08-17-07, 08:24 AM #6881
08-17-07, 08:28 AM #6882
08-17-07, 08:58 AM #6883
I'm confused... TW, what are you and Ent-D going on about?
08-17-07, 12:28 PM #6884
Haloguy claims that if a tiny fighter has a shield generator, obviously it must exist on a bigger ship.
I countered that this may not necessarily be so, since a smaller ship would require less power for a shield generator, and plausibly a less complex field structure. I likened this to laptops having batteries while Cray supercomputers do not have internal batteries.
TW said the analogy is invalid, as Cray supercomputers do have batteries. I challenged him to provide a reference, without using the motherboard battery or external UPS devices (which as anyone will know are not specifically made for Cray machines, they are made for any device that requires uptime in the event of an electrical outage, whereas laptop batteries cannot power say your desktop PC in an electrical outage).
At any rate, even if the computer analogy is inaccurate (but as far as I remember, supercomputers do not have their own batteries), the point of the argument still stands...merely because it (shield generator) exists on a smaller ship does not automatically mean it is used, exists or is feasible on a larger. TW was just being difficult and anal as usual.
08-17-07, 01:04 PM #6885
So multiple refrences to ships larger then a SSD having shields don't count? I recall the DS1 having a working shield generator. Now why wouldn't a ISD have one? Also, credits may refer to anything. Possibly money, possibly an analouge to reward points.
08-17-07, 03:06 PM #6886
Federation credits are valid currency within Federation territory, this is stated on many episodes. However, I am slightly mistaken, the Federation credit appears to have only been developed as a means of expediting trade and services, rather than for accumulation and self net-worth.
According to Memory Alpha tho, Gene insisted that money did not exist in the Federation. Star Trek episodes however have clearly stated in them the Federation credit, and characters such as OBrien, Riker and Bashir have used the medium. I suspect that Paramount or another rights holder may have pushed the Fed credit after Gene kicked the bucket. I shall have a further look.
08-17-07, 03:21 PM #6887
Almost every Star wars ship has shields read the books play the games WATCH* the movies.
Oh and Gene passed away saying kicked the bucket makes it sound so disrespectful.
08-17-07, 04:10 PM #6888
SW ships have shields, I posted a pic of a shield scattering the bolt. The ISD is also a power dreadnaught. A single reactor provided the defense of the Massassi Base for years. That includes the shield, the electricity, the turrets, the command room, the bunkers, the outposts, everything. If a single ISD reactor can power a shield that covers an area much larger then itslef, they why can't it produce a shield?
And what about the fact that it is stated in the films that the Executor lost its SHIELDS. And in ESB, the Captain says "Raise forward deflector SHIELDS"!
Its over. No more "no shields" crap. You are thinking like it acts like ST. It does NOT act that way. All ships have hull hugging shields that do not expose where the entire shield is when hit, which is what ST does. SW does not use the unfortunately bad, bad, bad science in ST. I mean, beams that can act like a solid? Teleporting people? 100% efficent antimatter? No massive explosions like you would expect from antimatter? Torpedos that have nothing to do with light, despite being named "photon torpedos"?
If you ask me, SW has the advantage in several critical areas: production, size, economy, construction capability, extreamly fast real space torpedos, planet destroying ships, massive fleets, strategic speed advantage, can heal all but the most fatal of wounds, has two galaxies in area, massive amount of resources, replicators, energy-mass conversions, can stay inside of an asteroid field made by two planets colliding and with a 100% density for days, fire rate advantage( which makes up for any potential weakness in weapons), non-volatile reactors, extreamly thick armor, a huge range advantage ( approx. 1 light-hour), guns that are extreamly accurate at that range, extreamly powerful ground units, fewer internal enemies, massive number of worlds to conquer. Several planets (Kuat, Correlia, Coruscant, Sullust, Mon Calamari, Jabim, etc) produce more ships every year (563 ISD size ships each) then federation( which can produce 1 Sovereign every year for each construction area on a space station, with about 12 Sovereigns made yearly at each major planet).
All that info has been gathered from through-out the thread.
And this is what Picard would do to Leia if given the chance
08-17-07, 07:35 PM #6889
Your assertation that larger ships have no shields is incredibly assinine to say the least. At Hoth, the Ion Cannon blasts actual deflect down into the ship as if they had hit sothing and been refracted. At Tatoine we see a similiar thing happen as the Devastor fires the cshot that cripples the Tantive IV. In ROTJ we see an out of control sparking X-wing fly into an ISD and the fighter was vaporized in in a bright flash. The events you speak (The broadside of the Invisible Hand and the Death of the Executor were both instances where we are given every reason to believe both ships were sans shields becuase of prolonged battle.
Last edited by TW Scott; 08-18-07 at 04:16 AM.
08-17-07, 07:48 PM #6890
Cray XT4™ Supercomputer
CPU 64-bit AMD Opteron series processors; up to 96 per cabinet
Cache 64K L1 instruction cache, 64K L1 data cache, 1 MB L2 cache per processor
FLOPS 1 Terafl op per cabinet
Main Memory 1-8 GB Unbuffered ECC DDR2 SDRAM per AMD Opteron
Memory Bandwidth 10.6 to 12.8 GB/sec per AMD Opteron
1 Cray SeaStar2 routing and communications ASIC per Opteron processor
6 switch ports per Cray SeaStar chip, 7.6 GB/s each
(45.6 GB/s switching capacity per Cray SeaStar chip)
3 dimensional torus interconnect
External I/O Interface
10 Gigabit Ethernet
Fibre Channel (FC)
Infi niband (future)
Disk Storage Full line of FC-attached disk arrays with support for FC and SATA disk drives
File System Lustre File System
Cray System Management Workstation (SMW)
Graphical and command line system administration
Single system view for system administration
PBS Pro job management system
System software rollback capability
Reliability Features (Hardware)
Cray RAS and Management Subsystem (CRMS) with independent 100Mbits/s management fabric between all
system blades and cabinet level controllers. Over 50 measurement points monitored per Cray XT4 system blade
Full ECC memory protection from memory to system registers.
Full ECC protection in the Cray SeaStar chip
Redundant power suppliesRedundant voltage regulator modules (VRMs)
Redundant paths to all system RAID
Variable speed blowers with integrated pressure and temperature sensors
Reliability Features (software)
Simple, microkernel-based software design
CRMS system monitors operation of all operating system kernels
Lustre fi le system object storage target failover; Lustre metadata server failover
Software failover for critical system services including system database, system logger, and batch subsystems
Operating System UNICOS/lc—Components include SUSE Linux™, Cray Catamount Microkernel, CRMS and SMW software
Message Passing Libraries MPI 2.0, SHMEM
Compilers Fortran 77, 90, 95; C/C++
15 - 22.5 kW (15.3 - 22.9 kVA) per cabinet, depending on confi guration. Circuit Requirement: 80 AMP at 200/208
VAC (3 Phase & Ground), 63 AMP at 400 VAC (3 Phase, Neutral & Ground)
Cooling Requirement Air Cooled, Air Flow: 3000 cfm (1.41 m3/s), Intake: bottom, Exhaust: top.)
Dimensions (cabinet) H 80.50 in. (2045 mm) x W 22.50 in. (572 mm) x D 56.75 in. (1441 mm
Weight (maximum) 1529 lbs per cabinet (694 kg)
Acoustical Noise Level 75 dba at 3.3 ft (1.0 m)
Regulatory Compliance UL 60950-1, CAN/CSA – C 22.2 No 60950–1, CB Scheme Investigation to IEC/EN 60950-1
FCC Class A, DOC Class A, VCCI Class, CISPR 22, EN 50022 Class A, AS/NZS 3548, EN 50082-1, EN
61000-3-2, EN 61000-3-3, Statskontoret 26.2 Category 1
08-17-07, 10:18 PM #6891
Wow, TW, you went through all that trouble just to sabotage enterprise-d? Are you ever wrong in your little fantasy world Scottie the TW?
Last edited by USS Exeter; 08-17-07 at 10:42 PM.
08-17-07, 10:41 PM #6892
There are three reasons why filmmakers distort science and technology: 1): to make things "look cooler," 2): to make a story work, and 3): because they have no idea what they're talking about and they've chosen to ignore the advice (or pleas) of the film's consultants.
Star Wars was not created to be a vision of technology, it was a movie made by a professional filmmaker (Lucas) to possibly earn high revenue, and because its a possibility that lucas enjoys writing films. The technology explained in star wars is through some artists or theoretical physicists given with Lucas's permission to try to explain how everything works. The ideas may or may not work, but at least they satisfy the die-hard SWs fans. Some of the content in these fan fiction books or shows isn't even explained or demonsrated in the SW movies.
Star Wars is in fact more of a fantasy movie while ST leans toward the sci-fi genre. SW: a seiries of well made fantasy movies. ST: a visionary cult series that explains a lot of the could-be future.
08-17-07, 11:08 PM #6893
SW is space opera. Meaning it is supposed to be like a very, very, VERY, high-tech version of Shakespearian plays. ST does however relie on somewhat bad science. The most realistic one would be ST: Enterprise ( And my personal favorite. It seems to of learned a few things from SW. Mainly that technobabble will be very boring to people, give people headaches, and that the life would be a whole lot better if they just got on with it instead of having to explain whats happening for 5 minutes. Enterprise gives me lots and lots of boombs, and is the most realistic version of ST. Apart from the phase cannons, phasers, and transporters. Spatial torpedos PWN everythingzzz!)
This would likely be the reaction a Starfleet Officer's face when he first sees an Imperial Armada led by an Eclipse-Class SSD: That would be by pure size too.
08-18-07, 03:57 AM #6894
08-18-07, 04:14 AM #6895
God, what a load of bull. Star Wars is definative Sci-Fi. Same as Star Trek, Babylon 5, Farscape, Battle Star Galatica and so on. All of them tell a story in a universe that is more advanced with devices we have not invented or discovered the method of making them work.
If someone wrote a novel in 11AD and the people in this story had horseless carraiges, flying boxes, and and flameless lights, then that would he Science Fiction of that age. it wouldn't matter if the author never described how these items might work.
But I discovered the true bias here. It has to do with mode of speach
Star Wars: People talk like normal people. Han is a pilot, and talks like one. Luke was a farmboy with some technical skills and talks like one. Liea was a noble and talked like one.
Babylon 5: The vast majority of main characters only had the barest inkling of how anything they used actually worked. Much like today. They all also spoke as equivalent people today do
Farscape: Only one character spoke like a rocket scientist and that was Doctor John Crichton a rocket scientist.
Star Trek: The majority of the crew speaks a pseudotechnical jargon that you can cut with a knife. Nobody speaks simple english when an eight syllable will confuse people
So in the mind of diehard Trekies, Star trek sounds like the more plausible show for the very reason it is less plausible. Somehow to the diehard trekki, you somehow dumb unless you use esoteric pseudotechnical jargon, never mind the fact that most of the time a person goes for the simplest terms to describe something and only elaborates if asked.
08-18-07, 08:14 PM #6896
Don't anyone rip off of ST's so-called techno-babble. It is mostly based off of real theoretical physics like how Warp works (space contracts around it) and Gravitons which are used in ST Sheilds.
Futurama 8/17/2007 10:00 PM:
Dr. Farnsworth to his younger clone:
Your right, acording to Einstein's theory of reletivity we can't travel faster than light. Thats why scientists increased the speed of light in 2011.
08-18-07, 08:17 PM #6897
08-18-07, 08:26 PM #6898
08-18-07, 08:35 PM #6899
08-18-07, 08:39 PM #6900
By Fettman in forum SciFi & FantasyLast Post: 10-18-11, 02:02 PMReplies: 33
By USS Athens in forum SciFi & FantasyLast Post: 03-16-10, 04:47 PMReplies: 291
By superstring01 in forum SciFi & FantasyLast Post: 03-11-10, 01:57 PMReplies: 60
By Orleander in forum SciFi & FantasyLast Post: 07-11-09, 08:33 PMReplies: 27
By Asguard in forum Computer Science & CultureLast Post: 09-13-08, 02:15 AMReplies: 0