Starfleet Jedi

Picard recently linked to this image before he was seemingly banned from SD.NET. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... sschem.jpg

It appears to show four tunnels leading from the surface of the DS-II straight to the reactor, and the ends opposite the reactor all seem to open to finished areas. One of the tubes looks as if it is nearly straight from the angle we see it.

Despite what the Impearal government (the extended universe) is it possible that the flaws were not fixed at least in the manner some books like the TEGTVAV say?

That looks like a graphic readout of the incomplete second Death Star so it is not terribly suprising that the thing has large open spaces that could lead to the reactor core. Most of the EU sources tend to describe what the DS2 would have been like after it was completed.
-Mike

Oh, and let me guess:
Picard was banned from SDN because he was "repeating points that have been adressed and refuted, thus using the "Broken Record" type of debating"...
Right?

Mike DiCenso wrote:That looks like a graphic readout of the incomplete second Death Star so it is not terribly suprising that the thing has large open spaces that could lead to the reactor core. Most of the EU sources tend to describe what the DS2 would have been like after it was completed.
-Mike

I seem to recall the schematic for the first Death Star that was completed had similar features that Luke shot a couple of torpedos down.

The reactor was completed, and all the ducts appear to reach the surface at completed areas on the Death Star-II. The parts that need to be completed are clearly all south of the ducts.

The EU can and is wrong about a number of things. Would someone happen to have some quotes from the novelization of Return of the Jedi about the area the rebels flew through, and the schematics? I don't have a copy.

Praeothmin wrote:Oh, and let me guess:
Picard was banned from SDN because he was "repeating points that have been adressed and refuted, thus using the "Broken Record" type of debating"...
Right?

I don't know. I just know that under Picard it says banned on SD.net. Judging by what I saw in the thread, I would guess they would claim an unwillingness to provide evidence.

Praeothmin wrote:Oh, and let me guess:
Picard was banned from SDN because he was "repeating points that have been adressed and refuted, thus using the "Broken Record" type of debating"...
Right?

Wrong.

He was permanently banned for admitting to have » erased well-supported statements about photon torpedo yield and replaced them with his own BS « in their wikipedia.

It's quite fascinating that he was not banned for the » vandalism of the wiki « but for admitting to have done it.

Even more fascinating is, how he has allegedly admitted it:

• • • • Ted C wrote:We've had a couple of busy little Trekkies visiting the wiki in the last couple of days. Mike Dicenso is trying to refute the well-established limitations of warp drive, while a trektard going by "Picard345" thought he would just erase well-supported statements about photon torpedo yield and replace them with his own BS.
        
        Feel free to join the fun.

        Picard wrote:Well-supported? You mean "myths-supported"?

        Edi wrote:Picard has been banned for admitting to vandalism of the wiki. His numerous violations of the rules that have been noted by several supermods are located elsehwere.
        
        The ban is temporary for 7 days, but will be changed to permanent pending approval from the active administrator (Dalton).

        Dalton wrote:Permanent.

Does anyone think that the comment » Well-supported? You mean "myths-supported"? « of someone, who is known as a Trekkie, does constitute a confession to anything?

Is it possible to interpret this as » Yes, I have done it «?

Is it totally irrational to consider it possible that Picard has only commented here because he wanted to show again that he disagrees with the assertion that at SDN accepted photon torpedo yields are well-supported?

I think it is fascinating how in a place, which denizens considers themselves to be a stronghold of Enlightenment, fundamental principles of fairness, as they are established in the Age of Enlightenment, are violated.

While some of SDNs denizen may be well-educated, they are behaving as if they came from the dark ages. Their sense of right and wrong and fairness is not so far from what was accepted before 1532, the year the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina was written.

Ted C wrote:We've had a couple of busy little Trekkies visiting the wiki in the last couple of days. Mike Dicenso is trying to refute the well-established limitations of warp drive

To put it nicely as I can, Ted's not got the fortitude to deal with the mounting evidence for very fast warp speeds in well-charted territory. That being said, any further discussion on this should be moved to the Other Websites forum.
-Mike

One way or another, I won't be making new account on SDN anytime soon. I'm in process of making my website and I plan to adress these points on it. As for when I will upload it, I have no idea. It might be month, six months, year, I don't know. But I obviously hit them where it hurts and I'm glad for that.

Sorry for the derailment, I was wondering why another Trek proponent had been banned...

Back to the main subject, how is it an improvement to have even bigger passages to your super-sensitive, easily destroyed main reactor, while the first one only had a small exaust port?

Praeothmin wrote:Sorry for the derailment, I was wondering why another Trek proponent had been banned...

Back to the main subject, how is it an improvement to have even bigger passages to your super-sensitive, easily destroyed main reactor, while the first one only had a small exaust port?

If the torpedos can't get to the something that will make the DS-II go boom it is an improvement. In ANH the exhaust port seemed to be a straight shaft leading directly to the reactor, but in ROTJ the shafts shown are all zip zagy, and it looks almost as if they planned to put a sort of chimney cap over the hole.

We see no sign that there are lots of tiny exhaust ports.

Or they planned to put something like this:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_V5XIbaAr_lE/R ... /sieve.jpg

Lucky wrote:

Praeothmin wrote:Sorry for the derailment, I was wondering why another Trek proponent had been banned...

Back to the main subject, how is it an improvement to have even bigger passages to your super-sensitive, easily destroyed main reactor, while the first one only had a small exaust port?

If the torpedos can't get to the something that will make the DS-II go boom it is an improvement. In ANH the exhaust port seemed to be a straight shaft leading directly to the reactor, but in ROTJ the shafts shown are all zip zagy, and it looks almost as if they planned to put a sort of chimney cap over the hole.

We see no sign that there are lots of tiny exhaust ports.

Here's the Rebel briefing diagram for comparison with whatever that other diagram is. Another view is provided here.

The main central North and South pole shafts are still there just as they were on the original Death Star as seen in the images here. The four zig-zag tributaries might be construction passages for the superstructure, and would eventually be sealed up once the work was completed.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:

Here's the Rebel briefing diagram for comparison with whatever that other diagram is. Another view is provided here.

The main central North and South pole shafts are still there just as they were on the original Death Star as seen in the images here. The four zig-zag tributaries might be construction passages for the superstructure, and would eventually be sealed up once the work was completed.
-Mike

Or they could be exhaust ports. Have you ever stopped to think about the problems there would be with having hundreds of thousands of millions of kilometers of duct that is only a couple millimeter wide. It would be a nightmare just to build let alone test and maintain.

It is just a simpler answer to make the ducts zig-zagy so torpedos will never reach the reactor, and put chimney caps on the surface. We actually see what could to what the chimney caps would be attached to around the hole we see the ships fly into.

Proton torpedoes, while not being exactly high-yield weapon (~1 kt) are still highly manouverable (scene when Luke fired them in DSI reactor shaft), so I think chimney cap is better explanation (althought from movie we know that proton torpedoes are not able to harm DSII reactor so it is not issue - but "explosive warheads" (at least per Croatian translation) being better than proton torpedoes? (It seems Lando was talking about armor penetration capability but Wedge was referring to size of reactor so...)

I'm also interested, how many times have you heard argument (presuming you were/are active members on SDN) that Death Star II trench is inside "super-trench"? I heard it several times while I was there.

Picard wrote:I'm also interested, how many times have you heard argument (presuming you were/are active members on SDN) that Death Star II trench is inside "super-trench"? I heard it several times while I was there.

That the equatorial trench with the docking bays was inside a super-trench, thus maintaining Saxton's silly 900 km scaling for the DS2? That crap was debunked years and years ago here and here. Simply speaking there is little to no evidence for it anywhere outside Saxton's speculative writings.
-Mike