For those Star Trek Vs. Star Wars fans

Okay I have not started a thread yet so please bear with me. This thread will be a logical (if heated) discussion of Star Wars vs Star Trek. For simplicity sake we will assume a wormhole 1200km in radius has appeared in Federation Territory. It has been stabilized and placed under the protection of the New Republic and the Imperial Remnant as a joint project.

If your number argue with canon I will expect formula to back them up. I don't care how ridiculous you think it is, canon rules. We are going strict Roddenberry canon anything post his death does not count and strict Lucas canon only the books he says.

For arguments sake I am taking the middle ground on isoton and calling it 2.7 megatons. That places it firmly in the middle of the numberes bandied back and forth and is only fair.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you're going strict no-post-Roddenberry... you only have two seasons of TNG, three seasons of TOS, and the movies. Which means there is no such thing as an isoton, incidentally.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually the isoton does exist the whole of TNG is accepted as he left behind some of the rough outlines for them. The reason isoton is still in is if you go by the above figures, the warhead yield matches that rough capabilities of the standard antimatter warhead in TOS and TNG. Incidently this removes a lot of the really questionable stuff I and many Trekkies feel Roddenberry would never have allowed while he was alive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The rough capabilities of the standard antimatter warhead in TOS and TNG may shock you.

But if you want, I recommend you read Starfleetjedi.net's TOS-specific technological analysis of Star Trek first. Click down on the left side to read each article. When you take out Voyager, DS9, and most of TNG, Star Trek looks a lot stronger in terms of mighty warships.

 

Sorry but your site is non canon and if you continue in thise vein you are just setting yourself up to be embarassed.

 

If you're going purely Roddenberry canon, it should be noted that there is some evidence to suggest that Roddenberry tried to decanonize TOS.

'Strict' Roddenberry canon may therefore only include the first few seasons of TNG, and maybe a few of the TOS movies.

 

Well, I am just trying to be fair and go by creators words. I give a little leeway and allow all of TNG becuase there is evidence he left behind some guidelines. Still this avoid the munchkinism and total disregard of the universe that happened in DS9 and Voyager, not to mention Enterprise.

 

Dude, your website stardestroyer.net isn't canon either.

It relies on the canon. Same as the sites I've linked to. Only, of course, it ignores most of it.

True! And he didn't like most of the movies, either. So if you really want to go by what Roddenberry absolutely certainly approved, you can only use the first two seasons of TNG. Nothing else.

Which gives us very little to work with. Almost nothing on stardestroyer.net comes from this brief period of Trek.

 

Are you reading comprehension challenged. I gave you everything while Roddenberry was alive in TV Shows and Movies, plus the reest of TNG. See I gave it to you. You have no reaon to complain at all. None.

As for www.stardestroyer.net I am only using the Tubolaser commentaries which is direct observation of the movies. Besides read the whole site before you judge it. You have been missing quite a bit.

 

Of course not. But don't say I didn't warn you. You said:

And I said making it only TNG1-2, the movies, and TOS is going to make it very hard for you.

I have read the whole site. And the whole of st-v-sw.net. And the whole of starfleetjedi.net. And the whole of several other websites I'm not going to even bother mentioning.

Have you read all of what starfleetjedi.net has to say about TOS yet? It's all direct observation of the TV series. Just as much conjecture as your site on turbolasers.

 

Then by your reasoning Stormtrooper armor would protect completely against phasers set of stun or kill. They would even prtoect from disrupters. Both weapons have shown to be useless against light packing crates again and again unless manually reset. Even then they never seem to think of it.

Their observations of the ship weapons are way off as they cave shown time and time again a photon torpedo is good, but not in the class of vaporizing asteroids. In fact they have troubles doing anything with them. Even with shields down a photon seems to do very little damage.

 

those ''packing crates'' are not made from piss soaked cardboard,they are usualy magentic containment containers for highly unstable compounds,they are usualy stronger then tritanium and have extra internal force fields.

and phasers have dozens of settings,so anytime they are firing inside a ship they are set lower so they dont vaporize a vital system,only a fool would go around vaporizing sections of his own ship to get a few inturders.



and if you notice,photons vaporize sections of borg cubes BIGGER then a SD,so one photon should be more then enough to vaporize a SD.and that goes for phasers as well.i belive i posted a pic of a comparison.http://www.flickr.com/photos/72609707@N00/





now tell me when stormy armour stopped ANY attack,cause based on the movies it would be vaporized just as fast as the guy in it.[it cant stop crude arrows,so it DEFINITLY cant stop phasers]


and about hull armour, logs can easily crush imperial scout vehicles,but giant meter wide boulders bounce off trek shuttle hulls.[galaileo seven].




and hand held photon grenades have the same observed explosive impact as proton torps,based on the movies examples of protons.



really SW doesnt have one weapon or technology that trek doesnt have in spades.

and considering phasers have a wide beam setting even jedi couldnt block a phaser[assuming lightsabers could even stop the nadion effect].

 

Actually, they haven't been shown to be useless against light packing crates. This is a myth spread by stardestroyer.net residents. I can't think of a single incident in which a light packing crate held off phaser fire. Phasers are quite powerful indeed. Not that Stormtrooper really provided much protection against Ewoks, which are usually considered less dangerous than phaser-armed individuals.

In "Who Mourns for Morn," however, we get to see a latinum-packed crate pierced all the way through with apparently no effect on the beam, much to Quark's dismay. He was hiding behind them.

Well, I can tell you won't want to listen to "Rise" or "Pegasus," since those come after Gene's death.

However, you're quite willing to admit roughly 60 megatons per torpedo - which is, in other words, more than enough to vaporize an asteroid. As far as doing very little damage to ships, you might want to read about how much energy it takes to vaporize a tritanium hull. This particular [completely fictitious and scientifically absurd] element seems to be quite durable enough.

And a Romulan plasma torpedo in TOS implosively pulverized a nickel-iron asteroid quite a bit larger than a Borg Cube.

 

Isnt that DS9?

Also, what kind of asteroid? How big?

Here : http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Asteroids.html

Well, a 250 meter diameter hard granite asteroid... 200m diameter iron nickel, 575ish ice..

What kind of reaction was this?

 

As for this most of the 'proof' is taken from DS9 and voyager, which has already been stated as non-accetable canon in the first post.

 

Oh I agree that a photon torpedo has a 60 megaton theoretical yeild. However like most explosives you only see a very small fraction of the energy do anything useful. Figure 8 to 16% efficency

 

Hm, try the other pages for looking at it. He's got one on every era for phasers. Look around.

Note that you're going to have a devil of a time finding ordinary packing crates repelling phaser fire in TOS/TNG1-2.

Well, there was a Federation military outpost buried several kilometers from the surface of the asteroid.

By the way, that calculator is completely inaccurate. Based on a model of asteroid structure and composition at least ten years out of date. Don't count on being closer than an order of magnitude, at best.

A plasma torpedo. What kind of reaction? No idea, but apparently the asteroid was thoroughly crushed. What solid debris remained wasn't very large, there was very little of it even visible, and it'd undergone quite a bit of ... effect.

TW Scott, if we scale actual effects, we get more yield than this. If we go by technical manual treknobabble, the efficiency is much higher than this.

You're not going to manage to get 8-16% efficiency on a 60 megaton torpedo without having to severely stretch.

 

Can you show this? I'm pretty sure its just taking spheres of the substance, and not modeling asteroids...

I think thats coming from seeing most of the explosion in space, rather than being directed directly at its target.

 

Which is exactly why it's inaccurate. Real asteroids aren't spheres of homogenous solid elemental matter.

The study of real asteroids, and how much it'll take to blast one to smithereens, has advanced immensely in the past ten years, and that calculator takes none of it into account. Deep Impact is particularly informative.

Well, if you hit something square on with a small exploding missile and don't penetrate, it gets walloped with half the energy. If you do penetrate - and a photon torpedo can (and will) penetrate ship hulls - you dump all the energy in.

For 8%, we're looking at something detonating a significant distance away.

Which brings me to another point. It's a lot easier to detonate a guided and shielded photon torpedo within several kilometers of a target than to hit a moving target with a turbolaser bolt that acts like nothing so much as a big glowing bullet. At the 8% level that TW Scott is suggesting in order to make the common turbolaser bolts equivalent to his own claims of the common photon torpedo, we're talking ... what, a klick or two from an ISD? Nasty.

 

No the eight percent is taken with the fact that:
A: You are detonating against a shield
B: Even AntiMatter/Matter annhilation wastes a lot of energy creating non damaging effects.
C: You are detonating with no medium to carry the shock waves
D: You are not detonating against a flat surface.

As for the asteroid it was not broken up but melted in a quarter of a second. Watch the video again. You see a cloud of glowing liquid that dissipates quickly. (Vacuum makes boiling really easy)