What is more advanced: ST or SW Technology ?
DomingoJ
This may have been argued here before, but I'd like to raise this question:
which universe, Star Trek or Star Wars, has the more advanced technology ?
Ruediger Landmann
: This may have been argued here before, but I'd like to raise this question:
: which universe, Star Trek or Star Wars, has the more advanced technology ?
This topic has been flogged to death here and elsewhere.
If you're genuinely interested in the question, go over to Dejanews at
and do a "power search" for "star wars" on this newsgroup. You might also
try searching for "ISD" (Imperial Star Destroyer) since so many of the
debates in the past were centred around pitting a Galaxy class starship
against one.
HTH
Jeff Peedin
this type of discussion.
Chris Wagner
>
> Dear Friends:
>
> This may have been argued here before, but I'd like to raise this question:
> which universe, Star Trek or Star Wars, has the more advanced technology ?
Its a good question. Most people refuse to consider facts logically and
just say "<blank> is better, nya!". The truth is that ST is much more
advanced on a purely technological level. However on power and ability,
SW is closer to ST but ST is still clearly more powerful. If there were
a war between the Federation and the Galactic Empire, it would be
bloody. Because the Empire has hyperdrive, they can jump into a system
and blast it to hell before any Starfleet ships could arrive to
reinforce it. But in any direct combat the Starfleet ships would
literally decimate if not anihilate the Imperial forces. Based on RTOJ,
star destroyer shields are reletively weak, the ships armor being the
primary protection mechanism. Also, TIE fighters have no shields at
all. A Galaxy class ship would essentially be impervious to a TIE
fighter attack. Ships without omnidirectional phasers, like the
Miranda's would have a much tougher time but still survive reletively
easily. ST shields are immensely more powerful that SW shields. Large
physical collisions are routinely survived and only extremely intense
bombardment can penetrate ST shields. Phasers seem to be more powerful
than turbolasers. Turbolasers appear to be low power (reletively)
plasma bursts, similar to ST plasma weapons. The Empire compensates for
a lower power level by increasing their number.
Besides military tech, both sides have different areas of superiority.
ST has replicators and transporters, which are unheard of in SW. They
both seem to have roughly equivalent medical technology. SW seems to be
ahead in AI technology though ST is far ahead in raw computational
ability, the holodecks being the prime example.
Anyone else care to contribute?
--
You are dead. Cardassia is dead. Your people were doomed from the
moment they attacked us. "Broken Link"
Mike
>
> Dear Friends:
>
> This may have been argued here before, but I'd like to raise this question:
> which universe, Star Trek or Star Wars, has the more advanced technology ?
Okay, I've spent _way_ too much time on this question before, so let me
give you the short answer. In military terms, the type of battle
dictates the winner. In ship-to-ship combat, the Starfleet vessels
could fly circles around the Imperial fleet at warp speed and cut them
to pieces. OTOH, Starfleet can't hope to match the Empire's speed, and
would have almost no defense against hyperspeed hit-and-run attacks. In
short, the Empire would slag most Federation planets, the Federation
would sterilize most Imperial planets, and space battles would never
happen. Everyone would lose :)
--
-Mike
Unofficial Master of the Twist
Mike's word of the Day: "Undulate"
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| (-o-) Member, LFB, ULC, and EAC [(o.o)] |
| "Your brother has not done justice to your beauty with his words. |
| You are the spitting image of Thelma from Scooby Doo!" |
| -The Tick |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Visit my adequate website! | \||// |
|http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/2352/index.html | |O O| |
|------------------------------------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo|
| There are no rules here, We're | Funkulous: noun; a cyborg |
| trying to accomplish something! | mathmatical theory merging |
| -Thomas A. Edison | calculous and disco. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
"After all, we have all been nonexistent most of the time since the
universe came about. Nonexistence seems to be the normal state of
consciousness; existence is just an anomaly."
-Magnus Henriksson
- .... . -.-. --- -- .--. ..- - . .-. .. ... .- -- --- .-. --- -.
Wooly Mittens
>
let me state up front that the phisical universes of SW and ST are
incomparible.
Considering that ST vessels can navigate, look and shoot while at warp
velocity, (while SW vessels are blind and fly in straight lines), I'd say ST
is at a distinct advantage in the FTL department.
Anyway ST-crews can always "invent" technobabble-beams in emergencies :)
Greeting,
Wooly Mittens<*>
http://www.caiw.nl/~wmittens
http://www.furnation.com/wmittens
wmittens [at] kabelfoon [dot] nl
ICQ:1699604
John M. Dollan
>
> Anyone else care to contribute?
>
You make some good points. In the area of hyperdrive, this is VERY
telling. note that at the end of The empire Strikes Back, we see the
Rebels far above the plane of their galaxy, though for most of the movie
they were immersed in a deep field of stars, implying that they had been
within (or close to) their Galactic plane. This means that, to obtain
the view of their galaxy (assuming it is a standardized spiral), they
had traveled at least 10,000 light years in just a short time. Voyager,
on the other hand, needs 70 odd years to go 70,000 light years. I'm not
certain that Starfleet would have the resources needed to protect all
Federation systems. After all, the Imperial Fleet could jump in, as you
say, decimate whatever colony or indigenous race is there, and jump out
before a task force could even come close to arriving. The Federation
would probably be able to hold them at bay if it could protect enough
key systems to maintain their apparent good rate of ship construction.
Did that make ANY sense at all? It is 2am, after all...;)
Also, there is sheer size to consider. I'm not sure how a Galaxy-class
would compare to a Stardestroyer, but a Super Destroyer looks pretty
damned big. Despite its weaker shields, it might be similar to a Borg
ship in that it could absorb a massive amount of damage while still
remaining relatively functional.
--
John M. Dollan
Montana State University- Northern
Graduate Assistant
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/1861/
ICQ# 308260
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the
universe...." Carl Sagan
Athman Boukhaoua
>
> Dear Friends:
>
> This may have been argued here before, but I'd like to raise this question:
> which universe, Star Trek or Star Wars, has the more advanced technology ?
Sigh!
__________________________________________________________________
_/ Athman Boukhaoua <ab.AN...@active.ch> |
/ Classified message for non-spambots: Remove ".ANTISPAM" to reply /
|__________________________________________________________________/
/ /
| Did you know that an inhabitant of Alpha Centauri /
| would think that the sun belongs to the /
| constellation of Cassiopeia? ____/
| /
| -<<>>- The Starmap Project -<<>>- /
| http://members.tripod.com/~athmanb ____/
| /
| -- Explore REAL space in 3D -- /
|_________________________________________/
Derek Clarke
<199807110735...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
domi...@aol.com (DomingoJ) wrote:
> Dear Friends:
>
> This may have been argued here before, but I'd like to
raise this
> question:
> which universe, Star Trek or Star Wars, has the more
advanced
> technology ?
>
Unquestionably it is:
The Culture in the books by Iain M Banks!
Ships that are thousands of kilometers long that can do
150,000 times the speed of light kick both S universes
into touch...
DB
>DomingoJ wrote:
>>
>> Dear Friends:
>>
>> This may have been argued here before, but I'd like to raise this question:
>> which universe, Star Trek or Star Wars, has the more advanced technology ?
>
>Okay, I've spent _way_ too much time on this question before, so let me
>give you the short answer. In military terms, the type of battle
>dictates the winner. In ship-to-ship combat, the Starfleet vessels
>could fly circles around the Imperial fleet at warp speed and cut them
>to pieces. OTOH, Starfleet can't hope to match the Empire's speed, and
>would have almost no defense against hyperspeed hit-and-run attacks. In
>short, the Empire would slag most Federation planets, the Federation
>would sterilize most Imperial planets, and space battles would never
>happen. Everyone would lose :)
SW ships use lasers as weapons. Federation vessels cannot be harmed by
lasers. Using lasers against a Starfleet vessel would be like tossing
a drop of water on a burning house.
Jason Atkinson
<dol...@cyberport.net> wrote:
>
>Also, there is sheer size to consider. I'm not sure how a Galaxy-class
>would compare to a Stardestroyer, but a Super Destroyer looks pretty
>damned big. Despite its weaker shields, it might be similar to a Borg
>ship in that it could absorb a massive amount of damage while still
>remaining relatively functional.
Torp through the bridge windows, and then it is completely out of
control.
Keary O'Dell
Jason Atkinson wrote:
God no...please don't start this again
Cheetah!
>
> Chris Wagner wrote:
> >
> > Anyone else care to contribute?
> >
>
> You make some good points. In the area of hyperdrive, this is VERY
> telling. note that at the end of The empire Strikes Back, we see the
> Rebels far above the plane of their galaxy, though for most of the movie
> they were immersed in a deep field of stars, implying that they had been
> within (or close to) their Galactic plane. This means that, to obtain
> the view of their galaxy (assuming it is a standardized spiral), they
> had traveled at least 10,000 light years in just a short time. Voyager,
> on the other hand, needs 70 odd years to go 70,000 light years. I'm not
> certain that Starfleet would have the resources needed to protect all
> Federation systems. After all, the Imperial Fleet could jump in, as you
> say, decimate whatever colony or indigenous race is there, and jump out
> before a task force could even come close to arriving. The Federation
> would probably be able to hold them at bay if it could protect enough
> key systems to maintain their apparent good rate of ship construction.
> Did that make ANY sense at all? It is 2am, after all...;)
>
> would compare to a Stardestroyer, but a Super Destroyer looks pretty
> damned big. Despite its weaker shields, it might be similar to a Borg
> ship in that it could absorb a massive amount of damage while still
> remaining relatively functional.
Dude, that *might* not be the galaxy that Luke & Leia are staring at in
the ending of ESB, it could be a still-forming proto star.. it's
impossible to tell from the camera's perspective...
==> Cheetah! <==
... Math is the square root of all evil.
Jason Atkinson
wrote:
>
>
>Jason Atkinson wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 02:20:13 -0600, "John M. Dollan"
>> <dol...@cyberport.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Also, there is sheer size to consider. I'm not sure how a Galaxy-class
>> >would compare to a Stardestroyer, but a Super Destroyer looks pretty
>> >damned big. Despite its weaker shields, it might be similar to a Borg
>> >ship in that it could absorb a massive amount of damage while still
>> >remaining relatively functional.
>>
>> Torp through the bridge windows, and then it is completely out of
>> control.
>
>
>
>God no...please don't start this again
>
This is cross posted to a Star Wars group. My apologies for not
noticing. I'll remove your group in all follow ups on this thread.
John M. Dollan
>
> John M. Dollan wrote:
> >
> >
> > --
>
> Dude, that *might* not be the galaxy that Luke & Leia are staring at in
> the ending of ESB, it could be a still-forming proto star.. it's
> impossible to tell from the camera's perspective...
>
> ==> Cheetah! <==
>
> ... Math is the square root of all evil.
Possible, but on reviewing it, it looks a heck of a lot like a galaxy to
me, despite its seeming rotations. A protostar would be a nebulous mass
enshrouded in obscuring gases and dust. This thing looked awfully
clear, and had points of light throughout that looked like an attempt to
show seperate stars. And it was also a pretty good camera angle. Of
course, we all know how inaccurate movie attempts at astronomical
phenomena can be!
Chris Wagner
>
> SW ships use lasers as weapons. Federation vessels cannot be harmed by
> lasers. Using lasers against a Starfleet vessel would be like tossing
> a drop of water on a burning house.
I knew I was setting myself up for yahoos like this...
*SW does NOT use lasers
*ST shields are NOT impervious to all lasers
Chris Wagner
> > You make some good points. In the area of hyperdrive, this is VERY
> > say, decimate whatever colony or indigenous race is there, and jump out
> > before a task force could even come close to arriving. The Federation
> > would probably be able to hold them at bay if it could protect enough
> > key systems to maintain their apparent good rate of ship construction.
> > Did that make ANY sense at all? It is 2am, after all...;)
Its nice and refreshing to hear some reasonable heads instead of the
shouters and 3 year olds. :) I like both and compare them fairly. I
like ST better but if SW was more powerful I would not hesitate to say
so.
> > Also, there is sheer size to consider. I'm not sure how a Galaxy-class
> > would compare to a Stardestroyer, but a Super Destroyer looks pretty
> > damned big. Despite its weaker shields, it might be similar to a Borg
> > ship in that it could absorb a massive amount of damage while still
> > remaining relatively functional.
I have scale renderings of SD's and the Big E. The SD is far larger but
not that dwarfing to the Galaxy class. Now the TIE's, they are dwarfed
by even the E-nil!
Chris Wagner
> Okay, I've spent _way_ too much time on this question before, so let me
> give you the short answer. In military terms, the type of battle
> dictates the winner. In ship-to-ship combat, the Starfleet vessels
> could fly circles around the Imperial fleet at warp speed and cut them
> to pieces. OTOH, Starfleet can't hope to match the Empire's speed, and
> would have almost no defense against hyperspeed hit-and-run attacks. In
> short, the Empire would slag most Federation planets, the Federation
> would sterilize most Imperial planets, and space battles would never
> happen. Everyone would lose :)
How do you think each would fair against the other's planetary defense
systems. SW ship tech ain't that great but large scale stuff seems to
be much better. Just look at the Death Star. The Cardassians on the
other hand had those orbital weapon platforms. Just think of what the
Federation could come up with. How strong is Imperial planetary
shields? I don't think SF has anything comparable in general
circulation. Perhaps the Aldean shield system?
How do you think an Imperial fleet would have done against the Chintoka
system? Say they had a very large fleet of hundreds of SD's and SSD's.
Thats usually how they operate. I don't think TIE's would have done
squat against them. Does anybody think that Death Star level power
would be needed to take out the generator moon? I know it could do it.
Anonymous
<wag...@plebeian.com> wrote:
>How do you think each would fair against the other's planetary defense
>systems.
Trek weapons would be shrugged off by SW planetary shields. Hell, the
shield protecting Echo Base on Hoth was strong enough to deflect any
bombardment the Vader's flotilla could deliver.
>SW ship tech ain't that great but large scale stuff seems to
>be much better.
SW ship tech is fine. They mount incredibly powerful weapons, with
comparably powerful shields, and hyperdrives.
>Just look at the Death Star.
Indeed.
>The Cardassians on the
>other hand had those orbital weapon platforms. Just think of what the
>Federation could come up with. How strong is Imperial planetary
>shields? I don't think SF has anything comparable in general
>circulation. Perhaps the Aldean shield system?
If the rebel shields on Hoth are anything to go by, I'd say planetary
shields on important core worlds are even more powerful. The novels
describe Coruscant's as *two* independently rotating shields that
encompass the whole planet.
>How do you think an Imperial fleet would have done against the Chintoka
>system?
A single star destroyer would have been more than enough.
> Say they had a very large fleet of hundreds of SD's and SSD's.
Not even necessary.
>Thats usually how they operate.
Since when?
>I don't think TIE's would have done
>squat against them.
TIEs probably wouldn't have been used.
> Does anybody think that Death Star level power
>would be needed to take out the generator moon? I know it could do it.
Of course.
John M. Dollan
>
>
>
> Its nice and refreshing to hear some reasonable heads instead of the
> shouters and 3 year olds. :) I like both and compare them fairly. I
> like ST better but if SW was more powerful I would not hesitate to say
> so.
Why, thank you! I tend to agree...reasonability makes so much better a
discussion than the old "this show is better so there" arguments.
Personally, I like ST a LOT more than SW, though I enjoy both from a
cinematic point of view. I suppose that I've just been watching ST a
lot longer than any other SF show....
>
>
>
> I have scale renderings of SD's and the Big E. The SD is far larger but
> not that dwarfing to the Galaxy class. Now the TIE's, they are dwarfed
> by even the E-nil!
>
Remember the ST:TNG episode "Conundrum, where the ship wades through the
small perimeter fighters (something that made me think of how the
Federation felt when the Borg waded through the Mars perimeter)? I have
that image when I see TIE's trying to attack the Enterprise-E.
By the way, any idea where I can find these scaled drawings?
Nathaniel Forest
I am a fan of both and like to think that what I have said is
unbiased, although I will admit that I like ST better.
> A single star destroyer would have been more than enough..
I disagree strongly. Although the Star Destroyers and bigger
ships use Turbolasers, smaller ships such as the Corellian Corvette
and Medical Frigate use lasers. The lasers appeared capable of at
least damaging the Star Destroyers as seen in "The Return of the Jedi".
Also, fighters from both sides use lasers and seem capable of destroying
the bigger ships like the Star Destroyer in minutes, granted great
numbers of the fighters have to be used. We know generaly were lasers
fit in the Trek universe(see episodes "The Outrageous Okona", "Suddenly
Human", "Conundrum"), in the original series pilot "The Cage",in
2254,the Enterprise's personel were equiped with Laser Pistols,and a
Laser Cannon. These weapons were replaced shortly thereafter by Phasers.
Starfleet would not have upgraded to less powerful weapons. Shields in
2365, 111 years later, were able to basically ignore Laser fire making
ships in 2365 and later, at least those belonging to the major
goverments, invulnerable to fire from ships in the SW universe using
Lasers. I'm not trying to imply that it makes them invulnerable to
Turbolasers. Turbolasers according to "Star Wars The Essential Guide to
Vehicles and Vessels" are "...much more powerful VERSIONS of Laser
Cannons; they are used by capital ships." This sentence seems to imply
that Turbolasers are more powerful because they have the benefit of the
larger powerplants used by capital ships, not because they are
DIFFERENT. This may or may not meen that ST shields won't be effected by
Turbolasers but I don't believe that they will be as effective as other
ST weapons such as Phasers. They probably would lower ST shields at a
rate of 1-2% a hit. Phasers on the other hand would probaly do
signifigant amounts of damage to SW vessels. SW shields as stated in the
"Star Wars The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels" are able to "...
absorb only a limited amount of energy before they burn out, but they
provide significant protection while they last.", since Phasers and
other ST weapons are much more powerful than SW weapons, SW shields
would burn out relatively soon. In addition Imperial Star Destroyers and
Super Star Destroyers appear to have signifigant design flaws that are
clear if you have seen the movies, which I am sure you have. ST weapons
such as the Photon,Quantum,and Plasma torpedos are clearly more powerful
than SW weapons like the Proton Torpedo which is stated in the
"Star Wars Technical Journal" as being a "... nuclear warhead rated at
just under 1 kiloton...". ST ships are shown as faster and more
manueverable at sublight speeds making them harder to hit than SW ships.
Everything I have read and seen seems to indicate that SW weapons are
manually targeted, while ST weapons are Computer Targeted which I'm sure
makes ST weapons more accurate. I'm not sure what affect Ion Cannons
would have on ST ships since there isn't anything, as far as I remember,
similar in ST. Once ST shields are down SW weapons would have as much of
an effect on ST ships as SW ships. SW fighters would be irrelevent till
ST shields were down. As far as Hyperdrive and Warp Drive is concerned I
don't have a clue which is better. Going by this information one Star
Destroyer would have been massacered, at least IMHO. The Imperials would
have needed a fleet at least the size of that in "The Return of the
Jedi."
They may not have even been able to determine that the power was coming
from the asteroid because their sensors appear far inferior, I don't
think they can detect subspace signals. The platforms appeared capable
of inflicting incrediable damage to ST ships with shields so I imagine
SW ships
would be affected much more.
>
> > Say they had a very large fleet of hundreds of SD's and SSD's.
>
> Not even necessary.
Quite necessary if you follow my reasoning above.
>
> >Thats usually how they operate.
>
> Since when?
We rarely see Imperial ships operating seperately.
>
> >I don't think TIE's would have done
> >squat against them.
>
> TIEs probably wouldn't have been used.
I doubt that.
>
> > Does anybody think that Death Star level power
> >would be needed to take out the generator moon?
>
>I know it could do it.
>
> Of course.
I would have to agree here, if it could detect it.:)
Piett
Nathaniel Forest wrote in message <35AF72...@concentric.net>...
>This is my opinion based on the information I have.
>I am a fan of both and like to think that what I have said is
>unbiased, although I will admit that I like ST better.
>
>Anonymous wrote:
>>
>> >The Cardassians on the
>> >other hand had those orbital weapon platforms. Just think of what the
>> >Federation could come up with. How strong is Imperial planetary
>> >shields? I don't think SF has anything comparable in general
>> >circulation. Perhaps the Aldean shield system?
>>
>> If the rebel shields on Hoth are anything to go by, I'd say planetary
>> shields on important core worlds are even more powerful. The novels
>> describe Coruscant's as *two* independently rotating shields that
>> encompass the whole planet.
>>
>> >How do you think an Imperial fleet would have done against the Chintoka
>> >system?
>>
>> A single star destroyer would have been more than enough..
>
>I disagree strongly. Although the Star Destroyers and bigger
>ships use Turbolasers, smaller ships such as the Corellian Corvette
>and Medical Frigate use lasers. The lasers appeared capable of at
>least damaging the Star Destroyers as seen in "The Return of the Jedi".
>Also, fighters from both sides use lasers and seem capable of destroying
>the bigger ships like the Star Destroyer in minutes, granted great
>numbers of the fighters have to be used.
Err, sorry if this seems to be a generally held belief, but turbolasers are
NOT lasers. Why? They don't ACT like lasers - going back and looking at
the scene in ESB where the Avenger is sniping at Asteroids, the vaporisation
of the asteroids is caused by a plasma splash. IF the turbolasers had been
lasers (certainly as Trek seems to define them), then the asteroids would
have had smallish holes drilled in them and then exploded due to internal
pressure.
We know generaly were lasers
>fit in the Trek universe(see episodes "The Outrageous Okona", "Suddenly
>Human", "Conundrum"), in the original series pilot "The Cage",in
>2254,the Enterprise's personel were equiped with Laser Pistols,and a
>Laser Cannon. These weapons were replaced shortly thereafter by Phasers.
>Starfleet would not have upgraded to less powerful weapons.
Of course, the lasers in TOS would have been woefully underpowered (compared
to SW weaponry). I also think one of the main motivations for switching to
phasers was so that more damage could be achieved with the RNE/NDF effects,
rather than just relying on sheer power alone.
Shields in
>2365, 111 years later, were able to basically ignore Laser fire making
>ships in 2365 and later, at least those belonging to the major
>goverments, invulnerable to fire from ships in the SW universe using
>Lasers. I'm not trying to imply that it makes them invulnerable to
>Turbolasers. Turbolasers according to "Star Wars The Essential Guide to
>Vehicles and Vessels" are "...much more powerful VERSIONS of Laser
>Cannons; they are used by capital ships." This sentence seems to imply
>that Turbolasers are more powerful because they have the benefit of the
>larger powerplants used by capital ships, not because they are
>DIFFERENT.
According to calcs done on how much power is takes to vaporise an asteroid
in TSB, an anti-starfighter cannon on an ISD has a minimum power of 200-2000
TW. This is MUCH higher than any figure i've seen for ST weapon strength
(20 GW Romulan shipboard weaponry, the 1.02 GW figure for phasers in the
TM).
This may or may not meen that ST shields won't be effected by
>Turbolasers but I don't believe that they will be as effective as other
>ST weapons such as Phasers. They probably would lower ST shields at a
>rate of 1-2% a hit. Phasers on the other hand would probaly do
>signifigant amounts of damage to SW vessels. SW shields as stated in the
>"Star Wars The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels" are able to "...
>absorb only a limited amount of energy before they burn out, but they
>provide significant protection while they last.", since Phasers and
>other ST weapons are much more powerful than SW weapons,
No, they aren't. You're comparing shields which hold off significant
amounts of energy (quite likely over the 10,000 TW mark) to phasers of the
GW range. The effect which the ESGVV describes is relative to SW only,
because it is describing the effect of SW weapons - not phasers.
SW shields
>would burn out relatively soon. In addition Imperial Star Destroyers and
>Super Star Destroyers appear to have signifigant design flaws that are
>clear if you have seen the movies, which I am sure you have. ST weapons
>such as the Photon,Quantum,and Plasma torpedos are clearly more powerful
>than SW weapons like the Proton Torpedo which is stated in the
>"Star Wars Technical Journal" as being a "... nuclear warhead rated at
>just under 1 kiloton...". ST ships are shown as faster and more
>manueverable at sublight speeds making them harder to hit than SW ships.
>Everything I have read and seen seems to indicate that SW weapons are
>manually targeted, while ST weapons are Computer Targeted which I'm sure
>makes ST weapons more accurate.
SW gunners have a sophisticated targeting computer system build into their
helmets. We've also seen (in ANH, for example) that X-Wings carry targeting
computers.
I'm not sure what affect Ion Cannons
>would have on ST ships since there isn't anything, as far as I remember,
>similar in ST. Once ST shields are down SW weapons would have as much of
>an effect on ST ships as SW ships. SW fighters would be irrelevent till
>ST shields were down. As far as Hyperdrive and Warp Drive is concerned I
>don't have a clue which is better.
Hyperdrive is MUCH faster. Han Solo's falcon can do 127 LY/hour. That is
why the Empire is Galactic on scale, whereas the Federation only measures
10,000 LY from the centre.
Going by this information one Star
>Destroyer would have been massacered, at least IMHO. The Imperials would
>have needed a fleet at least the size of that in "The Return of the
>Jedi."
I somehow doubt it. Unless you can get me new figures for ST weapon's
strength.
>They may not have even been able to determine that the power was coming
>from the asteroid because their sensors appear far inferior, I don't
>think they can detect subspace signals.
Subspace was tried as a communication system by the SW universe hundreds of
years ago, but was then considered obsolete and inadquate so they switched
to the holonet - which can provide instantaneous communication across
60-70,000 LY, as seen in ESB. Since they are already familiar with
Subspace, I assume they'd have no trouble detecting it.
The platforms appeared capable
>of inflicting incrediable damage to ST ships with shields so I imagine
>SW ships
>would be affected much more.
Again, i'm not sure. ISDs are tougher than you seem to give them credit.
>>
>> > Say they had a very large fleet of hundreds of SD's and SSD's.
>>
>> Not even necessary.
>Quite necessary if you follow my reasoning above.
IF it is correct. If my estimates are correct, it is going to take many ST
ships a long time to batter down the shields of ONE ISD.
>>
>> >Thats usually how they operate.
>>
>> Since when?
>We rarely see Imperial ships operating seperately.
But they do not move in Fleets of 100. One or two, perhaps.
>>
>> >I don't think TIE's would have done
>> >squat against them.
>>
>> TIEs probably wouldn't have been used.
>I doubt that.
TIEs may be used if it appears neccessary. Perhaps to act as a fire sponge.
Remember, they are far more manueverable and capable of dodging than those
slow moving Lysian drones which everyone seems to use as a benchmark for
targeting.
>>
>> > Does anybody think that Death Star level power
>> >would be needed to take out the generator moon?
>>
>>I know it could do it.
>>
>> Of course.
>
>I would have to agree here, if it could detect it.:)
Is there any reason why it couldn't?
Oh, BTW, I suggest this be moved to alt.startrek.vs.starwars.....there
everyone can argue, rant, rave and yell as much as they want - cause its all
on-topic :)
Piett
Nathaniel Forest
I'm not talking about Turbolasers, I'm talking about the weapons on
the smaller vessels. The Technical Journal and the EGTVV both say
they have Lasers.
>
> We know generaly were lasers
> >fit in the Trek universe(see episodes "The Outrageous Okona", "Suddenly
> >Human", "Conundrum"), in the original series pilot "The Cage",in
> >2254,the Enterprise's personel were equiped with Laser Pistols,and a
> >Laser Cannon. These weapons were replaced shortly thereafter by Phasers.
> >Starfleet would not have upgraded to less powerful weapons.
>
> Of course, the lasers in TOS would have been woefully underpowered (compared
> to SW weaponry).
What makes you say that. They are the same thing. Are you telling me
that the Original Enterprises Lasers would be inferior to those on
a Corellian Corvette or even a X-wing or TIE fighter?
> Shields in
> >2365, 111 years later, were able to basically ignore Laser fire making
> >ships in 2365 and later, at least those belonging to the major
> >goverments, invulnerable to fire from ships in the SW universe using
> >Lasers. I'm not trying to imply that it makes them invulnerable to
> >Turbolasers. Turbolasers according to "Star Wars The Essential Guide to
> >Vehicles and Vessels" are "...much more powerful VERSIONS of Laser
> >Cannons; they are used by capital ships." This sentence seems to imply
> >that Turbolasers are more powerful because they have the benefit of the
> >larger powerplants used by capital ships, not because they are
> >DIFFERENT.
>
> According to calcs done on how much power is takes to vaporise an asteroid
> in TSB, an anti-starfighter cannon on an ISD has a minimum power of 200-2000
> TW. This is MUCH higher than any figure i've seen for ST weapon strength
> (20 GW Romulan shipboard weaponry, the 1.02 GW figure for phasers in the
> TM).
>
What calcs? If they are fan generated than i'd consider them biased.
They seem to miss alot.
>
>
> I'm not sure what affect Ion Cannons
> >would have on ST ships since there isn't anything, as far as I remember,
> >similar in ST. Once ST shields are down SW weapons would have as much of
> >an effect on ST ships as SW ships. SW fighters would be irrelevent till
> >ST shields were down. As far as Hyperdrive and Warp Drive is concerned I
> >don't have a clue which is better.
>
> Hyperdrive is MUCH faster. Han Solo's falcon can do 127 LY/hour. That is
> why the Empire is Galactic on scale, whereas the Federation only measures
> 10,000 LY from the centre.
Ya,but,he said it could only make .5 past light speed?
>
> Going by this information one Star
> >Destroyer would have been massacered, at least IMHO. The Imperials would
> >have needed a fleet at least the size of that in "The Return of the
> >Jedi."
>
> I somehow doubt it. Unless you can get me new figures for ST weapon's
> strength.
>
> >They may not have even been able to determine that the power was coming
> >from the asteroid because their sensors appear far inferior, I don't
> >think they can detect subspace signals.
>
> Subspace was tried as a communication system by the SW universe hundreds of
> years ago, but was then considered obsolete and inadquate so they switched
> to the holonet - which can provide instantaneous communication across
> 60-70,000 LY, as seen in ESB. Since they are already familiar with
> Subspace, I assume they'd have no trouble detecting it.
>
> The platforms appeared capable
> >of inflicting incrediable damage to ST ships with shields so I imagine
> >SW ships
> >would be affected much more.
>
> Again, i'm not sure. ISDs are tougher than you seem to give them credit.
>
I was basing this on blowing off the towers and then Torpedoing its
bridge. Fast and easy since they can't evade your Computer assisted
shots.
> >>
> >> > Say they had a very large fleet of hundreds of SD's and SSD's.
> >>
> >> Not even necessary.
> >Quite necessary if you follow my reasoning above.
>
> IF it is correct. If my estimates are correct, it is going to take many ST
> ships a long time to batter down the shields of ONE ISD.
>
> >>
> >> >Thats usually how they operate.
> >>
> >> Since when?
> >We rarely see Imperial ships operating seperately.
>
> But they do not move in Fleets of 100. One or two, perhaps.
>
I agree.
> >>
> >> >I don't think TIE's would have done
> >> >squat against them.
> >>
> >> TIEs probably wouldn't have been used.
> >I doubt that.
>
> TIEs may be used if it appears neccessary. Perhaps to act as a fire sponge.
> Remember, they are far more manueverable and capable of dodging than those
> slow moving Lysian drones which everyone seems to use as a benchmark for
> targeting.
>
> >>
> >> > Does anybody think that Death Star level power
> >> >would be needed to take out the generator moon?
> >>
> >>I know it could do it.
> >>
> >> Of course.
> >
> >I would have to agree here, if it could detect it.:)
>
> Is there any reason why it couldn't?
>
The subspace thing.
>
> Oh, BTW, I suggest this be moved to alt.startrek.vs.starwars.....there
> everyone can argue, rant, rave and yell as much as they want - cause its all
> on-topic :)
I didn't know there was a newsgroup for this. It is my first and
probaly last foray into the argument. It really doesn't matter. We
will never see them face off and I'll enjoy both either way. This is
just my opinion on the matter and nothing short of seening the to
universess fight it out will change my mind.
I made my argument based on what I had for information. I don't have
any sources with numbers in them. I also don't know how you calculated
the power needed to destroy an asteroid. My stance on the Turbolaser
issue was based on the EGTVV which states that lasers are packs of light
energy and that turbolasers are simply more powerful versions. It makes
sense if you go by the name.
Chris Garcia
> I disagree strongly. Although the Star Destroyers and bigger
> ships use Turbolasers, smaller ships such as the Corellian Corvette
> and Medical Frigate use lasers. The lasers appeared capable of at
> least damaging the Star Destroyers as seen in "The Return of the Jedi".
hmm, has anyone taken the TIMELINE into consideration here? think about it
star wars was "A long time ago...." and star trek is 300-400 years in the
future .... which means they had lasers wayyy before (earth) humans had
even guns (maybe)... now supposedly it took humans (on earth a good 300
years or so to come up with something better than lasers.. so if you
think about it, the "star wars universe" has had "A long time ago..."
*AND* 300 years to come up with new technologies..
and that's why i think the star wars universe would kick the star trek's
universe's ass :)
(i don't really care, i like both of them <ducks under a table>)
-Chris
Proud "Prospective Member" of:
*------------------------------*
| || ||||||| || || |
| || || || || |
| || ||||||| || || |
| || || || || |
| ||||||| ||||||| ||||||| |
|The Golden Band From Tigerland|
| Voted No. 1 in the SEC |
*------------------------------*
Jim Rothwell
> This may have been argued here before, but I'd like to raise this question:
> which universe, Star Trek or Star Wars, has the more advanced technology ?
Chris Wagner wrote:
> Its a good question. Most people refuse to consider facts logically and
> just say "<blank> is better, nya!". The truth is that ST is much more
> advanced on a purely technological level. However on power and ability,
> SW is closer to ST but ST is still clearly more powerful. If there were
> a war between the Federation and the Galactic Empire, it would be
> bloody.
<Snip>
> Anyone else care to contribute?
I've been lurking on this thread for a while, and have noticed that the posts
all seem to be comparing technology. I think the question would not be solved
technologically, however.
The factor that I think would determine the outcome if such a conflict were to
arise is mental. Star Wars characters, Empire and Rebel alike, are much more
ruthless than most Star Trek characters. Consider the willingness of the Empire
to destroy entire planets, manufacture biological and chemical agents designed
to wipe out entire groups of similar alien species, and subjugate and enslave
their own people. The Rebellion/New Republic, though trying to be more
inclusive, have also stooped to state sponsored terrorism to fight the remnants
of the Empire.
The humans of the Star Trek universe have rooted out such dark components to
their psyches and have a hard time coping with such actions when they appear.
Reasoned responses welcomed.
Jim Rothwell
jimro...@sprintmail.com
Mariusz Jesmanowicz
you have to remember that in ST the computer can shoot realy nicely, and in
SW for the computer to shoot a 2 meter target is a big deal :) All it is
"WHEN" "the technology" was invented by GL in 77;' for the movie and for
ST:TNG in 87-98' well let's see in our culture computers skyrocketed so that
is why we laugh at what in SW they couldn't do, but look at one thing travel
is a lot more advanced in SW, and in SG it takes about 70 years to get from
one place in our galaxy to another (Voyager). I am sure that in new movies
will see some more powerfull stuff from computers etc... Again it is hardly
worth arguing the techology was chosen for the movies and by the times in
our cultures. I am pretty sure they could have "beam me up Chewie" but would
you like to see Han getting out of problems with the transporter :) Hey we
better compare beings, so far the most powerfull beings in SW are Jedi's bad
good etc... in ST we have Q :)
Chris Wagner
> Why, thank you! I tend to agree...reasonability makes so much better a
> discussion than the old "this show is better so there" arguments.
> Personally, I like ST a LOT more than SW, though I enjoy both from a
> cinematic point of view. I suppose that I've just been watching ST a
> lot longer than any other SF show....
It seems like the shouting matches have ended and these are the
conclusions of r.a.s.t. and r.a.s.s.m. Each side has its advantages and
disadvantages.
> Remember the ST:TNG episode "Conundrum, where the ship wades through the
> small perimeter fighters (something that made me think of how the
> Federation felt when the Borg waded through the Mars perimeter)? I have
> that image when I see TIE's trying to attack the Enterprise-E.
My thoughts exactly.
> By the way, any idea where I can find these scaled drawings?
Sure, I can email them to you. They were made by Peter Chung.
Chris Wagner
> Trek weapons would be shrugged off by SW planetary shields. Hell, the
> shield protecting Echo Base on Hoth was strong enough to deflect any
> bombardment the Vader's flotilla could deliver.
I have to agree some, but I wouldn't say "shrugg off". Hell it takes 50
starships to take DS9. It would probably be 1000 or more to take down
any planetary shield from either side. You also have to keep in mind
that in ESB Vader didn't have that many ships with him at Hoth. A dozen
max.
> >SW ship tech ain't that great but large scale stuff seems to
> >be much better.
>
> SW ship tech is fine. They mount incredibly powerful weapons, with
> comparably powerful shields, and hyperdrives.
Their tech is alright. "Incredibly powerful" is too strong a term,
though they are very strong. All evidence indicates that SW shields
suck. It is tedious but routine to take down a ship's shields and then
the ship can survive for long periods even after they loose shields. SF
on the other hand relies pretty much entirely on shields for ship
protection. Once shields are lost the battle is going to be over real
fast.
> >How do you think an Imperial fleet would have done against the Chintoka
> >system?
>
> A single star destroyer would have been more than enough.
No way. That is a ludicrous statement of the days when "my show is
better so there!" If you want to be taken seriously you can't make
heavy declarations like that. A single SD would be shot down in 30
seconds at Chintoka. Just like a Galaxy class would be shot down in 30
seconds over Corsucant.
> >Thats usually how they operate.
>
> Since when?
Since always. The mantra of the Empire is "overwhelming force".
> > Does anybody think that Death Star level power
> >would be needed to take out the generator moon? I know it could do it.
>
> Of course.
So you're saying a Death Star *would* be required to take out the power
moon.
Chris Wagner
>
> This is my opinion based on the information I have.
> I am a fan of both and like to think that what I have said is
> unbiased, although I will admit that I like ST better.
Believe me, you are biased! :)
> Anonymous wrote:
> > >How do you think an Imperial fleet would have done against the Chintoka
> > >system?
> >
> > A single star destroyer would have been more than enough..
>
> I disagree strongly. Although the Star Destroyers and bigger
I agree with you but for other reasons that you state.
> ships use Turbolasers, smaller ships such as the Corellian Corvette
> and Medical Frigate use lasers. The lasers appeared capable of at
> least damaging the Star Destroyers as seen in "The Return of the Jedi".
I don't think any cap ships mount lasers. AFAIK, they're all
turbolasers. And I don't think turbolasers are lasers. The evidence on
screen is that they are plasma based weapons, formed into a bolt. On
screen evidence overrides any printed material.
> Also, fighters from both sides use lasers and seem capable of destroying
> the bigger ships like the Star Destroyer in minutes, granted great
Yes, those are lasers. Totally puny and of no use in an attack on a ST
target. Unless its a ship with limited fixed fire weapons.
> numbers of the fighters have to be used. We know generaly were lasers
> fit in the Trek universe(see episodes "The Outrageous Okona", "Suddenly
> Human", "Conundrum"), in the original series pilot "The Cage",in
> 2254,the Enterprise's personel were equiped with Laser Pistols,and a
> Laser Cannon. These weapons were replaced shortly thereafter by Phasers.
> Starfleet would not have upgraded to less powerful weapons. Shields in
> 2365, 111 years later, were able to basically ignore Laser fire making
> ships in 2365 and later, at least those belonging to the major
> goverments, invulnerable to fire from ships in the SW universe using
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! Not another quote of The Outrageous Okona! Those
lasers were too puny to threaten the Enterprise. It was NOT the mere
fact that they were lasers. Lasers are used by the BORG. (see Q-Who)
They slice up Fed ships quite handily. Its all about the POWER level.
ST shields are NOT impervious to lasers. If anybody else makes this
statement I will hunt you down by your IP and kick your ass. GOT IT?!?
> Lasers. I'm not trying to imply that it makes them invulnerable to
> Turbolasers. Turbolasers according to "Star Wars The Essential Guide to
> Vehicles and Vessels" are "...much more powerful VERSIONS of Laser
> Cannons; they are used by capital ships." This sentence seems to imply
> that Turbolasers are more powerful because they have the benefit of the
> larger powerplants used by capital ships, not because they are
> DIFFERENT. This may or may not meen that ST shields won't be effected by
You have to remember that tech manuals are written by WRITERS, NOT
ENGINEERS. Therefore ALL tech manuals must be read with skepticism and
are only valid when they backup or otherwise don't contradict in any way
on screen evidence.
> Turbolasers but I don't believe that they will be as effective as other
> ST weapons such as Phasers. They probably would lower ST shields at a
> rate of 1-2% a hit. Phasers on the other hand would probaly do
1-2% per hit?! At that rate only 2 phalanx's of SD fire would kill a
Galaxy class. I don't buy that at all. More likely .10-.15% per hit.
If turbolasers were so powerful, then why do they mount so many of them?
> signifigant amounts of damage to SW vessels. SW shields as stated in the
> "Star Wars The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels" are able to "...
> absorb only a limited amount of energy before they burn out, but they
> provide significant protection while they last.", since Phasers and
> other ST weapons are much more powerful than SW weapons, SW shields
I wouldn't say "much more" powerful. They are clearly more powerful but
they are still comparable. I'm not talking about single turbolaser
blasts but phalanx's. I'ld say that 1 full phalanx of turbolaser fire
from a SD would be about 80% of a full power phaser burst from a Galaxy
class.
> would burn out relatively soon. In addition Imperial Star Destroyers and
> Super Star Destroyers appear to have signifigant design flaws that are
> clear if you have seen the movies, which I am sure you have. ST weapons
> such as the Photon,Quantum,and Plasma torpedos are clearly more powerful
> than SW weapons like the Proton Torpedo which is stated in the
> "Star Wars Technical Journal" as being a "... nuclear warhead rated at
One full spread of photon torpedoes would definately wipe out a SD.
This is indisputable. Anyone who says otherwise, I question their
motivations.
> just under 1 kiloton...". ST ships are shown as faster and more
> manueverable at sublight speeds making them harder to hit than SW ships.
As far as cap ships go, yes. But smaller ships (BOP, TIE's, Millenium
Falcon, Defiant) are clearly equal in maneuverability.
> Everything I have read and seen seems to indicate that SW weapons are
> manually targeted, while ST weapons are Computer Targeted which I'm sure
Computer targeting makes a huge difference. The E *always* hits on
target. We've seen that SD's accuracy leaves something to be desired.
Just look at the begining of ANH (Tantive IV) or the Battle of Endor.
> makes ST weapons more accurate. I'm not sure what affect Ion Cannons
> would have on ST ships since there isn't anything, as far as I remember,
They would probably be similar to turbolasers, ions have no special
effect on ST shields.
> similar in ST. Once ST shields are down SW weapons would have as much of
> an effect on ST ships as SW ships. SW fighters would be irrelevent till
> ST shields were down. As far as Hyperdrive and Warp Drive is concerned I
> don't have a clue which is better. Going by this information one Star
> Destroyer would have been massacered, at least IMHO. The Imperials would
> have needed a fleet at least the size of that in "The Return of the
> Jedi."
Hyperdrive and warp are two different animals. Hyperdrive lets you go
long distances very quickly, but you have to leave normal space to do
so. This means you cannot be attacked or attack anyone else. Warp
keeps you in normal space so you can attack targets at FTL speeds. Any
ship at warp would be immune to attack by a SD. SD's have *no* FTL
weapondry. So all a ST ship has to do is hang back and pummel the SD
with torps. On the other hand, if a SD gets in over its head with a ST
ship, all it has to do is jump to hyperspace and its safe.
> They may not have even been able to determine that the power was coming
> from the asteroid because their sensors appear far inferior, I don't
> think they can detect subspace signals. The platforms appeared capable
> of inflicting incrediable damage to ST ships with shields so I imagine
> SW ships
> would be affected much more.
SW has subspace everything. They could detect it. I don't think they
could have taken Chintoka with less than 500 SD's.
> > >I don't think TIE's would have done
> > >squat against them.
> >
> > TIEs probably wouldn't have been used.
> I doubt that.
TIE's would be useless against Chintoka. Why would they use them?
Chris Wagner
> >> A single star destroyer would have been more than enough..
> >
> >I disagree strongly. Although the Star Destroyers and bigger
> >ships use Turbolasers, smaller ships such as the Corellian Corvette
> >and Medical Frigate use lasers. The lasers appeared capable of at
> NOT lasers. Why? They don't ACT like lasers - going back and looking at
Yes you are right. They are completely consistent with being plasma
bolt weapons. Thats probably why they put "turbo" in the name. Used in
the same manner as lasers, but different.
> the scene in ESB where the Avenger is sniping at Asteroids, the vaporisation
> of the asteroids is caused by a plasma splash. IF the turbolasers had been
> lasers (certainly as Trek seems to define them), then the asteroids would
> have had smallish holes drilled in them and then exploded due to internal
> pressure.
Not necessarily. A powerful enough laser would cause all matter it
touched to explode violently. Only low power lasers "drill" into
things. The explosion would start at the surface and then progress down
into the asteroid as the beam progressed.
> Of course, the lasers in TOS would have been woefully underpowered (compared
Not that bad. The E's lasers would be comparable to a smaller
turbolaser battery. Certainly more powerful than TIE's or X-Wings.
> to SW weaponry). I also think one of the main motivations for switching to
> phasers was so that more damage could be achieved with the RNE/NDF effects,
> rather than just relying on sheer power alone.
Yes. But phasers do pack considerable raw power.
> According to calcs done on how much power is takes to vaporise an asteroid
> in TSB, an anti-starfighter cannon on an ISD has a minimum power of 200-2000
> TW. This is MUCH higher than any figure i've seen for ST weapon strength
> (20 GW Romulan shipboard weaponry, the 1.02 GW figure for phasers in the
> TM).
You can't have it both ways. If you want to compare onscreen to
onscreen thats one thing, but onscreen to tech manual is invalid. The
TNG tech manual is garbage. If you run the calcs on the feats phasers
have accomplished they are even more powerful than this. Up in the
*millions* of TW.
>
> No, they aren't. You're comparing shields which hold off significant
> amounts of energy (quite likely over the 10,000 TW mark) to phasers of the
> GW range. The effect which the ESGVV describes is relative to SW only,
> because it is describing the effect of SW weapons - not phasers.
Phasers are not GW weapons. That is not supported by onscreen
evidence. You're crossing sources.
> SW gunners have a sophisticated targeting computer system build into their
> helmets. We've also seen (in ANH, for example) that X-Wings carry targeting
> computers.
But they are still aimed an fired by hand. A targeting computer can
only do so much. The E has fully automated acqusition, targeting, and
firing.
> Going by this information one Star
> >Destroyer would have been massacered, at least IMHO. The Imperials would
> >have needed a fleet at least the size of that in "The Return of the
> >Jedi."
>
> I somehow doubt it. Unless you can get me new figures for ST weapon's
> strength.
Against Chintoka, the SD would be vaped. That's what that statement was
about.
> Subspace was tried as a communication system by the SW universe hundreds of
> years ago, but was then considered obsolete and inadquate so they switched
> to the holonet - which can provide instantaneous communication across
> 60-70,000 LY, as seen in ESB. Since they are already familiar with
> Subspace, I assume they'd have no trouble detecting it.
Well duh. Holonet is hyperspace based.
> The platforms appeared capable
> >of inflicting incrediable damage to ST ships with shields so I imagine
> >SW ships
> >would be affected much more.
>
> Again, i'm not sure. ISDs are tougher than you seem to give them credit.
At Chintoka, they would, believe they would.
> >>
> >> > Say they had a very large fleet of hundreds of SD's and SSD's.
> >>
> >> Not even necessary.
> >Quite necessary if you follow my reasoning above.
>
> IF it is correct. If my estimates are correct, it is going to take many ST
> ships a long time to batter down the shields of ONE ISD.
No way. First off we were talking about a SD fleet against the Chintoka
system. Second an ISD is not all that. A Galaxy class is clearly
superior to a SD but I'ld say it has only a 20-30% advantage in sublight
melee.
> >>
> >> >Thats usually how they operate.
> >>
> >> Since when?
> >We rarely see Imperial ships operating seperately.
>
> But they do not move in Fleets of 100. One or two, perhaps.
RTOJ
> TIEs may be used if it appears neccessary. Perhaps to act as a fire sponge.
> Remember, they are far more manueverable and capable of dodging than those
> slow moving Lysian drones which everyone seems to use as a benchmark for
> targeting.
TIEs would have had zero effect on the weapons platforms at Chintoka.
The WP's probably wouldn't have bothered to target them until all the
cap ships were taken out. They're that insignificant.
Against a starship, TIE's don't move that fast. A Galaxy class would
have no trouble whatsoever swatting TIE's like so many gnats.
> >>
> >> > Does anybody think that Death Star level power
> >> >would be needed to take out the generator moon?
> >>
> >>I know it could do it.
> >>
> >> Of course.
> >
> >I would have to agree here, if it could detect it.:)
>
> Is there any reason why it couldn't?
I don't see any. If it can vape a planet it can vape a 1 mile moon even
with heavy shields.
> Oh, BTW, I suggest this be moved to alt.startrek.vs.starwars.....there
> everyone can argue, rant, rave and yell as much as they want - cause its all
> on-topic :)
Yes, argue and rant. That is what that group is for. I want this to be
an intelligent discussion without high emotions and flames.
Piett
<snip>
>> >I disagree strongly. Although the Star Destroyers and bigger
>> >ships use Turbolasers, smaller ships such as the Corellian Corvette
>> >and Medical Frigate use lasers. The lasers appeared capable of at
>> >least damaging the Star Destroyers as seen in "The Return of the Jedi".
>> >Also, fighters from both sides use lasers and seem capable of destroying
>> >the bigger ships like the Star Destroyer in minutes, granted great
>> >numbers of the fighters have to be used.
>>
>> Err, sorry if this seems to be a generally held belief, but turbolasers
are
>> NOT lasers. Why? They don't ACT like lasers - going back and looking at
>> the scene in ESB where the Avenger is sniping at Asteroids, the
vaporisation
>> of the asteroids is caused by a plasma splash. IF the turbolasers had
been
>> lasers (certainly as Trek seems to define them), then the asteroids would
>> have had smallish holes drilled in them and then exploded due to internal
>> pressure.
>
>I'm not talking about Turbolasers, I'm talking about the weapons on
>the smaller vessels. The Technical Journal and the EGTVV both say
>they have Lasers.
Even the smaller ones aren't actually Lasers, as Curtis Saxton has pointed
out. They simply don't act as lasers. The "laser" part refers to the
smaller laser used to ignite packets of matter and then those packets are
what is fired.
>> We know generaly were lasers
>> >fit in the Trek universe(see episodes "The Outrageous Okona", "Suddenly
>> >Human", "Conundrum"), in the original series pilot "The Cage",in
>> >2254,the Enterprise's personel were equiped with Laser Pistols,and a
>> >Laser Cannon. These weapons were replaced shortly thereafter by Phasers.
>> >Starfleet would not have upgraded to less powerful weapons.
>>
>> Of course, the lasers in TOS would have been woefully underpowered
(compared
>> to SW weaponry).
>
>What makes you say that. They are the same thing. Are you telling me
>that the Original Enterprises Lasers would be inferior to those on
>a Corellian Corvette or even a X-wing or TIE fighter
Yes, I am. It sounds completely brash and arrogant, but if our estimates on
SW weaponry are correct (and there is every evidence they ARE), SW weapons
would be in a totally different world compared to even modern ST weaponry.
>> Shields in
>> >2365, 111 years later, were able to basically ignore Laser fire making
>> >ships in 2365 and later, at least those belonging to the major
>> >goverments, invulnerable to fire from ships in the SW universe using
>> >Lasers. I'm not trying to imply that it makes them invulnerable to
>> >Turbolasers. Turbolasers according to "Star Wars The Essential Guide to
>> >Vehicles and Vessels" are "...much more powerful VERSIONS of Laser
>> >Cannons; they are used by capital ships." This sentence seems to imply
>> >that Turbolasers are more powerful because they have the benefit of the
>> >larger powerplants used by capital ships, not because they are
>> >DIFFERENT.
>>
>> According to calcs done on how much power is takes to vaporise an
asteroid
>> in TSB, an anti-starfighter cannon on an ISD has a minimum power of
200-2000
>> TW. This is MUCH higher than any figure i've seen for ST weapon strength
>> (20 GW Romulan shipboard weaponry, the 1.02 GW figure for phasers in the
>> TM).
>>
>What calcs? If they are fan generated than i'd consider them biased.
*sigh*. Thats the general response. Though please, bear in mind two
things:
1) They were checked and OK'd by a student (Curtis Saxton) who is nearing
completion for a PhD in astrophysics. Saxton is generally regarded as the
Guru when it comes to Wars' technology, and he has already stated he wants
no part in the ST vs. SW debate - he took them from a scientific point of
view only. You don't HAVE to accept them, of course, and i'll bear you no
grudges, but it makes it slightly hard to compare weaponry.
2) Iron was used as for the density/melting point figures. We found out
later that we had proof they would almost certainly be rock, and therefore
require much more energy to vaporise.
True. But so do Phasers and Photon Torps. :)
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what affect Ion Cannons
>> >would have on ST ships since there isn't anything, as far as I remember,
>> >similar in ST. Once ST shields are down SW weapons would have as much of
>> >an effect on ST ships as SW ships. SW fighters would be irrelevent till
>> >ST shields were down. As far as Hyperdrive and Warp Drive is concerned I
>> >don't have a clue which is better.
>>
>> Hyperdrive is MUCH faster. Han Solo's falcon can do 127 LY/hour. That
is
>> why the Empire is Galactic on scale, whereas the Federation only measures
>> 10,000 LY from the centre.
>
>Ya,but,he said it could only make .5 past light speed?
Common Misconception that wasn't really explained at all during ANH. .5
refers to a hyperdrive class or multiplier, not an actual figure of 1.5c.
.5 is so far one of the fatest, then .75 is lower, then Class 1,2,3,4
depending on the hyperdrive you have.
<snip>
>> >They may not have even been able to determine that the power was coming
>> >from the asteroid because their sensors appear far inferior, I don't
>> >think they can detect subspace signals.
>>
>> Subspace was tried as a communication system by the SW universe hundreds
of
>> years ago, but was then considered obsolete and inadquate so they
switched
>> to the holonet - which can provide instantaneous communication across
>> 60-70,000 LY, as seen in ESB. Since they are already familiar with
>> Subspace, I assume they'd have no trouble detecting it.
>>
>> The platforms appeared capable
>> >of inflicting incrediable damage to ST ships with shields so I imagine
>> >SW ships
>> >would be affected much more.
>>
>> Again, i'm not sure. ISDs are tougher than you seem to give them credit.
>>
>I was basing this on blowing off the towers and then Torpedoing its
>bridge. Fast and easy since they can't evade your Computer assisted
>shots.
Again, another common misconception - those aren't shield generators on the
top of the bridge tower. They are sensor domes. Most people assumed in
ROTJ that they were shield generators, because we see one blown up and then
hear that the shields are down. Closer inspection shows that only one dome
was blown up, so logically the shields should still be up (if weakened).
The ROTJ novelsation cleared this up - the shield gens are elsewhere.
>> >>
>> >> >Thats usually how they operate.
>> >>
>> >> Since when?
>> >We rarely see Imperial ships operating seperately.
>>
>> But they do not move in Fleets of 100. One or two, perhaps.
>>
>I agree.
>> >>
>> >> > Does anybody think that Death Star level power
>> >> >would be needed to take out the generator moon?
>> >>
>> >>I know it could do it.
>> >>
>> >> Of course.
>> >
>> >I would have to agree here, if it could detect it.:)
>>
>> Is there any reason why it couldn't?
>>
>The subspace thing.
I've already shown that Subspace is old tech to SW. They shouldn't have
problems detecting it.
>>
>> Oh, BTW, I suggest this be moved to alt.startrek.vs.starwars.....there
>> everyone can argue, rant, rave and yell as much as they want - cause its
all
>> on-topic :)
>I didn't know there was a newsgroup for this. It is my first and
>probaly last foray into the argument. It really doesn't matter. We
>will never see them face off and I'll enjoy both either way. This is
>just my opinion on the matter and nothing short of seening the to
>universess fight it out will change my mind.
That is the most sensible POV one can take of the thing. Being the fool I
am, however, I got overly involved and do this sort of thing all the time
:P. alt.st.vs.sw can be pretty cutthroat, too - but it is slowly being
tamed :P.
>I made my argument based on what I had for information. I don't have
>any sources with numbers in them. I also don't know how you calculated
>the power needed to destroy an asteroid. My stance on the Turbolaser
>issue was based on the EGTVV which states that lasers are packs of light
>energy and that turbolasers are simply more powerful versions. It makes
>sense if you go by the name.
True, but names can be misnomas. Why are Photon torpedoes called torpedoes?
Wouldn't Photon 'Missile' be more accurate?
Piett
Chris Wagner
> The humans of the Star Trek universe have rooted out such dark components to
> their psyches and have a hard time coping with such actions when they appear.
I wouldn't say that at all. Sisko contaminated more than one planet
with trilithium residue just to get *one* guy. The Federation is full
of baddies. Then you have other races that have no qualms at all about
doing anything. e.g. Romulans, Cardassians, Klingons, Breen, Ferengi,
Jem Hadar. Starfleet is reluctant to take the gloves off, yes. But
thats only because such terrible things happen when they do come off. :)
The truth is that in such a war (if it *could* occur at all) would be
that both sides' planets would be slagged and the Federation would
eventually wipe out the Imperial forces. However, at this point all
that would be left of the Federation would be those very starships. Not
much of a victory.
Anonymous
<wag...@plebeian.com> wrote:
>> Trek weapons would be shrugged off by SW planetary shields. Hell, the
>> shield protecting Echo Base on Hoth was strong enough to deflect any
>> bombardment the Vader's flotilla could deliver.
>
>I have to agree some, but I wouldn't say "shrugg off". Hell it takes 50
>starships to take DS9.
50 *Star Trek* ships. That doesn't mean it would take this many SW
ships to do the same thing.
>It would probably be 1000 or more to take down
>any planetary shield from either side.
Personally, I doubt a Star Trek planetary shield (assuming they exist)
could fend of an attack from a single star destroyer.
> You also have to keep in mind
>that in ESB Vader didn't have that many ships with him at Hoth. A dozen
>max.
More like six: his command ship and five star destroyers.
>> SW ship tech is fine. They mount incredibly powerful weapons, with
>> comparably powerful shields, and hyperdrives.
>
>Their tech is alright. "Incredibly powerful" is too strong a term,
>though they are very strong.
Depends on how you look at it. I'm basing my comments on
calculations made from relevant scenes in the SW films. The power
required to, for example, vaporize asteroids (as a star destroyer is
*shown* doing in TESB) is staggering.
Take a look at this web page:
http://www.snowhill.com/~by/tlvph.html
>All evidence indicates that SW shields
>suck.
What evidence? SW shields are shown time and again absorbing
staggeringly powerful SW turbolaser bolts. While it may be relatively
easy to penetrate SW shields with SW weapons, that doesn't mean ST
weapons could do it.
We're talking about *450 terawatts* for SW turbolasers versus *1.02
gigawatts* for ST phasers. Saying ST phasers could penetrate SW
shields because SW shields "suck" based solely on the fact that SW
weapons are effective against them is like saying a .357 magnum could
penetrate a steel-reinforced concrete bunker simply because the big
guns on an Iowa-class battleship can do it.
> It is tedious but routine to take down a ship's shields and then
>the ship can survive for long periods even after they loose shields.
Examples, please.
>SF
>on the other hand relies pretty much entirely on shields for ship
>protection. Once shields are lost the battle is going to be over real
>fast.
No argument there. That doesn't mean ST shields are more powerful
though.
>> A single star destroyer would have been more than enough.
>
>No way. That is a ludicrous statement of the days when "my show is
>better so there!" If you want to be taken seriously you can't make
>heavy declarations like that.
I said that only because a star destroyer has demonstrably more
powerful weapons and shields than ST ships do.
>A single SD would be shot down in 30
>seconds at Chintoka.
I doubt this.
>Just like a Galaxy class would be shot down in 30
>seconds over Corsucant.
Too much time.
>> >Thats usually how they operate.
>>
>> Since when?
>
>Since always. The mantra of the Empire is "overwhelming force".
According to whom? Are we using canon material here or are we
including the novels?
>> > Does anybody think that Death Star level power
>> >would be needed to take out the generator moon? I know it could do it.
>>
>> Of course.
>
>So you're saying a Death Star *would* be required to take out the power
>moon.
Sorry, I misread you. No, I don't think a Death Star would be
required. I seriously believe a single star destroyer would be
sufficient.
Anonymous
<wag...@plebeian.com> wrote:
>> signifigant amounts of damage to SW vessels. SW shields as stated in the
>> "Star Wars The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels" are able to "...
>> absorb only a limited amount of energy before they burn out, but they
>> provide significant protection while they last.", since Phasers and
>> other ST weapons are much more powerful than SW weapons, SW shields
>
>I wouldn't say "much more" powerful. They are clearly more powerful but
>they are still comparable.
Based on what evidence?
> I'm not talking about single turbolaser
>blasts but phalanx's. I'ld say that 1 full phalanx of turbolaser fire
>from a SD would be about 80% of a full power phaser burst from a Galaxy
>class.
Based on even the most *conservative* calculations I've seen, a single
turbolaser bolt is *at least* over ten times the power required to
overpower a Galaxy-class ship's 400 gigawatt shields.
>One full spread of photon torpedoes would definately wipe out a SD.
>This is indisputable. Anyone who says otherwise, I question their
>motivations.
Based on what evidence? What makes you think photon torpedoes, which
ST shields can withstand, would be any more effective against SW
shields than phasers?
At best, I'd say it would take six full spreads of ten photorps each
to equal the estimated firepower of a *single* turbolaser bolt.
Piett
Chris Wagner wrote in message <35B047...@plebeian.com>...
>Admiral (who tacked this on, BTW? :) Piett wrote:
>> >> A single star destroyer would have been more than enough..
>> >
>> >I disagree strongly. Although the Star Destroyers and bigger
>> >ships use Turbolasers, smaller ships such as the Corellian Corvette
>> >and Medical Frigate use lasers. The lasers appeared capable of at
>> Err, sorry if this seems to be a generally held belief, but turbolasers
are
>> NOT lasers. Why? They don't ACT like lasers - going back and looking at
>
>Yes you are right. They are completely consistent with being plasma
>bolt weapons. Thats probably why they put "turbo" in the name. Used in
>the same manner as lasers, but different.
Probably.
>> the scene in ESB where the Avenger is sniping at Asteroids, the
vaporisation
>> of the asteroids is caused by a plasma splash. IF the turbolasers had
been
>> lasers (certainly as Trek seems to define them), then the asteroids would
>> have had smallish holes drilled in them and then exploded due to internal
>> pressure.
>
>Not necessarily. A powerful enough laser would cause all matter it
>touched to explode violently. Only low power lasers "drill" into
>things. The explosion would start at the surface and then progress down
>into the asteroid as the beam progressed.
That doesn't entirely account for the plasma splash.
>> Of course, the lasers in TOS would have been woefully underpowered
(compared
>
>Not that bad. The E's lasers would be comparable to a smaller
>turbolaser battery. Certainly more powerful than TIE's or X-Wings.
Is there anywhere I can find a power figure for those lasers?
>> to SW weaponry). I also think one of the main motivations for switching
to
>> phasers was so that more damage could be achieved with the RNE/NDF
effects,
>> rather than just relying on sheer power alone.
>
>Yes. But phasers do pack considerable raw power.
They strike me as being weak in power (well, weaker than some weapons),
which is compensated by with the aforementioned effects.
>
>> According to calcs done on how much power is takes to vaporise an
asteroid
>> in TSB, an anti-starfighter cannon on an ISD has a minimum power of
200-2000
>> TW. This is MUCH higher than any figure i've seen for ST weapon strength
>> (20 GW Romulan shipboard weaponry, the 1.02 GW figure for phasers in the
>> TM).
>
>You can't have it both ways. If you want to compare onscreen to
>onscreen thats one thing, but onscreen to tech manual is invalid. The
>TNG tech manual is garbage. If you run the calcs on the feats phasers
>have accomplished they are even more powerful than this. Up in the
>*millions* of TW.
Then what about 3 particular eps:
1) The Survivors, in which a 400GW wrecks the shields. A phaser CAN'T be
Millions of TW if this were the case.
2) The Dauphin, in which Riker says that 1TW is the Warp Core level.
3) And in "A Matter of Time", in which 1 TW is being stated as roughly as
much power as the ship can generate.
Also, the "millions of TW" figure doesn't work if you extrapolate the amount
of AM fuel that the E-D can actually carry.
>>
>> No, they aren't. You're comparing shields which hold off significant
>> amounts of energy (quite likely over the 10,000 TW mark) to phasers of
the
>> GW range. The effect which the ESGVV describes is relative to SW only,
>> because it is describing the effect of SW weapons - not phasers.
>
>Phasers are not GW weapons. That is not supported by onscreen
>evidence. You're crossing sources.
Could you please address the points above before claiming that?
>
>> SW gunners have a sophisticated targeting computer system build into
their
>> helmets. We've also seen (in ANH, for example) that X-Wings carry
targeting
>> computers.
>
>But they are still aimed an fired by hand. A targeting computer can
>only do so much. The E has fully automated acqusition, targeting, and
>firing.
Still controlled by a human. And we've seen that the computer targeting
misses a fair bit. "The Way of the Warrior" comes to mind.
>
>> Going by this information one Star
>> >Destroyer would have been massacered, at least IMHO. The Imperials would
>> >have needed a fleet at least the size of that in "The Return of the
>> >Jedi."
>>
>> I somehow doubt it. Unless you can get me new figures for ST weapon's
>> strength.
>
>Against Chintoka, the SD would be vaped. That's what that statement was
>about.
The Entire starship? It'd take a S***load of energy to do that. Was it
vaporising ST ships wholesale? I'd assume a SW ship is denser than a ST
one, given the sheer amount of armour it carries.
>
>> Subspace was tried as a communication system by the SW universe hundreds
of
>> years ago, but was then considered obsolete and inadquate so they
switched
>> to the holonet - which can provide instantaneous communication across
>> 60-70,000 LY, as seen in ESB. Since they are already familiar with
>> Subspace, I assume they'd have no trouble detecting it.
>
>Well duh. Holonet is hyperspace based.
Shortrange communications aren't holonet based. These aren't subspace
either, to the best of my understanding. But if the SW universe already HAS
experience with Subspace Communication, then that settles the original
disagreement over their detection capabilities.
>> The platforms appeared capable
>> >of inflicting incrediable damage to ST ships with shields so I imagine
>> >SW ships
>> >would be affected much more.
>>
>> Again, i'm not sure. ISDs are tougher than you seem to give them credit.
>
>At Chintoka, they would, believe they would.
I'll reserve my own judgement until I see some firm numbers for weaponry.
>> >>
>> >> > Say they had a very large fleet of hundreds of SD's and SSD's.
>> >>
>> >> Not even necessary.
>> >Quite necessary if you follow my reasoning above.
>>
>> IF it is correct. If my estimates are correct, it is going to take many
ST
>> ships a long time to batter down the shields of ONE ISD.
>
>No way. First off we were talking about a SD fleet against the Chintoka
>system. Second an ISD is not all that. A Galaxy class is clearly
>superior to a SD but I'ld say it has only a 20-30% advantage in sublight
>melee.
20-30% advantage? How do you back this up? I haven't seen any firm
estimates as to ST weapons strength.
>> >>
>> >> >Thats usually how they operate.
>> >>
>> >> Since when?
>> >We rarely see Imperial ships operating seperately.
>>
>> But they do not move in Fleets of 100. One or two, perhaps.
>
>RTOJ
Was not 100 ships. Probably half that. Which would have been the normal
Fleet for the Endor sector plus additional ones. It wasn't a standard
combat config.
>
>> TIEs may be used if it appears neccessary. Perhaps to act as a fire
sponge.
>> Remember, they are far more manueverable and capable of dodging than
those
>> slow moving Lysian drones which everyone seems to use as a benchmark for
>> targeting.
>
>TIEs would have had zero effect on the weapons platforms at Chintoka.
>The WP's probably wouldn't have bothered to target them until all the
>cap ships were taken out. They're that insignificant.
*shrug* fair enough.
>Against a starship, TIE's don't move that fast. A Galaxy class would
>have no trouble whatsoever swatting TIE's like so many gnats.
But can they target and shoot them? If DS9 (a stable weapons platform) can
miss Klingon BOPs at Point blank range (I'm talking about within the docking
pylons), can they hit something as small and manueverable as a TIE?
>> >>
>> >> > Does anybody think that Death Star level power
>> >> >would be needed to take out the generator moon?
>> >>
>> >>I know it could do it.
>> >>
>> >> Of course.
>> >
>> >I would have to agree here, if it could detect it.:)
>>
>> Is there any reason why it couldn't?
>
>I don't see any. If it can vape a planet it can vape a 1 mile moon even
>with heavy shields.
Neither. And if the Alderaan novelisation is to be believed, Alderaan may
have HAD a planetary shield.
>> Oh, BTW, I suggest this be moved to alt.startrek.vs.starwars.....there
>> everyone can argue, rant, rave and yell as much as they want - cause its
all
>> on-topic :)
>
>Yes, argue and rant. That is what that group is for. I want this to be
>an intelligent discussion without high emotions and flames.
I was maligning that group because I'm a regular there, I can do so :P. The
group isn't as bad as you make out - there are some good people there on
both sides. Just don't become too hot under the collar about one issue or
another, and nothing should happen. THAT is the main mistake people make
when going into the group.
Piett
Michael Wong
<wag...@plebeian.com> wrote:
>I have to agree some, but I wouldn't say "shrugg off". Hell it takes 50
>any planetary shield from either side. You also have to keep in mind
>that in ESB Vader didn't have that many ships with him at Hoth. A dozen
>max.
We still haven't ever seen a powerful planetary shield in Trek at all.
We've seen shields that could stop beaming in/out, but not shields
that could deflect bombardment. The massive scale of the shield may
overwhelm Fed capabilities. There's a big difference between
shielding a small space station and shielding a planet!
>> SW ship tech is fine. They mount incredibly powerful weapons, with
>> comparably powerful shields, and hyperdrives.
>Their tech is alright. "Incredibly powerful" is too strong a term,
>though they are very strong. All evidence indicates that SW shields suck.
How? Those Star Destroyers all hung in the Hoth asteroid field for
several days under murderous bombardment (roughly 1 asteroid per
second, if you watch the movie and count during the close-up scenes),
and only one of them was damaged.
>It is tedious but routine to take down a ship's shields and then
>the ship can survive for long periods even after they loose shields.
That's quite contrary to the evidence. Even the tiny MF withstood
numerous turbolaser blasts (of the same variety used to vaporize
asteroids), so the shields of a large capship are obviously much more
formidable.
>ST on the other hand relies pretty much entirely on shields for ship
>protection. Once shields are lost the battle is going to be over real
>fast.
And that's changed too, with the Defiant's "ablative armor".
>So you're saying a Death Star *would* be required to take out the power
>moon.
I don't believe that's what he said at all. He just said that it
could do it easily. And since the Dominion had over a year to prepare
their defenses, it's no big deal that they could build fairly heavy
defenses there. The DS2 was 60% built in less than 6 months, and it
makes the "power moon" look pathetic. Taking out the power moon
wouldn't be necessary. Simply blow up the planet from 40 million km
away.
Chris Wagner
>
> This settles, it. SW weapons are more powerful than ST weapons, read at these
> links. This info comes from ST episodes, tech journals, etc. and the SW
> turbolaser power rating, and ship power comes from the person analyzing the ESB
> scene of the ISD firing at the asteroids. This will settle this dumb debate.
>
> STAR WARS: Technical Commentaries
> http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~saxton/starwars/index.html
>
> TURBOLASER COMMENTARIES
> http://www.snowhill.com/~by/
Look at http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/ These calculations show SF
weapons are in fact more powerful than turbolasers using THE SAME
calculation methods. While ISD weapons are in the 10^3 TW range,
phasers are in the 10^6 TW range.
Chris Wagner
YES0198 wrote:
> Unfortunately, this is improper reasoning. The lasers seen in these episodes
> may have been of insufficient power to cause damage to the E-D shields. This
> does not and can not rule out ALL lasers. For example, by this reasoning, the
> DS superlaser is ALSO incapable of destroying the E-D...which is sheer lunacy
> to me. Personally, I feel that it is likely that Imperial turbolasers would
> probably do fairly well against Federation shields, but not very well against
> Federation armor. I base this on the following:
> 1) Energy is energy...shields are energy...thus to overload the shield all
> that is needed is a greater quantity of energy, regardless of type (phaser or
> turbolaser)
>
> 2) Federation hulls are designed to withstand the dematerialization effect
> caused by phasers...the damage caused by phasers on material substances
> presumably common to both galaxies (wood, stone, carbon-based lifeforms, etc.)
> seems to HEAVILY outweigh damage caused by similarly sized
> blasters/lasers/turbolasers...thus Federation armor would be nearly impervious
> to equally scaled Imperial weaponry. Note the importance of the EQUALLY scaled
> weaponry--turbolasers may have some effect due to their size advantage but
> since the E-D is of equal size to smaller capital-class ships this may not be a
> scale difference.
>
> Unfortunately the data that I use to make this assessment can be viewed in one
> of two ways. The first way says that the reason ST armor stands up well to ST
> weapons is because the weapons are weak. This seems to forget, however, the
> effect of ST weapons on natural objects. The alternative view is the one I
> ascribe to in that super-dense materials designed to specifically counter the
> disitegration effect of phasers would make ST armor much stronger in certain
> aspects over SW armor of equal thickness.
>
> I would also point that there is indirect evidence that ST shields may be able
> to absorb more energy than SW shields. We know that the E-D at under 700m in
> length is capable of surviving for a reasonable period of time inside the
> corona of a star (Descent I&II). Equally, we know that an ISD at 1600m is
In Descent, the E used metaphasic shields which are wholly different
than regular shields. However, in "I, Borg", the E went very near a
star to avoid detection by a Borg cube. They didn't actually enter the
photosphere like in Descent but it was still close enough to defeat
*Borg* sensors.
> incapable of withstanding the solar radiation of a star at a distance of
> several light-minutes from the corona (this would be the attack on Nklon in the
> Thrawn Trilogy). In this example, if we assume equal stellar bodies, the E-D
> shielding far outweighs an ISD's shields. In order for the ISD to have equal
> shielding, we would have to vastly increase the stellar class of the Nklon star
> or significantly reduce the distance between Nklon and its primary...neither
> are likely circumstances as a result of the possibility of the planet Nklon
> existing in the first place.
>
> Perhaps the greatest disadvantage of any combat between the Feds and the Imps
> would regard combat speed and effectiveness. The Imps are limited to STL
> travel at combat and are limited to computer-AIDED manual gunners. The Feds
> have the possibility of FTL combat and computer-guided weaponry that far
> exceeds the computer guidance capabilities of SW tech (as evidenced by the poor
> targetting computers of the X-wings in ANH). For example, the trench run
> against the first DS would be unnecessary for Federation ships capable of
> firing a torpedo at warp from several hundred km away that would have little
> difficulty hitting a 2m diameter target...something considered a one in a
> trillion shot (DE Sourcebook) by SW tech standards. The Imps would have little
> combat recourse except hyperspace retreat or hyperspace hit-and-fade tactics
> against the much more agile combat craft of the Federation.
>
> Anyways, that about sums up my arguments on this. I'm always willing to listen
> and debate LOGICALLY about this subject. It is kinda fun to try and compare
> this hypothetical stuff and look for common ground with such a lack of direct
> information. Criticism is welcome. Hope you enjoy!
>
> Doug
Chris Wagner
>
> Uh....just curious here. Why is this thread in RASSM, when there's already a
> newsgroup dedicated to this called news:alt.startrek.vs.starwars ? If I'm
> not mistaken, the "vs." newsgroup was created sometime last year to divert
> such threads out of RASSM because they were taking over this newsgroup and
> too many people were complaining about it.
The vs. ng is for flame wars. Logical reasonable comparison belongs in
rast and rassm.
Chris Wagner
> >Not necessarily. A powerful enough laser would cause all matter it
> >touched to explode violently. Only low power lasers "drill" into
> >things. The explosion would start at the surface and then progress down
> >into the asteroid as the beam progressed.
>
> That doesn't entirely account for the plasma splash.
I never said it did. I was merely stating what a laser would have done.
> >> Of course, the lasers in TOS would have been woefully underpowered
> (compared
> >
> >Not that bad. The E's lasers would be comparable to a smaller
> >turbolaser battery. Certainly more powerful than TIE's or X-Wings.
>
> Is there anywhere I can find a power figure for those lasers?
Watch TOS "The Cage" Pike fires the laser cannon at the Talosians
"elevator" but it appears to have no effect due to the fact that the
Talosians made an illusion to that effect. Pike comments, "I don't
understand, that rock should have been sheared off in the first
instant." Or something very similar to that. So that should give some
idea of its power.
> >Yes. But phasers do pack considerable raw power.
>
> They strike me as being weak in power (well, weaker than some weapons),
> which is compensated by with the aforementioned effects.
Actual power is irrelevant. Effective power is all we can preen from on
screen evidence.
> Then what about 3 particular eps:
>
> 1) The Survivors, in which a 400GW wrecks the shields. A phaser CAN'T be
> Millions of TW if this were the case.
Was that the one with the Dowd, who recreated his wife on that slagged
planet?
> 2) The Dauphin, in which Riker says that 1TW is the Warp Core level.
No he didn't. The planet had a very violent atmosphere and the people
on the surface used a terawatt transmitter to communicate with them.
Riker then commented that that meant they couldn't respond. This means
that the COMM output of the E is less than 1 TW.
> 3) And in "A Matter of Time", in which 1 TW is being stated as roughly as
> much power as the ship can generate.
Don't remember that ep but it was later stated by Data that the warp
core put out 12.75 million TW at *idle*.
> Also, the "millions of TW" figure doesn't work if you extrapolate the amount
> of AM fuel that the E-D can actually carry.
Yes it does.
> >Phasers are not GW weapons. That is not supported by onscreen
> >evidence. You're crossing sources.
>
> Could you please address the points above before claiming that?
Look at http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/ for all the skinny.
> >But they are still aimed an fired by hand. A targeting computer can
> >only do so much. The E has fully automated acqusition, targeting, and
> >firing.
>
> Still controlled by a human. And we've seen that the computer targeting
> misses a fair bit. "The Way of the Warrior" comes to mind.
Not like an ISD. Worf only needs to pick a target and hit "fire". ISD
gunners have to manually move the physical weapon. SF phasers *never*
miss. In WotW, DS9's phasers never missed one Klingon ship. Some of
the photorps missed but that is a different weapon system. The Klingons
also missed some but they use fixed fire disruptors.
> >Against Chintoka, the SD would be vaped. That's what that statement was
> >about.
>
> The Entire starship? It'd take a S***load of energy to do that. Was it
> vaporising ST ships wholesale? I'd assume a SW ship is denser than a ST
> one, given the sheer amount of armour it carries.
I was talking about one ISD vs. the entire Chintoka system. The Feds
lost many ships at Chintoka.
> >> The platforms appeared capable
> >> >of inflicting incrediable damage to ST ships with shields so I imagine
> >> >SW ships
> >> >would be affected much more.
> >>
> >> Again, i'm not sure. ISDs are tougher than you seem to give them credit.
> >
> >At Chintoka, they would, believe they would.
>
> I'll reserve my own judgement until I see some firm numbers for weaponry.
Those weapons platforms were incredibly powerful. They *shrugged off*
every attack until the power moon was taken out.
> >No way. First off we were talking about a SD fleet against the Chintoka
> >system. Second an ISD is not all that. A Galaxy class is clearly
> >superior to a SD but I'ld say it has only a 20-30% advantage in sublight
> >melee.
>
> 20-30% advantage? How do you back this up? I haven't seen any firm
> estimates as to ST weapons strength.
Look at that website I gave. It is still a fair possibility that a ISD
could take out a Galaxy but it would be hard. I was estimating based on
my own observations.
> Was not 100 ships. Probably half that. Which would have been the normal
> Fleet for the Endor sector plus additional ones. It wasn't a standard
> combat config.
The point was that ISD's operate in fleets not individually. Whatever
the number. The hundreds of SD's figure was for an assualt on the
Chintoka system.
Does anybody care to speculate on how big a SD fleet would be needed to
take Chintoka?
> >Against a starship, TIE's don't move that fast. A Galaxy class would
> >have no trouble whatsoever swatting TIE's like so many gnats.
>
> But can they target and shoot them? If DS9 (a stable weapons platform) can
> miss Klingon BOPs at Point blank range (I'm talking about within the docking
> pylons), can they hit something as small and manueverable as a TIE?
Yes. DS9 never missed a BOP or any Klingon ship with phasers. TIE's
would be laughable against DS9.
Chris Wagner
> We still haven't ever seen a powerful planetary shield in Trek at all.
> We've seen shields that could stop beaming in/out, but not shields
> that could deflect bombardment. The massive scale of the shield may
> overwhelm Fed capabilities. There's a big difference between
> shielding a small space station and shielding a planet!
Watch "When the Bough Breaks". The Aldeans had a planetary shield *and*
cloak centuries ahead of anything the Feds had. I don't think it would
be beyond the Fed's technology to make a planetary shield given a
reasonable amount of time.
> How? Those Star Destroyers all hung in the Hoth asteroid field for
> several days under murderous bombardment (roughly 1 asteroid per
> second, if you watch the movie and count during the close-up scenes),
> and only one of them was damaged.
I wouldn't say "several days". Maybe three max. Probably only 1
because I don't think it would have take Han that long to figure out
they were in the belly of that space creature.
> >It is tedious but routine to take down a ship's shields and then
> >the ship can survive for long periods even after they loose shields.
>
> That's quite contrary to the evidence. Even the tiny MF withstood
> numerous turbolaser blasts (of the same variety used to vaporize
> asteroids), so the shields of a large capship are obviously much more
> formidable.
RTOJ. The SSD/ISD's shields didn't seem very impressive at all.
> >So you're saying a Death Star *would* be required to take out the power
> >moon.
>
> I don't believe that's what he said at all. He just said that it
> could do it easily. And since the Dominion had over a year to prepare
> their defenses, it's no big deal that they could build fairly heavy
> defenses there. The DS2 was 60% built in less than 6 months, and it
I don't know about that. It seems more likely that they were building 2
or more from the get go.
> makes the "power moon" look pathetic. Taking out the power moon
> wouldn't be necessary. Simply blow up the planet from 40 million km
> away.
Hey now, you're starting to make some sense. You could never make it as
a writer! :) But really, the point was to capture the system, not just
blow it up.
Chris Hawkins
Thank you,
Chris Hawkins
Chris Hawkins
>The vs. ng is for flame wars. Logical reasonable comparison belongs >in rast and rassm.
All versus threads belong in the vs. newsgroup. If you want to discuss
the tech side of SW & debate it with Trek in a rec.* group, then I
suggest creating rec.arts.sf.starwars.tech
Thank you,
Chris Hawkins
Chris Hawkins
Thank you,
Chris Hawkins
Chris Hawkins
Reliant39
I agree. I wasn't reading this threat, anyway, just passing through the posts and
marking them as "read". In fact, I couldn't care less what is more advanced?
Star Trek or Star Wars? Does it matter?
Let's call this threat quits, I'd say.
--
The adres in the headers is fake. Use this one instead:
jo...@worldonline.nl (if you want to reply to me).
_
Visit my site: http://callisto.worldonline.nl/~josho/
John M. Dollan
> True, but names can be misnomas. Why are Photon torpedoes called torpedoes?
> Wouldn't Photon 'Missile' be more accurate?
>
> Piett
Naval tradition, I'd imagine. Starfleet seems to have quite a bit of
Naval tradition. But, as for misnomers, "photon" is just as
inaccurate. It is established that the main power source and
destructive source for the torpedoes is antimatter. Photons are just
light, and as far as I know, the only reasons why the torpedoes glow the
way they do is the engines being the only source of light on the
things....
Silas haughton
who started crossposting it to rec.arts.startrek.tech won't do this, I'd
like to apologize for all of us here at alt.startrek.vs.starwars Sorry 'bout
that, guys.
Dark Lord Karno Dal
Chris Wagner wrote in message <35B1C1...@plebeian.com>...
>The vs. ng is for flame wars. Logical reasonable comparison belongs in
>rast and rassm.
Fraid not. This is off-topic nonsense for rassm now that the other group is
out there (thank god) so please take it to the appropriate place.
May the Darkness be with you....
Dark Lord Karno Dal
si...@lords.com
Anonymous
<wag...@plebeian.com> wrote:
>Watch "When the Bough Breaks". The Aldeans had a planetary shield *and*
>cloak centuries ahead of anything the Feds had. I don't think it would
>be beyond the Fed's technology to make a planetary shield given a
>reasonable amount of time.
Are we talking about capabilties that the Federation has now or
capabilities that they might somehow miraculously develop many years
down the line?
>> How? Those Star Destroyers all hung in the Hoth asteroid field for
>> several days under murderous bombardment (roughly 1 asteroid per
>> second, if you watch the movie and count during the close-up scenes),
>> and only one of them was damaged.
>
>I wouldn't say "several days". Maybe three max. Probably only 1
>because I don't think it would have take Han that long to figure out
>they were in the belly of that space creature.
It could have been weeks for all we know.
>> That's quite contrary to the evidence. Even the tiny MF withstood
>> numerous turbolaser blasts (of the same variety used to vaporize
>> asteroids), so the shields of a large capship are obviously much more
>> formidable.
>
>RTOJ. The SSD/ISD's shields didn't seem very impressive at all.
Specific examples please.
>> I don't believe that's what he said at all. He just said that it
>> could do it easily. And since the Dominion had over a year to prepare
>> their defenses, it's no big deal that they could build fairly heavy
>> defenses there. The DS2 was 60% built in less than 6 months, and it
>
>I don't know about that. It seems more likely that they were building 2
>or more from the get go.
Evidence? Shadows of the Empire makes it clear that construction of
the DS2 didn't begin until six months before ROTJ.
>> makes the "power moon" look pathetic. Taking out the power moon
>> wouldn't be necessary. Simply blow up the planet from 40 million km
>> away.
>
>Hey now, you're starting to make some sense. You could never make it as
>a writer! :) But really, the point was to capture the system, not just
>blow it up.
But why would the Empire want to capture it? They'd be more
interested in simply obliterating their enemy's capacity to wage war.
Chris Garcia
> As far as cap ships go, yes. But smaller ships (BOP, TIE's, Millenium
> Falcon, Defiant) are clearly equal in maneuverability.
True... but ST ships only fight in 2 dimensions... i've only seen one
episode where a ship was LOWER than another ship (All Good Things.. when
the Enterprise, in the future.. when riker decloaks and kicks the
klingon's ass ..)
-Chris
Proud "Prospective Member" of:
*------------------------------*
| || ||||||| || || |
| || || || || |
| || ||||||| || || |
| || || || || |
| ||||||| ||||||| ||||||| |
|The Golden Band From Tigerland|
| Voted No. 1 in the SEC |
*------------------------------*
John M. Dollan
>
> > As far as cap ships go, yes. But smaller ships (BOP, TIE's, Millenium
> > Falcon, Defiant) are clearly equal in maneuverability.
>
> episode where a ship was LOWER than another ship (All Good Things.. when
> the Enterprise, in the future.. when riker decloaks and kicks the
> klingon's ass ..)
True...but it would be a pretty bad assumption to make if we thought
that advanced space travelers only moved and fought in two dimensions.
That would be akin to land soldiers only shooting at people directly in
front of them. I think the safer assumption is that, up until recently,
it was easier and cheaper for a tv show to only use 2-D effects. The
spread of CGI grafics, however, is changing that, I think....
>
> -Chris
> Proud "Prospective Member" of:
> *------------------------------*
> | || ||||||| || || |
> | || || || || |
> | || ||||||| || || |
> | || || || || |
> | ||||||| ||||||| ||||||| |
> |The Golden Band From Tigerland|
> | Voted No. 1 in the SEC |
> *------------------------------*
--
Nicholas Buenk
Anonymous wrote in message <35b19a6d...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Sat, 18 Jul 1998 02:05:48 -0400, Chris Wagner
><wag...@plebeian.com> wrote:
>
>>> Trek weapons would be shrugged off by SW planetary shields. Hell, the
>>> shield protecting Echo Base on Hoth was strong enough to deflect any
>>> bombardment the Vader's flotilla could deliver.
>>
>>starships to take DS9.
>
>ships to do the same thing.
Well, 50 got destoryed, more like 100
>
>>It would probably be 1000 or more to take down
>>any planetary shield from either side.
>
>Personally, I doubt a Star Trek planetary shield (assuming they exist)
>could fend of an attack from a single star destroyer.
What when Turbo lasers are 80% as powerfull as Phasers? hmm, But then they have
60, not 12, just being fair, something that you've nearer herd of :Ş
>
>> You also have to keep in mind
>>that in ESB Vader didn't have that many ships with him at Hoth. A dozen
>>max.
>
>More like six: his command ship and five star destroyers.
>
>>> SW ship tech is fine. They mount incredibly powerful weapons, with
>>> comparably powerful shields, and hyperdrives.
>>
>>Their tech is alright. "Incredibly powerful" is too strong a term,
>>though they are very strong.
>
>Depends on how you look at it. I'm basing my comments on
>calculations made from relevant scenes in the SW films. The power
>required to, for example, vaporize asteroids (as a star destroyer is
>*shown* doing in TESB) is staggering.
>
>Take a look at this web page:
>
>http://www.snowhill.com/~by/tlvph.html
Like wise for the ST calculations at http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/
>
>>All evidence indicates that SW shields
>>suck.
>
>What evidence? SW shields are shown time and again absorbing
>staggeringly powerful SW turbolaser bolts. While it may be relatively
>easy to penetrate SW shields with SW weapons, that doesn't mean ST
>weapons could do it.
>
>We're talking about *450 terawatts* for SW turbolasers versus *1.02
>gigawatts* for ST phasers. Saying ST phasers could penetrate SW
>shields because SW shields "suck" based solely on the fact that SW
>weapons are effective against them is like saying a .357 magnum could
>penetrate a steel-reinforced concrete bunker simply because the big
>guns on an Iowa-class battleship can do it.
Just 450 TW? Haha even I think DSS have more than that!
>
>> It is tedious but routine to take down a ship's shields and then
>>the ship can survive for long periods even after they loose shields.
>
>Examples, please.
>
>>SF
>>on the other hand relies pretty much entirely on shields for ship
>>protection. Once shields are lost the battle is going to be over real
>>fast.
>
>No argument there. That doesn't mean ST shields are more powerful
>though.
>
>>> A single star destroyer would have been more than enough.
>>
>>No way. That is a ludicrous statement of the days when "my show is
>>better so there!" If you want to be taken seriously you can't make
>>heavy declarations like that.
>
>I said that only because a star destroyer has demonstrably more
>powerful weapons and shields than ST ships do.
>
>>A single SD would be shot down in 30
>>seconds at Chintoka.
>
>I doubt this.
yes, make that 25
>
>>Just like a Galaxy class would be shot down in 30
>>seconds over Corsucant.
>
>Too much time.
I doubt this
>
>>> >Thats usually how they operate.
>>>
>>> Since when?
>>
>>Since always. The mantra of the Empire is "overwhelming force".
>
>According to whom? Are we using canon material here or are we
>including the novels?
>
>>> > Does anybody think that Death Star level power
>>> >would be needed to take out the generator moon? I know it could do it.
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>
>>So you're saying a Death Star *would* be required to take out the power
>>moon.
>
Ms.DevilSpin
upperhand when it comes to space flight. I mean they talk about the whole
galaxy. There are parts that are hard to get to sure, but they can get
there. Where as ST is still in only in one little part of their galaxy, I
mean its taking Voyger 80 years to back to the alpha quadrant and in SW
there are mentions of them travelling to far off parts of the galaxy, it
was a pain to get there but hey...
ST can talk to there computer alot better than they can in SW (remember 3PO
trying to talk to the Falcon in ESB) so maybe in computers ST is more
advanced.
As for weapons?? hummm... theres something to be said for the style of the
Enterprise and its controls. But then again I think I would find it
difficult to fly the Enterprise out of a life and death situation with a
'beep' 'beep' 'deep' lightly tapping the control pannel, theres something
to be said for the manual kind of controls in SW still.
The other thing is ST has a record of their history etc. SW seems as though
they have been around for so long flying about in space that no one knows
where alot of the technology came from. Anyway, just a thought..
Chris Garcia <cga...@tiger3.ocs.lsu.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.95.980718...@tiger3.ocs.lsu.edu>...
> On 17 Jul 1998, Nathaniel Forest wrote:
> > I disagree strongly. Although the Star Destroyers and bigger
> > ships use Turbolasers, smaller ships such as the Corellian Corvette
> > and Medical Frigate use lasers. The lasers appeared capable of at
> > least damaging the Star Destroyers as seen in "The Return of the Jedi".
>
>
> hmm, has anyone taken the TIMELINE into consideration here? think about
it
> star wars was "A long time ago...." and star trek is 300-400 years in the
> future .... which means they had lasers wayyy before (earth) humans had
> even guns (maybe)... now supposedly it took humans (on earth a good 300
> years or so to come up with something better than lasers.. so if you
> think about it, the "star wars universe" has had "A long time ago..."
> *AND* 300 years to come up with new technologies..
Wayne Poe
Well hell..if everyone is going to post Trek vs Wars web sites, take a
look at my "Ultimate Starwars vs. Startrek FAQ" at:
Pics, .wav files, calcs, etc. And visit the "Hate Mail" page; it
hilarious!
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Visit the LM-480 Galaxy! *Ultimate Starwars vs.Startrek FAQ
http://h4h.com/louis *Stunt Island movies
lo...@h4h.com *Beavis and Buttlead cartoon
*Star Wars Collectibles
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Piett
<snip>
>> >> Of course, the lasers in TOS would have been woefully underpowered
>> (compared
>> >
>> >Not that bad. The E's lasers would be comparable to a smaller
>> >turbolaser battery. Certainly more powerful than TIE's or X-Wings.
>>
>> Is there anywhere I can find a power figure for those lasers?
>
>Watch TOS "The Cage" Pike fires the laser cannon at the Talosians
>"elevator" but it appears to have no effect due to the fact that the
>Talosians made an illusion to that effect. Pike comments, "I don't
>understand, that rock should have been sheared off in the first
>instant." Or something very similar to that. So that should give some
>idea of its power.
Thats a very...vague...description, if I might add. We don't know the
density/amount of rock Pike thought would be there.
>
>> >Yes. But phasers do pack considerable raw power.
>>
>> They strike me as being weak in power (well, weaker than some weapons),
>> which is compensated by with the aforementioned effects.
>
>Actual power is irrelevant. Effective power is all we can preen from on
>screen evidence.
But we have to take into account RNE/NDF before assuming any total power.
>> Then what about 3 particular eps:
>>
>> 1) The Survivors, in which a 400GW wrecks the shields. A phaser CAN'T be
>> Millions of TW if this were the case.
>
>Was that the one with the Dowd, who recreated his wife on that slagged
>planet?
I think so.
>> 2) The Dauphin, in which Riker says that 1TW is the Warp Core level.
>
>No he didn't. The planet had a very violent atmosphere and the people
>on the surface used a terawatt transmitter to communicate with them.
>Riker then commented that that meant they couldn't respond. This means
>that the COMM output of the E is less than 1 TW.
>
>> 3) And in "A Matter of Time", in which 1 TW is being stated as roughly as
>> much power as the ship can generate.
>
>Don't remember that ep but it was later stated by Data that the warp
>core put out 12.75 million TW at *idle*.
Actually, he said "....12.75 million per..." and then is cut off before he
can give the amount of time.
>
>> Also, the "millions of TW" figure doesn't work if you extrapolate the
amount
>> of AM fuel that the E-D can actually carry.
>
>Yes it does.
Care to back this up with anything more than a statement?
>
>> >Phasers are not GW weapons. That is not supported by onscreen
>> >evidence. You're crossing sources.
>>
>> Could you please address the points above before claiming that?
>
>Look at http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/ for all the skinny.
Ah, Graeme Kennedy's site. I've debated ST vs. SW with Mr. Kennedy for a
while. Unfortunately, he maintained that by his calculations, a SF runabout
could wax a SSD without being destroyed. Of course, if we assumed that,
then we also have to assume that a SF runabout could destroy the entire
surface of a planet in less time than it takes an ISD to do so.
>
>> >But they are still aimed an fired by hand. A targeting computer can
>> >only do so much. The E has fully automated acqusition, targeting, and
>> >firing.
>>
>> Still controlled by a human. And we've seen that the computer targeting
>> misses a fair bit. "The Way of the Warrior" comes to mind.
>
>Not like an ISD. Worf only needs to pick a target and hit "fire". ISD
>gunners have to manually move the physical weapon. SF phasers *never*
>miss. In WotW, DS9's phasers never missed one Klingon ship.
What?!? Have you WATCHED the battle scenes in any great detail? There is
one particular shot where 3 BOPs fly in, and we get an above Ops view of the
station - looking down on the inner ring. We see several phaser beams fire
at these BOPs and quite clearly MISS.
And the Photon torps apparently are self-guided. They SHOULD have hit.
Some of
>the photorps missed but that is a different weapon system. The Klingons
>also missed some but they use fixed fire disruptors.
Then the angle of the ship would have been changed. And not all of the
ships were using fixed mount weapons - the Neg'Var (sp?) certainly wasn't.
>
>> >Against Chintoka, the SD would be vaped. That's what that statement was
>> >about.
>>
>> The Entire starship? It'd take a S***load of energy to do that. Was it
>> vaporising ST ships wholesale? I'd assume a SW ship is denser than a ST
>> one, given the sheer amount of armour it carries.
>
>I was talking about one ISD vs. the entire Chintoka system. The Feds
>lost many ships at Chintoka.
But you haven't answered my question: did the platforms fully Vaporise an
ENTIRE ST ship?
>
>> >> The platforms appeared capable
>> >> >of inflicting incrediable damage to ST ships with shields so I
imagine
>> >> >SW ships
>> >> >would be affected much more.
>> >>
>> >> Again, i'm not sure. ISDs are tougher than you seem to give them
credit.
>> >
>> >At Chintoka, they would, believe they would.
>>
>> I'll reserve my own judgement until I see some firm numbers for weaponry.
>
>Those weapons platforms were incredibly powerful. They *shrugged off*
>every attack until the power moon was taken out.
Fair enough. But that relfects more upon SF weaponry than Imperial
weapons - the effects are relative to ST, now SW.
>
>> >No way. First off we were talking about a SD fleet against the Chintoka
>> >system. Second an ISD is not all that. A Galaxy class is clearly
>> >superior to a SD but I'ld say it has only a 20-30% advantage in sublight
>> >melee.
>>
>> 20-30% advantage? How do you back this up? I haven't seen any firm
>> estimates as to ST weapons strength.
>
>Look at that website I gave. It is still a fair possibility that a ISD
>could take out a Galaxy but it would be hard. I was estimating based on
>my own observations.
Likewise. Mine say an ISD could wax a GCS.
>
>> Was not 100 ships. Probably half that. Which would have been the normal
>> Fleet for the Endor sector plus additional ones. It wasn't a standard
>> combat config.
>
>The point was that ISD's operate in fleets not individually. Whatever
>the number. The hundreds of SD's figure was for an assualt on the
>Chintoka system.
But not in fleets as large as 100, as you claim. Nor even as many as 5 or
6 - the tend to split up and patrol individually.
>Does anybody care to speculate on how big a SD fleet would be needed to
>take Chintoka?
The Empire COULD spare up to 2000 ships for such an attack, if it wanted.
Thats only a small fraction of its ISD fleet.
>> >Against a starship, TIE's don't move that fast. A Galaxy class would
>> >have no trouble whatsoever swatting TIE's like so many gnats.
>>
>> But can they target and shoot them? If DS9 (a stable weapons platform)
can
>> miss Klingon BOPs at Point blank range (I'm talking about within the
docking
>> pylons), can they hit something as small and manueverable as a TIE?
>
>Yes. DS9 never missed a BOP or any Klingon ship with phasers.
Oh yes it did!
TIE's
>would be laughable against DS9.
After missing 500m BOPs? Somehow I doubt that.
Piett
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
>
> Piett wrote:
> > 2) The Dauphin, in which Riker says that 1TW is the Warp Core level.
>
> No he didn't. The planet had a very violent atmosphere and the people
> on the surface used a terawatt transmitter to communicate with them.
> Riker then commented that that meant they couldn't respond. This means
> that the COMM output of the E is less than 1 TW.
Nope, Data said the communication came from a Terrawatt source on the
planet.
Riker than said "That's more power than our entire ship can generate."
And that is a DIRECT quote. Just listening to as I type.
> > 3) And in "A Matter of Time", in which 1 TW is being stated as roughly as
> > much power as the ship can generate.
>
> Don't remember that ep but it was later stated by Data that the warp
> core put out 12.75 million TW at *idle*.
>
> > Also, the "millions of TW" figure doesn't work if you extrapolate the amount
> > of AM fuel that the E-D can actually carry.
>
> Yes it does.
I'd like to see some calculations from you two to back up this
statement.
Never mind, just did it myself
12.75 million TW = ½ million kg of M/AM per hour, while at idle.
*OUCH*
Since the E-D is 200,000,000 kg it would take just 16 days 8 hours 9
minutes and 24.7 seconds to COMPLETELY use up the ENTIRE ship. Not just
the M/AM fuel.
> > >Phasers are not GW weapons. That is not supported by onscreen
> > >evidence. You're crossing sources.
> >
> > Could you please address the points above before claiming that?
>
> Look at http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/ for all the skinny.
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
> > >But they are still aimed an fired by hand. A targeting computer can
> > >only do so much. The E has fully automated acqusition, targeting, and
> > >firing.
> >
> > Still controlled by a human. And we've seen that the computer targeting
> > misses a fair bit. "The Way of the Warrior" comes to mind.
>
> Not like an ISD. Worf only needs to pick a target and hit "fire". ISD
> gunners have to manually move the physical weapon. SF phasers *never*
> miss.
Oh please! Since TNG Federation targeting has gotten really bad. Misses
are commonplace.
> > >Against a starship, TIE's don't move that fast. A Galaxy class would
> > >have no trouble whatsoever swatting TIE's like so many gnats.
> >
> > But can they target and shoot them? If DS9 (a stable weapons platform) can
> > miss Klingon BOPs at Point blank range (I'm talking about within the docking
> > pylons), can they hit something as small and manueverable as a TIE?
>
> Yes. DS9 never missed a BOP or any Klingon ship with phasers. TIE's
> would be laughable against DS9.
Yes they have! They have missed a lot of times.
C.S.Strowbridge
Piett
>> Uh....just curious here. Why is this thread in RASSM, when there's
already a
>> newsgroup dedicated to this called news:alt.startrek.vs.starwars ? If I'm
>> not mistaken, the "vs." newsgroup was created sometime last year to
divert
>> such threads out of RASSM because they were taking over this newsgroup
and
>> too many people were complaining about it.
>
>rast and rassm.
Flame wars? 'Scuse me? An NG dedicated to Flame wars doesn't make up an
FAQ for posting rules, previous topics, or vote on important issues.
Timo S Saloniemi
>Jim Rothwell wrote:
>>The humans of the Star Trek universe have rooted out such dark components to
>>their psyches and have a hard time coping with such actions when they appear.
>I wouldn't say that at all. Sisko contaminated more than one planet
>with trilithium residue just to get *one* guy.
Actually, Sisko did in one planet, Eddington another. There were no more
planets polluted by either party, although Sisko threatened that he
would pollute several if Eddington didn't give himself up.
>The Federation is full of baddies. Then you have other races that have
>no qualms at all about doing anything. e.g. Romulans, Cardassians,
>Klingons, Breen, Ferengi.
Most of these do have some moral reservations. They just differ from human
ones. The most stereotypical back-stabbers are the Romulans who seem to
have no higher moral code to follow (although the Breen are described
similarly, we see very little of them). The Klingons always have their
honor, the Ferengi their profits.
The Cardassians regularly want to have excuses to do evil things. In other
ways, they are very similar to the Imperial forces (i.e. Nazi wannabes
with the same behavioral patterns, organizational hang-ups and codes of
obedience), but there is a trend to make even the leaders of Cardassia
carry some sort of moral burden that is absent from the leaders of
the Empire. With the Empire, we are only allowed to sympathize with the
hapless lower-echelon commanders who march into their dooms knowing that
retreat means death by telekinetic strangulation, and that sooner or
later, Vader will still get fed up with them... With the Cardassians,
the intent often is to portray part of the Cardassian forces as
sympathetic and another part as repulsive, and then have the heroes
manipulate these factions against each other or be manipulated by them.
Timo Saloniemi
Chris Wagner
> >What makes you say that. They are the same thing. Are you telling me
> >that the Original Enterprises Lasers would be inferior to those on
> >a Corellian Corvette or even a X-wing or TIE fighter
>
> Yes, I am. It sounds completely brash and arrogant, but if our estimates on
> SW weaponry are correct (and there is every evidence they ARE), SW weapons
> would be in a totally different world compared to even modern ST weaponry.
The E's lasers would atleast have be on a par with a corvette's lasers
and definately more powerful than a X-Wing or TIE. There have only been
calcs for ISD turbolaser fire, not any of the smaller weapons. Watch
TOS The Cage. That is the only time we see lasers used.
> >They seem to miss alot.
>
> True. But so do Phasers and Photon Torps. :)
What show have you been watching? SF phasers *never* miss.
> >Ya,but,he said it could only make .5 past light speed?
>
> Common Misconception that wasn't really explained at all during ANH. .5
> refers to a hyperdrive class or multiplier, not an actual figure of 1.5c.
> .5 is so far one of the fatest, then .75 is lower, then Class 1,2,3,4
> depending on the hyperdrive you have.
I believe that the "official" explanation for that was that Han was
BS'ing Luke. I think it even said that in the script itself.
> True, but names can be misnomas. Why are Photon torpedoes called torpedoes?
> Wouldn't Photon 'Missile' be more accurate?
Because they are torpedoes and not missles. They are accelerated by the
mother ship, not their own power. That is the difference between a
missle and a torpedo.
Chris Wagner
> Naval tradition, I'd imagine. Starfleet seems to have quite a bit of
> Naval tradition. But, as for misnomers, "photon" is just as
> inaccurate. It is established that the main power source and
> destructive source for the torpedoes is antimatter. Photons are just
> light, and as far as I know, the only reasons why the torpedoes glow the
> way they do is the engines being the only source of light on the
> things....
LOL! It is a PHOTON torpedo because that is what it gives off. All the
destructive power of a photon torpedo comes from massive amounts of
photons. What do you think the antimatter is for???
Chris Wagner
>
> Thats a very...vague...description, if I might add. We don't know the
> density/amount of rock Pike thought would be there.
Hey, this was 1965. :) Thats all the info there is on them.
> >Actual power is irrelevant. Effective power is all we can preen from on
> >screen evidence.
>
> But we have to take into account RNE/NDF before assuming any total power.
I don't see what bearing actual power has when effective power is what
counts.
> >> Then what about 3 particular eps:
> >>
> >> 1) The Survivors, in which a 400GW wrecks the shields. A phaser CAN'T be
> >> Millions of TW if this were the case.
> >
> >Was that the one with the Dowd, who recreated his wife on that slagged
> >planet?
>
> I think so.
Then that episode can be disregarded because it is self-inconsistent.
When the E is attacked, Worf says "They hit us with 400GW of particle
energy." A GW is power, not energy.
>
> Actually, he said "....12.75 million per..." and then is cut off before he
> can give the amount of time.
No, actually he said "The scale is readily quantifiable. We are
currently generating twleve point seven five billion gigawatts per-".
Then he is cut off. He wasn't going to say per unit time because power
per unit time would be meaningless. It would indicate that the power
output was *increasing*. Because a W is J/s so a W/s would be a J/s^2.
> >> Also, the "millions of TW" figure doesn't work if you extrapolate the
> amount
> >> of AM fuel that the E-D can actually carry.
> >
> >Yes it does.
>
> Care to back this up with anything more than a statement?
Look at Admiral Kennedy's site, listed below for the calcs.
> >Look at http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/ for all the skinny.
>
> Ah, Graeme Kennedy's site. I've debated ST vs. SW with Mr. Kennedy for a
> while. Unfortunately, he maintained that by his calculations, a SF runabout
> could wax a SSD without being destroyed. Of course, if we assumed that,
> then we also have to assume that a SF runabout could destroy the entire
> surface of a planet in less time than it takes an ISD to do so.
Well there's no junk like that on the webpage. It is *very* logical.
You will not be able to refute the power calculations done there, just
as no one can refute the power calculations done for turbolasers.
> What?!? Have you WATCHED the battle scenes in any great detail? There is
I have watched it probably 10 times.
> one particular shot where 3 BOPs fly in, and we get an above Ops view of the
> station - looking down on the inner ring. We see several phaser beams fire
> at these BOPs and quite clearly MISS.
I remember that quite clearly. We see one or two of the BOP's get vaped
and we also see some phasers firing at something *off screen*. They
were *not* firing at the BOP.
> And the Photon torps apparently are self-guided. They SHOULD have hit.
Not if the target was already destroyed. Its not hard to loose a
guidance lock in a melee.
> Some of
> >the photorps missed but that is a different weapon system. The Klingons
> >also missed some but they use fixed fire disruptors.
>
> Then the angle of the ship would have been changed. And not all of the
> ships were using fixed mount weapons - the Neg'Var (sp?) certainly wasn't.
Yeah. But they are by no means omnidirectional like a GCS or DS9.
> >I was talking about one ISD vs. the entire Chintoka system. The Feds
> >lost many ships at Chintoka.
>
> But you haven't answered my question: did the platforms fully Vaporise an
> ENTIRE ST ship?
If you consider exploding in a giant fireball being vaporized, yes. But
why continue to fire on a dead ship in order to vaporize it when there
are other live targets out there??? If ONE ISD went at Chintoka, the
platforms would vaporize it.
> >The point was that ISD's operate in fleets not individually. Whatever
> >the number. The hundreds of SD's figure was for an assualt on the
> >Chintoka system.
>
> But not in fleets as large as 100, as you claim. Nor even as many as 5 or
> 6 - the tend to split up and patrol individually.
Look, in an assualt on Chintoka I **posited** a fleet of hundreds of
ISD's. Thats all.
> >Does anybody care to speculate on how big a SD fleet would be needed to
> >take Chintoka?
>
> The Empire COULD spare up to 2000 ships for such an attack, if it wanted.
> Thats only a small fraction of its ISD fleet.
But how many would be *required*.
> >Yes. DS9 never missed a BOP or any Klingon ship with phasers.
>
> Oh yes it did!
Go watch it again.
> TIE's
> >would be laughable against DS9.
>
> After missing 500m BOPs? Somehow I doubt that.
500m!? No more like 200. DS9 wouldn't even waste its time firing on
TIE's they're so weak. They would fire on the ISD's and then go after
any TIE's dumb enough to still be around.
Chris Wagner
> Nope, Data said the communication came from a Terrawatt source on the
> planet.
>
> Riker than said "That's more power than our entire ship can generate."
>
> And that is a DIRECT quote. Just listening to as I type.
Correct. He was talking about the COMM power of the entire ship, not
the warp core.
> > > >Phasers are not GW weapons. That is not supported by onscreen
> > > >evidence. You're crossing sources.
> > >
> > > Could you please address the points above before claiming that?
> >
> > Look at http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/ for all the skinny.
>
> Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
>
> > Not like an ISD. Worf only needs to pick a target and hit "fire". ISD
> > gunners have to manually move the physical weapon. SF phasers *never*
> > miss.
>
> Oh please! Since TNG Federation targeting has gotten really bad. Misses
> are commonplace.
LOL! I defy you to find an omnidirectional phaser that missed
anything. I DEFY YOU.
Chris Wagner
>
> Well hell..if everyone is going to post Trek vs Wars web sites, take a
> look at my "Ultimate Starwars vs. Startrek FAQ" at:
>
> http://h4h.com/louis
Give me a break!!! You site is about as biased against ST as the KKK is
against interracial marriage.
Chris Wagner
Anonymous wrote:
> >I wouldn't say "much more" powerful. They are clearly more powerful but
> >they are still comparable.
>
> Based on what evidence?
Oh, RTOJ, TNG, DS9, you know, *everything*.
> > I'm not talking about single turbolaser
> >blasts but phalanx's. I'ld say that 1 full phalanx of turbolaser fire
> >from a SD would be about 80% of a full power phaser burst from a Galaxy
> >class.
>
> Based on even the most *conservative* calculations I've seen, a single
> turbolaser bolt is *at least* over ten times the power required to
> overpower a Galaxy-class ship's 400 gigawatt shields.
HAHAHA! You are mixing you sources. A comparison of calculation to the
TNG tech manual is invalid. If you want to talk calculations, you MUST
use calculations from both sides. With this paragraph you have fully
discredited yourself as having any serious contribution. You should go
to the vs. group so you can shout at the other shouters.
Chris Wagner
Anonymous wrote:
> >I have to agree some, but I wouldn't say "shrugg off". Hell it takes 50
> >starships to take DS9.
>
> 50 *Star Trek* ships. That doesn't mean it would take this many SW
> ships to do the same thing.
I never even implied that it did. Why don't you read enough of the
thread to know what the hell we're talking about before jumping in with
idiotic statements like that.
> >It would probably be 1000 or more to take down
> >any planetary shield from either side.
>
> Personally, I doubt a Star Trek planetary shield (assuming they exist)
> could fend of an attack from a single star destroyer.
You are nothing more that a troll.
> >Their tech is alright. "Incredibly powerful" is too strong a term,
> >though they are very strong.
>
> Depends on how you look at it. I'm basing my comments on
> calculations made from relevant scenes in the SW films. The power
> required to, for example, vaporize asteroids (as a star destroyer is
> *shown* doing in TESB) is staggering.
What phasers are *shown* doing is staggering.
> We're talking about *450 terawatts* for SW turbolasers versus *1.02
> gigawatts* for ST phasers. Saying ST phasers could penetrate SW
That 1.02 GW figure is from the piece of crap non-cannon TNG tech
manual. Maybe I should start quoting BS sources for ISD figures???
> > It is tedious but routine to take down a ship's shields and then
> >the ship can survive for long periods even after they loose shields.
>
> Examples, please.
ANH, ESB, RTOJ.
> >So you're saying a Death Star *would* be required to take out the power
> >moon.
>
> Sorry, I misread you. No, I don't think a Death Star would be
> required. I seriously believe a single star destroyer would be
> sufficient.
You are deluded.
Chris Wagner
> Are we talking about capabilties that the Federation has now or
> capabilities that they might somehow miraculously develop many years
> down the line?
Technology that the Federation "has" but may or may not currently
implement. It would be a big job but nothing inordinate to put a
planetary shield.
> >> How? Those Star Destroyers all hung in the Hoth asteroid field for
> >> several days under murderous bombardment (roughly 1 asteroid per
> >> second, if you watch the movie and count during the close-up scenes),
> >> and only one of them was damaged.
> >
> >I wouldn't say "several days". Maybe three max. Probably only 1
> >because I don't think it would have take Han that long to figure out
> >they were in the belly of that space creature.
>
> It could have been weeks for all we know.
Hell it could have been years... But get real, it was 1 or 2 days.
> >> That's quite contrary to the evidence. Even the tiny MF withstood
> >> numerous turbolaser blasts (of the same variety used to vaporize
> >> asteroids), so the shields of a large capship are obviously much more
> >> formidable.
> >
> >RTOJ. The SSD/ISD's shields didn't seem very impressive at all.
>
> Specific examples please.
I'm not going to go through the whole damn movie frame by frame just for
this thread.
> Evidence? Shadows of the Empire makes it clear that construction of
> the DS2 didn't begin until six months before ROTJ.
Non-cannon and frankly not believable. Even for the Empire.
> >> makes the "power moon" look pathetic. Taking out the power moon
> >> wouldn't be necessary. Simply blow up the planet from 40 million km
> >> away.
> >
> >Hey now, you're starting to make some sense. You could never make it as
> >a writer! :) But really, the point was to capture the system, not just
> >blow it up.
>
> But why would the Empire want to capture it? They'd be more
> interested in simply obliterating their enemy's capacity to wage war.
For their behoovement, thats why.
Chris Wagner
> Most of these do have some moral reservations. They just differ from human
> ones. The most stereotypical back-stabbers are the Romulans who seem to
> have no higher moral code to follow (although the Breen are described
> similarly, we see very little of them). The Klingons always have their
> honor, the Ferengi their profits.
The Klingons are probably the worst. They *obliterated* the tribble
home world just to kill off the tribbles. Then one Klingon commander
wiped out another whole planet to keep some DNA samples from the
Federation!
Anonymous
<wag...@plebeian.com> wrote:
>I can see why you post as anonymous because you are a moron.
Why the name calling? Getting a little hot under the collar?
>> >I wouldn't say "much more" powerful. They are clearly more powerful but
>> >they are still comparable.
>>
>> Based on what evidence?
>
>Oh, RTOJ, TNG, DS9, you know, *everything*.
Gee, that really narrows it down. Try citing specific examples.
>> Based on even the most *conservative* calculations I've seen, a single
>> turbolaser bolt is *at least* over ten times the power required to
>> overpower a Galaxy-class ship's 400 gigawatt shields.
>
>HAHAHA! You are mixing you sources. A comparison of calculation to the
>TNG tech manual is invalid. If you want to talk calculations, you MUST
>use calculations from both sides. With this paragraph you have fully
>discredited yourself as having any serious contribution. You should go
>to the vs. group so you can shout at the other shouters.
What's wrong with the tech manual? And what calculations from the ST
side are you referring to? The bogus crap on Graham Kennedy's web
site?
Graham Kennedy
>
> Piett wrote:
>
> > >What makes you say that. They are the same thing. Are you telling me
> > >that the Original Enterprises Lasers would be inferior to those on
> > >a Corellian Corvette or even a X-wing or TIE fighter
> >
> > Yes, I am. It sounds completely brash and arrogant, but if our estimates on
> > SW weaponry are correct (and there is every evidence they ARE), SW weapons
> > would be in a totally different world compared to even modern ST weaponry.
>
> The E's lasers would atleast have be on a par with a corvette's lasers
> and definately more powerful than a X-Wing or TIE. There have only been
> calcs for ISD turbolaser fire, not any of the smaller weapons. Watch
> TOS The Cage. That is the only time we see lasers used.
I'm not about to get into a versus thread again, but in the
original pilot episode I distinctly remember a junior officer
saying that they could rig a laser battery to ships power...
"enough to blast an entire continent". The timeframe wasn't
mentioned, but it's probably hours if not minutes or even
seconds. That's far beyond what any TIE fighter has ever been
seen to do.
I have no idea what warsies claim for their weapons these days,
as I grew frustrated with their inability to follow simple logic
a long time ago and gave up on the whole thing :) But the E-D's
Type X phasers put out at LEAST 100,000 TeraWatts, not (!!NOT!!)
1.05 GigaWatts. This is easily confirmed by many different
sources. If anybody is interested, you can go to
http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk and click on the blue button
marked 'power' at the bottom of the screen.
> > >They seem to miss alot.
> >
> > True. But so do Phasers and Photon Torps. :)
>
> What show have you been watching? SF phasers *never* miss.
So far as I am aware (and I have kept an eye out for some
years now), it is extremely rare for Starfleet ships crewed
by Starfleet crews to miss. I only know of the following
examples :
Defiant - which seems to miss with the first few bursts,
practically every time. This is most likely because its
weapons are fixed-axis, rather than steerable.
"Genesis" - when Worf was testing out a new guidence system.
The shock of this single miss was such that Picard
*immediately* told him to abandon the 'upgrade' and go back
to the old system!
> > True, but names can be misnomas. Why are Photon torpedoes called torpedoes?
> > Wouldn't Photon 'Missile' be more accurate?
>
> Because they are torpedoes and not missles. They are accelerated by the
> mother ship, not their own power. That is the difference between a
> missle and a torpedo.
Where do you get that from? So far as I knew, Starfleet
uses the term torpedo out of tradition. Just like they
still use port and starboard, call women officers
'mister', etc.
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
>
Oh God, I'm answering another one now!
> >Actual power is irrelevant. Effective power is all we can preen from on
> >screen evidence.
>
> But we have to take into account RNE/NDF before assuming any total power.
Actually, some of the time we don't. Trek ships have been
seen to melt rock with their weapons, rather than blasting
it into the next continuum. And the power levels still work
out in the 100,000 TW range.
> >> 3) And in "A Matter of Time", in which 1 TW is being stated as roughly as
> >> much power as the ship can generate.
> >
> >Don't remember that ep but it was later stated by Data that the warp
> >core put out 12.75 million TW at *idle*.
>
> Actually, he said "....12.75 million per..." and then is cut off before he
> can give the amount of time.
Time is irrelevant when speaking of power figures - a watt is
defined as 'one joule per second'. If Data was going on to
add anything, it could therefore ONLY be a multiplier. Something
like "...per antimatter injector" (there are three) or "...per
nacelle" (two).
> >> Also, the "millions of TW" figure doesn't work if you extrapolate the
> amount
> >> of AM fuel that the E-D can actually carry.
> >
> >Yes it does.
>
> Care to back this up with anything more than a statement?
If the E-D held only 12,500 tons of antimatter (the same
as the ammount of deuterium-matter it holds), then it
could hold a million TeraWatt output for 26 days straight.
> >Look at http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/ for all the skinny.
>
> Ah, Graeme Kennedy's site. I've debated ST vs. SW with Mr. Kennedy for a
> while. Unfortunately, he maintained that by his calculations, a SF runabout
> could wax a SSD without being destroyed. Of course, if we assumed that,
> then we also have to assume that a SF runabout could destroy the entire
> surface of a planet in less time than it takes an ISD to do so.
It's only a small thing, but considering you debated with
me for 'a while' and have apparently visited my site, you
might at least spell my name right... but never mind.
And finally, the reaon I hit the 'reply' button in the first
place! I've been seeing my site address crop up here and
there lately, and I was wondering if people are actually
using it as a reference in versus threads? Considering how
many hours I put into the damn thing, I'd be interested to
know if anybody out there is actually paying attention?
(P.S. - I don't think I ever said a Runabout could slag
a planet, but it could certainly destroy an ISD since it's
immune to the LASER armament. But we won't go there :)
> >Not like an ISD. Worf only needs to pick a target and hit "fire". ISD
> >gunners have to manually move the physical weapon. SF phasers *never*
> >miss. In WotW, DS9's phasers never missed one Klingon ship.
>
> What?!? Have you WATCHED the battle scenes in any great detail? There is
> one particular shot where 3 BOPs fly in, and we get an above Ops view of the
> station - looking down on the inner ring. We see several phaser beams fire
> at these BOPs and quite clearly MISS.
Or perhaps we see them fire PAST the BoP's, at something off-screen?
> And the Photon torps apparently are self-guided. They SHOULD have hit.
Same argument. Photon torps have a range in the millions of km.
They could easily have been off to break things and hurt people
we couldn't see.
> Some of
> >the photorps missed but that is a different weapon system. The Klingons
> >also missed some but they use fixed fire disruptors.
>
> Then the angle of the ship would have been changed. And not all of the
> ships were using fixed mount weapons - the Neg'Var (sp?) certainly wasn't.
Most Trekkers (and certainly me) say that the Federation hardly
ever miss. Certainly the Klingons do, as do many other Trek species.
> >> 20-30% advantage? How do you back this up? I haven't seen any firm
> >> estimates as to ST weapons strength.
> >
> >Look at that website I gave. It is still a fair possibility that a ISD
> >could take out a Galaxy but it would be hard. I was estimating based on
> >my own observations.
>
> Likewise. Mine say an ISD could wax a GCS.
Bah, humbug I say!
Anyway, like I said before I'm NOT going to get sucked back
into this. I just thought I'd toss a few comments in since
my name was mentioned.
--
Graham Kennedy (not Graeme!)
Graham Kennedy
>
> > > much power as the ship can generate.
> >
> > Don't remember that ep but it was later stated by Data that the warp
> > core put out 12.75 million TW at *idle*.
> >
> > > of AM fuel that the E-D can actually carry.
> >
> > Yes it does.
>
> statement.
>
> Never mind, just did it myself
>
> 12.75 million TW = ½ million kg of M/AM per hour, while at idle.
>
> *OUCH*
Back to school for you!
E=mc^2, so turning 1 million Terawatts (1e18 W) burns up
1e18 / 9e16, or 11.111 kg per second. That's 40 tons per
hour, not 500!
> Since the E-D is 200,000,000 kg
Wrong again. The mass of the E-D is 4,960,000,000 kg approx,
according to the Tech Manual (page 57).
> it would take just 16 days 8 hours 9
> minutes and 24.7 seconds to COMPLETELY use up the ENTIRE ship. Not just
> the M/AM fuel.
Or 14.41 years, with the correct numbers.
So a million TW could easily be sustained for a few
months or so just on the fuel.
> > > >Phasers are not GW weapons. That is not supported by onscreen
> > > >evidence. You're crossing sources.
> > >
> > > Could you please address the points above before claiming that?
> >
> > Look at http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/ for all the skinny.
>
> Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
>
> > > >But they are still aimed an fired by hand. A targeting computer can
> > > >only do so much. The E has fully automated acqusition, targeting, and
> > > >firing.
> > >
> > > Still controlled by a human. And we've seen that the computer targeting
> > > misses a fair bit. "The Way of the Warrior" comes to mind.
> >
> > Not like an ISD. Worf only needs to pick a target and hit "fire". ISD
> > gunners have to manually move the physical weapon. SF phasers *never*
> > miss.
>
> Oh please! Since TNG Federation targeting has gotten really bad. Misses
> are commonplace.
Only on the Defiant, which uses fixed-axis cannon. On occasion we
have seen phasers fire PAST one ship, to hit another that was
off-screen.
--
Graham Kennedy
Anonymous
<wag...@plebeian.com> wrote:
>You are definately in the wrong newsgroup. You should be in vs.
I'm not the one who started this thread here.
>> >I have to agree some, but I wouldn't say "shrugg off". Hell it takes 50
>> >starships to take DS9.
>>
>> 50 *Star Trek* ships. That doesn't mean it would take this many SW
>> ships to do the same thing.
>
>I never even implied that it did. Why don't you read enough of the
>thread to know what the hell we're talking about before jumping in with
>idiotic statements like that.
Why don't you calm down?
>> Personally, I doubt a Star Trek planetary shield (assuming they exist)
>> could fend of an attack from a single star destroyer.
>
>You are nothing more that a troll.
Wow, that hurt. Do you have any other response to my comment or have
I stumped you?
>> Depends on how you look at it. I'm basing my comments on
>> calculations made from relevant scenes in the SW films. The power
>> required to, for example, vaporize asteroids (as a star destroyer is
>> *shown* doing in TESB) is staggering.
>
>What phasers are *shown* doing is staggering.
Such as?
>> We're talking about *450 terawatts* for SW turbolasers versus *1.02
>> gigawatts* for ST phasers. Saying ST phasers could penetrate SW
>
>That 1.02 GW figure is from the piece of crap non-cannon TNG tech
>manual. Maybe I should start quoting BS sources for ISD figures???
What's wrong with the TNG tech manual?
>> > It is tedious but routine to take down a ship's shields and then
>> >the ship can survive for long periods even after they loose shields.
>>
>> Examples, please.
>
>ANH, ESB, RTOJ.
Cite *specific* examples.
>> Sorry, I misread you. No, I don't think a Death Star would be
>> required. I seriously believe a single star destroyer would be
>> sufficient.
>
>You are deluded.
And you didn't even attempt to provide a logical retort.
GeneK
GeneK
Dark Lord Karno Dal
Graham Kennedy wrote in message <35B3BCB5...@adeadend.demon.co.uk>...
This thread is off-topic and inappropriare in this newsgroup. This thread
should be taken to alt.startrek.vs.starwars. Please do so and stop
cluttering up our newsgroup! If your server doesn't carry thigroup, it can
be accessed through DejaNews.
May the Darkness be with you....
Dark Lord karno Dal
si...@lords.com
Official Hooligan
bad guys in Star Trek could unite and they still couldn't take Darth Vader
and a Super Star Destroyer...
DAVE KASEMAN:
dcka...@planetx.bloomu.edu
<or>
strength...@hotmail.com
"Never loose hope and never give in,
Stick to your guns and FIGHT, FIGHT TO WIN!"
-The Templars
Chris Wagner
>
> On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 10:00:32 -0400, Chris Wagner
> <wag...@plebeian.com> wrote:
>
> >You are definately in the wrong newsgroup. You should be in vs.
>
> I'm not the one who started this thread here.
So. You are using vs. tactics. On the order of "SW is better, so
there!"
> >I never even implied that it did. Why don't you read enough of the
> >thread to know what the hell we're talking about before jumping in with
> >idiotic statements like that.
>
> Why don't you calm down?
I get frustrated by such incredibly myoptic statements.
> >What phasers are *shown* doing is staggering.
>
> Such as?
Oh, drilling a 50ft diamter shaft some 1600m underground. Look at
Graham Kennedy's website for the calcs.
> >> We're talking about *450 terawatts* for SW turbolasers versus *1.02
> >> gigawatts* for ST phasers. Saying ST phasers could penetrate SW
> >
> >That 1.02 GW figure is from the piece of crap non-cannon TNG tech
> >manual. Maybe I should start quoting BS sources for ISD figures???
>
> What's wrong with the TNG tech manual?
The TNG tech manual is self-contradictory and non-cannon.
> >> Sorry, I misread you. No, I don't think a Death Star would be
> >> required. I seriously believe a single star destroyer would be
> >> sufficient.
> >
> >You are deluded.
>
> And you didn't even attempt to provide a logical retort.
Logic cannot repel irrationality.
Chris Wagner
> Why the name calling? Getting a little hot under the collar?
Yes. Juvenility irks the hell out of me.
> >Oh, RTOJ, TNG, DS9, you know, *everything*.
>
> Gee, that really narrows it down. Try citing specific examples.
Sorry, I have *work*. No time for that level of being anal. :)
> >HAHAHA! You are mixing you sources. A comparison of calculation to the
> >TNG tech manual is invalid. If you want to talk calculations, you MUST
> >use calculations from both sides. With this paragraph you have fully
> >discredited yourself as having any serious contribution. You should go
> >to the vs. group so you can shout at the other shouters.
>
> What's wrong with the tech manual? And what calculations from the ST
> side are you referring to? The bogus crap on Graham Kennedy's web
> site?
The tech manual is wrong on almost everything. Non-cannon. GK's
website is not bogus. Redo the calculations yourself. I defy you.
Chris Wagner
> >I don't see what bearing actual power has when effective power is what
> >counts.
>
> overstating the actual power. And RNE/NDF doesn't help against Starship
> armour or shielding to any great degree.
I don't think NDF is significant. The whole idea of it is speculation.
There is no mention of it *anywhere*.
> >Then that episode can be disregarded because it is self-inconsistent.
> >When the E is attacked, Worf says "They hit us with 400GW of particle
> >energy." A GW is power, not energy.
>
> Inconsistent? The particle beam fired was running of a 400GW power source.
> THAT is where the 400GW number comes from.
I believe Wayne Poe's site has a *wave file* of Worf saying it. My
quote is the correct one. The ep is an error. A GW is not an amount of
energy, it is the rate of flow of energy.
> >>
> >> Actually, he said "....12.75 million per..." and then is cut off before
> he
> >> can give the amount of time.
> >
> >No, actually he said "The scale is readily quantifiable. We are
> >currently generating twleve point seven five billion gigawatts per-".
> >Then he is cut off. He wasn't going to say per unit time because power
> >per unit time would be meaningless. It would indicate that the power
> >output was *increasing*. Because a W is J/s so a W/s would be a J/s^2.
>
> 'Aint enough AM/M fuel to have that much power/
Yessss there is. Check GK's site.
> >> >Look at http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/ for all the skinny.
> >>
> I didn't actually see any power statements for a Starship phaser there, i'm
> sorry. But much of the info on that site is from the TM - which you
> yourself have stated isn't relevant.
Then you didn't look in the right spot. Click on "power" on the bottom
LCARS strip. The TM can only "backup" onscreen evidence. In any
contradictions, the TM info is discarded.
> >I remember that quite clearly. We see one or two of the BOP's get vaped
> >and we also see some phasers firing at something *off screen*. They
> >were *not* firing at the BOP.
>
> What?!? You're grasping at straws! The bulk of the klingon fleet was far
> off to the left of the screen, NOT above DS9. It was blatently obvious that
> they were trying to fire at the BOPs in the foreground - thats why they hit
> SOME of them, but not the others.
No. The phaser was very clearly going at a target off screen. You
probably interpreted it as a miss because you *wanted* to see DS9 miss.
> And another example of missing SF weapons - "Paradise Lost", with the
> Lakota/Defiant.
The Lakota *never* missed the Defiant. The Defiant missed the Lakota a
few times but landed the vast majority of hits. The Defiant doesn't
have omnidirectional phasers.
> >> And the Photon torps apparently are self-guided. They SHOULD have hit.
> >
> >Not if the target was already destroyed. Its not hard to loose a
> >guidance lock in a melee.
>
> Then the guidance lock mechanism isn't very good.
-They were going after an off screen target
-Their target was already destroyed
-Their guidance was confused by a convergence of Klingon ships, lost
lock
> >Yeah. But they are by no means omnidirectional like a GCS or DS9.
>
> Omnidirectional weapons still miss.
No they don't. Find one ep where it is clearly evident that an OD
phaser missed.
> >If you consider exploding in a giant fireball being vaporized, yes.
>
> No, I don't. I consider vaporised exactly that, i.e. totally turned into
> Vapour. Were any of the ships vaporised?
It doesn't work that way. If you do that much damage, the ship is going
to loose AM containment and vaporize itself. There would never be an
opportunity for the OWP's to "vaporize" a ship in the sense you state.
You are thinking of something like putting an icecube on a skillet and
evaporating it.
> But
> >why continue to fire on a dead ship in order to vaporize it when there
> >are other live targets out there??? If ONE ISD went at Chintoka, the
> >platforms would vaporize it.
>
> Vaporise or just destroy it?
Vaporize. Evaporate. Turn into gas. 100% conversion. All the OWP's
concentrated fire would in fact do that to an ISD.
> >500m!? No more like 200. DS9 wouldn't even waste its time firing on
> >TIE's they're so weak. They would fire on the ISD's and then go after
> >any TIE's dumb enough to still be around.
>
> They'd probably miss the ISDs, too :P If they can't hit a 200m ship at
> point blank range, how are they going to hit a larger ship at a much longer
> range?
Quite easily. They do it *all the time.*
Chris Wagner
> Is there any figure for the max amount of M/AM fuel carried by a GCS? we
> could use THAT to work out a fairly accurate max phaser power.
Yes, on Grahams site. http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/
John M. Dollan
>
>
> LOL! It is a PHOTON torpedo because that is what it gives off. All the
> destructive power of a photon torpedo comes from massive amounts of
> photons. What do you think the antimatter is for???
>
> --
>
I'm sure that I've heard references to anti-matter warheads in the
torpesoes, but I can't remember what series or what episode, so for now
I'll have to take your word for it...;)
--
John M. Dollan
Montana State University- Northern
Graduate Assistant
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/1861/
ICQ# 308260
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the
universe...." Carl Sagan
Piett
>> >What makes you say that. They are the same thing. Are you telling me
>> >that the Original Enterprises Lasers would be inferior to those on
>> >a Corellian Corvette or even a X-wing or TIE fighter
>>
>> Yes, I am. It sounds completely brash and arrogant, but if our estimates
on
>> SW weaponry are correct (and there is every evidence they ARE), SW
weapons
>> would be in a totally different world compared to even modern ST
weaponry.
>
>The E's lasers would atleast have be on a par with a corvette's lasers
>and definately more powerful than a X-Wing or TIE. There have only been
>calcs for ISD turbolaser fire, not any of the smaller weapons. Watch
>TOS The Cage. That is the only time we see lasers used.
The only time, yes. And I can't really say that the results were
impressive.
>> >They seem to miss alot.
>>
>> True. But so do Phasers and Photon Torps. :)
>
>What show have you been watching? SF phasers *never* miss.
Well, "Way of the Warrior" springs to mind. "Paradise Lost", where the
Defiant MISSES the Lakota with Pulse Phasers from point blank range.
I'm sorry, but Phasers DO miss. If you don't believe me, watch those
episodes.
>> >Ya,but,he said it could only make .5 past light speed?
>>
>> Common Misconception that wasn't really explained at all during ANH. .5
>> refers to a hyperdrive class or multiplier, not an actual figure of 1.5c.
>> .5 is so far one of the fatest, then .75 is lower, then Class 1,2,3,4
>> depending on the hyperdrive you have.
>
>I believe that the "official" explanation for that was that Han was
>BS'ing Luke. I think it even said that in the script itself.
No, that wasn't the BS line. The "Kessel Run in 12 Parsecs" was the BS
line.
>
>> True, but names can be misnomas. Why are Photon torpedoes called
torpedoes?
>> Wouldn't Photon 'Missile' be more accurate?
>
>Because they are torpedoes and not missles. They are accelerated by the
>mother ship, not their own power.
They have their own power source, as does a missile. They are self-guided,
as are missiles.
That is the difference between a
>missle and a torpedo.
And as soon as I find a good dictionary lying around I'll see how they
define them.
Piett
Piett
>I'd like to see some calculations from you two to back up this
>statement.
>
>Never mind, just did it myself
>
>12.75 million TW = ½ million kg of M/AM per hour, while at idle.
>
>*OUCH*
>
>Since the E-D is 200,000,000 kg it would take just 16 days 8 hours 9
>minutes and 24.7 seconds to COMPLETELY use up the ENTIRE ship. Not just
>the M/AM fuel.
>
Is there any figure for the max amount of M/AM fuel carried by a GCS? we
could use THAT to work out a fairly accurate max phaser power.
Piett
Piett
>> Thats a very...vague...description, if I might add. We don't know the
>> density/amount of rock Pike thought would be there.
>
>Hey, this was 1965. :) Thats all the info there is on them.
Not enough info to make an accurate judgement.
>> >Actual power is irrelevant. Effective power is all we can preen from on
>> >screen evidence.
>>
>> But we have to take into account RNE/NDF before assuming any total power.
>
>I don't see what bearing actual power has when effective power is what
>counts.
Because it you assume effective power without considering RNE/NDF you're
overstating the actual power. And RNE/NDF doesn't help against Starship
armour or shielding to any great degree.
>> >> Then what about 3 particular eps:
>> >>
>> >> 1) The Survivors, in which a 400GW wrecks the shields. A phaser CAN'T
be
>> >> Millions of TW if this were the case.
>> >
>> >Was that the one with the Dowd, who recreated his wife on that slagged
>> >planet?
>>
>> I think so.
>
>Then that episode can be disregarded because it is self-inconsistent.
>When the E is attacked, Worf says "They hit us with 400GW of particle
>energy." A GW is power, not energy.
Inconsistent? The particle beam fired was running of a 400GW power source.
THAT is where the 400GW number comes from.
>>
>> Actually, he said "....12.75 million per..." and then is cut off before
he
>> can give the amount of time.
>
>No, actually he said "The scale is readily quantifiable. We are
>currently generating twleve point seven five billion gigawatts per-".
>Then he is cut off. He wasn't going to say per unit time because power
>per unit time would be meaningless. It would indicate that the power
>output was *increasing*. Because a W is J/s so a W/s would be a J/s^2.
'Aint enough AM/M fuel to have that much power/
>
>> >> Also, the "millions of TW" figure doesn't work if you extrapolate the
>> amount
>> >> of AM fuel that the E-D can actually carry.
>> >
>> >Yes it does.
>>
>> Care to back this up with anything more than a statement?
>
>Look at Admiral Kennedy's site, listed below for the calcs.
>
>
>> >Look at http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/ for all the skinny.
>>
>> Ah, Graeme Kennedy's site. I've debated ST vs. SW with Mr. Kennedy for a
>> while. Unfortunately, he maintained that by his calculations, a SF
runabout
>> could wax a SSD without being destroyed. Of course, if we assumed that,
>> then we also have to assume that a SF runabout could destroy the entire
>> surface of a planet in less time than it takes an ISD to do so.
>
>Well there's no junk like that on the webpage. It is *very* logical.
>You will not be able to refute the power calculations done there, just
>as no one can refute the power calculations done for turbolasers.
I didn't actually see any power statements for a Starship phaser there, i'm
sorry. But much of the info on that site is from the TM - which you
yourself have stated isn't relevant.
>
>> What?!? Have you WATCHED the battle scenes in any great detail? There
is
>
>I have watched it probably 10 times.
Then you'd see the phasers miss.
>> one particular shot where 3 BOPs fly in, and we get an above Ops view of
the
>> station - looking down on the inner ring. We see several phaser beams
fire
>> at these BOPs and quite clearly MISS.
>
>I remember that quite clearly. We see one or two of the BOP's get vaped
>and we also see some phasers firing at something *off screen*. They
>were *not* firing at the BOP.
What?!? You're grasping at straws! The bulk of the klingon fleet was far
off to the left of the screen, NOT above DS9. It was blatently obvious that
they were trying to fire at the BOPs in the foreground - thats why they hit
SOME of them, but not the others.
And another example of missing SF weapons - "Paradise Lost", with the
Lakota/Defiant.
>> And the Photon torps apparently are self-guided. They SHOULD have hit.
>
>Not if the target was already destroyed. Its not hard to loose a
>guidance lock in a melee.
Then the guidance lock mechanism isn't very good.
>> Some of
>> >the photorps missed but that is a different weapon system. The Klingons
>> >also missed some but they use fixed fire disruptors.
>>
>> Then the angle of the ship would have been changed. And not all of the
>> ships were using fixed mount weapons - the Neg'Var (sp?) certainly
wasn't.
>
>Yeah. But they are by no means omnidirectional like a GCS or DS9.
Omnidirectional weapons still miss.
>
>> >I was talking about one ISD vs. the entire Chintoka system. The Feds
>> >lost many ships at Chintoka.
>>
>> But you haven't answered my question: did the platforms fully Vaporise
an
>> ENTIRE ST ship?
>
>If you consider exploding in a giant fireball being vaporized, yes.
No, I don't. I consider vaporised exactly that, i.e. totally turned into
Vapour. Were any of the ships vaporised?
But
>why continue to fire on a dead ship in order to vaporize it when there
>are other live targets out there??? If ONE ISD went at Chintoka, the
>platforms would vaporize it.
Vaporise or just destroy it?
>> >Does anybody care to speculate on how big a SD fleet would be needed to
>> >take Chintoka?
>>
>> The Empire COULD spare up to 2000 ships for such an attack, if it wanted.
>> Thats only a small fraction of its ISD fleet.
>
>But how many would be *required*.
Who knows?
>
>> >Yes. DS9 never missed a BOP or any Klingon ship with phasers.
>>
>> Oh yes it did!
>
>Go watch it again.
I'd advise YOU to go watch it again. Or Paradise Lost if you're still so
sure.
>> TIE's
>> >would be laughable against DS9.
>>
>> After missing 500m BOPs? Somehow I doubt that.
>
>500m!? No more like 200. DS9 wouldn't even waste its time firing on
>TIE's they're so weak. They would fire on the ISD's and then go after
>any TIE's dumb enough to still be around.
They'd probably miss the ISDs, too :P If they can't hit a 200m ship at
point blank range, how are they going to hit a larger ship at a much longer
range?
Piett
Chris Wagner
> And finally, the reaon I hit the 'reply' button in the first
> place! I've been seeing my site address crop up here and
> there lately, and I was wondering if people are actually
> using it as a reference in versus threads? Considering how
> many hours I put into the damn thing, I'd be interested to
> know if anybody out there is actually paying attention?
Well I do. Its just a matter of getting people to go to the site to
check the calculations for themselves. What pisses me off is when SW
people use calcs and then take some BS ST figures to show that SW is
more powerful than ST.
Shameless plug:
http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/
http://pohl.ececs.uc.edu/~wagnerc/index.shtml
> (P.S. - I don't think I ever said a Runabout could slag
> a planet, but it could certainly destroy an ISD since it's
> immune to the LASER armament. But we won't go there :)
Oh come on Graham. Not even I buy that. I know you don't either.
> > What?!? Have you WATCHED the battle scenes in any great detail? There is
> > one particular shot where 3 BOPs fly in, and we get an above Ops view of the
> > station - looking down on the inner ring. We see several phaser beams fire
> > at these BOPs and quite clearly MISS.
>
> Or perhaps we see them fire PAST the BoP's, at something off-screen?
Yes, that is what it is. Plain as Plain and Simple Cronan. :P Whatever
happened to him?
> Anyway, like I said before I'm NOT going to get sucked back
> into this. I just thought I'd toss a few comments in since
> my name was mentioned.
Too late! In for a penny, in for a pound
Dark Lord Karno Dal
Chris Wagner wrote in message <35B413...@plebeian.com>...
Please take this out of rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc. this thread does not
belong here. Either confine it to the Trek tech group or take it to the vs.
newsgroup please.
May the Darkness be with you.....
Dark Lord Karno Dal
si...@lords.com
Chris Wagner
> >What show have you been watching? SF phasers *never* miss.
>
> Well, "Way of the Warrior" springs to mind. "Paradise Lost", where the
> Defiant MISSES the Lakota with Pulse Phasers from point blank range.
>
> I'm sorry, but Phasers DO miss. If you don't believe me, watch those
> episodes.
DS9's phasers never missed in WotW. In Paradise Lost, the Lakota never
missed the Defiant. The Defiant missed a few times but landed most of
its shots. The Defiant didn't have omnidirectional phasers. As with
all races with fixed fire weapons, they miss sometimes.
> >Because they are torpedoes and not missles. They are accelerated by the
> >mother ship, not their own power.
>
> They have their own power source, as does a missile. They are self-guided,
> as are missiles.
Their onboard power does not accelerate them or give them velocity in
any way. They can only maintain velocity handed off to them from the
firing ship. Being self guided or not doesn't make something a torpedo
or missle or not. The only difference is the firing method.
> And as soon as I find a good dictionary lying around I'll see how they
> define them.
Just go to http://www.m-w.com/
Main Entry: 1tor搆e搞o
Pronunciation: tor-'pE-(")dO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -does
Etymology: Latin, literally, stiffness, numbness, from torpEre to be
sluggish or numb -- more at TORPID
Date: circa 1520
1 : ELECTRIC RAY
2 : a weapon for destroying ships by rupturing their hulls below the
waterline: as a : a submarine mine b : a thin cylindrical self-propelled
underwater projectile
3 : a small firework that explodes when thrown against a hard object
4 : a professional gunman or assassin
5 : SUBMARINE 2
***
Main Entry: 1mis新ile
Pronunciation: 'mi-s&l, chiefly British -"sIl
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin missilis, from mittere to throw, send
Date: 1611
1 : capable of being thrown or projected to strike a distant object
2 : adapted for throwing or hurling missiles
Main Entry: 2missile
Function: noun
Date: circa 1656
: an object (as a weapon) thrown or projected usually so as to strike
something at a distance <stones, artillery shells, bullets, and rockets
are missiles>: as a : GUIDED MISSILE b : BALLISTIC MISSILE
So according to the dictionary, a torpedo is a "missle" that travels
through the medium in which the ship operates, to strike another ship.
But I still stick by the ST distinction that missles are self propelled
and torpedoes are not.
Anonymous
<wag...@plebeian.com> wrote:
>> Why the name calling? Getting a little hot under the collar?
>
>Yes. Juvenility irks the hell out of me.
Then quit being juvenile.
>> >Oh, RTOJ, TNG, DS9, you know, *everything*.
>>
>> Gee, that really narrows it down. Try citing specific examples.
>
>Sorry, I have *work*. No time for that level of being anal. :)
Typical.
>> What's wrong with the tech manual? And what calculations from the ST
>> side are you referring to? The bogus crap on Graham Kennedy's web
>> site?
>
>The tech manual is wrong on almost everything.
Such as?
>Non-cannon.
According to whom?
> GK's website is not bogus. Redo the calculations yourself. I defy you.
You mean like his arbitrary determination that the Enterprise's phaser
output is 100,000 TW?
Piett
>Oh God, I'm answering another one now!
LOL. Nasty, aren't they? I hate them, personally. I have a cigarrette
like addiction to them, however.
>> >> of AM fuel that the E-D can actually carry.
>> >
>> >Yes it does.
>>
>> Care to back this up with anything more than a statement?
>
>If the E-D held only 12,500 tons of antimatter (the same
>as the ammount of deuterium-matter it holds), then it
>could hold a million TeraWatt output for 26 days straight.
Only 26 days? That isn't long enough to be a praticle fuel source. We've
seen Voyager at space now for 4 years, and I don't think there has been any
mention of them needing to pick up more AM.
And there are Federation spaceships on deepspace patrol for years at a time.
The USS Aries springs to mind. They must use less than a million TW
>> >Look at http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk/ for all the skinny.
>>
>> Ah, Graeme Kennedy's site. I've debated ST vs. SW with Mr. Kennedy for a
>> while. Unfortunately, he maintained that by his calculations, a SF
runabout
>> could wax a SSD without being destroyed. Of course, if we assumed that,
>> then we also have to assume that a SF runabout could destroy the entire
>> surface of a planet in less time than it takes an ISD to do so.
>
>It's only a small thing, but considering you debated with
>me for 'a while' and have apparently visited my site, you
>might at least spell my name right... but never mind.
Hmm...forgive me with that one. I tend to spell "Graham" as Graeme, even
when I see the other spelling. Same way I normally spell Jeffrey and
Geoffrey. Its a curse.
>And finally, the reaon I hit the 'reply' button in the first
>place! I've been seeing my site address crop up here and
>there lately, and I was wondering if people are actually
>using it as a reference in versus threads? Considering how
>many hours I put into the damn thing, I'd be interested to
>know if anybody out there is actually paying attention?
I find it interesting on an intellectual level. I also appreciate the way
you divide it between canon, official and mere extrapolation :). However,
much of the information is from the TM - which is generally agreed upon to
be somewhat shakey as far as canon goes.
>(P.S. - I don't think I ever said a Runabout could slag
>a planet, but it could certainly destroy an ISD since it's
>immune to the LASER armament. But we won't go there :)
Heh. Ok. I'll go no further than saying SW weaponry is plasma based.
Nothing more to say. Nope.
>> >Not like an ISD. Worf only needs to pick a target and hit "fire". ISD
>> >gunners have to manually move the physical weapon. SF phasers *never*
>> >miss. In WotW, DS9's phasers never missed one Klingon ship.
>>
>> What?!? Have you WATCHED the battle scenes in any great detail? There
is
>> one particular shot where 3 BOPs fly in, and we get an above Ops view of
the
>> station - looking down on the inner ring. We see several phaser beams
fire
>> at these BOPs and quite clearly MISS.
>
>Or perhaps we see them fire PAST the BoP's, at something off-screen?
When the fleet was anchored and blasting away out to the right of the
screen? That seems something of a stretch. Given that half a few of the
beams hit one of the BOPs. Shouldn't they have at least TRIED to hit all of
them?
>> And the Photon torps apparently are self-guided. They SHOULD have hit.
>
>Same argument. Photon torps have a range in the millions of km.
>They could easily have been off to break things and hurt people
>we couldn't see.
We see most of the Klingon fleet at one stage or another - they aren't
millions of KM away, and the Photon torp launcher was spewing them in a
straight line (from which they didn't seem to deviate).
>> Some of
>> >the photorps missed but that is a different weapon system. The Klingons
>> >also missed some but they use fixed fire disruptors.
>>
>> Then the angle of the ship would have been changed. And not all of the
>> ships were using fixed mount weapons - the Neg'Var (sp?) certainly
wasn't.
>
>Most Trekkers (and certainly me) say that the Federation hardly
>ever miss. Certainly the Klingons do, as do many other Trek species.
I'd have to keep my own opinions about this. I see nothing in WotW to back
up any idea that there were ships out at that position to be fired at.
>> >> 20-30% advantage? How do you back this up? I haven't seen any firm
>> >> estimates as to ST weapons strength.
>> >
>> >Look at that website I gave. It is still a fair possibility that a ISD
>> >could take out a Galaxy but it would be hard. I was estimating based on
>> >my own observations.
>>
>> Likewise. Mine say an ISD could wax a GCS.
>
>Bah, humbug I say!
>
>Anyway, like I said before I'm NOT going to get sucked back
>into this. I just thought I'd toss a few comments in since
>my name was mentioned.
Fair enough, i'd do the same in your shoes. I don't expect I reply, so we
should just agree to disagree :P.
Piett
Piett
<snip>
Sorry Chris, but if you want to continue this debate please take it into the
vs. NG. I don't want to end up spamming all over RAST and RASSM.
Piett
Nicholas Buenk
Anonymous wrote in message <35b41a84....@news.earthlink.net>...
Yes, using the same methods the the turbolaser SW site uses
Wayne Poe
On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Chris Wagner wrote:
> Wayne Poe wrote:
> >
> > Well hell..if everyone is going to post Trek vs Wars web sites, take a
> > look at my "Ultimate Starwars vs. Startrek FAQ" at:
> >
> > http://h4h.com/louis
> Give me a break!!! You site is about as biased against ST as the KKK is
> against interracial marriage.
Give ME a break; your above comment is has no basis at all. Everything on
my site was taken directly from the newsgroups from real Trek and Wars
fans over the past three years. I visited no less than 15 "Startrek vs.
Starwars" sites before I put mine up, and ALL of them, every single one,
had an incredibly heavy Trek bias. You WILL NOT find another web site that
compares Trek and Wars tech, weaponry, etc. that gives equal footing to
both. And that includes Kennedy's site.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Visit the LM-480 Galaxy! *Ultimate Starwars vs.Startrek FAQ
http://h4h.com/louis *Stunt Island movies
lo...@h4h.com *Beavis and Buttlead cartoon
*Star Wars Collectibles
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Mike
>
> Fair enough, i'd do the same in your shoes. I don't expect I reply, so we
> should just agree to disagree :P.
>
That's a good way to look at it. If you intend to continue disagreeing
_vocally_ then we here at RASSM would really appreciate if you'd do it
in alt.startrek-vs-starwars, 'kay?
Thanks in advance :)
--
-Mike
Unofficial Master of the Twist
Mike's word of the Day: "Undulate"
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| (-o-) Member, LFB, ULC, and EAC [(o.o)] |
| "Your brother has not done justice to your beauty with his words. |
| You are the spitting image of Thelma from Scooby Doo!" |
| -The Tick |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Visit my adequate website! | \||// |
|http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/2352/index.html | |O O| |
|------------------------------------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo|
| There are no rules here, We're | Funkulous: noun; a cyborg |
| trying to accomplish something! | mathmatical theory merging |
| -Thomas A. Edison | calculous and disco. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
"After all, we have all been nonexistent most of the time since the
universe came about. Nonexistence seems to be the normal state of
consciousness; existence is just an anomaly."
-Magnus Henriksson
- .... . -.-. --- -- .--. ..- - . .-. .. ... .- -- --- .-. --- -.
Brian Mueller
Edition, Copyright (C) 1982 and 1975, 1977, 1979 by Simon & Schuster,
a Division of Gulf & Western Corporation. ISBN # 0-671-4186-5.
[begin quote, page 788]
torpedo n. pl. -does [L., numbness < torpere, to be stiff] 1. same as
ELECTRIC RAY 2. a large, cigar-shaped, self-propelled projectile
launched under water against enemy ships as from a submarine: it
explodes on contact 3. any of various other explosive devices, as an
underwater mine 4. a small firework that explodes when thrown against
a hard surface -vt. -doed, -doing to attack, destroy, etc. as with a
torpedo
[end quote page 788]
[begin quote page 479]
missile adj. [L. missillis < pp. of mittere, to send] that can be, or
is, thrown or shot -n. a weapon or other object, as a spear, bullet,
rocket, etc. designed to be thrown or launched toward a target, often,
specif., a guided missile
[end quote page 479]
Maybe what we need is the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm sure the
library has a copy but I need to get on a bus to go there. Anyone own
a copy?
----
Brian Mueller
E-mail: mulder78 at ix dot netcom dot com
20 year old male, heterosexual, single,
in Morgan Hill, California, USA
(ten miles south of San Jose, California)
Michael Wong
<gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm not about to get into a versus thread again, but in the
>original pilot episode I distinctly remember a junior officer
>saying that they could rig a laser battery to ships power...
>"enough to blast an entire continent". The timeframe wasn't
>mentioned, but it's probably hours if not minutes or even
>seconds. That's far beyond what any TIE fighter has ever been
>seen to do.
Observed effects, Graham, OBSERVED EFFECTS. None of this ever
actually happened, so we don't know whether they were exaggerating or
not. Until a boast becomes a fait accompli, it doesn't mean anything.
>I have no idea what warsies claim for their weapons these days,
>as I grew frustrated with their inability to follow simple logic
>a long time ago and gave up on the whole thing :) But the E-D's
>Type X phasers put out at LEAST 100,000 TeraWatts, not (!!NOT!!)
>1.05 GigaWatts. This is easily confirmed by many different
>sources. If anybody is interested, you can go to
>http://www.adeadend.demon.co.uk and click on the blue button
>marked 'power' at the bottom of the screen.
You mean the page where you ludicrously claim that a pellet-type
fusion reactor will create steady-state power even though the TM
specifically uses the term "instantaneous power" (don't you know what
that term means?) A real pellet-type fusion reactor will only create
a <1 microsecond power spike followed by ZERO WATTS until the next
pellet hits the chamber, Graham. Do some research before you spew
misinformation.
This is the same website where you claim that MJ = MW for the purposes
of "analyzing" the TM power chart, right? Where you assume that 3000
cubic metres of antideuterium are equal to 62,500 cubic metres of
deuterium, and it never even OCCURS to you that the excess deuterium
is used in the fusion reactor rather than the crew finding some
magical source of antideuterium to react with it all?
Are you talking about the same website where you calculate 1000-3000
TW based on "Q Who" and "Legacy" but throw BOTH numbers out the window
(even though Laforge says that the phasers are on maximum power in
"Legacy") in favour of your totally non-canon 100,000 TW number?
Let's do some REAL analysis of the TM, rather than using your insane
assumptions that MW = MJ and instantaneous power = steady state power.
Let's assume that the Enterprise's 3000 cubic metre storage capacity
is full of antideuterium stored at 13.8K (never mind the virtual
impossibility of actually storing antideuterium in a magnetic
containment field). This would mean that they are carrying roughly
500 metric tons of antideuterium- not bad. This works out to roughly
9E22 joules of energy, assuming perfect 100% efficiency (which, of
course, is impossible although I notice that you conspicuously ignore
this little fact of reality).
This correlates well with the 1E21 J figure from the TM (which you
ALSO conspicuously ignored), and it means that the three-year fuel
supply must have a projected average consumption rate of roughly 950
TW (remember, we are still assuming 100% efficiency- the net power
might be a fraction of that). If 10% of this goes to combat systems
(half to shields and half to phasers) then the phasers have a maximum
of ~50 TW available to them. If we imagine that they spike up ten
times in emergency situations, they might be able to put out 500 TW (I
use an estimate of 600 TW on my web page out of fairness to Trek,
although attempts at fairness are never reciprocated by insanely
one-sided Trek fans such as yourself). My numbers are based on a far
more realistic analysis of their fuel reserves than your numbers, and
my numbers are within an order of magnitude of your own calculated
numbers from "Q Who" and "Legacy", which gives them further credence.
Finally, a starship can survive roughly 3000 TJ of stellar radiation
(as seen from their 5-minute survival time in the corona of a star,
which works out to about 3000 TJ), which doesn't make any sense if
they can withstand millions of TW of phaser power. However, a 3000 TJ
limit WOULD make sense in the context of a 600 TW phaser, wouldn't it?
5 seconds of full-power firing to bring down a flagship's shields
sounds about right.
I know you'll find some excuse to ignore these numbers in favour of
the bigger numbers because that's what you do, but I would like to see
you explain your assertion that for every kg of deuterium, they
magically find a source of antideuterium to react with it, even though
the antideuterium storage is only 1/21 the volume of the deuterium
storage.
>So far as I am aware (and I have kept an eye out for some
>years now), it is extremely rare for Starfleet ships crewed
>by Starfleet crews to miss. I only know of the following
>examples :
That's because they don't shoot unless they get a target-lock. Other
races miss all the time (the Borg, the Klingons, the Dominion), and
those races do quite well against the Federation when they go
head-to-head so they must not have a huge technological disadvantage.
>Defiant - which seems to miss with the first few bursts,
>practically every time. This is most likely because its
>weapons are fixed-axis, rather than steerable.
And yet, in spite of this "problem", it is an extremely effective
combat ship. This doesn't make you question your "no fighters"
belief?
In ST Generations the Klingon BOP missed the 600 metre long
Enterprise-D at LEAST 4 times (I've got three misses as screenshots on
my webpage). In "Q Who" the Borg cube also missed the 600 metre long
Enterprise-D. Find me one incident in SW where they missed a 600
metre long ship.
Michael Wong
<gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> But we have to take into account RNE/NDF before assuming any total power.
>Actually, some of the time we don't. Trek ships have been
>seen to melt rock with their weapons, rather than blasting
>it into the next continuum. And the power levels still work
>out in the 100,000 TW range.
Usually, Trek ships just blast rock into neutrinos (or into the next
continuum, whichever explanation you prefer). There haven't been a
whole lot of melting incidents. The "Pegasus" incident was not
melting- the rock was obviously solid, or it would have been
coagulating into blobs and floating in random directions rather than
forming a non-moving wall. If it was liquid, it couldn't have cooled
to solid so quickly (in a few seconds), and if it was still liquid or
even soft solid, the Enterprise should have been able to PUSH through
it if it is as strong as you say.
>> Actually, he said "....12.75 million per..." and then is cut off before he
>> can give the amount of time.
>Time is irrelevant when speaking of power figures - a watt is
>defined as 'one joule per second'. If Data was going on to
>add anything, it could therefore ONLY be a multiplier. Something
>like "...per antimatter injector" (there are three) or "...per
>nacelle" (two).
That's ridiculous- they have one warp core, which generates the power.
Data obviously made a simple unit-mistake, and meant to say GJ instead
of GW. I know you'll say Data doesn't make mistakes, but he DOES. In
the episode with the Bozeman he thought they could push it away with
the tractor beam to avoid a collision, and he was wrong. In "Pegasus"
he thought the asteroid would collapse with sufficient force to
destroy the Enterprise, when any first-year physics student knows that
the gravitational field of a 10km asteroid is actually negligible.
That's TWICE that he was wrong, and if one goes through the entire
canon very carefully I'm sure you can find more incidents.
The fact is that they simply don't carry enough antideuterium on their
ship to put out 12.75 billion GW on a steady-state basis- they would
run out of fuel in a couple of hours.
>If the E-D held only 12,500 tons of antimatter (the same
>as the ammount of deuterium-matter it holds), then it
>could hold a million TeraWatt output for 26 days straight.
Where did you learn math? 12,500 tons of antimatter in 3000 cubic
metres? That's an average density of 4200 kg/m^3, which is higher
than the density of many SOLID materials! It's also more than an
order of magnitude higher than the density at which they can store
deuterium- since when is deuterium harder to store than ANTIdeuterium?
It really never occurred to you that the excess deuterium was for the
fusion reactor in the impulse engine, did it?
>It's only a small thing, but considering you debated with
>me for 'a while' and have apparently visited my site, you
>might at least spell my name right... but never mind.
And you might at least spell "weaponry" right on your web page.
>And finally, the reaon I hit the 'reply' button in the first
>place! I've been seeing my site address crop up here and
>there lately, and I was wondering if people are actually
>using it as a reference in versus threads? Considering how
>many hours I put into the damn thing, I'd be interested to
>know if anybody out there is actually paying attention?
I'll make an effort to be civil, and tell you that your site looks
very very nice, and it looks like you did indeed put a lot of work
into it. On that count, I must confess that you should be
congratulated. However, your analysis of power output contains a LOT
of scientific inaccuracies (your assumptions that instantaneous power
= steady state power, MJ = MW in the TM power chart, and that their
supply of antideuterium is stored at 21 times the density of their
supply of deuterium being the most objectionable ones). It also
contains almost no effort whatsoever to reconcile the contradictions
(eg. between "Legacy", "Q Who" and your final number which is many
orders of magnitude larger than BOTH), which would not exist anyway if
your previous analysis had been more accurate.
>(P.S. - I don't think I ever said a Runabout could slag
>a planet, but it could certainly destroy an ISD since it's
>immune to the LASER armament. But we won't go there :)
You're still carrying on with the twin-pronged "no laser" and
"turbolasers are lasers" argument? Both of those arguments have been
proven wrong so many times it isn't even funny. But then again, what
should we expect from someone who thinks a pellet reactor will make
steady-state power, and that antideuterium can be stored at the
density of rock?
>> What?!? Have you WATCHED the battle scenes in any great detail? There is
>> one particular shot where 3 BOPs fly in, and we get an above Ops view of the
>> station - looking down on the inner ring. We see several phaser beams fire
>> at these BOPs and quite clearly MISS.
>Or perhaps we see them fire PAST the BoP's, at something off-screen?
Very weak explanation Graham, even for you. What would be the point
of showing phasers flying by a target that they aren't even intended
to hit? Those were obviously misses- if you use that logic, then
every miss in SW might have simply been aimed at something off-screen.
>> And the Photon torps apparently are self-guided. They SHOULD have hit.
>Same argument. Photon torps have a range in the millions of km.
>They could easily have been off to break things and hurt people
>we couldn't see.
Same argument could apply to every SW miss in history. It's a
facetious argument, for either universe.
>Most Trekkers (and certainly me) say that the Federation hardly
>ever miss. Certainly the Klingons do, as do many other Trek species.
And why do those species still fare well against the Federation?
>> Likewise. Mine say an ISD could wax a GCS.
>Bah, humbug I say!
OBSERVED EFFECTS. Based on the OBSERVED CAPABILITIES of a GCS, it
cannot survive an attack from an ISD. Your hyper-analysis of snippets
of dialogue and idle boasts from Federation crewmen does not carry the
weight of validity, any more than a bunch of idle boasts from U.S.
Marines could be regarded as scientifically valid analysis of U.S.
military capabilities. Until they actually DO something, we have no
evidence that they can do it regardless of boasts to the contrary.
If the DS was described as being capable of destroying a planet but it
never survived long enough to do it, you would NEVER allow SW fans the
luxury of assuming that it was actually capable of doing the job. The
incredibly one-sided, illogical, and unscientific behaviour of
Trekkies is exemplified perfectly in you, Graham.
>Anyway, like I said before I'm NOT going to get sucked back
>into this. I just thought I'd toss a few comments in since
>my name was mentioned.
Instead of tossing in unsubstantiated comments, try updating your web
page so that it isn't an insult to science and logic anymore.
Michael Wong
<gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>E=mc^2, so turning 1 million Terawatts (1e18 W) burns up
>1e18 / 9e16, or 11.111 kg per second. That's 40 tons per
>hour, not 500!
The original poster's numbers were wrong, but yours aren't much
better- you are still assuming perfect efficiency and zero costs for
operating the reactor. Instead of calling these numbers "estimates"
you should refer to them as upper limits.
Of course, at 40 tons per hour, this means the Enterprise-D would
consume its entire fuel supply in about 12 hours. Something you
obviously didn't notice (but why should you- you assume that they can
store antideuterium at the density of rock, even though the TM
specifically states that they store deuterium at 13.8K in slush form).
>So a million TW could easily be sustained for a few
>months or so just on the fuel.
Wrong. If we use a reasonable density for the antideuterium (say, 140
kg/m^3 multiplied by the 3000 cubic metre total storage capacity),
they can only carry 420 tons of antideuterium. That's less than 12
hours of capacity. Please justify your claim that they can store
antideuterium at the density of rock.
>Only on the Defiant, which uses fixed-axis cannon. On occasion we
>have seen phasers fire PAST one ship, to hit another that was
>off-screen.
If they didn't show the phasers hit anything, we cannot assume that
they did. You continue to assume that anything not shown should be
assumed to occur in the manner most favourable to Star Trek- not a
particularly scientific attitude, but that's what I've come to expect
from you. Maybe someday when you get a real education you'll see the
problem with your reasoning.
BTW, didn't you notice that Trek is moving TOWARDS fixed-axis cannons?
The futuristic E-D in "All Good Things" had a big fixed-axis cannon.
As their firepower increases they are forced to use beam weapons with
actual fixed-axis barrels (similar to the turret weapons employed on
the far more sophisticated ISD's). This makes sense, since the high
momentum of very high-energy weapons makes the GCS-style phaser array
impractical. A GCS-style phaser array only makes sense if it doesn't
have to carry a lot of energy, otherwise momentum effects would spin
the ship around like a top.
Michael Wong
<wag...@plebeian.com> wrote:
>> We still haven't ever seen a powerful planetary shield in Trek at all.
>> We've seen shields that could stop beaming in/out, but not shields
>> that could deflect bombardment. The massive scale of the shield may
>> overwhelm Fed capabilities. There's a big difference between
>> shielding a small space station and shielding a planet!
>Watch "When the Bough Breaks". The Aldeans had a planetary shield *and*
>cloak centuries ahead of anything the Feds had. I don't think it would
>be beyond the Fed's technology to make a planetary shield given a
>reasonable amount of time.
So if someone ELSE has it, then the Feds have it by definition? I
think you already know how unsupportable that claim is. You can't say
that it's centuries ahead of Fed technology in one sentence and then
say that the Feds are inches away from developing it in the next
sentence- it doesn't look quite right.
>> How? Those Star Destroyers all hung in the Hoth asteroid field for
>> several days under murderous bombardment (roughly 1 asteroid per
>> second, if you watch the movie and count during the close-up scenes),
>> and only one of them was damaged.
>
>I wouldn't say "several days". Maybe three max. Probably only 1
>because I don't think it would have take Han that long to figure out
>they were in the belly of that space creature.
Remember that Darth Vader summoned bounty hunters from all over the
galaxy to the isolated Hoth system, and they arrived, all while the
ships were in the field. If the ships weren't in that field for
several days, then hyperdrive is far faster than even most SW fans
have been estimating. IG-88 was there, and he was known to
EXCLUSIVELY work the core sectors. It would have been at least 30,000
light years to reach Hoth from his normal base of operations- if he
made the trip in 1 day, then hyperdrive goes at over 10 million c. In
other words, if you don't think they were in there for very long, how
fast do you think hyperdrive is?
>> That's quite contrary to the evidence. Even the tiny MF withstood
>> numerous turbolaser blasts (of the same variety used to vaporize
>> asteroids), so the shields of a large capship are obviously much more
>> formidable.
>RTOJ. The SSD/ISD's shields didn't seem very impressive at all.
You mean, when they collapsed after 20 minutes (onscreen, probably
more in actual elapsed time) of full-blown battle? How long do most
Fed starships last under bombardment? 2 minutes? Even the fighters
were hurling thermonuclear weapons at the big capships in that battle
(read the ROTJ novelization), and these swarms of nukes had only a
negligible effect.
>> I don't believe that's what he said at all. He just said that it
>> could do it easily. And since the Dominion had over a year to prepare
>> their defenses, it's no big deal that they could build fairly heavy
>> defenses there. The DS2 was 60% built in less than 6 months, and it
>I don't know about that. It seems more likely that they were building 2
>or more from the get go.
Wrong. DS2 construction started after the battle of Hoth (from
Shadows Of The Empire). 6 months.
>> makes the "power moon" look pathetic. Taking out the power moon
>> wouldn't be necessary. Simply blow up the planet from 40 million km
>> away.
>Hey now, you're starting to make some sense. You could never make it as
>a writer! :) But really, the point was to capture the system, not just
>blow it up.
Well, that's what the Feds wanted. Being "bad guys", the Imperials
would have just blown it up right? :)
Wayne Poe
On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Chris Wagner wrote:
> > Riker than said "That's more power than our entire ship can generate."
> > And that is a DIRECT quote. Just listening to as I type.
> Correct. He was talking about the COMM power of the entire ship, not
> the warp core.
LOL!! Spoken like a true zealot.
Graham Kennedy
>
> On Mon, 20 Jul 1998, Chris Wagner wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Well hell..if everyone is going to post Trek vs Wars web sites, take a
> > > look at my "Ultimate Starwars vs. Startrek FAQ" at:
> > >
> > > http://h4h.com/louis
>
> > Give me a break!!! You site is about as biased against ST as the KKK is
> > against interracial marriage.
>
> Give ME a break; your above comment is has no basis at all. Everything on
> my site was taken directly from the newsgroups from real Trek and Wars
> fans over the past three years. I visited no less than 15 "Startrek vs.
> Starwars" sites before I put mine up, and ALL of them, every single one,
> had an incredibly heavy Trek bias. You WILL NOT find another web site that
> compares Trek and Wars tech, weaponry, etc. that gives equal footing to
> both. And that includes Kennedy's site.
It certainly does, because Kennedy's site makes no attempt to
compare Trek to Wars AT ALL! The only place Star Wars is
mentioned in in the fictional story I put on, which (as the
Foreword makes perfectly clear) is not intended to make any
serious comparison between the two. I quit the whole 'versus'
thing months ago so I could put more time into the site.
--
Graham Kennedy