View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:06 am



Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Neil deGrasse Tyson Again 
Author Message
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Posts: 1839
Reply with quote
trekmovie.com/2015/12/04/this-week-in-star-trek-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-trek-vs-wars-lindelof-says-khan-secret-mistake-new-trek-merch/#more-41105

Basically, he explicitly suggests what was implied before, IIRC, which is that he believes Star Trek vessels would own Star Wars vessels.

The problem I have with this is that Tyson is so wrong so often and so arrogantly, his effective endorsement of ST-v-SW.Net leads me to question if I've actually been wrong all along.

If nothing else, it just shows both sides have asshats.


Fri Dec 11, 2015 4:19 am
Profile WWW
Jedi Master

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5730
Reply with quote
My biggest problem with the whole article and what he has to say is that he fails to explain why the Enterprise (which one?) would "wipe it’s ass with the Millennium Falcon". He just comes across as a big fan boy, and thus it is easy enough to dismiss what deGrasse Tyson says.
-Mike


Sat Dec 12, 2015 1:02 am
Profile
Bridge Officer

Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Posts: 167
Location: A Beta Quadrant far far away
Reply with quote
NdGT wrote:
The Enterprise has the benefit of being ‘real’ ... so, it’s fake real, as opposed to the Millennium Falcon, which is just fake fake.


Whoa. Deep.

2046 wrote:
The problem I have with this is that Tyson is so wrong so often and so arrogantly, his effective endorsement of ST-v-SW.Net leads me to question if I've actually been wrong all along.


Search your feelings, you know it to be true!

2046 wrote:
If nothing else, it just shows both sides have asshats.

D'oh!

Mike DiCenso wrote:
My biggest problem with the whole article and what he has to say is that he fails to explain why the Enterprise (which one?) would "wipe it’s ass with the Millennium Falcon". He just comes across as a big fan boy, and thus it is easy enough to dismiss what deGrasse Tyson says.
-Mike


Agreed. Really though, the Enterprise (I'm picturing Kirk's) should be able to defeat the Falcon in battle. It's a battle ready cruiser/destroyer. The Falcon is basically a souped up freighter playing Bandit and Snowman in space. The question is, can the big E catch 'em before they finish the Kessel run?


Sat Dec 19, 2015 3:12 am
Profile
Redshirt

Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:03 pm
Posts: 15
Reply with quote
Tyson has always come across as bit of a fanboy. Whenever he talks about how hard Trek is (scientifically) I just want to force feed him the hours of technobabble and terrabad science that has appeared in Trek over the years. Perhaps then he'd be humbled and remove those damned blinkered glasses. And Warp. Haven't some pretty silly things happened with the warp in Trek also? Voyager IIRC, to be fair. He ignores all of that.

I do get it. Trek does promote good things such as exploration and science, and Wars isn't about that. But Tyson goes qay overboard. By focussing on the treknologies, instead of the above point, he opens himself up for a lot of flak. Glass houses and all that.


Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:24 pm
Profile
Redshirt

Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2015 5:03 pm
Posts: 15
Reply with quote
Here's the video. He opens up by saying it's real in that, it has "real" scientists and engineers on staff monitoring warp drive, torpedoes ect. I mean, what is a hydrospanner anyway?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMH1vDDd1xc


We also got outrageous lasers from Adam Savage. What maybe worse is that the masses sucked it up, hah.
https://youtu.be/gn-bikabdyk?t=120


Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:28 pm
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6860
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
Mike DiCenso wrote:
My biggest problem with the whole article and what he has to say is that he fails to explain why the Enterprise (which one?) would "wipe it’s ass with the Millennium Falcon". He just comes across as a big fan boy, and thus it is easy enough to dismiss what deGrasse Tyson says.
-Mike


The year is 2016.
A terrible typo is spreading, faster than ever.
Civilization is threatened, about to collapse.


Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:33 am
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6860
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
Pheonix wrote:
Tyson has always come across as bit of a fanboy. Whenever he talks about how hard Trek is (scientifically) I just want to force feed him the hours of technobabble and terrabad science that has appeared in Trek over the years. Perhaps then he'd be humbled and remove those damned blinkered glasses. And Warp. Haven't some pretty silly things happened with the warp in Trek also? Voyager IIRC, to be fair. He ignores all of that.

I do get it. Trek does promote good things such as exploration and science, and Wars isn't about that. But Tyson goes qay overboard. By focussing on the treknologies, instead of the above point, he opens himself up for a lot of flak. Glass houses and all that.


Star Trek is about morals, philosophy, tea and biscuits.

Star Wars is about friends and family. And cutting stuff.


Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:35 am
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6860
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
NdGT wrote:
The Enterprise has the benefit of being ‘real’ ... so, it’s fake real, as opposed to the Millennium Falcon, which is just fake fake.


The Millennium Falcon has seatbelts.
Shut up Lord Tie Zon!


Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:40 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2133
Reply with quote
2046 wrote:
trekmovie.com/2015/12/04/this-week-in-star-trek-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-trek-vs-wars-lindelof-says-khan-secret-mistake-new-trek-merch/#more-41105

Basically, he explicitly suggests what was implied before, IIRC, which is that he believes Star Trek vessels would own Star Wars vessels.

The problem I have with this is that Tyson is so wrong so often and so arrogantly, his effective endorsement of ST-v-SW.Net leads me to question if I've actually been wrong all along.

If nothing else, it just shows both sides have asshats.

He may make mistakes from time to time, but he's also right about things often enough. Call it a credit to the ST side of the debate if you like.

Does he explain his reasoning for saying that the Enterprise would beat the Falcon in a fight? No, but then again, I think all but the extreme Saxtonites would agree with that right on the face of it. We're talking about a small freighter with some fighter-grade guns strapped onto it as opposed to a pseudomilitary cruiser hundreds of meters long; you have to assume a huge tech gap in order to claim that the Falcon would win that fight.

I wouldn't really say it shows he's read ST-v-SW or anything like that. That comment of his is exactly what I would expect from a typical person who has not been involved with the VS debate who entertains the idea of the two ships fighting. The Saxtonite community spent years arguing themselves into higher and higher claims to get to the point where they might claim the Falcon would win in a fight.

The real test case for who is on what "side" of the technical VS debate is to ask about something larger, like a Star Destroyer. Then you start getting significant numbers of people leaning towards different sides.


Mon Feb 08, 2016 5:55 am
Profile WWW
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6860
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
Then it boils down to what you mean by side per se.
With so much information to look at and with objectivity in my pocket and under my hat, to me it seems a foregone conclusion that a ship such as an Imperial SD, regardless of its size and elegance, is just outclassed by a spacecraft that looks like the result of intercourse between Chinese stick biscuits and a tea saucer (probably Chinese too). Mobility, agility, power, range, shields, weapon type, you name it, it's quite literally overkill on all fronts. And that's not even a warship cause they have fa-mi-lies too aboard. Like if every day was a trip to the zoo or something.
If at least the SD was portrayed as a considerable behemoth with a vast array of very long range and deadly accurate energy cannons and racks upon racks of boosted (and again, long range) proton torpedoes, all while sitting behind impregnable shields...
But we're talking about a warship ship which crew was scared to death the moment a rusty small freighter made a painfully sluggish and curvy run for their tower bridge, zero fighter style. With shields up in favour of the big one. Hardly the same folk who'd be laughing whilst pushing their mighty triangle through a storm of pebbles and potatoes.
So I don't know if that's being on Trek's side inasmuch as it'd be being on any side that boasts ships with an edge over the Empire's fearsome toys.
And it sucks to have to rely on books or comics to get something that the movies don't even show and perhaps don't even agree with: in ROTS, when a big blue laser beams shot from a SD's belly cuts through, perhaps at first, an invisible shield for several frames, but then surely through war-class armour, and doesn't produce the kind ensuing explosion you'd expect to be caused when such a beam, able to cut through such armour, ends hitting a warship's innards with all the fuel, ammo and atmosphere inside, you've got a serious case against anything beyond moderate kilotons here. The entirety of the ROTS battle is in fact a solid display of weak sauce firepower, shields and armour, all wrapped into one big sucking pack. I'm not even sure we get to see one single event that might allude to some impressive nuclear-like event in the distant background.


Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:06 am
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Posts: 1636
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA
Reply with quote
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Then it boils down to what you mean by side per se.
With so much information to look at and with objectivity in my pocket and under my hat, to me it seems a foregone conclusion that a ship such as an Imperial SD, regardless of its size and elegance, is just outclassed by a spacecraft that looks like the result of intercourse between Chinese stick biscuits and a tea saucer (probably Chinese too). Mobility, agility, power, range, shields, weapon type, you name it, it's quite literally overkill on all fronts. And that's not even a warship cause they have fa-mi-lies too aboard. Like if every day was a trip to the zoo or something.
If at least the SD was portrayed as a considerable behemoth with a vast array of very long range and deadly accurate energy cannons and racks upon racks of boosted (and again, long range) proton torpedoes, all while sitting behind impregnable shields...
But we're talking about a warship ship which crew was scared to death the moment a rusty small freighter made a painfully sluggish and curvy run for their tower bridge, zero fighter style. With shields up in favour of the big one. Hardly the same folk who'd be laughing whilst pushing their mighty triangle through a storm of pebbles and potatoes.
So I don't know if that's being on Trek's side inasmuch as it'd be being on any side that boasts ships with an edge over the Empire's fearsome toys.
And it sucks to have to rely on books or comics to get something that the movies don't even show and perhaps don't even agree with: in ROTS, when a big blue laser beams shot from a SD's belly cuts through, perhaps at first, an invisible shield for several frames, but then surely through war-class armour, and doesn't produce the kind ensuing explosion you'd expect to be caused when such a beam, able to cut through such armour, ends hitting a warship's innards with all the fuel, ammo and atmosphere inside, you've got a serious case against anything beyond moderate kilotons here. The entirety of the ROTS battle is in fact a solid display of weak sauce firepower, shields and armour, all wrapped into one big sucking pack. I'm not even sure we get to see one single event that might allude to some impressive nuclear-like event in the distant background.


Well I don't know about "sides" per say, but I'm not really convinced Trek is much or any better at Hollywood gasoline type explosions or showing "weak sauce firepower" like we see in Star Wars. Nor do I think its quite fair to dwell on the ISD range when the Federation similarly appears to be in love with photogenic ranges. In fact, outside of TOS, one might have difficulty finding an example which didn't, ultimately, descend into knife-fight ranges.

Besides, didn't you just get done arguing with Moff Tarquin that a TOS era Constitution class should have forward/main phasers in the ten's of Terawatts based upon the NX class? Wouldn't then, assuming a similar level of progression, a TNG era Galaxy class only be in the hundreds of Terawatts? Which would be fairly moderate kilotons, all things considered. Likely inferior to a shot that can "vaporize a small town" which an ISD should be capable of generating. It certainly wouldn't fall far off from the typical ranges given for the TESB asteroid popping scene.


Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:18 pm
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6860
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
sonofccn wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Then it boils down to what you mean by side per se.
With so much information to look at and with objectivity in my pocket and under my hat, to me it seems a foregone conclusion that a ship such as an Imperial SD, regardless of its size and elegance, is just outclassed by a spacecraft that looks like the result of intercourse between Chinese stick biscuits and a tea saucer (probably Chinese too). Mobility, agility, power, range, shields, weapon type, you name it, it's quite literally overkill on all fronts. And that's not even a warship cause they have fa-mi-lies too aboard. Like if every day was a trip to the zoo or something.
If at least the SD was portrayed as a considerable behemoth with a vast array of very long range and deadly accurate energy cannons and racks upon racks of boosted (and again, long range) proton torpedoes, all while sitting behind impregnable shields...
But we're talking about a warship ship which crew was scared to death the moment a rusty small freighter made a painfully sluggish and curvy run for their tower bridge, zero fighter style. With shields up in favour of the big one. Hardly the same folk who'd be laughing whilst pushing their mighty triangle through a storm of pebbles and potatoes.
So I don't know if that's being on Trek's side inasmuch as it'd be being on any side that boasts ships with an edge over the Empire's fearsome toys.
And it sucks to have to rely on books or comics to get something that the movies don't even show and perhaps don't even agree with: in ROTS, when a big blue laser beams shot from a SD's belly cuts through, perhaps at first, an invisible shield for several frames, but then surely through war-class armour, and doesn't produce the kind ensuing explosion you'd expect to be caused when such a beam, able to cut through such armour, ends hitting a warship's innards with all the fuel, ammo and atmosphere inside, you've got a serious case against anything beyond moderate kilotons here. The entirety of the ROTS battle is in fact a solid display of weak sauce firepower, shields and armour, all wrapped into one big sucking pack. I'm not even sure we get to see one single event that might allude to some impressive nuclear-like event in the distant background.


Well I don't know about "sides" per say, but I'm not really convinced Trek is much or any better at Hollywood gasoline type explosions or showing "weak sauce firepower" like we see in Star Wars. Nor do I think its quite fair to dwell on the ISD range when the Federation similarly appears to be in love with photogenic ranges. In fact, outside of TOS, one might have difficulty finding an example which didn't, ultimately, descend into knife-fight ranges.


Perhaps, but ST definitely has proof in script of longer ranges measured in thousands of km for weapons such as phasers, and uses torpedoes too which have no reason to lose their targeting capacity against SW's warships, and ought to be just as great as for phasers, if not much better because they're guided.
On the other hand, at best you get 100 KM for Venators' turbolasers iirc from the ROTS novelization, and a very large and immobile ion cannon capable of hitting at ranges of thousands of km rather large ships with the agility of beached whales. Once might confer a semi-ability at homing to the ion projectiles that may explain their capacity to hit at such ranges despite their overall low speed.

Quote:
Besides, didn't you just get done arguing with Moff Tarquin that a TOS era Constitution class should have forward/main phasers in the ten's of Terawatts based upon the NX class? Wouldn't then, assuming a similar level of progression, a TNG era Galaxy class only be in the hundreds of Terawatts? Which would be fairly moderate kilotons, all things considered.


How so? At 420 TW you'd be getting your 100 KT of energy per second. Wait ten seconds and there is your megaton.

Quote:
Likely inferior to a shot that can "vaporize a small town" which an ISD should be capable of generating. It certainly wouldn't fall far off from the typical ranges given for the TESB asteroid popping scene.


This is the high end interpretation of the highest most impressive description of firepower from a conventional heavy energy weapon in SW.
Applying the same degree of generosity to ST would largely give it the upper hand.


Sat Feb 20, 2016 12:47 am
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Posts: 1636
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA
Reply with quote
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Perhaps, but ST definitely has proof in script of longer ranges measured in thousands of km for weapons such as phasers, and uses torpedoes too which have no reason to lose their targeting capacity against SW's warships, and ought to be just as great as for phasers, if not much better because they're guided.
On the other hand, at best you get 100 KM for Venators' turbolasers iirc from the ROTS novelization, and a very large and immobile ion cannon capable of hitting at ranges of thousands of km rather large ships with the agility of beached whales. Once might confer a semi-ability at homing to the ion projectiles that may explain their capacity to hit at such ranges despite their overall low speed.
Well that is a big "perhaps". Again, trying to be impartial and objective, it seems unfair to assume the Federation is going to something contrary to how they behave a good percentage of the time. They like getting up close and personal.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
How so? At 420 TW you'd be getting your 100 KT of energy per second. Wait ten seconds and there is your megaton.
In a ten second time span an ISD should be able to shell tens of turbolaser bolts down range. Assume each one is only "moderate kilotons" and it still adds up fairly quickly. In fact it likely would be hard to create a paradigm where the ISD isn't shelling hundreds of kilotons every ten seconds.

Then there's the issue that if a 100 kiloton per second beam can make the ship shudder something rated rated from 400 to 1500 kilotons delivered across a comparable time frame should make them sit up and take notice.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
This is the high end interpretation of the highest most impressive description of firepower from a conventional heavy energy weapon in SW.
Applying the same degree of generosity to ST would largely give it the upper hand.
Its hardly a "high end interpretation" unless your going to argue we should ignore the word "vaporize", which would hardly be fair or impartial, and there are so few explicit firepower figures for Wars. At least for the live action films. It would be hard to build a case where, for instance, 400 kilotons is just too crazy high of an outlier.

Lastly Trek's in a bit of a glass house concerning weak sauce firepower visuals. There's little we get in Wars that you wouldn't get in say any fleet battle in DS9 for instance. If one demands "moderate kilotons" even at the expense of higher, more explicit figures then so does the other.


Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:25 am
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6860
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
sonofccn wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Perhaps, but ST definitely has proof in script of longer ranges measured in thousands of km for weapons such as phasers, and uses torpedoes too which have no reason to lose their targeting capacity against SW's warships, and ought to be just as great as for phasers, if not much better because they're guided.
On the other hand, at best you get 100 KM for Venators' turbolasers iirc from the ROTS novelization, and a very large and immobile ion cannon capable of hitting at ranges of thousands of km rather large ships with the agility of beached whales. Once might confer a semi-ability at homing to the ion projectiles that may explain their capacity to hit at such ranges despite their overall low speed.
Well that is a big "perhaps". Again, trying to be impartial and objective, it seems unfair to assume the Federation is going to something contrary to how they behave a good percentage of the time. They like getting up close and personal.


Are we talking about the artistic liberties taken for the sake of entertainment? Space battle ranges probably are the first things that get sacrificed on the altar of watchable fun, followed by real explosions, real lasers and momentum.
The point also is that ST clearly highlights the existence of this internal issues through production-side decisions and resulting contradictions between visual ranges and stated ones. I'm also fairly sure that Trek does have a couple examples of ships firing torpedoes from orbit and hitting ground targets squarely, evnei f they're quite small. Then, one remembers that warships in SW are of the big and sluggish variety. Which is a disadvantage here, making them similar to the aforementioned ground targets.
All in all, the stated ranges are indisputably superior by at least one order of magnitude, and not just for torpedoes. In the case both sides should be allowed more realistic rules of engagements and free to exploit their tech the way it should be done, ST has the advantage right there.

In terms of good examples of range For Star Wars, assuming you fly on a predictable path, we have TPM and the royal ship escaping Naboo, flying through a hail of red death at an impressive range, especially for the size of that craft. Although one could easily condemn the stupidity of Rick Olie for continuing to fly in a straight line. :/
I'd say the range was quite remarkable but at the same time the firepower was clearly capped at anti-fighter level, as evidence by the damage taken by droids hit by the bolts.
The paradigm in SW could be that you may trade range for firepower, perhaps because packing a bolt containing far more energy makes it less stable, harder to guide through the cannon and harder to maintain on a course, and perhaps that the bolt itself might explode sooner.

Quote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
How so? At 420 TW you'd be getting your 100 KT of energy per second. Wait ten seconds and there is your megaton.
In a ten second time span an ISD should be able to shell tens of turbolaser bolts down range. Assume each one is only "moderate kilotons" and it still adds up fairly quickly. In fact it likely would be hard to create a paradigm where the ISD isn't shelling hundreds of kilotons every ten seconds.


I find it very easy, on the contrary. Their heaviest cannons ought to have such low firepower based on overall evidence; I don't peg it at more than a couple kilotons based on everything we've seen. It wouldn't feel right at the moment to claim yields in the Hiroshima level since there is zero support for that aside from flowery language from a lower source such as the new E7:ICS.
In fact, a one kiloton explosion wouldn't necessarily be too impressive (and a even less if non-nuclear), including part of the yield perhaps absorbed (although shields in SW seem to be deflecting more than anything else, despite the popular claims of super absorption that were running rampant a decade ago). It isn't as impressive as some may think. We even shared a video a while back of such a firing test on a target, drawn on the dirt in some desert. It's still a big boom, one we're yet to see any SW heavy weapon achieve btw.
1 KT test, air blast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSi2IRXrhSo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=351zid4NHKI (shots 1 & 2), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0r_4v2hA5c.

Quote:
Then there's the issue that if a 100 kiloton per second beam can make the ship shudder something rated rated from 400 to 1500 kilotons delivered across a comparable time frame should make them sit up and take notice.


Where does the 100 KT figure come from?
Let's also remember that G2K's calc veers on the higher side. A low kiloton shot landing on a small town would also totally vaporize it. It's good English too.

Quote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
This is the high end interpretation of the highest most impressive description of firepower from a conventional heavy energy weapon in SW.
Applying the same degree of generosity to ST would largely give it the upper hand.
Its hardly a "high end interpretation" unless your going to argue we should ignore the word "vaporize", which would hardly be fair or impartial, and there are so few explicit firepower figures for Wars. At least for the live action films. It would be hard to build a case where, for instance, 400 kilotons is just too crazy high of an outlier.


There is absolutely nothing unfair there, because again, to vaporize in the sense of leveling a place is also a common way to use the verb. It does not require sophistical gymnastics in the slightest way.

Quote:
Lastly Trek's in a bit of a glass house concerning weak sauce firepower visuals. There's little we get in Wars that you wouldn't get in say any fleet battle in DS9 for instance. If one demands "moderate kilotons" even at the expense of higher, more explicit figures then so does the other.


How so? Wars is so devoid of any solid demonstration of impressive firepower from heavy weapons that it cannot even provide anything remotely similar to ENT's NX-01 crew testing her phase cannons against the tip of some kind of geological residue found within a crater, at a time when said ship was tossing near terawatt-level shots.
At best we have countless cases of TL cannons firing at snubfighters and not even flash boiling them in one shot. Dialed down yields? Perhaps, but that's about how far we can go in terms of evidence.
It has nothing coming even close to normal asteroids being rapidly destroyed by either phasers or torpedoes. And since scaling up from infantry weapon seems a straight forward way to guess the yields of bigger weapons, TNG Trek and beyond have secured solid figures for hand phasers and lightweight rifles, making them capable of reaching the low megawatt level for prolonged outputs, a thing that would be hard to find in Wars. At best, the E-web that was about to be used against the MF at Hoth was said, in the novelization, to be capable of putting holes in the hull of the small freighter. One would be expecting near bazooka-levels of firepower for that weapon at most... although repeated fire on the same spot would also manage to damage the hull so we don't even need to argue for each bolt to carry enough energy to gouge a gaping hole on its own out of said hull. Plus it was big and needed its own large power pack.

There's practically always a gap of one order of magnitude if not more in favour of Trek. Not my fault, it's the way it goes.


Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:58 am
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Posts: 1636
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA
Reply with quote
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Are we talking about the artistic liberties taken for the sake of entertaining? Space battle ranges is probably the one first thing that gets sacrificed on the altar of watchable fun, followed by real explosions, real lasers and momentum.
The point, also, is that ST clearly highlights the existence of this production-side decisions, with contradictions between visual ranges and stated ones. I'm also fairly sure that Trek does have a couple examples of ships firing torpedoes from orbit and hit ground and small targets squarely. Then, one remembers that warships in SW are of the big and sluggish variety. Which is a disadvantage here, making them similar to the aforementioned ground targets.
All in all, the stated ranges are indisputably superior by at least one order of magnitude, and not just for torpedoes. In the case both sides should be allowed more realistic rules of engagements and free to exploit their tech the way it should be done, ST has the advantage right there.

In terms of good examples of range and assuming you fly on a predictable path, we have TPM and the royal ship escaping Naboo, flying through a hail of red death at an impressive range, especially for the size of that craft. Although one could easily condemn the stupidity of Rick Olie for continuing to fly in a straight line.
I’m talking about looking at the evidence and trying to make the best guess on what would happen. Trek has a plethora of long range examples sure, at no point am I questioning or doubting that. It also has a wide number of examples descending to knife fight ranges. Objectively they don’t fight the way you want them to fight and to assume otherwise is to no longer be arguing Trek vs Wars but your own personal interpretation.
“Realistic”, such that such a word has any meaning in our context, has to mean accordance to the facts and logics of the Verse under discussion. As such I find it unrealistic and out of character for the Federation to sit back and try to snip enemy ships.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
I find it very easy, on the contrary. Their heaviest cannons ought to have such firepower, and I don't peg it at more than a couple kilotons based on everything we've seen. In fact, a one kiloton explosion wouldn't necessarily be too impressive, including part of the yield perhaps absorbed (although shields in SW seem to be deflecting more than anything else, despite the popular claims of super absorption that were running rampant a decade ago). It isn't as impressive as some may think. We even shared a video a while back of such a firing test on a target, drawn on the dirt in some desert. It's still a big boom, one we're yet to see any SW heavy weapon achieve btw.
1 KT test, air blast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSi2IRXrhSo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=351zid4NHKI (shots 1 & 2), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0r_4v2hA5c.
Sorry I would need some very hard evidence before accepting gigajoule mid-range turbolaser bolts. That’s far too lowball. I certainly would need more proof than typical anemic Hollywood explosions and rolling, gasoline flames. I mean what was that about “artistic license” you mentioned earlier? Simply put I’m far more concerned with concrete examples, things we can measure, rather than if the VFX bothered with cinematic rather than realistic or not.

For instance plugging it in to Wong’s old Asteriod calculator, at 10 meters because that’s as small as it would go but should be with the larger bracket of estimated sizes, I got nearly eight kilotons for the TESB asteroid scene assuming vaporization and nickle-iron. For what is generally argued to be a medium sized turbolaser bolt. Short of advocating for your exploding rock theory I’m not sure you can knock the example down out of the kiloton range, which brings us back to the difficulty of constructing a paradigm where the ISD isn’t shelling hundreds of kilotons downrange.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Where does the 100 KT figure come from?
Let's also remember that G2K's calc veers on the higher side. A low kiloton shot landing on a small town would also totally vaporize it. It's good English too.
.
.
.
There is absolutely nothing unfair there, because again, to vaporize in the sense of leveling a place is also a common way to use the verb. It does not require sophistical gymnastics in the slightest way. [.quote]
1.)I think there has been some confusion. The 100 KT figure is from your assumption of phaser firepower. Which is usually enough to get the crew’s attention/shudder the bridge.

2.) Let us also remember ours is not to try a low ball an example merely so that it fits within our preconceived notions or paradigms. G2K’s work, I find, is fairly even handed going into depth as to why he assumed what he assumed and in general treated it how he would a quote from Trek. That would be the “fairness” I eluded too.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
How so? Wars is so devoid of any solid demonstration of impressive firepower from heavy weapons that it cannot even provide anything remotely similar to ENT's NX-01 crew testing her phase cannons against the tip of some kind of geological residue found within a crater, at a time when said ship was tossing near terawatt-level shots.
At best we have countless cases of TL cannons firing at snubfighters and not even flash boiling them in one shot. Dialed down yields? Perhaps, but that's about how far we can go in terms of evidence.
It has nothing coming even close to normal asteroids being rapidly destroyed by either phasers or torpedoes. And since scaling up from infantry weapon seems a straight forward way to guess the yields of bigger weapons, TNG Trek and beyond have secured solid figures for hand phasers and lightweight rifles, making them capable of reaching the low megawatt level for prolonged outputs, a thing that would be hard to find in Wars. At best, the E-web that was about to be used against the MF at Hoth was said, in the novelization, to be capable to put holes in the hull of the ship. One would be expecting near bazooka-levels of firepower for that weapon... although repeated fire on the same spot would also manage to damage the hull so we don't even need to argue for each bolt to carry enough energy to put a hole on its own. Plus it was big and needed its own and quite large power pack.

There's practically always a gap of one order of magnitude if not more in favour of Trek. Not my fault, it's the way it goes.


1.) How so? I would ask you what ship to ship battle in Trek accurately captures the firepower being exchanged or doesn’t look quite similar to what we get in Wars. I would also ask, going strictly by visuals, what examples of high or noteworthy firepower are there and do they accurately portray the sort of energies being delivered? Because in my experience they rarely look anything like as powerful as they’re supposed to be. Hence my problem with saying Wars has weaksauce firepower but Trek doesn’t.

2.) On its own, the visuals for Silent Enemy, the Enterprise episode you allude to, aren’t really that impressive. They blow up a rocky protrusion of unknown size with minimal if any vaporization. You’d have to go to the dialog where, in an emotional outburst, it is described as nearly the size of Mount Mckinley to really get anything. As it is, by any reasonable measure, the TESB scene matches if not exceeds anything we see in the episode.

Though of course, ultimately “reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder. ;)

2A.) Minor quibble but we are only told the output of joules for the phase cannons, 500 gigajoules per weapon under normal circumstances, not the wattage.

3.) I would disagree, rather venomously, that hand weapons scale up to shipboard weapons for either Trek or Wars. Their two different systems designed for two different environments/constraints. I would ask why you believe otherwise?


Mon Feb 29, 2016 3:05 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.