Star Wars vs Star Trek

Speaking of the motion picture, i'm watching it now, and, i'm wondering how fast their going when it shows the departure angle view when they leave earth. the planet shrinks to about 1/tenth it's size in something like 2 seconds. the speed is stated as .5 warp, powerd by impulse (which is a bit odd)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i think they might be using a low level warp bubble to sustain high sub light speeds (a tech bubble often used in TNG).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The ICS states that the heavy guns do, in fact, have 200 Gigatons.

Evidence? It also seems you made the time it takes to do the planetary bombardment decrease.

Yet again, evidence?

They were pelted by tons of asteroids. Do I have to have to say it again?

The Empire was afraid of that because the Asteroids were very big and they pelted you a few times every second. In TNG: Genesis, the E-D couldn't go into an Asteroid field, yet the asteroids were much smaller and weren't even moving. Does that say anything?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In "The Empire Strikes Back" the Star Destroyer Avenger easily cuts a path through Hoth's asteroid field using its point-defense turbolaser cannons. These cannons are also referred to as antistarfighter weapons. The cannons vaporized asteroids from 10 meters to 40 meters in diameter in less than one second (1/15th of a second by most estimates). This scene is one of many ways to quantify the powerful weaponry sported by the Star Destroyers, since asteroids are a real-world constant. The power required to take a nickel-iron asteroid to even near its melting point, let alone vaporizing it instantly, has been shown on many impressive websites, such as Dr. Curtis Saxton's Star Wars Technical Commentaries

Estimates of the firepower in this scene would be a lower limit of the point defense turbolaser capabilities, and the Star Destroyer's overall firepower. The lower limit estimates for these cannons range between 250TW to 2000TW. The medium and heavy turbolasers comprising the sixty-four plus turbolaser cannons would of course, have considerably greater firepower.

VS Trekkies will often begin their criticism of this evidence by questioning the composition of the asteroids referred to in the calculations. Most attempt to either use NEAs (Near-Earth Asteroids) as an excuse for much lower calculations to be used, or speculate that the asteroids could have been "dirty snowball" comets, or that the asteroids were even hollow! Metallic asteroids are much more common in the inner region of an asteroid belt. It is quite clear that the asteroid scene in "TESB" happened DEEP in the asteroid belt, not on its perimeter.

Furthermore, the silicon dioxide that is the most common material in both silicaeous and carbonaceous asteroids actually has a much HIGHER melting temperature than iron. And the melting temperature of rock is even higher than iron. The melting temperature of iron therefore, is a conservative estimate when used in asteroid calcs.


A single SW ship can glass the surface of a planet, destroying any land above a mile deep.

 

Nope, sorry. In this scene, (and many others) the novelization does not accurately match the film. The film is the highest canon, and the novelization is subordinate to it.

In the film, Lord Vader is standing at the holo projector, toward the rear of the Executor's bridge. He is neither near nor looking out a view port. In the novelization, the Death Squadron is described as containing one “mammoth Imperial Star Destroyer” (the Executor), “five wedge-shaped Imperial Star Destroyers,” and “a number of smaller fighter ships” and “the infamous TIE fighters.” This establishes that (at least in the novelization) the full Squadron includes one Executor-class Star Dreadnought, five Imperial Star Destroyers, and an indeterminate number of lesser warships, support ships, and fighter craft.

Later, when the Executor moves away from Hoth, the novelization states that Vader's ship is flanked by “two other Star Destroyers” and “a protective squadron of smaller warships.” Again, this is important in that it establishes that there are many warships in the Death Squadron, the majority of which are not classified as Star Destroyers of any model. When the Death Squadron is in the asteroid field itself, the following scene is described:

The Empire Strikes Back:

'He was staring through the large rectangular window above the deck at the raging field of asteroids that was pelting his ship as it glided through space. Hundreds of rocks streaked past the windows. Some collided with one another and exploded in brilliant displays of vivid light.

As Vader watched, one of his smaller ships disintegrated under the impact of an enormous asteroid. Seemingly unmoved, he turned to a series of twenty holographic images. These twenty holograms re-created in three dimensions the features of twenty Imperial warship commanders. The image of the commander whose ship had just been obliterated was fading rapidly, almost as quickly as the glowing particles of his exploded ship were being flung into oblivion.

Admiral Piett and an aide quietly moved to stand behind their black-garbed master as he turned to an image in the center of the twenty holograms which was continually interrupted by static and faded in and out as Captain Needa of the Star Destroyer Avenger made his report. His first words had already been drowned by static.'

The ship destroyed by collision with an asteroid is described as “one of his smaller ships,” whereas no Star Destroyer is described in diminutive terms throughout the novelization—the author is consistent in dividing the Death Squadron into “Star Destroyers” and “smaller warships.” In the context of examining the novelization itself, the particular language used suggests that the author did not intend for the vessel to be construed to be a Star Destroyer of any model.

 

since we agree the movie is suprime canon, i advise checking back the last 50 pages. the models used in the filming are in fact the "larger" variants of ISDs (those with barbette cannons instead of the turrets used in a New Hope). in those 50 pages you might get some insight on the comparative diference in dispatching cosmic debries VS advanced construction materials.

as for Star Trek in asteroid fields, look up TNG "Booby Trap" and "Pegassus". E-D is actualy disabled in "Booby Trap" in it navigates through na asteroid field on trhusters only. and BTW "Genesis" states that taking a small light non-combat vessel (TNG Shuttle) into an "unusualy dense" asteroid filed that is not safe for a GCS to navigate is far safer then taking a Tie Fighter (a highly manoeverble combat craft). not to mention that the shuttle will be piloted by a "reasonably qualified" pilot and not a mission specialist. nowhere in the episode do they state the E-D can't do the the job, only that it is safer for a shuttle. no big surprise there, since Worf screwed up the targeting sensors some time earlier. in "booby trap" torpedoes are used to anihilate asteroids as large as 200m or more (diferent angles provide diferent estemates but at least some of them were larger then the Promelian battlecruiser that is some 200m long, and some are larger then E-D). the same episode states that the primitive weapons of the war in wich Promelians fought compleately destroyed the nearby planet, hence the asteroid field.

 

Wrong. Data said this about going in to the asteroid field:

DATA: "Inadvisable. The Enterprise is too big and the asteroid field too dense to navigate safely."

Basically, he is saying the E-D cannot go in.

 

Once again, in ESB, the bridge tower of a Star Destroyer is completey obliterated by an asteroid impact.

You can observe screen shots from this very scene at the following URL:

ww.st-v-sw.net/STSWbta.html

Unfortunately, my current post count precludes me from posting actual links.

 

Actually, this was debunked. ICS goes under the assumption that the BDZ only takes one ship, and only one hour. This was disproven almost a year ago by Wizo_the_Hutt, who explained that this was all based in fantasy. In fact, Saxon even made the engines so powerful, that if you went past a planet with an ISD, you'd kill everything on that planet.

Except in the scenes, we don't see them getting pelted by tons of asteroids. In fact, we see them blasting most of them, and a few hitting their shields. Then another one took out the command bridge.

Actually, the torpedoe was long gone before Data announced that it was too dense to enter. Too dense meaning that there isn't enough room to navigate safely.

Furthermore, we see another scene in Booby Trap where the Enterprise D is looking through the remains of two destroyed planets, and tehy aren't at all concerened about the asteroids surronding them until they lose power. Granted, they were also mostly still.

In any case, this is mostly a size issue, and the Deflector Dish only really works if you have room to shunt the rocks into. We've seen the Enterprise D take at least MT level firepower to the hull before, and the Enterprise E was able to take several photon torpedoe and disruptor blasts to the hull without too much damage.

 

These low end estimates are very much in dispute.

If we're going to assume that the asteroid in ESB is comprised of iron and silicates, we must acknowledge that silicates are extremely poor thermal conductors.

Therefore, according to the laws of physics, the asteroid could not have been completely vaporized because the energy of the turbolaser bolt would not have been absorbed uniformly and instantly throughout the mass of the asteroid. Admittedly, we do see a visible glow during the scene in question; however, the laws of physics would dictate that most of the asteroid would've fractured off of the main mass well before it had time to glow.

The asteroid could only undergo complete vaporization if the melting occured at a supersonic rate while the shockwave caused by the turbolaser impact spread out at only a subsonic rate.

However, once again, this phenomenon would contradict the laws of physics (which we've been endeavoring to apply so tenaciously): Highspeed collisions (such as a collision between an asteroid and turbolaser bolt) produce impact shockwaves, which almost always travel well above the speed of sound. Only seismic waves travel at consistenly subsonic velocities.

In short, a high-speed turbolaser blast would've produced impact shockwaves initially, not seismic waves. This means most of the asteroid would've shattered, not vaporized.

You can find a more detailed explanation of these phenomena at the following site:

h ttp://st-v-sw.net/STSWaster.html

Even if I grant you those inflated turbolaser values, they're not particularly impressive against the whole of Trek history.

For instance, in the TOS episode entitled "Balance of Terror," a Romulan vessel destroys a Federation starbase with two shots from its plasma weapon. Here's the catch: The starbase was imbedded "kilometers deep" inside an asteroid comprised of "solid rock."

Once again, that's "kilometers" deep inside asteroid of "solid rock" - direct quotes from the episode - and as you've already conceded, rock has a higher melting point than iron.

In essence, light cruisers from the TOS era (the second earliest incarnation of Star Trek) had weapons capable of blasting through kilometers of solid rock; consequently, the ability to destroy small asteroids no larger than 40 meters isn't too terribly impressive.

Again, the films do not support this claim.

 

Wrong. Data said this about going in to the asteroid field:

DATA: "Inadvisable. The Enterprise is too big and the asteroid field too dense to navigate safely."

Basically, he is saying the E-D cannot go in.[/QUOTE]

endeed, E-D is to big to navigate safely and they can't clear that way since their sensors are mulfunctioning.

 

Some thoughts on the concept of vaporization

vaporization, change of a liquid or solid substance to a gas or vapour.

In many SF movies (ST and SW included) we hear the term “vaporize” and it is usually connected to a weapon fire effect that causes the target to disappear. In Some cases we hear the word “disintegration” to describe a similar/same effect. On all the SW VS ST forums and sites I’ve visited vaporisation is taken literally in its thermodynamic meaning. But is this what we actually see on screen?
Let’s take one of the most energetic processes in nature as an example of supersonic transfer of energy through matter, namely the super nova. The final blast of the super nova is a by product of resonant shockwave caused by the supersonic collapse of matter. This serves as evidence that matter cant undergo a supersonic shift of state (solid to gas in this state) without a resulting shockwave and quite visible effects on the environment.
Contrary to this in both ST and SW we see no traces of this shift. Namely if an object is turn into vapour at least we can expect to se some vapour. If object is turned into vapour at supersonic speeds we must see a shockwave. If objects molecular bonds become disrupted we should expect a release of the excess energy i.e. heat. Even more so if the nuclear bonds become disrupted. We should expect a small nuclear blast. This never occurs. In ST we see small arms “vaporizing” people or objects an close proximity of humans or other organic matter without even the slightest trace of radiation. Ship wise we see asteroids and parts of the Borg cube “vaporized” and again there is no trace of either vapour, shockwave or radiation emissions.
So what is happening in all these cases? The easy answer is plot device and cheesy CGIs. But since this is considered a real life documentary we must come up with some explanation. One thing might help. In all instances the object starts glowing before disappearing. This occurs with turbo lasers, disruptors and phasers whenever “vaporization” is observed. So something must be happening to the glowing matter. What it is we can’t say but we know that it causes no shockwaves or secondary radiation (unless they hit something volatile). So it’s up to us to pick a solution. Maybe the glowing matter is being converted to neutrinos as a result of some sub-atomic weak nuclear force disruption. Maybe the matter is shifted into another phase. However one thing is for certain. There is no nuclear or chemical reaction involved, which is why I avoided using all the calculations of Jules and Watts and boiling temperatures. Actually the fact that turbo lasers behave in a similar way that phasers and disruptors do, makes me think they are of similar origin. If TL bolts were plasma they would not behave the way they do and deflecting them would be an easy task of using magnetic fields. Actually “A New Hope” proposes that “magnetic seal” deflects blaster bolts. This could mean that small arms in SW fire low power plasma bolts. So is it possible that turbo lasers operate on a different principle then blaster rifles? Or maybe magnetic seals are not really magnets?
Opinions?

 

Considering that Dr Saxton has a PhD in the field, I would think most people would tend to trust he knows substatially more than someone going by the name Wizo.

Also Dr. Saxton was hired by George Lucas in order to write the tech specs. That makes his work canon. Wizo's work however is ...not.

Actually we see them blasting the larger asteroids, the Executioner not even bothering to do that. We also know from the scenes involving the Millenium Falcon many of the asteroids are much larger than 200 meters and that is not counting the planetoid he lands on.

Then we see one asteroid explode on the surface of the cammond tower of a SD. There is no mention of it being ISD or VSD. Given that no ISD was lost in the belt it could very well be a VSD or the ISD survived losing it's bridge tower and continued on it's merry way. After all during the scene where the fleet is dispersing inot hyperspace after they think han got away all ISD's originally with the Executioner are accounted for. Two of them you do not get to see the topside of though.

Meaning the asteroids were too big to take out with phasers or tractor beams and would pose a lethal risk to the E-D. To be anything less Data would have mentioned strategies for entering.

They were mostly still, and very far apart. Two things completely unlike the Hoth asteroid belt

The deflector dish is for small debris only, otherwise you could never hit a ship with torpedo or ramming Jem Had'r attack.

And I agree the ships have taken MT level explosions. However most energy of a MT level explosion is focused away from the ship. As for disruptors they seem no more dangerous than phasers.

The most telling thing is the total output of the Warp core. 12 billion gigawatts! Sounds impressive. Hell it sounds like a crap load of power. However that is the total output of the Warpcore which is roughly 50-80% of the ships power. Now assume it is only 50% and the total energy output of arguably the most powerful ship in starfleet (in raw power output) at 24 billion gigawats or 24 gigatons total power output. Now that is impressive, don't get me wrong.

One small problem the fire power of the Acclamator class transport ship, just the eight heavy turbolaser cannons alone is 200 gigtons. And the Acclamator is a lightly armed capital ship. This Troop Carrier has individual cannons that can pump out 12.5 gigtons or 12.5 billion gigwatts. That is slightly more than a Galaxy class starships Waropcore.


Do we see the issue here?

 

talking about selective reply.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are you listening to Darkstar? Dude, he ignores Lucas Arts workers saying that the EU is canon, and you consider his work good enough to use in a debate? Something wrong there.

 

since what whe see on screen is considered a suprime canon, and what we see is nowhere near what EU claims, there must be something wrong. if you ask me, there are two explanations, ether the numbers are incorrect, or the the crews are highly incompetent. several time in SW movies we witness full contact engagements and not ONCE do we see gigaton or teraton blasts. besides the asteroid scenes, clearly demonstrate that TL do not operate on thermodynamical principles (no shockwaves, debries or vapor traces). this means they are not direct energy to matter weapons the way lasers would be (this goes for phasers too). in other words the energy of the weapon does not nececeraly corelates with the energy of the bolt, and the bolt does not transfer this energy to the target through electromagnetic or nuclear means.

 

Because most of the Turbolasers blasts ARE HITTING A SHIELD. You can not tell the firepower of something when it hits something of equal strength.

Do you think TLs are like lasers the use light? Let me tell you something. They're not.

 

Star Wars will pown star trek, CIS, Republic, and Yuzhun Vong vs Federation ,Kinglion and Domians

 

Star Wars Rock

Okay a fair fight will be CIS, Galactic republic,Jedi,Sith vs All from Star Trek. The Droid and Clone army and pown all because the CIS have the Death Star Plans, and Clone have the Jedi cover and good Star Destoryers.too bad for Trekies, geez Trekies are so one sided. Anyways 10 federation ships are no match for a Star Destoryer, there is a full stromtroopers diversion, 20AT-Ats, 40At-Sts, 5 dozen TIE interceptors, 50Trobolaser 20 ion cannons. thats more than a match for 10 poor little federation ships1

 

I am a M.D. for Brian Surgeon and Ph.D. for physics and astrophysics .the Death Star's blast is one of the greatest powers seen in any movies(Along with Sun Crusher, and centerpoint station, both from Star Wars.) The ability to make a Sun go supernova by a Sun Crusher is enough to damage planets outside the solar system it can damage about to the darf planets. Thats way more than a Federation's total firepower.