Starfleet Jedi

Horray!

Star Trek shields

There are three pretty good calculations on shield strength:

The first two are courtesy of Mike Wong, here:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... ield1.html

Mike Wong calculates the shield strength of the Enterprise to be about 30 megatons, but another calculation turns out only 0.5 megatons.

Another one, courtesy of Qeveron:

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... stcount=11

Based on a showing, the shield strength of the Enterprise turns out to be half a kiloton.

So we have three showings:

1. 30 megatons
2. 0.5 megatons
3. 0.5 kilotons

There's also the well known among this debate quote about using the entire torpedo payload to vaporize a 10 km hollow asteroid; even not taking the hollow part into account, that would be 3 megatons optimistically, which fits well with the double digit megaton shields.

Showing 2 could be handwaved as the Enterprise being weak to plasma, which could be disastrous given that turbolasers are implied to be plasma based weaponry. Showing 3 is hard to rationalize, but supposedly it's simply an outlier.

So 30 megatons, eh? Sounds about right. Calculations for quantum torpedos from this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHTtOMWRysg

Imply double digit megaton yields, so this is reasonable.






Star Wars shield strength




You guys aren't going to allow the ICS, so let's use another calculation, shall we?


The asteroid field in ESB. It's a "steady hail of asteroids" (ESB novel) impacting like "multi megaton compression bombs" (RODV). The second quote tells us a few things:

1. There exist multi megaton yield bombs in Star Wars
2. A star destroyer can casually tank them for an entire day

So based on ESB, we see an asteroid hitting a star destroyer about once every second; very reasonable, given the very high density of the asteroid field coupled with the high surface area of a star destroyer.

By multi megaton, we could say 5 megatons, a decent middle number.

The star destroyers probably were in the asteroid field for a day, as the bounty hunters were traveling across the galaxy to meet them. If you go by low hyperdrive speeds, this ironically boosts the number.

This calculates to about 450 gigatons. Note that this is a lower limit; with one exception, all of the star destroyers were fine after the asteroid field, so it's really >=450 gigatons.

Granted, this calculation does include some big assumptions, such as every asteroid being megaton range. So let's say that only every 10 seconds a megaton level asteroid hit. That makes it about 45 gigatons. Still in the gigaton range, eh?





Death Star novel.


After Alderaan was blown up, the sensors of the Death Star picked up pieces of the planet ranging up to mountain chunks hitting the shields. As we can tell from the footage of the event, the debris was being flung apart by over 5,000 km/s, the debris covering the diameter of the planet each second.

The Death Star was hit by a HUGE amount of debris, many of which were mountains; we can safely assume that the combined debris would add up to a significant portion of Alderaan's upper crust, but let's assume just 20 Everests, VERY low end.

We get about 60 petatons in a ridiculously low end calculation, and the Death Star's shielding was said to have been reduced to rudimentary levels to compensate for the superlaser! 20 mount everests is not nearly as massive as it may seem when you're talking about a moon sized battle station within relatively close range to a planet's mass being scattered.

So we have:

1. 45 - 450 gigatons
2. 60 petatons, which scales down to 'just' 60 gigatons if you scale it down to a star destroyer by power reactor size, but the Death Star's power output was only applying a rudimentary amount of power to the shields.


Note that the Star Trek feats are not lower limits, but clear and defined upper limits; being able to withstand X factor for Y amount of time. The Star Wars feats are lower limits because they involve ships withstanding X energy, but with no signs of significant strain in doing so, implying much higher upper limits.





30 megatons for Star Trek (upper limit) vs 45 - 450 gigatons for Star Wars (lower limit)

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Horray!

you need a moment alone to clean up your PC screen?

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Star Trek shields

There are three pretty good calculations on shield strength:

The first two are courtesy of Mike Wong, here:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... ield1.html

Mike Wong calculates the shield strength of the Enterprise to be about 30 megatons, but another calculation turns out only 0.5 megatons.

it's from Wong that automatically invalidates it

also it's bullshit seeing as about twenty Q torps can reduce a planet to cosmic ash and phasers can rip atmospheres off planets and they have the capability to destroy moons

Another one, courtesy of Qeveron:

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... stcount=11

Based on a showing, the shield strength of the Enterprise turns out to be half a kiloton.

So we have three showings:

1. 30 megatons
2. 0.5 megatons
3. 0.5 kilotons

sure let's go ahead and make a butthurt thread willfully ignoring consistent high end showings shall we

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:There's also the well known among this debate quote about using the entire torpedo payload to vaporize a 10 km hollow asteroid; even not taking the hollow part into account, that would be 3 megatons optimistically, which fits well with the double digit megaton shields.

said people ignore the ease with which riker ordered an entire moon to be blasted into pieces

StarWarsStarTrek wrote: Showing 2 could be handwaved as the Enterprise being weak to plasma, which could be disastrous given that turbolasers are implied to be plasma based weaponry. Showing 3 is hard to rationalize, but supposedly it's simply an outlier.

LOL this threads all about making yourself feel better


So 30 megatons, eh? Sounds about right. Calculations for quantum torpedos from this video:

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHTtOMWRysg

Imply double digit megaton yields, so this is reasonable.

BAHAHAHA a shock wave that spans hundreds of miles and is visible from orbit lol no




Star Wars shield strength

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:You guys aren't going to allow the ICS, so let's use another calculation, shall we?


The asteroid field in ESB. It's a "steady hail of asteroids" (ESB novel) impacting like "multi megaton compression bombs" (RODV). The second quote tells us a few things:

uh oh speculation alert!!!

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:1. There exist multi megaton yield bombs in Star Wars

never shown in the films

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:2. A star destroyer can casually tank them for an entire day

liar

StarWarsStarTrek wrote: So based on ESB, we see an asteroid hitting a star destroyer about once every second; very reasonable, given the very high density of the asteroid field coupled with the high surface area of a star destroyer.

complete and total lie they had to destroy them constantly and at least one ISD got raped

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:By multi megaton, we could say 5 megatons, a decent middle number.

based on an asspull on your part

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:The star destroyers probably were in the asteroid field for a day, as the bounty hunters were traveling across the galaxy to meet them. If you go by low hyperdrive speeds, this ironically boosts the number.

and likely suffered a great heap of casualties

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:This calculates to about 450 gigatons. Note that this is a lower limit; with one exception, all of the star destroyers were fine after the asteroid field, so it's really >=450 gigatons.

bullshit

StarWarsStarTrek wrote: Granted, this calculation does include some big assumptions, such as every asteroid being megaton range. So let's say that only every 10 seconds a megaton level asteroid hit. That makes it about 45 gigatons. Still in the gigaton range, eh?

it's invalid due to nonsense invalid sources of evidence and speculation

StarWarsStarTrek wrote: Death Star novel.

not canon

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:After Alderaan was blown up, the sensors of the Death Star picked up pieces of the planet ranging up to mountain chunks hitting the shields. As we can tell from the footage of the event, the debris was being flung apart by over 5,000 km/s, the debris covering the diameter of the planet each second.

never shown on screen in the film

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:The Death Star was hit by a HUGE amount of debris, many of which were mountains; we can safely assume that the combined debris would add up to a significant portion of Alderaan's upper crust, but let's assume just 20 Everests, VERY low end.

this has never been shown on screen so your using invalid evidence

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:We get about 60 petatons in a ridiculously low end calculation, and the Death Star's shielding was said to have been reduced to rudimentary levels to compensate for the superlaser! 20 mount everests is not nearly as massive as it may seem when you're talking about a moon sized battle station within relatively close range to a planet's mass being scattered.

again citing invalid evidence

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:So we have:

1. 45 - 450 gigatons
2. 60 petatons, which scales down to 'just' 60 gigatons if you scale it down to a star destroyer by power reactor size, but the Death Star's power output was only applying a rudimentary amount of power to the shields.

bullshit

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Note that the Star Trek feats are not lower limits, but clear and defined upper limits;

that's a complete lie

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:30 megatons for Star Trek (upper limit) vs 45 - 450 gigatons for Star Wars (lower limit)

using non canon bullshit siting a guy known for being massively biased and a guy from SB and a bunch of other crap

"it's from Mike Wong so that automatically invalidated it";

= you lose. This is one of the most disturbingly blunt ad hominem statements I have ever seen. Mike Wong also says that E = MC^2: but it is invalid because he said it. Math is factual by nature; the only room for bias is the figures used, but you need to prove bias on Mike's estimations.

I postulate that you do not understand any of his calculations, so you do not bother to examine them, instead literally saying the very model of an ad hominem statement. I am not exaggerating when I say that a website on logical fallacies could use it as an example of an ad hominem.

There are numerous portions of your rebuttal that literally just say "bullshit" as a response. No supporting evidence, nothing. If my claim is bullshit you have to prove it. If YOU find it obvious you still have to prove it or back it up.

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:"it's from Mike Wong so that automatically invalidated it";

= you lose.

congratulations you just committed another infraction

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:This is one of the most disturbingly blunt ad hominem statements I have ever seen. Mike Wong also says that E = MC^2: but it is invalid because he said it. Math is factual by nature; the only room for bias is the figures used, but you need to prove bias on Mike's estimations.

Math is factual by nature is an excellent way to mask the blatant biased near zealot-esque hatred he has of many things but most of all trek

no his calcs are invalid on the basis of his well documented and well known biased and the highly aggressive bully like tactics he was well known for implementing on those whom disagree with his site

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:I postulate that you do not understand any of his calculations, so you do not bother to examine them, instead literally saying the very model of an ad hominem statement. I am not exaggerating when I say that a website on logical fallacies could use it as an example of an ad hominem.

you're of course going to do that question my intelligence and resort to using those typical wongite fallacy claims to hide behind and what have you such tactic is typical of the vermin commonly known as a warsie fanatic but to clearify

your wrong of course I know more about vs debating and have more experience debunking the typical SDn jihadist argument then you can imagine and simply put am a veteran of a four year long board war endorsed by that man and have debated with pretty much every manner of maniac parroting his calcs and his theories and am frankly no longer amused byt that brand of lunacy and have nothing but contempt for the site its posters and of course people who think some bullshit cooked up on a fansite and the ability to parrot it actually equates with intelligence and scientific knowledge pro tip it does not..and your impressing no one with your psuedo intellectualist attitude

and yes on the basis that it came from Mike Wong I will reject any calculation of a fictional series presented...if it's from him if you have a problem with that cry elsewhere

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:There are numerous portions of your rebuttal that literally just say "bullshit" as a response. No supporting evidence, nothing. If my claim is bullshit you have to prove it. If YOU find it obvious you still have to prove it or back it up.

when you are obviously lying using non canon evidence and wanking it isn't my or any other posters duty to prove anything it's yours to back your BS up

Getting 450 GT based on TESB asteroid scene is pure BS.
While the book says "multi MT mines", the movies show us an entirely different scenario, SWST.
most of the asteroids we see are around the size of the MF, or smaller.
The slow speed they have (no more than a few km/s), their low mass (no more than a couple of tons) and the fact they explode when hitting each other means that most of them do not impact with anything near multi-MT...

The most massive asteroid we see hit, and destroy an ISD's bridge, hits at most with around 6 MT of Kinetic Energy:
If asteroid is 100m in diameter, volume = 523 600 m³ or 5.2360e+5
If Pure Iron, mass is = 7870 kg/m³ X 523 600 m³ = 4 120 732 000 kg
If going at 3.5km/s (very high end speed estimate), KE is = 25 239 483 500 000 000J or 6.03 MT.
That is, IF the Hoth asteroids did not have a tendency to explode on contact...

So the smaller asteroids hitting shields for an entire day would not even create KT impacts, so tanking them is nothing exceptional...

If SDN provides "good calculations" of anything, then I'm squirrell. Mathematically correct, maybe. Truthful? No. Just too much of bias.

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Mike Wong calculates the shield strength of the Enterprise to be about 30 megatons, but another calculation turns out only 0.5 megatons.

And his calculations are about as accurate as saying that hand grenade can create kiloton level explosion. It can, if it is using matter-antimatter mix. But it is NOT using that mix, so... calculations may be correct, but they are always at least as wrong as starting data. And we all know how "unbiased" Mike Wong is when determining starting values.

BTW:
http://picard578.hostoi.com/startrek-vs ... edoes.html

Try and explain "Skin of Evil" and "Rise" events. And mind you, this time you WON'T have advantage of low-quality low-resolution screencaps Darkstar was using on his "Rise" page - I took my screencaps from downloaded high-quality video of episode.

As for rest of your post, Admiral Breetai already said as much as there is to say about it.

Praeothmin wrote:Getting 450 GT based on TESB asteroid scene is pure BS.
While the book says "multi MT mines", the movies show us an entirely different scenario, SWST.

Where in the world are you getting that from, Praeo? The TESB novelization does not have a statement like that at all.
-Mike

Admiral Breetai wrote:

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:"it's from Mike Wong so that automatically invalidated it";

= you lose.

congratulations you just committed another infraction

And you are baiting him, or falling for his trolling. Knock it off, both of you.
-Mike

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:
Horray!

Star Trek shields

There are three pretty good calculations on shield strength:

The first two are courtesy of Mike Wong, here:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... ield1.html

Mike Wong calculates the shield strength of the Enterprise to be about 30 megatons, but another calculation turns out only 0.5 megatons.

Another one, courtesy of Qeveron:

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... stcount=11

Based on a showing, the shield strength of the Enterprise turns out to be half a kiloton.

So we have three showings:

1. 30 megatons
2. 0.5 megatons
3. 0.5 kilotons

There's also the well known among this debate quote about using the entire torpedo payload to vaporize a 10 km hollow asteroid; even not taking the hollow part into account, that would be 3 megatons optimistically, which fits well with the double digit megaton shields.

Showing 2 could be handwaved as the Enterprise being weak to plasma, which could be disastrous given that turbolasers are implied to be plasma based weaponry. Showing 3 is hard to rationalize, but supposedly it's simply an outlier.

So 30 megatons, eh? Sounds about right. Calculations for quantum torpedos from this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHTtOMWRysg

Imply double digit megaton yields, so this is reasonable.

Nice of you to cherrypick once again. "Skin of Evil" and "For the Uniform" both show quantum torpedoes are capable of making explosions hundreds of km wide as I would remind you that Nowhereman and others pointed all this out to you already and you have once again chosen to ignore and misrepresent. We're not talking double-digit megatons, but triple and quadruple digit. I believe Nowhereman's calcs placed "For the Uniform" at around 500-1,000 MT based on a 220 km diameter fireball. The E-D could tank at least four or more torpedoes, this would place shields well into the low gigaton range (2-4 gigatons).

Also once again you are horribly misrepresenting "The Pegasus" as it has long been pointed out to you in previous threads that not only was the asteroid 9 x 6.5 km, but the whole mostly hollow fallcy was debunked a long time ago as well, too. The volume of the asteroid was estimated around 448,920,500,228 cubic meters. The tunnel the E-D was in being several km deep and about 700 meters wide would be around a billion cubic meters, or less than one percent of the asteroid's total volume. Even five or six such fissures would not make an appreciable dent in the volume of rock.

Assumptions fallacies. You go with the 2-3 MT torpedo yeild based on... what? That the Pegasus asteroid was shattered, when as Picard properly points out, vaporization of the asteroid would be the desired outcome given what we know from "Rise", where we hear than a nickel-iron asteroid would be expected to be vaporized under normal circumstances. It would be the least to expect in "The Pegasus", especially since Riker's goal is to deny the trapped starship inside the asteroid to the Romulans and to Admiral Pressman. So total destruction is required here. Thus the energy per torpedo goes up by many orders of magnitude. The melt energy alone is 561.1 gigatons, or 2.24 gigatons per torpedo, assuming all 250 torpedoes are expended in the effort. However Riker clearly says that it would "take most of our photon torpedoes", not all of them. So 2.24 gigatons is very much a lower limit here. This is well in line with the yeilds obtained from "For the Uniform" and "Skin of Evil", and would place the E-D's shields around 7 gigatons.

As for the calculations you linked to. It was nice of you to not show the SBC calcs in their proper context. Going back through the one thread about the " Allegiance" pulsar incident, several people pointed out that the numbers were too low given the emission lines of the pulsar are shown sweeping over the E-D. This occurs in the episode at least every other second, which would dramatically raise up the shield strength by several orders of magnitude.

Also, the lower limits from "Allegiance" is at odds with later numbers, and is well below what Voyager tanks when it flies point-blank between two close pulsars in "Scientific Method".

But since you like linking to other people's work, I'll link to one of mine. TryGraham Kennedy's shield calcs on for size.

67,000 TJs as a minium for heavily damaged shields at 23 percent of auxilury power. At full power, the shields would be capable of 69.5 MT, or more than twice Wong's lower estimate.

See how that works?

Also Wong made some critical errors, failing to note that the E-D's hull was heated to 12,000 degrees C while approaching the star in "Descent, Part 2", while also ignoring in "Relics" how the E-D was actually directly exposed to abnormal matter expulsions and energetic solar flares. All of which change the outcome of any calcs.

StarWarsStarTrek wrote: Star Wars shield strength

You guys aren't going to allow the ICS, so let's use another calculation, shall we?


The asteroid field in ESB. It's a "steady hail of asteroids" (ESB novel) impacting like "multi megaton compression bombs" (RODV). The second quote tells us a few things:

1. There exist multi megaton yield bombs in Star Wars

2. A star destroyer can casually tank them for an entire day


So based on ESB, we see an asteroid hitting a star destroyer about once every second; very reasonable, given the very high density of the asteroid field coupled with the high surface area of a star destroyer.

By multi megaton, we could say 5 megatons, a decent middle number.

The star destroyers probably were in the asteroid field for a day, as the bounty hunters were traveling across the galaxy to meet them. If you go by low hyperdrive speeds, this ironically boosts the number.

This calculates to about 450 gigatons. Note that this is a lower limit; with one exception, all of the star destroyers were fine after the asteroid field, so it's really >=450 gigatons.

Granted, this calculation does include some big assumptions, such as every asteroid being megaton range. So let's say that only every 10 seconds a megaton level asteroid hit. That makes it about 45 gigatons. Still in the gigaton range, eh?

Where do you get these assumptions from? The steady rain of asteroids is not bourne out by the movie visuals which show ISDs only being occasionally impacted on by asteroids of any appreciable size. The one that kills the one ISD is only about 50 meters in size, and places the KE around kiloton range, not megaton as Praeothmin adequetely pointed out with over-generous calcs. So that's right out the window canoncially. The Story of Darth Vader can also be discounted due to General Grevious's Munificent-class flagship barely being able to withstand a low-velocity impact with a modest-sized asteroid in "Downfall of a Droid" [TCW1]. Given the lack of serious advancements in capital ship technologies between the Clone Wars and the Galactic Civil War eras, this says quite a bit about how much an ISD could handle KE-wise. It's clearly not a day's worth by any stretch of the imagination. Your assumption that the bounty hunters took a day to get to the Hoth system is not found on anything, anyway, just wishful thinking. What if Vader actually called on all the bounty hunters in the local area instead, and they arrived in just a few hours?

StarWarsStarTrek wrote: 30 megatons for Star Trek (upper limit) vs 45 - 450 gigatons for Star Wars (lower limit)

Which is all based on as per usual on cherrypicking and bad assumptions as well as a general lack of knowlege about Trek on your part. Try again.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:[
And you are baiting him, or falling for his trolling. Knock it off, both of you.
-Mike

oh come on the guy called me a liar in another thread then proceeded to a provide a quote that up and either proved me right or proved nothing at all maybe I'm falling for it but when the guy routinely torpedoes his own case to try and cheap shot another poster and doesn't notice it it's hard to damn near impossible not to bite back boss

But you do know how to report a violation, don't you Breetai? It's that simple. Don't cave in and report it, and also send a PM to Praeothmin and I so we can act accordingly. Otherwise you're just as bad as he is.

Anyway, 'nuff said.
-Mike

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:"it's from Mike Wong so that automatically invalidated it";

= you lose. This is one of the most disturbingly blunt ad hominem statements I have ever seen. Mike Wong also says that E = MC^2: but it is invalid because he said it. Math is factual by nature; the only room for bias is the figures used, but you need to prove bias on Mike's estimations.

I postulate that you do not understand any of his calculations, so you do not bother to examine them, instead literally saying the very model of an ad hominem statement. I am not exaggerating when I say that a website on logical fallacies could use it as an example of an ad hominem.

There are numerous portions of your rebuttal that literally just say "bullshit" as a response. No supporting evidence, nothing. If my claim is bullshit you have to prove it. If YOU find it obvious you still have to prove it or back it up.

Do you honestly need/want someone to explain what is wrong with the conclusions on this page/site aside from it being fanfiction?

StarWarsStarTrek wrote: Star Trek shields

There are three pretty good calculations on shield strength:

The first two are courtesy of Mike Wong, here:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tec ... ield1.html

Mike Wong calculates the shield strength of the Enterprise to be about 30 megatons, but another calculation turns out only 0.5 megatons.

Mike DiCenso wrote: Also Wong made some critical errors, failing to note that the E-D's hull was heated to 12,000 degrees C while approaching the star in "Descent, Part 2", while also ignoring in "Relics" how the E-D was actually directly exposed to abnormal matter expulsions and energetic solar flares. All of which change the outcome of any calcs.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Database/Query-ST.php?Series=&Category=&EpName=Descent+Part+2&Keywords=&Quotes=&Analysis=&Submit=Submit wrote: Realism: Taitt says the hull is at a ridiculously high 12,000°C (which should vapourize any substance), but we can see the hull and it isn't glowing with many times the intensity of the Sun (whose photosphere temperature is less than half that). It's not even red hot! It's possible to rationalize the temperature as a function of the shield's point of thermal equilibrium with the environment, but it's obvious this sort of thing didn't even occur to the writers. They just don't seem to care about making their figures meaningful, so that they just toss out impressive-sounding numbers without ever bothering to wonder if they make any sense.

You need to look at the "Canon Database": http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Database/

Not surprisingly I can't find an entry for Rise(Voyager) or Apocalypse Rising(DS-9).

Even still, what Wong is trying to dance around there is that the energy output from this star, along with it's color identify it as something bigger and more powerful than a G-type star like our own Sun. A metal or other material only starts to glow signficantly when it is reaching it's thermal refractivity limits. Given other facts, such as SIF fields that reinforce the hull, and you can see why it wouldn't be glowing much.

See Mr. Oraghan and I's discussion concerning the unusual nature of the "Descent" star and it's energy output in the "ST vs Eldar & Tau" thread. The star in question might be a K-type giant given it's color and temperature.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:Even still, what Wong is trying to dance around there is that the energy output from this star, along with it's color identify it as something bigger and more powerful than a G-type star like our own Sun. A metal or other material only starts to glow signficantly when it is reaching it's thermal refractivity limits. Given other facts, such as SIF fields that reinforce the hull, and you can see why it wouldn't be glowing much.

There is also the fact that the hulls of Galaxy class ships are Tritanium and Duranium so there is no reason to assume fictional metals will even weaken at a "low" temperature like 12,000 degrees C .

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the writers even realized the extremes they planed to put the ships through would be to much for normal materials.

Mike DiCenso wrote:See Mr. Oraghan and I's discussion concerning the unusual nature of the "Descent" star and it's energy output in the "ST vs Eldar & Tau" thread. The star in question might be a K-type giant given it's color and temperature.
-Mike

I posted in that thread.