The validity of Star Wars vs Star Trek in Five Minutes

[GStone]

The mines Jango was using blew up asteroids, as well as showing the clumps of dirt are moving slowly. The fastest ship we've ever seen in Wars moves at a couple hundred meters per second and that was the Falcon. Ben's ship couldn't go that fast and he was staying ahead of the moving clumps.

[Praeothmin]

mojo wrote:

Maybe I'm reading wrong here, but doesn't that still mean that a single mine that Jango Fett is cruising around the galaxy with in his trunk has the same destructive capacity as almost the entire payload of a Federation starship?

Don't forget that Jango's mine wasn't effective at 720 degrees, it's most destructive effect was in a planar effect, the visuals of which looked a lot like the So'Na subspace weapon used in Insurrection.
Starfleet doesn't use subspace weapons, but they know about them...
And for slow moving object's destruction, they can use Tricobalt devices, which pack just as much punch as Jango's mine, if nor more.
And I've always found Mr. Wong's scaling suspicious (for example, using a 40 meter long Falcon for asteroid scaling)...

[Enterprise E]

Another thing that should be noted is that in many of these debates, Star Wars fans will cite only the highest "realistic" yields for Wars, while citing the lowest for Trek, such as citing the E2: ICS and the Star Trek Tech Manual and the TNG episode "Pegasus" for their firepower claims for Star Wars and Star Trek repectively. However, the yields stated in the E2: ICS, in my opinion, are contradicted or put into serious question not only by by what is seen in the movies, but what is seen in other stories of the Star Wars Expanded Universe itself. And as for Trek, "Pegasus" (low end calcs for the episode) and the TNG Tech Manual show low ends for Trek firepower. I could also show you examples of gigaton and level phasers in the TNG episode "Masks" and gigaton and teraton level firepower in DS9's "The Die is Cast". Not only that, but gigaton to teraton level firepower is also implied in the DS9 episode "Broken Link". Now these are high end examples for Trek, where as the Tech Manual and "Pegasus" calcs done are low end. I think that any good debator could make a convincing argument on the surface that either Trek or Wars could curbstomp the other with little effort. My personal opinion is that ship to ship, the two sides are comparable since, oddly enough, the "realistic" low end, middle end, and high end, calcs are comparable from what I see. You, of course, may have a different opinion.

[Mike DiCenso]

mojo wrote:

Alright, but even if the rock is bigger than the guy stated, and wasn't hollow, and would only use up most of the torpedoes, isn't that still a massive, massive difference in firepower? Maybe I'm reading wrong here, but doesn't that still mean that a single mine that Jango Fett is cruising around the galaxy with in his trunk has the same destructive capacity as almost the entire payload of a Federation starship? It still reads as if old Jango could probably take on an entire fleet of Federation ships by himself and have a good shot at winning! And if a single bounty hunter's ship is that powerful in comparison to a Federation ship, how much more powerful must a fleet of Empire ships be than a fleet of Federation ships? It seems almost as if you're arguing for SW superiority.
Again, please don't take offense. I know virtually nothing except what I've seen on the screen.

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion, Mojo. A bigger Pegasus asteroid means a significant increase in the overall volume (remember you must cube the volume) and amount of material that the E-D torpedoes would have to "destroy", either by shattering them via rapid thermal expansion, or having that material melted and or vaporized.

That's hardly anything in favor of Star Wars here. Look at the asteroids shattered by the two whopping Slave-I mines (note just two, not 250 or whatever). They are vastly smaller, many, many orders of magnitude.

The other thing is to bear in mind here is that the Pegasus asteroid as not just a little bit bigger, it's much, much bigger. Let me give you a little simple math illustration:

5 km asteroid: R=2.5 km. Thus 2.5 cubed = 15.625 x pi (3.14) = 49.087 x 4 = 196/3 = 65 km^3.

Sixty-five cubic kilometers of rock.

Now apply that to a 10 km asteroid where R = 5 km: 5 cubed = 125 x pi = 392.699 x 4 = 1,570.796/3 = 523 km^3.

That's an increase by a factor of 8 over Wong's random 5 km number, and remember that most of the volume of the asteroid is occupied by solid rock, and is not hollow. See the difference? Remember that screencap showing the 1-km wide warbird near the asteroid? Recall that much of the asteroid was still off-screen? Now think of how much bigger the asteroid really is, and cube that volume again over the 10 km size, and you can see that the E-D's 250 torpedoes will soon be destroying each a volume of the asteroid vastly bigger than that of the the Slave-I asteroids. Not to mention, the E-D torpedoes will be releasing their energy omni-directionally, not in a flat plane, and so will require even more energy to do their job.

As if that wasn't enough, there clearly, as Who is like God arbour points out, is something unusual about the Pegasus asteroid with it's intense magnetic fluctuations, suggesting it is far bigger than a few tens of km, and possibly made of some unusually dense material, all of which would drive up the required destruction yields by orders of magnitude.

Oh and one last thing to consider. Do you think that a World War II-era PT boat is more powerful than a battleship or aircraft carrier simply because it can lay mines and shoot torpedoes that are potentially sufficient to damage and sink the larger aforementioned vessels? If you say "no", then you have your answer regarding the Slave-I versus a Galaxy class starship.
-Mike

[CrippledVulture]

It really all comes down to how wide a net you cast, and how selective you are after that. I don't want to turn this into an SDnet bashing fest, but it seems to me that those guys are very inconsistent. They found some figures for both sides that they liked and then ran with it and haven't looked back. They started with a conclusion and worked backward, disregarding anything that didn't support their thesis.

I, for one, started out on their side. Way back when my geeky middle school friend asked "the question." It's not that hard to evaluate all information you're exposed to and not just cover your ears when something contradictory comes your way.

I'm going to stop there. Propaganda, that's all the "5 minutes" page is.

Don't even get me started on his communism essay.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Maybe you should also see the TNG episode Booby Trap. At the end of the episode, we see the Enterprise destroy - at least - a huge part of an asteroid field.
The script describe the szene as follows:

• • FIRING a spread of torpedoes that explodes at the
    ancient vessel... and the entire area goes white with
    the explosive force obliterating the entire asteroid
    field.

The actual VFX shot isn't quite that impressive, really. Even if the seismic mine is actually not a very high energy weapon, it looks more impressive. And having a multi-kiloton (possibly multi-megaton) weapon directed into a plane is pretty whiz-bang.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Another thing that should be noted is that in many of these debates, Star Wars fans will cite only the highest "realistic" yields for Wars, while citing the lowest for Trek, such as citing the E2: ICS and the Star Trek Tech Manual and the TNG episode "Pegasus" for their firepower claims for Star Wars and Star Trek repectively. However, the yields stated in the E2: ICS, in my opinion, are contradicted or put into serious question not only by by what is seen in the movies, but what is seen in other stories of the Star Wars Expanded Universe itself. And as for Trek, "Pegasus" (low end calcs for the episode) and the TNG Tech Manual show low ends for Trek firepower. I could also show you examples of gigaton and level phasers in the TNG episode "Masks" and gigaton and teraton level firepower in DS9's "The Die is Cast". Not only that, but gigaton to teraton level firepower is also implied in the DS9 episode "Broken Link". Now these are high end examples for Trek, where as the Tech Manual and "Pegasus" calcs done are low end. I think that any good debator could make a convincing argument on the surface that either Trek or Wars could curbstomp the other with little effort. My personal opinion is that ship to ship, the two sides are comparable since, oddly enough, the "realistic" low end, middle end, and high end, calcs are comparable from what I see. You, of course, may have a different opinion.

I'd rather point out that Masks and The Die is Cast are two episodes which are extremely bogus when it comes to visuals, and as evidenced in this vs thread, rationalizing the visuals with science and logic is particularily brain tumour inducing.

[Who is like God arbour]

I'd rather point out that Masks and The Die is Cast are two episodes which are extremely bogus when it comes to visuals, and as evidenced in this vs thread, rationalizing the visuals with science and logic is particularily brain tumour inducing.

I don't think, that it is so bad.

The problem with the visuals is, that we don't exactly know, what has happened on the surface of the founder homeworld.

It's a while, that I have seen >>The Die is Cast<< but as far, as I can remember, there were no explosions to be seen, where the photon torpedos impacted.

The seen shock waves were always and only centered around a phaser/disruptor hit.


I can err here, but I think, I can remember, that at the time, I have seen the episode, I found that very peculiar.

If I remember correct, that would not mean, that the photon torpedos have caused even less visible explosions, but that they either aren't exploded yet or have intruded the planet mantle so deep, that their explosions couldn't be noticed on the surface, similar to the probes, which have destroyed in >>Pen Pals<< the dilithium matrix, which has created a piezoelectric effect that was tearing the planet apart.

I have, at that time, thought, that this would make sense, because when the photon torpedos detonate within the planet mantle, they would cause more damage, as if they would detonate on the surface.

I considered it even for possible, that the photon torpedos weren't supposed to explode at once, but that they were - for the time being - only placed in the mantle and that all torpedos should explode later in a certain sequence or all at once for a greater effect.

That would leave only the shock waves of the phaser/disruptors as - from orbit - visible effect of the attack.

But here could the same consideration apply. We know from >>Inheritance<<, that the phaser are able to drill tunnels in the mantle of a planet with high speed. What, if the phasers/disruptors weren't adjusted to cause maximum damage at the surface, but to discharge most of their destructive energy deep in the mantle or crust of the planet. What we have seen on the surface of the planet from orbit would have been merely side effects.

Such an approach would have the advantage, that the destructive energy is more efficient deployed to the planet. And than, it would be only naturally, that we wouldn't see huge explosions on the surface of the planet, because such explosions would only mean, that a not insignificant part of the destructive energy would be wasted.

If these considerations are plausible, the visuals wouldn't contradict the statement from Lovok, "that Computer analysis indicates that the planet's crust will be destroyed within one hour, and the mantle within five" [1]. What we have seen, would have been only the first step in the computer optimized destruction of the planet.

[mojo]

Thanks all very much. What I've realized over the course of the last couple of days is that my exposure to Star Trek (which is mainly having seen about 75% of the original series and MAYBE 25% of what came after that) is woefully insufficient for me to be taking part in this debate. I'm dling the entire TNG series as I type this, and once I've finished that I'll move on to everything else (except DS9, I can't stand that show). Once I've seen.. well, everything, I'll come back and reenter the conversation here. Thanks again, guys, for bringing my interest level up this high.

[Socar]

(except DS9, I can't stand that show).

Don't give up on it too quickly. I know a LOT of people who thought the first couple seasons of it were incredibly boring, but later went on to REALLY like the later seasons (especially once the Dominion War started).

[CrippledVulture]

DS9 is easily my favorite Star Trek series.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Thanks all very much. What I've realized over the course of the last couple of days is that my exposure to Star Trek (which is mainly having seen about 75% of the original series and MAYBE 25% of what came after that) is woefully insufficient for me to be taking part in this debate. I'm dling the entire TNG series as I type this, and once I've finished that I'll move on to everything else (except DS9, I can't stand that show). Once I've seen.. well, everything, I'll come back and reenter the conversation here. Thanks again, guys, for bringing my interest level up this high.

IMO, having seen that much is actually enough to participate in the debate. Welcome, and certainly feel free to come by whether or not you've finished your epic Trekathons between now and then.

[watchdog]

Just one point you may want to consider Who is like God arbour, the Founders world was probably 95% liquid. Some people sugested that was the cloud cover as well, who knows.
As for the five minute page, Mr. Wongs entire argument hinges on hyperdrive speed and superior weapons. His knowledge of tactics and strategy is extremely rudimentary at best. What does he plan on doing if the Hyperdrive does not prove to give the speed advantage he expects and his weapons are less effective than he think? He has a bad habit of only using the highest end figures that support his pre-conceived ideas only and ignoring all the figures that contradict him.
The Incredible Cross-sections book MW makes reference to is easily discredited by simply watching what the weapons actually do in all the movies, you’d be hard pressed to find even a single megaton in most of the movies, Lucas after all doesn’t care about this guys silly ideas on firepower. I mean 200 gt turbolasers? Come on, who’s he trying to kid. 100 gt is an extinction level event, his ideas are unsupported completely by the films and by nearly all of the EU, in fact many comics in the EU shows that a single shot from an ISD can barely devastate a single km of landmass. Compare this to a single shot seen in TDiC propagating a few thousand km.
Star Wars, like Star Trek, is filled with contradictory information and with the release of the prequels it simply got worse. Many things from the EU have been contradicted now, this has allowed MW to amplify his habit of ignoring inconvenient material that shows SW to be weak. He apparently feels justified because Curtis Saxon (who wrote the ICS book and has corresponded with MW many times in the past) pulled a bunch of questionable figures out of thin air allowing the warsies to say “oh it’s in an official cannon book so it’s undisputable”. I've heard that he supposedly claimed to have based it off visuals from the comic book because he had not seen the movie yet. This is not likely because there is no scene in the comic adaptation that supports his figures (I should know, I have all the comic adaptations). MW’s site is filled with this type of stuff (strong in the darkside is he), once the high ended calcs for the asteroid destruction scene in ESB was accepted, then all they had to do was constantly attach those figures to all instances of weapons fire throughout all of Star Wars always referring back to them as if they were the alpha and omega of wars firepower and no other figures existed to contradict it. Then they only had to cling doggedly to the lowest end calcs for Star Trek as if they were the high-end calcs to ‘prove’ that Star Wars easily overpowered Star Trek with no trouble.
I have tried to show in many of my debates on spacebattles.com (also under the name of Watchdog) and here that many of the advantages he tries to lay claim to are not really advantages at all (specifically the threat of fighters, sensors and hyperdrive limitations). My sergeant here on Ft, Huachuca after reading his page has pointed out that in the arena of tactics, MW hasn’t a clue. He quotes Sun Tzu repeatedly on his site but he shows that he knows next to nothing about tactics or warfare. He approaches tactics from an engineer’s standpoint, and that is why he fails tactically, he ignores Starfleets greatest strength its adaptability to focus on a few perceived weaknesses and assumes the Empire would easily overwhelm them with numbers when they couldn’t even overwhelm the rebels. He also ignores the Empires greatest weakness, its overconfidence and military incompetence, without which the rebels could not have constantly defeated the Imperials to focus on a few perceived strengths. The entire history of warfare is against him.


The arguments that he uses in the 5 min page are one-sided; He compares the Death Star's abilities to the 25 ship bombardment from The die is cast, A totally unfair comparison. The Death Star is way more powerful than even 30 ISD’s after all. The usual approach from people like MW is to ignore what really happens in TDiC in order to focus on semantics, Warsies like to focus on no ejecta or reduction of the size of the planet as if that alone was proof of something. The weapons were obviously fired and something did happen, they like to ignore or downplay the shockwaves that are seen propagating from each impact zone which easily cover several thousand km of the planets surface also forgetting that he constantly tries to point out how the weapons of trek work in a completely different way to the supposed direct energy transfer weapons of wars. On another note, after the first weapons bombardment and the shock waves that accompany it, the planet is not seen for the rest of the episode, also of note is the long forgotten fact that the Founders world was mostly liquid as I mentioned above.
He compares Jango Fetts weapons to the Enterprise to prove that Fett desroyed larger asteroids than the Enterprise could. What movie is he watching, there is no way that shockwave destroyed objects beyond 1 km.
Notice how he ignores the many instances throughout Trek where they destroyed asteroids of various sizes with just one shot (take a look at ST the motion picture for one) in order to focus on one single incident that makes them appear weak (coincidentally the Romulans in this same episode effortlessly melted closed the entrance to said asteroid, the Enterprise being INSIDE the asteroid at the time. Riker was thinking about destroying not just the asteroid, but the ship inside as well).
And as for his take on hyperdrive travel, I don’t dispute the speed of hyperdrive; I dispute the ease of use he claims. Everything points to longer travel times along rarely used or poorly maintained (as in updated navigation data) routes. And yeah it took Voyager seven years, but as the fighting would be localized in Fed space it only takes a couple of days to maybe a week or two to get from one place or the other. Not as impressive as hyperdrive but still effective enough IMO.

[Who is like God arbour]

Just one point you may want to consider Who is like God arbour, the Founders world was probably 95% liquid.

Says who?

[watchdog]

Just one point you may want to consider Who is like God arbour, the Founders world was probably 95% liquid.

Says who?

That's why I said it was probably, E1701 on spacebattles once suggested that it was cloud cover. I only ment it as another possibility to explaining the scene. The original Founders world did have a land mass that Kira wandered around when they first found them. After that we always saw a wide liquid vista with a very tiny island proruding up. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't , what could it hurt to consider it?