federation was centuries away
from planetary shielding
E:No it wasn't. I've checked the script, that aint stated by any of the
major characters. Here's the script, check for yourself
(www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~cheezdom/scripts/TNG/118.txt)
K:So you didn't check to see if it was stated by any of the character?
Obviously you missed it.
E: I've checked again. No one whatsoever said this. Give a quote. At least
tell us who said it
K: It was said. I remember it being said
E:Then tell us who said it
K: It's your word against dozens of other's. I've always been saying this.
Not only that, Wong has it on his site. Face it, you're wrong
E:I don't give a flying fuck if it is my word against dozens of others.
I'm right, they are wrong until they provide a quote(and why is it only
you arguing this?). Provide a link & quote to the part on Wong's site
because I can't find it in either of his shielding sections
K: Does an Elim (in more ways than one, it now seems)
The conclusion of that previous thread (which I can't find at this moment
in time but shoudl turn up on deja if you do a search for the eipsode
name) was that no one could remember what Kynes is refering to, and even
if it did happen it was probably refering to planetary *cloaking* because
that was the sort of shield in the episode.
I've since re-watched the episode and still couldn't find the quote Kynes
thinks was there. Not that doing this is Kynes' MO at all. No sir. Only
Trekkies bring up old arguments where it was proven to them they had lied
a few months further down the line once everything has died down and
there's new blood
in the group.
Lord Edam de Fromage
Find me at www.trek-wars.co.uk
or on AIM as Sorborus
"Positrons and anti-protons don't "join" any more than electrons and
protons "join".
They REPEL one another, as they have opposite charge. Back to grade school
physics for you." -- Kynes
"By putting X amount of power IN to a weapon, you ensure you can't get
less than X OUT of it." -- Kynes
Graeme Dice
>
<snip>
>
> Strength of ray shields is irrelevant. Strength of particle shields is what
> is important and they are significantly weaker. A VSD can be brought down by
> around 20 Protorps and a couple of CMs. If we call that 25 and say they each
> have a yield of 10MT, which is being extremely generous, then a VSD can only
> handle 250MT. That's 11 photorps.
>
No, phoptorps are not KE weapons, they don't rely on impact, they rely
on exploding, and producing EM _rays_.
> Now on to the ISD. They lose shields after 64 protorps so that's 640MT.
> That's 27 photorps. Given that DS9 has 5000 of them, I don't foresee too
> many problems bringing down an ISD.
Graeme Dice
Guardian2000
>They don't have to. Each ship carries over 200 TL batteries --
even if they only
>fire a few at a time, as we see in ANH while trying to capture
the Tantive IV,
>they can get a rate of fire of about 5 shots per second.
Question: What's the evidence for the 200 TL statement? Most
of my research has indicated that the number is either
unknown . . . or else it's sixty.
Thank you
Weyoun the Dancing Borg
--
"The strength of a nation is not measured by it's ability to fight wars. It
is measured by it's ability to prevent them."
Gene Roddenberry
Chris O'Farrell <yno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Weyoun the Dancing Borg
> > Int heory ds9 has a range of 300 000 km.
>
no. phasers have a range of 300 000km.
DS9 has phasers.
ERGO, DS9 has a range of 300 000km.
>
> > and it
> > has STORNG shields.
>
> Strong by Federation standards, maybe...
no, strong full stop.
Weyoun the Dancing Borg
--
"The strength of a nation is not measured by it's ability to fight wars. It
is measured by it's ability to prevent them."
Gene Roddenberry
weyounthed...@hotmail.com
Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39061B0E...@home.com...
> Weyoun the Dancing Borg wrote:
> >
> > says who it can generate only that much power?
>
> The DS9:TM
>
> > those phasers can vapourise a Jem'Hadar battlebug or BoP in under a
> > second. With their shields fully up.
> >
> > That's strong.
>
> No, that's a really weak ship.
>
> C.S.Strowbridge
Weyoun the Dancing Borg
--
"The strength of a nation is not measured by it's ability to fight wars. It
is measured by it's ability to prevent them."
Gene Roddenberry
Olivier Malek <malek....@ping.be> wrote in message
news:8e6gun$hig$1...@news.planetinternet.be...
>
> Weyoun the Dancing Borg <wey...@btinternet.com.DESPAM> wrote in message
> news:8e53cq$aen$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> > says who it can generate only that much power?
> >
> > those phasers can vapourise a Jem'Hadar battlebug or BoP in under a
> second.
> > With their shields fully up.
> >
> > That's strong.
>
> A Jem'Hadar fighter is not an Imperial ship. Therefore it says nothing of
> which effect phasers will have against an Imperial Ship. I think that's
what
> we are here debating.
>
>
>
>
Reid
news:8e5l4d$le$2...@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
> But can it?
Yes. We see it happen in almost every novel.
--
Reid
[Go Here http://members.home.net/bcdreid/SWvsST.htm]
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 25/4/00 9:59 pm:
> Olivier Malek wrote:
>
>> Power comsumption on the Imperial side is unnessecairly high.
>
> Unfortunately for you even if the efficiency of BOTH sides is in favour
> of DS9, the ISD will STILL out power DS9.
>
> Think of it this way.
>
> 1.) DS9 Produces 790 TW. 100% of that power goes into the shield system.
> 2.) An ISD vapourized an asteroid in TESB. That took at least 1500 TJ of
> energy. If we assume 100% efficiency the bolt contains 1500 TJ of
> energy. (Any less efficiency increases the energy of the bolt.)
> 3.) Now, lets say the shields work in such a way that they don't need to
> stop the energy coming at them, just redirect it enough so it doesn't
> hit the station. (NOTE: This is NOT true, canon events prove it false.)
> Lets also say that the amount of energy needed to deflect the weapons is
> only 10% of the energy of the weapon.
> 4.) Lets say ALL the ISD's weapons are the small Trench Cannons.
>
> Even if all those are correct then the ISD would only need to hit with
> (roughly) one in 13 shots to overwhelm the shields.
1MT = 4.19 PJ of energy.
1 Photon Torpedo = 24MT = 100.56PJ
DS9 can withstand multiple torpedo hits therefore its shields are rated at
higher than the official reactor output levels.
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 26/4/00 10:11 pm:
>>> This only demonstrates the power of planetary shielding. Of course, this is
>>> the *natural* assumption -- a planet is huge, and far more important than
>>> any individual ship, and should thus have shielding which can protect it
>>> even from a fleet of starships. Only in the backward and primitive
>>> Federation society do planets go totally unprotected, vulnerable to attacks
>>> -- by the Breen, for example.
>> This is a matter of resources. They only have 150 planets to draw resources
>> from.
> No, it's a matter of technology. The Federation was stated to be "centuries"
> away from planetary shielding technology in "When the Bough Breaks."
IIRc, Edam proved you were wrong about this. Something about planetary
shielding never being mentioned in the ep. Or at least comparing it with Fed
technology.
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 26/4/00 6:23 am:
>> Int heory ds9 has a range of 300 000 km.
>
> Which is a lie.
How, exactly, is it a lie?
Kynes
> Kynes wrote in message ...
>
> of
> >power IN to a weapon, you ensure you can't get less than X OUT of it.
>
Please, Edam, tell me how a TL bolt of 1500 TJ can magically "lose" some of
that energy when impacting the target. Where does it go, big guy?
> Yet shields have been shown to withstand Photorp blasts etc (measured in
> high TJ), whilst (according to you) phasers are rated at 2GWish max.
Which is a lie. [snip]
> >No, it's a matter of technology. The Federation was stated to be
> "centuries"
> >away from planetary shielding technology in "When the Bough Breaks."
>
> Shit. Of. The Bull.
>
> You tried this one before, and I showed you werre lying then. Want a
> re-cap?
Not really. You're still wrong.
Kynes
> >
> >> A single ISD vs. DS9 is a whole other story. DS9 outguns it
> >> completely. And cardassian stations are known to have very stong hull.
> >
> > But DS9 can only generate 790 TW of power, total.
> > The TL Bolt that was used to vaporize the asteroid in TESB contained
> > more than 1000 TJ of energy.
>
> 3 letters Strowbtidge : NDF.
Yeah, shields have a lot of nuclei to disrupt.
Kynes
> in article n0vN4.65935$E85.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com, Kynes at
> ky...@choam.org wrote on 26/4/00 6:20 am:
>
> > "BIRGITHA JACOB" <perj...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
> > news:01bfae8a$1cf373a0$LocalHost@default...
> >> so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
>
> > Given that each torpedo is 24MT, so 5000 would release 5E20 J. Given that a
> > single ISD carries around 1E26 watts of total firepower based on the ANH
> > briefing and the BTM numbers which support it, I doubt that the full
> > complement of torpedoes aboard DS9 could bring down even a *single* Star
> > Destroyer.
>
> is important and they are significantly weaker.
Uh, why? Ray shields, otherwise known as energy shields, shield against the kind
of attack a photon torpedo will be used in -- a photon torpedo releases much of
its energy as gamma rays and charged pions, not as KE.
[further contradictions with canon snipped]
Kynes
> in article k3vN4.65938$E85.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com, Kynes at
> ky...@choam.org wrote on 26/4/00 6:23 am:
>
> >> Int heory ds9 has a range of 300 000 km.
> >
> > Which is a lie.
>
> How, exactly, is it a lie?
Do we ever see DS9 engage at this range? How about ST ships in general? No?
Probably because the bogus claims of phasers travelling at lightspeed are
just that -- bogus.
Strowbridge
> 1MT = 4.19 PJ of energy.
> 1 Photon Torpedo = 24MT = 100.56PJ
> DS9 can withstand multiple torpedo hits therefore its shields are
> rated at higher than the official reactor output levels.
Or the Ph-Torps are even less efficient than we have been lead to
believe.
Think of it this way:
1.) According to Wong most of the products of a M/AM reaction are short
lived particles.
2.) These particles could harmlessly base through the shields. This is
indirectly supported by other 'weaknesses' in the ST shield systems.
3.) Cause these particles pass through the shield they impart no energy,
and no energy is needed to stop them.
4.) Because the shields are so far away from the hull none of the
particles last long enough to hit the hull. (or at least no significant
number of particles hit.)
5.) This also explains the shape of the shields.
Think of it this way:
Why have elliptical shields? They increase the silhouette of the ship
thereby increasing the odds that ship will be hit. This is proven in
ST:Gen when we clearly see shots that would have missed the E-D but
interact with the shields.
So if the shields have a weakness they must also have a strength. The
strength I explained above.
C.S.Strowbridge
Eframepilot
>
>>They don't have to. Each ship carries over 200 TL batteries --
>even if they only
>>fire a few at a time, as we see in ANH while trying to capture
>the Tantive IV,
>>they can get a rate of fire of about 5 shots per second.
>
>Question: What's the evidence for the 200 TL statement? Most
>of my research has indicated that the number is either
>unknown . . . or else it's sixty.
>
>Thank you
>
Eframepilot
>In article <2578b0e4...@usw-ex0101-007.remarq.com>, Guardian2000
> <randers2...@ocean.otr.usm.edu.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>They don't have to. Each ship carries over 200 TL batteries --
>>even if they only
>>>fire a few at a time, as we see in ANH while trying to capture
>>the Tantive IV,
>>>they can get a rate of fire of about 5 shots per second.
>>
>>Question: What's the evidence for the 200 TL statement? Most
>>of my research has indicated that the number is either
>>unknown . . . or else it's sixty.
>>
>>Thank you
>>
debaters here. And don't get frightened when Poe, Strowbridge, Kynes, Mike
January, Graeme, and Dalton jump on you at once. ;)
Dalton
[snip]
> By the way, let me welcome you to ASVS. We don't get many new serious Trek
> debaters here. And don't get frightened when Poe, Strowbridge, Kynes, Mike
> January, Graeme, and Dalton jump on you at once. ;)
We don't bite...usually.
--
Dalton | AIM: RobPDalton | ICQ: 50342303
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie.
Da ASVS Fanfic Archive: [http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fanfics]
Da ASVS FUQ: [http://members.xoom.com/Tiny11380/fuq]
Eframepilot
>Eframepilot wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> By the way, let me welcome you to ASVS. We don't get many new serious Trek
>> debaters here. And don't get frightened when Poe, Strowbridge, Kynes, Mike
>> January, Graeme, and Dalton jump on you at once. ;)
>
>We don't bite...usually.
>
Guardian2000
>Uh, why? Ray shields, otherwise known as energy shields, shield
against the kind
>of attack a photon torpedo will be used in -- a photon torpedo
releases much of
>its energy as gamma rays and charged pions, not as KE.
>
>[further contradictions with canon snipped]
>--
>-LK!
You know, one could argue that photon torpedoes would pass
unhindered through most Imperial shielding, assuming you
subscribe to the ray/KE shield dichotomy.
As per the rules in reference to SFX, we see that photon
torpedoes and quantum torpedoes must operate with some sort of
high-energy field in place (hence the glow of an object that has
been seen to be jet-black). This field might be some sort of
sensor-jammer (thereby preventing sensor lock (and thus phaser
lock) on the torpedo), or it might be a peculiar shield
configuration, or both.
If it is a shield, then we can presume that it might do the same
thing to Imperial KE shields that fighters have been seen to
do . . . pass straight through. I'm thinking of the "shields
double-front" comment during a Death Star attack. Clearly, the
fighters were unhindered, assuming there was a KE shield in
place.
If it is a shield, then one could argue that a torpedo would
detonate against the hull, and not against any Imperial shields.
I'm uncertain as to how well this notion holds, but I can't seem
to find an obvious counterargument. Assistance, por favor.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> >Ya think? Say what you will, this is the best option. By putting X
amount
>> of
>> >power IN to a weapon, you ensure you can't get less than X OUT of it.
>>
>> That's our 'Lies' Kynes. Scientific Genius Extraordinaire
>
>Please, Edam, tell me how a TL bolt of 1500 TJ can magically "lose" some
of
>that energy when impacting the target. Where does it go, big guy?
If you put 1500TJ IN to a weapon, it will lose energy during conversion,
and lose energy on the way to the target, so it CANNOT have 1500TJ or more
energy when it hits the target. Second law of thermodynamics stuff.
>> Yet shields have been shown to withstand Photorp blasts etc (measured
in
>> high TJ), whilst (according to you) phasers are rated at 2GWish max.
>
>Which is a lie. [snip]
So photorps have never impacted on shields without the shields failing,
and you have never made a post claiming phasers are in the 2GW range? Odd.
Canon and your own posts prove otherwise.
>> >No, it's a matter of technology. The Federation was stated to be
>> "centuries"
>> >away from planetary shielding technology in "When the Bough Breaks."
>>
>> Shit. Of. The Bull.
>>
>> You tried this one before, and I showed you werre lying then. Want a
>> re-cap?
>
>Not really. You're still wrong.
You will have to provide evidence if you want anyone to believe your above
claim.
Lord Edam de Fromage
Find me at www.trek-wars.co.uk
or on AIM as Sorborus
"Positrons and anti-protons don't "join" any more than electrons and
protons "join".
They REPEL one another, as they have opposite charge. Back to grade school
physics for you." -- Kynes
"By putting X amount of power IN to a weapon, you ensure you can't get
less than X OUT of it." -- Kynes
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 26/4/00 11:30 pm:
> Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>>> But DS9 can only generate 790 TW of power, total.
>>> The TL Bolt that was used to vaporize the asteroid in TESB contained
>>> more than 1000 TJ of energy.
>> 3 letters Strowbtidge : NDF. Oh and photorps as well. They're not
>> dependent on the station's reactors.
> 1.) NDF is dependent on the target, so shields will reduce the effect.
> 2.) Ph-Torps have 3 orders of magnitude lower yield than ISD shields.
<bzzt> Wrong. PrTs are an order of magnitude less pwoerful than PhTs, but
can still kill a VSD or ISD fairly easily.
> 3.) You are ignoring the problems with shields, which don't benefit from
> the magical pixie dust of NDF.
I misinterpreted the post first time I read it. Through you were comparing
weapons power. My apologies.
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 26/4/00 11:36 pm:
> Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>>
>> Kynes at ky...@choam.org wrote on 26/4/00 6:20 am:
>
>>>> DS9 has 5000 photon-torpedos and multitargeting phaser-banks on all
>>>> levels, so I belive it has to be at last 50 ISD to destroy DS9.
>>
>>> Given that each torpedo is 24MT, so 5000 would release 5E20 J. Given
>>> that a single ISD carries around 1E26 watts of total firepower based
>>> on the ANH briefing and the BTM numbers which support it, I doubt
>>> that the full complement of torpedoes aboard DS9 could bring down
>>> even a *single* Star Destroyer.
>>
>> Strength of ray shields is irrelevant. Strength of particle shields is > what
>> is important
>
> To quote Wong:
>
> The TESB novelization described a "steady rain" of asteroids, and Anakin
> Skywalker: The Story of Darth Vader said that "turbolaser gunners
> blasted the largest rocks; those they missed impacted against the bow
> shields like multi-megaton compression bombs."
That's nice. Pity the film contradicts this.
Jonathan Boyd
on 27/4/00 12:22 am:
> Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> Strength of ray shields is irrelevant. Strength of particle shields is what
>> is important and they are significantly weaker. A VSD can be brought down by
>> around 20 Protorps and a couple of CMs. If we call that 25 and say they each
>> have a yield of 10MT, which is being extremely generous, then a VSD can only
>> handle 250MT. That's 11 photorps.
>>
>
> No, phoptorps are not KE weapons, they don't rely on impact, they rely
> on exploding, and producing EM _rays_.
? Who mentioned KE? What are you talking about Graeme? If you're talking
about shields, then I'm afraid the particle shields are used to stop torps.
And you still have to deal with the fact that torps can get through shields.
>
>> Now on to the ISD. They lose shields after 64 protorps so that's 640MT.
>> That's 27 photorps. Given that DS9 has 5000 of them, I don't foresee too
>> many problems bringing down an ISD.
>
> Graeme Dice
--
Strowbridge
>
> in article 39076E3E...@home.com, Strowbridge at strow...@home.com
> wrote on 26/4/00 11:30 pm:
>
> > Jonathan Boyd wrote:
> >>> But DS9 can only generate 790 TW of power, total.
> >>> The TL Bolt that was used to vaporize the asteroid in TESB
> >>> contained more than 1000 TJ of energy.
>
> >> 3 letters Strowbtidge : NDF. Oh and photorps as well. They're not
> >> dependent on the station's reactors.
>
> > 1.) NDF is dependent on the target, so shields will reduce the
> > effect.
> > 2.) Ph-Torps have 3 orders of magnitude lower yield than ISD
> > shields.
>
> <bzzt> Wrong. PrTs are an order of magnitude less pwoerful than PhTs,
> but can still kill a VSD or ISD fairly easily.
And your evidence is ...
Tramp Freighters can handle being hit by modern nukes.
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
> That's nice. Pity the film contradicts this.
No it doesn't. NO WHERE in the movie is this directly contradicted.
Learn the rules of canon.
C.S.Strowbridge
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 27/4/00 5:27 am:
> "Jonathan Boyd" <jona...@jboyd.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:B52D3F4B.C8B0%jona...@jboyd.co.uk...
>> in article k3vN4.65938$E85.1...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com, Kynes at
>> ky...@choam.org wrote on 26/4/00 6:23 am:
>>
>>>> Int heory ds9 has a range of 300 000 km.
>>>
>>> Which is a lie.
>>
>> How, exactly, is it a lie?
>
> Do we ever see DS9 engage at this range? How about ST ships in general? No?
> Probably because the bogus claims of phasers travelling at lightspeed are
> just that -- bogus.
Point out the canon evidence that contradicts the official evidence that
phasers have a range of 300,000 km. Until we see them try to fire at this
range and fail, they can fire this far.
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 27/4/00 5:52 am:
> Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>> 1MT = 4.19 PJ of energy.
>> 1 Photon Torpedo = 24MT = 100.56PJ
>> DS9 can withstand multiple torpedo hits therefore its shields are
>> rated at higher than the official reactor output levels.
<snip>
Interesting theory, however QTs don't use m/am and yet are only 2 or 3 times
more powerful. If PTs were as inefficient as you suggest, then there should
be huge difference in observed effect between them and QTs. And why would
the TMs give yields that are so different from their actual effect? And why
would torpedoes still be perceived as a danger when they explode a distance
away? If the main danger was from short lived particles than explosions at a
distance would present no real danger, even to an unshielded ship.
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 27/4/00 5:25 am:
Strength of ray shields is irrelevant. Strength of particle shields is what
>> is important and they are significantly weaker.
>
> kind of attack a photon torpedo will be used in -- a photon torpedo releases
> much of its energy as gamma rays and charged pions, not as KE.
As Edam has said, the ray shields are further out than the particle shields,
so the torp won't explode until it's inside the ray shields, so they won't
protect against the blast.
> [further contradictions with canon snipped]
Perhaps you owuld like to point out how they contradict canon.
**
----
In this newsgroup we debate the various merits of Star Wars and Star Trek
and how they compare in a military match. So, if you want to debate bring up
counter arguments - or don't reply at all.
----
**
From the ASVS Rules and Regulations which are supposed to be maintaining.
Jonathan Boyd
ky...@choam.org wrote on 27/4/00 5:21 am:
>> Yet shields have been shown to withstand Photorp blasts etc (measured in
>> high TJ), whilst (according to you) phasers are rated at 2GWish max.
> Which is a lie. [snip]
See below
>> Shit. Of. The Bull.
>> You tried this one before, and I showed you werre lying then. Want a
>> re-cap?
> Not really. You're still wrong.
From ASVS Rules and Regulations, Rules of Engagement:
**
----
8. In this newsgroup we debate the various merits of Star Wars and Star Trek
and how they compare in a military match. So, if you want to debate bring up
counter arguments - or don't reply at all. Certain responses are banned
unless they are followed by a suitable explanation. They include, but are
not limited to: False, Nope, <Yawn>, "Concession Accepted", or Star
Wars/Star Trek Rulez!
----
**
I thought you would have been familiar with this.
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 27/4/00 4:35 pm:
To make sure we're talking about the same thing, could one of you two post
the quote?
Jonathan Boyd
wrote on 27/4/00 4:34 pm:
>> <bzzt> Wrong. PrTs are an order of magnitude less pwoerful than PhTs,
>> but can still kill a VSD or ISD fairly easily.
>
> And your evidence is ...
<sigh> How many times do I have to do this?
One of the X-Wing Books, Cata War, a VSD II gloses its shields after being
hit by 20 odd PrTs/CMs. There's another book ELim sued to talk about where
an ISD was destroyed by 64 PrTs.
Lord Edam de Fromage
>As Edam has said, the ray shields are further out than the particle
shields,
>so the torp won't explode until it's inside the ray shields, so they
won't
>protect against the blast.
And something I forgot to say in my earlier monologue despite making three
drafts of it
"infact, if the energy shields work by reflecting the energy of the heat
rays then they will actually help the torpedoes do their job by reflecting
most of the energy back at the target, so not only are they next to
useless against torps, there is a very high chance of them actually
assisting the torps do their damage"
Sorry for hijacking your post Boyd.
Strowbridge
>
> in article 3907C795...@home.com, Strowbridge at strow...@home.com
> wrote on 27/4/00 5:52 am:
>
> > Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>
> >> 1MT = 4.19 PJ of energy.
> >> 1 Photon Torpedo = 24MT = 100.56PJ
> >> DS9 can withstand multiple torpedo hits therefore its shields are
> >> rated at higher than the official reactor output levels.
>
> <snip>
>
> Interesting theory, however QTs don't use m/am and yet are only 2 or 3
> times more powerful. If PTs were as inefficient as you suggest, then
> there should be huge difference in observed effect between them and
> QTs.
No.
> And why would the TMs give yields that are so different from their
> actual effect?
They give yields in Isotones. WFT is an Isotone?
> And why would torpedoes still be perceived as a danger when they
> explode a distance away? If the main danger was from short lived
> particles than explosions at a distance would present no real danger,
> even to an unshielded ship.
Two points:
1.) M/AM reaction DO produce long lived particles with VERY high energy.
2.) What distance do you have in mind?
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
> >> That's nice. Pity the film contradicts this.
> >
> > No it doesn't. NO WHERE in the movie is this directly contradicted.
> > Learn the rules of canon.
>
> To make sure we're talking about the same thing, could one of you two
> post the quote?
I just posted it yesterday!
C.S.Strowbridge
Strowbridge
> >> <bzzt> Wrong. PrTs are an order of magnitude less pwoerful than
> >> PhTs, but can still kill a VSD or ISD fairly easily.
> >
> > And your evidence is ...
>
> <sigh> How many times do I have to do this?
Until you get it right. :)
I was asking about the yield.
C.S.Strowbridge
Kynes
> And why
> would torpedoes still be perceived as a danger when they explode a distance
> away? If the main danger was from short lived particles than explosions at a
> distance would present no real danger, even to an unshielded ship.
The real danger, if Strowbridge's theory is correct, is the gamma ray burst that
accompanies M/AM annihilation, not the charged pions. You've got it backwards --
the charged pions decay into electrons and neutrinos quickly, never harming the
ship, but the gamma rays would, and those aren't range-limited.
Kynes
>
> You know, one could argue that photon torpedoes would pass
> unhindered through most Imperial shielding, assuming you
> subscribe to the ray/KE shield dichotomy.
Yes, this is certainly a tenable theory, also assuming you subscribe to
several falsehoods and rely on incorrect research. Luckily, you do.
> As per the rules in reference to SFX, we see that photon
> torpedoes and quantum torpedoes must operate with some sort of
> high-energy field in place (hence the glow of an object that has
> been seen to be jet-black). This field might be some sort of
> sensor-jammer (thereby preventing sensor lock (and thus phaser
> lock) on the torpedo), or it might be a peculiar shield
> configuration, or both.
We've never heard it called either a sensor jammer or a shield -- but
what we HAVE heard that torpedoes have are propulsion systems and warp
sustainers. Instead of inventing new equipment for Federation torpedoes,
it's more prudent to assume that this glow is likely one of these two.
Or both.
It's certainly not a sensor jammer, since the Federation apparently does
not *have* this technology, and a shield would be fairly pointless, given
the poor targeting of Federation ships. They could never hit the torpedo
anyway -- why equip it with a shield?
> If it is a shield, then we can presume that it might do the same
> thing to Imperial KE shields that fighters have been seen to
> do . . . pass straight through.
Really? Shielded vessels can pass through shields? This doesn't appear to
be the case in Return of the Jedi, when the entire Rebel fleet is ordered
frantically to "Pull up!" when Lando realizes the shield is still up. If
there was no danger, why disable the shield in the first place?
> I'm thinking of the "shields
> double-front" comment during a Death Star attack. Clearly, the
> fighters were unhindered, assuming there was a KE shield in
> place.
An assumption which is wrong. Tarkin didn't consider the fighters a threat,
and so he didn't order the shield raised. The "magnetic field" they passed
through was NOT a KE shield -- it was something else, perhaps something
designed to shield the Death Star against space dust, or any number of
things. The shield was not up.
Kynes
> of
> >that energy when impacting the target. Where does it go, big guy?
>
> If you put 1500TJ IN to a weapon, it will lose energy during conversion
I was talking about 1500TJ after conversion.
> and lose energy on the way to the target so it CANNOT have 1500TJ or more
> energy when it hits the target. Second law of thermodynamics stuff.
Whatever, Cpt. Nitpick. This isn't the point. The point is that if a weapon
has a 1500 TJ yield due to energy input, you're better off than a weapon
which relies on a 1500 TJ yield depending on the target.
> >> Yet shields have been shown to withstand Photorp blasts etc (measured
> in
> >> high TJ), whilst (according to you) phasers are rated at 2GWish max.
> >
> >Which is a lie. [snip]
>
> So photorps have never impacted on shields without the shields failing,
> and you have never made a post claiming phasers are in the 2GW range? Odd.
Edam, I said in another post that I wasn't literally suggesting that phasers
were only 1.02GW.
Kynes
> in article 39085E2F...@home.com, Strowbridge at strow...@home.com
> wrote on 27/4/00 4:34 pm:
>
> >> <bzzt> Wrong. PrTs are an order of magnitude less pwoerful than PhTs,
> >> but can still kill a VSD or ISD fairly easily.
> >
> > And your evidence is ...
>
> <sigh> How many times do I have to do this?
>
> hit by 20 odd PrTs/CMs. There's another book ELim sued to talk about where
> an ISD was destroyed by 64 PrTs.
Which means NOTHING, since PrTs and CMs are both VARIABLE YIELD, and you would
obviously not use SNUB FIGHTER weaponry to take down a capital ship. Eris.
How many times do you have to be corrected on this?
Kynes
> > The TESB novelization described a "steady rain" of asteroids, and Anakin
> > Skywalker: The Story of Darth Vader said that "turbolaser gunners
> > blasted the largest rocks; those they missed impacted against the bow
> > shields like multi-megaton compression bombs."
>
> That's nice. Pity the film contradicts this.
False dilemma. Just because we only saw small asteroids in the fifteen or
so combined seconds of screen time does NOT mean that, off-screen, what the
novel is describing didn't happen; in fact, the rules of canon demand this
interpretation.
Eframepilot
>Jonathan Boyd wrote:
>
>> That's nice. Pity the film contradicts this.
>
>Learn the rules of canon.
>
Learn to bend the rules of canon to suit our own inflated estimates, you mean?
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> I'm thinking of the "shields
>> double-front" comment during a Death Star attack. Clearly, the
>> fighters were unhindered, assuming there was a KE shield in
>> place.
>
>An assumption which is wrong. Tarkin didn't consider the fighters a
threat,
>and so he didn't order the shield raised. The "magnetic field" they
passed
>through was NOT a KE shield -- it was something else, perhaps something
>designed to shield the Death Star against space dust, or any number of
>things. The shield was not up.
The KE shields (also known as the particle shields) are *always* up - EGWT
p82.
The ray shields may not have been in place (and, infact, the evidence
would indicate they were not, as the DS has planetary shields which would
have no problems at all stopping puny X-wing blasts)
Lord Edam de Fromage
>> >> Yet shields have been shown to withstand Photorp blasts etc
(measured
>> in
>> >> high TJ), whilst (according to you) phasers are rated at 2GWish max.
>> >
>> >Which is a lie. [snip]
>>
>> So photorps have never impacted on shields without the shields failing,
>> and you have never made a post claiming phasers are in the 2GW range?
Odd.
>
>Edam, I said in another post that I wasn't literally suggesting that
phasers
>were only 1.02GW.
Good. So everytime you say phasers are only 1.02GW you don't actually mean
it? You only post that phasers are 1.02GW to provoke a response?
Strowbridge
>
> In article <39085E63...@home.com>, Strowbridge <strow...@home.com> wrote:
> >Jonathan Boyd wrote:
> >
> >> That's nice. Pity the film contradicts this.
> >
> >No it doesn't. NO WHERE in the movie is this directly contradicted.
> >Learn the rules of canon.
>
> you mean?
So where do you see the DIRECT contradiction?
C.S.Strowbridge
Kynes
> > Do we ever see DS9 engage at this range? How about ST ships in general? No?
> > Probably because the bogus claims of phasers travelling at lightspeed are
> > just that -- bogus.
>
> Point out the canon evidence that contradicts the official evidence that
> phasers have a range of 300,000 km.
The preponderance of canon short ranges is enough to show that the TM does
not reflect reality. Or, alternately, it shows that Federation captains are
scared to engage at long range and never will. Doesn't matter -- take your
pick. Same choice I gave Paul Cassidy a week ago.
Eframepilot
>"Jonathan Boyd" <jona...@jboyd.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:B52E0C20.CB06%jona...@jboyd.co.uk...
>
>> > Do we ever see DS9 engage at this range? How about ST ships in general? No?
>> > Probably because the bogus claims of phasers travelling at lightspeed are
>> > just that -- bogus.
>>
>> Point out the canon evidence that contradicts the official evidence that
>> phasers have a range of 300,000 km.
>
>The preponderance of canon short ranges is enough to show that the TM does
>not reflect reality. Or, alternately, it shows that Federation captains are
>scared to engage at long range and never will. Doesn't matter -- take your
>pick. Same choice I gave Paul Cassidy a week ago.