I challenge darkstar to a debate

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
Post Reply
Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by Picard » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:42 am

sonofccn wrote:Yes assuming that. Suffice it to say we disagree strongly on Trek firepower.
I know. If you want to discuss it, thought, first read my site. Everything is explained there and I don't want to repeat it here in lenght, and it would take a tad bit too much space. Then we can start. Besides, you can't really go any lower than 200 megatons per torpedo ("Rise"), when you accaunt for the fact that torpedoes have variable yield.
Which movies if I may ask?
Movies movies. Original and Prequel trilogy. In OT, Needa outright states that Solo iz crazy for thinking that MF - a ship far larger than fighter - can take on an ISD. Also, A-wing crashed into Executors bridge only after shields were lowered by MonCal fire - it seems that fighters are used mostly to exploit openings created by capital ships. In PT, TF control ship is destroyed from inside, and only time I remember seeing fighters being effective against capital ships is when Anakin lowers hangar forcefield on Griveous' ship.
Hmmm indeed. Again I think we can safely agree we disagree heavily. Short of going into an all out debate all I can say is your numbers are more back of the envelop projections calculations with many large assumptions made to formulate it all. As an example I do not see how you can assume because one starbase in the 23rd century had ten ships in dock for repair that all starbases would have them in the 24th.
But we see that in Dominion War most starbases support at least 10 ships, and given size ratio between them and that not all ships will be docked at all times, it is reasonable. And it is certainly more reasonable that there will be more far ships than starbases, than equal number of both, or even opposite. I based my estimate on screenshot I took of Starbase 375.
2046 wrote:I like your thinking, but I think that argument could only be a secondary one, and possibly a weak one. DS9 didn't have ships about until the war, which brings us to the criteria "large starbases and spacedocks". Using that, one cannot use the total figure of 800 for the later calculation.
But DS9 was a Bajoran space station, not Starfleet one. It is highly unlikely that Starfleet will use it for regular servicing of its vessels, and Bajorans obviously serviced their ships closer to the Bajor, if not on Bajor itself. DS9 was mainly trading outpost and an unofficial embassy, as well as control point for the wormhole, under authority of Bajoran government. Starfleet had no authority there, except for what Bajoran Provisional Government gave to them.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5839
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by Mike DiCenso » Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:03 pm

Picard wrote:I know. If you want to discuss it, thought, first read my site. Everything is explained there and I don't want to repeat it here in lenght, and it would take a tad bit too much space. Then we can start. Besides, you can't really go any lower than 200 megatons per torpedo ("Rise"), when you accaunt for the fact that torpedoes have variable yield
.

You can always go way below 200 megatons for photon torpedoes. Star Trek: Enterprise clearly establishes that they have variable yeild control to the point that it only knocks off a shuttle pod's com array. Is 200-500 megaton a typical anti-ship yeild? Hard to say, though dialog in TNG's "Q Who?" and "The Nth Degree indicates that proper ship killing or crippling requires full-yield and a full spread (at least 4 torpedoes) to throughly take out a big starship, like a Galaxy. However, single torpedo won't do it on it's own as seen in "Way of the Warrior" where the Neg'Var tanked a torpedo hit, and we'd already seen single shots kill BoPs, D-7s, and even Vor'Chas.
Picard wrote: Also, A-wing crashed into Executors bridge only after shields were lowered by MonCal fire
There's no real evidence that the Rebel cruisers were able to concentrate their fire onto the Executor's bridge. We see very little in the way of actual weapons fire in the seconds leading up to it's destruction. What we do see is seconds after Ackbar gives the concentrate fire order is two A-wings strafe the port side bridge dome and blow it up. That apparently is more than enough to knock down the shields, at least around the bridge anyway, and sets up for the A-wing crashing into it seconds later.

But even before that, there are several X-wings that take out a starboard side bridge dome on an ISD, even though it costs them dearly to do so.

Then there is TCW, with fighters being very effective, especially in the Malevolence story arc, and Anakin's squadron of Y-wings causing massive damage to the Malevolence's ion cannons.

So I have to agree with Sonofcnn on that point.
-Mike

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by Picard » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:54 pm

So I have to agree with Sonofcnn on that point.
Wasn't there an idea that proton torpedoes can ignore shields? That would make them fairly potent anti-ship weapon while allowing for small yield.

EDIT:
You can always go way below 200 megatons for photon torpedoes. Star Trek: Enterprise clearly establishes that they have variable yeild control to the point that it only knocks off a shuttle pod's com array. Is 200-500 megaton a typical anti-ship yeild? Hard to say, though dialog in TNG's "Q Who?" and "The Nth Degree indicates that proper ship killing or crippling requires full-yield and a full spread (at least 4 torpedoes) to throughly take out a big starship, like a Galaxy. However, single torpedo won't do it on it's own as seen in "Way of the Warrior" where the Neg'Var tanked a torpedo hit, and we'd already seen single shots kill BoPs, D-7s, and even Vor'Chas.
I was talking (OK, writing) about maximum yield.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5839
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:32 am

Picard wrote:
So I have to agree with Sonofcnn on that point.
Wasn't there an idea that proton torpedoes can ignore shields? That would make them fairly potent anti-ship weapon while allowing for small yield.
I don't recall anything like that, except for the proton torpedoes being the only thing that could go through the Death Star's exaust port ray shielding.
-Mike

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by Picard » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:14 am

Then it must have been mine "internal" idea. And now I have Googled it and seen that EU already had same idea. Well, I don't care what EU says, but I think it is the only way to reconcile higher Star Wars firepower (that is, "vaporizing small town" and "vaporizing small asteroids" examples 1 2 ) with the fact that fighters equipped with 1-kiloton warheads are still a viable threat against capital ships. And that 1 kt value is actually upper end.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by sonofccn » Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:55 pm

Picard wrote:I know. If you want to discuss it, thought, first read my site. Everything is explained there and I don't want to repeat it here in lenght, and it would take a tad bit too much space. Then we can start. Besides, you can't really go any lower than 200 megatons per torpedo ("Rise"), when you accaunt for the fact that torpedoes have variable yield.
I don't really have a desire to argue the point, no. It is sufficent for us to understand we disagree.
Picard wrote:In OT, Needa outright states that Solo iz crazy for thinking that MF - a ship far larger than fighter - can take on an ISD.
Well that is one ship and it hardly could be said it is geared towards combat. Its a freighter.
Picard wrote:Also, A-wing crashed into Executors bridge only after shields were lowered by MonCal fire
Which even assuming the shields were brought down by capitol ship fire still had the A-wing make the killing "shot" instead of a turbolaser bolt. I would say its quite clear thematicly Lucas wanted the action on the fighters strafing and ultimatly destroying the SSD.
Picard wrote:In PT, TF control ship is destroyed from inside
Which I would argue not only has a fighter saving the day, once again underscoring that Lucas thinks they are super, but in universe the various fighter pilots assembled to take down the ship on the assumption they at least had a chance on taking it down.
Picard wrote:and only time I remember seeing fighters being effective against capital ships is when Anakin lowers hangar forcefield on Griveous' ship.
Well the Rebel fleet in ROTJ is implied to be threatened by Imperial fighters as well I'd also spot the taking out the DS1 even if it isn't a capship per say.

Really through I am not seeing how from the movies you can say fighters are ineffective, they are always at the heart of the action and are delivering the crucial blow time after time. You actually need to veer into the EU which slightly tones them down, whole squadron needed to make a Victory shield's flicker opposed to Lucas's two random fighters start blowing stuff off the hull, to make your case.
Picard wrote:But we see that in Dominion War most starbases support at least 10 ships
Possibly but your site didn't cite any of that. I had one data point and a picture of some starbase.
Picard wrote:and given size ratio between them and that not all ships will be docked at all times, it is reasonable.
I would disagree. It still involves making assumptions about hundreds of stations we've never seen. But I've been wrong before so lets see the supporting evidence, the number of stations which keep ten plus ships on tap, and we can go from there.
Picard wrote:And it is certainly more reasonable that there will be more far ships than starbases, than equal number of both, or even opposite.
Well I've never said there should be more starbases than ships. My complaint was in the method you were using to generate a number.
Picard wrote:I based my estimate on screenshot I took of Starbase 375.
Which episode?
Mike DiCenso wrote:Most large starbases and spacedocks have at least three or more vessels docked there for repairs that we know of. At least 10 were at Starbase 11 in TOS' "Court Martial" (as seen on the status display graph in Commodore Stone's office), while at least three or four ships were under repair or for general servicing at Starbase 74 in TNG's "11001001", and in TNG's "Redemption, Parts 1 and 2", there were upwards of 23 vessels undergoing various repairs, layover, or were within a day's range for Starbase 234.
And I would ask sir were these represenative or examplarly. That is could it not be fairly argued that the starbases we see are the ones the ship is being sent to for some repair or overhaul and that these stations are dedicated to this. For example starbase 73 and 75 are devoted to other tasks with starbase 74 taking up the maintence issues for the surronding area.

I don't know...I do thank you for digging up further examples and don't wish to sound too obstructive but...I guess its too phantasmal for my tastes. I like hard, solid figures, we are sending X soldiers in Y minutes, and always feel a bit flummoxed with these more "soft" projections.
Mike DiCenso wrote:So I have to agree with Sonofcnn on that point.
Yeah one point for me one trillion points against.:-)

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5839
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:56 am

Sonofcnn wrote:And I would ask sir were these represenative or examplarly. That is could it not be fairly argued that the starbases we see are the ones the ship is being sent to for some repair or overhaul and that these stations are dedicated to this. For example starbase 73 and 75 are devoted to other tasks with starbase 74 taking up the maintenance issues for the surrounding area.

I don't know...I do thank you for digging up further examples and don't wish to sound too obstructive but...I guess its too phantasmal for my tastes. I like hard, solid figures, we are sending X soldiers in Y minutes, and always feel a bit flummoxed with these more "soft" projections.
I'm not even adding in the other starbases that the various starships were known to visit, and we can expect at least one or two starships there, like the E-1701, or E-D. Nor am I adding in the various shipyards, like Utopia Planitia, which represent a huge number of ships. I don't doubt that different starbases take up different tasks, which is why I chose an average. Some starbases will be the big dockyard for everyone in a sector or three, and others will only have a few transient Starfleet vessels docked on milk runs, like we saw at pre-Dominion War DS9.
-Mike

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by Picard » Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:08 pm

Well the Rebel fleet in ROTJ is implied to be threatened by Imperial fighters as well I'd also spot the taking out the DS1 even if it isn't a capship per say.

Really through I am not seeing how from the movies you can say fighters are ineffective, they are always at the heart of the action and are delivering the crucial blow time after time. You actually need to veer into the EU which slightly tones them down, whole squadron needed to make a Victory shield's flicker opposed to Lucas's two random fighters start blowing stuff off the hull, to make your case.
Which is why I have gotten idea of proton torpedoes ignoring shields, as well as of same thing for quantum torpedoes. It is only way to reconcile power generation and yield difference and evidence we see on screen about fighters vs capships in both DS9 and SW.
Possibly but your site didn't cite any of that. I had one data point and a picture of some starbase.
That picture + this:
In TOS "Court Martial" we have 10 starships listed as being under repairs, giving us ship-to-starbase ratio of 10:1, for total of 7590 starships.
Which episode?
I don't remember. besides, with DS9 habit of using stock footage, there are probably several episodes with exact same scene.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5839
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by Mike DiCenso » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:12 pm

The SB 375 footage you refer to can be found in several episodes prior to "Favor the Bold", and "Sacrifice of Angels".
-Mike

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by sonofccn » Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:49 pm

Mike DiCenso wrote:
Sonofcnn wrote:And I would ask sir were these represenative or examplarly. That is could it not be fairly argued that the starbases we see are the ones the ship is being sent to for some repair or overhaul and that these stations are dedicated to this. For example starbase 73 and 75 are devoted to other tasks with starbase 74 taking up the maintenance issues for the surrounding area.

I don't know...I do thank you for digging up further examples and don't wish to sound too obstructive but...I guess its too phantasmal for my tastes. I like hard, solid figures, we are sending X soldiers in Y minutes, and always feel a bit flummoxed with these more "soft" projections.
I'm not even adding in the other starbases that the various starships were known to visit, and we can expect at least one or two starships there, like the E-1701, or E-D. Nor am I adding in the various shipyards, like Utopia Planitia, which represent a huge number of ships. I don't doubt that different starbases take up different tasks, which is why I chose an average. Some starbases will be the big dockyard for everyone in a sector or three, and others will only have a few transient Starfleet vessels docked on milk runs, like we saw at pre-Dominion War DS9.
-Mike
Then I stand corrected. Thank you.
Picard wrote:Which is why I have gotten idea of proton torpedoes ignoring shields, as well as of same thing for quantum torpedoes. It is only way to reconcile power generation and yield difference and evidence we see on screen about fighters vs capships in both DS9 and SW.
So we are in agreement on Lucas thinking fighters are useful? I mean I have nothing against ideas trying to make sense of everything, I tend to favor partical shields are not turned on frequently, just that I need to know if we're on agreement or not on the whole fighters effective or not score before we can move forward.
Picard wrote:That picture + this:
Which is one datapoint a century out of date and a picture without context, Mike however provided the data for where the picture came so I'm satisfied.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by Picard » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:59 am

So we are in agreement on Lucas thinking fighters are useful? I mean I have nothing against ideas trying to make sense of everything, I tend to favor partical shields are not turned on frequently, just that I need to know if we're on agreement or not on the whole fighters effective or not score before we can move forward.
Seems that we are in agreement.

StarWarsStarTrek
Starship Captain
Posts: 881
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by StarWarsStarTrek » Wed Nov 30, 2011 1:36 am

I know that I'm reviving stuff from long ago, but their points are still relevant, and many have accused me of ignoring posts like this one.
Praeothmin wrote:SWST, your post made me laugh...
Literally so?
You are a good humorist, you really are...
Pretending that the TESB self-exploding asteroid scenes haven't been debunked in many threads here, where you continually ignored the rebuttals, ignoring the AotC asteroid destructions scenes where Jango's guns are nowhere near ICS levels,
I was not aware that this was relevant to turbolaser firepower at all, given that Jango's guns were clearly set on rapid fire. Nor do I even see how the ICS is relevant to the asteroid destruction scenes.
ignoring TCW which shows us extremelly sub-ICS and Warsie Wanker yields...
And all are overrided by G canon material, in particular the novels. For example, the ESB novel indicates that orbital bombardment in Star Wars can occur from beyond the star system. The RotS novel quantifies the galactic population as in the "quadrillions", turbolasers capable of vaporizing small towns, weapons being fired at near light speed, missiles being shot out from the sky in 2.5 seconds and various other very much anti-TCW material.
All of this provided to you so many times in so many threads here...
Please do not start with this line of reasoning. It's annoying and silly to expect me to respond to every post in every thread directed at all. All of these arguments I have addressed at least once before.
And yet you pretend to have never seen any of these, and ask that I should once again provide evidence which you will simply ignore...
No, my friend, you are the TRUE politician here... :)
No, I've seen all of them. You still have not countered the circumnavigation of Endor, the circumnavigation of Yavin, the enormous industrial and FTL disparity between the two sides, planetary shielding, various quotes from the SW: Death Star novel, etc.

Well, actually, you have tried to counter all of these except for perhaps the first, but have failed miserably. You attempt to claim that the Rebels used a radar device less accurate than a 16th century compass that got the relative orientations of an object around a round object off by several dozen degrees, or even that the Death Star was able to accelerate to an enormous velocity without actually using the energy needed to accelerate to that speed. You've attempted to claim that SW FTL speeds are far lower than they are, even though Darth Maul arrived on Tatooine from Coruscant in under half a day.
You grab one phrase, the "Atmosphere was drifting away" as proof, yet ignore the other sentences in the same paragraph, the "evenly cratered surface", the "mop-up operation" of the Tie Fighters, ignore the fact that in the same book the Empire had to send troops on the surface of Dankayo to verify if any had survived...

Yeah, you're a funny guy... :)
None of the rest of the sentence counters the fact that the atmosphere was drifting away. If an attack did X, Y and Z, and X was the most impressive in terms of energy required, logic and science dictates that the energy of the attack was at least the energy required to do X, even if Y and Z are far less 'impressive'. To say otherwise would be silly and disingenuous.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Nov 30, 2011 4:35 am

And all are overrided by G canon material, in particular the novels. For example, the ESB novel indicates that orbital bombardment in Star Wars can occur from beyond the star system. The RotS novel quantifies the galactic population as in the "quadrillions", turbolasers capable of vaporizing small towns, weapons being fired at near light speed, missiles being shot out from the sky in 2.5 seconds and various other very much anti-TCW material.
We never got to know what vader really intended to do while sitting that far from Hoth. Based on the average accuracy of ships and that, there's no reason to believe that they could conduct any kind of precise bombardment of the base's area on Hoth from that far.
As for yields, vaporized can be understood as leveled. Which would neatly fit with the acceptable high end terajoules from TCW.
Plus it's not like that CGI show is necessary to debunk the ICS. As I've shown, there's quite enough material to do it with movies and novelizations alone.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... 103#p37103

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by Picard » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:02 pm

starwarsstartrek wrote:And all are overrided by G canon material, in particular the novels. For example, the ESB novel indicates that orbital bombardment in Star Wars can occur from beyond the star system. The RotS novel quantifies the galactic population as in the "quadrillions", turbolasers capable of vaporizing small towns, weapons being fired at near light speed, missiles being shot out from the sky in 2.5 seconds and various other very much anti-TCW material.
1) Population or living beings?
2) Capable of vaporizing small town is waay below ICS.
3) Movies show that weapons cannot be fired at near lightspeed, so that is irrelevant.
4) I would ask exact quote on TESB incident, since I don't remember anything to indicate such ragnges.
5) Movies and movie novels contain a lot material that contradicts ICS and rest of Wars noncanon.

EDIT:
Oh, and I now remembered that Ozzel "exited hyperspace too close to the planet" not "too close to the system" from movie; which is also stated in the novel. So we have clear contradiction to the trans-system ranges, and nothing to support them in canon.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5839
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: I challenge darkstar to a debate

Post by Mike DiCenso » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:07 pm

I'd be very interested in seeing the passage as there is no mention I know of to quadrillions of beings in the RoTS novelization. The only population numbers I know of is where it is mentioned that General Grievous has "killed billions and burned whole worlds". Prior to that, the AoTC novelization mentions trillions.

Also have the TESB novelization, and I'd also be really interested in knowing where the passage is that I missed that anybody even remotely discusses, much less demonstrated weapon ranges that can span the distance of a star system.

I'd also love to know where in the RoTS novelization anyone shoots any kind of missile down in any length of time, and if that is in there, what the exact circumstances this shoot-down occured in.
-Mike

Post Reply