My web site - finally uploaded

[Picard]

Here:
http://startrek-vs-starwars.freeoda.com ... ndex1.html

Well, I finally uploaded it, after almost two months of work. I did notice I left one page unfinished, but all other pages are finished, and that topic is already covered here (also, asteroid hit ISD in bridge, which seems to be weaker than rest of ship, and Jem'hadar "bug" suffered warp core breach, so even if I did analyze it, it would be irrelevant), so I think that site could be considered finished.

[Tyralak]

Excellent work. I like it.

[Lucky]

I suggest you have someone proof read your site.

You may be interested in this page: http://www.st-v-sw.net/weblog/2005/10/h ... -data.html

. I assume you had someone check your math?

A bit more fan-theory then I like, but looks okay

Enterprise was about to use "most" of her torpedoes in order to vaporize asteroid. In "Conundrum" it is stated that she carries 250 photon torpedoes; so "most of" could mean anywhere between 140 and 240 torpedoes, which means individual torpedo should be between 542 megatons and 1.8 gigatons.

Most could mean anywhere from 2 torpedos to 249 torpedos.

In TNG "The Chase" we discover that single Bird of Prey can destroy entire life on planet via chain reaction, which argues for major powers having planetary shields. Another example of planetary shields is TOS episode "Whom Gods Destroy", where planetary shield protected outpost. Enterprise tried to penetrate it with phasers on weakest part, opposite of ayslum dome, but attempt failed. In TNG, planet Aldea has planetary shield in addition to cloaking device. Some evidence from TNG+ series' also suggests that Federation has planetary shields, but such evidence is subtle. Also, in Voyager episode "Year of Hell" we are informed that planetary shields are relative commonplace, and in "Nightingale" we see shields in operation (picture below).

You are going to want to provide quotes for these claims.

You may also want to add The Lights of Zetar to the list.

Star Trek ground combat - defences

You may want to list the capabilities of standard issue Starfleet uniforms. They have some rather nice features as I recall like letting a human easily go near lava, and survive freezing conditions.

Then there was the time Data stopped a car by grabbing the rear.^_^

While there are other types of torpedoes in existence, none are seen used by 24th century Starfleet, and are therefore irrelevant.

I'd think you would want to at least list the weapons that aren't used anymore?

Star Trek ground combat - air support

You may want to add that standard shuttle craft can be armed/are armed and used to attack ground targets as shown in Voyager, and are armored enough to resist small arms fire.

[Praeothmin]

Most could mean anywhere from 2 torpedos to 249 torpedos.

No, it cannot.
Most means:

•most(a): (superlative of `many' used with count nouns and often preceded by `the') quantifier meaning the greatest in number; "who has the most apples?"; "most people like eggs"; "most fishes have fins"

So "most" cannot be 2 torpedoes out of 250, it has to be at least 200 to be close to "the greatest in number"...

and are armored enough to resist small arms fire.

Yup, in fact the NX-01's pods were capable of taking .50 cal bullets repeatedly with no problems at all...

[Who is like God arbour]

While it may have been stated in Conundrum that the Enterprise had 250 torpedoes then, the question is, if the Enterprise had also 250 torpedoes during her search for the USS Pegasus.

After all, it is not as if the Enterprise started her search from a starbase where her fired off torpedoes were restored.

She was on another mission - conducting surveys of the Mekoria Quasar. And we do not know, how many torpedoes she fired off in this or in an earlier mission since she got new torpedoes the last time.

[Picard]

Voyager shows that starships can produce torpedoes, and we don't know how many torpedoes big E carried at that moment (at least I never bothered to find out - she might have been resupplied off-screen), so I assumed it was full complement, even if we don't know if they could produce torpedoes, or if ship was indeed resupplied.

[Airlocke_Jedi_Knight]

Most could mean anywhere from 2 torpedos to 249 torpedos.

No, it cannot.
Most means:

•most(a): (superlative of `many' used with count nouns and often preceded by `the') quantifier meaning the greatest in number; "who has the most apples?"; "most people like eggs"; "most fishes have fins"

So "most" cannot be 2 torpedoes out of 250, it has to be at least 200 to be close to "the greatest in number"...

and are armored enough to resist small arms fire.

Yup, in fact the NX-01's pods were capable of taking .50 cal bullets repeatedly with no problems at all...

BAHAHAHA. I like that. Good job. If we take that literally, to mean "Greatest in number", that the number could actually be as low as 126 out of 250. I know that, with most connotations(HAHA!), it would actually be more than that, but to set the number to be atleast 200, with no ther sources than the word "most" is ridiculous. It sounds like you're picking a number a random. 150 out of 250 could also be classified as "Most". Why does it have to be 200?

[mojo]

yes, why not 125.0000000000000001?

[Airlocke_Jedi_Knight]

yes, why not 125.0000000000000001?

*shakes head*

[Praeothmin]

BAHAHAHA. I like that. Good job. If we take that literally, to mean "Greatest in number", that the number could actually be as low as 126 out of 250. I know that, with most connotations(HAHA!), it would actually be more than that, but to set the number to be atleast 200, with no ther sources than the word "most" is ridiculous. It sounds like you're picking a number a random. 150 out of 250 could also be classified as "Most". Why does it have to be 200?

When the heck do you use "most" when what you mean is "half"?
And yes, after typing 200 and posting, I also wondered why I typed 200.
In my Pegasus calcs, I used 225 as a number, because I've never seen anyone use "most" as in "Oh, I think most people here, and by most I mean half plus one, like apples!"...

And my point was "mostly" (as in, the more important part of it, not half of it), that it could certainly not be 2, or certainly not anything below 126, and that anyone who read at least one book knows that "most" is rarely, if ever, used to mean "half plus 1"...

While it may have been stated in Conundrum that the Enterprise had 250 torpedoes then, the question is, if the Enterprise had also 250 torpedoes during her search for the USS Pegasus.

But could it realistically have less than 200, when we rarely saw it fire torpedoes in TNG, unlike Voyager who liked to use them up even though they were supposed to be in short numbers...

[Who is like God arbour]

While it may have been stated in Conundrum that the Enterprise had 250 torpedoes then, the question is, if the Enterprise had also 250 torpedoes during her search for the USS Pegasus.

But could it realistically have less than 200, when we rarely saw it fire torpedoes in TNG, unlike Voyager who liked to use them up even though they were supposed to be in short numbers...

Why not?

We do know next to nothing about all the missions the Enterprise carried out since the last time her torpedoes were restocked.

And if the destruction of the asteroid should be possible with a few torpedoes and Riker said that they would need most of their torpedoes, it seem plausible to assume that they had only a few torpedoes. And that is possible if they had fired off most of their torpedoes in a prior mission.

I think that makes more sense than to assume that her torpedoes are suddenly so weak that 150 or more torpedoes are needed to destroy that asteroid.

And there is enough wiggle room. We could assume that they wanted to vaporise this asteroid and the Pegasus Or that the asteroid was peculiar hard to destroy ( after all, it had funny magnetic fields that could overpower the propulsion of a shuttle). That would increase the number of torpedoes needed and decrease the number of torpedoes the Enterprise would have fired off in prior missions.

In the end, that event can not be used to calculate anything. The only possible conclusion is, that two, maybe three torpedoes wouldn't be enough to destroy that asteroid. But as we do not know how many torpedoes the Enterprise had and how many torpedoes Riker meant when he said most of them and if he wanted to shatter or vaporize this asteroid and what is really necessary to destroy the peculiar asteroid, we have nothing to work with.

[Picard]

Fragmentation of that asteroid would take 115 kilotons at maximum, acording to Wong's calculator (and that is total energy for iron-nickel asteroid, which that asteroid definetly is not. Real fragmentation energy is even smaller). That is way too low, given yields displayed in "Skin of Evil", "Rise", most of TOS (including GO24 statement), and given Federation hull strength, so vaporization is only remaining option. Total energy for vaporization is 130 gigatons at minimum, so I took maximum possible number of torpedoes and minimum possible energy in order to avoid bias. So we got 542 (it was 541.some) megatons low end.

Added bonus of original number (with decimals) was that it gave exactly 600 megatons when increased by 11% (Worf's upgrades at episode "Genesis"). We know that torpedoes carried by Voyager were 200 isotons, so we have 3 megatons = 1 isoton ratio.

Also, as I already pointed out, Voyager displayed ability to produce torpedoes while in Gamma Quadrant, and it is entirely possible that Galaxy class had that ability.

[Praeothmin]

The asteroid was not a normal one, since it had a powerful magnetic field, and it was between 5 and 9 km wide.

WILGA, I know you love to wank Trek up, but assuming the E-D was low on torpedoes when we have no reason two is doing exactly what you guys like to say Warsies do: stack the deck in favor of their preferred franchise...

[Who is like God arbour]

The asteroid was not a normal one, since it had a powerful magnetic field, and it was between 5 and 9 km wide.

WILGA, I know you love to wank Trek up, but assuming the E-D was low on torpedoes when we have no reason two is doing exactly what you guys like to say Warsies do: stack the deck in favor of their preferred franchise...

No.
If you had read my last post carefully, you would have noticed that I said that this event is non-conclusive.
Fact is that you know next to nothing.

You do not know how many torpedoes the Enterprise had avaible then. The only thing you know is, that the Enterprise has 250 torpedoes during the events of Conundrum. But this does not mean that she has always 250 torpedoes. Obviously after firing off torpedoes, the number decreases. And you do not know how many torpedoes were fired off since the last restoring. Insofar it is possible and must be considered that the Enterprise was very low on torpedoes.

Furthermore you do not know, why the asteroid had such a powerful magnetic field and how that could possibly affect the ability to destroy it.

Insofar, there is no wanking at all. The deck is not stacked in favor of any franchise.

I repeat: The simple fact is that this event is non-conclusive. It can not be used to prove high fire power nor can it be used to prove low fire power.

[Lucky]

Most could mean anywhere from 2 torpedos to 249 torpedos.

No, it cannot.
Most means:

•most(a): (superlative of `many' used with count nouns and often preceded by `the') quantifier meaning the greatest in number; "who has the most apples?"; "most people like eggs"; "most fishes have fins"

So "most" cannot be 2 torpedoes out of 250, it has to be at least 200 to be close to "the greatest in number"...

Give a quote that states how many torpedos they had at the time.

To have the ability to fire most of their torpedos they would need at minimum 3.

Where are you getting the number 250 from?

and are armored enough to resist small arms fire.

Yup, in fact the NX-01's pods were capable of taking .50 cal bullets repeatedly with no problems at all...

I was thinking phaser rirlfes