Hi all, sorry for the delay but I had 3 exams last two days and really didn't have any time or will left for the debate.
Well there has been some lenghty posts repeating the same point multiple times so I will try to divide the discussion into several related subjects and won't quote every single paragraph. If I've left out some points feel free to point them out.
Is unit=clone?
Sonofccn and AnonymousRedShirtEnsign I provided you with the dictionary definition of the word unit. Using it in military context is immediatly available from option 11 of the definition. Under military definition platoon/squad etc are also viable options. To make a long story short if you wish to claim that unit in that context meant individual clones it is up to you to provide evidence.
Republic military prior to TPM
Here are excerpts from CANON TPM novelization:
page 19 wrote:Again, they nodded, interested now, caught up in the wonder of coming face-to-face with a real pilot-not just of Podracers, but of fighters and cruisers and mainline ships.
page 19 wrote:His gaze shifted to the boys again. "Flew a cruiser filled with Republic soldiers into Makem Te during it's rebellion. That was a scary business."
I think no more needs to be said. It is obvious that Republic had both an army and a fleet prior to the events in TPM.
Han Solo's expertise regarding the total firepower of Imperial ships
Mike DiCenso wrote:First off, please stop with the silly semantics. Who cares if at the time of ANH there were super star destroyers or not? Also the light displacement for an Iowa was 45,000 tons:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/bb-61.htm
Heavy displacement could reach nearly 60,000 tons. But that's neither here nor there as you know. The fact is that Han was not just facing the equivalent of the Coast Guard, but also full out large (from the Star Wars sandpoint) Imperial starships from their
navy. Another thing, while it is true that speed is important to Han, he has also been fired at, as was clearly demonstrated in ANH while breaking the Tatooine blockade. The shields on the Falcon were clearly able to withstand turbolaser fire, at least indirectly, if not full on. It strikes me as very peculiar that Han would not know by now about the firepower of ISD turbolasers, or at least have some idea of it from having been shot at so many times. That's all there is to it, and nothing you can do will change it.
That is not semantics Mike, it's called
mathemathics. Elementary school level mathemathics at that. I can't believe you try to pretend that ships displacement is suddenly irrelevant for determining their functions in their respective navies. Furthermore Coast Guard
is a part of the US navy. Your comparison of ISD with an Iowa class battleship has no basis and you know it.
Mike DiCenso wrote:If the Iowa opens fire on our hypothetical Floridian smuggler, what weapons will the Iowa use? If he gets fired at with the 16 inch guns, not only will he have observed that being fired, but the impact
nearby will certainly tell him something about the weapon's firepower. Unlike our Floridian, Han will have sensors (he can play the information back later, if he so chooses), or he can bribe an Imperial officer or whatever to supply him with information so that he can learn what defenses he needs to withstand the ISD's assault long enough to calculate and make the jump to light speed.
You used the silly Iowa analogy not me. Iowa obviously isn't suited to go around chasing smugglers
unlike a Star Destroyer. This coupled with ISDs diminutive size compared to other ship classes clearly demonstrates that it cannot possibly be the equivalent of Iowa class but more likely of a small Coast Guard ship.
Starbase 74 sized stations and their capabilites
Mike DiCenso wrote:Even if the SB 74's acceleration is smaller than that of the DS9, it will still need greater thrust to overcome inertia and apply enough acceleration to maintain it's orbit (which is far lower in
altitude than DS9's). The structure alone, even if it is somehow weaker (doubtful), or just merely the same strength as DS9 still represents a significant increase in materials and industry to build. That the SB-74 by default of the natural consequence of being so much more massive than DS9, will need structral integrity, and more thrusters (or larger ones) to compensate. Just making due with a handful of DS9 size thrusters will not be enough.
You still provided no evidence or calculations. What is the acceleration provided by those stationkeeping thrusters? Why do you claim that that it is doubtful that Starbase 74's structure is weaker than DS9? What is your evidence? Not to mention that you still haven't even tried to answer my points about Starbase 74 not havnig impulse or warp engines (unlike Death Star).
Mike DiCenso wrote:We have Spacedock (6 km), SB-74 (13-16km), SB-84 (13-16 km), SB-133 (13-16 km), Lya Station Alpha (13-16 km). That's five so far, excluding the four visually confirmed large stations at Utopia Planita, which also happens to include a Spacedock/SB-74 type station (as per TNG's "Booby Trap"). So really that six very large space stations, not including the four "dumbell" shaped stations seen at Utopia Planita in VOY's "Relativity".
13 to 16 km? Let me see if I can provide a quick scaling of the starbases:
Link
The door is about 107px wide in the middle while that upper spherical area is 545px wide.
Link
In this screenshot the upper circular area is 312px wide while the mushroom itself is 663px wide.
Assuming the Starbase 74 has the same proportions and that the door is 500m wide the station is 5,411 meters wide.
Link
The station here is 189px wide and 220px tall (not including the antenae). At 5,411 meters width the station is 6,300 meters tall. If we include the antenas the station is 287px tall or 8,216m tall. Nowhere near 13-16 km you claimed.
Mike DiCenso wrote:As for scaling the dumbell Utopia Planita stations, we went over their scalings numerous times on the former Strek-v-Swars forum. Alyeska did a scaling that indicated 16 km height, and I did scalings based on a GCS ins a dry dock off in the background near to, but in front of one of the stations that suggests no less than 3 km as a height.
Yes we have and I see you developed amnesia about how I already pointed out that Alyeska stated he was mistaken in his scaling.
But by all means provide your Galaxy scaling (which as you said yourself results in 3km result).
Mike DiCenso wrote:No one is talking strength here, though in principle, the SB-74 would probably be built up to be the stronger of the two. The ease is based on the fact, as I've already made clear, that DS9 was a retrofitted alien platform, which the crew had other difficulties with when the first came on board, yet once the Dominion threat became apparent, the station was outfitted without anyone mentioning a word of it, nor even their Klingon allies getting wind of such modifications. So either the Federation put a lot of effort into it that, or the retrofitting was relatively easy.
It wasn't an "alien" platform. Federation had contact with the Cardassian empire for decades and their technology base was almost identical. Fusion reactor, duranium hull etc. nothing that Federation would consider alien.
I also like how the fact the Klingons were unaware that Federation is rebuilding the DS9 means it's retrofit was easy while the Empire building the 160km wide Death Star in secret still means the Empire used up most of their industry.
In any case you are still completley ignoring the fact that Starbase 74 is 1000 times bigger.
Mike DiCenso wrote:Then cut it out! The two stations are not part of the same class as you put it, but DS9 does represent where the Federation took an alien space station, retrofitted it to do maintance work on starships, and carry some impressive firepower and shields. It is an indicator of what is possible, or should be possible.
Here you go with "alien" again as if they were dealing with Dyson Sphere builders instead of Cardassians. Let me repeat again: Cardassians had the same base technology as the Federation. Their main reactor which fed power to shields and phaser was a laser induced fusion reactor.
I'm not saying that there won't be compatibility problems but you cannot extrapolate those problems into claiming that they could therefore arm Starbase 74 to be proportionally stronger than DS9.
Mike DiCenso wrote:Right, but we have seen what constitutes defenses in Star Trek. That means shields, phasers, torpedoes, spacecraft, and more.
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Like I said the phrase "defense perimeters" can mean anything.
In conlcusion I would like to note that you don't seem to understand what you are required to do. This entire line of reasoning started because you claimed that SB74 could be used as starship building benchmark just like the Death Star. In order to do that you need to show that SB74 can be regarded as a starship just like Death Star is. You won't show that by claiming that Federation could build up SB74 until it's equally or several times stronger than DS9. It must be
hundreds of times stronger than DS9 have warp engines have impulse engines.
Death Stars
Mike DiCenso wrote:I think you misunderstand, Kane. The bulb is teeny-tiny fraction of the reactor chamber, which is the point, unlike the SB-74 core structure, which represents a fairly good sized fraction of that empty volume. It's still empty, wasted space. The volume of the reactor housing is added into a total, larger fraction, that makes the Death Stars less substantial than some are trying to portray it as.
No I understand perfectly. You are claiming that even though
completely empty reactor chamber still uses up merely 1/1000 of the volume while the mushroom chamber, including the cylinder, takes up a quarter of the volume the Death Star somehow has more wasted space.
That argument doesn't make any sense. If we downscaled DS2 to Voyager the reactor chamber would have a volume of 650m3 or 9x9x9m box. That's less than Voyager's shuttlebays.
Mike DiCenso wrote:You again misunderstand, I think. The massive structural beams do not in any way work in my favor. Think about it. They work against me, since that apparently is not a bunch of hollow tubing. That's good for you, in fact. What works the other way are the thousands apon thousands of hollow shafts, corridors, air shafts, trenches, the reactor housing, the Superlaser dish, and more that all together takes up substantial amounts of the interior volume of the station. Based on the superstructure pictures of the DS2, I'd say that those shafts make up a large proportion of the stations volume. I think you calculate that each one represents one 200 millionth of the total volume? But taken together, the represent a hollow space that is nearly as much as that.
I eagerly await evidence for "thousands apon thoousands" of shafts and corridors which
every ship has that supposedly significantly drop the mass of the Death Star. I calculated the volume of the structures that
we could see.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Kane, this has already been explained at great length. A Death Star does not necessarily equal its gross volume in ISDs in terms of cost - a better estimation is thousands or tens of thousands of times the cost.
Now you are making stuff up. Where do thousands of times lesser cost per unit of volume comes from? All of the examples you have showed show a same order of magnitude and that won't continue to rise because of the raw amount of material needed.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:You can easily "slight-of-hand" away as much as 10% through immediately citing any one of the following reasons:
That is nowhere near enough to explain away as much as 10% of military capacity but even if we accept that how does this translate into the ability to explain 20% or 40% or 60%?
Jedi Master Spock wrote:The simple explanation is that nobody would have noticed in the first place, because they had no means to compare.
Sure they would. Military producion during clone wars vd military production during the Empire.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Because their own state was pretty peaceful and then suddenly militarized. The frame of reference has shifted far too much.
As I have shown the Republic did have a military before the TPM.
Building in free-fall
Nonamer wrote:Even if you ignore every last one of those things, it'll still be way more expensive. I mean we're looking at the difference between >$100 billion and something like $7 billion.
And your whole statement has no evidence going for it anyways. The above claim did nothing but hurt it. I'm merely pointing out the weaknesses of your claims.
You really don't get it do you? All of the modules were assembled on the ground. Most of the cost is caused long before the station modules reach free-fall. But once they are there the construction becomes easier since they don't have to worry about any forces causing stress to the object. The price comes from the fact that space stations contain high-end technology and the fact you need to escape Earth's gravity to deliver the station parts.
In our discussion JediMasterSpock claimed that it is easier to build Death Star than ISD in open space because DS's microgravity will help. So you'll need to leave the planet either way.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Proper combination of size and density, Kane. You should be able to work out the math yourself as far as a few examples.
When you make a claim you are expceted to produce your own calculations to back them up not ask others to do your homework for you. Come on. Show me how you can have a geostationary object a fraction of planetary diameter above the surface while retaining a realistic planet.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Actually, we could build that fairly easily on the surface. The question of the structure holding together in gravity is another matter: The ISS isn't designed to.
It isn't designed because it didn't have to. It didn't have to have large load bearing areas since there is no gravity and therefore no stress. If they had to build it on Earth the entire structure would be far more expensive and difficult to build.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Pressure is only a problem if you have too much or not enough to the point of causing destruction.
Yes but they will have to calculate how much pressure is "too much" before starting the construction won't they? And then they'll have to modify their construction process accordingly. Therefore the building process would be more complicated not less.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Accidentally nudging something and then spending 30 mins carefully drifting it back into place. Explosive decompression. Hard rads. Having to hold things together instead of having them stay put. Micrometorites.
You can compensate for all of these technologically, but it's still a fuss.
And what happens if you accidentaly drop an object from 100 meter skycraper? You'd be lucky if you only destroy the object and not kill anyone. Accidents can happen anywhere. And as for explosive decompression and hard rads how does this help your case? It will be just as probable in Death Star microgravity environment as in builidng the ISD. Micrometeorits furthermore will be more likely to hit a much larger and more massive target like Death Star than an ISD so this actually disproves your point.
And as you admitted yourself technology like shields and tractorbeams will prevent any of those.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Do you have to worry about stress limits or load bearing? Yes, because the structure will undergo stresses when it moves, rotates, turns on artificial gravity, etc.
Don't try to confuse the issue. You were claiming that the buliding process itself will be harder for ISD than Death Star beacuse of "microgravity". Rotation, moving and turning on artifical gravity will all be done on both ships. How does this prove your claim?
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Actually, given the Jedi Council keeps things secret better and many Senators consult with the Council, I'd say the Jedi Council is more likely to know. Especially given the Senate showed no signs of learning until told by the Jedi Council.
What "signs of learning" is the senate supposed to show? Runnigna round in streets shouting about the army? I want evidence that senate didn't know.
Trade Federation fleet
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Off the top of my head, I can estimate that roughly 1,000 ships were visible in those shots. Of course, we already had a firm figure for the Dominion fleet earlier in the war (30,000), but it's nice to see visuals that actually match with those fleet totals.
The comparison to the TPM shots is particularly dramatic.
The Trade Federation fleet was there to blockade the planet while Dominion fleet closed ranks in order to concentrate firepower and present the largest target to the allied fleet.
Here is an excerpt from TPM novelization:
page 24 wrote:The small Republic space cruiser, its red color the symbol of ambassadorial neutrality, knifed through starry blackness toward the emerald bright planet of Naboo and the cluster of Trade Federation fleet ships that encircled it. The ships were huge, blocky fortresses, tubular in shape, split at one end and encircling an orb that sheltered the bridge, communications center, and hyperdrive. Armaments bristled from every port and bay, and Trade Federation fighters circled the big beasts like gnats.
As you can see the fleet encircled the planet and according to the screenhots the average distance between the ships was 10-20km. Even assuming that average distance was 100km and assuming that ships were about 1000km above the surface the total number of battleships would be over 21,000! And that is for a blockade of a far away small planet and the entire event was described as "trivial" by Qui-Gon Jinn.
That ships, by the way, had a volume of 700,000 ISDs or 7 million Galaxy class ships or over
billion Jem'Hadar fighters.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Very few TF battleships in ROTS.
That we saw on screen you mean? By the way TF battleship is some 100 times bigger than Venator class ship so there is nothing strange about them being outnumbered.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:A TF battleship being boarded by a Republic Attack Cruiser in ROTS.
And? Therefore?
Jedi Master Spock wrote:The Separatist fleet being driven off in ROTS.
And this means that individual Trade Federation ship is much weaker than Republic ship of equal size why exactly? You have heard the term "outnumbered" I assume.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:TF core ships - i.e., battleships minus their huge cargo banks - being completely maimed in AOTC.
By all means provide evidence that those horseshoes are only cargo banks and that Core ships had their shields on and that Republic cruisers would fare better in the same situation.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:And so on. The Trade Federation battleship is an enormous ship; if it could pull its weight in ship-to-ship battles, it would be the equal of an entire fleet of dozens of Republic cruisers.
You will, of course, provide evidence that TF battleship is not equal to an entire fleet of Republic cruisers?
Imperial fleet
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Incorrect. Read the novelization, it spends two pages on their curiousity and speculation. Not once did the possibility that it might be from a patrolling ship arise. Not once, even though there could have been one nearby and simply not yet registering on their scans.
I provided my own novel quotes I expect you to do the same. I really like how you pretend that the fact that no one thought it might be from a patrolling ship automatically constitutes proof. You do realize that people are not perfect don't you? That sometimes they simply won't think of a solution even if it's staring them in the face.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:It's very simple, and comes out particularly solidly in the EU: The Empire has a very thin presence.
No it's simple-minded. There is a difference. The Empire conists of million
member planets and most of the galaxy. Even with 100 million ships it would still be spread thin. The EU it also states that a criminal organization was hired to ship the raw material for DS2 into place. So much for DS2 occupying most of Imperial resources.
Tracking ships in hyperspace
Jedi Master Spock wrote:Simple. If you can't track a ship accurately, you can't track what system it goes to. Inability to track ships accurately is inability to effectively track ships.
Really? So accurately means "narrowing it down to a system"? Please be so kind as to elaborate on that reasoning.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:And sneaky enough to not be noticed. And enough to follow most of the freighters. And somehow capable of tracking throuh hyperspace without being tracked. Etc. Another practical impossibility
So it's practically impossible to build a ship that has stronger sensors and lesser sensor profile than a huge freighter transporting parts to DS2 construcution site eh? You are getting funnier by the minute.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:At that point, it's easier to try and install tracking devices. The incredibly difficult nature of this class of project means you wouldn't attempt to track all Imperial freight unless you already knew something was amiss - which presupposes that you already know there's a Death Star project going on. Let's face it - you don't casually notice that 50% of Imperial military freight winds up at a single destination.
Yes the tracking devices are another perfectly viable option. And why would anyone need to know where the DS2 is being constructed? You notice that 50% of the military cargo carried by the transporters isn't showing up anywhere, you send a few hundred people to try to track down the freighters which take off with a load but continually come back empty and their supposed destination haven't received any shipment.