---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: crys0627 Date: 10 Jul 2001 21:52:18 -0500 Subject: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: -------- Browsing through the various specs of the DS available to me, I haven't found any answers for these questions: 1. How fast is it? We all saw it moving in the ANH movie. 2. Does the Super Laser have a broad range, or is it centered at a 90 degree angle from the pit, thereby requiring DS rotation to target ships/planets? 3. What is the velocity of the DS's spin? Can it rotate to shoot at targets behind it? Is it viable to fly the capital ships behind the DS's Super Laser side? TIA for any answers - I'll just slink back into lurk mode crys0627 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Transcend" Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:47:18 +0000 Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: <20010711.004715.410442566.5902@localhost.localdomain> -------- In article , "crys0627" wrote: > > 2. Does the Super Laser have a broad range, or is it centered at a 90 > degree angle from the pit, thereby requiring DS rotation to target > ships/planets? The original DS could not target ships. -- When man took to his bed the Computer, there was great rejoicing, and great fear too, for their children were almost like gods. The mainbrains bestrode the galaxy at will, and changed its very face. The Silicon God, The Solid State Entity, Al Squared, Enth Generation - their names are many. And there were the Carked and Symbionts, whose daughters were the Neurosingers, Warrior-Poets, the Neurologicians and the Pilots of the Order of Mystic Mathematicians. --Horthy Hosthoh ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bdiller@.BLARGNESS!.ipass.net (Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc.) Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:10:15 GMT Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: <3b4bc35e.28428846@news.ipass.net> -------- On 10 Jul 2001 21:52:18 -0500, crys0627 got killed and eaten while screaming: >Browsing through the various specs of the DS available to me, I >haven't found any answers for these questions: > >1. How fast is it? We all saw it moving in the ANH movie. > >2. Does the Super Laser have a broad range, or is it centered at a 90 >degree angle from the pit, thereby requiring DS rotation to target >ships/planets? > >3. What is the velocity of the DS's spin? Can it rotate to shoot at >targets behind it? Is it viable to fly the capital ships behind the >DS's Super Laser side? http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ds.html Cyborg Stan, Aimless Wanderer and Part-Time Galatic Hero Outlyer Base : http://www.ipass.net/~bdiller/ email : bdiller@ipass.net ICQ : 32779556 "I wanna be a rotten corpse when I grow up!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:35:12 -0500 Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: <3B4BC96F.A0C0840@mac.com> -------- crys0627 wrote: > > Browsing through the various specs of the DS available to me, I > haven't found any answers for these questions: > > 1. How fast is it? We all saw it moving in the ANH movie. It circumnavigated roughly a fourth of a gas giant's diameter in under 5 minutes. Using Jupiter for a base, it works out to accelerative capabilities of about 2km/s^2, or about 255G's. > 2. Does the Super Laser have a broad range, or is it centered at a 90 > degree angle from the pit, thereby requiring DS rotation to target > ships/planets? In RotJ, it fired at Mon Calamari cruisers that were obviously not in a straight-line axis. While I doubt that this means a full semi-spherical firing arc, it is somewhat flexible. > 3. What is the velocity of the DS's spin? Can it rotate to shoot at > targets behind it? Is it viable to fly the capital ships behind the > DS's Super Laser side? No one really knows. It's spin is not the mechanism by which is produces gravity, so we can't use that for estimates. Even so, the thousands of turbolaser emplacements on the Death Star cover the entire thing. So, ANY ship is ALWAYS within the firing arcs of at least hundreds of multi-gigaton weaponry. Welcome to the group. -- Damien Sorresso "Clay pigeons are fuckers!" -Eddie Izzard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: crys0627 Date: 11 Jul 2001 02:27:05 -0500 Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:35:12 -0500, Durandal wrote: >crys0627 wrote: >> >> Browsing through the various specs of the DS available to me, I >> haven't found any answers for these questions: >> >> 1. How fast is it? We all saw it moving in the ANH movie. > >It circumnavigated roughly a fourth of a gas giant's diameter in under 5 >minutes. Using Jupiter for a base, it works out to accelerative >capabilities of about 2km/s^2, or about 255G's. > >> 2. Does the Super Laser have a broad range, or is it centered at a 90 >> degree angle from the pit, thereby requiring DS rotation to target >> ships/planets? > >In RotJ, it fired at Mon Calamari cruisers that were obviously not in a >straight-line axis. While I doubt that this means a full semi-spherical >firing arc, it is somewhat flexible. My guess is the various "pressures" (for lack of a better word) "pushes" the Laser in a specific direction, however not at an angle greater than 180 degrees from an opposing tributary beam. Just a thought. It would mean that any shot differring from a 90degree angle would be less that 100% though. >> 3. What is the velocity of the DS's spin? Can it rotate to shoot at >> targets behind it? Is it viable to fly the capital ships behind the >> DS's Super Laser side? > >No one really knows. It's spin is not the mechanism by which is produces >gravity, so we can't use that for estimates. Even so, the thousands of >turbolaser emplacements on the Death Star cover the entire thing. So, >ANY ship is ALWAYS within the firing arcs of at least hundreds of >multi-gigaton weaponry. Are there any capital ships in either universe that are manouverable enough to dodge the Super Laser? It seems to me that the SD's target by entering co-ordinates in the computer and firing rather than a tracking computer. Those Star Trek ships seem awfully manouverable on TV. Or is it just a trick of the special effects that make these ships seem more manouverable than the Star Wars capital ships? Would ST capital ships be somewhat successful in strafing the SD? Perhaps taking out turbo-lasers? crys0627 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:52:35 +0800 Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: <3B4C05C3.9F1@netvigator.com> -------- crys0627 wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:35:12 -0500, Durandal > wrote: > > >crys0627 wrote: > >> > >> Browsing through the various specs of the DS available to me, I > >> haven't found any answers for these questions: > >> > >> 1. How fast is it? We all saw it moving in the ANH movie. > > > >It circumnavigated roughly a fourth of a gas giant's diameter in under 5 > >minutes. Using Jupiter for a base, it works out to accelerative > >capabilities of about 2km/s^2, or about 255G's. > > > >> 2. Does the Super Laser have a broad range, or is it centered at a 90 > >> degree angle from the pit, thereby requiring DS rotation to target > >> ships/planets? > > > >In RotJ, it fired at Mon Calamari cruisers that were obviously not in a > >straight-line axis. While I doubt that this means a full semi-spherical > >firing arc, it is somewhat flexible. > > My guess is the various "pressures" (for lack of a better word) > "pushes" the Laser in a specific direction, however not at an angle > greater than 180 degrees from an opposing tributary beam. Just a > thought. It would mean that any shot differring from a 90degree angle > would be less that 100% though. > > >> 3. What is the velocity of the DS's spin? Can it rotate to shoot at > >> targets behind it? Is it viable to fly the capital ships behind the > >> DS's Super Laser side? > > > >No one really knows. It's spin is not the mechanism by which is produces > >gravity, so we can't use that for estimates. Even so, the thousands of > >turbolaser emplacements on the Death Star cover the entire thing. So, > >ANY ship is ALWAYS within the firing arcs of at least hundreds of > >multi-gigaton weaponry. > > Are there any capital ships in either universe that are manouverable > enough to dodge the Super Laser? It seems to me that the SD's target > by entering co-ordinates in the computer and firing rather than a > tracking computer. Those Star Trek ships seem awfully manouverable on > TV. Or is it just a trick of the special effects that make these > ships seem more manouverable than the Star Wars capital ships? Would > ST capital ships be somewhat successful in strafing the SD? Perhaps > taking out turbo-lasers? 1)How did you get that idea for the targeting method? In case you're interested, Picard also entered coordinates for the fleet to hit in ST:FC, so if anybody does that, it is ST. Now where's your evidence? 2)Whatever method they use, they can hit fighters and the MF. Hitting those large ST ships would be no problem. 3)The smaller ships can get fairly maneuverable in ST, but they aren't coming close to MF or snubfighter grade, and they're bigger, they'll get killed. There are no special effects consideration in ASVS - it is all real. All the canon happened. 4)More likely, those ST ships would try to strafe, and get blown out of the sky. Try again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: crys0627 Date: 11 Jul 2001 21:27:03 -0500 Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: -------- On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:52:35 +0800, Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: >crys0627 wrote: >> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:35:12 -0500, Durandal >> wrote: >> >> >crys0627 wrote: >> >> >> >> Browsing through the various specs of the DS available to me, I >> >> haven't found any answers for these questions: >> >> >> >> 1. How fast is it? We all saw it moving in the ANH movie. >> > >> >It circumnavigated roughly a fourth of a gas giant's diameter in under 5 >> >minutes. Using Jupiter for a base, it works out to accelerative >> >capabilities of about 2km/s^2, or about 255G's. >> > >> >> 2. Does the Super Laser have a broad range, or is it centered at a 90 >> >> degree angle from the pit, thereby requiring DS rotation to target >> >> ships/planets? >> > >> >In RotJ, it fired at Mon Calamari cruisers that were obviously not in a >> >straight-line axis. While I doubt that this means a full semi-spherical >> >firing arc, it is somewhat flexible. >> >> My guess is the various "pressures" (for lack of a better word) >> "pushes" the Laser in a specific direction, however not at an angle >> greater than 180 degrees from an opposing tributary beam. Just a >> thought. It would mean that any shot differring from a 90degree angle >> would be less that 100% though. >> >> >> 3. What is the velocity of the DS's spin? Can it rotate to shoot at >> >> targets behind it? Is it viable to fly the capital ships behind the >> >> DS's Super Laser side? >> > >> >No one really knows. It's spin is not the mechanism by which is produces >> >gravity, so we can't use that for estimates. Even so, the thousands of >> >turbolaser emplacements on the Death Star cover the entire thing. So, >> >ANY ship is ALWAYS within the firing arcs of at least hundreds of >> >multi-gigaton weaponry. >> >> Are there any capital ships in either universe that are manouverable >> enough to dodge the Super Laser? It seems to me that the SD's target >> by entering co-ordinates in the computer and firing rather than a >> tracking computer. Those Star Trek ships seem awfully manouverable on >> TV. Or is it just a trick of the special effects that make these >> ships seem more manouverable than the Star Wars capital ships? Would >> ST capital ships be somewhat successful in strafing the SD? Perhaps >> taking out turbo-lasers? > >1)How did you get that idea for the targeting method? In case you're >interested, Picard also entered coordinates for the fleet to hit in >ST:FC, so if anybody does that, it is ST. Now where's your evidence? Nothing canon. Of course, Picard is firing a dinky little gun on a puny little capital ship - not the most powerful weapon in the galaxy from a planetoid sized battlestation - where's the correlation? Never the less, I'm not aware of the time delay in ST:FC between order and firing, but in ANH (about 25 sec) & ROTJ (about 15 sec), the delay from order would give a manouverable ship much time to dodge. A ship with any amount of sensors should be able to sense the DS powering up, and even has a 5 second delay from when the tributary laserspower up to the release of the primary beam. If Picard stood on the bridge of the Death Star and ordered a firing at a precice set of co-ordinates, chances are that 15-20 seconds later, that ship isn't there at that co-ordinate. This is of course movie-time and not necessarily real-time, but I'm sure that there is no difference in this case. Shooting a planet seems pretty straightforward with the DS, just point and shoot - that planet's not dodging about. Aiming should not be much of a problem - from what I can tell, as long as the beam manages to vaporize the iron core of the planet, planet go BOOM. For Earth, that would be about a 1200 km range (3500km if you accept the liquid iron mantle). But compare a 3000-20000km diameter planet to a 1km long capital ship. Targeting MUST be very accurate. Why not a targeting computer? No concrete evidence, just some thoughts. There just has never been any indication of a targeting system mentioned in any of the DS firing sequences - only human manipulation. The firing of every other weapon system in SW requires a targeting computer and Lucas is very reliable in showing it - the MF gunnery scene, the trench run (ties and X-wings), but a targeting computer ISN'T mentioned or hinted to when firing the DS. The firing of the DS laser is so human-manipulation driven that people are actually required in the tributary beam chambers. But why would they need a targeting computer? First, as primarily a planet-targeting weapon, as I mentioned before, hitting a stationary 3000-20000km object shouldn't require the DS1 to make unreasonable calculations. Secondly, as I hoped was getting through in the first post, I don't believe much in the manouverabilty of SW capital ships. What whould the DS need to TRACK in the 15-25 seconds needed to fire? Can THESE ships make the necessary adjustments needed to dodge the SL? I see no reason why the ST ships shouldn't be able to - if not only be cut to shreds by the Turbos. >2)Whatever method they use, they can hit fighters and the MF. Hitting >those large ST ships would be no problem. As noted elsewhere in this thread post, turbo lasers have a range of 75 space units while the SL has a range of 100 space units. How about sittting in the rage of 80 space units and doing strafing and hit and run? >3)The smaller ships can get fairly maneuverable in ST, but they aren't >coming close to MF or snubfighter grade, and they're bigger, they'll get >killed. There are no special effects consideration in ASVS - it is all >real. All the canon happened. So ST capital ships are more manouverable than SW capital ships of a similar size/class? Why can't the flagship of the ST fleet or dodge a 100 meter wide beam from a battlestation at distances of thousands of km? >4)More likely, those ST ships would try to strafe, and get blown out of >the sky. Try again. Try again indeed. No first attempt was made to my knowledge. crys0627 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phong Nguyen Date: 12 Jul 2001 02:53:42 GMT Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: -------- crys0627 wrote in news:fuqpkt06mhfu99s0uto8qu6csfu88468ek@4ax.com: > On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:52:35 +0800, Kazuaki Shimazaki > wrote: > >>crys0627 wrote: >>> >>1)How did you get that idea for the targeting method? In case you're >>interested, Picard also entered coordinates for the fleet to hit in >>ST:FC, so if anybody does that, it is ST. Now where's your evidence? > > Nothing canon. Of course, Picard is firing a dinky little gun on a > puny little capital ship - not the most powerful weapon in the galaxy > from a planetoid sized battlestation - where's the correlation? > > Never the less, I'm not aware of the time delay in ST:FC between order > and firing, but in ANH (about 25 sec) & ROTJ (about 15 sec), the delay > from order would give a manouverable ship much time to dodge. A ship > with any amount of sensors should be able to sense the DS powering up, > and even has a 5 second delay from when the tributary laserspower up > to the release of the primary beam. If Picard stood on the bridge of > the Death Star and ordered a firing at a precice set of co-ordinates, > chances are that 15-20 seconds later, that ship isn't there at that > co-ordinate. > True. However, the DS could order a 'flak burst' in the area in an attempt to fry the ship. Turbolasers have been demonstrated to do so, usually to kill fighters and missiles. The superlaser must be able to, otherwise it'd go from one end of the target planet through the other. It needs to detonated in the center. > Shooting a planet seems pretty straightforward with the DS, just point > and shoot - that planet's not dodging about. Aiming should not be > much of a problem - from what I can tell, as long as the beam manages > to vaporize the iron core of the planet, planet go BOOM. For Earth, > that would be about a 1200 km range (3500km if you accept the liquid > iron mantle). But compare a 3000-20000km diameter planet to a 1km > long capital ship. Targeting MUST be very accurate. > Ah, but when you're firing from several planatary diameters, you must be able to precisely channel the beam, or it will miss. What the superlaser does, essentially, is punch its way straight through the shields and to the core, where it 'explodes.' That sends the entire planet's mass to escape velocity, ripping it apart rather violently. > Why not a targeting computer? No concrete evidence, just some > thoughts. There just has never been any indication of a targeting > system mentioned in any of the DS firing sequences - only human > manipulation. The firing of every other weapon system in SW requires > a targeting computer and Lucas is very reliable in showing it - the MF > gunnery scene, the trench run (ties and X-wings), but a targeting > computer ISN'T mentioned or hinted to when firing the DS. The firing > of the DS laser is so human-manipulation driven that people are > actually required in the tributary beam chambers. > Well, you see a guy pulling a lever on a fire-control system, which would be similar to the people arming and firing, say, a tactical nuclear artillery shell. Both require targetting systems if they want decent accuracy. > As noted elsewhere in this thread post, turbo lasers have a range of > 75 space units while the SL has a range of 100 space units. How about > sittting in the rage of 80 space units and doing strafing and hit and > run? > I don't think ST ships have a weapons range of 80 SU, check other posts for what each SU equals. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: crys0627 Date: 12 Jul 2001 23:45:11 -0500 Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: -------- On 12 Jul 2001 02:53:42 GMT, Phong Nguyen wrote: >crys0627 wrote in news:fuqpkt06mhfu99s0uto8qu6csfu88468ek@4ax.com: > >> On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:52:35 +0800, Kazuaki Shimazaki >> wrote: >> >>>crys0627 wrote: >>>> >>>1)How did you get that idea for the targeting method? In case you're >>>interested, Picard also entered coordinates for the fleet to hit in >>>ST:FC, so if anybody does that, it is ST. Now where's your evidence? >> >> Nothing canon. Of course, Picard is firing a dinky little gun on a >> puny little capital ship - not the most powerful weapon in the galaxy >> from a planetoid sized battlestation - where's the correlation? >> >> Never the less, I'm not aware of the time delay in ST:FC between order >> and firing, but in ANH (about 25 sec) & ROTJ (about 15 sec), the delay >> from order would give a manouverable ship much time to dodge. A ship >> with any amount of sensors should be able to sense the DS powering up, >> and even has a 5 second delay from when the tributary laserspower up >> to the release of the primary beam. If Picard stood on the bridge of >> the Death Star and ordered a firing at a precice set of co-ordinates, >> chances are that 15-20 seconds later, that ship isn't there at that >> co-ordinate. >> >True. However, the DS could order a 'flak burst' in the area in an >attempt to fry the ship. Turbolasers have been demonstrated to do so, >usually to kill fighters and missiles. The superlaser must be able to, >otherwise it'd go from one end of the target planet through the other. It >needs to detonated in the center. Why must it and do you see any evidence of it ever being used as such in a cap-ship battle other than to hit dead center in a cap-ship? >> Shooting a planet seems pretty straightforward with the DS, just point >> and shoot - that planet's not dodging about. Aiming should not be >> much of a problem - from what I can tell, as long as the beam manages >> to vaporize the iron core of the planet, planet go BOOM. For Earth, >> that would be about a 1200 km range (3500km if you accept the liquid >> iron mantle). But compare a 3000-20000km diameter planet to a 1km >> long capital ship. Targeting MUST be very accurate. >> >Ah, but when you're firing from several planatary diameters, you must be >able to precisely channel the beam, or it will miss. What the superlaser >does, essentially, is punch its way straight through the shields and to >the core, where it 'explodes.' That sends the entire planet's mass to >escape velocity, ripping it apart rather violently. No argument here. But regarless of distance, a planet is moving in a VERY predictable manner. If I stood on Mars and shot a "Zero-friction" beam at the Earth, I should be able to accurately predict exactly where to aim at in space so that in 10 years my beam will hit dead center at the equator. A capital ship on the other hand, assuming that it has a decent manouverability, moves with very limited predictabilty. In the 15-25 seconds delay from SL orders to firing, you know only know the general area that it can be in, not where it will be. >> Why not a targeting computer? No concrete evidence, just some >> thoughts. There just has never been any indication of a targeting >> system mentioned in any of the DS firing sequences - only human >> manipulation. The firing of every other weapon system in SW requires >> a targeting computer and Lucas is very reliable in showing it - the MF >> gunnery scene, the trench run (ties and X-wings), but a targeting >> computer ISN'T mentioned or hinted to when firing the DS. The firing >> of the DS laser is so human-manipulation driven that people are >> actually required in the tributary beam chambers. >> >Well, you see a guy pulling a lever on a fire-control system, which would >be similar to the people arming and firing, say, a tactical nuclear >artillery shell. Both require targetting systems if they want decent >accuracy. ICBMs and other chemical-fueled projectiles are unstable at best. You fire it in the general area of the target and have to make small changes in course as needed. The Deathstar Super Laser, to the best of my knowledge, cannot change course, bend, or be affected by turbulence or friction in the same way that atmospheric missle tragectory is. Consider shooting a gun. Once the trigger is pulled, there is no way to alter the course of the bullet. You can only fire where you assume where the target will be when gravity and wind are done with the bullet. Let me ask this question than. We have a 5 sec delay from SL tributary laser firing and primary laser firing plus the time required for the beam to reach the target. With that delay, where is the NEED for a tracking computer? Once fired, that beam's going in a preset destination, regardless of where the target (a capital ship) may be after the delay. >> As noted elsewhere in this thread post, turbo lasers have a range of >> 75 space units while the SL has a range of 100 space units. How about >> sittting in the rage of 80 space units and doing strafing and hit and >> run? >> >I don't think ST ships have a weapons range of 80 SU, check other posts >for what each SU equals. Yup. Are there any ST super weapons with planetary ranges like that, though? crys0627 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bdiller@.BLARGNESS!.ipass.net (Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc.) Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 05:04:34 GMT Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: <3b4e8129.31850268@news.ipass.net> -------- On 12 Jul 2001 23:45:11 -0500, crys0627 got killed and eaten while screaming: >No argument here. But regarless of distance, a planet is moving in a >VERY predictable manner. If I stood on Mars and shot a >"Zero-friction" beam at the Earth, I should be able to accurately >predict exactly where to aim at in space so that in 10 years my beam >will hit dead center at the equator. A capital ship on the other >hand, assuming that it has a decent manouverability, moves with very >limited predictabilty. In the 15-25 seconds delay from SL orders to >firing, you know only know the general area that it can be in, not >where it will be. "Champions of the Force", page I know no idea. Sun Crusher gets hit by the prototype DS Superlaser. Cyborg Stan, Aimless Wanderer and Part-Time Galatic Hero Outlyer Base : http://www.ipass.net/~bdiller/ email : bdiller@ipass.net ICQ : 32779556 "I wanna be a rotten corpse when I grow up!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 01:12:57 -0400 Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: <3B4E8359.2A527C9@daltonator.net> -------- "Cyborg Stan of CyKoLaJx, Inc." wrote: > > On 12 Jul 2001 23:45:11 -0500, crys0627 got killed and eaten > while screaming: > > >No argument here. But regarless of distance, a planet is moving in a > >VERY predictable manner. If I stood on Mars and shot a > >"Zero-friction" beam at the Earth, I should be able to accurately > >predict exactly where to aim at in space so that in 10 years my beam > >will hit dead center at the equator. A capital ship on the other > >hand, assuming that it has a decent manouverability, moves with very > >limited predictabilty. In the 15-25 seconds delay from SL orders to > >firing, you know only know the general area that it can be in, not > >where it will be. > > "Champions of the Force", page I know no idea. > > Sun Crusher gets hit by the prototype DS Superlaser. Page 291, but the superlaser only grazes it. Damn you for making me open that book again. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net The best defense against fanaticism is indifference. Of course, a flamethrower helps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Phong Nguyen Date: 13 Jul 2001 20:41:11 GMT Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: -------- crys0627 wrote in news:tanskto2d8nfc3uaptfkrhlro7vjuvqgro@4ax.com: > On 12 Jul 2001 02:53:42 GMT, Phong Nguyen > wrote: > >>> Never the less, I'm not aware of the time delay in ST:FC between >>> order and firing, but in ANH (about 25 sec) & ROTJ (about 15 sec), >>> the delay from order would give a manouverable ship much time to >>> dodge. A ship with any amount of sensors should be able to sense the >>> DS powering up, and even has a 5 second delay from when the tributary >>> laserspower up to the release of the primary beam. If Picard stood >>> on the bridge of the Death Star and ordered a firing at a precice set >>> of co-ordinates, chances are that 15-20 seconds later, that ship >>> isn't there at that co-ordinate. >>> >>True. However, the DS could order a 'flak burst' in the area in an >>attempt to fry the ship. Turbolasers have been demonstrated to do so, >>usually to kill fighters and missiles. The superlaser must be able to, >>otherwise it'd go from one end of the target planet through the other. >>It needs to detonated in the center. > > Why must it and do you see any evidence of it ever being used as such > in a cap-ship battle other than to hit dead center in a cap-ship? > It has been determined that the superlaser is about 1e38 J in energy, and that much energy would be able to vaporize its way straight through the planet. No other evidence of it being used in a capship battle, but as its essentially a scaled up turbolaser, it should be able to be 'flak-bursted'. >>Well, you see a guy pulling a lever on a fire-control system, which >>would be similar to the people arming and firing, say, a tactical >>nuclear artillery shell. Both require targetting systems if they want >>decent accuracy. > > ICBMs and other chemical-fueled projectiles are unstable at best. You > fire it in the general area of the target and have to make small > changes in course as needed. The Deathstar Super Laser, to the best > of my knowledge, cannot change course, bend, or be affected by > turbulence or friction in the same way that atmospheric missle > tragectory is. Consider shooting a gun. Once the trigger is pulled, > there is no way to alter the course of the bullet. You can only fire > where you assume where the target will be when gravity and wind are > done with the bullet. > Different example: a defensive laser mount such as THEL would be similar to the death star, abliet at much shorter range, but you still must be able to point it at the target, via targetting computer and a sensor feed. > Let me ask this question than. We have a 5 sec delay from SL > tributary laser firing and primary laser firing plus the time required > for the beam to reach the target. With that delay, where is the NEED > for a tracking computer? Once fired, that beam's going in a preset > destination, regardless of where the target (a capital ship) may be > after the delay. > You at least need a targetting computer so that you'll be able to point the superlaser at the target, unless you mean a bunch of people triangulate an enemy ship and manually punch in numbers... >>> As noted elsewhere in this thread post, turbo lasers have a range of >>> 75 space units while the SL has a range of 100 space units. How >>> about sittting in the rage of 80 space units and doing strafing and >>> hit and run? >>> >>I don't think ST ships have a weapons range of 80 SU, check other posts >>for what each SU equals. > > Yup. Are there any ST super weapons with planetary ranges like that, > though? > Don't think so. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ryan Spickard" Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 02:18:08 -0600 Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: <9imap9$j0ek7$1@ID-42467.news.dfncis.de> -------- "Phong Nguyen" wrote in message news:Xns90DBE8F20111phongnguyenusanet@130.133.1.4... [snip] > True. However, the DS could order a 'flak burst' in the area in an > attempt to fry the ship. Turbolasers have been demonstrated to do so, > usually to kill fighters and missiles. The superlaser must be able to, > otherwise it'd go from one end of the target planet through the other. It > needs to detonated in the center. [snip] Don't forget that 'flak' is specifically mentioned several times in the TESB novel when TL's and laser cannons are being used (during the attack on the AT-AT's and when the MF is being chased by ISDs). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:19:05 +0800 Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: <3B4D330C.4B67@netvigator.com> -------- crys0627 wrote: > >1)How did you get that idea for the targeting method? In case you're > >interested, Picard also entered coordinates for the fleet to hit in > >ST:FC, so if anybody does that, it is ST. Now where's your evidence? > > Nothing canon. Of course, Picard is firing a dinky little gun on a > puny little capital ship - not the most powerful weapon in the galaxy > from a planetoid sized battlestation - where's the correlation? I thought you were talking about SW weapons in general, but it turns out you're talking *only* the superlaser. OK... > Never the less, I'm not aware of the time delay in ST:FC between order > and firing, but in ANH (about 25 sec) & ROTJ (about 15 sec), the delay > from order would give a manouverable ship much time to dodge. A ship > with any amount of sensors should be able to sense the DS powering up, > and even has a 5 second delay from when the tributary laserspower up > to the release of the primary beam. If Picard stood on the bridge of > the Death Star and ordered a firing at a precice set of co-ordinates, > chances are that 15-20 seconds later, that ship isn't there at that > co-ordinate. Have you considered that the delay may have more to do with final checks then targetting concerns? They can sense the superlaser powering up during its last five seconds. Guess what? A ST crew seems to take 11 seconds to respond to something. Here's a study made by someone on reaction times of ST crews. Ordering evasive maneuvers should take a comparable amount of time: QUOTE 0:00 BoP Fires 0:01 First Shot Hits Shields 0:02 Second Shot Hits E-D 0:08 Riker Starts the Orders to Return Fire 0:09 Riker Finishes the Orders to Return Fire 0:11 Enterprise Fires 0:16 Riker Order's Troi to 'get them out of there' 0:18 Troi's at helm and entering commands 0:22 E-D Moves Wow, this seems to refute the two seconds from first sensor reading to initial response Trek has said is SOP when a Fed starship encounters an enemy. END QUOTE Courtesy of http://www.h4h.com/louis/troops.html Now, Edam once clocked a superlaaser beam at around 40,000km/s per second. Let's use that. They have 5 seconds of warning, and then they get shot to little pieces. According to that data above (one of the few of this kind of study made), they won't even react! > This is of course movie-time and not necessarily real-time, but I'm > sure that there is no difference in this case. > > Shooting a planet seems pretty straightforward with the DS, just point > and shoot - that planet's not dodging about. Aiming should not be > much of a problem - from what I can tell, as long as the beam manages > to vaporize the iron core of the planet, planet go BOOM. For Earth, > that would be about a 1200 km range (3500km if you accept the liquid > iron mantle). But compare a 3000-20000km diameter planet to a 1km > long capital ship. Targeting MUST be very accurate. No, the process involves more than just vaping the core, which is actually quite low in energy usage compared to what was seen. What the DS superlaser did could more accurately be described as accelerating the planet's mass to thousands of times of escape velocity, or 1E38J class power. Also remember that when you target from about 47 million km away (that's 100 space units), even a planet can get a little small. A targetting computer would be a big help. > Why not a targeting computer? No concrete evidence, just some > thoughts. There just has never been any indication of a targeting > system mentioned in any of the DS firing sequences - only human > manipulation. The firing of every other weapon system in SW requires > a targeting computer and Lucas is very reliable in showing it - the MF > gunnery scene, the trench run (ties and X-wings), but a targeting > computer ISN'T mentioned or hinted to when firing the DS. The firing > of the DS laser is so human-manipulation driven that people are > actually required in the tributary beam chambers. So that means if you saw me punching keys in a weapons control console, you wouldn't guess I might be ordering a fire-control computer to deduce a firing solution? > But why would they need a targeting computer? First, as primarily a > planet-targeting weapon, as I mentioned before, hitting a stationary > 3000-20000km object shouldn't require the DS1 to make unreasonable > calculations. Secondly, as I hoped was getting through in the first > post, I don't believe much in the manouverabilty of SW capital ships. > What whould the DS need to TRACK in the 15-25 seconds needed to fire? > Can THESE ships make the necessary adjustments needed to dodge the SL? > I see no reason why the ST ships shouldn't be able to - if not only be > cut to shreds by the Turbos. It is harder when they're 47 million km away. In case you're interested, SW ships can get quite maneuverable. They pull 7000G turns in space without breaking a sweat (Endor circle around). The DS would need to refine a firing solution on the ship, check the superlaser (a superlaser firing is no joke) and establish a lead compute in the 15-25 seconds. Or do you really think fire control systems lock and fire immediately? Once the beam fires, there is basically no escape for any ship within around 40,000 kilometers (Unless you're talking a Culture ship or something). A ST ship wold be blown out of the sky before it can react. The limitation is not the ship, but the Reaction Time of Captain and Crew, and you just saw a study about their abysmal reaction time above. > >2)Whatever method they use, they can hit fighters and the MF. Hitting > >those large ST ships would be no problem. > > As noted elsewhere in this thread post, turbo lasers have a range of > 75 space units while the SL has a range of 100 space units. How about > sittting in the rage of 80 space units and doing strafing and hit and > run? You were being very honest when you say you don't know much about SW, so I'll put you on official notice. A space unit is 470,600 km. 75 space units is something like 35 million km. And while I hadn't watched too many ST episodes, in my memory, no one had ever mentioned an episode where the *dialogue* ranges are even close to that. *Visually* speaking, both ST and SW ships tend to attack fairly close. > >3)The smaller ships can get fairly maneuverable in ST, but they aren't > >coming close to MF or snubfighter grade, and they're bigger, they'll get > >killed. There are no special effects consideration in ASVS - it is all > >real. All the canon happened. > > So ST capital ships are more manouverable than SW capital ships of a > similar size/class? Why can't the flagship of the ST fleet or dodge a > 100 meter wide beam from a battlestation at distances of thousands of > km? I never said that. AT best, ST capital ships are of comparable maneuverability to SW ships. When I said "fairly maneuverable", I was talking in comparison to larger ST ships (say an Excelsior to a Sovereign). Read above for why the USS Enterprise would never evade that superlaser beam. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 05:30:30 -0500 Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: <9ijtrr$jsdg8$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote in message <3B4D330C.4B67@netvigator.com>... >> Never the less, I'm not aware of the time delay in ST:FC between order >> and firing, but in ANH (about 25 sec) & ROTJ (about 15 sec), the delay >> from order would give a manouverable ship much time to dodge. A ship >> with any amount of sensors should be able to sense the DS powering up, >> and even has a 5 second delay from when the tributary laserspower up >> to the release of the primary beam. If Picard stood on the bridge of >> the Death Star and ordered a firing at a precice set of co-ordinates, >> chances are that 15-20 seconds later, that ship isn't there at that >> co-ordinate. > >Have you considered that the delay may have more to do with final checks >then targetting concerns? They can sense the superlaser powering up >during its last five seconds. Guess what? A ST crew seems to take 11 >seconds to respond to something. Here's a study made by someone on >reaction times of ST crews. Ordering evasive maneuvers should take a >comparable amount of time: > >QUOTE >0:00 BoP Fires >0:01 First Shot Hits Shields >0:02 Second Shot Hits E-D >0:08 Riker Starts the Orders to Return Fire >0:09 Riker Finishes the Orders to Return Fire >0:11 Enterprise Fires >0:16 Riker Order's Troi to 'get them out of there' >0:18 Troi's at helm and entering commands >0:22 E-D Moves > >Wow, this seems to refute the two seconds from first sensor reading to >initial response Trek has said is SOP when a Fed starship encounters an >enemy. >END QUOTE >Courtesy of http://www.h4h.com/louis/troops.html > >Now, Edam once clocked a superlaaser beam at around 40,000km/s per >second. Let's use that. They have 5 seconds of warning, and then they >get shot to little pieces. According to that data above (one of the few >of this kind of study made), they won't even react! > That is both a misleading example and misleading argument. First, he said it would take five seconds for the tributaries to release the primary beam. This ignores travel time which, at 40,000km/s and assuming that, for whatever reason, the Enterprise has moved to within transporter range (40,000km), you have a total of six seconds for the ship to react. If the Enterprise kept her distance even just a little bit (say, 400,000km), that's ten seconds beam travel time plus five seconds for primary beam release. This ignores the idea that the Enterprise would sense the power emanations as the tributaries themselves were being created within the Death Star, but we'll go with an 11 second total figure, which puts the Enterprise within one light-second of the Death Star. Using your own given example (which, by the way, includes the travel time for Deanna to go hop in the conn seat after :16, if I remember correctly), the captain could twiddle his thumbs for a good five or six seconds before saying "evasive maneuvers", and the Enterprise would be in motion by the time the superlaser beam approached. And that's with Troi, who is hardly an experienced conn officer, at the helm. However, to use a more appropriate example, let's see what happens when a crew on alert with a real conn officer sitting at the helm does when they suddenly realize that something's about to run them over: (From the first nebula scene of "Endgame"[VOY]) Kim: "Another tritanium signature right on top of us!" Sentence ends at time 00:00 VFX: Cube becomes visible in external nebula shot. Apparent motion of the two ships suggests that Voyager will impact on the cube's port side, at least a fourth of the way up from the bottom of the ship (or about 800 meters up from the bottom). 00:02 - 00:04 Janeway: "Tom!" 00:05 VFX: Voyager starts altering course 00:07 VFX: Voyager engages in a rolling evasion, downward and to the starboard, missing the Borg cube by 10 meters at the start of the maneuver (distance according to a later statement by Tom). 00:07-00:09 (includes time when Voyager was well out of collision danger) Now, it depends on how you want to play it. You can say that Tom should have started reacting circa 00:02 but that the ship did not move for five seconds. Or, you can say that "Tom" was his call to action, and he had the ship moving in two seconds. In any case, if we want to say that Tom could be going by visual only, he has a maximum of five seconds to move the ship (from first partial visual contact to motion). I personally assume this, because Harry's statement was so nondescript and because Tom and Janeway did not seem to know which way they ought to go until about 00:04ish. In any case, the ship relocated itself 800 meters off-course from steady-as-she-goes in around 5-7 seconds, tops. More than enough to elude a 100-meter wide superlaser beam (width borrowed from below), and making it possible (albeit quite a dangerous option) that the ship could evade the superlaser from within transporter range. Granted, we're comparing a highly maneuverable Intrepid Class to a big Galaxy Class . . . but then we've seen even lowly-but-large Ambassadors and Nebulas engage in hairpin high-speed turns in "Emissary"[DS9]. >> This is of course movie-time and not necessarily real-time, but I'm >> sure that there is no difference in this case. >> >> Shooting a planet seems pretty straightforward with the DS, just point >> and shoot - that planet's not dodging about. Aiming should not be >> much of a problem - from what I can tell, as long as the beam manages >> to vaporize the iron core of the planet, planet go BOOM. For Earth, >> that would be about a 1200 km range (3500km if you accept the liquid >> iron mantle). But compare a 3000-20000km diameter planet to a 1km >> long capital ship. Targeting MUST be very accurate. > >No, the process involves more than just vaping the core, which is >actually quite low in energy usage compared to what was seen. What the >DS superlaser did could more accurately be described as accelerating the >planet's mass to thousands of times of escape velocity, or 1E38J class >power. > Refresh my memory . . . where is it demonstrated that core vaporization would be insufficient? >> >2)Whatever method they use, they can hit fighters and the MF. Hitting >> >those large ST ships would be no problem. >> >> As noted elsewhere in this thread post, turbo lasers have a range of >> 75 space units while the SL has a range of 100 space units. How about >> sittting in the rage of 80 space units and doing strafing and hit and >> run? > >You were being very honest when you say you don't know much about SW, so >I'll put you on official notice. A space unit is 470,600 km. 75 space >units is something like 35 million km. And while I hadn't watched too >many ST episodes, in my memory, no one had ever mentioned an episode >where the *dialogue* ranges are even close to that. > >*Visually* speaking, both ST and SW ships tend to attack fairly close. True, but we've seen that photon torpedoes will coast a good long way ("Genesis"[TNG]), though whether they will detonate on impact is not known. I would assume that they could. Further, a torpedo fired at warp by default travels a great deal further than than the couple-million kilometer ranges given in some sources. Further, we've never seen phaser blooming to such an extent that the TM range of 300,000km would hold as maximum beam distance. Indeed, the idea in the ST:TNG TM is that it's the maximum effective range, since it would take an entire second to traverse the distance, by which point a maneuvering foe might be out of the way. The Death Star does not really constitute a maneuvering foe. Finally, can you point to something canonical which suggests this 35,000,000km range for turbolasers? The bolt might last that long beofre dissipating, but I hardly think that's been seen as the effective tactical range. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:43:14 +0800 Subject: Re: A few question about the Death Star for a newbie to the group... Message-ID: <3B4D8D52.E39@netvigator.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote in message <3B4D330C.4B67@netvigator.com>... > > >Have you considered that the delay may have more to do with final checks > >then targetting concerns? They can sense the superlaser powering up > >during its last five seconds. Guess what? A ST crew seems to take 11 > >seconds to respond to something. Here's a study made by someone on > >reaction times of ST crews. Ordering evasive maneuvers should take a > >comparable amount of time: > > > >QUOTE > >0:00 BoP Fires > >0:01 First Shot Hits Shields > >0:02 Second Shot Hits E-D > >0:08 Riker Starts the Orders to Return Fire > >0:09 Riker Finishes the Orders to Return Fire > >0:11 Enterprise Fires > >0:16 Riker Order's Troi to 'get them out of there' > >0:18 Troi's at helm and entering commands > >0:22 E-D Moves > > > >Wow, this seems to refute the two seconds from first sensor reading to > >initial response Trek has said is SOP when a Fed starship encounters an > >enemy. > >END QUOTE > >Courtesy of http://www.h4h.com/louis/troops.html > > > >Now, Edam once clocked a superlaaser beam at around 40,000km/s per > >second. Let's use that. They have 5 seconds of warning, and then they > >get shot to little pieces. According to that data above (one of the few > >of this kind of study made), they won't even react! > > > > That is both a misleading example and misleading argument. > > First, he said it would take five seconds for the tributaries to release the > primary beam. This ignores travel time which, at 40,000km/s and assuming > that, for whatever reason, the Enterprise has moved to within transporter > range (40,000km), you have a total of six seconds for the ship to react. If > the Enterprise kept her distance even just a little bit (say, 400,000km), > that's ten seconds beam travel time plus five seconds for primary beam > release. This ignores the idea that the Enterprise would sense the power > emanations as the tributaries themselves were being created within the Death > Star, but we'll go with an 11 second total figure, which puts the Enterprise > within one light-second of the Death Star. Typically, a typical visually observed attack range of the Enterprise is ten kilometers, try again. Four hundred thousand km is well beyond phaser range of the Enterprise, even in dialogue. Obviously, if you are far enough away, say 47 million km, you'll have plenty of time to get out of the way. I'm talking about normal visual engagement ranges seen on screen. > Using your own given example (which, by the way, includes the travel time > for Deanna to go hop in the conn seat after :16, if I remember correctly), > the captain could twiddle his thumbs for a good five or six seconds before > saying "evasive maneuvers", and the Enterprise would be in motion by the > time the superlaser beam approached. And that's with Troi, who is hardly an > experienced conn officer, at the helm. The example is above, IIRC is not necessary. I'm noticing more the part where it takes Riker (a professional Starfleet member on what is probably the best ship in Starfleet) 8 seconds react to a BoP firing and beginning to scream orders. That did not account for the time it took to Execute the order, or even for him to finish his sentence. > However, to use a more appropriate example, let's see what happens when a > crew on alert with a real conn officer sitting at the helm does when they > suddenly realize that something's about to run them over: > > (From the first nebula scene of "Endgame"[VOY]) > > Kim: "Another tritanium signature right on top of us!" > Sentence ends at time 00:00 OK. Actually, it'll be fairer to start the clock when she starts making her statement, but it is probably only a second's difference. > VFX: Cube becomes visible in external nebula shot. Apparent motion of the > two ships suggests that Voyager will impact on the cube's port side, at > least a fourth of the way up from the bottom of the ship (or about 800 > meters up from the bottom). > 00:02 - 00:04 > > Janeway: "Tom!" > 00:05 Right here, the superlaser beam fires or maybe even just above, due to our differences on when to start the clock. > VFX: Voyager starts altering course > 00:07 Right here, as long as the Voyager is within 40,000km, as is typical of the typical visuals we see. It starts to alter course and takes the hit. The total evasion time was 7 seconds in this case. You're still too slow, pal. > Granted, we're comparing a highly maneuverable Intrepid Class to a big > Galaxy Class . . . but then we've seen even lowly-but-large Ambassadors and > Nebulas engage in hairpin high-speed turns in "Emissary"[DS9]. I find it hard to imagine the maneuvers you're talking about in light of things like ST:FC, the infamous "Riker Alpha" maneuver and so on. But since I hadn't watched "Emissary" first hand, I'll let people who had watched it comment on this claim's validity. Fair? > Refresh my memory . . . where is it demonstrated that core vaporization > would be insufficient? The velocity with which the fragments are moved out! Merely vaporizing the core would not produce the centrifugal forces needed to rip the planet apart at a velocity thousands of times in excess of escape velocity. The violence level seen indicated that the energy transfer is in the region of 1E38J. The Earth weighs 5.97E24kg. Let's assume it is all made of iron, like the core of our planet (and presumably Alderaan too). It would take 289kJ/kg, or a total of 1.725E30J to melt (latent heat of fusion) and 6.34MJ/kg, or a total of 3.78E31J to vaporize. In the core, the temperature is a minimum of 4000K, and while pressure keeps it from melting or vaping at that temperature (the normal melting temperature is around 1808K), there are real limits to how much temperature matter can take - at a point that less than 12000K, it must vape, or so the theory goes. It takes 600J/kg to raise the temperature by one Kelvin (specific heat), and we got 8000 to go, so it'll take about 4.8MJ/kg or about 2.87E31J to raise to boiling point (at the pressures involved). The total energy would be 6.8E31J, which is less than the minimum amount of energy to blow the planet Alderaan style, and an insignificant fraction of energy that it'll take to blast the planet apart at that speed. And let's not even mention the fact that the core is but a fraction of a planet's total mass. An utter waste of time to prove something I knew already - that method does not work. > > > >> >2)Whatever method they use, they can hit fighters and the MF. Hitting > >> >those large ST ships would be no problem. > >> > >> As noted elsewhere in this thread post, turbo lasers have a range of > >> 75 space units while the SL has a range of 100 space units. How about > >> sittting in the rage of 80 space units and doing strafing and hit and > >> run? > > > >You were being very honest when you say you don't know much about SW, so > >I'll put you on official notice. A space unit is 470,600 km. 75 space > >units is something like 35 million km. And while I hadn't watched too > >many ST episodes, in my memory, no one had ever mentioned an episode > >where the *dialogue* ranges are even close to that. > > > >*Visually* speaking, both ST and SW ships tend to attack fairly close. > > True, but we've seen that photon torpedoes will coast a good long way > ("Genesis"[TNG]), though whether they will detonate on impact is not known. > I would assume that they could. Further, a torpedo fired at warp by > default travels a great deal further than than the couple-million kilometer > ranges given in some sources. I've heard of ranges up to 8 million km being suggested, but we never saw it. If you do not know whether they'll detonate (in Genesis), why assume they could *immediately*? A visual always crushes a piece of contradicting dialogue. The visuals show them fighting at ten km. Therefore, their effective fighting range is ten km. > Further, we've never seen phaser blooming to such an extent that the TM > range of 300,000km would hold as maximum beam distance. Indeed, the idea in > the ST:TNG TM is that it's the maximum effective range, since it would take > an entire second to traverse the distance, by which point a maneuvering foe > might be out of the way. The Death Star does not really constitute a > maneuvering foe. In fact, it would seem that maximum effective range according to Riker is 40,000km with phasers, and that's dialogue. We both know the visual position on this: "A Matter of Honor" TNG RIKER: I recommend you do not fire until you are within forty thousand kilometers. KLAG: Why? RIKER: It will reduce their response time. > Finally, can you point to something canonical which suggests this > 35,000,000km range for turbolasers? The bolt might last that long beofre > dissipating, but I hardly think that's been seen as the effective tactical > range. Canonical evidence is not necessary. Canonical evidence does *nothing* to refute it. This came from an official source - therefore, it stands. As for whether it is effective range, there are three sets of numbers in the RPG, 3-15/35/75. Apparently, the former is the shortest set of ranges (presumably the easiest to hit too). At 15 space units, the range is still over seven million kilometers. The space range reference is all over in both the RPGs and the BTM CD, so no one can say it is a one time fluke. You could argue they were never visually shown to fight at that range, but hey, the same is true of your own dialogue! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:20:17 +0100 Subject: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: -------- In article <3B4D8D52.E39@netvigator.com>, krasnaya@netvigator.com says... > > Finally, can you point to something canonical which suggests this > > 35,000,000km range for turbolasers? The bolt might last that long beofre > > dissipating, but I hardly think that's been seen as the effective tactical > > range. > > Canonical evidence is not necessary. Canonical evidence does *nothing* > to refute it. This came from an official source - therefore, it stands. > > As for whether it is effective range, there are three sets of numbers in > the RPG, 3-15/35/75. Apparently, the former is the shortest set of > ranges (presumably the easiest to hit too). At 15 space units, the range > is still over seven million kilometers. The space range reference is all > over in both the RPGs and the BTM CD, so no one can say it is a one time > fluke. According to WEG/BTM, the range of a turbolaser, in space units, is 75, and that of a laser cannon is 25 According to the official source "Star Wars: New Jedi Order: Edge Of Victory 1: Conquest" (why the hell do they have to have such long names) (When Karrde rescues the Jedi kids from Yavin 4) the maximum range of a corvette is under 100,000km. Depending on which weaponry you want to pick, this should be somewhere between 25 and 75 space units. If we generously assume this 100,000km is the range of one single space unit (it isn't, obviously.), then 15 space units is a mere 1.5 million km and 75 space units a mere 7.5 million km. If we use the proper ranges, then one space unit is somewhere between 4000km and 1300km (note - even this is contradicted by canon. If we drag out canon ISD ranges then a space unit comes to about 33km) Clearly, there is a major problem with converting between space units and kilometres, such that we cannot use "space units" to conclude a genuine metric weapons range. If you wish to do so please follow the rules of this group and show the additional research that allows you to convert both 100 space untios into 47 million km and 75 space units into sub-100,000km distances. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 21:02:32 +0800 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B4D9FE8.322B@netvigator.com> -------- Lord Edam de Fromage wrote: > According to WEG/BTM, the range of a turbolaser, in space units, is 75, > and that of a laser cannon is 25 > > According to the official source "Star Wars: New Jedi Order: Edge Of > Victory 1: Conquest" (why the hell do they have to have such long names) > (When Karrde rescues the Jedi kids from Yavin 4) the maximum range of a > corvette is under 100,000km. Depending on which weaponry you want to > pick, this should be somewhere between 25 and 75 space units. > > If we generously assume this 100,000km is the range of one single space > unit (it isn't, obviously.), then 15 space units is a mere 1.5 million > km and 75 space units a mere 7.5 million km. If we use the proper > ranges, then one space unit is somewhere between 4000km and 1300km (note > - even this is contradicted by canon. If we drag out canon ISD ranges > then a space unit comes to about 33km) > > Clearly, there is a major problem with converting between space units > and kilometres, such that we cannot use "space units" to conclude a > genuine metric weapons range. If you wish to do so please follow the > rules of this group and show the additional research that allows you to > convert both 100 space untios into 47 million km and 75 space units into > sub-100,000km distances. That would be a difficult problem. Space units were originally developed for RPGs, and RPGs tend not to have many complicated rules, so it is not likely to be a complicated logarithmic scheme or anything. You might notice that the canon does not explicitly say they could not target further out. If we're going to stick to canon visuals, and apply it to both sides the maximum combat range of a ST weapon is at most a hundred kilometers. In a world where both want the maximum range for their weapons, that's not a particularly favorable alternative to anybody. Let's head on to debating officials. Let's not be generous. It just makes life tough on everybody, and we both know how far our "generosity" goes. Let's stick to hard facts. Many corvettes are not heavily armed with turbolasers, so let's assume laser cannons, for 25 space units, for 4000 kilometers per space unit according to Conquest. A possible rationalization of this mess could be that the range in Conquest meant maximum Effective Range, while the range we currently use indicate Absolute Maximum Range. The maximum canon speed of a turbolaser type weapon (according to BTM, superlasers are just a huge kind of turbolaser) is in the region of 40000km/s (that's a corollary of one of your statements, saying that the beam would cover the 47 million km in about 20 minutes). At 100,000km, a 40000km/s beam would take 2.5 seconds to hit the target. If it is singificantly longer-ranged than that, the guy can effectively dodge the weapon, so it is perfectly conceivable 100,000km is the Maximum Effective Range due to target evasion. Would that work? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 15:11:04 +0100 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: -------- In article <3B4D9FE8.322B@netvigator.com>, krasnaya@netvigator.com says... > > According to WEG/BTM, the range of a turbolaser, in space units, is 75, > > and that of a laser cannon is 25 > > > > According to the official source "Star Wars: New Jedi Order: Edge Of > > Victory 1: Conquest" (why the hell do they have to have such long names) > > (When Karrde rescues the Jedi kids from Yavin 4) the maximum range of a > > corvette is under 100,000km. Depending on which weaponry you want to > > pick, this should be somewhere between 25 and 75 space units. > > > > If we generously assume this 100,000km is the range of one single space > > unit (it isn't, obviously.), then 15 space units is a mere 1.5 million > > km and 75 space units a mere 7.5 million km. If we use the proper > > ranges, then one space unit is somewhere between 4000km and 1300km (note > > - even this is contradicted by canon. If we drag out canon ISD ranges > > then a space unit comes to about 33km) > > > > Clearly, there is a major problem with converting between space units > > and kilometres, such that we cannot use "space units" to conclude a > > genuine metric weapons range. If you wish to do so please follow the > > rules of this group and show the additional research that allows you to > > convert both 100 space untios into 47 million km and 75 space units into > > sub-100,000km distances. > > That would be a difficult problem. Space units were originally developed > for RPGs, and RPGs tend not to have many complicated rules, so it is not > likely to be a complicated logarithmic scheme or anything. I've also heard space units were originally intended to be purely arbitrary, which would mean it is and always has been wrong to try to derive a firm metric distance from them. > You might notice that the canon does not explicitly say they could not > target further out. ESB novellisation, as the MF is fleeing Hoth towards two approaching ISDs. The ISDs are explicitly stated to be out of range, despite the fact they are clearly visible out of the MF's cockpit windows. Search spacebattles for posts by Nagilum for further information http://www.themightygibbon.co.uk/TLs/tlr.html If we're going to stick to canon visuals, and apply > it to both sides the maximum combat range of a ST weapon is at most a > hundred kilometers. Lucky we cannot do that under the rules of the group, I guess. > Let's head on to debating officials. Even though they contradict canon, that's fine by me. > Let's not be generous. Well, simply debating official even though canon contradicts *is* being generaous, but if you insist... It just makes life tough on everybody, and we > both know how far our "generosity" goes. Let's stick to hard facts. Many > corvettes are not heavily armed with turbolasers, so let's assume laser > cannons, for 25 space units, for 4000 kilometers per space unit > according to Conquest. > > A possible rationalization of this mess could be that the range in > Conquest meant maximum Effective Range, (paraphrase, coz the books at home) "at one hundred thousands kilometres out Karrde knew they were well out of range" > indicate Absolute Maximum Range. The maximum canon speed of a turbolaser > type weapon (according to BTM, superlasers are just a huge kind of > turbolaser) is in the region of 40000km/s fuck off. You start off saying "lets not be generous" then say "lets use the absolute highest possible speed a TL has never even been shown at" I'd be incredibly generous simply letting you use the speed of the DS2 superlaser, or about 2000km/s absolute top whack. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:56:11 +0800 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B4DBA8B.82F@netvigator.com> -------- Lord Edam de Fromage wrote: > > In article <3B4D9FE8.322B@netvigator.com>, krasnaya@netvigator.com > says... > I've also heard space units were originally intended to be purely > arbitrary, which would mean it is and always has been wrong to try to > derive a firm metric distance from them. I'm sure they were originally intended to be arbitrary, or we wouldn't get such numbers as 470,600km/space unit. And the official sources themselves were never origianlly intended to be scrutinized the way we do either. Lucas tells people like us to find something more meaningful to do with our lives, so it is likely he never intended his work to be scrutinized this way too. But if we insist on doing it the way we do it, we have to assume everything makes some sort of sense, and are not totally arbitrary. > > You might notice that the canon does not explicitly say they could not > > target further out. > > ESB novellisation, as the MF is fleeing Hoth towards two approaching > ISDs. The ISDs are explicitly stated to be out of range, despite the > fact they are clearly visible out of the MF's cockpit windows. Search > spacebattles for posts by Nagilum for further information Oh, that. However, maximum range is a very conditional thing. The maximum range against a highly maneuverable, about 40-m wide MF is not the same as firing range against some other more enormous target, say a GCS or ISD. > http://www.themightygibbon.co.uk/TLs/tlr.html I'm reading it. For now, though: 1)You seem to assume the firing range against the MF will be the same as the firing range in some other situation, such as against a (much more enormous) Star Destroyer. 2)The second example in ROTJ came when the two fleets were suffering from jamming so utterly severe that they can't even detect the DS2 shield at all. Are you sure their targetting systems would be up to par in that situation? As for Shield of Lies, which I *do* have in my home: You seem to be taking the effective firing range against a fighter and taking it to mean that the effective firing range would be no better against a huge Star Destroyer (or Federation starship). By the way, is it going to stay white, or are you planning to decorate that page with a decorated title and wallpaper? :) > If we're going to stick to canon visuals, and apply > > it to both sides the maximum combat range of a ST weapon is at most a > > hundred kilometers. > > Lucky we cannot do that under the rules of the group, I guess. Yes, we can. We have agreed that in the case a piece of canon visual and a piece of canon dialogue contradict, the piece of canon visual wins. We have also agreed if a piece of canon disagrees with a piece of official, the canon wins. Therefore, the canon visuals would say we both fight at comparable ranges. > > Let's head on to debating officials. > > Even though they contradict canon, that's fine by me. I am just leaving them by the roadside for the time being. I know that any rationalization that I concoot would have to eventually face the test of canon. > > Let's not be generous. > > Well, simply debating official even though canon contradicts *is* being > generaous, but if you insist... Read above - I'll get back to the official. Let's concentrate on rationalizing and putting the evidence together one piece at a time. > It just makes life tough on everybody, and we > > both know how far our "generosity" goes. Let's stick to hard facts. Many > > corvettes are not heavily armed with turbolasers, so let's assume laser > > cannons, for 25 space units, for 4000 kilometers per space unit > > according to Conquest. > > > > A possible rationalization of this mess could be that the range in > > Conquest meant maximum Effective Range, > > (paraphrase, coz the books at home) "at one hundred thousands kilometres > out Karrde knew they were well out of range" Why don't you postpone this response until you get back home and grab your own book so you can give me the original quote to attack, rather than your paraphrase? But for now, I'll like to point out that your own web page is shooting down this quote itself. There is no reason for Karrde to use "one hundred thousand kilometers" if the weapons effective range were under five thousand like you said. Either something gets thrown out, or we have to chump this one down... But I'll reserve my final rationalization until you find that quote :) > > indicate Absolute Maximum Range. The maximum canon speed of a turbolaser > > type weapon (according to BTM, superlasers are just a huge kind of > > turbolaser) is in the region of 40000km/s > > fuck off. > > You start off saying "lets not be generous" then say "lets use the > absolute highest possible speed a TL has never even been shown at" > > I'd be incredibly generous simply letting you use the speed of the DS2 > superlaser, or about 2000km/s absolute top whack. 1)The 40,000km/s speed came from you. It is unlikely DS1's beam's flank speed would be faster than DS2's beam's flank speed. 2)Pretty much all "energy" weapons in SW operate on very similar principles (which includes the use of tibanna gas). Turbolasers are smaller superlasers, laser cannons are smaller turbolasers, blasters are very compact weapons. The only major exception is the ion cannon. 3)I used 40,000km/s as an *hypothesis* in my answer. It *could* have easily been some other speed, faster or slower. The principle stays the same. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 23:04:20 +0800 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B4DBC74.25CA@netvigator.com> -------- Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: > > Well, simply debating official even though canon contradicts *is* being > > generaous, but if you insist... > > Read above - I'll get back to the official. Let's concentrate on > rationalizing and putting the evidence together one piece at a time. Minor correction - change "official" to "canon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 20:16:15 +0100 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: -------- Today's news is brought to you by the number 7, and the letter from Kazuaki Shimazaki > we have to assume everything makes some sort of sense, and are not > totally arbitrary. "Remember [space] units are[...] not real in any physical sense" - SW RPG, 2nd ed, P104, col 1, para 2 > > ESB novellisation, as the MF is fleeing Hoth towards two approaching > > ISDs. The ISDs are explicitly stated to be out of range, despite the > > fact they are clearly visible out of the MF's cockpit windows. Search > > spacebattles for posts by Nagilum for further information > > Oh, that. However, maximum range is a very conditional thing. The > maximum range against a highly maneuverable, about 40-m wide MF is not > the same as firing range against some other more enormous target, say a > GCS or ISD. So now the ships that have no trouble targetting a small maneuverable fighter or the MF is actually struggling to do so? Do you have canon evidence of greater weapon range? > > http://www.themightygibbon.co.uk/TLs/tlr.html > > I'm reading it. For now, though: > 1)You seem to assume the firing range against the MF will be the same as > the firing range in some other situation, such as against a (much more > enormous) Star Destroyer. If you have canone vidence that the ISD has greater range please present it now. > 2)The second example in ROTJ came when the two fleets were suffering > from jamming so utterly severe that they can't even detect the DS2 > shield at all. Are you sure their targetting systems would be up to par > in that situation? The second example in ROTJ is an example of a typical long-range battle. Why would that not also be showing typical long-range fire? > As for Shield of Lies, which I *do* have in my home: > You seem to be taking the effective firing range against a fighter and > taking it to mean that the effective firing range would be no better > against a huge Star Destroyer (or Federation starship). In shield of lies they were firing wildly in the general direction of the craft in an attempt to disrupt them. you don't need ultra fine targetting to throw up a wall of turbolaser bolts. > By the way, is it going to stay white, or are you planning to decorate > that page with a decorated title and wallpaper? :) The page will eventually be joining the rest of my site. That is just a five minute knock up. > > If we're going to stick to canon visuals, and apply > > > it to both sides the maximum combat range of a ST weapon is at most a > > > hundred kilometers. > > > > Lucky we cannot do that under the rules of the group, I guess. > > Yes, we can. Not until you quote Lucasfilm and Paramount's statment that non-visual evidence is inadmissable. We have agreed that in the case a piece of canon visual and > a piece of canon dialogue contradict, the piece of canon visual wins. Only when the two things refer to the exact same scene and it is either choose the visuals or choose the dialogue but not both. This is not the case in this discussion. We > have also agreed if a piece of canon disagrees with a piece of official, > the canon wins. Therefore, the canon visuals would say we both fight at > comparable ranges. Canon dialogue and visuals for Trek place weapons ranges up to a few hundred thousand km. Canon visual and novellisation for Wars put weapons ranges at a few thousand km. official direct statments for wars indicate similarly low ranges. > > It just makes life tough on everybody, and we > > > both know how far our "generosity" goes. Let's stick to hard facts. Many > > > corvettes are not heavily armed with turbolasers, so let's assume laser > > > cannons, for 25 space units, for 4000 kilometers per space unit > > > according to Conquest. > > > > > > A possible rationalization of this mess could be that the range in > > > Conquest meant maximum Effective Range, > > > > (paraphrase, coz the books at home) "at one hundred thousands kilometres > > out Karrde knew they were well out of range" > > Why don't you postpone this response until you get back home and grab > your own book so you can give me the original quote to attack, rather > than your paraphrase? Because I'm not going to be home for a while. Further investigation reveals the statment of range is from Anakin's Droid in his X-j detecting hyperspace entry, and Anakin thinking he is perfectly safe for a short while because they have no chance of hitting him from there. Page 43/44. If you want a full quote find a book shop or shout next week. > But for now, I'll like to point out that your own web page is shooting > down this quote itself. There is no reason for Karrde to use "one > hundred thousand kilometers" if the weapons effective range were under > five thousand like you said. based on what I told you in the paraphrase, Karrde(or whoever) knew where the attackers were, and knew they were not a threat at that point. weapons range could be as little as two km, and the paraphrase would still be perfectly acceptable - it tells where the attackers were detected, not where they becom a threat. > > fuck off. > > > > You start off saying "lets not be generous" then say "lets use the > > absolute highest possible speed a TL has never even been shown at" > > > > I'd be incredibly generous simply letting you use the speed of the DS2 > > superlaser, or about 2000km/s absolute top whack. > > 1)The 40,000km/s speed came from you. for the DS1, due to the fact it took about 2 seconds to cross 6 planetary diameters. It is unlikely DS1's beam's flank > speed would be faster than DS2's beam's flank speed. Yet the DS2 beam was canonically shown to be slower. Don't take my word for it - go watch the two films. "unlikely"s do not get to overide canon *visual* evidence. > 2)Pretty much all "energy" weapons in SW operate on very similar > principles (which includes the use of tibanna gas). Turbolasers are > smaller superlasers, laser cannons are smaller turbolasers, blasters are > very compact weapons. The only major exception is the ion cannon. Irrelevant. did I give you the rocket/apollo analogy previously? You snipped it, yes? Here's some more for you airplanes - prop driven pilot training cessna, flies at maybe a hundred miles and hour or more. prop driven radio controlled model cessna. Flies at maybe 10 miles and hour if you'r lucky. Same basic underlying principles. major difference inoutcome. Guns. Your typical 1700's musket would fire a lead bullet at a couple of hundred metres per second tops. Your typical high quality hunting rifle will fire a lead bullet at 600m/s or more (yes, supersonic, so you don't scare teh prey) > 3)I used 40,000km/s as an *hypothesis* in my answer. It *could* have > easily been some other speed, faster or slower. The principle stays the > same. Ah yes, the "lets say range is actually higher, so we can claim the ISd will destroy a GCS at 10 million km. I'll ignore Worf's fart could move the GCS out of the way, it isn't important" defense. just apologist fanboy semantics that has absolutely zero affect on the outcome of the debate. maximum range is the farthest range at which teh weapon is going to be useful against its intended target. Otherwise the maximum range of a slid projectile is going to be somewhere near cosmological scales - a complete waste of time for these debates. You couldn't even hit a galaxy at those ranges. -- Lord Edam de Fromage aka Sorborus www.trek-wars.co.uk Confucius, he say rape not possible. Woman with skirt up run faster than man with trousers down ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kazuaki Shimazaki Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 13:25:57 +0800 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B4E8665.1961@netvigator.com> -------- Lord Edam de Fromage wrote: > > Today's news is brought to you by the number 7, and the letter from > Kazuaki Shimazaki > > > we have to assume everything makes some sort of sense, and are not > > totally arbitrary. > > "Remember [space] units are[...] not real in any physical sense" - SW > RPG, 2nd ed, P104, col 1, para 2 Do you know that all measurements units (like kilometers and kilograms) can be argued to be not real. Units are just things unreal in a physical sense to represent certain *real* distances, masses and so on. > > > http://www.themightygibbon.co.uk/TLs/tlr.html > > > > I'm reading it. For now, though: > > 1)You seem to assume the firing range against the MF will be the same as > > the firing range in some other situation, such as against a (much more > > enormous) Star Destroyer. > > If you have canone vidence that the ISD has greater range please present > it now. It is not necessary. Because your idea is a logical fallacy in itself - the All Targets are the Same Fallacy. The onus is in fact on you to tell us why the 40m ship is as easy to target as a 1600m (or even 400m) ship. > > 2)The second example in ROTJ came when the two fleets were suffering > > from jamming so utterly severe that they can't even detect the DS2 > > shield at all. Are you sure their targetting systems would be up to par > > in that situation? > > The second example in ROTJ is an example of a typical long-range battle. > Why would that not also be showing typical long-range fire? The real problem in that is that it is a False Cause Fallacy. You assume they engage close purely because they had to, whether there was jamming or not. That is the problem. In any case, if we take that (and your numbers at around 2000km) as a typical example of a Fleet Battle, and something like a DS9 episode is a typical example of a Fleet Battle in ST, we still clearly have the advantage (2000km vs <100km). That, in fact is the core source of the debate. We're not talking the maximum range in numbers - we just want to prove we got more range! > > As for Shield of Lies, which I *do* have in my home: > > You seem to be taking the effective firing range against a fighter and > > taking it to mean that the effective firing range would be no better > > against a huge Star Destroyer (or Federation starship). > > In shield of lies they were firing wildly in the general direction of the > craft in an attempt to disrupt them. you don't need ultra fine targetting > to throw up a wall of turbolaser bolts. Umm, Mike, I do have the Shield of Lies. Where does it say or imply that they're firing a barrage pattern, because I ain't seeing it. They did say "some fire", though. If they were firing a barrage pattern you think they are, they'll be using all their guns, and it wouldn't be "some fire". Some fire implies that only some of the guns were committed and when you only use some of your guns, you generally aim them. It is just that they're jinking, so the solution is never perfect. > > Yes, we can. > > Not until you quote Lucasfilm and Paramount's statment that non-visual > evidence is inadmissable. That is not necessary. The normal Conflict Resolving Algorithms is adequate. > We have agreed that in the case a piece of canon visual and > > a piece of canon dialogue contradict, the piece of canon visual wins. > > Only when the two things refer to the exact same scene and it is either > choose the visuals or choose the dialogue but not both. This is not the > case in this discussion. Both ST canon dialogue and SW (since SW canon dialogue says little about exact numbers) official are, therefore, considered second-rate, no? If they were first-rate, it is the canon visuals that would have to move and not them! The situation is perfectly analogous. We should only reject some of the evidence if there is no chance of rationalization. And it is at least as easy to rationalize our desired ranges with ROTJ or TESB as to rationalize your desired ranges with ST:FC, ST:Insurrection, various DS9 episodes, TNG Redemption (I just saw Redemption last Sunday)... > We > > have also agreed if a piece of canon disagrees with a piece of official, > > the canon wins. Therefore, the canon visuals would say we both fight at > > comparable ranges. > > Canon dialogue and visuals for Trek place weapons ranges up to a few > hundred thousand km. Canon visual and novellisation for Wars put weapons > ranges at a few thousand km. official direct statments for wars indicate > similarly low ranges. I've heard of the ST dialogue, but I would be very interested as to exactly where can we find visuals of this idea. Not all the official evidence goes your way. > > Why don't you postpone this response until you get back home and grab > > your own book so you can give me the original quote to attack, rather > > than your paraphrase? > > Because I'm not going to be home for a while. Further investigation > reveals the statment of range is from Anakin's Droid in his X-j detecting > hyperspace entry, and Anakin thinking he is perfectly safe for a short > while because they have no chance of hitting him from there. Page 43/44. > If you want a full quote find a book shop or shout next week. I checked my local book shop. They don't have it yet. I'm getting more and more confused as to exactly what your claim says. But an X-J is a fighter, no? Put this piece of evidence in the freezer until you can come back with the quote. Every time, the counters required for your paraphrases seem a little different, and I can't judge which to use until you come back with your quote. > > But for now, I'll like to point out that your own web page is shooting > > down this quote itself. There is no reason for Karrde to use "one > > hundred thousand kilometers" if the weapons effective range were under > > five thousand like you said. > > based on what I told you in the paraphrase, Karrde(or whoever) knew where > the attackers were, and knew they were not a threat at that point. > weapons range could be as little as two km, and the paraphrase would > still be perfectly acceptable - it tells where the attackers were > detected, not where they becom a threat. Oh, that. But you do not know how close they can get. It could be 95,000km, 99,999km and so on. > > 1)The 40,000km/s speed came from you. > > for the DS1, due to the fact it took about 2 seconds to cross 6 planetary > diameters. Thank you. > It is unlikely DS1's beam's flank > > speed would be faster than DS2's beam's flank speed. > > Yet the DS2 beam was canonically shown to be slower. Don't take my word > for it - go watch the two films. "unlikely"s do not get to overide canon > *visual* evidence. Can you prove that the DS2's beam *must* be going at its maximum speed? > > 2)Pretty much all "energy" weapons in SW operate on very similar > > principles (which includes the use of tibanna gas). Turbolasers are > > smaller superlasers, laser cannons are smaller turbolasers, blasters are > > very compact weapons. The only major exception is the ion cannon. > > Irrelevant. did I give you the rocket/apollo analogy previously? You > snipped it, yes? > > Here's some more for you > > airplanes - prop driven pilot training cessna, flies at maybe a hundred > miles and hour or more. prop driven radio controlled model cessna. Flies > at maybe 10 miles and hour if you'r lucky. Same basic underlying > principles. major difference inoutcome. Example was of two totally different purposes, one as a toy, one as a real plane. In this case, both are supposed to be weapons. By the way, scale down the real big Cessna. I doubt it'll fly, though I'm no aerodynamics expert. > Guns. Your typical 1700's musket would fire a lead bullet at a couple of > hundred metres per second tops. Your typical high quality hunting rifle > will fire a lead bullet at 600m/s or more (yes, supersonic, so you don't > scare teh prey) You're talking weapons made with two totally different sets of technology levels. The blasters through superlasers are made with the same level of technology (modern for SW). > maximum range is the farthest range at which teh weapon is going to be > useful against its intended target. Otherwise the maximum range of a slid > projectile is going to be somewhere near cosmological scales - a complete > waste of time for these debates. You couldn't even hit a galaxy at those > ranges. EXACTLY! You finally saw it, and yet you are going to try and use the "maximum range" against tiny fighters and Falcons and applying them to enormous Capital ships. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 09:50:44 +0100 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: -------- In article <3B4E8665.1961@netvigator.com>, krasnaya@netvigator.com says... > > "Remember [space] units are[...] not real in any physical sense" - SW > > RPG, 2nd ed, P104, col 1, para 2 > > Do you know that all measurements units (like kilometers and kilograms) > can be argued to be not real. In a physical sense, they *are* real though. In a physical sense, one kilometre converts always and every time into a constant real physical alternative. As stated in WEG, space units are not real in any physical sense. There is no real physical alternative for space units as there is with any modern scientific unit you wish to choose Units are just things unreal in a physical > sense to represent certain *real* distances, masses and so on. In other words, units are a real physical thing. > > > > http://www.themightygibbon.co.uk/TLs/tlr.html > > > > > > I'm reading it. For now, though: > > > 1)You seem to assume the firing range against the MF will be the same as > > > the firing range in some other situation, such as against a (much more > > > enormous) Star Destroyer. > > > > If you have canone vidence that the ISD has greater range please present > > it now. > > It is not necessary. Yes, it is, because otherwise you are asking us to overule canon evidence with lower official evidence. > > > 2)The second example in ROTJ came when the two fleets were suffering > > > from jamming so utterly severe that they can't even detect the DS2 > > > shield at all. Are you sure their targetting systems would be up to par > > > in that situation? > > > > The second example in ROTJ is an example of a typical long-range battle. > > Why would that not also be showing typical long-range fire? > > The real problem in that is that it is a False Cause Fallacy. You assume > they engage close purely because they had to, whether there was jamming > or not. That is the problem. Do you have canon evidence of greater ranges? Because if you don't you are asking us to overule canon evidence with lesser evidence simply becuse you don't like what it tells you. > In any case, if we take that (and your numbers at around 2000km) as a > typical example of a Fleet Battle, and something like a DS9 episode is a > typical example of a Fleet Battle in ST, we still clearly have the > advantage (2000km vs <100km). That, in fact is the core source of the > debate. We're not talking the maximum range in numbers - we just want to > prove we got more range! bu tyou don't got more range, because ST ships are repeatedly stated to have greater range than a few thousand km, unlike SW ships, which are canonically stated to have a range of 2000km if we are really generous. > > In shield of lies they were firing wildly in the general direction of the > > craft in an attempt to disrupt them. you don't need ultra fine targetting > > to throw up a wall of turbolaser bolts. > > Umm, Mike, I do have the Shield of Lies. Where does it say or imply that > they're firing a barrage pattern, because I ain't seeing it. If the thrust ships could accurately target the flight at that range they would be destroying ships. Were ships getting destroyed at 1600km? > Some fire implies that only some of the guns were committed "the flight began taking some fire" indicates some fire was succesfully targetting the flight, whilst other stuff was missing the flight entirely > > Not until you quote Lucasfilm and Paramount's statment that non-visual > > evidence is inadmissable. > > That is not necessary. If you wish to ignore canon evidence, yes it is. A scene of dialogue that is not contradicted by visuals of teh same scene is equally admissable as visuals from a different scene, unless you can prove without wild assumptions that the people involved are idiots or didn't mean what they said. > > Only when the two things refer to the exact same scene and it is either > > choose the visuals or choose the dialogue but not both. This is not the > > case in this discussion. > > Both ST canon dialogue and SW (since SW canon dialogue says little about > exact numbers) official are, therefore, considered second-rate, no? No. ST canon dialogue is canon, and as such must be treated as we would any other canon evidence. Failure to do so is against the stated policy of Paramount, and as such against the rules of this group. > The situation is perfectly analogous. We should only reject some of the > evidence if there is no chance of rationalization. You have TNG The wounded, DS9 Return to Grace, and DS9 The Search (just for starters) all of which state ST ships can and do fight at ranges approaching 100,000km and beyond. There are no visuals to contradict these three examples (infact, in the first case visuals support the claim) so if you want to ignore these three instances you have to show the people stating the ranges did not mean what they said, and that no one else whatsoever thought to pick them up on the grievous mistake. Until you can do that, these three examples represent ranges at which ST craft can and do operate. > > Canon dialogue and visuals for Trek place weapons ranges up to a few > > hundred thousand km. Canon visual and novellisation for Wars put weapons > > ranges at a few thousand km. official direct statments for wars indicate > > similarly low ranges. > > I've heard of the ST dialogue, but I would be very interested as to > exactly where can we find visuals of this idea. Not all the official > evidence goes your way. You haven't quoted a single piece that contradicts it yet. > > based on what I told you in the paraphrase, Karrde(or whoever) knew where > > the attackers were, and knew they were not a threat at that point. > > weapons range could be as little as two km, and the paraphrase would > > still be perfectly acceptable - it tells where the attackers were > > detected, not where they becom a threat. > > Oh, that. But you do not know how close they can get. It could be > 95,000km, 99,999km and so on. But I do know - other evidence shows the true ranges. > > It is unlikely DS1's beam's flank > > > speed would be faster than DS2's beam's flank speed. > > > > Yet the DS2 beam was canonically shown to be slower. Don't take my word > > for it - go watch the two films. "unlikely"s do not get to overide canon > > *visual* evidence. > > Can you prove that the DS2's beam *must* be going at its maximum speed? Can you prove the DS2 beam has the capability to go faster? Please remind yourself of the rules of this group - specifically how we cannot claim what isn't shown. > > Irrelevant. did I give you the rocket/apollo analogy previously? You > > snipped it, yes? > > > > Here's some more for you > > > > airplanes - prop driven pilot training cessna, flies at maybe a hundred > > miles and hour or more. prop driven radio controlled model cessna. Flies > > at maybe 10 miles and hour if you'r lucky. Same basic underlying > > principles. major difference inoutcome. > > Example was of two totally different purposes, one as a toy, one as a > real plane. Example was of two devices operating on very similar technology at different scales. Like the SL and TL and laser cannon operate on similar technology at different scales. > > Guns. Your typical 1700's musket would fire a lead bullet at a couple of > > hundred metres per second tops. Your typical high quality hunting rifle > > will fire a lead bullet at 600m/s or more (yes, supersonic, so you don't > > scare teh prey) > > You're talking weapons made with two totally different sets of > technology levels. Yet using the same basic technology - explosive powder accelerates a projectile down a barrel due to expansion of gasses. Ballistics has changed very little since the very first bow and arrow arrived on teh world. The blasters through superlasers are made with the > same level of technology (modern for SW). but on totally different scales, resulting in totally different end results > > maximum range is the farthest range at which teh weapon is going to be > > useful against its intended target. Otherwise the maximum range of a slid > > projectile is going to be somewhere near cosmological scales - a complete > > waste of time for these debates. You couldn't even hit a galaxy at those > > ranges. > > EXACTLY! You finally saw it, and yet you are going to try and use the > "maximum range" against tiny fighters and Falcons and applying them to > enormous Capital ships. Until this thread everyone was pointint out how wonderful ISDs were at targetting small craft. In another part of this thread it is claimed the Mf can be pinpoionted at seven light years - yet now you are telling me they can't pinpoint the MF at seven light milliseconds? No, Kaz. If you want to claim greater ranges than those I use ehre you will ahve to show canon evidence of those ranges. Anything else is simply overiden by what I have quoted ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:05:52 -0500 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <9ipmnv$jj82s$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote in message ... >You have TNG The wounded, DS9 Return to Grace, and DS9 The Search (just >for starters) all of which state ST ships can and do fight at ranges >approaching 100,000km and beyond. Just out of curiosity, which scene from "Return to Grace" are you referring to? If it is the first asteroid-destruction scene, I agree, but there is room for doubt. Damar gives the range to Dukat as 400,000km, but also says they are closing. It's about 25 seconds later that the phasers finally come online and they fire. Had they been closing at 16,000km/s, the asteroid would have been at point blank range from Damar's statement to weapons fire. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 10:58:33 -0500 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <9ippqq$k3p44$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote in message <9ipmnv$jj82s$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>... > >Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> wrote in message ... > >>You have TNG The wounded, DS9 Return to Grace, and DS9 The Search (just >>for starters) all of which state ST ships can and do fight at ranges >>approaching 100,000km and beyond. > > >Just out of curiosity, which scene from "Return to Grace" are you referring >to? > >If it is the first asteroid-destruction scene, I agree, but there is room >for doubt. Damar gives the range to Dukat as 400,000km, but also says they >are closing. It's about 25 seconds later that the phasers finally come >online and they fire. > >Had they been closing at 16,000km/s, the asteroid would have been at point >blank range from Damar's statement to weapons fire. Nevermind, I found it. I didn't remember there being range given in the later asteroid scene, which runs thusly: 00:00 Damar reports range as 500,000 kilometers 00:12 Dukat transfers all power to Kira's station for the disruptor 00:14 Damar reports range as 200,000 kilometers 00:16 Damar's sentence ends with "and closing" 00:18 Dukat: "Fire!" Ship rumbles and shakes moments later, extending into 00:19 00:21 Impact. Now, this does indicate a speed of 21,400km/s (for them to traverse 300,000 kilometers in 14 seconds), but the fact that all power went to the disruptor does imply an end to any acceleration. So, at 21,400km/s, the ship fired at 114,400 kilometers and hit the target. Of course, the pro-Wars side could try to claim that, since Damar did not mention the fact that the ship was closing when he reported 500,000 kilometer range, that the ship was not moving at that point, and accelerated up to a speed sufficient to give them point blank range. However, this would imply that the dinky old freighter accelerated to about 50,000km/s (one sixth light-speed) in 12 seconds, and fired accurately at that speed. (That works out to 4,166km/s^2 acceleration, by the way.) Thus, they have a trade-off . . . either admit great range and targeting, or admit great acceleration and targeting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 21:40:32 -0700 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: -------- On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > Nevermind, I found it. I didn't remember there being range given in the > later asteroid scene, which runs thusly: > > 00:00 Damar reports range as 500,000 kilometers > 00:12 Dukat transfers all power to Kira's station for the disruptor > 00:14 Damar reports range as 200,000 kilometers > 00:16 Damar's sentence ends with "and closing" > 00:18 Dukat: "Fire!" Ship rumbles and shakes moments later, extending > into 00:19 > 00:21 Impact. > > Now, this does indicate a speed of 21,400km/s (for them to traverse 300,000 > kilometers in 14 seconds), but the fact that all power went to the disruptor > does imply an end to any acceleration. > > So, at 21,400km/s, the ship fired at 114,400 kilometers and hit the target. > > Of course, the pro-Wars side could try to claim that, since Damar did not > mention the fact that the ship was closing when he reported 500,000 > kilometer range, that the ship was not moving at that point, and accelerated > up to a speed sufficient to give them point blank range. However, this > would imply that the dinky old freighter accelerated to about 50,000km/s > (one sixth light-speed) in 12 seconds, and fired accurately at that speed. > (That works out to 4,166km/s^2 acceleration, by the way.) > > Thus, they have a trade-off . . . either admit great range and targeting, or > admit great acceleration and targeting. Or we can assure ourselves you are still a fucking dimwit. The system 5 planetary disruptor was put onto the freighter to give it a ghost of a chance against the enemy. Its not standard equipment. So all your calcs mean jack shit. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "92knight" <92knight@home.com> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 05:29:04 GMT Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0107142138240.15419-100000@filmgate.h4h.com... > > On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > Nevermind, I found it. I didn't remember there being range given in the > > later asteroid scene, which runs thusly: > > > > 00:00 Damar reports range as 500,000 kilometers > > 00:12 Dukat transfers all power to Kira's station for the disruptor > > 00:14 Damar reports range as 200,000 kilometers > > 00:16 Damar's sentence ends with "and closing" > > 00:18 Dukat: "Fire!" Ship rumbles and shakes moments later, extending > > into 00:19 > > 00:21 Impact. > > > > Now, this does indicate a speed of 21,400km/s (for them to traverse 300,000 > > kilometers in 14 seconds), but the fact that all power went to the disruptor > > does imply an end to any acceleration. > > > > So, at 21,400km/s, the ship fired at 114,400 kilometers and hit the target. > > > > Of course, the pro-Wars side could try to claim that, since Damar did not > > mention the fact that the ship was closing when he reported 500,000 > > kilometer range, that the ship was not moving at that point, and accelerated > > up to a speed sufficient to give them point blank range. However, this > > would imply that the dinky old freighter accelerated to about 50,000km/s > > (one sixth light-speed) in 12 seconds, and fired accurately at that speed. > > (That works out to 4,166km/s^2 acceleration, by the way.) > > > > Thus, they have a trade-off . . . either admit great range and targeting, or > > admit great acceleration and targeting. > > Or we can assure ourselves you are still a fucking dimwit. The system > 5 planetary disruptor was put onto the freighter to give it a ghost of > a chance against the enemy. Its not standard equipment. So all your > calcs mean jack shit. > Why does it seem, that most of you sw freaks are violent, and have to use such vulgar language, and basically insult everyone on the NG? -- "Maybe it's not the destination that matters...Maybe it's the journey." 92knight@home.com www.92knight.homestead.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Strowbridge Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 05:46:21 GMT Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B512D7B.7CACC757@home.com> -------- 92knight wrote: > > "Wayne Poe" wrote: > > Or we can assure ourselves you are still a fucking dimwit. The system > > 5 planetary disruptor was put onto the freighter to give it a ghost of > > a chance against the enemy. Its not standard equipment. So all your > > calcs mean jack shit. > > Why does it seem, that most of you sw freaks are violent, and have to use > such vulgar language, and basically insult everyone on the NG? I think the 'problem' is two fold. 1.) People make stupid statements that warrant, nay, require the used of violent metaphors, strong language and a liberal does of insults. 2.) The definition of vulgar is a cultural thing. What may be vulgar in one setting is perfectly acceptable in another. For the most part the word Fuck is not considered vulgarity in ASVS, it is in fact considered a friendly greeting. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:55:12 -0700 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Strowbridge wrote: > 92knight wrote: > > Why does it seem, that most of you sw freaks are violent, and have to use > > such vulgar language, and basically insult everyone on the NG? > > I think the 'problem' is two fold. > > 1.) People make stupid statements that warrant, nay, require the used of > violent metaphors, strong language and a liberal does of insults. > > 2.) The definition of vulgar is a cultural thing. What may be vulgar in > one setting is perfectly acceptable in another. For the most part the > word Fuck is not considered vulgarity in ASVS, it is in fact considered > a friendly greeting. Fuckin' A. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Strowbridge Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:19:11 GMT Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B516D6B.356A0108@home.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Strowbridge wrote: > > > 92knight wrote: > > > Why does it seem, that most of you sw freaks are violent, and have to use > > > such vulgar language, and basically insult everyone on the NG? > > > > I think the 'problem' is two fold. > > > > 1.) People make stupid statements that warrant, nay, require the used of > > violent metaphors, strong language and a liberal does of insults. > > > > 2.) The definition of vulgar is a cultural thing. What may be vulgar in > > one setting is perfectly acceptable in another. For the most part the > > word Fuck is not considered vulgarity in ASVS, it is in fact considered > > a friendly greeting. > > Fuckin' A. Fuck yeah! When the politeness police make it wrong to say the word Fuck, what's next? Looking at women's breasts? Scratching your balls in public? Where will it end? C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:07:13 -0700 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Strowbridge wrote: > Fuck yeah! When the politeness police make it wrong to say the word > Fuck, what's next? Looking at women's breasts? Scratching your balls in > public? Damn, I'll be in REAL trouble.... > Where will it end? -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 02:53:36 -0700 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, 92knight wrote: > Why does it seem, that most of you sw freaks are violent, and have to use > such vulgar language, and basically insult everyone on the NG? Because the lot of you are fucking assholes, motherfucker. [Recent evidence of a lack of irony and a sense of humor on this ng necessitates the need for me to say the above was a joke.] -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Strowbridge Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 10:19:58 GMT Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B516D9A.E9D6064F@home.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > 92knight wrote: > > Why does it seem, that most of you sw freaks are violent, and have to use > > such vulgar language, and basically insult everyone on the NG? > > Because the lot of you are fucking assholes, motherfucker. > > [Recent evidence of a lack of irony and a sense of humor on this ng > necessitates the need for me to say the above was a joke.] I swear this NG used to have a sense of humor. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matthew Van Wie Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 08:07:38 -0400 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B51878A.68A5C9BA@yahoo.com> -------- Strowbridge wrote: > > Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > 92knight wrote: > > > > Why does it seem, that most of you sw freaks are violent, and have to use > > > such vulgar language, and basically insult everyone on the NG? > > > > Because the lot of you are fucking assholes, motherfucker. > > > > [Recent evidence of a lack of irony and a sense of humor on this ng > > necessitates the need for me to say the above was a joke.] > > I swear this NG used to have a sense of humor. > > C.S.Strowbridge It does. The newbies don't. MattV ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 07:37:35 -0500 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <9iumpo$laqeu$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message ... >> Thus, they have a trade-off . . . either admit great range and targeting, or >> admit great acceleration and targeting. > >Or we can assure ourselves you are still a fucking dimwit. The system >5 planetary disruptor was put onto the freighter to give it a ghost of >a chance against the enemy. Its not standard equipment. So all your >calcs mean jack shit. No mention of greater range was offerred or implied for the disruptor . . . only greater power. Can you prove that planetary weapons have greater range in Star Trek than shipboard weapons? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 07:38:19 -0700 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > > >> Thus, they have a trade-off . . . either admit great range and targeting, > or > >> admit great acceleration and targeting. > > > >Or we can assure ourselves you are still a fucking dimwit. The system > >5 planetary disruptor was put onto the freighter to give it a ghost of > >a chance against the enemy. Its not standard equipment. So all your > >calcs mean jack shit. > No mention of greater range was offerred or implied for the disruptor . . . No, a planetary disruptor would have a greater range than the standard weapons the Klingons laughed off. No... > only greater power. Can you prove that planetary weapons have greater > range in Star Trek than shipboard weapons? Yes. Planetary beam weapons must be able to target something in orbit of a planet, which would be much farther out than anything we see a Star Trek ship target. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:33:37 -0500 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B530951.48C10A2A@yahoo.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > > > > >> Thus, they have a trade-off . . . either admit great range and targeting, > > or > > >> admit great acceleration and targeting. > > > > > >Or we can assure ourselves you are still a fucking dimwit. The system > > >5 planetary disruptor was put onto the freighter to give it a ghost of > > >a chance against the enemy. Its not standard equipment. So all your > > >calcs mean jack shit. > > > No mention of greater range was offerred or implied for the disruptor . . . > > No, a planetary disruptor would have a greater range than the standard > weapons the Klingons laughed off. No... Are you thinking that the above was an argument? > > > only greater power. Can you prove that planetary weapons have greater > > range in Star Trek than shipboard weapons? > > Yes. Planetary beam weapons must be able to target something in orbit > of a planet, which would be much farther out than anything we see a > Star Trek ship target. False. We've seen planetary bombardments before, and there's no reason to surmise that weapons going up have to go further than weapons going down. Also, there are other examples of longer-ranges-than-the-Warsies-want-to-say Star Trek battle ranges. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:57:38 GMT Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B53716E.D9B2DB2D@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > only greater power. Can you prove that planetary weapons have greater > > > range in Star Trek than shipboard weapons? > > > > Yes. Planetary beam weapons must be able to target something in orbit > > of a planet, which would be much farther out than anything we see a > > Star Trek ship target. > > False. We've seen planetary bombardments before, and there's no reason > to surmise that weapons going up have to go further than weapons going > down. Are you trying to tell me that it's as difficult to target a planet as it is a starship? >Also, there are other examples of > longer-ranges-than-the-Warsies-want-to-say Star Trek battle ranges. Graeme Dice -- "... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs." --Robert Firth ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:13:41 -0500 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B545625.340BD9C2@yahoo.com> -------- Graeme Dice wrote: > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > > > only greater power. Can you prove that planetary weapons have greater > > > > range in Star Trek than shipboard weapons? > > > > > > Yes. Planetary beam weapons must be able to target something in orbit > > > of a planet, which would be much farther out than anything we see a > > > Star Trek ship target. > > > > False. We've seen planetary bombardments before, and there's no reason > > to surmise that weapons going up have to go further than weapons going > > down. > > Are you trying to tell me that it's as difficult to target a planet as > it is a starship? > No. Where did you get that idea? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 22:56:20 GMT Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B54C290.FAE11DF9@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Graeme Dice wrote: > > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > False. We've seen planetary bombardments before, and there's no reason > > > to surmise that weapons going up have to go further than weapons going > > > down. > > > > Are you trying to tell me that it's as difficult to target a planet as > > it is a starship? > > > > No. Where did you get that idea? You seem to think that the difficulty is with weapon travel range, and not targetting. Graeme Dice -- "... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs." --Robert Firth ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:57:17 -0500 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <9j7knb$mcrca$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Graeme Dice wrote in message <3B54C290.FAE11DF9@sk.sympatico.ca>... > >You seem to think that the difficulty is with weapon travel range, and >not targetting. Which is it you think is being argued? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:15:19 GMT Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B5769CA.1DDB139E@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Graeme Dice wrote in message <3B54C290.FAE11DF9@sk.sympatico.ca>... > > > > >You seem to think that the difficulty is with weapon travel range, and > >not targetting. > > Which is it you think is being argued? "False. We've seen planetary bombardments before, and there's no reason to surmise that weapons going up have to go further than weapons going down. Also, there are other examples of longer-ranges-than-the-Warsies-want-to-say Star Trek battle ranges." You think that somehow the weapon range is the limiting factor in orbital bombardments. Graeme Dice -- "... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs." --Robert Firth ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:45:34 -0500 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B58602E.C0E0E5F6@yahoo.com> -------- Graeme Dice wrote: > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > Graeme Dice wrote in message <3B54C290.FAE11DF9@sk.sympatico.ca>... > > > > > > > >You seem to think that the difficulty is with weapon travel range, and > > >not targetting. > > > > Which is it you think is being argued? > > "False. We've seen planetary bombardments before, and there's no > reason > to surmise that weapons going up have to go further than weapons going > down. Also, there are other examples of > longer-ranges-than-the-Warsies-want-to-say Star Trek battle ranges." > > You think that somehow the weapon range is the limiting factor in > orbital bombardments. > > Graeme Dice And that is not relevant how? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 22:49:41 GMT Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B58B51B.DAF35104@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Graeme Dice wrote: > > > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > Which is it you think is being argued? > > > > "False. We've seen planetary bombardments before, and there's no > > reason > > to surmise that weapons going up have to go further than weapons going > > down. Also, there are other examples of > > longer-ranges-than-the-Warsies-want-to-say Star Trek battle ranges." > > > > You think that somehow the weapon range is the limiting factor in > > orbital bombardments. > > > > Graeme Dice > > And that is not relevant how? Don't ask me, you're the one who thinks that targetting has nothing to do with hitting a target in orbit with a land-based weapon. Graeme Dice -- "... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs." --Robert Firth ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 21:29:08 -0500 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <9japu2$nav6m$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Graeme Dice wrote in message <3B58B51B.DAF35104@sk.sympatico.ca>... >> > to surmise that weapons going up have to go further than weapons going >> > down. Also, there are other examples of >> > longer-ranges-than-the-Warsies-want-to-say Star Trek battle ranges." >> > >> > You think that somehow the weapon range is the limiting factor in >> > orbital bombardments. >> > >> > Graeme Dice >> >> And that is not relevant how? > >Don't ask me, you're the one who thinks that targetting has nothing to >do with hitting a target in orbit with a land-based weapon. I think nothing of the sort. However, neither you nor Wayne has any proof of the position you both seem to share, that being: 1. The disruptor's targeting systems were also integrated into the Groumall, thereby enhancing its effective range. 2. Hitting a target on the surface of a planet is somehow easier than hitting a target in orbit. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 02:41:54 GMT Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B58EB79.9D80B733@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Graeme Dice wrote in message <3B58B51B.DAF35104@sk.sympatico.ca>... > > >Don't ask me, you're the one who thinks that targetting has nothing to > >do with hitting a target in orbit with a land-based weapon. > > I think nothing of the sort. However, neither you nor Wayne has any proof > of the position you both seem to share, that being: > > 1. The disruptor's targeting systems were also integrated into the > Groumall, thereby enhancing its effective range. I have no idea what you are even talking about here. > 2. Hitting a target on the surface of a planet is somehow easier than > hitting a target in orbit. It is easier, much easier. A building can't move. A ship in orbit can. Graeme Dice -- "... one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs." --Robert Firth ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 23:26:30 -0500 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <9javt1$n50v0$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Graeme Dice wrote in message <3B58EB79.9D80B733@sk.sympatico.ca>... >> >Don't ask me, you're the one who thinks that targetting has nothing to >> >do with hitting a target in orbit with a land-based weapon. >> >> I think nothing of the sort. However, neither you nor Wayne has any proof >> of the position you both seem to share, that being: >> >> 1. The disruptor's targeting systems were also integrated into the >> Groumall, thereby enhancing its effective range. > >I have no idea what you are even talking about here. > The argument is being made that planetary disruptors have a greater effective range than ship-based weaponry. You yourself have made it apparent that any thoughts of greater maximum range are not what is being discussed, but that it is effective range being discussed. The only way that the weapon can have a greater effective range is better aiming. >> 2. Hitting a target on the surface of a planet is somehow easier than >> hitting a target in orbit. > >It is easier, much easier. A building can't move. A ship in orbit can. > Einstein would spank you! :-) A ship in orbit is moving, and therefore the planet is moving, relatively speaking. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 20 Jul 2001 21:37:55 -0700 Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0107202037.2f523324@posting.google.com> -------- Graeme Dice wrote in message news:<3B58EB79.9D80B733@sk.sympatico.ca>... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > Graeme Dice wrote in message <3B58B51B.DAF35104@sk.sympatico.ca>... > > > > > > > >Don't ask me, you're the one who thinks that targetting has nothing to > > >do with hitting a target in orbit with a land-based weapon. > > > > I think nothing of the sort. However, neither you nor Wayne has any proof > > of the position you both seem to share, that being: > > > > 1. The disruptor's targeting systems were also integrated into the > > Groumall, thereby enhancing its effective range. > > I have no idea what you are even talking about here. > > > 2. Hitting a target on the surface of a planet is somehow easier than > > hitting a target in orbit. > > It is easier, much easier. A building can't move. A ship in orbit can. > > Graeme Dice You are ignoring the fact of ST long range which is supported by canon episodes. I'm sure depending on target type the range would change, however if the Phoenix can hit two Cardie warships from around 250,000KM. You can bet it won't have a problem hitting a ISD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Graeme Dice Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 05:32:06 GMT Subject: Re: space units vs kilometres Message-ID: <3B591359.CC5B96A5@sk.sympatico.ca> -------- Kamakazie Sith wrote: > > Graeme Dice wrote in message ne