Tech Level for Kryptonian Civilization?
erincss
the destruction of Krypton, shown in the Superman movies? Around TL 16? Less?
More?
It seems they could at least: 1 Grow crystalline materials in any pattern and
shape they desired, this means some form of nanotech or greater manufacturing
technology. 2 Store energy and information in these crystalline materials.
Bryan Maloney
news:20011114024124...@mb-fi.aol.com:
> What Tech Level would you say the Kryptonian civilization had reached
> before the destruction of Krypton, shown in the Superman movies? Around
> TL 16? Less? More?
They are at the Plot Device Tech Level.
--
"Why then did the passengers on the plane that went down near Pittsburgh
decide to resist the hijackers and prevent them from completing their
mission? Because they knew: their relatives had told them by cell phone that
the World Trade Center had already been attacked by hijacked planes. They
were armed with final awareness of the nature of the evil they faced.
So armed, they could act. So armed, they did."
--Time Magazine
Bruce Grubb
eri...@aol.com (erincss) wrote:
It's hard to say because we are given so little to work with. One thing to
keep in mind is that the movie Kryptonian may be the product of divergent TL
(Introduced in Steampunk) In the comics of the time (were talking pre-Bryne
here) Krypton's technology was all over the place making it very hard to pin
down.
I tend to be very conservative in picking TLs - find the *lowest* TL that
makes the majority of things work and assume that the exceptions were unusial
breakthroughs. Using this method Star Trek is TL 9-11 depending on what
series one is watching, Star Wars is TL 8-9, and Robotech is TL 9 (accually
TL 7+2 for Earth)
Now here is how I came to those TLs: Spaceships are TL 8-9, FTL is 9-11,
cold fusion is 9 with Antimatter 10-12, and Cloning is 8.
Star Trek
In the original Star Trek pilot 'The Cage' one of the crew comments that "The
time barrier has been broken" This originally ment that Warp Drive had just
been invented though the Movies have since retconed this: in any case
Transportation in Pike's time is just getting into 9 in the original series.
There is no evidence for and pleanty against panimmuity (Requium for
Methusilam, For the World is hollow and I have Touched the Sky, Journey to
Eden), braintapes (Spock Brain), longevity (Deadly Years) in the original
Star Trek - about the only TL 9 Medicine development that acually pops up is
suspended animation (Space Seed) and that was accually a TL 7 tweek (ie TL
7+2).
Force Screens in the form of deflectors are the only TL 11 device that shows
up in the orignal series and can be written off as TL 9+2 for the most part.
The only oddball in all this is the Transporter: TL 14. So Star Trek for the
most part fits in the 9-11 range.
Star Wars.
There is no evidence of Antimater (TL 10-12) in the Star Wars universe which
caps their Power TL at 9, simially there is no evidence in the first three
movies of brain tapes or regular use of Suspended Animation (the corbinite
was a Kludge and noted as a dangerous one at that) which caps Medicine at 8,
FTL seems to somewhat primitive to Star Trek so it at 9. This all results in
Star Trek being only TL 8-9.
So If I had to give Krypton a TL I would say TL 8-9 with transportantion in
the Pre-Crisis being a 7-8 (Their space program was beyond pathatic)
Xiphias Gladius
> What Tech Level would you say the Kryptonian civilization had reached before
> the destruction of Krypton, shown in the Superman movies? Around TL 16? Less?
> More?
If it was TL 16, the destruction of their planet wouldn't have been a big
problem.
I'd say TL 12 or 13. But it could have been as low as 10, really.
- Ian
--
Have you ever spent days and days and days making up flavors of ice cream
that no one's ever eaten before? Like chicken and telephone ice cream?
Green mouse ice cream was the worst. I didn't like that at all. -- Delirium
JefWilson
>What Tech Level would you say the Kryptonian civilization had reached before
>the destruction of Krypton, shown in the Superman movies? Around TL 16? Less?
>More?
There was insufficient information given to make a determination.
>It seems they could at least: 1 Grow crystalline materials in any pattern and
>shape they desired, this means some form of nanotech or greater manufacturing
>technology. 2 Store energy and information in these crystalline materials.
We can do 1 right now and if we can't do 2 are very close to it.
Jeff A. Wilson
http://members.aol.com/JefWilson/rpg/
Ray Cochener
"JefWilson" <jefw...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011114105839...@nso-bg.aol.com...
since diodes are quartz crystals with special properties, and those can be
used to construct logic gates, which are used to construct registers, we
*do* store data in crystals.
Douglas Berry
eri...@aol.com (erincss) warmed at our fire and told this tale:
>What Tech Level would you say the Kryptonian civilization had reached before
>the destruction of Krypton, shown in the Superman movies? Around TL 16? Less?
>More?
Well, they are obviously severly restricted in space travel. The most
advanced piece of equipment they seemed to have was the Phantom Zone
Projector, so what TL is a device that can knock someone into another
dimension?
>It seems they could at least: 1 Grow crystalline materials in any pattern and
>shape they desired, this means some form of nanotech or greater manufacturing
>technology. 2 Store energy and information in these crystalline materials.
We are real close on both of these now.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
David Johnston
Actually it meant that Fast FTL drive had just been invented. Obviously they
had Slow FTL drive, because the first ship was there in the first place.
>
> There is no evidence for and pleanty against panimmuity (Requium for
> Methusilam, For the World is hollow and I have Touched the Sky, Journey to
> Eden), braintapes (Spock Brain), longevity (Deadly Years) in the original
> Star Trek - about the only TL 9 Medicine development that acually pops up is
> suspended animation (Space Seed) and that was accually a TL 7 tweek (ie TL
> 7+2).
>
> Force Screens in the form of deflectors are the only TL 11 device that shows
> up in the orignal series and can be written off as TL 9+2 for the most part.
What about the phasers?
> The only oddball in all this is the Transporter: TL 14. So Star Trek for the
> most part fits in the 9-11 range.
>
> Star Wars.
>
> There is no evidence of Antimater (TL 10-12) in the Star Wars universe which
> caps their Power TL at 9, simially there is no evidence in the first three
> movies of brain tapes or regular use of Suspended Animation (the corbinite
> was a Kludge and noted as a dangerous one at that) which caps Medicine at 8,
> FTL seems to somewhat primitive to Star Trek so it at 9.
It isn't. Star Wars FTL enables them to fly all over the galaxy in a reasonably
short period of time.
This all results in
> Star Trek being only TL 8-9.
>
> So If I had to give Krypton a TL I would say TL 8-9 with transportantion in
> the Pre-Crisis being a 7-8 (Their space program was beyond pathatic)
You are assuming suspended animation?
Void Monkey
It depends on which of the various Superman stories you are using as the basis
for your version of Krypton. Superman's comic version is, as someone else
said, widely varied (probably because different writers/artists have worked on
it over the last however many years), while in the films they had FTL travel
(Superman left an infant and arrived a relatively young man...), and
crystalline computers which don't seem to be able to do all that much that we
can't do now (however, remember that the movies are rather dated). The Warner
Bros. animated series is the most recent incarnation of Superman, and they've
furthered Krypton's history yet again. For all intents and purposes just
assume that Krypton is 1-3 TLs ahead of earth with the crystal structures being
mostly a special effect.
Bryan J. Maloney
voidm...@aol.com (Void Monkey) wrote:
> furthered Krypton's history yet again. For all intents and purposes just
> assume that Krypton is 1-3 TLs ahead of earth with the crystal structures
> being
> mostly a special effect.
>
Exactly. The spaceship story originally comes from about 1940 (maybe
1939), when there had not been a single manned rocket flight (as far as
I know), and certainly not even an orbit. Eventually, Krypton's TL got
to the point that one had to invent plot devices to explain why they
didn't just move everybody off the planet in the blink of an eye.
--
"A 'Cape Cod Salsa' just isn't right."
Leszek Karlik
disseminated foul capitalist propaganda:
[...]
> Star Wars.
>
> There is no evidence of Antimater (TL 10-12) in the Star Wars universe which
> caps their Power TL at 9,
Are you kidding? Star Wars power sources are much more efficient than
mere antimatter, which probably puts them at TL 14+ power-cell
level. Magical power technology, obviously.
Detalied analysis of power of Star Wars universe devices can be found
on the Star Wars Technical Commentaries page: http://www.theforce.net/swtc/
> simially there is no evidence in the first three
> movies of brain tapes or regular use of Suspended Animation (the corbinite
> was a Kludge and noted as a dangerous one at that) which caps
> Medicine at 8,
Braintaping ought to be somewhere about TL 14. And anyway, there _IS_
braintaping in the Star Wars universe - braintaping or at least forced
learning used by clones - but the Force has a very severe impact on
clones.
So no, medicine is higher.
> FTL seems to somewhat primitive to Star Trek so it at 9.
How do you define 'somewhat primitive'? Hyperdrive is vastly superior
in speeds to Star Trek hyperdrive - in Star Wars, drives capable of
crossing the entire galaxy in under a month exist, and Millenium
Falcon is even faster than that.
Really, read Star Wars Technical Commentaries and be enlightened. :))
(Besides, it's a really swell piece of analysis of the movies.)
Leslie
--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik; ailurophile by trade; SNAFU TANJ TANSTAAFL; /^\ lk
Do you want to join the Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria? / (*) \
Put $ 3,125.00 in a cigar box and bury it in your backyard. / \
One of our *Underground* Agents will contact you shortly. /_____________\
Brad Carletti
>can't do now (however, remember that the movies are rather dated). The Warner
Didn't the Krypton computer have some sort of duplicate of his father?
--
Brad Carletti
"However, it is important not to stare at the enemy
because he may sense the stalker's presence through
a sixth sense."
- US Army Field Manual 21-150 Chapter 7 "Sentry Removal"
Bruce Grubb
Leszek Karlik <les...@fnord.ideefixe.nom.pl> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 06:20:02 -0700, Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com>
>disseminated foul capitalist propaganda:
>
>[...]
>
>> Star Wars.
>>
>> There is no evidence of Antimater (TL 10-12) in the Star Wars universe which
>> caps their Power TL at 9,
>
>Are you kidding? Star Wars power sources are much more efficient than
>mere antimatter, which probably puts them at TL 14+ power-cell
>level. Magical power technology, obviously.
In the context of the orignal three movies we don't really see anything that
suggests anything beyond simple cold fusion power (TL 9). I would like to
point out that efficiency in of itself doesn't indicate anything. A ounce
(2.5 grams) of pure antimatter can destroy an *entire planet* (TOS episode
Obsession)
>Detalied analysis of power of Star Wars universe devices can be found
>on the Star Wars Technical Commentaries page: http://www.theforce.net/swtc/
The web site is little hard to get to what one want to find out about.
>> simially there is no evidence in the first three
>> movies of brain tapes or regular use of Suspended Animation (the corbinite
>> was a Kludge and noted as a dangerous one at that) which caps
>> Medicine at 8,
>
>Braintaping ought to be somewhere about TL 14. And anyway, there _IS_
>braintaping in the Star Wars universe - braintaping or at least forced
>learning used by clones - but the Force has a very severe impact on
>clones.
Braintaping is not the same as forced learning. Braintaping is talking
everything that a person knows (skill mermories and eperience) and putting it
elsewhere.
>So no, medicine is higher.
>
>> FTL seems to somewhat primitive to Star Trek so it at 9.
>
>How do you define 'somewhat primitive'? Hyperdrive is vastly superior
>in speeds to Star Trek hyperdrive - in Star Wars, drives capable of
>crossing the entire galaxy in under a month exist, and Millenium
>Falcon is even faster than that.
Hyperdrive works by moving an object into hyperspace ie removing it from the
physical universe. Star Trek uses Warp drive which literally warps normal
space around it - the Gravity Drive in the movie Event Horizon is baced on a
similar consept. A Star Trek ship in Warp can react to changes in the
universe while a Star Wars spaceship is blind, deaf, and dumb until it
emerges from hyperspace.
Brad Carletti
>>mere antimatter, which probably puts them at TL 14+ power-cell
>>level. Magical power technology, obviously.
>
>In the context of the orignal three movies we don't really see anything that
>suggests anything beyond simple cold fusion power (TL 9). I would like to
>point out that efficiency in of itself doesn't indicate anything. A ounce
>(2.5 grams) of pure antimatter can destroy an *entire planet* (TOS episode
>Obsession)
"I've been from one side of this galaxy to another."
Attempt to quantify the means however you like.
>>How do you define 'somewhat primitive'? Hyperdrive is vastly superior
>>in speeds to Star Trek hyperdrive - in Star Wars, drives capable of
>>crossing the entire galaxy in under a month exist, and Millenium
>>Falcon is even faster than that.
>
>Hyperdrive works by moving an object into hyperspace ie removing it from the
>physical universe. Star Trek uses Warp drive which literally warps normal
>space around it - the Gravity Drive in the movie Event Horizon is baced on a
>similar consept. A Star Trek ship in Warp can react to changes in the
>universe while a Star Wars spaceship is blind, deaf, and dumb until it
>emerges from hyperspace.
Well, apart from the fact that the HoloNet works while in hyperspace,
the fact that it's possible to go from the Core worlds to the fringe
within 24 hours more than makes up for it.
How long's it going to take Voyager to get home?
Bruce Grubb
Actually Krypton's TL wasn't the problem its people were. Orignally Superman
was represative of the power all Kryptonians had even when they were on
Krypton. But as Superman's powers grew this explinaiton became harder and
harder to wrk with. Eventually it was replaced by the Superman gains his
power from the enviroment of Earth consept.
Krypton's TL in gneral and its space program in genreal became an increasing
disjointed mess as the silver age gave way to the Bronze age. For example in
one Silver Age story Jimmy Olsen uses a magic devide to allow Superman see
his parents. In typical Olsen manner he mess up when he writes down the wish
and instead of having 'Superman meet his parents' we wind up with 'Superman
mate his parents'. Result Superman get a trip bake in the past and get to
play Cupid for his parents. The story involves both his parents being
banished to space due to a rival for his mother framing them.
Simiarlly in the Bronze age story "May the Best World Win" (Action #574) we
are told that Krypton had 2 year Olympics with a world within its solar
system that had an extensive space program. Rad Zonon is the last survivor
of that world due to him being in space when Krypton's explosion resulted in
solar flairs that devistated his world.
This and similar stories created horrid logic problems for Superman's origin
as the whole reason Pre Crisis Jor-El was sending everything but the kitchen
sink into space was to test his rockets. But if Krytpon had had a space
program advanced enough that it could exile citizens to space then many of
Jor-El's testes make no sence. Similarly if Krypton was in regular contact
with space faring civilizations it still need all the equipment for handing
the ships coming in. This means the council had to have know about Jor-El's
forbidden experiments; why they never called him on the carpet for them is
beyond me.
Bruce Grubb
David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
From the information in GURPS Ultra Tech phaser are around TL 9.
>> The only oddball in all this is the Transporter: TL 14. So Star Trek for
>> the most part fits in the 9-11 range.
>>
>> Star Wars.
>>
>> There is no evidence of Antimater (TL 10-12) in the Star Wars universe which
>> caps their Power TL at 9, simially there is no evidence in the first three
>> movies of brain tapes or regular use of Suspended Animation (the corbinite
>> was a Kludge and noted as a dangerous one at that) which caps Medicine at 8,
>> FTL seems to somewhat primitive to Star Trek so it at 9.
>
>It isn't. Star Wars FTL enables them to fly all over the galaxy in a
>reasonably short period of time.
Star Wars hyperdrive works by moving the ship out of normal space and into
hyperspace. The problem with this is one is out of connect with the universe
(unless one is in turn with the force and someone fries a planet) while
traveling which can result in some really big problems when one arrive at the
intendend destination. Similarlly Star War ships cannot do combat in
hyperspace while Star Trek ships can battle in Warp.
>This all results in
>> Star Trek being only TL 8-9.
>>
>> So If I had to give Krypton a TL I would say TL 8-9 with transportantion in
>> the Pre-Crisis being a 7-8 (Their space program was beyond pathatic)
>
>You are assuming suspended animation?
Jor-el was a Gadgeteer so he could have produced a primative FTL as Superman
stated PreCrisis in Action #500. I should point out that in the comic at
least the trip is not a long one. Action #500 (Pre-Crisis) clearly stated
that Krypton was in the Milky Way galaxy. Action #600 (Post-crisis) not only
put Krypton within the Milky Way galaxy but within 40 light years of Earth
("Friend in Need" pg 7 panel 1)
There are many indirect references both Pre and Post crisis that clearly
put Krypton in the Milky Way galaxy. For example in the story "To Kill a
Hero" Robin looks at a normal star chart and decares that in that reality
the star which Krypton orbited around doesn't exist (clearly impossible if
Krypton was in a different galaxy). The 'Space Exile' and recent "From
Krypton to..." sagas both indicate that Krypton is within the Milky Way
galaxy.
David Johnston
> Braintaping is not the same as forced learning.
On the contrary. Being able to program learning directly into a human
brain IS the same thing as braintaping. The difference of course,
is that in the Star Wars universe a person is more than the sum of their
experiences.
> >So no, medicine is higher.
> >
> >> FTL seems to somewhat primitive to Star Trek so it at 9.
> >
> >How do you define 'somewhat primitive'? Hyperdrive is vastly superior
> >in speeds to Star Trek hyperdrive - in Star Wars, drives capable of
> >crossing the entire galaxy in under a month exist, and Millenium
> >Falcon is even faster than that.
>
> Hyperdrive works by moving an object into hyperspace ie removing it from the
> physical universe. Star Trek uses Warp drive which literally warps normal
> space around it - the Gravity Drive in the movie Event Horizon is baced on a
> similar consept. A Star Trek ship in Warp can react to changes in the
> universe while a Star Wars spaceship is blind, deaf, and dumb until it
> emerges from hyperspace.
Of course that has nothing to do with the relative sophistication of the
technologies involved, but rather with differences in what their
respective multiverses will allow. Even primitive Star Trek ftl drives operate
nothing like Star Wars drives. This is one of those cases where apples are
being compared to crankshafts.
Douglas Berry
Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>In the context of the orignal three movies we don't really see anything that
>suggests anything beyond simple cold fusion power (TL 9). I would like to
>point out that efficiency in of itself doesn't indicate anything. A ounce
>(2.5 grams) of pure antimatter can destroy an *entire planet* (TOS episode
>Obsession)
First lesson: Don't get your science from Star Trek.
If 2.5 grams of anti mater suddenly appeared in the Earth's core, it
would detonate with an energy of 2.25 x 10^14 Joules, or 53.8
kilotons. You'd get some some big disruptions on the surface, but the
planet would still be here.
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>First lesson: Don't get your science from Star Trek.
>
>If 2.5 grams of anti mater suddenly appeared in the Earth's core, it
>would detonate with an energy of 2.25 x 10^14 Joules, or 53.8
>kilotons. You'd get some some big disruptions on the surface, but the
>planet would still be here.
[*calculate*]
You're off by a factor of 2, I think. Forgot the 2.5 grams of
matter with which the antimatter will react?
Actually I rather doubt that a mere hundred-kiloton explosion deep
in the Earth's interior would cause much trouble on the surface,
though I am not a geologist. I'd think you'd need to put it closer
to the surface and preferably close to a fault line if you wanted
to do any damage, or it'd be like a fart in a hurricane.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
Bruce Grubb
guppy...@sagamers.com (Brad Carletti) wrote:
>>>Are you kidding? Star Wars power sources are much more efficient than
>>>mere antimatter, which probably puts them at TL 14+ power-cell
>>>level. Magical power technology, obviously.
>>
>>In the context of the orignal three movies we don't really see anything that
>>suggests anything beyond simple cold fusion power (TL 9). I would like to
>>point out that efficiency in of itself doesn't indicate anything. A ounce
>>(2.5 grams) of pure antimatter can destroy an *entire planet* (TOS episode
>>Obsession)
>
>"I've been from one side of this galaxy to another."
Which tells us nothing as there are some really compact galazies out there.
Remember the premice of Star Wars is a galazy far away (ie NOT the Milky Way)
and a long time ago (if long enough ago would mean a more compact galazy)
>Attempt to quantify the means however you like.
>
>>>How do you define 'somewhat primitive'? Hyperdrive is vastly superior
>>>in speeds to Star Trek hyperdrive - in Star Wars, drives capable of
>>>crossing the entire galaxy in under a month exist, and Millenium
>>>Falcon is even faster than that.
>>
>>Hyperdrive works by moving an object into hyperspace ie removing it from the
>>physical universe. Star Trek uses Warp drive which literally warps normal
>>space around it - the Gravity Drive in the movie Event Horizon is baced on a
>>similar consept. A Star Trek ship in Warp can react to changes in the
>>universe while a Star Wars spaceship is blind, deaf, and dumb until it
>>emerges from hyperspace.
>
>Well, apart from the fact that the HoloNet works while in hyperspace,
>the fact that it's possible to go from the Core worlds to the fringe
>within 24 hours more than makes up for it.
>
>How long's it going to take Voyager to get home?
The problem is that Star Trek was very inconsistant about this. In the
course of the three years Star Trek was shown the Enterprise went from the
Rim of the galazy to Earth (abest indirectly) TWICE. In Star Trek V Kirk
goes from Earth, to some treaty world, then to the core of the galazy, then
back to Earth in the space of a few days.
Bruce Grubb
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:01:17 -0700, a wanderer, known to us only as
>Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> warmed at our fire and told this
>tale:
>
>>In the context of the orignal three movies we don't really see anything that
>>suggests anything beyond simple cold fusion power (TL 9). I would like to
>>point out that efficiency in of itself doesn't indicate anything. A ounce
>>(2.5 grams) of pure antimatter can destroy an *entire planet* (TOS episode
>>Obsession)
>
>First lesson: Don't get your science from Star Trek.
>
>If 2.5 grams of anti mater suddenly appeared in the Earth's core, it
>would detonate with an energy of 2.25 x 10^14 Joules, or 53.8
>kilotons. You'd get some some big disruptions on the surface, but the
>planet would still be here.
On the surface it would tear away the atmosphere which would destroy the
planet as far as habitaiton was conserned. I should mention that the Death
Star is the size of a moon while the much smaller Star Trek starships can
simially destroy a planet (General Order 24 in 'Taste of Armegeddon') and
there are 12 of them in the fleet in Kirk's time.
David Johnston
>
> In article <mpu6vtgfpa7lsf5do...@4ax.com>,
> Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:01:17 -0700, a wanderer, known to us only as
> >Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> warmed at our fire and told this
> >tale:
> >
> >>In the context of the orignal three movies we don't really see anything that
> >>suggests anything beyond simple cold fusion power (TL 9). I would like to
> >>point out that efficiency in of itself doesn't indicate anything. A ounce
> >>(2.5 grams) of pure antimatter can destroy an *entire planet* (TOS episode
> >>Obsession)
> >
> >First lesson: Don't get your science from Star Trek.
> >
> >If 2.5 grams of anti mater suddenly appeared in the Earth's core, it
> >would detonate with an energy of 2.25 x 10^14 Joules, or 53.8
> >kilotons. You'd get some some big disruptions on the surface, but the
> >planet would still be here.
>
> On the surface it would tear away the atmosphere which would destroy the
> planet as far as habitaiton was conserned.
A 50 or 100 kiloton explosion? Not likely.
I should mention that the Death
> Star is the size of a moon while the much smaller Star Trek starships can
> simially destroy a planet
Actually, I doubt they can. Not reduce a stable planet to rubble with one shot.
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
>In article <mpu6vtgfpa7lsf5do...@4ax.com>,
> Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>If 2.5 grams of anti mater suddenly appeared in the Earth's core, it
>>would detonate with an energy of 2.25 x 10^14 Joules, or 53.8
>>kilotons. You'd get some some big disruptions on the surface, but the
>>planet would still be here.
>
>On the surface it would tear away the atmosphere which would destroy the
>planet as far as habitaiton was conserned.
Complete innumerate nonsense. A piddling 50 or 100 kilotons? Many
atmospheric tests of bombs several hundred times more powerful than
that were performed during the Cold War and last I checked Earth
had a breathable atmosphere. (*looks out the window* Yes, it's
still there, and it's raining on Planet Mongo today).
To blow off the Earth's atmosphere you'd need something on the order
of 10^26 Joules, which is about one-millionth of what you'd need to blow
the whole planet to smithereens. This would correspond to some million
tons of antimatter. A few grams only gets you the same effect as a
medium-large nuclear boom; a bad day for anyone within several
kilometers of wherever you release it but insignificant on a global scale.
Less fallout than a comparable nuke, too.
Leszek Karlik
disseminated foul capitalist propaganda:
[...]
>>> Star Wars.
>>> There is no evidence of Antimater (TL 10-12) in the Star Wars universe which
>>> caps their Power TL at 9,
>>Are you kidding? Star Wars power sources are much more efficient than
>>mere antimatter, which probably puts them at TL 14+ power-cell
>>level. Magical power technology, obviously.
> In the context of the orignal three movies we don't really see anything that
> suggests anything beyond simple cold fusion power (TL 9).
Yes, we do - the Death Star.
> I would like to point out that efficiency in of itself doesn't
> indicate anything.
Yes. However, I'm not talking about efficiency in of itself. I'm
talking about the amount of energy required to destroy a planet.
If a 100% efficient fusion energy source and stocpile of fuel capable
of providing enough energy to explode a planet (overcoming it's
gravitational energy many times) would be larger than the entire Death
Star, well, it can only mean one thing - that Death Star uses
something _better_ than fusion.
> A ounce (2.5 grams) of pure antimatter can destroy an *entire
> planet* (TOS episode Obsession)
Learning Star Trek physics is vastly inferior to learning _real_
physics. The gravitational binding energy of an Earth-sized planet is
a few orders of magnitude higher than the amount of energy stored in a
2.5 grams of antimatter (there is no such thing as 'impure
antimatter', so 'pure antimatter' is a typical Star Trekkish
technobabble).
>>Detalied analysis of power of Star Wars universe devices can be found
>>on the Star Wars Technical Commentaries page: http://www.theforce.net/swtc/
> The web site is little hard to get to what one want to find out about.
Check out the detailed analysis of the Death Star and search for the
words 'gravitational binding energy'.
[...]
> Braintaping is not the same as forced learning. Braintaping is talking
> everything that a person knows (skill mermories and eperience) and putting it
> elsewhere.
Braintaping and forced learning _is_ the same.
[...]
>>How do you define 'somewhat primitive'? Hyperdrive is vastly superior
>>in speeds to Star Trek hyperdrive - in Star Wars, drives capable of
>>crossing the entire galaxy in under a month exist, and Millenium
>>Falcon is even faster than that.
> Hyperdrive works by moving an object into hyperspace ie removing it from the
> physical universe. Star Trek uses Warp drive which literally warps normal
> space around it
Yes. So, what's more primitive - using heavy duty gravitics, or moving
to a different universe? If moving to different universe is so
primitive, why doesn't the Voyager do it? It'd be back home in half a
week.
>- the Gravity Drive in the movie Event Horizon is baced on a
> similar consept.
Actually, the Event Horizon drive is something akin to Traveller jump
drive, not Star Trek warp drive.
> A Star Trek ship in Warp can react to changes in the universe
So can a Star Wars ship.
> while a Star Wars spaceship is blind, deaf, and dumb until it
> emerges from hyperspace.
Well, except that it isn't - Han Solo knows when he manages to shake
the tail of two Imperial Star Destroyers, in the hyperspace. And it is
possible to communicate while in hyperspace.
Get your facts straight. :)
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Leszek Karlik <les...@ideefixe.com.pl> wrote:
>
>Learning Star Trek physics is vastly inferior to learning _real_
>physics. The gravitational binding energy of an Earth-sized planet is
>a few orders of magnitude higher than the amount of energy stored in a
>2.5 grams of antimatter
Approximately 17 orders of magnitude, as if that matters.
Ray Cochener
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3BF3AB...@telusplanet.net...
Unless they have the Genesis device...
Tom A.
In article <20011114024124...@mb-fi.aol.com>,
eri...@aol.com
(erincss) writes:
>What Tech Level would you say the Kryptonian civilization had reached before
>the destruction of Krypton, shown in the Superman movies? Around TL 16? Less?
>More?
>It seems they could at least: 1 Grow crystalline materials in any pattern and
>shape they desired, this means some form of nanotech or greater manufacturing
>technology. 2 Store energy and information in these crystalline materials.
That's based on the revisionist 1980's movie. Look to the '50's TV
show, and you'll see that their technology reached the Art Deco level.
--
Tom A.
Bummer, huh? Sin sucks. - Fr. Joseph Horn
Charles Frederick Goodin
Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn9v5q49...@fnord.ideefixe.nom.pl>,
> Leszek Karlik <les...@fnord.ideefixe.nom.pl> wrote:
>>Are you kidding? Star Wars power sources are much more efficient than
>>mere antimatter, which probably puts them at TL 14+ power-cell
>>level. Magical power technology, obviously.
>
>In the context of the orignal three movies we don't really see anything that
>suggests anything beyond simple cold fusion power (TL 9). I would like to
>point out that efficiency in of itself doesn't indicate anything. A ounce
>(2.5 grams) of pure antimatter can destroy an *entire planet* (TOS episode
>Obsession)
Umm, an ounce is actually 28 grams.
--
chuk
Douglas Berry
as lei...@pvv.ntnu.no (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) warmed at our fire and
told this tale:
>[*calculate*]
>
>You're off by a factor of 2, I think. Forgot the 2.5 grams of
>matter with which the antimatter will react?
In the immortal words of Heisenberg, "oops." I got so wrapped up in
the calculation of the 2.5 grams, I forgot the total mass would be 5
grams.
>Actually I rather doubt that a mere hundred-kiloton explosion deep
>in the Earth's interior would cause much trouble on the surface,
>though I am not a geologist. I'd think you'd need to put it closer
>to the surface and preferably close to a fault line if you wanted
>to do any damage, or it'd be like a fart in a hurricane.
True, I was think you'd see a great deal of hot spot activity fopr a
few years. Obviously, we can't model it.
Bob Schroeck
Second lesson -- Don't get your metric conversion from Star Trek. 2.5 grams
is a bit less than a tenth of an ounce.
-- Bob
===============================================================================
Robert M. Schroeck r...@eclipse.net http://www.eclipse.net/~rms
===============================================================================
Please to remember
Eleven September --
Hijack, destruction and plot.
Our outraged reaction
To terrorist action
Should never be forgot.
===============================================================================
Bob Schroeck
> Actually I rather doubt that a mere hundred-kiloton explosion deep
> in the Earth's interior would cause much trouble on the surface,
> though I am not a geologist.
It probably won't do anything. Look at the relatively small disturbances
caused by *megaton* weapons tests a mere mile or so underground.
Bob Schroeck
> Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >If 2.5 grams of anti mater suddenly appeared in the Earth's core, it
> >would detonate with an energy of 2.25 x 10^14 Joules, or 53.8
> >kilotons. You'd get some some big disruptions on the surface, but the
> >planet would still be here.
> On the surface it would tear away the atmosphere which would destroy the
> planet as far as habitaiton was conserned.
Oh? Then how come this didn't happen to Earth when above-ground nuke
tests at least an order of magnitude or two greater than this amount
were conducted in the 1950s? Energy is energy, regardless of the source;
just because it's a matter-antimater annihilation doesn't magically
make it more devastating.
Bruce Grubb
Leszek Karlik <les...@fnord.ideefixe.nom.pl> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 20:01:17 -0700, Bruce Grubb <bgr...@zianet.com>
>disseminated foul capitalist propaganda:
>
>[...]
>>>> Star Wars.
>>>> There is no evidence of Antimater (TL 10-12) in the Star Wars universe
>>>> which
>>>> caps their Power TL at 9,
>>>Are you kidding? Star Wars power sources are much more efficient than
>>>mere antimatter, which probably puts them at TL 14+ power-cell
>>>level. Magical power technology, obviously.
>
>> In the context of the orignal three movies we don't really see anything that
>> suggests anything beyond simple cold fusion power (TL 9).
>
>Yes, we do - the Death Star.
Accept we don't know by the movie how the Death Star does this but the Planet
Killer from TOS Doomsday Machine might provide a clue: anti-Proton force
beam. Now the Planet Killer didn't use antimatter either but rather planets
as fuel ie possibly some form of cold fusion power plant.
Johnny1A
The one single effect we see in Superman: The Movie that we aren't
even close to being able to duplicate is the creation of the Fortress
of Solitude. Clark goes to the far north, and throws the green
crystal into the ice. There, _by itself_ it assembles the crystalline
structure of the Fortress, apparently out of nothing. That's the only
superhigh-TL effect I saw.
Shermanlee
Ray Cochener
"Johnny1A" <sherm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3030854.01111...@posting.google.com...
That has to be at least TL:13, more likely higher since it would appear
to be transmuting elements (or extracting a hyperdimentional structure)
SD Anderson
> In article <20011114024124...@mb-fi.aol.com>,
> eri...@aol.com (erincss) wrote:
>
> >What Tech Level would you say the Kryptonian civilization had reached before
> >the destruction of Krypton, shown in the Superman movies? Around TL 16? Less?
> >More?
> >
> >It seems they could at least: 1 Grow crystalline materials in any pattern and
> >shape they desired, this means some form of nanotech or greater manufacturing
> >technology. 2 Store energy and information in these crystalline materials.
>
> keep in mind is that the movie Kryptonian may be the product of divergent TL
> (Introduced in Steampunk) In the comics of the time (were talking pre-Bryne
> here) Krypton's technology was all over the place making it very hard to pin
> down.
>
> I tend to be very conservative in picking TLs - find the *lowest* TL that
> makes the majority of things work and assume that the exceptions were unusial
> breakthroughs. Using this method Star Trek is TL 9-11 depending on what
> series one is watching, Star Wars is TL 8-9, and Robotech is TL 9 (accually
> TL 7+2 for Earth)
>
> Now here is how I came to those TLs: Spaceships are TL 8-9, FTL is 9-11,
> cold fusion is 9 with Antimatter 10-12, and Cloning is 8.
>
> Star Trek
>
> In the original Star Trek pilot 'The Cage' one of the crew comments that "The
> time barrier has been broken" This originally ment that Warp Drive had just
> been invented though the Movies have since retconed this: in any case
> Transportation in Pike's time is just getting into 9 in the original series.
>
> Methusilam, For the World is hollow and I have Touched the Sky, Journey to
> Eden), braintapes (Spock Brain), longevity (Deadly Years) in the original
> Star Trek - about the only TL 9 Medicine development that acually pops up is
> suspended animation (Space Seed) and that was accually a TL 7 tweek (ie TL
> 7+2).
>
> Force Screens in the form of deflectors are the only TL 11 device that shows
> up in the orignal series and can be written off as TL 9+2 for the most part.
> most part fits in the 9-11 range.
>
>
> There is no evidence of Antimater (TL 10-12) in the Star Wars universe which
> movies of brain tapes or regular use of Suspended Animation (the corbinite
> was a Kludge and noted as a dangerous one at that) which caps Medicine at 8,
I suppose you meant Star Wars in that last sentence since a
previous paragraph put Trek in the 9 to 14 range.
SW FTL is a special case, and since Trek & Wars undoubtedly
influenced GURPS Space, we can easily fit Wars hyperspace with GURPS
hyperspace and ST Warp with GURPS Warp for FTL modeling.
1) ST FTL is SLOW. A Star Wars version of Voyager would get home
in one week's time assuming they knew where they were in the Delta
Quadrant and where Federation space was in the Alpha and Beta
Quadrants, which they did. Program a jump, wait to emerge a week
later, end of story.
Other than that I think ST's FTL beats SW's hands down. You fly
blind, time is required to prepare a jump, you need to drop back to
sublight to make course corrections, but generally don't because
barring a message from the Force there's no way for you to know you
need to change course.
2) ST FTL is interactive with the normal universe. ST ships moving
faster than light see the universe normally. In a battle, a ST ship
flying backwards slightly faster than light is immune to all attacks
from that foe. Lasers, concussion missiles and proton torpedoes all
travel at light speed or less.
3) ST's weaponry moves faster than light. In the original show, ST
phasers (using the special effects later labeled Photon Torpedoes)
could hit a Romulan ship fleeing at warp speed, did so again with
phaser special effects as phasers with that weird blood drinking cloud
thing, and moving to The Next Generation, the Enterprise D was able to
hit a Borg ship pulling away from it at warp 9 point something.
Phasers are clearly faster than starships in warp. Call them TL 12
+3 since ship's phasers were shown to be able to be set to stun in "A
Piece of the Action".
Cloaking devices in SW were mentioned in the movies but not
detailed till Zahn wrote his trilogy. Zahn's cloaking devices aren't
fit to shine the shoes of the ones found in Trek. True invisibility
in the original series, and in the next generation shown to produce an
intangibility effect that made Geordi and Ro ghosts for most of an
episode and later let the Enterprise D phase through an asteroid, vs a
tech that would fool a sensor scan but not a visual one.
Wars Cloaking devices: TL 8-11 stealth suites. Trek Cloaking
devices: Tech level Magic.
>
> So If I had to give Krypton a TL I would say TL 8-9 with transportantion in
> the Pre-Crisis being a 7-8 (Their space program was beyond pathatic)
We're dealing with the Superman Movie Krypton, which basically had
matter transmutaion and energy storage well beyond the limits of
Special Relativity.
Call Krypton space travel TL 13 -4 (behaves like TL 9 FTL but may
have oodles of more advanced accessories). Ghost in the machine
level computer capacity, the Jor-El and Lara holograms were
essentially sentient.
Brad Carletti
>>the fact that it's possible to go from the Core worlds to the fringe
>>within 24 hours more than makes up for it.
>>
>>How long's it going to take Voyager to get home?
>
>The problem is that Star Trek was very inconsistant about this. In the
>course of the three years Star Trek was shown the Enterprise went from the
>Rim of the galazy to Earth (abest indirectly) TWICE. In Star Trek V Kirk
>goes from Earth, to some treaty world, then to the core of the galazy, then
>back to Earth in the space of a few days.
/me giggles like a schoolgirl.
Brad Carletti
>>would detonate with an energy of 2.25 x 10^14 Joules, or 53.8
>>kilotons. You'd get some some big disruptions on the surface, but the
>>planet would still be here.
>
>On the surface it would tear away the atmosphere which would destroy the
>planet as far as habitaiton was conserned. I should mention that the Death
>Star is the size of a moon while the much smaller Star Trek starships can
>simially destroy a planet (General Order 24 in 'Taste of Armegeddon') and
>there are 12 of them in the fleet in Kirk's time.
Bruce, if you're going to argue science, it might be a good idea not
to make false claims.
You should know who frequents this group :)
Oh yeah, and Trek starships destroying a planet? Maybe wipe the
sentients off it... (Base Delta Zero in SW terms)
erincss
>have oodles of more advanced accessories). Ghost in the machine
>level computer capacity, the Jor-El and Lara holograms were
>essentially sentient.
Yeah, basically, in the movies, the computer holograms of Jor-el were sentient;
his brain patterns were secured within the system, so even when he died, Kal-El
could converse with him. That means they also had a high level of braintaping
tech.
Further, if you remember the original Superman movie, Jor-El taught Kal-El the
amount of stuff it would have taken ten years to learn, compressed into one
year of our time.
erincss
wrote:
>We can do 1 right now and if we can't do 2 are very close to it.
No, despite our high level of Crystallography, we cannot "grow crystals in any
three dimensional pattern" we desire, with atomic precision. If we could, we
would have diamond-sapphire structural I Beams, and various types of
crystalline laminates. But, we are nearing this capability, yeah.
erincss
claimed that there were survivors of Krypton who had colonized other worlds.
Supergirl shows that some survivors made "Argo City" in "inner space" (an
ocean?)
erincss
wrote:
>That has to be at least TL:13, more likely higher since it would appear
If a friend of Superman, say Jimmy Olsen, were to ask Superman to make a TL 13
Minifac, some type of molecular replicator, from what you know of Superman's
moral codes and attitude, what do you think his answer would be?
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:49:09 +0000 (UTC), a wanderer, known to us only
>as lei...@pvv.ntnu.no (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) warmed at our fire and
>told this tale:
>
>>in the Earth's interior would cause much trouble on the surface,
>>though I am not a geologist. I'd think you'd need to put it closer
>>to the surface and preferably close to a fault line if you wanted
>>to do any damage, or it'd be like a fart in a hurricane.
>
>True, I was think you'd see a great deal of hot spot activity fopr a
>few years. Obviously, we can't model it.
The amount of heat dumped into the core would be quite insignificant,
just the inner core is about 10^23 kg of molten iron at a few thousand
Kelvin already, 10^14 J would increase its temperature by maybe 10^-12
K (give or take a couple orders of magnitude). Only way I can see it
having any effect would involve some kind of interference with seismic
waves and I don't know enough about those to say anything useful
(except that the raw energy from that amount of antimatter would
correspond to the seismic energy released in a moderate earthquake,
say about 5.5 on the Richter scale).
Brad Carletti
>>> suggests anything beyond simple cold fusion power (TL 9).
>>
>>Yes, we do - the Death Star.
>
>Accept we don't know by the movie how the Death Star does this but the Planet
It's a really, really big blaster (note: not a laser!). It blows the
planet up.
Brad Carletti
Uhh... what's your point?
Supes doesn't have Kryptonian TL knowledge (at least not in the
movies).
Bruce Grubb
10225...@compuserve.com (SD Anderson) wrote:
We see somthing like this in Voyager when they develop a new drive system but
the new method is very dangous and complicated initially. I should note that
Antromida and Babylon 5 both have faster than ST FTP but for the most part
one has to use and established 'gate' to get from point A to point B.
> Other than that I think ST's FTL beats SW's hands down. You fly
>blind, time is required to prepare a jump, you need to drop back to
>sublight to make course corrections, but generally don't because
>barring a message from the Force there's no way for you to know you
>need to change course.
>
> 2) ST FTL is interactive with the normal universe. ST ships moving
>faster than light see the universe normally. In a battle, a ST ship
>flying backwards slightly faster than light is immune to all attacks
>from that foe. Lasers, concussion missiles and proton torpedoes all
>travel at light speed or less.
>
> 3) ST's weaponry moves faster than light. In the original show, ST
>phasers (using the special effects later labeled Photon Torpedoes)
>could hit a Romulan ship fleeing at warp speed, did so again with
>phaser special effects as phasers with that weird blood drinking cloud
>thing, and moving to The Next Generation, the Enterprise D was able to
>hit a Borg ship pulling away from it at warp 9 point something.
>
> Phasers are clearly faster than starships in warp. Call them TL 12
>+3 since ship's phasers were shown to be able to be set to stun in "A
>Piece of the Action".
Depends on how they are modeled but I don't understand why you would put them
at TL 15 level.
> Cloaking devices in SW were mentioned in the movies but not
>detailed till Zahn wrote his trilogy. Zahn's cloaking devices aren't
>fit to shine the shoes of the ones found in Trek. True invisibility
>in the original series, and in the next generation shown to produce an
>intangibility effect that made Geordi and Ro ghosts for most of an
>episode and later let the Enterprise D phase through an asteroid, vs a
>tech that would fool a sensor scan but not a visual one.
>
> Wars Cloaking devices: TL 8-11 stealth suites. Trek Cloaking
>devices: Tech level Magic.
We are talking about two forms of cloaking with ST. The one we originally
say in TOS Balance of Terror and the Phase Cloak seen in STNG episodes 'The
Next Phase' and 'the Pegasus'. IIRC the explination of Phase Cloak it works
by moving an object slightly out of phase with the rest of the universe akin
to what was seen in TOS 'Wink of an Eye'.
I should mention that in GURPS TL 4 steps your own is incomprehensible buing
your own TL skills. Since we are TL 7-8 the highest TL we can accually
explain within existing scientific understanding without running headlong
into Clarke's Law is TL 10-11. Of course since that higher TL is accually
explained in consepts of the lower TL it is accually TL 7+3 to 8+3.
>> So If I had to give Krypton a TL I would say TL 8-9 with transportantion in
>> the Pre-Crisis being a 7-8 (Their space program was beyond pathatic)
>
> We're dealing with the Superman Movie Krypton, which basically had
>matter transmutaion and energy storage well beyond the limits of
>Special Relativity.
But NOT beyond the realm of Quantum Physics. Einstein never liked QP but
there are things that QP can explain that Relativity has major headaches
with. For example the easiest way to mathmatical represent antimatter is
have normal matter go back through time by going faster than light.
Relativity has a major caniption fit over this idea while QM say "ok." and
chugs along. Also the idea of alternate timeline and the like are QP
concepts (Many World solution to Bell's Theorm) that Relativity cannot even
deal with.
In fact Relativity most famous example of the Granfather Paradox totally
falls apart when it runs into Schrodinger's Cat as the the linchpin of there
only being one timeline it depends on is blow to the four winds. Sicentist
have had majo problems with their modeling of black hole - anything short of
a totally static black hole produces a Time Machine and Relativity starts
getting a migrane again.
> Call Krypton space travel TL 13 -4 (behaves like TL 9 FTL but may
>have oodles of more advanced accessories).
That is not the way you use the modifier. As explained in GURPS Steampunk
you aways use the low TL and add to it.
> Ghost in the machine
>level computer capacity, the Jor-El and Lara holograms were
>essentially sentient.
But GitM could be reacha by TL 9 which is the high end of the rang I set.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Bruce Grubb wrote:
>> Douglas Berry <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >If 2.5 grams of anti mater suddenly appeared in the Earth's core, it
>> >would detonate with an energy of 2.25 x 10^14 Joules, or 53.8
>> >kilotons. You'd get some some big disruptions on the surface, but the
>> >planet would still be here.
>> On the surface it would tear away the atmosphere which would destroy the
>> planet as far as habitaiton was conserned.
This is ludicrous. That much anti-matter could be exploding in the core
of our planet right now and we'd never know it. The enrgy of what's going
on in the core of our planet is orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude
bigger than that piddling little explosion.
> Oh? Then how come this didn't happen to Earth when above-ground nuke
> tests at least an order of magnitude or two greater than this amount
> were conducted in the 1950s? Energy is energy, regardless of the source;
> just because it's a matter-antimater annihilation doesn't magically
> make it more devastating.
Less so, since so much of the energy is carried off by high energy exotic
particle that don't interact with very much.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Ray Cochener
"erincss" <eri...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011116014610...@mb-fc.aol.com...
atomic precision, simply growing crystals in any pattern we wanted. Not
exactly superscience.
Groovis
>
> FTL seems to somewhat primitive to Star Trek so it at 9. This all results in
> Star Trek being only TL 8-9.
Star Wars hyperspace technology is much superior to Star Trek warp
speed, though their mechanics are entirely different. As far as I
know, the Empire spans most of the galaxy and travel is very fast (you
can cross the galaxy in less than a month, I think) while in Star Trek
they have the milky way (?) divided in an infinite number of quadrants
(they just keep adding more and more) and travel at warp 9.999* speed
from say, Alpha to Gamma, would take 80+ years.
I could mention a lot of other things but they are off-topic and
really belong in a Star Wars vs. Star Trek site (which already exists,
can't remember the URL) like "lasers" that vaporize whole asteroids
and moon-sized space station construction (with an impenetrable
force-field around it) and super-lasers that vaporize entire planets
in a fraction of a second, which aren't kludges, because anyone with
enough resources can build them.
Ah, don't forget to mention sentient droids that are sold like common
appliances.
-Groovis
erincss
wrote:
>Your orriginal post was not that specific, it mentioned nothing of
>atomic precision, simply growing crystals in any pattern we wanted. Not
>exactly superscience.
Thank you for the correction, yes, you're right, we can grow crystals in
various patterns.
Groovis
> SW FTL is a special case, and since Trek & Wars undoubtedly
> influenced GURPS Space, we can easily fit Wars hyperspace with GURPS
> hyperspace and ST Warp with GURPS Warp for FTL modeling.
>
> 1) ST FTL is SLOW. A Star Wars version of Voyager would get home
> in one week's time assuming they knew where they were in the Delta
> Quadrant and where Federation space was in the Alpha and Beta
> Quadrants, which they did. Program a jump, wait to emerge a week
> later, end of story.
Which is the main purpose of a travel technology: to travel. Whether
you can produce an infinite amount of monkeys in the process isn't
relevant.
Faster = Better.
It's like comparing an airplane to a car: just because it's a very
modern car with lots of cool year 2K features and air conditioner, and
the other is a really old prop airplane built in 1920, that doesn't
mean cars have a higher tech than planes.
Airplanes will still be higher TL than cars.
You can't cross the sea with a car, and you mostly need roads. And it
was invented long before. And there was a much higher amount of
research needed to figure out aerodynamics and stuff than to make a
wheel turn.
> Other than that I think ST's FTL beats SW's hands down. You fly
> blind, time is required to prepare a jump, you need to drop back to
> sublight to make course corrections, but generally don't because
> barring a message from the Force there's no way for you to know you
> need to change course.
>
> 2) ST FTL is interactive with the normal universe. ST ships moving
> faster than light see the universe normally. In a battle, a ST ship
> flying backwards slightly faster than light is immune to all attacks
> from that foe. Lasers, concussion missiles and proton torpedoes all
> travel at light speed or less.
If ship A doesn't have warp capability, and ship B wants to do combat
with ship A, it must stay in normal speed and not go to warp, so the
only "combat advantage" of warp speed is that it can flee when things
don't go well. What's so great about that? If you enter warp speed to
escape from battle, I engage hyperspace, go to your homeworld,
slaughter your family, and return to mock you in less than a day and
there isn't anything you could do about it.
(if a fleet of hyperspace-capable ships decided to go to Earth and
vaporize it, there's no way the warp-capable ships could go there to
defend it, since they're all scattered around the quadrant and would
need at least a week to get there)
> 3) ST's weaponry moves faster than light. In the original show, ST
> phasers (using the special effects later labeled Photon Torpedoes)
> could hit a Romulan ship fleeing at warp speed, did so again with
> phaser special effects as phasers with that weird blood drinking cloud
> thing, and moving to The Next Generation, the Enterprise D was able to
> hit a Borg ship pulling away from it at warp 9 point something.
>
> Phasers are clearly faster than starships in warp. Call them TL 12
> +3 since ship's phasers were shown to be able to be set to stun in "A
> Piece of the Action".
Federation weapons aren't faster than warp, or even faster than light
for that matter only when it's convenient: when both the attacker and
the attacked ship are in warp. Which indicates that they retain the
inertia of the firing ship, so if two ships are parallel to one
another, and both are travelling at the same warp speed, ship 1
launches a torpedo at ship 2, the torpedo only propels itself
sideways, relative to the ships' motion.
If torpedoes were anywhere near light speed on their own, we wouldn't
even see them when two ships are engaged on planetary orbit (which
happens on the show plenty of times) (it takes 8 seconds for light to
travel from Earth to Sun... ususally it takes that long for a torpedo
to travel from a ship to another that are only a few hundred/thousands
miles away)
Phasers by themselves carry a very small amount of energy, most damage
done (either stun or permanent damage) is due to reactions in the
matter it impacts - it's generally some kind of chain-reaction. I
don't think it fits within any of the known GURPS beam types.
> Wars Cloaking devices: TL 8-11 stealth suites. Trek Cloaking
> devices: Tech level Magic.
Well, I think it's got something to do with intruder-chameleon systems
and such plus cloaking - which is also TL 8-11.
-Groovis
Mr. M.J. Lush
Groovis <sergio_p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip Hyperspace vs Warpdrive stuff>
>Which is the main purpose of a travel technology: to travel. Whether
>you can produce an infinite amount of monkeys in the process isn't
>relevant.
>
>Faster = Better.
>
>It's like comparing an airplane to a car: just because it's a very
>modern car with lots of cool year 2K features and air conditioner, and
>the other is a really old prop airplane built in 1920, that doesn't
>mean cars have a higher tech than planes.
>
>Airplanes will still be higher TL than cars.
If the car was powered by a hydrogen fuel cell, packs a GPS
navigation and the sort of onboard computing power that would give
1970's NASA wet dreams, is it still a lower tech level?
If you had a car which you could strap wings on an fly
(yes someone did build one!) is it some strange split tech level
artifact?
--
Michael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist | Nameless Abominations are people too.
JefWilson
(erincss) writes:
>>JefWilson wrote:
>
>>We can do 1 right now and if we can't do 2 are very close to it.
>
>No, despite our high level of Crystallography, we cannot "grow crystals in
>any three dimensional pattern" we desire, with atomic precision.
What evidence is there that the crystals were grown with "atomic precision?"
(Which is a statement you added not in the original post.) Also I never
claimed we could grow _any_ crystal, but stable crystals can be manufactured to
any pattern desired.
Jeff A. Wilson
http://members.aol.com/JefWilson/rpg/
David Johnston
>
> In article <5e21c476.01111...@posting.google.com>,
> Groovis <sergio_p...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <snip Hyperspace vs Warpdrive stuff>
>
> >Which is the main purpose of a travel technology: to travel. Whether
> >you can produce an infinite amount of monkeys in the process isn't
> >relevant.
> >
> >Faster = Better.
> >
> >It's like comparing an airplane to a car: just because it's a very
> >modern car with lots of cool year 2K features and air conditioner, and
> >the other is a really old prop airplane built in 1920, that doesn't
> >mean cars have a higher tech than planes.
> >
> >Airplanes will still be higher TL than cars.
>
> If the car was powered by a hydrogen fuel cell, packs a GPS
> navigation and the sort of onboard computing power that would give
> 1970's NASA wet dreams, is it still a lower tech level?
> If you had a car which you could strap wings on an fly
> (yes someone did build one!) is it some strange split tech level
> artifact?
Bear in mind that some of the things that you think of as disadvantages
of Star Wars FTL are also advantages. For example, Star Wars ships can
disappear from under attack and are untouchable once they've gone to
FTL. Others have more to do with inferior sensors than inferior drive
systems, like lacking the ability to perceive the "real" universe, and
lacking the ability to learn everything you need to know about a planet
and it's inhabitants with a few hours of scanning. Now Star Treks sensors
start at around TL 16, and then get better.
Mark K Styles
"Groovis" wrote...
> If torpedoes were anywhere near light speed on their own, we wouldn't
> even see them when two ships are engaged on planetary orbit (which
> happens on the show plenty of times) (it takes 8 seconds for light to
> travel from Earth to Sun... ususally it takes that long for a torpedo
> to travel from a ship to another that are only a few hundred/thousands
> miles away)
8 _minutes_.
Besides if you couldn't see the torpedo how dramatic would that be?
MistWing SilverTail
So, the Wright brother's plane is a higher tech level than a current,
state-of-the-art car?
> You can't cross the sea with a car, and you mostly need roads. And it
> was invented long before. And there was a much higher amount of
> research needed to figure out aerodynamics and stuff than to make a
> wheel turn.
The limitations of a method of travel should not be confused with the
technological sophistication
> > Other than that I think ST's FTL beats SW's hands down. You fly
> > blind, time is required to prepare a jump, you need to drop back to
> > sublight to make course corrections, but generally don't because
> > barring a message from the Force there's no way for you to know you
> > need to change course.
> >
> > 2) ST FTL is interactive with the normal universe. ST ships moving
> > faster than light see the universe normally. In a battle, a ST ship
> > flying backwards slightly faster than light is immune to all attacks
> > from that foe. Lasers, concussion missiles and proton torpedoes all
> > travel at light speed or less.
>
> If ship A doesn't have warp capability, and ship B wants to do combat
> with ship A, it must stay in normal speed and not go to warp, so the
> only "combat advantage" of warp speed is that it can flee when things
> don't go well. What's so great about that? If you enter warp speed to
> escape from battle, I engage hyperspace, go to your homeworld,
> slaughter your family, and return to mock you in less than a day and
> there isn't anything you could do about it.
There have been cases of a ship at warp fighting a sublight ship without
dropping to sublight. For example: there was one episode where the
Enterprise's warp engines were sabotaged and a Klingon warship was attacking
it at warp speed.
> (if a fleet of hyperspace-capable ships decided to go to Earth and
> vaporize it, there's no way the warp-capable ships could go there to
> defend it, since they're all scattered around the quadrant and would
> need at least a week to get there)
Sure there is. The Federation is renouned for its luck :) There's always
the one ship capable of dealing with the threat (whatever it is) in the area
> > 3) ST's weaponry moves faster than light. In the original show, ST
> > phasers (using the special effects later labeled Photon Torpedoes)
> > could hit a Romulan ship fleeing at warp speed, did so again with
> > phaser special effects as phasers with that weird blood drinking cloud
> > thing, and moving to The Next Generation, the Enterprise D was able to
> > hit a Borg ship pulling away from it at warp 9 point something.
> >
> > Phasers are clearly faster than starships in warp. Call them TL 12
> > +3 since ship's phasers were shown to be able to be set to stun in "A
> > Piece of the Action".
>
> Federation weapons aren't faster than warp, or even faster than light
> for that matter only when it's convenient: when both the attacker and
> the attacked ship are in warp. Which indicates that they retain the
> inertia of the firing ship, so if two ships are parallel to one
> another, and both are travelling at the same warp speed, ship 1
> launches a torpedo at ship 2, the torpedo only propels itself
> sideways, relative to the ships' motion.
The photon torpedoes were always capable of independant FTL travel. In the
very first episode of ST-TNG, photons are fired at warp speed... to the rear
(hardly retaining the ineria of the Enterprise).
In TOS, the phasers have been used at warp speeds (disallowed in TNG+)
> If torpedoes were anywhere near light speed on their own, we wouldn't
> even see them when two ships are engaged on planetary orbit (which
> happens on the show plenty of times) (it takes 8 seconds for light to
> travel from Earth to Sun... ususally it takes that long for a torpedo
> to travel from a ship to another that are only a few hundred/thousands
> miles away)
The torpedoes do no t have warp engines per se. Rather, they have 'warp
sustainer engines'. They 'steal' some of the warp field generated by the
firing ship and can maintain that for several minute (?)... more than long
enough for them to reach their target. However, they can only be fired FTL
is the ship is also traveling FTL. Two ships in orbit aren't likely to be
traveling FTL
> Phasers by themselves carry a very small amount of energy, most damage
> done (either stun or permanent damage) is due to reactions in the
> matter it impacts - it's generally some kind of chain-reaction. I
> don't think it fits within any of the known GURPS beam types.
According to the TNG tech manual, each phaser emitter element of the
Enterprise fires a 5.1 megawatt beam and there are 200 elements in the
dorsal phaser array (one of the two most commonly used phaser arrays) for a
total of 1020 megawatts for the array... a fairly respectable amount of
power (although I have no idea how that compares to Star Wars)
--
MistWing SilverTail
Dragon Code
DC2.Dw Gf L6m3t5w W- T Phfwlt Sks,wl Cau+,bau,bl' Bfl/pl/zz A- Fr+++ Nn
M O/ H--- $ Fo R- Ac+ J+ S+ U! I--# V+++![Power] V---[Control] V++[Food
Fight Magic ++] Q+++[tk] Tc+++[sw] Tc+[other]
Furry Code
FMSmpsw3r A-- C- D H+ M- P R+ T+++ W- Z+ S- RLCT ca++$ d-- e+ f- h- i+
j+ p-- sx--
MistWing SilverTail
> >>would detonate with an energy of 2.25 x 10^14 Joules, or 53.8
> >>kilotons. You'd get some some big disruptions on the surface, but the
> >>planet would still be here.
I doubt the surface would even notice it
> >On the surface it would tear away the atmosphere which would destroy the
> >planet as far as habitaiton was conserned. I should mention that the
Death
> >Star is the size of a moon while the much smaller Star Trek starships can
> >simially destroy a planet (General Order 24 in 'Taste of Armegeddon') and
> >there are 12 of them in the fleet in Kirk's time.
The only example of the 'ripping off the planet's atmosphere' is 'less than
an ounce of antimatter' which I would put at 28 grams
Also, I got the impression that the Enterprise would destroy the surface
installations, not the entire planet.
> Bruce, if you're going to argue science, it might be a good idea not
> to make false claims.
>
> You should know who frequents this group :)
I don't think you can blame him for this. This is straight out of Star
Trek. TOS's antimatter was very weird stuff
MistWing SilverTail
> >
> > FTL seems to somewhat primitive to Star Trek so it at 9. This all
results in
> > Star Trek being only TL 8-9.
>
> Star Wars hyperspace technology is much superior to Star Trek warp
> speed, though their mechanics are entirely different. As far as I
> know, the Empire spans most of the galaxy and travel is very fast (you
> can cross the galaxy in less than a month, I think) while in Star Trek
> they have the milky way (?) divided in an infinite number of quadrants
> (they just keep adding more and more) and travel at warp 9.999* speed
> from say, Alpha to Gamma, would take 80+ years.
They've finalized this at 4 quadrants.
> I could mention a lot of other things but they are off-topic and
> really belong in a Star Wars vs. Star Trek site (which already exists,
> can't remember the URL) like "lasers" that vaporize whole asteroids
> and moon-sized space station construction (with an impenetrable
> force-field around it) and super-lasers that vaporize entire planets
> in a fraction of a second, which aren't kludges, because anyone with
> enough resources can build them.
>
> Ah, don't forget to mention sentient droids that are sold like common
> appliances.
And don't forget Star Trek's (TOS) antimatter that can be deactivated (The
Apple), less than 28 grams of which can rip half a planet's atmosphere off
(Obsession) and can blow up entire universes under the right conditions (The
Alternative Factor) .
Tacit
>sentients off it...
Yeah, one thing I've never understood about the Star Wars universe. Why would
anyone spend all the time and effort to construct a military weapon to blow up
a planet in the first place? Wiping every living thing off the face of the
planet is just as good, and a whole lot easier. No need to build a moon-sized
space station; just find a large asteroid and a tugboat. Nudge the asteroid
into hitting the planet and problem solved.
--
"Quand la morale triomphe, il se passe des choses tres vilaines."
Literature. Art. Photography. Forums. Shareware. Kink. Sex.
All at: http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Mr. M.J. Lush
Tacit <tac...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Oh yeah, and Trek starships destroying a planet? Maybe wipe the
>>sentients off it...
>
>Yeah, one thing I've never understood about the Star Wars universe. Why would
>anyone spend all the time and effort to construct a military weapon to blow up
>a planet in the first place? Wiping every living thing off the face of the
>planet is just as good, and a whole lot easier. No need to build a moon-sized
>space station; just find a large asteroid and a tugboat. Nudge the asteroid
>into hitting the planet and problem solved.
The Death Star was not a military weapon, it was a political
weapon designed to subdue the galaxy through _Terror_. Step out of line
and we Blow Up Your Planet, were not going to mess round with
asteroids which you can destroy or deflect, were not going to
send a battle-fleet to plink away at your planetary shields, we won't
send anything as vulnerable as a fleet of Star Destroyers that you
could hope to engage with ground defences. Were going to
destroy you utterly and there's _nothing_ you can do about it.
Now about that Imperial tribute....
David Johnston
> Tacit <tac...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>Oh yeah, and Trek starships destroying a planet? Maybe wipe the
> >>sentients off it...
> >
> >Yeah, one thing I've never understood about the Star Wars universe. Why would
> >anyone spend all the time and effort to construct a military weapon to blow up
> >a planet in the first place? Wiping every living thing off the face of the
> >planet is just as good, and a whole lot easier. No need to build a moon-sized
> >space station; just find a large asteroid and a tugboat. Nudge the asteroid
> >into hitting the planet and problem solved.
Assuming the planet was defended, they would spot such an effort
before it really got started and could just sally planet based fighters to
destroy the tug, or even call for help. The prospect of such an attack
would not inspire despair, because it could be and would be fought in
any situation where the Empire hadn't managed to totally take control
of orbital space. By contrast, the Death Star was so fast, so well
defended if you didn't know the trick weakness, and so unstoppable by
any defense that it would be far more effective a tool of intimidation.
Bear in mind that even knowing the trick weakness (which the Empire had
overlooked), the rebel base still would have been destroyed before Luke
would have had a chance to do his thing, maybe even before he would have
had a chance to launch, if the rebel base didn't happen to be in orbit
around a gas giant which required the Death Star to manuever before firing.
Bruce Grubb
"MistWing SilverTail" <Mist...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >>If 2.5 grams of anti mater suddenly appeared in the Earth's core, it
>> >>would detonate with an energy of 2.25 x 10^14 Joules, or 53.8
>> >>kilotons. You'd get some some big disruptions on the surface, but the
>> >>planet would still be here.
>
>I doubt the surface would even notice it
>
>
>> >On the surface it would tear away the atmosphere which would destroy the
>> >planet as far as habitaiton was conserned. I should mention that the
>Death
>> >Star is the size of a moon while the much smaller Star Trek starships can
>> >simially destroy a planet (General Order 24 in 'Taste of Armegeddon') and
>> >there are 12 of them in the fleet in Kirk's time.
>
>The only example of the 'ripping off the planet's atmosphere' is 'less than
>an ounce of antimatter' which I would put at 28 grams
>
>Also, I got the impression that the Enterprise would destroy the surface
>installations, not the entire planet.
>
>> Bruce, if you're going to argue science, it might be a good idea not
>> to make false claims.
>>
>> You should know who frequents this group :)
>
>I don't think you can blame him for this. This is straight out of Star
>Trek. TOS's antimatter was very weird stuff
Some of the wierdness in Star Trek was likely due to the science of its time.
For example in my old 1966 Random House Dictionary one could find -delta-
radiation (the radiation Captain Pike was exposed to) defined as what had
turned out to be simply very entergetic beta radiation.
Bruce Grubb
"MistWing SilverTail" <Mist...@erols.com> wrote:
>> I could mention a lot of other things but they are off-topic and
>> really belong in a Star Wars vs. Star Trek site (which already exists,
>> can't remember the URL) like "lasers" that vaporize whole asteroids
>> and moon-sized space station construction (with an impenetrable
>> force-field around it) and super-lasers that vaporize entire planets
>> in a fraction of a second, which aren't kludges, because anyone with
>> enough resources can build them.
>>
>> Ah, don't forget to mention sentient droids that are sold like common
>> appliances.
>
>And don't forget Star Trek's (TOS) antimatter that can be deactivated (The
>Apple), less than 28 grams of which can rip half a planet's atmosphere off
>(Obsession) and can blow up entire universes under the right conditions (The
>Alternative Factor) .
Remeber that in Kirk's time most experiences with sentient androids or
machines (What Little Girls are made of, Shore Leave, Return of the Achhons,
City of the Edge of Forever, Changeling, Apple, I Mudd, Ultimate Computer,
For the World is Hollow and I have Touched the Sky, That Which Survies,
Requiem for Methuselah) were bad ones. Even in Picard's time sentient
androids and machines have a dark side that Star Trek just bearly addresses.
Ray Cochener
opposition can stockpile supplies in deep mines and caves (see Hoth) or even
build self contained environments and ride out the blast.
"Tacit" <tac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011116221625...@mb-mv.aol.com...
Ray Cochener
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3BF62B...@telusplanet.net...
foreknowledge to go and get the plans for the death star, sounds to me like
they decided a moon orbiting a gas giant was the most defensible and easilly
abandonable position.
You note they didn't hand arround after the death star was destroyed,
because in the next movie they are on Hoth engaging ground troops.
Groovis
> > Airplanes will still be higher TL than cars.
>
> So, the Wright brother's plane is a higher tech level than a current,
> state-of-the-art car?
Which was invented at a higher TL: the car or the airplane?
(and Da Vinci's drawings don't count, or count against a horse-pulled
wagon, not an automobile)
> > (if a fleet of hyperspace-capable ships decided to go to Earth and
> > vaporize it, there's no way the warp-capable ships could go there to
> > defend it, since they're all scattered around the quadrant and would
> > need at least a week to get there)
>
> Sure there is. The Federation is renouned for its luck :) There's always
> the one ship capable of dealing with the threat (whatever it is) in the area
We're talking about hyper-speed vs warp speed here. The fact that the
planet would build a battleship with the orchestra power of a thousand
bottles of prune juice, capable of making all the enemy's fleet ship
captains to barf simultaneously, thus missing all their attacks, isn't
really relevant.
What is relevant is that this would make any civilization without
hyperspace capability to be very seriously outnumbered in the event of
an attack, since it wouldn't be able to concentrate its forces in the
point of attack (also would make established "borders" like Neutral
Zones obsolete: that's stated in the GURPS Vehicles book)
> > > Phasers are clearly faster than starships in warp. Call them TL 12
Phasers aren't _clearly_ anything, period :) And they definitely look
a lot slower than light... sometimes a character will see a phaser
beam being shot at him and duck! :D
> The photon torpedoes were always capable of independant FTL travel. In the
> very first episode of ST-TNG, photons are fired at warp speed... to the rear
> (hardly retaining the ineria of the Enterprise).
I didn't say they were solely based on inertia, they have their own
propulsion which isn't warp. The _relative_ speed of one ship to the
other wasn't comparable to warp speed.
Consider this example: we're both driving cars at about 400 mph (very
fast cars), and you're chasing me. Your relative speed to me is 0
(since we're not getting any closer) and we're about 20 meters apart.
I have a potato launcher that shoots potatoes at 100 mph. I launch it
backwards: it isn't traveling at 100 mph in the direction I launched
it, it's actually traveling forward, except 100 mph slower! From your
POV, it LOOKS like it's traveling at you.
So my conclusion is, it _did_ retain the inertia. The thrusters, or
whatever it is that photon torpedoes have to propel them, acted as a
brake to slow them down so they grew farther from the firing ship.
They didn't travel at warp speed _backwards_ nor braked to a halt in
midspace.
> > > In TOS, the phasers have been used at warp speeds (disallowed in TNG+)
Which is a serious inconsistency. The problem with inconsistencies is
that people will use the one that suits their argument more, on a
case-by-case basis.
> The torpedoes do no t have warp engines per se. Rather, they have 'warp
> sustainer engines'. They 'steal' some of the warp field generated by the
> firing ship and can maintain that for several minute (?)... more than long
> enough for them to reach their target. However, they can only be fired FTL
> is the ship is also traveling FTL. Two ships in orbit aren't likely to be
> traveling FTL
Hmm... "warp sustainer engines"? sounds a lot like inertia. Without
these, it would probably come out of warp, to a sublight speed. With
them, it keeps the _inertia_.
Besides, stealing warp fields is simply immoral and can't be
tolerated.
> > Phasers by themselves carry a very small amount of energy, most damage
> > done (either stun or permanent damage) is due to reactions in the
> > matter it impacts - it's generally some kind of chain-reaction. I
> > don't think it fits within any of the known GURPS beam types.
>
> According to the TNG tech manual, each phaser emitter element of the
> Enterprise fires a 5.1 megawatt beam and there are 200 elements in the
> dorsal phaser array (one of the two most commonly used phaser arrays) for a
> total of 1020 megawatts for the array... a fairly respectable amount of
> power (although I have no idea how that compares to Star Wars)
Well, there's some interesting stuff at this site:
http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html
It's a HUGE read, and it seems obvious that it's taken from lots of
newsgroup discussions and stuff, and it's painfully obvious that it's
Pro-SW and only shows arguments from the dumbest of Trekkies and from
the smartest of "Warries" (?), but it manages to keep me interested.
BTW: I'm not pro-Star Wars anti-Star Trek, there's stuff I like from
both, but I simply think SW is technologically superior to ST in many
ways.
Also, I just saw on TV the Empire Strikes Back, and at the scene of
the carbonite freezer, Vader says something like:
"these are very crude facilities, but they will be adequate to freeze
Skywalker for his trip to the Emperor"
and Lando replies something like
"we only use these facilities to freeze carbonite, we aren't sure that
a man could survive the process"
That doesn't really sound like suspended animation doesn't work: only
says that freezing a guy in a mining facility doesn't seem very safe.
In fact, it kinda implies that all-around evil guy Mr. Vader is used
to better facilities, where putting people in hybernation is nothing
out of the ordinary.
-Groovis
Groovis
> > Star Wars hyperspace technology is much superior to Star Trek warp
> > speed, though their mechanics are entirely different. As far as I
> > know, the Empire spans most of the galaxy and travel is very fast (you
> > can cross the galaxy in less than a month, I think) while in Star Trek
> > they have the milky way (?) divided in an infinite number of quadrants
> > (they just keep adding more and more) and travel at warp 9.999* speed
> > from say, Alpha to Gamma, would take 80+ years.
>
> They've finalized this at 4 quadrants.
Makes sense, after all if there were 6 quadrants, they'd be called
"hexants".
> > Ah, don't forget to mention sentient droids that are sold like common
> > appliances.
>
> And don't forget Star Trek's (TOS) antimatter that can be deactivated (The
> Apple), less than 28 grams of which can rip half a planet's atmosphere off
> (Obsession) and can blow up entire universes under the right conditions (The
> Alternative Factor) .
And don't forget that 28 grams of antimatter can't rip half a planet's
atmosphere off, even if it says so in Trek Tech. This was already
explained in a different post on this same thread. It will probably
trigger an explosion less than a megaton.
Besides, nowhere in SW says that antimatter is unheard of. It simply
isn't mentioned. If I recall correctly, the technology to create
antimatter already exists, it's simply too expensive to make.
-Groovis
Groovis
> Yeah, one thing I've never understood about the Star Wars universe. Why would
> anyone spend all the time and effort to construct a military weapon to blow up
> a planet in the first place? Wiping every living thing off the face of the
> planet is just as good, and a whole lot easier. No need to build a moon-sized
> space station; just find a large asteroid and a tugboat. Nudge the asteroid
> into hitting the planet and problem solved.
Well, for one thing you'd have to put a sign on the tugboat reading
"Please don't shoot down this rock, we're trying to destroy a planet
here... signed: the Evil Empire".
-Groovis
Bruce Grubb
sergio_p...@hotmail.com (Groovis) wrote:
>"MistWing SilverTail" <Mist...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:<9t4dts$rbt$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>> > Airplanes will still be higher TL than cars.
>>
>> So, the Wright brother's plane is a higher tech level than a current,
>> state-of-the-art car?
>
>Which was invented at a higher TL: the car or the airplane?
But as Burke points out in _Connection_ neither invention sprang full born
formt he head of Zeus. Don't forget that before the airplane there was the
Zeplin.
>Phasers aren't _clearly_ anything, period :) And they definitely look
>a lot slower than light... sometimes a character will see a phaser
>beam being shot at him and duck! :D
Actually with the exception of Wink of an Eye its more along the lines of the
seeing the guy aim the phazser and duck before he pulls the trigger.
That sad. It would have helped if it was more balanced. The answers on some
of the pages though are really pathetic; at least Trekkers -try- to explain
their universe in scientific terms even if at times Science has gone out to
lunch. In any case the TL of ST and SW are quite simply a mess; the first
because to much informaiton contradic and the second because there is too
little informaiton.
The Death Star is as inconistant as Star Trek's phasers: Alderaan is
destroyed with rediculous ease and yet later on the Death Star has to sit in
orbit waiting for the rebel's moon to clear the planet which allows the
rebels the time they need to exploit the weakness they found.
I should mention that there don't seem to be a way for SW ship to generate
shields like ST ships do. In RotJ the Death Star needs to be shielded from a
base on Ewok. Star Trek warp engines can do one thing that Star War NEVER
does - allow time travel (Naked Time, Tommorow is Yesterday, Assignment
Earth, Star Trek V) Also we know that in ST 26th century that time travel is
common enough that Star fleat has a divition dedicated to going out and
dealing with the major temporal messes.
Brad Carletti
>destroyed with rediculous ease and yet later on the Death Star has to sit in
>orbit waiting for the rebel's moon to clear the planet which allows the
>rebels the time they need to exploit the weakness they found.
What's inconsistent? That it's quicker to go around a gas giant than
to fire two shots from the superlaser?
>I should mention that there don't seem to be a way for SW ship to generate
>shields like ST ships do. In RotJ the Death Star needs to be shielded from a
>base on Ewok. Star Trek warp engines can do one thing that Star War NEVER
The RotJ Death Star *wasn't finished*. The ANH Death Star needed no
such shielding from afar.
No way for a SW ship to generate shields? Their fighters have shields
ffs.
>does - allow time travel (Naked Time, Tommorow is Yesterday, Assignment
>Earth, Star Trek V) Also we know that in ST 26th century that time travel is
>common enough that Star fleat has a divition dedicated to going out and
>dealing with the major temporal messes.
A pity they haven't though to go forward in time and get some decent
engines.
SD Anderson
> 10225...@compuserve.com (SD Anderson) wrote in message news:<ad847902.01111...@posting.google.com>...
> > SW FTL is a special case, and since Trek & Wars undoubtedly
> > influenced GURPS Space, we can easily fit Wars hyperspace with GURPS
> > hyperspace and ST Warp with GURPS Warp for FTL modeling.
> >
> > 1) ST FTL is SLOW. A Star Wars version of Voyager would get home
> > in one week's time assuming they knew where they were in the Delta
> > Quadrant and where Federation space was in the Alpha and Beta
> > Quadrants, which they did. Program a jump, wait to emerge a week
> > later, end of story.
>
> Which is the main purpose of a travel technology: to travel. Whether
> you can produce an infinite amount of monkeys in the process isn't
> relevant.
>
> Faster = Better.
How quaint. The issue here still is *advanced*, not 'better'. The
bored out to 320 cu in engine in my old '66 Mustang was definitely
faster than any gas/electric hybrid engine found today.
But the gas/electric hybrid is definitely more advanced that the
Ford short block 8 cylinder engine.
Specifically, the Warp Drive lets you interact with the universe
even in combat. You can tell precisely where you are in Warp, you
find out you misjumped when you get their in Hyperdrive.
Voyager wasn't lost. They knew they were 70 years cruising speed
travel from home and didn't know much about where they were. But they
knew where they were.
Getting to where you intended to go is also 'better'.
> It's like comparing an airplane to a car: just because it's a very
> modern car with lots of cool year 2K features and air conditioner, and
> the other is a really old prop airplane built in 1920, that doesn't
> mean cars have a higher tech than planes.
>
> Airplanes will still be higher TL than cars.
False.
> You can't cross the sea with a car, and you mostly need roads. And it
> was invented long before. And there was a much higher amount of
> research needed to figure out aerodynamics and stuff than to make a
> wheel turn.
And if we put these two fictional FTLs into one universe, we pretty
much have a simple insertion into another dimension using one method,
while Trek's TNG series did a story (details fuzzy, Riker found his
arm had been surgically removed then reattached) showing that the Warp
driven ships are simultaneously in two dimensions at once, one of them
the 'normal' universe, which from an objective point of view is
likelier the more complex achievement. Complexity is an indication of
advanced tech.
>
> > Other than that I think ST's FTL beats SW's hands down. You fly
> > blind, time is required to prepare a jump, you need to drop back to
> > sublight to make course corrections, but generally don't because
> > barring a message from the Force there's no way for you to know you
> > need to change course.
> >
> > 2) ST FTL is interactive with the normal universe. ST ships moving
> > faster than light see the universe normally. In a battle, a ST ship
> > flying backwards slightly faster than light is immune to all attacks
> > from that foe. Lasers, concussion missiles and proton torpedoes all
> > travel at light speed or less.
>
> If ship A doesn't have warp capability, and ship B wants to do combat
> with ship A, it must stay in normal speed and not go to warp, so the
> only "combat advantage" of warp speed is that it can flee when things
> don't go well. What's so great about that? If you enter warp speed to
> escape from battle, I engage hyperspace, go to your homeworld,
> slaughter your family, and return to mock you in less than a day and
> there isn't anything you could do about it.
False again. See the "Picard Maneuver" for an example of using
warp speed in a normal space fight. It is the SW ships who CANNOT
fight and go FTL simultaneously. FTL is useful for far more than
escape. If I go from one point well beyond the range of your weapons,
to point blank, fire, turn and head to another point well outside your
range of attack within the span of a fraction of a second, there
really isn't a lot you can do, particular with a lock on system that
takes several seconds.
Also observe the trick I mentioned, back off slightly faster than
light from close range. The Einsteinian limited ship's weapons CANNOT
catch you, but yours can hit him. And a single Warp ship like a
runabout can wreak havoc over thousands of TIE fighters the way a ME
262 harrassed P51 Mustangs in WWII. Even if the TIE sensors are
capable of tracking something moving faster than physically possible
in their universe, they really can't do much more than take damage or
wave their fist's futilely at it if they survive.
>
> (if a fleet of hyperspace-capable ships decided to go to Earth and
> vaporize it, there's no way the warp-capable ships could go there to
> defend it, since they're all scattered around the quadrant and would
> need at least a week to get there)
Just leaves the forces stationed on and around Earth, which are
considerable. Again see what effect a single roundabout can have on a
fleet of TIE fighters... and pit 30 or so starships and HUNDREDS of
roundabouts against that hapless fleet that cannot go FTL without
fleeing the starsystem.
>
> > 3) ST's weaponry moves faster than light. In the original show, ST
> > phasers (using the special effects later labeled Photon Torpedoes)
> > could hit a Romulan ship fleeing at warp speed, did so again with
> > phaser special effects as phasers with that weird blood drinking cloud
> > thing, and moving to The Next Generation, the Enterprise D was able to
> > hit a Borg ship pulling away from it at warp 9 point something.
> >
> > Phasers are clearly faster than starships in warp. Call them TL 12
> > +3 since ship's phasers were shown to be able to be set to stun in "A
> > Piece of the Action".
>
> Federation weapons aren't faster than warp, or even faster than light
> for that matter only when it's convenient: when both the attacker and
> the attacked ship are in warp. Which indicates that they retain the
> inertia of the firing ship, so if two ships are parallel to one
> another, and both are travelling at the same warp speed, ship 1
> launches a torpedo at ship 2, the torpedo only propels itself
> sideways, relative to the ships' motion.
You don't watch Star Trek I take it. Warheadless photon torpedoes
were used to send someone to the Enterprise D in a hurry in one
episode. Time was of the essence and the ship carrying her would have
taken too long. That photon torpedoes move at warp speeds and are
faster than starships is absolutely established.
And phasers overtook a Borg ship pulling away from the Enterprise D
at several warp factors. If it retained warp six momentum against a
ship moving warp nine, it would never have hit the warp nine ship.
That phasers move faster than light is also established.
> If torpedoes were anywhere near light speed on their own, we wouldn't
> even see them when two ships are engaged on planetary orbit (which
> happens on the show plenty of times) (it takes 8 seconds for light to
> travel from Earth to Sun... ususally it takes that long for a torpedo
> to travel from a ship to another that are only a few hundred/thousands
> miles away)
And we wouldn't hear the sound of a Star Destroyer in space.
Cinematic liberties do not trump established facts from the canon
material.
>
> Phasers by themselves carry a very small amount of energy, most damage
> done (either stun or permanent damage) is due to reactions in the
> matter it impacts - it's generally some kind of chain-reaction. I
> don't think it fits within any of the known GURPS beam types.
Trek ship phasers fire in the gigajoule range if I recall a comment
made on one show correctly. That is considerably more powerful than
the weapons listed in GURPS Space
David Johnston
>
> sergio_p...@hotmail.com (Groovis) wrote in message news:<5e21c476.01111...@posting.google.com>...
> > 10225...@compuserve.com (SD Anderson) wrote in message news:<ad847902.01111...@posting.google.com>...
> > > SW FTL is a special case, and since Trek & Wars undoubtedly
> > > influenced GURPS Space, we can easily fit Wars hyperspace with GURPS
> > > hyperspace and ST Warp with GURPS Warp for FTL modeling.
> > >
> > > 1) ST FTL is SLOW. A Star Wars version of Voyager would get home
> > > in one week's time assuming they knew where they were in the Delta
> > > Quadrant and where Federation space was in the Alpha and Beta
> > > Quadrants, which they did. Program a jump, wait to emerge a week
> > > later, end of story.
> >
> > Which is the main purpose of a travel technology: to travel. Whether
> > you can produce an infinite amount of monkeys in the process isn't
> > relevant.
> >
> > Faster = Better.
>
> How quaint. The issue here still is *advanced*, not 'better'. The
> bored out to 320 cu in engine in my old '66 Mustang was definitely
> faster than any gas/electric hybrid engine found today.
>
> But the gas/electric hybrid is definitely more advanced that the
> Ford short block 8 cylinder engine.
However, as I said before, even the most primitive Star Trek ftl drive
doesn't have the characteristics of a Star Wars hyperdrive. They are
totally different ways of accomplishing the same basic goal and therefore
their relative levels of advancement can't be accurately judged.
MistWing SilverTail
(The
>> Apple), less than 28 grams of which can rip half a planet's atmosphere
off
>> (Obsession) and can blow up entire universes under the right conditions
(The
>> Alternative Factor) .
>
> And don't forget that 28 grams of antimatter can't rip half a planet's
> atmosphere off, even if it says so in Trek Tech. This was already
> explained in a different post on this same thread. It will probably
> trigger an explosion less than a megaton.
I think you misunderstood my intent. The previous post was pointing out
some of Star Trek's absurdities. I was simply following suit
Leszek Karlik
capitalist propaganda:
[...]
> Yeah, one thing I've never understood about the Star Wars universe. Why would
> anyone spend all the time and effort to construct a military weapon to blow up
> a planet in the first place? Wiping every living thing off the face of the
> planet is just as good, and a whole lot easier. No need to build a moon-sized
> space station; just find a large asteroid and a tugboat. Nudge the asteroid
> into hitting the planet and problem solved.
Except that a decrepit two-person space transport (an equivalent of
XXth century used cargo truck) could nudge the asteroid back into not
hitting the planet.
And any planet with decent industry and GPP is going to have planetary
shields, defense fleet etc.
Death Star simpl pops out of the hyperspace, ignores or kills the
capital ships that try to engage it (the completed Death Star was
nigh-invulnerable to capital ship attack, remember?) and blast the
planet to pieces.
Alderan had no fleet to defend it because it was a peaceful planet
and it was protected by the Imperial fleet. It DID have a planetary
shield, though - in Star Wars Technical Commentaries it is shown that
the beam of the Death Star hitting Aldeeraan is penetrating a
defensive energy shield. See http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ for more
details. :))
Leslie
--
Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik; ailurophile by trade; SNAFU TANJ TANSTAAFL; /^\ lk
Do you want to join the Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria? / (*) \
Put $ 3,125.00 in a cigar box and bury it in your backyard. / \
One of our *Underground* Agents will contact you shortly. /_____________\
Leszek Karlik
<rgo...@telusplanet.net> disseminated foul capitalist propaganda:
[...]
> Bear in mind that some of the things that you think of as disadvantages
> of Star Wars FTL are also advantages. For example, Star Wars ships can
> disappear from under attack and are untouchable once they've gone to
> FTL. Others have more to do with inferior sensors than inferior drive
> systems, like lacking the ability to perceive the "real" universe, and
> lacking the ability to learn everything you need to know about a planet
> and it's inhabitants with a few hours of scanning. Now Star Treks sensors
> start at around TL 16, and then get better.
I'd rather say Star Trek sensors are a TL PD (that is, Plot-Device
Tech Level ;))). For example, I doubt TL 16 sensors would have any
problem with discovering that the photon torpedo in ST6 was not
launched from the Enterprise, but from a cloaked Bird of Prey in the
vicinity of the Enterprise.
Also, TL6 sensors do not work in gas nebulae (Wrath of Khan and the
blind-fight scene between two ships), which - IMO - is not a feature
of TL 16 sensors. :>
Tacit
>weapon designed to subdue the galaxy through _Terror_. Step out of line
>and we Blow Up Your Planet, were not going to mess round with
>asteroids which you can destroy or deflect, were not going to
>send a battle-fleet to plink away at your planetary shields, we won't
>send anything as vulnerable as a fleet of Star Destroyers that you
>could hope to engage with ground defences.
Well, yes and no. Dead is still dead. The prospect of blowing a planet up
probably doesn't generate all that much more terror than simply exterminating
every living thing on it...it's the difference between dying by being shot 40
times vs. dying by being shot 55 times. Both prospects are pretty scary.
The trick, of course, is in justifying the expense of such a large, single
weapon. For the same cost, you could still take out a planet against even a
very heavy defense much more efficiently, and not have all your eggs in one
basket.
It may have been a political weapon, but military strategy is still military
strategy. Really, you don't even need an asteroid to wipe out a planet; a
single vessel a tenth the size of a Star Destroyer with a large number of
high-yeild nukes will do the job quite nicely. (You can't really hide
underground, unless you fancy starving to death over dying in the initial
attack, and in any event a planet with no infrastructure is still effectively
destroyed.)
For the money and effort spent on the Death Star, a very large fleet of Star
Destroyers with similar, but scaled-back, defensive capability and a few
hundred planet-buster nukes would seem to offer more bang for the buck.
David Johnston
>
> >The Death Star was not a military weapon, it was a political
> >weapon designed to subdue the galaxy through _Terror_. Step out of line
> >and we Blow Up Your Planet, were not going to mess round with
> >asteroids which you can destroy or deflect, were not going to
> >send a battle-fleet to plink away at your planetary shields, we won't
> >send anything as vulnerable as a fleet of Star Destroyers that you
> >could hope to engage with ground defences.
>
> Well, yes and no. Dead is still dead. The prospect of blowing a planet up
> probably doesn't generate all that much more terror than simply exterminating
> every living thing on it...it's the difference between dying by being shot 40
> times vs. dying by being shot 55 times. Both prospects are pretty scary.
Oddly enough, you are wrong. Consider that far more Japanese died in
conventional bombing than in either or both of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Despite that, the atomic bomb made much more of a psychological impact.
As to the tactical considerations, I've played a bit of Master of Orion.
A single big indestructible ship is often a better buy than a fleet of
cheaper ships, just because you take losses with each operation of the
cheaper ships, but the indestructible ship is left intact each time.
The trick, of course, is actually making the ship indestructible.
Groovis
> >Which was invented at a higher TL: the car or the airplane?
>
> But as Burke points out in _Connection_ neither invention sprang full born
> formt he head of Zeus. Don't forget that before the airplane there was the
> Zeplin.
Connection? Is that a ST episode?
The forces at use in an airplane are a bit more difficult to
understand in a low-tech mentality, than those of a car: the wheel was
probably one of the first inventions, and basically it's just the
source of power that increased in TL. Even one could argue than the
concept of flying seems magical: I bet nobody got accused of
witchcraft for trying to pull a cart with horses instead of people -
at most, everybody just thought "damn! why didn't I think of that
before".
What I would say is that neither Warp or Hyperspace are "higher" TL
and according to GURPS rules they shouldn't even be allowed in the
same game world. But Hyperspace seems to me definitely more useful and
the advantages greatly outweight the disadvantages (not to mention
that with Hyperspace Drives you can colonize the whole Galaxy in a
tiny little fraction of the time than Warp Drive, that alone should
mean that realistically, the whole TL of the galaxy in general should
be higher, since the resources (manpower, brainpower(?) and materials)
is potentially unlimited.
> >Phasers aren't _clearly_ anything, period :) And they definitely look
> >a lot slower than light... sometimes a character will see a phaser
> >beam being shot at him and duck! :D
>
> Actually with the exception of Wink of an Eye its more along the lines of the
> seeing the guy aim the phazser and duck before he pulls the trigger.
I can't accept that, phasers definitely reach their targets much
slower than light, which should be instantaneous, making a constant
beam that lasts for a while, not that reaches from the source like a
frog's tongue.
> >Well, there's some interesting stuff at this site:
> >
> >http://h4h.com/louis/vsfaq.html
> >
> >It's a HUGE read, and it seems obvious that it's taken from lots of
> >newsgroup discussions and stuff, and it's painfully obvious that it's
> >Pro-SW and only shows arguments from the dumbest of Trekkies and from
> >the smartest of "Warries" (?), but it manages to keep me interested.
>
> That sad. It would have helped if it was more balanced. The answers on some
> of the pages though are really pathetic; at least Trekkers -try- to explain
> their universe in scientific terms even if at times Science has gone out to
> lunch. In any case the TL of ST and SW are quite simply a mess; the first
> because to much informaiton contradic and the second because there is too
> little informaiton.
I really have read more scientific explanations coming from SW fans...
technobabble doesn't really qualify as science... but I can agree that
this page is greatly outbalanced.
> The Death Star is as inconistant as Star Trek's phasers: Alderaan is
> destroyed with rediculous ease and yet later on the Death Star has to sit in
> orbit waiting for the rebel's moon to clear the planet which allows the
> rebels the time they need to exploit the weakness they found.
Consider two things: (1) the rebel's moon is roughly earth-sized, and
the planet it orbits is a huge gas giant: so nobody can claim that the
effect the laser would have on it had been the same it had on
Alderaan. and (2) the Imperials weren't in any real hurry, to them
there wasn't any risk, and they only took about 1/2 hour to get to
that point.
> I should mention that there don't seem to be a way for SW ship to generate
> shields like ST ships do. In RotJ the Death Star needs to be shielded from a
> base on Ewok.
You're talking about an absolutely impenetrable force field, which
isn't even the same as a deflector shield. And the Death Star was
_under construction_, supposedly by the time it was finished, there
was not going to be any way of destroying it (it's highly unlikely
that they were going to drag Endor's moon all over the galaxy every
time they planned to destroy a planet).
Even X-Wing fighters are shielded.
> Star Trek warp engines can do one thing that Star War NEVER
> does - allow time travel (Naked Time, Tommorow is Yesterday, Assignment
> Earth, Star Trek V) Also we know that in ST 26th century that time travel is
> common enough that Star fleat has a divition dedicated to going out and
> dealing with the major temporal messes.
Is time-travel the intended effect of Warp Drives? Where does it say
that time-travel is even allowed in every movie/game universe?
Time-travel itself is such a difficult topic that there are very
different opinions about it, some say it isn't possible, some say you
just CAN'T change history, because the history you know already takes
into account that you DID travel in time.
Universes like Star Trek say that unless you change a _major_ event
the timeline doesn't get damaged, but I bet that I could change
history just by saying to the guy who invented.
Besides, Star Wars never allowed time travel? You mean in _ALL_ 4
movies?
Okay, reality check here: Star Wars isn't a tv show, and Star Trek
wasn't originally meant to be a movie, and there's hardly any plot
continuity between them (which doesn't mean they're bad, but they just
aren't one long story divided into episodes). Star Trek has dozens of
episodes in 4-5 different shows, all the tech was made up along the
way (which is one of the main reasons of contradiction) - you can't
just say that Star Wars has lower tech because there's so little info!
All the tech that is exhibited at least has some consistency, nowhere
it says that blasters are TL8 lasers and thus inferior to phasers, or
that SW ships don't have shields or have much weaker shields than ST
ships, or that they use fusion so it's inferior to "matter-antimatter
reactors".
In the end, it's all a matter of whether the GM likes SW or ST more,
and will make his "favorite kid" hugely more powerful than the other.
-Groovis
David Johnston
> > >Phasers aren't _clearly_ anything, period :) And they definitely look
> > >a lot slower than light... sometimes a character will see a phaser
> > >beam being shot at him and duck! :D
> >
> > Actually with the exception of Wink of an Eye its more along the lines of the
> > seeing the guy aim the phazser and duck before he pulls the trigger.
>
> I can't accept that, phasers definitely reach their targets much
> slower than light, which should be instantaneous, making a constant
> beam that lasts for a while, not that reaches from the source like a
> frog's tongue.
Don't confuse special effects with the actual technology. After all,
in Enemy of the State, you could actually watch the bullets fly out of
the guns.
> > I should mention that there don't seem to be a way for SW ship to generate
> > shields like ST ships do.
Quite the contrary. The Millenium Falcon _definitely_ had shields like
ST ships do. We could actually see the tie fighter shots bouncing off
of it. In fact, allowing for the smaller size of the combatants, the MF
shields worked a fair bit better than Federation shields do. The Death
Star also had shields that would stop any main ship weapons but had
weak spots at the poles that could be flown through by small ships.
That suggests inferior shield technology, but not radically
inferior. More like the difference between the low end of a TL and the high
end of a TL, or perhaps one TL lower.
In RotJ the Death Star needs to be shielded from a
> > base on Ewok.
>
> You're talking about an absolutely impenetrable force field, which
> isn't even the same as a deflector shield. And the Death Star was
> _under construction_, supposedly by the time it was finished, there
> was not going to be any way of destroying it (it's highly unlikely
> that they were going to drag Endor's moon all over the galaxy every
> time they planned to destroy a planet).
>
> Even X-Wing fighters are shielded.
True. There's no evidence that a Star Trek shuttle that small can
even mount a shield generator, although possibly they just don't see
a point to putting a shield on a vessel with such a small reactor
when all the armed ships have such big guns.
Raymond Ford
> Oddly enough, you are wrong. Consider that far more Japanese died in
> conventional bombing than in either or both of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> Despite that, the atomic bomb made much more of a psychological impact.
>
Well, yes and no. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the last in a series of events
that demonstrated that the war was over for Japan. This increased their
psychological effect.
China was rising up against Japan, which had from half to two-thirds of its
army occupying China thoughout the war. Losing that much of its remaining
military power would only be the start, since the Chinese might be convinced
to allow the Americans to operate bombers out of captured bases.
The Soviet Union declared war on Japan and was preparing to attack. Giving
Stalin a claim on any of the major Japanese islands was the last thing the
Japanese or the Allies wanted.
The United States was planning to launch a massive invasion. The bombing
campaign was merely a prelude to an attack that would have dwarfed the
Normandy landings. Japan could damage such an invasion force, but it could
not stop it.
All of these things were on the minds of the Japanese leadership when they
started receiving reports of something happening in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
When the full extent of the damage became known, the Emperor overruled the
military and ordered a surrender. The psychological impact of the atomic
attacks was magnified by other events.
Tacit
>conventional bombing than in either or both of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
>
>Despite that, the atomic bomb made much more of a psychological impact.
The atomic bombs' psychological impact wasn't simply that they were really big
bombs; it was also that tehey were targeted against cities on the Japanese
homeland, not soldiers in the Pacific theatre.
>A single big indestructible ship is often a better buy than a fleet of
>cheaper ships, just because you take losses with each operation of the
>cheaper ships, but the indestructible ship is left intact each time.
>The trick, of course, is actually making the ship indestructible.
Which is, as any military strategist will tell you, effectively impossible.
Hence, real-life large-scale military vessels (such as aircraft carriers) are
typically surrounded by a veritable armada of different types of support and
defensive ships, each with a unique role--attack subs to engage enemy subs,
destroyers to engage enemy surface ships, and so on.
The problem with your single indestructible ship is it only has to be proven
not so indestructible once. I sincerely doubt the Death Star would actually
been put into operation without a supporting fleet of Star Destroyers at the
very least.
I suppose, though, that critiquing the military strategt of the Empire in "Star
Wars" is really a bit like critiquing the color scheme of the vehicles in
"Carmageddon..." :)
David Johnston
>
> >Oddly enough, you are wrong. Consider that far more Japanese died in
> >conventional bombing than in either or both of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> >
> >Despite that, the atomic bomb made much more of a psychological impact.
>
> The atomic bombs' psychological impact wasn't simply that they were really big
> bombs; it was also that tehey were targeted against cities on the Japanese
> homeland, not soldiers in the Pacific theatre.
The conventional bombing I was referring to _was_ against the civilian populations
in cities in the Japanese homeland.
>
> >A single big indestructible ship is often a better buy than a fleet of
> >cheaper ships, just because you take losses with each operation of the
> >cheaper ships, but the indestructible ship is left intact each time.
> >The trick, of course, is actually making the ship indestructible.
>
> Which is, as any military strategist will tell you, effectively impossible.
No it isn't. Several times in history large vessels have been made that
were so well defended by the standards of the time that only a similar, or even
larger one could destroy it.
> The problem with your single indestructible ship is it only has to be proven
> not so indestructible once. I sincerely doubt the Death Star would actually
> been put into operation without a supporting fleet of Star Destroyers at the
> very least.
One notes that
A: The second Death Star was probably built without the trick weakness of the
first one.
B: The second Death Star was intended as bait, to draw out the
entire rebel fleet and defeat them in one big battle, a plan that would have
worked had the Emperor not suddenly done a Sauron. The Emperor was pretending
to follow the same strategy twice in order to make his opponent's response a
predictable one.
Groovis
>
> How quaint. The issue here still is *advanced*, not 'better'. The
> bored out to 320 cu in engine in my old '66 Mustang was definitely
> faster than any gas/electric hybrid engine found today.
How quaint? 26.07 sub-quaintness-factor.
You've totally proven that the whole "SW has inferior TL than ST" is a
moot point (which I already know), since nowhere it says that
Hyperdrives are higher-tech than Warp Drives. In fact in GURPS they're
both the same tech level(s), and normally both can't exist in an
universe (since it will eventually lead to huge silliness). And their
speeds are completely up to the GM.
Besides, your engine was better at what? Producing monoxide or
guzzling gasoline?
My point wasn't to contradict that Warp is more advanced than
Hyperdrive, since in GURPS it already says it isn't. Did ST discover
hyperdrive first but decided it was too slow or Warp was better? My
point is that the whole purpose of a technology is to fulfill a role:
travel tech is more effective, or advanced, when it allows you to go
farther, faster and cheaper - and that would make it more advanced,
since flying is more _advanced_ than driving.
It's like saying that Medicine in my world is more advanced, because
my cell-regeneration machine can also fix broken machinery. It's not
its main purpose, so it doesn't it make it "better" at medicine.
> But the gas/electric hybrid is definitely more advanced that the
> Ford short block 8 cylinder engine.
Definitely. It also is better, because it's less wasteful and pollutes
less.
> Specifically, the Warp Drive lets you interact with the universe
> even in combat. You can tell precisely where you are in Warp, you
> find out you misjumped when you get their in Hyperdrive.
There's no hard evidence that you can't tell where you are while in
Hyperdrive, at least in the shows. Even if it were so, it could be as
much a problem of sensors not being as great as the drive itself
(where talking about thousands if not millions of times the speed of
light).
In GURPS, it's all optional, FTL travel are only guidelines, they
don't even give you speed. There, hyperdrive is assumed to be
"skipping into an alternate dimension" where most evidence in the
movies just shows breaking the lightspeed barrier and reaching
unbelievable high speeds (the mechanics of which is explained in the
Technical Commentaries, but I can't be certain of their validity).
If you mean _physically_ interact, I'd say that's as much (or more) an
advantage than it is a disadvantage. You can't be intercepted, or
followed unless somebody knew where you were going.
> Voyager wasn't lost. They knew they were 70 years cruising speed
> travel from home and didn't know much about where they were. But they
> knew where they were.
And that they probably were never going back.
> Getting to where you intended to go is also 'better'.
That's why you have navigation computers, to get where you intended
to. First you must prove that hyperdrive gets you were you didn't want
to go, to argue that warp is better because it does the opposite.
In Star Trek, there are many times where you don't get where you
intended: because someone else prevented you from getting there.
> > Airplanes will still be higher TL than cars.
>
> False.
So lasers aren't higher TL than bullets? Just because this model of
laser is older than this model of bullet? That makes no sense at all.
I'm talking about breakthru discoveries, you're talking about
individual pieces of machinery. Is it a more advanced means of
transportation? Hell yes.
A sword is a low-tech weapon? Yes it is. If I use an unbreakable
titanium alloy to make it, is it a high-tech weapon? Higher than an
old submachine-gun?
These are different technologies: materials tech, propulsion tech,
power tech.
It's like saying that because somebody made this warp-capable ship,
but 10 years later I build a flashy new car with a fuel-less engine,
my car has a higher _propulsion_ tech than the ship? That makes
absolutely no sense.
> > You can't cross the sea with a car, and you mostly need roads. And it
> > was invented long before. And there was a much higher amount of
> > research needed to figure out aerodynamics and stuff than to make a
> > wheel turn.
>
> And if we put these two fictional FTLs into one universe, we pretty
> much have a simple insertion into another dimension using one method,
> while Trek's TNG series did a story (details fuzzy, Riker found his
> arm had been surgically removed then reattached) showing that the Warp
> driven ships are simultaneously in two dimensions at once, one of them
> the 'normal' universe, which from an objective point of view is
> likelier the more complex achievement. Complexity is an indication of
> advanced tech.
Again, more of the "infinite number of monkeys" effect...
"Complexity is an indication of advanced tech"? Now THAT is a
completely absurd argument. Complexity (moving parts, existing
simultaneously in a place that you didn't even want to exist in
anyway) is a SIDE-EFFECT of trying to be more advanced, and it isn't
by itself a good thing - in some cases, it simply can't be avoided.
An electric (quartz, not digital) watch is LESS complex than one that
you have to wind, and it is MORE advanced, because it is much more
precise.
Batteries are a lot less complex than clockwork. Just put acid, pure
water, nickel and I dunno what else (I didn't take that class in
school) and you get a battery.
So much for the "more complex is more advanced" theory. The
"achievement" as you put it, isn't to exist elsewhere and make pretty
drawings on the sky. It is to travel faster than light and reach other
stars.
> > If ship A doesn't have warp capability, and ship B wants to do combat
> > with ship A, it must stay in normal speed and not go to warp, so the
> > only "combat advantage" of warp speed is that it can flee when things
> > don't go well. What's so great about that? If you enter warp speed to
> > escape from battle, I engage hyperspace, go to your homeworld,
> > slaughter your family, and return to mock you in less than a day and
> > there isn't anything you could do about it.
>
> False again. See the "Picard Maneuver" for an example of using
> warp speed in a normal space fight. It is the SW ships who CANNOT
> fight and go FTL simultaneously. FTL is useful for far more than
> escape. If I go from one point well beyond the range of your weapons,
> to point blank, fire, turn and head to another point well outside your
> range of attack within the span of a fraction of a second, there
> really isn't a lot you can do, particular with a lock on system that
> takes several seconds.
Not a lot I can do? Riker used a simple tractor beam. So much for the
"Picard Maneuver" - all ISD have tractor beams.
> Also observe the trick I mentioned, back off slightly faster than
> light from close range. The Einsteinian limited ship's weapons CANNOT
> catch you, but yours can hit him. And a single Warp ship like a
> runabout can wreak havoc over thousands of TIE fighters the way a ME
> 262 harrassed P51 Mustangs in WWII. Even if the TIE sensors are
> capable of tracking something moving faster than physically possible
> in their universe, they really can't do much more than take damage or
> wave their fist's futilely at it if they survive.
Unfortunately it would have time for one shot, before being thousands
of miles away and then having to turn back. The ME-262 was still going
STL.
"Sir, she can't take it anymore! All this going in-out-in-out of warp
is really messing the warp core, not to mention my lunch!"
I really don't have recorded the (original) "Picard Maneuver" episode
in my long-term memory, so I can't recall whether he did that once, or
did a lot of turns and warps until he fried his ship.
> > (if a fleet of hyperspace-capable ships decided to go to Earth and
> > vaporize it, there's no way the warp-capable ships could go there to
> > defend it, since they're all scattered around the quadrant and would
> > need at least a week to get there)
>
> Just leaves the forces stationed on and around Earth, which are
> considerable. Again see what effect a single roundabout can have on a
> fleet of TIE fighters... and pit 30 or so starships and HUNDREDS of
> roundabouts against that hapless fleet that cannot go FTL without
> fleeing the starsystem.
Cute, but that's really not much use against a whole fleet of ISDs
(I'm talking about thousands or tens of thousands) each with the
firepower of 9 or so Galaxy-Class ships, in close orbit to the planet,
all with the means to counteract stupid FTL maneuvers with simple
tractor beams, or maybe simply fill everything with proximity mines so
no FTL ships can go thru without considerable damage.
Again, the amount of energy required, or strain on the warp core/ship
structure for doing that half-baked maneuver hasn't been properly
registered.
> > Federation weapons aren't faster than warp, or even faster than light
> > for that matter only when it's convenient: when both the attacker and
> > the attacked ship are in warp. Which indicates that they retain the
> > inertia of the firing ship, so if two ships are parallel to one
> > another, and both are travelling at the same warp speed, ship 1
> > launches a torpedo at ship 2, the torpedo only propels itself
> > sideways, relative to the ships' motion.
>
> You don't watch Star Trek I take it. Warheadless photon torpedoes
> were used to send someone to the Enterprise D in a hurry in one
> episode. Time was of the essence and the ship carrying her would have
> taken too long. That photon torpedoes move at warp speeds and are
> faster than starships is absolutely established.
No I don't watch Star Trek I.
It's mind-boggling, tho, that a lot of battles take place in normal
space with ships only a few thousand KMs (please don't tell me that
they fight at multiples of 300,000 km when STL and both ships are
visible from a single screen shot) from each other, photon torpedoes
going a lot slower than light (in fact, slow enough for the "awe
factor" to kick in) when they could go FTL and hit the ship before
they can say "raise shields!".
Maybe there's a physics... I mean Trek law that allows for a torpedo
with a half-breed female klingon in it to travel at FTL.
> And phasers overtook a Borg ship pulling away from the Enterprise D
> at several warp factors. If it retained warp six momentum against a
> ship moving warp nine, it would never have hit the warp nine ship.
I think you got your numbers all wrong, starting from 6.
> That phasers move faster than light is also established.
Sure, established by the "because I say so" rule.
> > If torpedoes were anywhere near light speed on their own, we wouldn't
> > even see them when two ships are engaged on planetary orbit (which
> > happens on the show plenty of times) (it takes 8 seconds for light to
> > travel from Earth to Sun... ususally it takes that long for a torpedo
> > to travel from a ship to another that are only a few hundred/thousands
> > miles away)
>
> And we wouldn't hear the sound of a Star Destroyer in space.
> Cinematic liberties do not trump established facts from the canon
> material.
The microphone was placed inside the SD. DUH!
> > Phasers by themselves carry a very small amount of energy, most damage
> > done (either stun or permanent damage) is due to reactions in the
> > matter it impacts - it's generally some kind of chain-reaction. I
> > don't think it fits within any of the known GURPS beam types.
>
> Trek ship phasers fire in the gigajoule range if I recall a comment
> made on one show correctly. That is considerably more powerful than
> the weapons listed in GURPS Space
How much output does a hand phaser give? Probably not enough to
completely disintegrate a person by sheer energy alone.
There are other places where you can look up energy expenditures and
whatever, I really don't feel like cutting and pasting all that stuff
here. All these web addresses have been mentioned on this thread at
one moment or another.
-Groovis
Groovis
> >> And don't forget Star Trek's (TOS) antimatter that can be deactivated
> (The
> >> Apple), less than 28 grams of which can rip half a planet's atmosphere
> off
> >> (Obsession) and can blow up entire universes under the right conditions
> (The
> >> Alternative Factor) .
> >
> > And don't forget that 28 grams of antimatter can't rip half a planet's
> > atmosphere off, even if it says so in Trek Tech. This was already
> > explained in a different post on this same thread. It will probably
> > trigger an explosion less than a megaton.
>
> I think you misunderstood my intent. The previous post was pointing out
> some of Star Trek's absurdities. I was simply following suit
Ah okay. Then I agree with you on the absurdity thing.
Well, it's a known fact that Star Trek matter works a lot different
than real matter (and antimatter)... but you have to take into account
that it's more "pure" than our more primitive, "impure" antimatter -
you know, mixed with all those anti-germs and other anti-stuff.
Probably they found a better way to purify it than to hammer it with a
large rock.
-Groovis
MistWing SilverTail
generate
> > > shields like ST ships do.
>
> Quite the contrary. The Millenium Falcon _definitely_ had shields like
> ST ships do. We could actually see the tie fighter shots bouncing off
> of it. In fact, allowing for the smaller size of the combatants, the MF
> shields worked a fair bit better than Federation shields do.
There is no real way to justify this. We are given no idea of how strong
the Tie fighter's beam weapons are. They may be relatively weak, or (if you
wish to argue that they were rather powerful) they may not have been fired
at full strength (I can't recall any instance of the Empire not wanting to
capture the MF). With so few onscreen examples (and a dearth of onscreen
tech info), it's hard to make any valid comparisons
> The Death
> Star also had shields that would stop any main ship weapons but had
> weak spots at the poles that could be flown through by small ships.
It didn't look to me like they flew through the shields at the poles. I
thought they went in at the equator. I also don't recall them saying that
the ships went through the deflector shields. They did pass though the
magnetic field
> > Even X-Wing fighters are shielded.
But the TIE fighters aren't (or at least they don't seem to be). Don't
enlist to be a Tie fighter pilot... low life expectancy
MistWing SilverTail
> >
> > But as Burke points out in _Connection_ neither invention sprang full
born
> > formt he head of Zeus. Don't forget that before the airplane there was
the
> > Zeplin.
>
> Connection? Is that a ST episode?
Connections is a RL documentary about how things in history are connected to
other, unexpected things... for example, how sheep raising in ancient times
helped to give rise to the computer. The last show of the series, James
Burke points out how things that we may think are logically connected,
aren't. For example, furtilizer didn't follow logically from agriculture.
Explosives and warfare had a lot to do with their invention (since a good
furtilizer can also make (or be an ingrediant in) explosives)
> The forces at use in an airplane are a bit more difficult to
> understand in a low-tech mentality, than those of a car: the wheel was
> probably one of the first inventions, and basically it's just the
> source of power that increased in TL. Even one could argue than the
> concept of flying seems magical: I bet nobody got accused of
> witchcraft for trying to pull a cart with horses instead of people -
> at most, everybody just thought "damn! why didn't I think of that
> before".
Just because the plane was INVENTED at a higher TL, it doesn't follow that
it IS a higher TL.
> What I would say is that neither Warp or Hyperspace are "higher" TL
> and according to GURPS rules they shouldn't even be allowed in the
> same game world. But Hyperspace seems to me definitely more useful and
> the advantages greatly outweight the disadvantages (not to mention
> that with Hyperspace Drives you can colonize the whole Galaxy in a
> tiny little fraction of the time than Warp Drive, that alone should
> mean that realistically, the whole TL of the galaxy in general should
> be higher, since the resources (manpower, brainpower(?) and materials)
> is potentially unlimited.
IMO, warp is more useful than hyperspace. True, SW's hyperspace is faster
than most of ST's warp. But I find that the ability to interact with real
space while at warp to be a very useful capability. Plus, you can get into
warp faster than you can get into hyperspace. And you can easily change
course while at warp. There is no evidence that this is possible in
hyperspace. Of course, both share the advantage that, once you enter your
FTL environment, you effectively vanish from the other's sensors
> > >Phasers aren't _clearly_ anything, period :) And they definitely look
> > >a lot slower than light... sometimes a character will see a phaser
> > >beam being shot at him and duck! :D
> >
> > Actually with the exception of Wink of an Eye its more along the lines
of the
> > seeing the guy aim the phazser and duck before he pulls the trigger.
>
> I can't accept that, phasers definitely reach their targets much
> slower than light, which should be instantaneous, making a constant
> beam that lasts for a while, not that reaches from the source like a
> frog's tongue.
Nitpick... light isn't instantaneous.
Everything I've seen in the various ST episodes/movie agree that, left to
themselves, phasers are indeed STL weapons. Of course, in TOS, you can warp
accelerate them, but you need a ship to do that
> > The Death Star is as inconistant as Star Trek's phasers: Alderaan is
> > destroyed with rediculous ease and yet later on the Death Star has to
sit in
> > orbit waiting for the rebel's moon to clear the planet which allows the
> > rebels the time they need to exploit the weakness they found.
>
> Consider two things: (1) the rebel's moon is roughly earth-sized, and
> the planet it orbits is a huge gas giant: so nobody can claim that the
> effect the laser would have on it had been the same it had on
> Alderaan. and (2) the Imperials weren't in any real hurry, to them
> there wasn't any risk, and they only took about 1/2 hour to get to
> that point.
Tactical concideration... I would have at least launched several ships to
keep the rebels from escaping. Especially if you're going to take 1/2 an
hour to destroy their base. Granted, you would want some of them to escape
(to spread word of the disaster about to befall them), but not all of them
> Okay, reality check here: Star Wars isn't a tv show, and Star Trek
> wasn't originally meant to be a movie, and there's hardly any plot
> continuity between them (which doesn't mean they're bad, but they just
> aren't one long story divided into episodes).
You know... it's talk like this that totally ruins any good argument about
which is better :)
MistWing SilverTail
> and it was protected by the Imperial fleet. It DID have a planetary
> shield, though - in Star Wars Technical Commentaries it is shown that
> the beam of the Death Star hitting Aldeeraan is penetrating a
> defensive energy shield. See http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ for more
> details. :))
I just checked the site and couldn't find any reference to Alderan having a
shield. Could you please give more details on where it is?
Brad Carletti
>thought they went in at the equator. I also don't recall them saying that
>the ships went through the deflector shields. They did pass though the
>magnetic field
Which is possibly a component of same.
>> > Even X-Wing fighters are shielded.
>
>But the TIE fighters aren't (or at least they don't seem to be). Don't
>enlist to be a Tie fighter pilot... low life expectancy
That's debatable.
David Johnston
>
> > > > I should mention that there don't seem to be a way for SW ship to
> generate
> > > > shields like ST ships do.
> >
> > Quite the contrary. The Millenium Falcon _definitely_ had shields like
> > ST ships do. We could actually see the tie fighter shots bouncing off
> > of it. In fact, allowing for the smaller size of the combatants, the MF
> > shields worked a fair bit better than Federation shields do.
>
> There is no real way to justify this. We are given no idea of how strong
> the Tie fighter's beam weapons are. They may be relatively weak,
I'm sure they are, but that's besides the point, which is that Star Wars
unquestionably had deflector shields "like those of Star Trek", even though
they didn't call them that. I doubt they would be as powerful, pound for pound,
simply because I wouldn't give Star Wars ships anti-matter reactors, meaning
that they wouldn't have nearly as much power to put into their shields. Of
course their warships are also over 10 times the size of Federation starships,
perhaps for just that reason.
> > The Death
> > Star also had shields that would stop any main ship weapons but had
> > weak spots at the poles that could be flown through by small ships.
>
> It didn't look to me like they flew through the shields at the poles. I
> thought they went in at the equator.
The Death Star didn't have poles or an equator, because it had no consistent
rotation. I was referring to the poles of the actual forcefield. I assume
they went in at the poles because that is where the field ought to be weakest,
and because they needed _some_ reason to have to fly half way around the
Deathstar to hit their target, past all those defensive emplacements and fighters
as opposed to just flying in directly. A similar manuever was actually executed
versus the Enterprise when some Maquis wanted to steal stuff from them using a
transporter.
I also don't recall them saying that
> the ships went through the deflector shields. They did pass though the
> magnetic field
Same thing. If you'll recall, the forcefields which reflected the blaster
bolts inside the garbage compactor were also called "magnetic" although there
is no way real magnetism could do such a thing. Don't be misled by the
differing jargon.
The Sophist
>>The problem with your single indestructible ship is it only has to be
>>proven not so indestructible once. I sincerely doubt the Death Star would
>>actually been put into operation without a supporting fleet of Star
>>Destroyers at the very least.
>>
>
> Depends how over-confident its commanders were- they did learn this for the
> second one.
Though the Emperor didn't learn it well enough. The support fleet
shouldn't have waited to start firing on the rebels. And for that
matter the Emperor shouldn't have leaked the location of the the Death
Star until its defenses, and not just its main gun, were fully
operational. Sure, the trap might not have worked in that case, but if
the rebels didn't come, he'd have his perfect death star with which to
wipe out rebel sympathizing worlds. The old Emperor's vanity had made
him lose touch with his fear. No doubt that's also why he wasn't strong
enough in the dark side of the Force any more to turn Luke, or even keep
Vader under control.
--
Aaron Boyden
"I may have done this and that for sufferers; but always I seemed to
have done better when I learned to feel better joys."
-Thus spoke Zarathustra
Groovis
> A single big indestructible ship is often a better buy than a fleet of
> cheaper ships, just because you take losses with each operation of the
> cheaper ships, but the indestructible ship is left intact each time.
> The trick, of course, is actually making the ship indestructible.
As I remember, the trick to destroying 1 indestructible ship in MoO
was to use a weapon that killed n% of the ships, rounded up.
Also having 50,000 of the smallest ships (which is cheap) each with a
single weapon will destroy that one. I always thought that ship combat
in MoO was very balanced (each strategy had its advantages and
disadvantages, none was perfect). Also, there was a balance between
weapons that did a lot of damage but weren't "beam" so damage wouldn't
carry over to the next ship, and those that did, but weren't that
strong... until you got the Death Ray.
-Groovis
Groovis
> > > Even X-Wing fighters are shielded.
>
> But the TIE fighters aren't (or at least they don't seem to be). Don't
> enlist to be a Tie fighter pilot... low life expectancy
If the X-Wing/TIE Fighter series of LucasArts games have any validity,
the chances of survival of a _good_ pilot where a lot higher piloting
a TIE Fighter than a X-Wing Fighter (I usually did better on a TIE
Bomber also). Not only were they faster, even well-aimed blasters had
a tendency to go around the tiny ship (since the cannons where very
much apart).
Also TIEs are much smaller. They don't have an hyperdrive either.
-Groovis
Groovis
> > Connection? Is that a ST episode?
>
> Connections is a RL documentary about how things in history are connected to
> other, unexpected things... for example, how sheep raising in ancient times
> helped to give rise to the computer. The last show of the series, James
> Burke points out how things that we may think are logically connected,
> aren't. For example, furtilizer didn't follow logically from agriculture.
> Explosives and warfare had a lot to do with their invention (since a good
> furtilizer can also make (or be an ingrediant in) explosives)
Ah... right, I remember. It reminds me of the old Batman series with
Adam West ("He used a pistol to steal the gem! Pistol begins with a
'P', and so does Penguin. The penguin did it!")
> Just because the plane was INVENTED at a higher TL, it doesn't follow that
> it IS a higher TL.
Not JUST because it was invented later. The fact that it breaks many
more transportation barriers that a car.
Then a spaceship isn't higher TL than a bycicle, or a
dimension-travelling machine isn't a higher TL than a locomotive -
somebody will argue that this bycicle uses a TL15
adamantium-neutronium biomorph alloy, and was built 500 years after
the spaceship.
Then internal combustion engines aren't higher TL than steam engines,
despite the fact that they are smaller, lighter, allows for more
speed, etc. So if I re-invent the steam-engine to be slightly better
by using 21th Century alloys and cooling techniques, then it's higher
TL than electric/fuel cell cars.
> IMO, warp is more useful than hyperspace. True, SW's hyperspace is faster
> than most of ST's warp. But I find that the ability to interact with real
> space while at warp to be a very useful capability. Plus, you can get into
> warp faster than you can get into hyperspace. And you can easily change
> course while at warp. There is no evidence that this is possible in
> hyperspace. Of course, both share the advantage that, once you enter your
> FTL environment, you effectively vanish from the other's sensors
Not just faster. It's faster by at least a factor of 80 to 1 or more.
So, if somebody invents a Warp Drive that can go at warp 10 by some
unknown method (even though that is supposedly impossible, but has
been done by the Traveller or whatever his name was) making travel
nearly instantaneous, but making the ship unable to see the pretty
stars... then everybody MUST say "it's actually worse than Warp 9!
sure, I have to travel for 80 years but at least I could see were I
was going".
> Nitpick... light isn't instantaneous.
If you're standing at 1 km of your target, it takes 1/300,000 of a
second. I'd call that pretty instantaneous. If I shoot a hand-phaser
at him, I'll watch a frog's tongue effect going from my gun to the
target.
> Everything I've seen in the various ST episodes/movie agree that, left to
> themselves, phasers are indeed STL weapons. Of course, in TOS, you can warp
> accelerate them, but you need a ship to do that
Which isn't normally done, unless you're really trying to hit a ship
that's running away at warp (because I could argue that my .22 pistol
has a range of 1000 km: see, I put it on a car, drive it for 1000 km
and then shoot it)
> > Consider two things: (1) the rebel's moon is roughly earth-sized, and
> > the planet it orbits is a huge gas giant: so nobody can claim that the
> > effect the laser would have on it had been the same it had on
> > Alderaan. and (2) the Imperials weren't in any real hurry, to them
> > there wasn't any risk, and they only took about 1/2 hour to get to
> > that point.
>
> Tactical concideration... I would have at least launched several ships to
> keep the rebels from escaping. Especially if you're going to take 1/2 an
> hour to destroy their base. Granted, you would want some of them to escape
> (to spread word of the disaster about to befall them), but not all of them
Well, I didn't see any signs of the rebels trying to escape (which is
a bit funny, tho...) - also a tactical consideration ("why"). And bad
tactics isn't the same as the Death Star being inconsistent.
If yesterday you shot at me with a revolver, and today you want to
kill me with poison, does that make you an inconsistent person?
> > Okay, reality check here: Star Wars isn't a tv show, and Star Trek
> > wasn't originally meant to be a movie, and there's hardly any plot
> > continuity between them (which doesn't mean they're bad, but they just
> > aren't one long story divided into episodes).
>
> You know... it's talk like this that totally ruins any good argument about
> which is better :)
Hahahaha! That's the good thing about having a non-fan in it :)
Actually what I meant to do was to say why there isn't as much
"schientific info" in a movie trilogy like Star Wars than a whole lot
of series like Star Trek.
In fact, I came to the following conclusion: by inventing a lot of
scientific-sounding words to explain your special effects, you
invalidate most of those things as "what could be in the future".
Maybe someone in the 5th century once thought about flying like birds,
with a couple of wings, and made drawings of a guy with man-made
wings, and wrote books saying how easy it would be in the future to do
so... 1500 years later somebody would say "what vision, this guy
foresaw what could have been in the future."
Try to do the same with a guy who says that, in the future, ships will
be able to fly because they will find a way to make water appear in
mid-air and use it to carry the ship.
-Groovis
Void Monkey
>probably doesn't generate all that much more terror than simply exterminating
>every living thing on it...it's the difference between dying by being shot 40
>times vs. dying by being shot 55 times. Both prospects are pretty scary.
Dead is dead, yes. However, I'm reminded of what it says in GURPS Cthulhupunk:
about how a shoggoth chasing you down is no different than a guy with a
chainsaw because they have the same result (death), but it's a psychologically
different situation because normal people aren't equipped to deal with the
shoggoth. Similarly, the Death Star, a moon sized space station which can
actually destroy a planet will kill everyone just as much as a bunch of nukes.
However, actually eliminating the entire planet is theoretically more
terrifying because when the populace on other planets consider what the Empire
is doing, they will not be able to fathom their planet being gone, meanwhile
just looking around and imagining nothing living is entirely within the realm
of their creative capabilities.
>The trick, of course, is in justifying the expense of such a large, single
>weapon. For the same cost, you could still take out a planet against even a
>very heavy defense much more efficiently, and not have all your eggs in one
>basket.
>It may have been a political weapon, but military strategy is still military
>strategy. Really, you don't even need an asteroid to wipe out a planet; a
>single vessel a tenth the size of a Star Destroyer with a large number of
>high-yeild nukes will do the job quite nicely. (You can't really hide
>underground, unless you fancy starving to death over dying in the initial
>attack, and in any event a planet with no infrastructure is still effectively
>destroyed.)
Remember that we're dealing with the Empire here. Remember that when the
Falcon left Tattoine and was chased by Star Destroyers, they got away. On Hoth
they were sending transports with only two fighters for cover. while using the
ion cannon. Also, the average stormtrooper (or Imperial gunner or whatever) is
a notoriously bad shot, so the Emperor probably knew that the only way to be
certain was to obliterate the planet.
>For the money and effort spent on the Death Star, a very large fleet of Star
>Destroyers with similar, but scaled-back, defensive capability and a few
>hundred planet-buster nukes would seem to offer more bang for the buck.
I think one thing to remember is that Star Wars was made during the cold war,
and they were probably (just a guess) looking for a nuke-alternative (not that
no writers/comics/whatever have put them in since...) simply because they
didn't want the movie to be too "heavy"
Void Monkey
>not so indestructible once. I sincerely doubt the Death Star would actually
>been put into operation without a supporting fleet of Star Destroyers at the
>very least.
>
Totally true, but I tend to think everyone leading the Empire suffers from the
Overconfidence disadvantage.
Tacit
>war, and they were probably (just a guess) looking for a nuke-alternative (not
>that no writers/comics/whatever have put them in since...) simply because they
>didn't want the movie to be too "heavy"
I think it might be even simpler than that; Star Wars is an old style
hero-vs-villain movie in the style of the classic hero myth, and it just
doesn't do to have a smart, savvy, capable, sophisticated enemy in such a
story.
If the Empire actually had any real military sense at all, it'd make for a
boring movie; the rebels would have about as much chance as a gnat against an
elephant.
MistWing SilverTail
>> even in combat. You can tell precisely where you are in Warp, you
>> find out you misjumped when you get their in Hyperdrive.
>
> advantage than it is a disadvantage. You can't be intercepted, or
> followed unless somebody knew where you were going.
Hmm... I guess this is just a matter of opinion then. I believe that being
able to interact is generally better than not being able to interact
> So lasers aren't higher TL than bullets? Just because this model of
> laser is older than this model of bullet? That makes no sense at all.
Kind of off topic... what if you discover a natural laser and exploit it?
You have no idea how it works and they're probably 'impure', but you can
have lasers at a low TL. Very rare, but an interesting aside (IMO)
> I'm talking about breakthru discoveries, you're talking about
> individual pieces of machinery. Is it a more advanced means of
> transportation? Hell yes.
I question the use of 'advanced' in this case. Yes, it's harder to figure
out. But technologically, a car is not inheirantly more advanced than a
plane. Compare the Wright Flyer and the first car. The plane had bigger
engines, but it wasn't more advanced
> An electric (quartz, not digital) watch is LESS complex than one that
> you have to wind, and it is MORE advanced, because it is much more
> precise.
Complexity involved more than moving parts. A circuit board is rather
complex and if the watch has one (like most digital watches do today), it
may well be more complex. Also, precision is not necessarily an indication
of how advanced something is. Some very precise thigs can be done at low TL
and (of course) you can always make something less precise
> Batteries are a lot less complex than clockwork. Just put acid, pure
> water, nickel and I dunno what else (I didn't take that class in
> school) and you get a battery.
zinc comes to mind
BTW: Watch batteries are dry cells, not wet cells
> > False again. See the "Picard Maneuver" for an example of using
> > warp speed in a normal space fight. It is the SW ships who CANNOT
> > fight and go FTL simultaneously. FTL is useful for far more than
> > escape. If I go from one point well beyond the range of your weapons,
> > to point blank, fire, turn and head to another point well outside your
> > range of attack within the span of a fraction of a second, there
> > really isn't a lot you can do, particular with a lock on system that
> > takes several seconds.
>
> Not a lot I can do? Riker used a simple tractor beam. So much for the
> "Picard Maneuver" - all ISD have tractor beams.
The drawback, of course, being the sensors
> > Also observe the trick I mentioned, back off slightly faster than
> > light from close range. The Einsteinian limited ship's weapons CANNOT
> > catch you, but yours can hit him. And a single Warp ship like a
> > runabout can wreak havoc over thousands of TIE fighters the way a ME
> > 262 harrassed P51 Mustangs in WWII. Even if the TIE sensors are
> > capable of tracking something moving faster than physically possible
> > in their universe, they really can't do much more than take damage or
> > wave their fist's futilely at it if they survive.
>
> Unfortunately it would have time for one shot, before being thousands
> of miles away and then having to turn back. The ME-262 was still going
> STL.
Also, have you every tried to hit anything traveling at a high relative
speed? The runabout is going to have a lot of trouble actually hitting
something as small and slow as a Tie Fighter. FTL combat works great
against large STL ships because of their size. Ties are small
> I really don't have recorded the (original) "Picard Maneuver" episode
> in my long-term memory, so I can't recall whether he did that once, or
> did a lot of turns and warps until he fried his ship.
The Picard Maneuver is actually a poor example of FTL/STL combat. The
Stargazer dropped to sublight before (attempting to) fire. It was at that
time that Riker hit it with the tractor beam. Of course, he did track it at
FTL speeds (although you couldn't rell from the viewscreen.
A better example of FTL/STL combat would be Elaan of Troyius (TOS). There,
a Klingong ship (traveling at warp) attacked the Enterprise (who's warp
engines were down due to sabotage)
> Cute, but that's really not much use against a whole fleet of ISDs
> (I'm talking about thousands or tens of thousands) each with the
> firepower of 9 or so Galaxy-Class ships, in close orbit to the planet,
> all with the means to counteract stupid FTL maneuvers with simple
> tractor beams, or maybe simply fill everything with proximity mines so
> no FTL ships can go thru without considerable damage.
Bad argument. First off, there is no (military) reason to send thousands of
ships and also, one could always up the number of SW ships to match (there's
no indication of how many ships are where).
You also have the problem of sensors not being able to see warp ships (not
knowing what to look for)
Also, the planet itself may have mines
etc, etc
> Again, the amount of energy required, or strain on the warp core/ship
> structure for doing that half-baked maneuver hasn't been properly
> registered.
Doing what half-baked maneuver?
> It's mind-boggling, tho, that a lot of battles take place in normal
> space with ships only a few thousand KMs (please don't tell me that
> they fight at multiples of 300,000 km when STL and both ships are
> visible from a single screen shot) from each other
Better than B5 who's weapons range seems to be less than 10 kilometers
> photon torpedoes
> going a lot slower than light (in fact, slow enough for the "awe
> factor" to kick in) when they could go FTL and hit the ship before
> they can say "raise shields!".
Well, the Enterprise crew sometimes seems to have a problem of knowing to
raise shields
> Maybe there's a physics... I mean Trek law that allows for a torpedo
> with a half-breed female klingon in it to travel at FTL.
It depends on whether the photon is fired from a warp field or not. If yes,
they travel FTL. If no, they don't. Most of the combat seen in TNG+
happens at STL speeds so that they can bring the phasers to bear (which are
STL weapons). This automatically drops the photon speeds at STL as well (no
warp field)
> > And phasers overtook a Borg ship pulling away from the Enterprise D
> > at several warp factors. If it retained warp six momentum against a
> > ship moving warp nine, it would never have hit the warp nine ship.
>
> I think you got your numbers all wrong, starting from 6.
I don't recall any time that phasers were fired at the Borg while it was
moving at warp. Photons, yes... phasers, no
> > That phasers move faster than light is also established.
>
> Sure, established by the "because I say so" rule.
Phasers in TNG+ were ruled as being unable to move at FTL speeds. In TOS,
however, they could
> > Trek ship phasers fire in the gigajoule range if I recall a comment
> > made on one show correctly. That is considerably more powerful than
> > the weapons listed in GURPS Space
>
> How much output does a hand phaser give? Probably not enough to
> completely disintegrate a person by sheer energy alone.
They do mention in one TNG episode how much energy a phaser rifle fires (in
the low megajoule range). However, it is the 'rapid nadon effect' that
disintegrates things (i.e. it's a treknobable reason)
> There are other places where you can look up energy expenditures and
> whatever, I really don't feel like cutting and pasting all that stuff
> here. All these web addresses have been mentioned on this thread at
> one moment or another.
In general, I've been rather leery of the various web sites. While they are
interesting to read, the author often pushes his/her view of things and uses
the special effects on the screen to prove his/her point. This is true for
both ST and SW sites (although ST has an advantage because there's so much
more to choose from)
MistWing SilverTail
faster
> > than most of ST's warp. But I find that the ability to interact with
real
> > space while at warp to be a very useful capability. Plus, you can get
into
> > warp faster than you can get into hyperspace. And you can easily change
> > course while at warp. There is no evidence that this is possible in
> > hyperspace. Of course, both share the advantage that, once you enter
your
> > FTL environment, you effectively vanish from the other's sensors
>
> Not just faster. It's faster by at least a factor of 80 to 1 or more.
> So, if somebody invents a Warp Drive that can go at warp 10 by some
> unknown method (even though that is supposedly impossible, but has
> been done by the Traveller or whatever his name was) making travel
> nearly instantaneous, but making the ship unable to see the pretty
> stars... then everybody MUST say "it's actually worse than Warp 9!
> sure, I have to travel for 80 years but at least I could see were I
> was going".
Tom Paris in 'Threshold'. One of the more dumb ST-Voyager premises (Warp 10
changes you into an over-grown salamader)
> > Everything I've seen in the various ST episodes/movie agree that, left
to
> > themselves, phasers are indeed STL weapons. Of course, in TOS, you can
warp
> > accelerate them, but you need a ship to do that
>
> Which isn't normally done, unless you're really trying to hit a ship
> that's running away at warp (because I could argue that my .22 pistol
> has a range of 1000 km: see, I put it on a car, drive it for 1000 km
> and then shoot it)
In TOS, it was common to fire phasers at warp
SD Anderson
> SD Anderson wrote:
> >
> > sergio_p...@hotmail.com (Groovis) wrote in message news:<5e21c476.01111...@posting.google.com>...
> > > 10225...@compuserve.com (SD Anderson) wrote in message news:<ad847902.01111...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > influenced GURPS Space, we can easily fit Wars hyperspace with GURPS
> > > > hyperspace and ST Warp with GURPS Warp for FTL modeling.
> > > >
> > > > 1) ST FTL is SLOW. A Star Wars version of Voyager would get home
> > > > in one week's time assuming they knew where they were in the Delta
> > > > Quadrant and where Federation space was in the Alpha and Beta
> > > > Quadrants, which they did. Program a jump, wait to emerge a week
> > > > later, end of story.
> > >
> > > Which is the main purpose of a travel technology: to travel. Whether
> > > you can produce an infinite amount of monkeys in the process isn't
> > > relevant.
> > >
> > > Faster = Better.
> >
> > How quaint. The issue here still is *advanced*, not 'better'. The
> > bored out to 320 cu in engine in my old '66 Mustang was definitely
> > faster than any gas/electric hybrid engine found today.
> >
> > Ford short block 8 cylinder engine.
>
> doesn't have the characteristics of a Star Wars hyperdrive. They are
> totally different ways of accomplishing the same basic goal and therefore
> their relative levels of advancement can't be accurately judged.
Unless you put them together. In a combat situation, Warp wins. I
can combat the hypership in conditions where I can go FTL *and fight*
and it's stuck with the options of fighting at sublight or fleeing to
hyperspace and conceding the area of space to me. Literally, no SW
tech weapon system can touch a ST ship in warp unless it flies right
into the path of the attack.
I don't know about you but "I can hit you without being touched"
sounds like evidence of superiority in this area. Now the lower FTL
speed given it by Roddenberry gives Lucas FTL the long range
advantage. But that's all it has.
You fly blind vs you see where you're going.
You need to spend time calculating your jump, and in combat the
length of time needed can get you killed (example: Much of the Empire
Strikes Back) vs a few seconds to punch in a course before heading
off.
You have to drop out of hyperdrive to change course vs changing
course without leaving warp.
In short, the advantage goes to Warp. If Warp speed had been set
at something comprable or even superior to Hyperdrive, this thread
wouldn't exist, it'd be a clean sweep for Warp.
Add transporters, cloaking devices and medical tech that doesn't
require cybernetic prostheses for lost limbs and Trek shows a definite
superiority.
Jeff Wilson
news:3BF4440A...@eclipse.net:
> Energy is energy, regardless of the
> source; just because it's a matter-antimater annihilation doesn't
> magically make it more devastating.
Not true. There's as much energy added to heat a cup of coffee as
there is used to propel a handgun bullet. Seen any drive-by coffee spraying
lately?
--
Jeff Wilson
jwi...@io.com
Please leave whitespace aroud all URLs:< http://www.io.com/~jwilson/gurps >
Logomachy: when "semantic" doesn't mean what it used to.