NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.wolfsshipyard.mystarship.com/Drawings/SW/Allegience.gif

2300 meters

234 Turbolasers

4 Ion Cannons

321 quad lasers

52 six round proton torpedoe launchers

Class I Hyperdrive

7 Squadrons of Shaman Class Fighters and 3 Squadrons of Black Moon Class Fighters

A smaller command ship, midway between the smaller Destroyers and the giants like the Executor, it is based on Plans stolen by Dark Jedis. This is the newest Ship in The Cassiopeian Starfleet.

Bump

This Ship will appear in a new RP that will start soon.

*Takes notes...*

Exposed engines...
Exposed bridge...
No Point-Defense...
Fighter Bays...
Highly Susceptible... to Shield Disruptors...
Colossal Unarmoured section...
Susceptible to Fighter Attack...

Perfect!

*wanders off whistling*

(steals information and puts it out on the 'net)

(But seriously man. That thing's easy to destroy with small fighters, don't forget our Star Wars trivia now :P)

OOC: Nice ship. And remember all, Quad lasers are used against fighters, and work well. Think of the ones on the Millenium Falcon. Plus, torpedos work in a pinch, simply fire and forget.

OOC: Lasers? Against fighters? Don't make me laugh. Even the DLE fighters use graviton shields and energy-dispursing crystal matrixes. About the only way that ship has a snowball's chance in hell against one of the carriers is if they get lucky and get a clear firing range at the carrier for a few minutes. And that's when you add in that the carriers don't have anything in the line of weaponry once the fighters are gone. A small DLE attack fleet would only have the worries of what to do with the scrap once they took it out.

Now, back this ship up with something, and maybe it's worth the effort.

ooc: nice! Just some suggestions though sorry if I sound like a impertinant know-it-all but I was starwars addicted for awhile and still have a love for anything related to it.

Add more weapons. Especially you might want to add more ion cannons, there great for disabling ships for you to capture. Oh, and I don't know how much you based it off starwars, but usually the torpedos weren't just six rounds or the like. There were more like RL cannons, able to fire of torps continuosly.

Not to mention glaring weakpoints in the engines and bridge...

You take out those and you've got a very expensive uncontrollable ship.

Note that a missile barrage would probably also work.

So would smaller starships with specialised shielding (Energy Dissipators).

Or Starbombers.

Or Battlecruisers.

Or Cruisers.

Or Marines.

Or Telekinetic assaults.

Or Destroyers.

Or Kamikazes.

(List goes on...)

Well, what he will use it against (Earth Fighter Planes with no sheilds.) won't stand a chance against it, or the fighters it has.

OOC: Due to the prevalance of certain technologies, Earth fighter planes are all this has a real chance against.

Now, let's take a look at a DLE destroyer for a comparison.

http://www.freewebs.com/demonlordenigma/GravDestroyer.JPG

That is a graviton destroyer. One meter of pure, fleet-destroying death. Note the cannons are so large due to the amount of power they put out. One of its disruptors can easily go through a planet, while the ion cannons you want to just dodge.

Now, see those glowing blue parts on the lower set of wings? The ones that look like engines? Those are graviton cannons. You don't want to be in front of those when they fire.

Now, what's not pictured or not seeable in that picture is the fighter launch bays, missile launchers, and the 30 disruptor turrets, two of which are used for point defense (the fighters as a distraction). The only reason it has so few point defense weapons is the graviton shielding, which is more than enough to protect it for long periods of time. This sucker was designed to take on temporal ships or entire fleets on its own and give as good as it gets. Oh, and you might want to dodge that central cannon. That thing's used on you and it's pretty much over.

Note the lack of obvious bridge or engines.

OOC: Due to the prevalance of certain technologies, Earth fighter planes are all this has a real chance against.

Now, let's take a look at a DLE destroyer for a comparison.

http://www.freewebs.com/demonlordenigma/GravDestroyer.JPG

That is a graviton destroyer. One meter of pure, fleet-destroying death. Note the cannons are so large due to the amount of power they put out. One of its disruptors can easily go through a planet, while the ion cannons you want to just dodge.

Now, see those glowing blue parts on the lower set of wings? The ones that look like engines? Those are graviton cannons. You don't want to be in front of those when they fire.

Now, what's not pictured or not seeable in that picture is the fighter launch bays, missile launchers, and the 30 disruptor turrets, two of which are used for point defense (the fighters as a distraction). The only reason it has so few point defense weapons is the graviton shielding, which is more than enough to protect it for long periods of time. This sucker was designed to take on temporal ships or entire fleets on its own and give as good as it gets. Oh, and you might want to dodge that central cannon. That thing's used on you and it's pretty much over.

Note the lack of obvious bridge or engines.
Sign me up for one of those...

Very nice spacecraft. My nation should be working towards one of a similiar type.

Sign me up for one of those...

Not for sale. They take DLE a year just to produce one of them. The sheer length of time makes selling them to not be worth the effort. However, the nation maintains three and uses each one as the flagship of a fleet.

OOC: Lasers? Against fighters? Don't make me laugh. Even the DLE fighters use graviton shields and energy-dispursing crystal matrixes. About the only way that ship has a snowball's chance in hell against one of the carriers is if they get lucky and get a clear firing range at the carrier for a few minutes. And that's when you add in that the carriers don't have anything in the line of weaponry once the fighters are gone. A small DLE attack fleet would only have the worries of what to do with the scrap once they took it out.

Now, back this ship up with something, and maybe it's worth the effort.

sorry but you dont seem to know much about star wars. let me see... oh yes the lancer class friget is one of the best at takeing out fighters in fact most pilots are afraid of them what is it armed with 20 quad lasers


on a diferent note that star destroyer is well armed compared to the Imp star which has only 60 TL and 60 IC

last torps can take out fighters as well

all in all this ship is very powerfull for its size

I do know about Star Wars. I also know there are techs out there better than lasers.

The effectiveness of Point-Defense cannons is directly relative to the size of the ship.

If I had a single generic point-defence cannon, and a choice whether to fit it to a fighter or a cruiser, I would fit it to the fighter, because the cruiser would require more PDCs to achieve the same level of protection, and I lack the resources to do so.

A single PDC will give a fighter a full 180 degree defence in one direction.

On the other hand, putting that gun on a cruiser, would give it 180 degrees within the tracking range of the turret.

Also, the maneuverability of a Torp is relative to its payload. It depends on the purpose of said torpedo.

If you're going after fighters (unlikely, with a relatively low weapon count), the torpedo is going to have to sacrifice payload to cut down on mass, and therefore be able to destroy fighters.

On the other hand, should said torpedo be directed for use against starships, the payload ratio can be higher, because starships are typically a lot slower, though high maneuverability can help said torpedo avoid point-defense or fighter interception.

Fighters can be equipped with (relatively) high payload weapons, due to the fact that they can get a lot closer before firing.

this weapon of war is the work of the dark one i urge you to destroy it and make peace with your neighbour ofr your souls sake do as i say

the emmesary and priest of the holy one

~snip~

One meter? Typo or serious? Either way, DLE and I seem to have have similar design philsophies in ship design and ship firepower, allthough DLE's fleet is much large than mine, by many thousands.

Anyway, Those are good points. Don't have an obvious bridge or engines, because it's a bad idea. Hakurabi also made out plenty of good criticism.

I do know about Star Wars. I also know there are techs out there better than lasers.
OOC: Ah, but remember that Star Wars lasers are acutally super-heated gas (plasma). A laser is energy.

And yes there are better weapons out there. Kinetic for one. Just throw a rock weighing 1 kg (about 2.2 pounds) at a stationary ship. If it moves at 3km/sec, it will hit the ship with the energy of about 1 kiloton of TNT. The nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima had the energy of about 13 kilotons. So throw (or better yet shoot) 13 rocks like that and you have the same result.

Sorry for going off topic, nice ship =)

A ship 1m (just over 3 ft) long shooting through a planet (the DLE), Um...

Typo, I'm sure.

Anyway, the SD isn't that hot. Big, exposed bridge, uses lasers. Time to polish my new Anti-PD SCCAM torpedo design...

One meter? Typo or serious? Either way, DLE and I seem to have have similar design philsophies in ship design and ship firepower, allthough DLE's fleet is much large than mine, by many thousands.

Typo. It's one kilometer, the exact maximum length DLE can build with its current construction facilities and power plants. However, a recent acquisition is going to change that and allow us to break into larger lengths, though larger ships will have slight problems of throwing entire solar systems out of whack.

Also, note that I have three fleets, not one. One is planetary defense, one is border patrol, and one is assault. The three fleets operate under different assumptions and battle approaches, while at the same time allowing the Empire a lot of latitude in how it deals with attackers. The exposed bridges are on smaller ships, though in some cases what looks like a bridge is actually an unnecessary sensor array (nothing like the enemy wasting a lot of firepower just to give my ships a 5 centimeter blind spot).

OOC: Ah, but remember that Star Wars lasers are acutally super-heated gas (plasma). A laser is energy.

Which is what makes them pathetic even compared to most lasers. Plasma is a sublight substance and extremely easy to protect against (remember that the space shuttles deal with plasma every time they enter the atmosphere and come out unharmed). If you're using it on a planetary base, it's quite effective, but in space even the most worthless of ships should be able to withstand a Star Wars laser without being harmed. If anything, I have to techwank in the opposite direction of the definition of it just to give Star Wars lasers a snowball's chance in hell of even affecting my shields, and then they still suffer because of my protections against energy weapons. If I went by actual technological capacity, a single DLEX80 would pwn Death Stars on an hourly basis.

Then again, I make my ships capable of entering atmosphere, so I may be weird.

As it is, for the ship's length and ignoring the weakness of the technology, the ship is undergunned. Hell, my Graviton Destroyers are undergunned, but that's because I make up for it in shields and armor.

And yes there are better weapons out there. Kinetic for one. Just throw a rock weighing 1 kg (about 2.2 pounds) at a stationary ship. If it moves at 3km/sec, it will hit the ship with the energy of about 1 kiloton of TNT. The nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima had the energy of about 13 kilotons. So throw (or better yet shoot) 13 rocks like that and you have the same result.

I prefer a 13 kg rock myself. I've specifically made a weapon that can fire plasma at that speed, but that weapon's intended for planetary assaults and not for space battles.

This SD is, at best, a joke. He needs at least twice the lasers, although its preferred if he moved away from them to a weapon that half of NS can't laugh off, and he should increase his projectile capacity. He should also invest in a kind of technology to deal with losing target locks, as that is the one weakness that always takes down SW tech.

OOC: Due to the prevalance of certain technologies, Earth fighter planes are all this has a real chance against.

Now, let's take a look at a DLE destroyer for a comparison.

http://www.freewebs.com/demonlordenigma/GravDestroyer.JPG

That is a graviton destroyer. One meter of pure, fleet-destroying death. Note the cannons are so large due to the amount of power they put out. One of its disruptors can easily go through a planet, while the ion cannons you want to just dodge.

Now, see those glowing blue parts on the lower set of wings? The ones that look like engines? Those are graviton cannons. You don't want to be in front of those when they fire.

Now, what's not pictured or not seeable in that picture is the fighter launch bays, missile launchers, and the 30 disruptor turrets, two of which are used for point defense (the fighters as a distraction). The only reason it has so few point defense weapons is the graviton shielding, which is more than enough to protect it for long periods of time. This sucker was designed to take on temporal ships or entire fleets on its own and give as good as it gets. Oh, and you might want to dodge that central cannon. That thing's used on you and it's pretty much over.

Note the lack of obvious bridge or engines.


The Wanking, it BURNS!

Other points

1) SW blasters/lasers/turbolasers/superlasers aren't lasers or plasma weapons. According to the ICS books they're exotic massless particles.

Read www.theforce.net/swtc and learn something.

2) Gravity is a the weakest of ALL fundamental forces. The wanking over gravity on NS is sickening.

3) Shields people. You can have exposed bridges when you have fucking shields.

4) Ion engines need to be exposed. Besides I'd like to see someone fly into the stream of gigaton level energy relatavistic particles needed to move that ship and survive.

The Wanking, it BURNS!

Check my tech links in my signature. It took me months to finally develop that sucker. Besides, I make no guarantees about whether or not it can achieve its design purpose.

In any case, nothing I am doing with gravity is beyond the realms of modern theoretical physics. I've just learned how to abuse the theories to my advantage.

Other points

1) SW blasters/lasers/turbolasers/superlasers aren't lasers or plasma weapons. According to the ICS books they're exotic massless particles.

Read www.theforce.net/swtc and learn something.

2) Gravity is a the weakest of ALL fundamental forces. The wanking over gravity on NS is sickening.

3) Shields people. You can have exposed bridges when you have fucking shields.

4) Ion engines need to be exposed. Besides I'd like to see someone fly into the stream of gigaton level energy relatavistic particles needed to move that ship and survive.

Okay, a few points.

1) The books are only arguably canon. Not everyone accepts them as such, and Lucas hasn't really helped himself in that area lately.

2) Gravity is the weakest of all forces when spread out, and yet it's also strong enough to warp time enough to cause time dilation and space enough to create a situation where not even light can escape the object in question. That's the basics of how black holes work. The key to gravity is how much of it is involved. After all, a black hole isn't considered the most destructive force in nature because of its mass.

3) Shields fail. Unless this is a ship designed to run the moment its shields go down, it needs some kind of protection for the bridge. All I need to do is get his shields to fail long enough to get a couple of shots through at the bridge and the ship becomes worthless. It doesn't even take that much of an effort.

4) It's actually pretty easy. Similar to moving into an energized dust cloud.

Check my tech links in my signature. It took me months to finally develop that sucker. Besides, I make no guarantees about whether or not it can achieve its design purpose.

In any case, nothing I am doing with gravity is beyond the realms of modern theoretical physics. I've just learned how to abuse the theories to my advantage.

Fair enough. I find the idea of a 1 km ship that can catastrophicaly disrupt a planet to be wankish however.



1) The books are only arguably canon. Not everyone accepts them as such, and Lucas hasn't really helped himself in that area lately.

All the DK books (ICS, ITW, VD), the novelizations and the radio dramas are canon supersceded only by the movies. The rest of the EU is also canon except for any parts that contradict the movies.

So yeah, they're not lasers. Which you could tell just by watching the movies.

2) Gravity is the weakest of all forces when spread out, and yet it's also strong enough to warp time enough to cause time dilation and space enough to create a situation where not even light can escape the object in question. That's the basics of how black holes work. The key to gravity is how much of it is involved. After all, a black hole isn't considered the most destructive force in nature because of its mass.

A 1 kg black hole will do dick all. You shoot it at a ship and it passes through and does the equivalent damage of a particle beam. You only get enough gravity to do the kind of uber-wank damage generally desrcribed on NS with a super-giant star's worth of mass. And even then gravity weakens very quicky with distance. Move 100m away and the gravity is 1/10000th the amount. It's a crappy weapon.

3) Shields fail. Unless this is a ship designed to run the moment its shields go down, it needs some kind of protection for the bridge. All I need to do is get his shields to fail long enough to get a couple of shots through at the bridge and the ship becomes worthless. It doesn't even take that much of an effort.

That's what back-up bridges or main engineering are for. Only incopmetent morons make a ship worthless if the main bridge is taken out.

4) It's actually pretty easy. Similar to moving into an energized dust cloud.

Uh, no. You're going to be hit with tons of material carrying gigatons worth of KE. This isn't a modern day ion-drive, this is one that can move a billion ton ship at thousands of gees acceleration.

Fair enough. I find the idea of a 1 km ship that can catastrophicaly disrupt a planet to be wankish however.

Actually, that's a big disadvantage for the ship. It takes 2-10 minutes for it to do so and requires so much power the ship can't shoot back if you attack it. About the only thing it can do is sit still, try to maintain the shields, and hope that someone comes along to deal with the attacker. Once the shields fail, that lovely cannon it's using on the planet is suddenly concentrating all of its gravitational power right in front of the ship. The result is one less destroyer to worry about.

All the DK books (ICS, ITW, VD), the novelizations and the radio dramas are canon supersceded only by the movies. The rest of the EU is also canon except for any parts that contradict the movies.

So yeah, they're not lasers. Which you could tell just by watching the movies.

Watching the movies won't really reveal it when you consider Star Trek's phasers and disruptors are supposed to travel at C, and yet you can see them travelling perfectly well. It's even worse that they refer to the devices as lasers often.

A 1 kg black hole will do dick all. You shoot it at a ship and it passes through and does the equivalent damage of a particle beam. You only get enough gravity to do the kind of uber-wank damage generally desrcribed on NS with a super-giant star's worth of mass. And even then gravity weakens very quicky with distance. Move 100m away and the gravity is 1/10000th the amount. It's a crappy weapon.

Actually, that's where you have the wrong idea. The graviton cannons are perfectly worthless on planets, as natural gravity disrupts the graviton field before it is even far enough into the atmosphere to be noticed. The Planet Burner works by firing a constant and focused stream of gravitons directly at the target, increasing its density without increasing its mass appreciatively. The continued firing eventually causes the atmosphere to ignite, and continuing after that turns the atmosphere into plasma and innitiates a temporary fusion process. If used on Jupiter, it could concievably provide Earth with a second sun.

That's what back-up bridges or main engineering are for. Only incopmetent morons make a ship worthless if the main bridge is taken out.

And you also have a backup command crew with the necessary experience? Part of the problem with having an exposed bridge is the fact it is a very tempting target and will be directly targetted often enough that a smart command crew will just use the backup bridge during battle. It's disheartening to a crew to learn that a lucky shot just took out the top of the command roster just because of where the bridge is located. Part of the reason of burying the bridge deep inside the ship is to preserve lives. Having the bridge exposed like that makes it a primary target and also means you're going to be going through officers pretty damned fast every time the battle turns against you. If you're losing the war at first, this can quickly deplete your pool of experienced soldiers and leave rookies in charge of the ships. If that happens, you better have massed numbers or the war had better be ending, as otherwise you're going to lose.

Uh, no. You're going to be hit with tons of material carrying gigatons worth of KE. This isn't a modern day ion-drive, this is one that can move a billion ton ship at thousands of gees acceleration.

You're hit by the same thing if you travel into a gas cloud while moving at FTL speeds. No real difference.

Also, you must consider that Star Wars is operating under the extremely rare Multiple Canons Effect. That usually happens when the fans split on what is and what isn't canon in a severe way and mostly decide to ignore the words of the creator on the issue (this usually means the creator has lost credibility when it comes to their own creations, which is more common than you might think). In this case, the Canons are split in this way: There is the Original Three Canon, the Movies Only Canon, and the If Lucas Says So Canon. Most fans I talk to belong to one of the first two and typically look down on the third.

The split in canons started before the recent debacles, but didn't become truly wide until Episode 1 came out.

Also, you must consider that Star Wars is operating under the extremely rare Multiple Canons Effect. That usually happens when the fans split on what is and what isn't canon in a severe way and mostly decide to ignore the words of the creator on the issue (this usually means the creator has lost credibility when it comes to their own creations, which is more common than you might think). In this case, the Canons are split in this way: There is the Original Three Canon, the Movies Only Canon, and the If Lucas Says So Canon. Most fans I talk to belong to one of the first two and typically look down on the third.



The split in canons started before the recent debacles, but didn't become truly wide until Episode 1 came out.

No only crazy people use ANY of those canon definitions. Sane people use LucasFilms canon definition.

According to Lucasfilm, this is the Star Wars canon hierarchy:

1. The movies

2.The movie novelizations, screenplays, radio dramas, and DK companion materials (Visual Dictionary, Incredible Cross-Sections, Inside the Worlds)

3.The rest of the "Expanded Universe".

Actually, that's a big disadvantage for the ship. It takes 2-10 minutes for it to do so and requires so much power the ship can't shoot back if you attack it. About the only thing it can do is sit still, try to maintain the shields, and hope that someone comes along to deal with the attacker. Once the shields fail, that lovely cannon it's using on the planet is suddenly concentrating all of its gravitational power right in front of the ship. The result is one less destroyer to worry about.

So it makes a crappy tactical weapon. Thus the only time you would use it would be in strategic situations where a 1km long ship is going to drill a hole through a planet causing catastrophic destruction.

I still think that's wanking.



Watching the movies won't really reveal it when you consider Star Trek's phasers and disruptors are supposed to travel at C, and yet you can see them travelling perfectly well. It's even worse that they refer to the devices as lasers often.

Yet anybody with half a bran would know that despite being called "lasers" that they have NOTHING in common with actual lasers and thus aren't the same.



Actually, that's where you have the wrong idea. The graviton cannons are perfectly worthless on planets, as natural gravity disrupts the graviton field before it is even far enough into the atmosphere to be noticed. The Planet Burner works by firing a constant and focused stream of gravitons directly at the target, increasing its density without increasing its mass appreciatively. The continued firing eventually causes the atmosphere to ignite, and continuing after that turns the atmosphere into plasma and innitiates a temporary fusion process. If used on Jupiter, it could concievably provide Earth with a second sun.

I was reffering to gravity used as a weapon in general. And since density is mass/volume you cannot increase something's density without increasing its mass. There's a fundamental link between the two you can't get one without the other. Same goes for gravity and mass.

And since it would take extraordinarly large amounts of mass to do what you claim to do no 1km ship could possible have that much mass or produce the equivalent energy to somehow make up for it.

Your ship just gets wankier by the minute.



And you also have a backup command crew with the necessary experience? Part of the problem with having an exposed bridge is the fact it is a very tempting target and will be directly targetted often enough that a smart command crew will just use the backup bridge during battle. It's disheartening to a crew to learn that a lucky shot just took out the top of the command roster just because of where the bridge is located. Part of the reason of burying the bridge deep inside the ship is to preserve lives. Having the bridge exposed like that makes it a primary target and also means you're going to be going through officers pretty damned fast every time the battle turns against you. If you're losing the war at first, this can quickly deplete your pool of experienced soldiers and leave rookies in charge of the ships. If that happens, you better have massed numbers or the war had better be ending, as otherwise you're going to lose.

Ever heard of chain-of-command? So the main-bridge was destroyed killing the senior crew. The next highest officers take over as they were trained to do in exactly this situation. Will it be disconcerting? Absolutely. Will id render the ship combat ineffective? Hell no.

Quit thinking like everything is like Star Trek and that a destroyed bridge spells doom for the ship.



You're hit by the same thing if you travel into a gas cloud while moving at FTL speeds. No real difference.

Since most FTL involves fancy shcmancy tricks, like having their warp drive moving them out of the way or not being in "real-space", that protect them from space debris, things that aren't active in combat, your point is moot.

Also interstellar gas clouds only have a few more particles per cubit meter than the rest of the interstellar void. Any ship flying through one would encounter very little. While a ship flying through the ion wash of this ship would get hit by tons of relatavistic matter. That's quite a difference.

So it makes a crappy tactical weapon. Thus the only time you would use it would be in strategic situations where a 1km long ship is going to drill a hole through a planet causing catastrophic destruction.

I still think that's wanking.

Pretty much, it can be. The only reason I'm mostly not called on it is the fact the weapon is purposefully designed with so many glaring weaknesses that few people actually want it. Now, tell me how firing what amounts to an overpowered laser from an object the size of a small moon that blows up planets is any different.

Yet anybody with half a bran would know that despite being called "lasers" that they have NOTHING in common with actual lasers and thus aren't the same.

Both lasers and SW weaponry use massless particles that are sent out of special devices and are capable of causing damage. Of course, most people don't pay attention to the fact that photons, which make up part of the existance of light, are massless particles. As a weapon, they are one of the most exotic because of the effort it requires to create and harness them in a way that actually causes damage. A related particle, though far in the theoretical stage, is the graviton, which is theorized to be massless and yet with extreme density.

I was reffering to gravity used as a weapon in general. And since density is mass/volume you cannot increase something's density without increasing its mass. There's a fundamental link between the two you can't get one without the other. Same goes for gravity and mass.

Gravity as a weapon isn't that great. That's why the majority of my weapons don't use it. I had thought you were talking about my Uber Gun of Mass Destruction (TM)(C).

Actually, on the area of density you are quite wrong. Density and mass are only tenuitively linked. A room full of air and a block of iron both have the same mass, and yet they are almost opposites on the density scale. Plasma is even farther away on that scale. Density actually varies quite widely. The thing to remember is the fact it is the ratio of mass to volume. By increasing the density of something without increasing the mass, you are effectively lowering the volume through a process of compression. If you want to observe it, I can suggest a few simple experiments you can try.

You want an example from space? When a star 10 times the size of Sol goes into star death, the vast majority of its mass is lost before the black hole even has a chance to form. What you end up with is an amount of mass roughly equal to Sol that, due to the extreme density it is used to because of the fusion process and nothing to oppose the resulting gravitational forces, collapses inward to form a black hole, which is theorized to have close to infinite density. The average amount of energy this would take is rediculously small compared to the results.

And since it would take extraordinarly large amounts of mass to do what you claim to do no 1km ship could possible have that much mass or produce the equivalent energy to somehow make up for it.

Your ship just gets wankier by the minute.

Actually, gravitons are theoretically massless particles. They have to be when you stop and observe gravity itself. A 1 km ship can have the power to do such, but it requires extremely powerful reactors to power it. Keep in mind we're only going to a relatively small increase in density, as it doesn't actually take that much to force most planets into ignition. However, the way I have it worked out that is a bad idea to use, as you only get one shot at it before the ship has to run home for fuel. Yet another glaring weakness.

Ever heard of chain-of-command? So the main-bridge was destroyed killing the senior crew. The next highest officers take over as they were trained to do in exactly this situation. Will it be disconcerting? Absolutely. Will id render the ship combat ineffective? Hell no.

Quit thinking like everything is like Star Trek and that a destroyed bridge spells doom for the ship.

Star Trek actually is a chief complaint of mine. But even they figured out that a secondary command station is prudent. Been hoping for years they take the hints from their own shows and move the bridge.

What you mention there works for approximately one battle. Now, imagine that happening in every battle for a month. You've probably ended up losing 90% of the top end of your military. I'm thinking of not just one battle, but multiple battles.

Since most FTL involves fancy shcmancy tricks, like having their warp drive moving them out of the way or not being in "real-space", that protect them from space debris, things that aren't active in combat, your point is moot.

Actually, my point is quite clear and very relevant. Whatever it is that protects you against that gas cloud can also protect you against the debris field of a moving star destroyer. All you have to do is keep in mind the density differences between gas clouds.

Also interstellar gas clouds only have a few more particles per cubit meter than the rest of the interstellar void. Any ship flying through one would encounter very little. While a ship flying through the ion wash of this ship would get hit by tons of relatavistic matter. That's quite a difference.

Depends on the gas cloud. If you're talking about a particularly dense nebula, one that births stars, you're talking about several metric tons of relativistic matter just when you first enter it. It only gets worse the further in you go.

*roots for Xessmithia* Go! go!! show em!

No only crazy people use ANY of those canon definitions. Sane people use LucasFilms canon definition.

Actually, a sane man realizes that it doesn't matter what LucasFilms says if the fans won't back it. When LucasFilms dies, it's the fans who determine what lives on and what doesn't, or even if anything lives on at all.

Oh, and you managed to insult a rather large number of Star Wars fans with that comment. Not to mention yourself, as your post puts you in the third.

Talk about thread hijacking..........

Pretty much, it can be. The only reason I'm mostly not called on it is the fact the weapon is purposefully designed with so many glaring weaknesses that few people actually want it. Now, tell me how firing what amounts to an overpowered laser from an object the size of a small moon that blows up planets is any different.

Becasue it's the size of a moon.


Both lasers and SW weaponry use massless particles that are sent out of special devices and are capable of causing damage. Of course, most people don't pay attention to the fact that photons, which make up part of the existance of light, are massless particles. As a weapon, they are one of the most exotic because of the effort it requires to create and harness them in a way that actually causes damage. A related particle, though far in the theoretical stage, is the graviton, which is theorized to be massless and yet with extreme density.

Something without mass by definition can't have density. And so you admit that SW "lasers" aren't actual lasers. Concession accepted.




Actually, on the area of density you are quite wrong. Density and mass are only tenuitively linked. A room full of air and a block of iron both have the same mass, and yet they are almost opposites on the density scale. Plasma is even farther away on that scale. Density actually varies quite widely. The thing to remember is the fact it is the ratio of mass to volume. By increasing the density of something without increasing the mass, you are effectively lowering the volume through a process of compression. If you want to observe it, I can suggest a few simple experiments you can try.

I misunderstood what you meant, my mistake.

You want an example from space? When a star 10 times the size of Sol goes into star death, the vast majority of its mass is lost before the black hole even has a chance to form. What you end up with is an amount of mass roughly equal to Sol that, due to the extreme density it is used to because of the fusion process and nothing to oppose the resulting gravitational forces, collapses inward to form a black hole, which is theorized to have close to infinite density. The average amount of energy this would take is rediculously small compared to the results.

Yeah, those super-novae sure are low energy events :rolleyes:. But perhaps you didn't know that if you are outside the radius of the star's previous one that the graivity felt is exactly the same as before it was a black hole. So if the Sun turned into a black hole magically one day the Earth would be fine. Life on Earth would be doomed, save for those deep ocean vent things, as there would be no more sunlight.

Black holes are only dangerous if you get close. And it would take insane amounts of mass/energy to make one capable of damaging anything.



Actually, gravitons are theoretically massless particles. They have to be when you stop and observe gravity itself. A 1 km ship can have the power to do such, but it requires extremely powerful reactors to power it. Keep in mind we're only going to a relatively small increase in density, as it doesn't actually take that much to force most planets into ignition. However, the way I have it worked out that is a bad idea to use, as you only get one shot at it before the ship has to run home for fuel. Yet another glaring weakness.

Unless you define "relatively small" as increasing the density of a planet by several orders of magnitude you're wanking. And as far as I'm concerned no 1km ship can destroy a planet, even if it's not a Death Star style blast.



Star Trek actually is a chief complaint of mine. But even they figured out that a secondary command station is prudent. Been hoping for years they take the hints from their own shows and move the bridge.

What you mention there works for approximately one battle. Now, imagine that happening in every battle for a month. You've probably ended up losing 90% of the top end of your military. I'm thinking of not just one battle, but multiple battles.

And in any war were you're taking that kind of losses you're going to need to be training officers quickly anyway. A war weeds out the bad officers quickly, the recruits would gain experience fast. I guess you forgot about that.

Anyway any sane engineer would make the shields and armor of the bridge much stronger. And yes a bridge in the hull would be better, but that doesn't mean that an exposed bridge is an ungodly huge weakness.



Actually, my point is quite clear and very relevant. Whatever it is that protects you against that gas cloud can also protect you against the debris field of a moving star destroyer. All you have to do is keep in mind the density differences between gas clouds.

Despite that those things are only active during FTL travel and not during combat? Wow that's amazing. :rolleyes:



Depends on the gas cloud. If you're talking about a particularly dense nebula, one that births stars, you're talking about several metric tons of relativistic matter just when you first enter it. It only gets worse the further in you go.

The part of a nebula that is dense is right next to a protostar. And no astrogator worth their salt would fly that close to one at FTL. The rest of the nebula is still about 10 particles per cubic meter.

Say you have a ship with a front surface area of 100,000 m^2. You go through 1000 LY of nebula. It would hit about 16 moles of hydrogen, which masses a whopping 16 grams!

There is no way that compares to flying into a relativistic stream consisting of several metric tons of high energy particles with a much much higher density.


Actually, a sane man realizes that it doesn't matter what LucasFilms says if the fans won't back it. When LucasFilms dies, it's the fans who determine what lives on and what doesn't, or even if anything lives on at all.

Oh, and you managed to insult a rather large number of Star Wars fans with that comment. Not to mention yourself, as your post puts you in the third.

The fans don't dictate the canon policy, the company that owns the franchise does. And shockingly, that means thet LucasFilms canon policy is the one you use. If Lucas says his company's canon policy is correct than it's correct. And actually Lucas himself didn't come up with the policy, peole working for LucasFilm did.

This is why I always reinforce my own bridges with extra armor and a double-layer shield and put the real command center above the main hangar bay. Also has the double effect of being more quickly able to escape a reactor overload.

I don't only use turbolasers and ion cannons. I use missiles, railcannons, plasma cannons, and soon, I'll upgrade to beamlasers (think those LAAT lasers).

Becasue it's the size of a moon.

That has got to be the most piss-poor defense of the Death Star I have ever seen.

Size doesn't matter in destructive capacity. For example, an antimatter warhead is 300 times more power than a fusion warhead of the same size.

Something without mass by definition can't have density. And so you admit that SW "lasers" aren't actual lasers. Concession accepted.

And yet, we know by observing light that the term "massless" is a misnomer, as photons clearly have a mass by how they interact with objects and yet have no measureable mass. Considering photons also have a density, one that can vary even, they must also have a mass. And yet, they are classified as massless particles. Thus, you get into one of the problems of physics.

Also, I never said anything about SW weapons being different from lasers. Photons, being exotic massless particles, are a requirement for lasers and, by the extreme use of the word "laser" on the official website, are also the required particles for SW weapons, making the two the same. In fact, on the official webpage they even come right out and state directly that the Death Star's superlaser used "laser beam amplification."

Want the proof? http://www.starwars.com/databank/technology/superlaser/?id=eu

Now, you have to explain why, if they are different, the word is used without some explanation of the difference given on the official website. Oh, and don't go for that source you posted, as it's not an official source.

Yeah, those super-novae sure are low energy events :rolleyes:. But perhaps you didn't know that if you are outside the radius of the star's previous one that the graivity felt is exactly the same as before it was a black hole. So if the Sun turned into a black hole magically one day the Earth would be fine. Life on Earth would be doomed, save for those deep ocean vent things, as there would be no more sunlight.

The Earth would be utterly destroyed by the energy released by the Sun as it transformed. For stars, you can't exactly skip the mass release portion of the process without artificial interference.

The super-novae are high-energy, but all of the energy is directed away from the star's core, which is what becomes the black hole. The star's core transforms into the black hole after all of this matter and energy has already left. Otherwise, there would be something to oppose it.

Black holes are only dangerous if you get close. And it would take insane amounts of mass/energy to make one capable of damaging anything.

Not really. You just have to throw the black hole at your target and hope they don't dodge.

Unless you define "relatively small" as increasing the density of a planet by several orders of magnitude you're wanking. And as far as I'm concerned no 1km ship can destroy a planet, even if it's not a Death Star style blast.

I define relatively small as "not firing black holes in a rapidfire mode" for this gun. Also, note it doesn't actually destroy the planet, just render it incapable of supporting life. To get an idea, the ship has around 40 matter-antimatter reactors. It uses all of them when firing this weapon. Each reactor puts out 300 times the amount of power a fusion reactor the same material usage would or 1000 times that of a fission reactor. The antimatter used is stored in a solid state, giving an extremely large amount for usage. The nutrino factor has also been solved for this. The power usage is immense enough this ship can never be hidden, as even Earth technology can find it.

And in any war were you're taking that kind of losses you're going to need to be training officers quickly anyway. A war weeds out the bad officers quickly, the recruits would gain experience fast. I guess you forgot about that.

Good officers don't make up for situations in which the enemy is good enough to get past their shields and destroy the main bridge. I have yet to forget about anything in that scenario.

Anyway any sane engineer would make the shields and armor of the bridge much stronger. And yes a bridge in the hull would be better, but that doesn't mean that an exposed bridge is an ungodly huge weakness.

Any sane engineer wouldn't include an exposed bridge to begin with. And making the shields and armor stronger isn't that much of an improvement, especially when we have weapons that can take out entire continents in play.

Despite that those things are only active during FTL travel and not during combat? Wow that's amazing. :rolleyes:

An assumption. Having those active at all times is more beneficial, as there are no guarantees that just because you're stopped some random space particles will be. It's common sense to take precautions against those at all times.

The part of a nebula that is dense is right next to a protostar. And no astrogator worth their salt would fly that close to one at FTL. The rest of the nebula is still about 10 particles per cubic meter.

And you have something to back this up? You have actually explored the entire universe and can say that is universally true? We can't prove that statwement true for just this galaxy, let alone the universe.

If you're going to use theories, say so. But don't use unproven theories as though they are facts.

Say you have a ship with a front surface area of 100,000 m^2. You go through 1000 LY of nebula. It would hit about 16 moles of hydrogen, which masses a whopping 16 grams!

Which, due to the ship travelling at FTL speeds, have enough kinetic energy to blow up six planets and still do damage to the sun. It's a simple case of relativity.

There is no way that compares to flying into a relativistic stream consisting of several metric tons of high energy particles with a much much higher density.

Actually, it compares quite well. Especially when you remove the bullshit statement about nebula you put above that assumes a universal truth not even proven beyond an untested theory.

The fans don't dictate the canon policy, the company that owns the franchise does. And shockingly, that means thet LucasFilms canon policy is the one you use. If Lucas says his company's canon policy is correct than it's correct. And actually Lucas himself didn't come up with the policy, peole working for LucasFilm did.

Actually, that is once again not entirely true. The company can say whatever it likes, but the fans don't have to accept it. The company only exists for a short amount of time right now, and once it inevitably falls it will be the fans who determine policy. The company has only as much power as the fans allow, and nothing you or I say can change that. In this case, the company is part of what has caused the multiple canons and is thus partially ignored by the fans anyway. You see, I'm not just looking at the short-term, but also at the long-term on this one, and I know that in the long-term the company has as much say in the matter as it is allowed and no more.

I do know about Star Wars. I also know there are techs out there better than lasers.

It's not the type of tech that matters, it's how much energy is behind a weapon.

It's not the type of tech that matters, it's how much energy is behind a weapon.

Mostly true. All of the energy you want behind a gun will still result in limited effects.

That has got to be the most piss-poor defense of the Death Star I have ever seen.

Size doesn't matter in destructive capacity. For example, an antimatter warhead is 300 times more power than a fusion warhead of the same size.

Let me clarify. Since the Death Star is the size of a moon it can have an exceedinlgy large reactor with corresponding ly exceedingly large head sinks. This is what allows it to blow up a planet.



And yet, we know by observing light that the term "massless" is a misnomer, as photons clearly have a mass by how they interact with objects and yet have no measureable mass. Considering photons also have a density, one that can vary even, they must also have a mass. And yet, they are classified as massless particles. Thus, you get into one of the problems of physics.

Photons don't have mass, they do however have momentum. I believe that is what you're trying to get at. Light can have "density" in the same way of population has density. The photons themselves being massless don't have a density of their own.

Do yourself a favor and pick up a high school physics text book.

Also, I never said anything about SW weapons being different from lasers. Photons, being exotic massless particles, are a requirement for lasers and, by the extreme use of the word "laser" on the official website, are also the required particles for SW weapons, making the two the same. In fact, on the official webpage they even come right out and state directly that the Death Star's superlaser used "laser beam amplification."

Want the proof? http://www.starwars.com/databank/technology/superlaser/?id=eu

Now, you have to explain why, if they are different, the word is used without some explanation of the difference given on the official website. Oh, and don't go for that source you posted, as it's not an official source.[quote]

Strangely enough SW.com isn't 100% canon as much of it conflicts with the movies. It claims the Executor is only 12.8 km rather than 17.6 for example.

They use laser in the same way people use the term "phaser rifle". A rifle is a projectile fire arm that has rifling to stabilize the bullet by definition, a phaser rifle doesn't have this so it isn't technically a rifle. But it's called a rifle anyway. The same goes for lasers in SW, they use the name as a historical holdover even though the weapons aren't lasers.

They are exoctic massless particle beams, that aren't lasers. The AOTC:ICS says the bolt glow comes from bolt decay. Lasers don't do that, therefore they aren't lasers.

And yes that book is canon, I'll deal with that yet again later.





[quote]The Earth would be utterly destroyed by the energy released by the Sun as it transformed. For stars, you can't exactly skip the mass release portion of the process without artificial interference.

Hence the word "magically" numbnuts. My point was if through the act of little magic elves the sun was turned into a black hole, which it can't do anyway since it is not massive enough, the Earth would keep orbitting it peacfully as the Sun's mass hasn't changed. If you got under the sun's former radius to the black hole then you'd feel extra gravity but not until then.

The super-novae are high-energy, but all of the energy is directed away from the star's core, which is what becomes the black hole. The star's core transforms into the black hole after all of this matter and energy has already left. Otherwise, there would be something to oppose it.

True however the black hole is gaining gravitional binding energy as it collapses. So it isn't a low-energy thing either.



Not really. You just have to throw the black hole at your target and hope they don't dodge.

How does this affect my point that you'd need a ridiculous amount of mass to do any appreciable damage?


I define relatively small as "not firing black holes in a rapidfire mode" for this gun. Also, note it doesn't actually destroy the planet, just render it incapable of supporting life. To get an idea, the ship has around 40 matter-antimatter reactors. It uses all of them when firing this weapon. Each reactor puts out 300 times the amount of power a fusion reactor the same material usage would or 1000 times that of a fission reactor. The antimatter used is stored in a solid state, giving an extremely large amount for usage. The nutrino factor has also been solved for this. The power usage is immense enough this ship can never be hidden, as even Earth technology can find it.

I was addressing this on your "blast a hole through a planet" statement. If you did that it would catastrophically damage a planet.

But since you're just rendering it uninhabitable I have to ask why do it in such a complex and unwieldy way? Since you'll only be doing this when you have space-superiority, since you have a huge amount of weaknesses that can be taken advantage of as you have said, you don't have to worry about ships attacking. So why not just grab a big ass asteroid, strap an engine on it and send it on it's way?

Or just forget the stupid gravity gun and just use those many reactors to build a big particle beam or bomb to get the same effect?



Good officers don't make up for situations in which the enemy is good enough to get past their shields and destroy the main bridge. I have yet to forget about anything in that scenario.

I was reffering to your claim that in a prolonged war the military would run out of capable officers. I then said how they would not through recruiting and trial-by-fire experiene gaining.

And good officers will make sure they never let their shields fail will they? Of course some one will always be better. But now you're just pulling worst-case scenarios out of the air to try to prove your point that having an exposed bridge will meen insant doom to any starship.



Any sane engineer wouldn't include an exposed bridge to begin with. And making the shields and armor stronger isn't that much of an improvement, especially when we have weapons that can take out entire continents in play.

Did you forget that we have shields just as strong and armor that's often made of neutronium or other insanely tough materials?



An assumption. Having those active at all times is more beneficial, as there are no guarantees that just because you're stopped some random space particles will be. It's common sense to take precautions against those at all times.

True, but we're talking about combat. No one is going to have their warp drive/sub-space folder/hyperdrive on during combat. And since this protection is a side-effect, a beneficial one mind you, of the FTL drive my point stands.



And you have something to back this up? You have actually explored the entire universe and can say that is universally true? We can't prove that statwement true for just this galaxy, let alone the universe.

If you're going to use theories, say so. But don't use unproven theories as though they are facts.

About 5 minutes of Googling found me this:
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/dark_nebula.html

It says that Dark nebula have an average density of 100-300 molecules per cm^3. My previous estimate was more for interstellar vacuum and ionizing nebulae.

Using the same criteria as before taking an average density of 150/cm^3 we get 236 moles or a whopping 236 grams!

Now one should know that if you're FTL speeds you don't interact with the sublight universe very much because of things like your warp drive space-warp, or you just not being in the universe. So you'd really take more damage going through it at high relatavisic speeds not FTL speeds.





Which, due to the ship travelling at FTL speeds, have enough kinetic energy to blow up six planets and still do damage to the sun. It's a simple case of relativity.

See above.



Actually, it compares quite well. Especially when you remove the bullshit statement about nebula you put above that assumes a universal truth not even proven beyond an untested theory.

On nebulas, do a little research. It goes a long way.

Now lets figure out the density of this ships ion wash.

An ISD's main engines are about 100 m in diameter, so lets say these are 200 m in diameter. If the ship has an average density of iron and a volume of 9e8(10 times an ISD's) and is 10% solid it has a mass of roughly 7e11 kg.

To accelrate it at 300 gess with .9c exhaust would need 3,322,449 kg/s. Divide by 3 for each outlet and we get 1,107,483 kg/s per nozzle. Now we approximate the exhaust as a cylinder 1m long ,as this is per second, for easier math to get the volume.

That gives us 31,416 m^3 for a density of 35 kg/m^3. Water has a density if 10000 kg/m^3 for comparison, and that nebula had a density of about 2.4e-19 kg/m^3.

And all that mass would have a KE of 1.3e23 J or 30 teratons.

There is no way in hell you can survive flying up to one of those engines.



Actually, that is once again not entirely true. The company can say whatever it likes, but the fans don't have to accept it. The company only exists for a short amount of time right now, and once it inevitably falls it will be the fans who determine policy. The company has only as much power as the fans allow, and nothing you or I say can change that. In this case, the company is part of what has caused the multiple canons and is thus partially ignored by the fans anyway. You see, I'm not just looking at the short-term, but also at the long-term on this one, and I know that in the long-term the company has as much say in the matter as it is allowed and no more.


The fans can do whatever the hell they want with regards to the companies canon policy. But the canon policy is determined by the owners of the franchise, which in this case means LucasFilms. This will remain true for as long as there is Star Wars. Get used to it.

Mostly true. All of the energy you want behind a gun will still result in limited effects.

It's not the tech level that does damage it's how much energy you have in it. For example the 120mm smoothbore of the M1A1 is far more advanced than the 16" guns of a WW2 battleship but the battleship gun is more powerful.

Let me clarify. Since the Death Star is the size of a moon it can have an exceedinlgy large reactor with corresponding ly exceedingly large head sinks. This is what allows it to blow up a planet.

The amount of energy involved requires, at my last check, a reactor the size of Earth's moon to get a laser with that much firepower. But, the same amount of damage can be done using a smaller reactor powering, say, a black hole cannon (those do exist, but I don't own one for obvious reasons).

Photons don't have mass, they do however have momentum. I believe that is what you're trying to get at. Light can have "density" in the same way of population has density. The photons themselves being massless don't have a density of their own.

Do yourself a favor and pick up a high school physics text book.

Reactions with certain gasses suggests light does have a mass of sorts. That's the problem.

Strangely enough SW.com isn't 100% canon as much of it conflicts with the movies. It claims the Executor is only 12.8 km rather than 17.6 for example.

Strangely enough, SW.com is backed by Lucasfilms, making it (by your logic) 100% canon. Saying otherwise is disagreeing with Lucasfilms, who happen to own Star Wars. So, who's right? You, or the people who own the franchise?

They use laser in the same way people use the term "phaser rifle". A rifle is a projectile fire arm that has rifling to stabilize the bullet by definition, a phaser rifle doesn't have this so it isn't technically a rifle. But it's called a rifle anyway. The same goes for lasers in SW, they use the name as a historical holdover even though the weapons aren't lasers.

They are exoctic massless particle beams, that aren't lasers. The AOTC:ICS says the bolt glow comes from bolt decay. Lasers don't do that, therefore they aren't lasers.

And yes that book is canon, I'll deal with that yet again later.

Then explain why the official site that is backed by Lucasfilms doesn't make the distinction. After all, you would think the official website would make it a point to clarify such an important point of technology. As for bolt decay: That is easily explained by saying they are using weapons similar to lasers that lose the ordered quality as it travels or by using a type of laser that has that quality due to some design flaw. And, as of yet, you have yet to prove that photons are not the particle involved.

Hence the word "magically" numbnuts. My point was if through the act of little magic elves the sun was turned into a black hole, which it can't do anyway since it is not massive enough, the Earth would keep orbitting it peacfully as the Sun's mass hasn't changed. If you got under the sun's former radius to the black hole then you'd feel extra gravity but not until then.

Meh. Was being dense for the hell of it.

True however the black hole is gaining gravitional binding energy as it collapses. So it isn't a low-energy thing either.

The gravitational energy being gained is a side-effect of the collapsing process. All you have to do is use the energy necessary to innitiate and make sure you are at a safe distance. The rest of the energy involved happens naturally. The problem is the material requirements, though, which is why attempting such with a planet would, at best, have temporary results.

How does this affect my point that you'd need a ridiculous amount of mass to do any appreciable damage?

The simple way. You don't have to use a large black hole and have to hit them dead on. The damage still isn't that large in comparison, but it should be enough to cripple.

I was addressing this on your "blast a hole through a planet" statement. If you did that it would catastrophically damage a planet.

The comment was originally made by yourself in the following quote:

Thus the only time you would use it would be in strategic situations where a 1km long ship is going to drill a hole through a planet causing catastrophic destruction.

I never said it does that, just that it fires gravitons at the planet.

But since you're just rendering it uninhabitable I have to ask why do it in such a complex and unwieldy way? Since you'll only be doing this when you have space-superiority, since you have a huge amount of weaknesses that can be taken advantage of as you have said, you don't have to worry about ships attacking. So why not just grab a big ass asteroid, strap an engine on it and send it on it's way?

One simple reason: This was never intended for use in situations where the ship is under attack. It was originally designed for the Shivan war and the tactic idea at the time was to have allies hold off defending ships while mine took out their planet. It's also only used for when it is tactically unfeasible to capture the planet but when you have to remove the planet as a threat. Other, unofficial uses exist, but they are usually not worth the effort unless you are just stalling.

Or just forget the stupid gravity gun and just use those many reactors to build a big particle beam or bomb to get the same effect?

Size issue. Most DLE cannons have to be protected against the gravitational forces of the ships themselves, otherwise electronics are fried by the very same shields protecting the ship. A particle beam of the necessary size would be about equal in size to the Graviton Destroyer itself.

I was reffering to your claim that in a prolonged war the military would run out of capable officers. I then said how they would not through recruiting and trial-by-fire experiene gaining.

I never said they'd run out. Just that you'd run through them fast and have to rely more and more on officers with little experience. A trial-by-fire only creates an experienced rookie.

And good officers will make sure they never let their shields fail will they? Of course some one will always be better. But now you're just pulling worst-case scenarios out of the air to try to prove your point that having an exposed bridge will meen insant doom to any starship.

Never said it would mean instant doom. Just calling it tactically stupid, as it creates a glaring bullseye. And, to be honest, a good officer can be easily forced into a situation in which the shields must fail, and without a worse-case scenario involved.

Did you forget that we have shields just as strong and armor that's often made of neutronium or other insanely tough materials?

No, I have not forgotten. But I also know that armor and shields can still easily fail in battle. The idea is to have every advantage you can with ship design.

True, but we're talking about combat. No one is going to have their warp drive/sub-space folder/hyperdrive on during combat. And since this protection is a side-effect, a beneficial one mind you, of the FTL drive my point stands.

Actually, I do. But it's mainly because of a defensive feature of my ships related to the FTL drive and the fact they are prepared to retreat if the need comes about.

About 5 minutes of Googling found me this:
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/dark_nebula.html

It says that Dark nebula have an average density of 100-300 molecules per cm^3. My previous estimate was more for interstellar vacuum and ionizing nebulae.

Using the same criteria as before taking an average density of 150/cm^3 we get 236 moles or a whopping 236 grams!

Now one should know that if you're FTL speeds you don't interact with the sublight universe very much because of things like your warp drive space-warp, or you just not being in the universe. So you'd really take more damage going through it at high relatavisic speeds not FTL speeds.

And they know this from actually sampling said nebulae? If not, it's unproven theory instead of actual fact. For all they know, the actual composition is unlike the theoretical one.

Actually, one should know that even at FTL speeds you can interact with the sub-light universe quite a bit, depending on the FTL drive. DLE ships use one that keep them in realspace while still being easily disrupted by high natural gravity fields, such as planets and black holes. Thus, also why DLE ships are immune to most FTLi.

On nebulas, do a little research. It goes a long way.

Now lets figure out the density of this ships ion wash.

An ISD's main engines are about 100 m in diameter, so lets say these are 200 m in diameter. If the ship has an average density of iron and a volume of 9e8(10 times an ISD's) and is 10% solid it has a mass of roughly 7e11 kg.

To accelrate it at 300 gess with .9c exhaust would need 3,322,449 kg/s. Divide by 3 for each outlet and we get 1,107,483 kg/s per nozzle. Now we approximate the exhaust as a cylinder 1m long ,as this is per second, for easier math to get the volume.

That gives us 31,416 m^3 for a density of 35 kg/m^3. Water has a density if 10000 kg/m^3 for comparison, and that nebula had a density of about 2.4e-19 kg/m^3.

And all that mass would have a KE of 1.3e23 J or 30 teratons.

There is no way in hell you can survive flying up to one of those engines.

Which is where you make your mistake. You assume a ship is going to fly up to it. The reason why the engine being exposed is bad relates to how tempting of a target it makes for cannon fire, and it's also one of the weakest parts of the shields for SDs due to the shields having to be calibrated to deal with all of those solid particles passing through them. You just attack the back of the ship, beat through the shields, and hit them with enough concentrated firepower to take out the engines. If you're really lucky and they're using the right power source, you can also start a chain reaction and cripple the ship itself.

The fans can do whatever the hell they want with regards to the companies canon policy. But the canon policy is determined by the owners of the franchise, which in this case means LucasFilms. This will remain true for as long as there is Star Wars. Get used to it.

LucasFilms considers the official website to be giving out canon information. You have directly contradicted it in this case, making your comments noncanon. So, there you have a problem.

Canon policy may be said by the company, but the company still won't be around forever. If LucasFilms were to go bankrupt tomorrow and fade away without another Star Wars product ever made by them, do you honestly think that Star Wars would fade away as well? Or would it survive? And if it survives, do you think people will honestly give a damn about what a bankrupt company has to say?

Want an example? Take the Cthulhu Mythos. The creators of it created their own canon and it was pretty much allowed to vary as much as they liked. But their policy was that it was to be a tool for telling stories, not a coherent mythos (which, in turn, created the illusion of it being a real mythos by sheer virtue of the resulting contradictions). Then Lovecraft, the ringleader, died and Derleth tried to take over. He was not actually part of the original circle (despite attempts to learn) and ended up altering the mythos. A fight broke out, blah blah blah, and today the Cthulhu Mythos remains split between two canons. Keep in mind this was done by the fans, not by the originators, and the originators who were still alive were mostly ignored by Derleth when he pulled his famous Heresy. Now, imagine what will happen to Star Wars when LucasFilms finally goes belly-up.

It's not the tech level that does damage it's how much energy you have in it. For example the 120mm smoothbore of the M1A1 is far more advanced than the 16" guns of a WW2 battleship but the battleship gun is more powerful.

Tech level helps determine the energy involved. For example, a fusion missile and an antimatter missile both have the same level of energy involved, and yet the antimatter missile does more damage because it releases more. And, no gun quite compares to temporal weaponry, which can simply remove you from time entirely.

Tech level helps determine the energy involved. For example, a fusion missile and an antimatter missile both have the same level of energy involved, and yet the antimatter missile does more damage because it releases more. And, no gun quite compares to temporal weaponry, which can simply remove you from time entirely.


Please re-read what I highlighted and think very carefully about what you said. You said that two missiles with egual energy yields will have different energy yields depending on their mechanism.

I don't know what you've been smoking but is must be good shit.

And temperol tech is wank to the Nth degree. If you think blowing up a planet with a moon sized death ray is bad just wait till you can remove the planet from existence with something the size of a pleasure yacht :rolleyes:

The amount of energy involved requires, at my last check, a reactor the size of Earth's moon to get a laser with that much firepower. But, the same amount of damage can be done using a smaller reactor powering, say, a black hole cannon (those do exist, but I don't own one for obvious reasons).

SW uses hypermatter, which is far better than anti-matter and don't ask me how. But you could find out on Curstis Saxton's SWTC page.

And if you want to blow up a planet it requires at least 1e32 Joules of energy for an Earth like planet REGARDLESS of the method used to blow it up.



Reactions with certain gasses suggests light does have a mass of sorts. That's the problem.

Photons have MOMENTUM. This means they can interact with matter since conservation of momentum applies. It's why solar sails would work. Read a goddamned textbook.



Strangely enough, SW.com is backed by Lucasfilms, making it (by your logic) 100% canon. Saying otherwise is disagreeing with Lucasfilms, who happen to own Star Wars. So, who's right? You, or the people who own the franchise?

Then explain why the official site that is backed by Lucasfilms doesn't make the distinction. After all, you would think the official website would make it a point to clarify such an important point of technology. As for bolt decay: That is easily explained by saying they are using weapons similar to lasers that lose the ordered quality as it travels or by using a type of laser that has that quality due to some design flaw. And, as of yet, you have yet to prove that photons are not the particle involved.

LucasFilm's canon policy is a hierarchy:
G-Level: The movies
lower than G but higher than C: The Novelizations, Radiodramas, screenplays and the DK books
C-Level: Everything else, the "EU"

On SW.com anything that contradicts the movies is wrong as it is C-Level canon.



The gravitational energy being gained is a side-effect of the collapsing process. All you have to do is use the energy necessary to innitiate and make sure you are at a safe distance. The rest of the energy involved happens naturally. The problem is the material requirements, though, which is why attempting such with a planet would, at best, have temporary results.

Fair enough.



The simple way. You don't have to use a large black hole and have to hit them dead on. The damage still isn't that large in comparison, but it should be enough to cripple.

You need either ungodly huge amounts of mass or even more ungodly amounts of energy to make a black hole that would even come close to crippling a starship without a direct hit on a critical system. It's just that weak.


The comment was originally made by yourself in the following quote:

I never said it does that, just that it fires gravitons at the planet.


Which was in turn based off of this line of yours:

One of its disruptors can easily go through a planet

You were saying?



One simple reason: This was never intended for use in situations where the ship is under attack. It was originally designed for the Shivan war and the tactic idea at the time was to have allies hold off defending ships while mine took out their planet. It's also only used for when it is tactically unfeasible to capture the planet but when you have to remove the planet as a threat. Other, unofficial uses exist, but they are usually not worth the effort unless you are just stalling.

The bolded part was my point all along.



Size issue. Most DLE cannons have to be protected against the gravitational forces of the ships themselves, otherwise electronics are fried by the very same shields protecting the ship. A particle beam of the necessary size would be about equal in size to the Graviton Destroyer itself.

This is FT, if you can make a fracking gravity gun you can make a short powerful particle accelerator that would be far more effecient for the task of rendering planet uninhabitable. A bomb would be better yet, or the best of all, giving an asteroid a little nudge on it's way.

All of those would be far better than your gravity gun and would serve the exact same purpose with the exact same desired result.



I never said they'd run out. Just that you'd run through them fast and have to rely more and more on officers with little experience. A trial-by-fire only creates an experienced rookie.

And an experienced rookie is otherwise known as a veteran. Quit playing with semantics.


Never said it would mean instant doom. Just calling it tactically stupid, as it creates a glaring bullseye. And, to be honest, a good officer can be easily forced into a situation in which the shields must fail, and without a worse-case scenario involved.

It could go either way. It depends on who's better. Quality of officers isn't a valid argument against exposed bridges.


No, I have not forgotten. But I also know that armor and shields can still easily fail in battle. The idea is to have every advantage you can with ship design.

True and an exposed bridge also has some advantages of it's own. Such as a clear line of sight. It's a tradeoff.



Actually, I do. But it's mainly because of a defensive feature of my ships related to the FTL drive and the fact they are prepared to retreat if the need comes about.

Good for you. I hope you enjoy being the exception.



And they know this from actually sampling said nebulae? If not, it's unproven theory instead of actual fact. For all they know, the actual composition is unlike the theoretical one.[/quote[

You are a complete and utter moron. They observe said nebulae with little things called telescopes. Perhaps you've heard of them? They can calculate the density by all sorts of means such as spectroscopy to name but one.

I suggest you learn some science before your next reply.

[quote]Actually, one should know that even at FTL speeds you can interact with the sub-light universe quite a bit, depending on the FTL drive. DLE ships use one that keep them in realspace while still being easily disrupted by high natural gravity fields, such as planets and black holes. Thus, also why DLE ships are immune to most FTLi.

Good for you. I hope you like being the exception.



Which is where you make your mistake. You assume a ship is going to fly up to it. The reason why the engine being exposed is bad relates to how tempting of a target it makes for cannon fire, and it's also one of the weakest parts of the shields for SDs due to the shields having to be calibrated to deal with all of those solid particles passing through them. You just attack the back of the ship, beat through the shields, and hit them with enough concentrated firepower to take out the engines. If you're really lucky and they're using the right power source, you can also start a chain reaction and cripple the ship itself.

A missile won't survive in the ion wash long enough to do any damage and any beam weapon will be diffused by all the matter flying out of it. The engines aren't a giant weak spot, get over it.



LucasFilms considers the official website to be giving out canon information. You have directly contradicted it in this case, making your comments noncanon. So, there you have a problem.

Canon policy may be said by the company, but the company still won't be around forever. If LucasFilms were to go bankrupt tomorrow and fade away without another Star Wars product ever made by them, do you honestly think that Star Wars would fade away as well? Or would it survive? And if it survives, do you think people will honestly give a damn about what a bankrupt company has to say?


As I said before the website is C-level canon which has some vastly contradicting information. The most famous example is them stating, wrongly, that the Executor is 12.8 km long when when scaling from the models and film it is 17.6 km long. The film is the highest level canon so the official site is wrong and the Executor is 17.6 km long.

And Star Wars is quite unique in that it has been strictly controlled by LucasFilm and related companies to adhere to continuity. It's canon policy is built into the products themselves. So yes LucasFilm's canon policy is THE canon policy for discussing SW unless you're an idiotic prick.

Hey, nice thread Cassiopeia. Maybe you should post your ship in its own thread, though :p ?

Please re-read what I highlighted and think very carefully about what you said. You said that two missiles with egual energy yields will have different energy yields depending on their mechanism.\\

I said equal energy. Equal energy doesn't always mean equal yields.

I don't know what you've been smoking but is must be good shit.

The blackened souls of my idiot coworkers. Want a hit?

And temperol tech is wank to the Nth degree. If you think blowing up a planet with a moon sized death ray is bad just wait till you can remove the planet from existence with something the size of a pleasure yacht :rolleyes:

I would say that Indra has done a good job in that area, but at the same time you won't ever see me using temporal weapons. Hell, I can only justify temporal shielding to myself because I RP with people who have temporal weapons. If it wasn't for that, I probably wouldn't.

SW uses hypermatter, which is far better than anti-matter and don't ask me how. But you could find out on Curstis Saxton's SWTC page.

And if you want to blow up a planet it requires at least 1e32 Joules of energy for an Earth like planet REGARDLESS of the method used to blow it up.

Okay, half of Earth's moon.

Photons have MOMENTUM. This means they can interact with matter since conservation of momentum applies. It's why solar sails would work. Read a goddamned textbook.

Reading a "goddamned textbook" also reveals that light interacts with matter in multiple ways, reacting with mirrors almost as though they have mass instead of as energy waves. This is partially due to their constantly shifting wavelength.

LucasFilm's canon policy is a hierarchy:
G-Level: The movies
lower than G but higher than C: The Novelizations, Radiodramas, screenplays and the DK books
C-Level: Everything else, the "EU"

On SW.com anything that contradicts the movies is wrong as it is C-Level canon.

And yet, LucasFilms considers everything in it as canon. Beginning to feel the same frustration many other fans do?

You need either ungodly huge amounts of mass or even more ungodly amounts of energy to make a black hole that would even come close to crippling a starship without a direct hit on a critical system. It's just that weak.

Not really. Just find one already existing and "throw" it at the target ship.

Which was in turn based off of this line of yours:



You were saying?

My fault on that one. My saleswoman side had creeped up when I wasn't paying attention.

The bolded part was my point all along.

Twas just making sure.

This is FT, if you can make a fracking gravity gun you can make a short powerful particle accelerator that would be far more effecient for the task of rendering planet uninhabitable. A bomb would be better yet, or the best of all, giving an asteroid a little nudge on it's way.

All of those would be far better than your gravity gun and would serve the exact same purpose with the exact same desired result.

I have my reasons for not doing so.

And an experienced rookie is otherwise known as a veteran. Quit playing with semantics.

You and I have different definitions of "veteran." I assume somebody who's served for years and actually seen several battles.

It could go either way. It depends on who's better. Quality of officers isn't a valid argument against exposed bridges.

Quality isn't my arguement. Dealing with quantity issues is.

True and an exposed bridge also has some advantages of it's own. Such as a clear line of sight. It's a tradeoff.

Depends on why you need the line of sight.

You are a complete and utter moron.

Cut the direct personal attacks. If you're getting this worked up over damned arguement, then either take the time to calm down to just say you can't continue due to temper reasons. Hell, it's just an internet arguement over something that doesn't even matter in the long run.

I have no problem with indirect personal attacks (such as your sentence at the end of the next quotes) or a lot of things. But direct personal attacks I do take exception to. And you're one of the last people I wish to have to take to the mods over this.

serve said nebulae with little things called telescopes. Perhaps you've heard of them? They can calculate the density by all sorts of means such as spectroscopy to name but one.

I suggest you learn some science before your next reply.

I did learn some science. I learned enough to realize that spectroscopy requires that no two materials have extremely close appearances to a spectroscope. If they do, one is easily confused for the other. And, at this time it is foolish to assume humanity even has enough materials it knows about to say the nebulae are made only of certain materials beyond simply theorizing based on current knowledge.

Anyone familiar with science can tell you that.

Good for you. I hope you like being the exception.

I find it gives me a unique perspective.

A missile won't survive in the ion wash long enough to do any damage and any beam weapon will be diffused by all the matter flying out of it. The engines aren't a giant weak spot, get over it.

Only the weaker of beam weapons that also happen to be one shot. A standard DLE disruptor turret can quickly shoot its way through such of a cloud to hit the engines themselves, and I know DLE is not alone in having such weapons.

As I said before the website is C-level canon which has some vastly contradicting information. The most famous example is them stating, wrongly, that the Executor is 12.8 km long when when scaling from the models and film it is 17.6 km long. The film is the highest level canon so the official site is wrong and the Executor is 17.6 km long.

And yet, the same problem of LucasFilms considering the website entirely canon comes about.

And Star Wars is quite unique in that it has been strictly controlled by LucasFilm and related companies to adhere to continuity. It's canon policy is built into the products themselves. So yes LucasFilm's canon policy is THE canon policy for discussing SW unless you're an idiotic prick.

So was Star Trek. Being controlled by the company doesn't mean a damn thing, as it can still result in contradictions in the storyline and still result in hundreds of problems. And, it's canon policy being built into the products themselves doesn't stop the products from contradicting each other on numerous occasions.

And, I would like to note that last statement is a large source of trouble and could result in a flame war, though I will not be involved in that issue due to neutrality on it. As their policy itself is the cause of the problems in the first place.

\\

[quote]I said equal energy. Equal energy doesn't always mean equal yields.

Yield = energy released. If they have egual energy they have equal yields. What you said amounts to someone saying that a 300 kiloton fusion bomb has a higher yield than a 300 kilotn fission bomb because it's more "advanced".

Energy is what's important not tech level. Something with more energy will always do more work(damage is a type of work) than something with less energy regardless of mechanism.


I would say that Indra has done a good job in that area, but at the same time you won't ever see me using temporal weapons. Hell, I can only justify temporal shielding to myself because I RP with people who have temporal weapons. If it wasn't for that, I probably wouldn't.

I find the very principal wank.

Okay, half of Earth's moon.

120-220 km diamter ,as it's not quite set due to innacurate scaling, is not half of Earth's moon. And that's the size of the first Death Star.



Reading a "goddamned textbook" also reveals that light interacts with matter in multiple ways, reacting with mirrors almost as though they have mass instead of as energy waves. This is partially due to their constantly shifting wavelength.

Say it with me, mo-men-tum. Photons have momentum but are massless, mass also has momentum. That's why lasers can move mirrors and propel solar sails.

You apparently didn't read the right part of the textbook.



And yet, LucasFilms considers everything in it as canon. Beginning to feel the same frustration many other fans do?

Will be dealt with later on.



Not really. Just find one already existing and "throw" it at the target ship.

And you're going to be able to move a minimum 3 solar mass black hole how? Or maybe you mean those ones that might form in the upper atmosphere that have a mass of a few atoms and dissapear in microseconds?



My fault on that one. My saleswoman side had creeped up when I wasn't paying attention.

No harm done.



Twas just making sure.

Fair enough.


I have my reasons for not doing so.

Also fair enough.

You and I have different definitions of "veteran." I assume somebody who's served for years and actually seen several battles.

And someone who has served for years and seen many battles is just an even more experienced rookie. Your point fails.



Quality isn't my arguement. Dealing with quantity issues is.

You admitted that a nation could get more officers so I fail to see your point. And may I say the the actual bridge of star destroyers is a very small target on the tower. It's a hard to hit bullsye.



Depends on why you need the line of sight.

Communications, sensors the kind of stuff that works best with a clear line of sight.



Cut the direct personal attacks. If you're getting this worked up over damned arguement, then either take the time to calm down to just say you can't continue due to temper reasons. Hell, it's just an internet arguement over something that doesn't even matter in the long run.

I have no problem with indirect personal attacks (such as your sentence at the end of the next quotes) or a lot of things. But direct personal attacks I do take exception to. And you're one of the last people I wish to have to take to the mods over this.

I called you a moron because you made a moronic statement. If you stop making such glaringly stupid comments I won't be calling you a moron.



I did learn some science. I learned enough to realize that spectroscopy requires that no two materials have extremely close appearances to a spectroscope. If they do, one is easily confused for the other. And, at this time it is foolish to assume humanity even has enough materials it knows about to say the nebulae are made only of certain materials beyond simply theorizing based on current knowledge.

Anyone familiar with science can tell you that.

Yeah cause those nebulas are going to be chock full of those unstabble super-heavy elements not on the periodic table.

Oh wait... :rolleyes:

Spectroscopy tells us what the nebula is made off. They're made of mostly hydrogen. Since we can get a good estimate of the volume of a nebula we can get a good estimate of it's density. We can also gauge it's density based off of physical models based off of known physical laws and direct observation of obscured stars.

You have the scientific knowledge of a high-school student who barely passed.



I find it gives me a unique perspective.



Only the weaker of beam weapons that also happen to be one shot. A standard DLE disruptor turret can quickly shoot its way through such of a cloud to hit the engines themselves, and I know DLE is not alone in having such weapons.

More powerful beam weapons will do more damage yes. But the engine is still flinging out all that matter per second. It's going to be extremely diffictult to get through all that matter and cripple the engine.



And yet, the same problem of LucasFilms considering the website entirely canon comes about.

Dealt with below.



So was Star Trek. Being controlled by the company doesn't mean a damn thing, as it can still result in contradictions in the storyline and still result in hundreds of problems. And, it's canon policy being built into the products themselves doesn't stop the products from contradicting each other on numerous occasions.

And, I would like to note that last statement is a large source of trouble and could result in a flame war, though I will not be involved in that issue due to neutrality on it. As their policy itself is the cause of the problems in the first place.


Paramount has no where near the kind of continuity control that LucasFilm has. Just look at Enterprise.

And on the contradictions that's why there is a canon hierarchy.

G-Level: The movies, the undisputed truth, nothing can contradict this.

Just below G-Level: The novelizations, radiodramas, screenplays and DK books. They build on the movies by showing us more of the universe and clarifying things. These are written to conform as close to the movies as possible, if it contradicts the movies the movies are right.

C-Level: The "Expanded Universe" and part of continuity. The novels, the comics, the video-game stories, the Essential Guides, the website. The further away in time from the movies the less accurate they are as they are to be viewed as historical documents. If they contradict with higher level canon the higher level canon is right.

N-Level: Non-Contimuity. These have Infinties logo, have what if stories such as Darth Vader fighting Darth Maul or Han Solo dying on Earth and being found by Indiana Jones.

As such the website is not always right. The DK books are higher canon than it. And those say the Turbolasers and lasers aren't actual lasers.

Most fans who actually care what canon is accept LucasFilms policy. Lucas' policy is the same as LucasFilm's, what a shocker there.

Yield = energy released. If they have egual energy they have equal yields. What you said amounts to someone saying that a 300 kiloton fusion bomb has a higher yield than a 300 kilotn fission bomb because it's more "advanced".

Which is a mistake in logic. You have to keep in mind the difference in methods of releasing the stored energy. Antimatter is the most efficient method due to simply converting almost all of its mass directly to energy. Nuclear isn't that efficient due to the large amounts of mass that don't convert. Keep in mind the conversion laws that deal with mass and energy.

Energy is what's important not tech level. Something with more energy will always do more work(damage is a type of work) than something with less energy regardless of mechanism.

No matter how much energy you put behind a bullet, it still cannot break an antikinetic field, due to the field converting the kinetic energy of the bullet into force used to stop it. A simple laser can break through the field due to not having enough mass for the field to stop it.

I find the very principal wank.

So do many. Which is why I'm planning on maybe a couple of months of research and moving on to better projects.

Which is a mistake in logic. You have to keep in mind the difference in methods of releasing the stored energy. Antimatter is the most efficient method due to simply converting almost all of its mass directly to energy. Nuclear isn't that efficient due to the large amounts of mass that don't convert. Keep in mind the conversion laws that deal with mass and energy.

And unless you get all the M/AM to annhilate at once it will blow itself apart and be very ineffecient. What your point is that given equal reactants the anti-matter will be more powerful, not equal energy.



No matter how much energy you put behind a bullet, it still cannot break an antikinetic field, due to the field converting the kinetic energy of the bullet into force used to stop it. A simple laser can break through the field due to not having enough mass for the field to stop it.

No limits falacy. It all depends on how pwerful the shield is. It may take some of the energy and use it ro re-enforce the shield but it won't be 100% effecient as nothing is. Eventually there'd be enough waste-heat to overload the generator.



So do many. Which is why I'm planning on maybe a couple of months of research and moving on to better projects.

Cool, glad to know I'm not alone on that.

120-220 km diamter ,as it's not quite set due to innacurate scaling, is not half of Earth's moon. And that's the size of the first Death Star.

I'm not that versed on the size of Earth's moon (using a rough estimate), so I'll have to let this go.

Say it with me, mo-men-tum. Photons have momentum but are massless, mass also has momentum. That's why lasers can move mirrors and propel solar sails.

You apparently didn't read the right part of the textbook.

One of the problems you are not addressing is the fact that a photon is defined as a "massless packet of energy, which behaves like both a wave and a particle" and yet you also have the problem of the fact that lasers require the photons to be in an ordered configuration to work, something only seen in particles with mass. And, too many of its interactions require mass as well.

Wait, maybe I had better explain this: While the explanation of mass as being invariable is useful in calculations, the problem it faces is when you deal with the massless particles bouncing around in, say, a box, the mass is not conserved despite the total measureable mass of the box increasing. I'm going with the idea of the mass of an object being the total mass of all of its parts, as that is what you have to measure in most cases anyway (despite how badly this screws with calculations). Light itself is unusual in that it has no measureable mass and yet has, under repeated experiments, shown relativistic mass. Considering the fact the idea of mass and relativistic mass being separate has actually resulted from a case of laziness and ease of use, I don't hold the concept with that high of a regard when talking about mass in general.

And you're going to be able to move a minimum 3 solar mass black hole how? Or maybe you mean those ones that might form in the upper atmosphere that have a mass of a few atoms and dissapear in microseconds?

Use graviton generators to warp the space around it, swing it around the ship a few times, and then fling the total package at a ship and let the spacial warp drop. Note the energy involved isn't worth it.

And someone who has served for years and seen many battles is just an even more experienced rookie. Your point fails.

Serving for years gives them experience in many kinds of situations and allows them to make judgement calls based on knowledge and being informed of similar situations. That isn't a rookie by my standards.

You admitted that a nation could get more officers so I fail to see your point. And may I say the the actual bridge of star destroyers is a very small target on the tower. It's a hard to hit bullsye.

If it's hard to hit, you have piss-poor targetting computers. I advise investing in technology upgrades for them.

Always being able to get more officers doesn't make up for lives lost. Part of your objective in war is to minimize the causualties on your side (unless you really don't care about your people), and that involves not creating easy targets for enemy ships to shoot for that will cost you unnecessary lives.

Communications, sensors the kind of stuff that works best with a clear line of sight.

It's best if you don't hook those systems directly to the bridge but have them routed there through other systems. The bridge should be receiving all of this data from elsewhere and not directly in order to prevent problems if the bridge itself it taken out.

I called you a moron because you made a moronic statement. If you stop making such glaringly stupid comments I won't be calling you a moron.

All I've stated about it is basic common sense when it comes to dealing with the theoretical. No matter what conclusions they come to when it comes to items outside the solar system, you must accept the fact it's mostly theoretical and is also gazing backwards in time, making it even less reliable due to the fact you're seeing what has happened and what was there instead of what is happening and what is there. No scientist in their right mind will say that what they are recording is 100% accurate, and quite a few should be willing to admit the possibility exists that what they are recording is 100% wrong. It's about like pre-Columbus Europe observing the Americas from telescopes and trying to guess what the terrain and animal life are like.

Yeah cause those nebulas are going to be chock full of those unstabble super-heavy elements not on the periodic table.

Oh wait... :rolleyes:

~Shakes head~

Did you know that, at one time, the cannals on Mars were once assumed by scientists to have once been rivers? Later on, they changed their mind to say otherwise as technology improved. Now, keep in mind we are using technology that doesn't even allow us to go to Mars to try to guess the compounds inside nebulae. Considering it's equivolent to those early gazes at Mars, can you say for sure that it is 100% correct and proven beyond the shadow of a doubt? Or can you admit that what they are producing is a theory of what's out there?

Spectroscopy tells us what the nebula is made off. They're made of mostly hydrogen. Since we can get a good estimate of the volume of a nebula we can get a good estimate of it's density. We can also gauge it's density based off of physical models based off of known physical laws and direct observation of obscured stars.

Good estimates based off of limited technology with no capacity to actually check our findings to see if they are accurate. Based entirely off of what we know, without our limited experience while being stuck on one planet and trying to observe. Does stating it as absolute fact sound rediculous to you yet, or do I have to keep pointing out the obvious?

You have the scientific knowledge of a high-school student who barely passed.

And you are using the knowledge of someone who failed and checked a few articles online to find their information, based entirely on your inability to bother to see something so obvious about what you are saying that I don't even have to try to point it out.

More powerful beam weapons will do more damage yes. But the engine is still flinging out all that matter per second. It's going to be extremely diffictult to get through all that matter and cripple the engine.

It's not as difficult as you think. It's basically like firing into a dense atmosphere to hit a ship inside it. Except in this case it's moving.

Paramount has no where near the kind of continuity control that LucasFilm has. Just look at Enterprise.

Enterprise is backed as official by Paramount. So is DS9, which committed multiple acts of contradicting the previous shows and altering the official timeline. Paramount has a history of changing history to suit itself.

And on the contradictions that's why there is a canon hierarchy.

G-Level: The movies, the undisputed truth, nothing can contradict this.

Just below G-Level: The novelizations, radiodramas, screenplays and DK books. They build on the movies by showing us more of the universe and clarifying things. These are written to conform as close to the movies as possible, if it contradicts the movies the movies are right.

C-Level: The "Expanded Universe" and part of continuity. The novels, the comics, the video-game stories, the Essential Guides, the website. The further away in time from the movies the less accurate they are as they are to be viewed as historical documents. If they contradict with higher level canon the higher level canon is right.

N-Level: Non-Contimuity. These have Infinties logo, have what if stories such as Darth Vader fighting Darth Maul or Han Solo dying on Earth and being found by Indiana Jones.

As such the website is not always right. The DK books are higher canon than it. And those say the Turbolasers and lasers aren't actual lasers.

Most fans who actually care what canon is accept LucasFilms policy. Lucas' policy is the same as LucasFilm's, what a shocker there.

Okay, I've been stating this damn fallacy for three days and you have yet to bother to pick it up. I thought I'd give you a free point in the arguement, but you have repeatedly missed it, despite it being obvious that a single simple quote would have ended this entire thing, and frankly I'm tired of the game. And you should be ashamed that you missed this single item.

A quote from the Terms of Use:

LUCAS DOES NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE MATERIALS IN THIS SITE IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE.

By God, you could have ended this entire thing days ago by simply bothering to look up a simple damned quote and using it. And I was sitting here, hoping you would have finally figured out the obvious and checked the damned site to see what it actually said on the matter. And, yes, you should feel embarassed that I had to point it out to you.

As it stands, this little standoff of ours would have gone on forever. Why? You couldn't disprove what I was saying with a simple claim. And considering that I gave you a link to one the pages on the website, you really have no excuse for letting this go on as long as it had. Hell, I practically handed you the damned evidence you needed to shoot down what I was saying, and you still didn't bother to check it to see if what I was saying was even close to accurate.

Now that I'm done with that rant, time to move on to my point behind this: You just got a taste of the arguements going on within the Star Wars fans using everything that LucasFilms provides. Most Star Wars fans don't give a damn about the canon policy of LucasFilms, and that is resulting in trouble for them as it stands because they keep getting blamed for arguements over contradictions. Worse is that they cannot be bothered, like you, to check the Terms of Use on the website, resulting in arguements like we just had. They stop reading at the words "Official Website" and automatically trust whatever it says. And then, when others step up to point out the truth of the matter, most of the time it's the weak-ass defense of "But LucasFilms says this is the canon order..." followed by the sides bickering endlessly with neither side being able to disprove the other. And that's just one of many divisions.

Now, as a redeeming quality, I want you to provide a link that contains the official canon policy in it. That way, people can actually check it out on their own and see that, yes, it's official.

And unless you get all the M/AM to annhilate at once it will blow itself apart and be very ineffecient. What your point is that given equal reactants the anti-matter will be more powerful, not equal energy.

The idea is that it all converts at once.

No limits falacy. It all depends on how pwerful the shield is. It may take some of the energy and use it ro re-enforce the shield but it won't be 100% effecient as nothing is. Eventually there'd be enough waste-heat to overload the generator.

Not necessarily. What you do is hook the generator up to a power transfer system and send the excess power to some other system that requires massive power, such as a cannon or engines. DLE uses a similar setup as an emergency for when DLE ships end up trapped in the occasional ultrapowerful ion storm.

Cool, glad to know I'm not alone on that.

Well, ICly, I also have a history of my nation being messed with when it comes to temporal alterations. One of my OOC bad guys basically does what he wants when it comes to time and space, though usually to DLE and in some way that will only frustrate the nation even more.

The idea is that it all converts at once.

The yes indeed an M/AM bomb will be more powerful per kg. However that doesn't change my point that a 50 megaton fusion bomb will do more damage than a 20 megaton M/AM bomb even though the M/AM bomb is smaller and more advanced.



Not necessarily. What you do is hook the generator up to a power transfer system and send the excess power to some other system that requires massive power, such as a cannon or engines. DLE uses a similar setup as an emergency for when DLE ships end up trapped in the occasional ultrapowerful ion storm.

It's still a no limits falacy. No shield can take unlimited amounts of energy. It can take a lot but it will eventually fail. Not only is that basic science but also a huge godmod if you use it.

The yes indeed an M/AM bomb will be more powerful per kg. However that doesn't change my point that a 50 megaton fusion bomb will do more damage than a 20 megaton M/AM bomb even though the M/AM bomb is smaller and more advanced.

That's because you are measuring yields, not actual energy.

It's still a no limits falacy. No shield can take unlimited amounts of energy. It can take a lot but it will eventually fail. Not only is that basic science but also a huge godmod if you use it.

Just like no weapon can generate infinite amounts of energy. If you're going to use infinite-energy weapons, don't be surprised when someone replies with infinite-energy shields.

Will the shield eventually fail? Yes. Will it fail in one shot? No. It'll take a massive amount of firepower to take down that shield if you are using kinetic weapons (which is what guns are). However, it should be obvious why I don't use such a system as shields.

That's because you are measuring yields, not actual energy.

Yield is the amount of energy released by a weapon. One megaton is 4.2e15 Joules. You may be reffering to energy density.

But a 4.2e15 Joule (1 megaton) anti-matter bomb will release less energy than a 4.2e16 Joule (10 megaton) fusion bomb.

It doesn't matter what the mechanism is. If you had a million tons of TNT and blew it up it would create a larger more damaging explosion that the bombs dropped on Japan.



Just like no weapon can generate infinite amounts of energy. If you're going to use infinite-energy weapons, don't be surprised when someone replies with infinite-energy shields.

Will the shield eventually fail? Yes. Will it fail in one shot? No. It'll take a massive amount of firepower to take down that shield if you are using kinetic weapons (which is what guns are). However, it should be obvious why I don't use such a system as shields.

Just as long as you admit that they can't take infinite energy I'm happy.

A huge planet sized penis with time-travel capabilities simultaneously ejaculated over all of the before-mentioned planets, ships and crews. A pale, fatguy taped it on this ancient camcorder and spread it all over the internet.

You mother saw the tape. Twice.

OOC: i think ^ has some problems

OOC: I reported to the Mods on Intemperence, lets hope the Sicko gets Banned

Remember when threads used to have discussions about what the thread was about?

All that stuff about joules and fission vrs fussion warheads and what size planet destroying weapons need to be is all fine and dandy, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE THREAD IS ABOUT!

Maybe you think it does, and maybe this is just my interpretaion, but to me the thread is about his/her/its ship. Heck for all we know, maybe he/she/it never wanted any replies to the freaking thread. So unless you have something to post about the ship, I suggest you continue this seemingly never ending argument of yours elsewhere so people who actually have something to say about the topic of the thread can post it.

Thank you