Relation between Industrial Capacity and Volume

[Mr. Oragahn]

I wonder what kind of evidence would need to be produced. We saw how far the fleet extended on screen.

Does anyone read my posts? I already pointed out several times that ROTJ novel states that rebel fleet extends beyond human vision.

Yes, I know, but if the film disagrees with that, then the book's words don't count.
We have to check the film first.

If we see that there's no in between the smallest looking destroyers, which could still be several pixels wide, and simple and unique white dots, there are reasons to believe that the smallest looking packs of pixels are the most distant ships... and the rest... stars.

Otherwise, there would be a much more progressive reduction of the size of the ships on screen, with intermediate 3 or 2 pixels wide ships, up to the point where they look like one pixel only.

Well, you catch my drift.

Ultimately, not having a HD cap under my eyes, I can't tell if your position is correct or not.

EDIT: this thread is showing an impressive level of Smart, since no one has voted yet, considering how the issue has not been settled for the moment.

[Who is like God arbour]

I wonder what kind of evidence would need to be produced. We saw how far the fleet extended on screen.

Does anyone read my posts? I already pointed out several times that ROTJ novel states that rebel fleet extends beyond human vision.

See, you do it again.

You ignore my already given answer to your question:

We could see in chapter 30 of the movie the whole fleet of the Alliance, as they have jumped to hyperspeed. That allone would be enough to contradict your quote from the ROTJ novel. And we could see the battle at Endor out of the windows from the chamber of the Emperor.
Maybe you want to bother to provide evidence, that there were more ships, than commonly assumed?

How can it contradict the novel which says that more ships extend BEYOND HUMAN VISION? Therefore we COULDN'T see it all in the films.

Because, at this time, the fleet was in movement. You know, that if I stand at the locomotive of a train and can't see at the same moment the end of the train, I can regardless count the wagons, when the train is driving past me.
And, as we could see the fleet out of the window of the chamber of the Emperor, we could see, that the fleet hasn't extended beyound human vision, because we could see, that still in human vision, there were no further ships but the ships at the battle in the centre of the field of vision.

If the fleet would have extended beyound human vision, we would have seen ships all over the field of vision till they wouldn't be recognizable anymore.

If you don't agree with my answer, maybe you could write, why you disagree. Otherwise, there is little sense in continuing this debate.

That's why I have to request again, to the at least fourth time, that you don't only repeat an already adressed argument of yours, if you don't address the raised objections.

• • 

Maybe you can explain me, why I should assume, that there would be more Star Destroyers behind the farthest, in this picture yellow cirled, Star Destroyers. I think, I would have to be able, to see them as point, bigger than the stars in the background. Sure, it could be, that there are some ships, which are obscured by the window frame or the Executor - but not a whole fleet of thousands of ships. (Besides that, if you see the sequence, while the the Falcon changes its alignment to this fleet, you can see, what is now behind the frame.)

Or why I should assume, that there would be more Star Destroyers left and right of the fleet in the centre of the picture, when I can't see any more Star Destroyers.

What could have prevented the Alliance Fleet to jump to hyperspeed on a course left or right, above or under the Emperial Fleet? Admiral Ackbar was about to give the order to withdrawal. That's why I have to assume, that a withdrawal was possible. Only because Landos intervention, they stayed and have battled the Star Destroyers.



Sure, it is always possible, to invent a sophisticated story, why there would be substantially more ships, as we can see. But in such a story, you would have to give so much more informations, which aren't mentioned in the movies, but logically would have mentioned, if they were true, that you would virtually create a new story.

Why would have neither the movie nor the novel mentioned important facts, which would let appear the whole story in another light?

[Who is like God arbour]

To prevent further argumentations on the question, how we could know, how many ships the Alliance Fleet consisted of, when,

In a remote and midnight vacuum beyond the edge of the galaxy, the vast Rebel fleet stretched, from its vanguard to its rear echelon, past the range of human vision.

As a basic principle, space is empty and therfore, visibility range is unlimited.

But the farther away an object is, the smaller is its image on the retina of an potentially observer.

The retina has a certain resolution. An object, that is only far away enough, would be create an image on the retina, that is so small, that it is not perceivably anymore.

For our question, that would mean, that an observer can clearly see all ships of a fleet, that is stretched past the range of human vision, which are still near enough for an image on the retina.

Ships, that are further away, would appear smaller till they appear only as a not distinguishable point and only ships very far away, wouldn't be perceivable anymore.

The following picture is original from Star Trek 6 - The Return of the Jedi:

• • 

But it would have to look like the now following picture, which I have changed, if the fleet would extend past the range of human vision:

• • 
    [I know, it is not perfect, but it should be sufficient to make the point]

There are many ships between the ships in the foreground and the distance, in which the ships would be to far away, that they would still be distinguishable or even perceivable anymore. Even here, one can see the ship farthest away, and see, that the fleet is ending there because there aren't further ships.

But - as far as I know - we have never seen such a scene in the movie.

[Praeothmin]

Who is like God arbour wrote:

Star Trek 6 - The Return of the Jedi

Really?
I thought Star Trek VI was "The Undiscovered Country"... :)

[Kane Starkiller]

Yes, I know, but if the film disagrees with that, then the book's words don't count.
We have to check the film first.

If we see that there's no in between the smallest looking destroyers, which could still be several pixels wide, and simple and unique white dots, there are reasons to believe that the smallest looking packs of pixels are the most distant ships... and the rest... stars.

Otherwise, there would be a much more progressive reduction of the size of the ships on screen, with intermediate 3 or 2 pixels wide ships, up to the point where they look like one pixel only.

Well, you catch my drift.

And why should there be some kind of progressive reduction in size of the ships? We have no idea what was the formation of the ships apart from extending beyond human vision.

If you don't agree with my answer, maybe you could write, why you disagree. Otherwise, there is little sense in continuing this debate.

That's why I have to request again, to the at least fourth time, that you don't only repeat an already adressed argument of yours, if you don't address the raised objections.

You state something about fleet being in movement and you counting the "number of trains". Of course you don't answer what happens if there are 10 more trains in the distance BEYOND HUMAN VISION?
Honestly people. The novel states beyond human vision therefore it can't all be seen at once.
Then you claim that you can actually see that fleet doesn't extend beyond human vision? How exactly does that work since by definition you can't see something which extends beyond human vision?


The other point you keep repeating is that if we don't see fleet ships slowly getting smaller in the distance that MUST mean there are no more beyond human vision. What makes it impossible exactly that the distance between ships in the fleet is not constant? So that there is another group of ships 1000km distant.

Finally you don't understand the burden of proof.
You claim that Endor fleet DISPROVES the industrial capacity based on Death Star. You have to back that up with PROOF as to how many ships there are and PROOF that in the scenes you wish to use as shipcount no ships are beyond human vision as stated clearly in the novel.

You, of course, still haven't addressed Mon Mothma's statement. They were tracking the Imperial fleet and reported that THEY ARE SPREAD AROUND THE GALAXY.

[CrippledVulture]

It's sand people, not Imperials who ride single file to hide their numbers.

I kid. But honestly, I thought that on-screen evidence trumped the novelizations. We see some Star Destroyers on screen, but since the book makes a silly, hyperbolic statement we have to assume that there are thousands more? You're on rather shaky ground here.

Mon Mothma never said they were tracking the Imperial fleet. Her statement seems to be based upon the Empire's tactics in a general sense and the fact that they're not supposed to know where the Death Star is located. Not to mention the fact that if they had indeed been tracking the fleet, they would have noticed that the fleet went to Endor.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Unless I missed something, the ROTJ quote and the "goes beyond visual range" comment was about the rebel fleet.

[l33telboi]

I'm having trouble comprehending what just happened.

In a remote and midnight vacuum beyond the edge of the galaxy, the vast Rebel fleet stretched, from its vanguard to its rear echelon, past the range of human vision. Corellian battle ships, cruisers, destroyers, carriers, bombers, Sullustian cargo freighters,” Calamarian tankers, Alderaanian gunships, Kesselian blockade runners, Bestinian sky-hoppers, X-wing, Y-wing, and A-wing fighters, shuttles, transport vehicles, manowars. Every Rebel in the galaxy, soldier and civilian alike, waited tensely in these ships for instructions. They were led by the largest of the Rebel Star Cruisers, the Headquarters Frigate.

[Mike DiCenso]

Given the vast number of starfighters in the Rebel fleet's makeup, any literal fact that the fleet might stretch "past the range of human vision" is not terribly suprising, and really isn't necessarily an accurate way to account for medium and large sized capital ship numbers.

Also there's another factor to take into account for here; the generally larger size of the ISDs and the one SSD in the Imperial fleet possibly balance out any superior Rebel numbers with tonnage and volume.
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

'nyway, the rebel fleet was compressed between the DS and the imperial fleet at the time of the battle. Obviously, it can't stretch out far to overgenerous distances at that point, and thus ships we see then, are likely to be all the ships of the rebel fleet.

[CrippledVulture]

Has anyone ever tried to determine just how many ships are in the Rebel fleet? I did some quick watching today, and the shots are very inconsistent.

During the hyperspace shot you can see, at most, three of the the big Mon Calamari ships. Later, after the Death Star has destroyed two of them, you can clearly see three of them from the Executor's bridge.

I'm pretty sure I spied two of those "Nebulon-B" medical frigates in the hyperspace scene as well.

Fighters are much harder. In the hyperspace scene, there aren't very many at all, but the Rebels seem to have sufficient fighter support throughout the battle. Even though it's clear that any Rebel fighter is more than a match for your average TIE, it still doesn't seem like they would last long against the massive amount of TIEs we see (Not to mention, we have no evidence that the "Interceptor" model of TIE fighter is made of tinfoil like its predecessor). Of course, it is entirely possible that many remained docked on one of the larger ships until the battle commenced, the fighters that jumped being the advance group meant to attack the DS. After all, they did expect it to be an in and out sort of battle.

So here's how I see it:

1 Home One Mon Calamari Cruiser
4 Of the other kind with wings
2 Nebulon-B Frigates
12-15 Corellian Corvettes and Transports (!?)
and an indeterminate number of fighters

Just a quick eyeball estimate from the caps posted earlier indicates that they faced at least 21 Star Destroyers in addition to the Executor.

A little off-topic, sorry.

[Nonamer]

I must interject that as things get bigger, they get cheaper relative to mass. For instance, a semi-tractor trailer truck can weigh upwards of 140,000 - 150,000 lbs, including the trailer (though they're not allowed to be that heavy in many countries). A ballpark figure in terms of cost is about $100k for the whole truck and and trailer. A motorcycle weighs about 500 lbs, maybe 700-800 lbs including a bike trailer, and cost about $7k. By SDN's claims, the truck should cost about $1.225 million - $2.1 million. Of course this is way off. You don't need to scale every in a bike up to that of a lorry. Most of the mass of a truck is just bulk steel. The same applies for Star Destroyer's and the DS. The DS is going to have a lot more bulk mass over a SD and hence will cost a lot less per unit mass.

[Who is like God arbour]

Yes, I know, but if the film disagrees with that, then the book's words don't count.
We have to check the film first.

If we see that there's no in between the smallest looking destroyers, which could still be several pixels wide, and simple and unique white dots, there are reasons to believe that the smallest looking packs of pixels are the most distant ships... and the rest... stars.

Otherwise, there would be a much more progressive reduction of the size of the ships on screen, with intermediate 3 or 2 pixels wide ships, up to the point where they look like one pixel only.

Well, you catch my drift.

And why should there be some kind of progressive reduction in size of the ships? We have no idea what was the formation of the ships apart from extending beyond human vision.

If you don't agree with my answer, maybe you could write, why you disagree. Otherwise, there is little sense in continuing this debate.

That's why I have to request again, to the at least fourth time, that you don't only repeat an already adressed argument of yours, if you don't address the raised objections.

You state something about fleet being in movement and you counting the "number of trains". Of course you don't answer what happens if there are 10 more trains in the distance BEYOND HUMAN VISION?
Honestly people. The novel states beyond human vision therefore it can't all be seen at once.
Then you claim that you can actually see that fleet doesn't extend beyond human vision? How exactly does that work since by definition you can't see something which extends beyond human vision?


The other point you keep repeating is that if we don't see fleet ships slowly getting smaller in the distance that MUST mean there are no more beyond human vision. What makes it impossible exactly that the distance between ships in the fleet is not constant? So that there is another group of ships 1000km distant.

Finally you don't understand the burden of proof.
You claim that Endor fleet DISPROVES the industrial capacity based on Death Star. You have to back that up with PROOF as to how many ships there are and PROOF that in the scenes you wish to use as shipcount no ships are beyond human vision as stated clearly in the novel.

You, of course, still haven't addressed Mon Mothma's statement. They were tracking the Imperial fleet and reported that THEY ARE SPREAD AROUND THE GALAXY.

1. OK, as I have said several times, my English isn't the best. So correct me, if I'm wrong.
   But, as far as I understand the term "stretched", it means, that something with a great density in a small place is more or less evenly distributed over a greater place, which lessen the density of the stretched parts.
   But if holes or cracks are formed, this something isn't merely stretched anymore, but already teared apart.
   From this understanding of the term "stretched", I wouldn't say, that a fleet, that isn't evenly spread, but forming clusters with relativly huge distances between each other, is not stretched.
   Only the clusters could be stretched, if they are more or less evenly distributed - and only then, one could maybe say, that the fleet too, which consists of these clusters, is stretched. But than, not the individual ships of the fleet, but the clusters would be the frame of reference - and only, if there are so much clusters, that one could see a pattern in their formation.
2. This quote is describing the state of the fleet at one moment. There is nothing, which would imply, that the fleet has kept its formation after it has reached Endor and has engaged the Emperial Task Force in battle. It is especially to assume, that the Alliance Fleet would have closed its ranks for the latter. And than, there wouldn't be clusters anymore and the afore described effect would happen.
   But it hasn't happened, what means, that the fleet isn't so big, how some would like us to think.
3. I think, there is nothing more to say about this topic, if there aren't pertinent question coming anymore. If someone, after all what was said here, still want to believe, that the quote from the novel means, that the Alliance Fleet consists of thousands of ships, and that the quote can't be contraticted by the movie, because the novel says, that the ships can't be seen, so that it is self-evident, that the ships couldn't have been seen in the movie, there is probably nothing which could change this idée fixe.
4. Maybe the debate about the dimensions of the Emperial Fleet or the Alliance Fleet could be split in a new thread. I think, it barely deals with the question of the original thread.

[SailorSaturn13]

We have to go with surface, not volume. Ship 2 times (linear) bigger would need 4 times more time, not 8 times.