Construction of ships in both verses

[Roondar]

Actually Kane, everything we've ever seen about the pre-FC borg was uniformly grey. It's quite interesting to see that the Borg scenes in BBOW which hinted at Picard being assimilated where also in that grey-cube.

Note that Picards dream has the entire cube green. Also note that the bit you call a flasback is also green and filmed in an 'interesting' camera effect. Lending more credence to it being a dream.

And just in case you forgot, it's up to you to prove they are the same cube. I'm arguing Picard had a nightmare. Hence the cube we saw is merely a figment of his imagination, though based no doubt on his experience. I have provided evidence why they do not have to be the same cube, you have provided no evidence other than "it suits my argument" that they are.

So why don't you get of your high horse and provide evidence that the BBOW cube and the one in the dream are the same. You've provided nothing yet.

"Uniformly gray" based on what? Again we don't see the entire ship. Everything seen was spot on and I see no reason to doubt the appearance of the toroidal space the existence of which was later confirmed in Voyager episodes. All of this points along with independent other internal shots of Borg ships that they have large open spaces which was the point in the first place.

I'll take your continued lack of evidence it was not a dream as a concession.

I'll stop playing semantic games the day you do and not a second sooner.

Besides, you don't give evidence for some of your claims either. "Reasoning" that Starfleet uses starships or a never-seen-or-heard-of tender fleet to keep their starbases in orbit is not evidence. Nor required, we've seen stationkeeping thrusters used for station maintenance on similar constructions before, it is therefore just as reasonable to assume they just use stationkeeping thrusters.

There is no reason at all to prefer your reasoning over mine. Quite the contrary in fact, we have no evidence at all they have a tender fleet or that they use starships for stationkeeping. None at all.

We do have rival power using stationkeeping thrusters for a station though and a Starfleet crew who saw nothing odd about that idea. A Starfleet crew which make an effort to note every other difference between a 'proper' starfleet installation and DS9.

As I pointed out to JMS they don't need "tender fleets". Any starship with a tractor beam will do. We actually saw ships and tractor beams unlike the station keeping thrusters so yes I have more evidence than you. Finally I am simply adhering to the same level of evidence JMS asked when discussing Death Star's thrusters.

We've seen ships and tractor beams. We've never seen them use those tractor beams to move anything anywhere near as big or heavy as a starbase successfully. So you have zero evidence they have that ability.

We've also seen DS9 use it's tractor beam on ships trying to escape. The ships, despite being at full impulse, didn't manage to move themselves or the station. On one occasion, the crew of such a ship threatened to go to warp to break the beam. The DS9 crew came to the conclusion this would tear the ship to bits, but it was no danger to DS9 itself.

DS9 is a very, very small station compared to something like Starbase 74. If tractoring worked like you feel it should the starships in question would've been moving DS9 away quite easilly.

On the other hand, we have seen a station using thrusters to move. So there is non-zero evidence that fed-level tech stations can use thrusters for stationkeeping.

None of which changes that Starships which could push aside a Starbase in other ways would have to be able to bear the stresses involved on their hull instead. Now, I don't mind the idea of Starfleet having 'uber' ships but I don't really believe their hulls to be that strong.

None of which changes that I was not actually talking about accelaration capacity at all.

Next time you talk to me about basic physics perhaps you should remind yourself that pushing or pulling something that big using something whose contact area will be so small in comparison will give you rather big problems like the one where all the force is basically applied to only one point, which you should really have known about.

It's merely basic physics after all.

This is getting ridiculous. I showed you mathematically that even assuming moderate acceleration and energy levels for starships they could still move a starbase and you again continue with your unquantified, unsupported statements. I did my homework and provided the calculations. Now you do yours and provide your calculations otherwise there is no point in discussing this with you.

Indeed, this is getting ridiculous.

Your math is irrelevant to the point I made (not to mention your assumptions may or may not be true). Your math showed nothing more than acceleration requirements. Since we have in fact seen starships being limited in what they can and cannot tractor and said limits are occuring on objects significantly smaller than the biggest starbase I'm assuming you're finally getting the point I'm making here.

As one of multiple examples that exist, the E-D tried to tow an asteroid that was in the size range of the biggest starbase (in the episode Deja-Q) and failed to achieve more than a delta-v of 92 meters per second (which was named as 'insignificant' and not enough to put it back into orbit) while overextending the tractor emitters.

Note that Geordi was not worried about the engines failing or not having the ability (which goes nicely with my theory) but did state that the tractor beam was over it's thermal limit and could fail at any time. Data stated "the mass is too great". Which again shows that tractor beams have limits other than merely their ships thrust capacity.

The whole system was busy failing within a mere ten seconds or so. They had to turn the tractor beam off to prevent major problems.

They failed doing it at all by the way, only Q managed to help them in time.

--

Since you won't be happy until some figures are thrown about I'll oblige.

Now, we'll take the suggested 62,1 billion m3 (from st-v-sw.net, and implied by stardestroyer.net's similar scaling) for Starbase 74. We'll take a nice low mass figure (316 KG per m3 - the same as the empire state building and likely too low considering the materials involved - US Navy ships clock in at up to 500 KG/m3).

The starbase would have a mass of 1,96 * 10^13 KG. Let's start moving that at your suggested acceleration of 0.98 cm/s^2, or 0.0098 m/s^2

It would take 3163265 seconds (per a = v/t), or 36,6 days to reach the target speed of 31 km/s. It would require a total energy (per E = 1/2mv^2) of 9,42 * 10^21 J or the equivalent of roughly 2,24 TT of explosives to do so.

Naturally this is from a standstill. If we assume the orbit only needs to be changed by 1 km/sec we only need to impart 9,8 * 10^18 J. The equivalent of a mere 2,3 GT.

I've not gone to the bother of completely calculating the tensile strengths needed to keep the emitter in place instead of tearing it out of the ship, but at first glance they appear to be way beyond anything we've come up with so far.

Not that this is really relevant given that tractor beams actually fail to move objects regularly in the series, but there you go.

From Wikipedia:

A solar flare is a violent explosion in the Sun's atmosphere releasing up to a total energy of 6 × 10^25 Joules.

Or roughly 1,43 * 10^10 megatons.
A really small one (like say 1/10.000th of that) would still be 1,43*10^6th megatons of energy.

Your point?

Except these amount of energies are released from largest flares which are 100,000km wide. You'll notice that the one that hit the Borg ship was some 5km wide which would make it some 35Mt even assuming it was as energetic as those which it wasn't. It was moving at no more than a few km/s.

Of course, why didn't I think of this! Naturally the Borg ship will blow up with a mere 35MT of damage done to it (significantly less even, it was not even fully enveloped when it exploded and the ship was clearly smaller than the area affected by the flare). Let's see what is wrong with that picture.

Oh wait, there it is..

Low end figures for photon torpedoes (as I've heard them be cited) put them at some 5 MT each. So the E-D can destroy the borg ship with seven torpedoes. Since it can shoot some four-five of them at once, the E-D would utterly destroy the Borg ship in under two salvos and likely take down it's shields in the first blow.

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Roondar]

Hmm.. Speaking of the diagram...

Why didn't the DS go around the planet in the other direction anyway?

It's a shorter route than the one they took.

[Who is like God arbour]

I think Kane's point is that the diagram is correct about the position of the centers of each element. Scales are not meant to be super exact on such a schematic.

Neither is the positions of the center of the Death Star.

We see that display two times for round about two seconds and every time the Death Star makes a little jump to its new position.

• 
  • • • • Star Wars - Episode 4 - Time Index: 01:40:10 - 01:40:14
  
  • • • • Star Wars - Episode 4 - Time Index: 01:41:26 - 01:41:27

Either it makes indeed little high speed jumps or that display does not show the position of it in real time.

In both cases, it is not reliable to calculate anything from it because we don't know, how long it has stayed every time in its old position and how long it has stayed in its new position and where exactly it was ideed at the time, the jump was shown.

• 
  • The two jumps one after another - How much jumps were there between the first and second jump?

The Rebel display is only a rough depiction of the tactical situation. One can get a few informations from it. But it is no reliable enough to calculate anything from it.

[Who is like God arbour]

Roondar and Kane Starkiller:

1. In the episode Deja Q the Enterprise has moved a whole moon with its tractor beam, in the episode The Masterpiece Society it has moved a stellar core fragment. Compared to this, a ship should be able to move a space station.
2. Nevertheless, the notion, that a modern space stations is not equipped with thrusters to be able to correct its own position, seems to me ludicrous. It is possible but not believable.
3. There is one explicit example of a space station with thrusters while there is not one single example of a space station, that is hauled by a ship back to its position. Again, that does not show, that each space station is equipped with thrusters and that space stations aren't hauled back by ships to their positions. But it is not plausible and finds no support in canon or anywhere else.
4. Kane Starkiller: if you want to convince anyone of your notion, you should start to explain, why it would be more plausible.

[Mike DiCenso]

The moon in "Deja Q" is likely considerably larger in mass and dimensions than Starbase 74. In this image here from Trekcore (cut and past, please):

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/ ... jaq000.jpg

The visible portion of the moon in this image is some 2.2 x 2.9 km in comparison to the E-D, which is presenting a three-quarters profile. In the this image:

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/ ... jaq010.jpg

The E-D is in a near-full side view profile, and the longest section of this part of the asteroid is even bigger, some 4.11 km, and still we are not seeing all of it based on how much of a curvature the asteroid presents.

In this image:

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/ ... jaq145.jpg

The E-D is too far away for a meaningful direct size comparison, however it allows us see more of the moon, which indicates that it is large enough and dense enough to pull itself into a fairly sphereoid shape. Compare it to the previous image where the E-D is much closer and the curvature of it's surface appears much flatter than it does here, again indicating a very large sized body, possibly well in excess of the 100 km range.

As an amusing side note, I add this image of the moon around Bre'el IV:

http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/ ... jaq312.jpg

If we were to use some of the oppositions' logic to this display image, the Bre'el moon would be only 5.11 times smaller in diameter than the planet itself, or it would be more than 2,348 km wide! For comparison, Luna is some 3,480 km wide. The Bre'el moon would classify as a dwarf planet, if it were in it's own heliocentric orbit, since it is roughly the same diameter as Pluto (2,390 km). ;-)
-Mike

[Roondar]

You know, I did watch parts of the episode in question and eyeballed it to be smaller. Suppose taking things from memory sometimes don't work ;)

Anyhoo, the point is taken.

I conceed the E-D (and hence other ships) can move the starbase. It probably would have succeeded in moving the moon too if it had the time.

On a sidenote, I'd like to add a small appology here - I got kind of carried away in my earlier post.

Edit: I've removed my tractorbeam question and posted a seperate thread for it.

[Mike DiCenso]

It's considerably longer than any Federation starship, that much there is evidence of. Or do you dispute this? If so, instead more hand-waving, I suggest you prove otherwise. In fact, in the last image at the bottom here, the D'kyr is nearly 5 times longer than the NX-01 (not including the portion of the bow tip just out of frame at the top right corner), or approximately 1,060 meters! This would far and away make the ship not only longer, but more volumous than a Galaxy.

When did I dispute the lengths of ships? I am talking about volume or mass. If the D'Kyr is larger than Galaxy then prove it. The image you point to overestimates the front length of D'Kyr when compared to rear area. Look at the sixth image from the top (GVulcShips1.jpg) to see a more accurate ratio of ring length to font length. Even if the D'Kyr is bigger than Galaxy it doesn't change anything in comparison to the Empire.

All right, then. So what is the volume of D'Kyr? It's a roughly triangular one
as seen in the fourth image from DITL. Getting a width for the ship is tricky since the ship is often seen in docked images at a distorted angle. But we might be able to get a width by comparing the length to the width in the 4th image. It's distorted there, too, but not nearly as badly as in the docked image. I estimate a roughly 2-1 ratio between the width and length, or 530 meters wide. The ring itself is roughly 500 meters wide. The depth of the main hull would at maximum height would be roughly 148 meters.

This is a tough one since ship is not perfectly angular. Calculating the volume under a triangle can be done this way according the formula V=bh. It could be done as a pyramid, or a half-cone We could also calculate the aft section as a cylinder and the forward section as a triangle.

So I'll try it this way: the aft ring section is a cylinder of 530 (diameter with a r of 265)meter x 100 (h) meters. So applying the formula of V= pi*r^2*h we would get a whopping 22,061,834.40 cubic meters! Now obviously most of that is hollow and there is that little trapazoidal section sticking out to form a little stern section, and this also does not include the larger bow section. The interior hollow section containing the drive ring itself we'll say for the sake of being conservative is about 90% of the volume, so that would subtract some 19,855,650 m^3, which leaves us with just only 2,206,184 m^3 for the ring section alone, not including the drive ring structure itself. A GCS has 5,820,983 meters cubed total, most of that naturally in the saucer section. However measuring more closely, the inner hollow space has an actual diameter of 79% the outer ring.
Thus only 17,428,849 m^3 would be subtracted from the total volume, which in turn leaves us a ring volume of 4,632,985 m^3. So just that ring section contains nearly as much volume as a GCS, and we haven't even gotten to the inner drive ring, nor any other major structure on the D'kyr!

Now for the inner drive ring is approximately 78% the diameter of the outer ring, or 413 meters. Applying the same formula steps, the inner drive ring is much smaller; 13,422,420 m^3. Again 90% of that is 12,080,178 meters^3, which leaves us with just 1,323,342 m^3.

Now let's add that to the outer ring's volume, and we get 5,975,101 m^3. So there you have it, Kane. A D'kyr is larger than a GCS in internal, enclosed volume in just the two drive rings alone, never mind any other sections. If the per cubic meter mass is the same, it will naturally outmass the GCS as well.

Also, once again you missed the point of the D'kyr-GCS comparison. The point is that the Federatiion chose to go away from building big ships for a while and concentrated their efforts on smaller, higher-tech starships, and then began going back up to larger, but still high-tech starships. It is a major difference in design philosphy.

I gave both some speculation and some canon fact. The Fact is that the D'Kyr, Surak, and Sh'ran vulcan starships, have top, pushing the limit speeds from warp 6 to warp 7 as established in various episodes, and their anular warp drives do take up a very significant amount of space. On top of that, in "Future Tense" [ENT, Season 2], we see on Daniel's projector a class of Vulcan starship that T'Pol states has not yet been built that has three interlacing nacelle-like drive structures, indicating that Vulcan will be moving away from the anular warp drive concept.

Even if the accuracy of the SAMs was over-estimated, it still does not change what was known, or rather thought to be known at that time concerning their accuracy, nor did it change the point that it had a signficant impact on the XB-70 program.

And if the United States lost the ability to build super-sonic bombers, then you still have yet to explain the successful construction, deployment and maintance of the B-1 Lancer fleet of super-sonic heavy bombers, nor have you explained away the fact that the USA is seriously examining upping their capabilties to mach 2.2 with the B-1R program.

Simply put, you are trying to hinge your argument on a very specific
design of supersonic heavy bomber aircraft, and are trying to hand-wave any other type.

B-1R program is not materialized and it's not sure it ever will. Even so it doesn't come close to the Valkyrie.

Yeah, so what? That has nothing to do with the point that you keep whistling past; the U.S.A still has a large, super-sonic bomber. The exact performance aside, it was made to exist and is still maintained, and could be upgraded to a higher capability. You cannot get around that point.

It is not fiction, Kane. Only in your hand-waving away it is. The rather numerous discrepancies between them have been noted before, regardless of whether or not you take into account the difference in viewing angle

Linking to articles which make the same unfounded claim as you does not somehow prove your point. You are both claiming that there was absolutely positively no way Death Star navigator would choose to travel the longer path and thus Rebel diagram must be wrong. By all means prove that claim.

There you go again with hand-waving away. I and others have already done so quite handily here in this thread, even supplied screencaps after screencaps and described to you why you are wrong, and how the Imperial and Rebel diagrams do not agree on movement, or other things. You have to be the one to start ponying up here. So far you've failed miserably.

What you do mostly is handwave because do not address the issue, or you point to one example in the face of others to try and ignore the points and evidence presented.

In every single battle mentioned so far, especially Endgame, it is almost impossible operationally for those ships to be the same GCS, and given the varients mentioned, but not seen in among the 8 GCS at Endgame, it only clinches the case further.

But to sum it up and bring the point back to where it should be: there at the very minimum, eight GCS at the time of the Dominion War and adding in the three destroyed GCS previously mentioned, and we have a minimum number of 11 GCS built by the Federation since at least 2364 through at least 2171, and therefore it is a much more common vessel, more readily replaced than you would like. Whereas there were only 2 Death Star class battlestations built by the Empire over a 25 year period, with a gap of at least 5 years between the loss of the first one and the start of the second one, but the DS2 only being 60% structurely complete at the time it was destroyed, and only capable apparently of stationary orbit.

Yet again you accuse me of handwaving without even specifying what exactly am I supposedly handwaving. Your assumptions that it is "almost impossible operationally" for those ships to be the same? Pointing out those are assumptions and not facts is not handwaving. You (or JediMasterSpock) provided a list of 7 Galaxy class ships 3 of which were destroyed. We saw perhaps 8 ships in Endgame. That is say even 10 ships built somewhere from before 2364 to 2377. In comparison Empire built one Death Star and half completed the second in 25 years.

Because hand waving is what you are doing, Kane. It's not just been in this thread, though you've found a new pretext for it. Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is the most likely. Simply speaking, it's unlikely that all of the Federation's GCS could or would be there at that location for refits and repairs when they could be deployed elsewhere, and still get the necessary refits and repairs at other shipyards and starbases. The E-D, for example, did not go back to Utopia Planita for her repairs and computer upgrade and overhaul, she went instead to Starbase 74 (see "TNG's "11001001"). The only time the E-D got repaired and refitted in the Terran solar system in "Family" is because they happened to be there post-Borg invasion. In other words, it made better operational sense.

You, on the other hand, have to show why it would make good sense to bring every single GCS built back to Utopia Planita for repairs and upgrades when they could go to other shipyards in the Federation.

Therefore we have to go with the simplest and best explanation; there were some 8 GCS in that area, and there are likely other GCS elsewhere.

As for the point, the numbers of the ships are what is important. THe Federation did not struggle mightily to produce one Galaxy starship, and barely build part of a second before both were destroyed and on top of that they did not wait 5 years or so between the first and the second one. The GCS, like it or not, is a much more common vessel for the Federation to make than the DS class battlestations are for the Empire. It's a simple enough point.

I am, in fact, doing so. Mostly because it isn't just my observation, but other people's as well. This has been gone over with you why they are not shadows. You are the one that has to show that dark coloration is shadow, not some unique feature, like extra armor or some other material that may result in difference.

No conclusive evidence has been presented that this is something other than a shadow. A single scene featuring a darker surface on two ships is nothing conclusive.

Very conclusive evidence has been provided by Cocytus in a detailed analysis of the Miranda shadows and the light sources in that scene.

Are the GCS seen leadning groups of other types of starships around, or aren't they? If they are, then you know what I mean. Like a carrier task force, which obviously is not a fleet of lone aircraft carriers, but a single carrier with several vessels for defense and logistical support. That could be the case with each Galaxy wing, and yet we see GCS operating either in pairs or by themselves in SoA, indicating they are a seperate kind of formation.

The entire fleet is traveling at close range and it is impossible to say what ships are part of which formations or sub fleets. The fact two Galaxies concentrated their fire on the same target does not mean they are parts of the same wing.

Like the way two 20th century battleships might, as part of a squadron formation, concentrate their fire on a single target? And those two are not the only two we see together like that, either.

I've tried several time with a couple different GCS models to try and simulate that kind of shadowing effect, and it doesn't work out.

So what? Your inability to replicate the scene proves nothing.

If I cannot under controlled conditions (read: scientific method) replicate the shadows, then how else can I verify your assertion that what we are seeing are shadows, not a variation in hull coloration because of some particular modification unique to those two GCS?

Please, by all means, show us, by replicating those shadows, that that is the case wtih those two GCS.

And how do you know that the are 500 meter cubes, and maybe not 3.5 or 5 km wide cubes? Or even 1.8 km or 2 km cubes, for that matter. Given the disparate scalings just for the same cube ship seen in "Q Who?" and BoBW, I'am going with the only available concrete size mentioned in dialog from "Dark Frontier".

As I already demonstrated existence of cubes larger than 3km has never been reliably demonstrated. Secondly since you are trying to prove that Unicomplex is larger than Death Star and you don't know which variant the cubes seen were then you need to show that even using smallest variant the Unicomplex is still larger. Otherwise you have no case.

"Thousands of structures", which are larger than Borg cubes. The borg cube closest to the tower-like structure here (cut and past, please):

http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/ ... er_342.jpg

...is approximately 4.1 times smaller in height than the tower. So the tower is some 2 km tall, if we go by your assertion that we use the absolutely smallest known Borg cube size (ridiculous given the obvious FX errors there for the same cube!). For an upper known limit, the tower would be 12.33 km tall, if we go with the 3 km cube size. Regardless, this would all be a potential lower limit since we don't know what the actual distance between the central closest cube is and the tower structure. The tower, unfortunately is made up of very complex shapes. However it is roughly cylinderica (though we should be careful here as there are trapazoidal and retangular structures in there)l, and it's width appears to be the same as the cube's. So a ball park figure, then of 392,699,081 meters cubed for a minimum. For comparison, a 3 km Borg cube is some 27,000,000,000 m^3. Or the tower is 68.75 times smaller in volume. So it would take 1,512,608 of these towers to equal one Death Star.

On the other hand, if the cube there is 3 km, the tower would roughly have 86,943,756,688 m^3. That's nearly 87 billion cubic meters, or 3.22 times a 3 km cube's volume! So it would take then 10,399 towers then to equal the first Death Star. Like with the D'kyr, I'am not including any other structures here, but the higher end puts the Unicomplex at a signifcant percentage of the DS1's size.

If there was such a disparity in firepower, especially given the huge numbers of D'Deridex ships fielded by the Star Empire, they'd have been able to run roughshod right over the Federation or the Klingons. In "The Defector", the Romulans used two warbirds to face off against what they thought was the lone E-D, and they certainly did not stick around after the large Klingon BoPs decloaked indicating that their firepower, if it is superior to a GCS, is not so signficantly greater. We also saw in the Dominion war D'Deridex take far greater damage than did their GCS counterparts.

As for volume, a D'Deridex has more than 26 million cubic meters of internal volume, even with the large empty space between the "wing" sections, where a GCS has a little over 5.8 million cubic meters.

Just because Romulan commander didn't want to push his luck after the Klingons decloaked doesn't mean that those two warbirds were actually outgunned. Secondly could you quantify these "huge numbers" of D'Deridex ships?

Finally there is no way D'Deridex, a roughly 1000m long ship, is 26 million cubic meters in volume seeing how most of it is empty space.

Tomalak did not push his luck because he knew it would likely result in his death, if he did fire on the E-D. That means he does not have a signficant edge in firepower there. Furthermore, if the D'Deridex had vastly greater firepower than a GCS, he would not have had the need to show up with second one to ensure the E-D's being defeated or outright destroyed. A single warbird should be more than enough.

26 million cubic meters is the volume of a warbird once you've subtracted out the large hollow space. Otherwise you would have a 46 to 47 million cubic meter D'Deridex.

Because there is no other way for the light from the initial start of the explosion to reach the back of the dome base and be reflected around, and we do not see an reflected glow from Archer and Daniel's position until the explosion has reached it's maximum luminosity peak at the end.

The light could've easily reflected off the underside of the saucer to the left and back of the dome.

It could? Please, by all means prove this.

We have seen operationally two or more GCS in formation together in SoA and before that in "Favor the Bold" for it to be merely only a carrier task force like arrangement. At any rate, just two fleet's elements brought up to eight GCS to the Operation Return battle. If the other 4 known fleets have a GCS or two in then then we're still looking at between 4 and 8 additional GCS, or 14-16 GCS total.

Yes assuming that other fleets have similar number of Galaxies this brings them to 14-16 Galaxies. But that is an assumption isn't it? Not to mention that even 20 Galaxies over 15 years do not amount to large production capacity.

Every time we have seen GCS in fleet formations, they have number no less than 4-5 ships. It is an assumption to say that there are less than 2-3 GCS per fleet, really. We also have to add into the equation that there are more than 20 GCS given that the Federation has also build large numbers of the 4,443,196 m^3 Nebula class, which is nearly the same size volume-wise as the GCS, and has many components in common with the GCS.
-Mike

[Cocytus]

We should also wonder what exactly is meant by Galaxy wings 9-1 and 9-3. The Ninth Fleet didn't arrive in time to participate in Operation Return, at least not all of it. But Galaxies are among the fastest vessels in Starfleet, so perhaps elements of the Ninth Fleet did arrive on time. Would that make these wings 1 and 3 of the Ninth fleet? Assuming the 8 ships we see on screen represent all of those two wings, that's four Galaxies per wing. Is there also a Galaxy wing 9-2? 9-4, 9-5, so on? Does each fleet have its own Galaxy wings? 8-1, 8-3, 7-1, 7-3, and so on down the line? The numbers get pretty large pretty fast. Even if there are only three wings of four ships each, (9-1, 9-2 and 9-3) then the Ninth fleet alone has 12 Galaxies. If there are similar numbers of Galaxies in each of the ten known fleets, that around 120 Galaxy class ships. And what if there are more than ten fleets? To quote Kane Starkiller, "there could be."

[Mike DiCenso]

Interestingly enough, in SoA, they also refer to "Cruiser" and "Destroyer" wings as well, too. So this leads me to believe that the term "Galaxy wing" refers to seperate squadrons of GCS, not a single GCS the lead ship surrounded by other craft ala a carrier task force.
-Mike

[Jedi Master Spock]

Yes to bounce of the planet in small corrective movements over decades.

For which thrusters are ideal. As seen on DS9.

No one stated anything being wrong with it and it would come up when O'Brien was giving reasons not to do it.

Actually, he did say that if the field wasn't perfectly balanced, it would rip the station apart, and the catalog of complaints about the station is not necessarily complete.

Death Star acceleration figures are proven by the Rebel diagram whether you wish to accept it or not. DS9's upper limit of acceleration is two times that Death Star's demonstrated acceleration. In reality DS9's acceleration is likely two orders of magnitude lower and still nearly caused the destruction of the station. Accelerating inside the gravity field is more not less difficult.

Being inside the gravity field changes nothing for the better. As I've pointed out, it does allow for a different form of drive to be brought into play.

Yes, I do.

No you don't.

Yes, I do.

Wrong. If you see F-22 standing still on the ground five times and see it move at 800km/h the sixth time that would not mean 800km/h is an upper range estimate. It would be a lower limit: we know that F-22 can move at least at 800km/h. How much faster we don't know.

If we see a tank grinding along at 20 mph while in a fight, and then a different (but somewhat similar) tank, five years later, halfway complete, with no armor plates on it, goes 40 mph, we have no reason to conclude the first tank necessarily can go 40 mph.

It's a possibility worth considering, of course.

The breaking is already finished by that time.

Really? They're still approaching at speed. Try again.

Exactly therefore you would not be moving straight towards the target but maneuvering around.

Actually, you would be going as fast as possible, giving each emplacement practically no chance of hitting you in the small time window it has.

I didn't say there is. I was refuting your claim that the movie scene refutes accelerations given in the EU. It doesn't since theoretically the time elapsed could be as low as few seconds.

You were attempting (and failing) to refute the time. We cannot reasonably conclude that much time passed in between the Rebels reaching the Death Star, and the comment inside the Death Star that the Death Star is seven minutes from firing position and Rebel fighters are attacking.

No particular purpose that you can make out. But just because you can't discern it's function based on a few minute observation in the films does not in any way mean that "null" hypothesis is that it actually serves no purpose at all.

Actually, that's the most reasonable one, rather than assuming it has something to do with detention blocks (definitely not), shuttlebays (definitely not), or tractor beams (highly unlikely).

I saw nothing which has shown this too was a dream. Not to mention you ignored other scenes like the large open space Janeway was beamed on in "Scorpion" or large open space seen in "Q Who" both of which dwarf the shaft over which Luke swung.

And you ignore the implicit overall density given - which is what we were looking for in the first place.

Which features must be irregular. Intuition is not evidence.

The circles and grids used to ballpark the scaling.

Interesting how you claim the ship in "I, Borg" is 10m wide or so yet somehow can be assumed to have similar features to 500m-3km Borg cubes and 500m wide spheres. In any case since you provided no evidence for the size of the ship you have no basis in claiming any kind of density.

Similar bulk density, not similar features. Which is again the most reasonable assumption to make, lacking other evidence; ships constructed in generally similar fashion usually have similar bulk density.

No you haven't. The time update coincides with location update thus there are no errors. Perhaps a second or so while the announcer reads out the full update. Certainly not two and a half minutes.

Certainly two and a half minutes. That reading could be from any point in that time.

Your vague claims about your mathematical care are useless. Provide the calculations.

Your vague claims to accuracy do not impress me. My experience with having adjusting scalings for perspective, and measuring the error in perspective from known shots, indicates that I should guess your perspective error to be roughly 10%.

Imperial diagram shows only one component of Death Star's speed as I pointed out but which you studiously ignore.

A component which quite directly conflicts with your claims.

Pixel counts are closer to 100. 78px for the initial 15-5min change of position and 210px for the 5-0min. Not enough to change the results significantly.

Not significant compared to the delta-t errors, no, but still >3% in your best case scenario for acceleration figures.

And those would be....?

I listed some examples earlier. Pick one if you like.

Fat sucker is not an SI unit of measurement last I checked.

It is an accurate description. I also gave you a weight ballpark.

Yet it withstood the explosion of Alderaan and the DS novel explicitly states that thousands of fragments from size of pebbles to mountains impacted it's shields. Besides you still haven't quantified how fast through the atmosphere it would go. Speed matters you realize?

Thousands of fragments. Not millions, not billions, not trillions, and the Death Star's shields would have to shift quite a mass of atmosphere around.

Speed does matter. I haven't said otherwise.

It also makes their engines even more feeble.

Not really. Under normal circumstances, warp fields will be on while impulse is running.

Yes there is. It accelerated at 262g therefore it can move between planets.

It accelerated at no more than 10g, most likely using a drive that only functions inside of a planetary gravity well.

Which means no, it probably can't really do interplanetary.

They mention craft which possess repulsorflits but can also move laterally. In no way does this mean they use repulsorlits to do so. Why would then Luke's "car" have three jet-engine like objects on the back. Why is the car completely silent when parked even though it still floats but proudecs a familiar jet engine like whine when moving. The same for Anakin's bike.

The same for Watto and Jabba's ... wait, never mind, those don't, nor do most of the vehicles and droids with repulsors.

But you cannot use it to prove anything. You cannot say "DS9 accelerated at 500g or 60 times faster than Death Star" since you have no idea whether that is true.

I said "up to" ~60 times faster.

I have both sources with me.

And yet only described one.

But it was not slowed down noticeably was it?

Actually, it did slow noticeably, Eventually it stopped.

Therefore the terrain (and the ship) exchanged momentum was on the order of ten meters per second times it's mass regardless of how powerful you think the impact looked.

The energy exchange is what we're concerned with.

Why? You do realize that a crash is not a controlled event right?

Precisely. We have a large sample of the sort of crashes spacecraft get into while studying a system. Most happen as a deviation from some ordinary orbit, which puts the velocity in a certain ballpark.

Again, there's no evidence the Borg ship blew up before crashing. (In fact, in that case, they wouldn't refer to the ship as having crashed after a full investigation... they would refer to "some debris landing on the planet as the result of an explosion.")

Really? And you know this how? Reading the crew's mind?

Through simple understanding of the English language and its normal treatments.

They were supposed to be flying at 80,000kph in a formation relative to an unknown point of reference. But they weren't doing what they were supposed to, the were lying.
Am I getting through to you? Nowhere is it stated or implied that Kolvoord maneuver involved relative speeds of 80,000kph.

Am I getting through to you? They're flying maneuvers at 80,000 kph relative to the airshow (spaceshow) audiences, which involve turns (from that audience's perspective) including such which a tight circling maneuver can pass.

As the craft are fully functional, this is a stronger piece of evidence than your Voyager example, which involves a partial failure of the drive system.

Yes I confused work with energy

Work is energy. That's not what you were confusing them with.

but this still doesn't change the fact that you need to brace the object exerting force. You keep evading this issue and vaguely point to "zero net" force without explaining how. Again if two people pull on a rope and neither is brace then they will simply pull each other in. Explain how the inertial dampers are supposed to do their jobs without being braced. And I mean with calculations and quantifications not vague declarations.

If you have two equal forces in opposite directions, the net force is zero.

I gave you numbers. You didn't seem to understand them, and there's no point in using more numbers to explain things to you until you grasp the issue.

Relative to the frame of reference of the ship, each particle is experiencing the same total net force of zero. The forces pushing it in one direction are balanced by the forces pushing in another direction, relative to the ship, which means the whole ship accelerates uniformly - just like it would while free-falling - reducing the strain on the structure.

And you completely evaded my question

You evaded my attempt at teaching you.

so I will ask it again:
If two guys are pulling on a rope the net force is zero for which you state objects need not be braced. But if one is put on ice then suddenly he will be dragged easily. Will you now finally carefully explain how inertial dampers can do their work without being properly braced or will you continue to evade?

If one is put on ice, the net force on him is no longer zero, and so he accelerates.

The important thing, since our "pullers" are immaterial fields, is the rope - which goes nowhere, and since it is the nucleus of an atom, more or less not subject to being stretched or compressed.

Yes yes yes you stated this many times. What I am asking you to explain how and which you are constantly evading.

How? See, I can only explain how the application of a selectively generated g like field, variable with location, can produce such results. I cannot explain the mechanics of actually generating such a field; the generation of artificial gravity or gravity-like fields is well beyond modern technology.

Provide the quantification of forces for the example I have given.

I did. You proceeded to misunderstand them, so we need to insure you understand the basic physics going on before you can understand the figures I give you.

[Mike DiCenso]

No one stated anything being wrong with it and it would come up when O'Brien was giving reasons not to do it.

Actually, he did say that if the field wasn't perfectly balanced, it would rip the station apart, and the catalog of complaints about the station is not necessarily complete.

And with good reason, too given what we have been able to extrapolate in the Bre'eel moon thread. A warp field can bring down the mass of an object by as much as 4 million times, so what you would have is parts of the station with one inertial mass and speed at extreme odds with the other parts with a different inertial mass and speed, which would in turn tear it apart.

How extreme?

Given that DS9 has been estimated to have a mass of some 32 million metric tons, one section of the station could weigh only 8 tons, while the other millions at the same time!
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

We see that display two times for round about two seconds and every time the Death Star makes a little jump to its new position.

What?

In both cases, it is not reliable to calculate anything from it because we don't know, how long it has stayed every time in its old position and how long it has stayed in its new position and where exactly it was ideed at the time, the jump was shown.

So, how many times did we see the diagram?
Then, how many times did we see the Death Star move?
After that, is there any glitch to notice?

Could it be that massive sensor disturbance could fool rebel sensors on Yaving about the Death Star's position?
In this light, on the Death Star's crew would know where the battle station is, making any information coming from the DS more reliable than anything the rebels got.

The Rebel display is only a rough depiction of the tactical situation. One can get a few informations from it. But it is no reliable enough to calculate anything from it.

Possibly. Why again? (just to be sure)

[Roondar]

There is of course no reason at all to prefer the Rebel diagram over the imperial one.

In fact, I consider it supremely stupid to do so - naturally the imperial diagram is going to be the 100% accurate one. They're the ones piloting the damn thing! If the Rebel diagram disagrees with the imperial diagram it's obviously wrong.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter all that much, does it?
In both cases the DS takes about the same total time to travel about the same distance doesn't it?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Yes, roughly 30 minutes at maximum velocity, to get a clear LOS I think.

[Who is like God arbour]

We see that display two times for round about two seconds and every time the Death Star makes a little jump to its new position.

What?

In both cases, it is not reliable to calculate anything from it because we don't know, how long it has stayed every time in its old position and how long it has stayed in its new position and where exactly it was ideed at the time, the jump was shown.

So, how many times did we see the diagram?
Then, how many times did we see the Death Star move?
After that, is there any glitch to notice?

Could it be that massive sensor disturbance could fool rebel sensors on Yaving about the Death Star's position?
In this light, on the Death Star's crew would know where the battle station is, making any information coming from the DS more reliable than anything the rebels got.

The Rebel display is only a rough depiction of the tactical situation. One can get a few informations from it. But it is no reliable enough to calculate anything from it.

Possibly. Why again? (just to be sure)

I dont understand, what you are trying to say. Your questions were - as I see it - already answered:

• • I think Kane's point is that the diagram is correct about the position of the centers of each element. Scales are not meant to be super exact on such a schematic.

    Neither is the positions of the center of the Death Star.
    
    We see that display two times for round about two seconds and every time the Death Star makes a little jump to its new position.
    

    • 
      • • • • Star Wars - Episode 4 - Time Index: 01:40:10 - 01:40:14
      
      • • • • Star Wars - Episode 4 - Time Index: 01:41:26 - 01:41:27

    Either it makes indeed little high speed jumps or that display does not show the position of it in real time.
    
    In both cases, it is not reliable to calculate anything from it because we don't know, how long it has stayed every time in its old position and how long it has stayed in its new position and where exactly it was ideed at the time, the jump was shown.
    

    • 
      • The two jumps one after another - How much jumps were there between the first and second jump?

    The Rebel display is only a rough depiction of the tactical situation. One can get a few informations from it. But it is no reliable enough to calculate anything from it.

Why the rebel display does not show the position of the Death Star in real time is another question. I have only shown, that it does not do so.

That the Death Star has sended with the rebel sensors interfering signals is one possibility.

Although, considering how bad Star Wars sensors are, I think that such an interfering signal wouldn't be necessary. The fact allone, that the Death Star is behind Yavin and out of sight may be enough, that the rebel sensors are unable to detect it and that the rebels are merely extrapolating its position with the velocity and course it has had, before it has disappeared behind Yavin.

On the other side, the position of the Yavin moon was known to the crew of the Death Star because, unlike the Death Star, the moon was not able to change its course or velocity.