Starfleet Jedi

Yes I'm talking about Super weapons such as the Xindi weapon or the comet/asteroid busting weapon that Earth First hijacked for itself in Enterprise.
I now that in SDN they would simply say those weapons are somehow not canon or that they no longer exist etc, etc. But the know how to built the damn things is there. Example: The federation made a treaty (a really stupid one if I might add) that precluded them from doing any research whatsoever on cloaking tech while allowing the Romulans to research and basically expand into all kinds of cloaking and weapons tech as they chose and wanted. So if there is any proof that the Federation had become as useless as the UN is today you need to look no further than that idiotic treaty, that being said thankfully some in Starfleet that were not blinded by political correctness or by the Wong whichever comes first decided to continue and expand such defense vital research. So there they could potentially be developed and if they are could an ISD or Super Star Destroyer stand off the blast of something like the Xindi weapon?

Simply put, why? Conventional ST weapons should be able to handle it no problem. That said, Trilithium bombs should obliterate an ISD no problem what with the sun blowing up and the subsequent shock wave effect.


Edit: grammar, spelling, etc.

Trinoya wrote:Simply put, why? Conventional ST weapons should be able to handle it no problem. That said, Trilithium bombs shouldn't obliterate an ISD no problem what with the sun blowing up.

Umm... I think you misunderstood the effects of Trillitium there chump, what it does it stops fusion on a star causing it to go Nova, not that by itself has the explosive power to vape a star. And No! Conventional Trek weaponry would not stand a chance against an ISD and Turbolasers that is a fact.

PunkMaister wrote:And No! Conventional Trek weaponry would not stand a chance against an ISD and Turbolasers that is a fact.

Prove it!

• • • Edited: Proof it! => Prove it!
      Thanks to The Corporal for his note

Who is like God arbour wrote:

PunkMaister wrote:And No! Conventional Trek weaponry would not stand a chance against an ISD and Turbolasers that is a fact.

Proof it!

I think you mean "prove it".

PunkMaister wrote:Umm... I think you misunderstood the effects of Trillitium there chump, what it does it stops fusion on a star causing it to go Nova, not that by itself has the explosive power to vape a star.

Actually, what trilithium does depends on how it is used. Conventional Romulan plasma torpedoes use trilithium.

I have a recent and a rather extensive post dealing with trilithium. You might want to read it if you're curious about trilithium.

I am also of the opinion that conventional Trek weapons can be used to take down an ISD. It should come as no surprise that I don't think an ISD can resist many Trek superweapons. A trilithium missile, perhaps, but not the side effects of a trilithium weapon fired into a star it is orbiting around.

Well, uh, yeah. Superweapons would do good against Star Wars capital ships, as would conventional weapons. Personally I'm a bit unsure about what types of yields SW capships have, but the TESB asteroid scene would indicate kilotons while TCW would indicate sub-kilotons for turbolasers. In the end I think the TCW is emulating the relative powers seen in KotOR and such, which actually has pretty nailed down yields, what with we seeing a grand total of... *counts on fingers*... six orbital bombardments. The EU goes anywhere from terajoules to double-digit petatons per second for capital ships, so that's a quite the lost cause.

l33telboi wrote:Well, uh, yeah. Superweapons would do good against Star Wars capital ships, as would conventional weapons. Personally I'm a bit unsure about what types of yields SW capships have, but the TESB asteroid scene would indicate kilotons while TCW would indicate sub-kilotons for turbolasers. In the end I think the TCW is emulating the relative powers seen in KotOR and such, which actually has pretty nailed down yields, what with we seeing a grand total of... *counts on fingers*... six orbital bombardments. The EU goes anywhere from terajoules to double-digit petatons per second for capital ships, so that's a quite the lost cause.

So are you saying you are ditching SW EU? Well even then to say that one could vape asteroids with sub kiloton weaponry as clearly seen in TESB is beyond laughable, had these blast been sub-KT they would have never made a dent or barely a scorch mark on those things.

PunkMaister wrote:So are you saying you are ditching SW EU?

Not exactly. It's just that the EU is so fractured on this matter that if I'd accept it then it'd all become a royal mess. If the EU had a clear line on what sort of power these vessels have, then the matter would be a different one.

Well even then to say that one could vape asteroids with sub kiloton weaponry as clearly seen in TESB is beyond laughable

I said that TESB indicates kiloton-scale weaponry and the TCW indicates sub-kiloton weapons.

l33telboi wrote:

PunkMaister wrote:So are you saying you are ditching SW EU?

Not exactly. It's just that the EU is so fractured on this matter that if I'd accept it then it'd all become a royal mess. If the EU had a clear line on what sort of power these vessels have, then the matter would be a different one.

Well even then to say that one could vape asteroids with sub kiloton weaponry as clearly seen in TESB is beyond laughable

I said that TESB indicates kiloton-scale weaponry and the TCW indicates sub-kiloton weapons.

You would need far more power than kilotons to vape asteroids in the fashion we see in TESB you realize that don't you? In fact to give you a scale of things right now we have nothing in our arsenal that could vaporize an asteroid in the fashion we see in TESB and we are talking megaton range weapons and cannot even being to do what we see in TESB.

PunkMaister wrote:

l33telboi wrote:

PunkMaister wrote:So are you saying you are ditching SW EU?

Not exactly. It's just that the EU is so fractured on this matter that if I'd accept it then it'd all become a royal mess. If the EU had a clear line on what sort of power these vessels have, then the matter would be a different one.

Well even then to say that one could vape asteroids with sub kiloton weaponry as clearly seen in TESB is beyond laughable

I said that TESB indicates kiloton-scale weaponry and the TCW indicates sub-kiloton weapons.

You would need far more power than kilotons to vape asteroids in the fashion we see in TESB you realize that don't you? In fact to give you a scale of things right now we have nothing in our arsenal that could vaporize an asteroid in the fashion we see in TESB and we are talking megaton range weapons and cannot even being to do what we see in TESB.

Okay, I think it's becoming rather clear why you got banned from SDN.
What about dropping the lecturing tone and presenting some we call... evidence?

Not to say that I'm afraid anything you'll provide has 99.9% chances of being already old, especially since you rarely do the job on your own.

PunkMaister wrote: You would need far more power than kilotons to vape asteroids in the fashion we see in TESB you realize that don't you?

Is that so? What proof do you have that we need significantly more energy to totally vaporize the asteroids in that fashion? In fact, how do you know that turbolasers are even direct energy weapons, and in fact are not opening small openings into hyperspace to destroy the asteroids (read: the same technique the Death Star superlaser is said to use in the Death Star EU novel to destroy planets)?

PunkMaister wrote: In fact to give you a scale of things right now we have nothing in our arsenal that could vaporize an asteroid in the fashion we see in TESB and we are talking megaton range weapons and cannot even being to do what we see in TESB.

For small asteroids of a few meters to a couple of tens of meters, that is potentially within our current range of high-end kiloton range weapons.
-Mike

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Okay, I think it's becoming rather clear why you got banned from SDN.
What about dropping the lecturing tone and presenting some we call... evidence?

Not to say that I'm afraid anything you'll provide has 99.9% chances of being already old, especially since you rarely do the job on your own.

Nothing that says he has to read through the entire board to find out what other members here might know. It'd be nice to provide links to prior discussion if you refer to it, of course. Such as to this thread. It's difficult to find a good discussion of the TESB asteroid destruction shots if you don't know where to look.

IMO, it's not wholly unreasonable to look at the asteroid scene and conclude that ISDs have megaton range firepower. I do so on the main website, in fact. But it is worth talking about why the TLC figures are questionable.

There are four angles of attack on the TLC figures. The first is the problem of identifying what are actual asteroids and what are apparently flak bursts. The second is the scaling of the asteroids seen. The third is the assumption of complete vaporization. Fourth is attacking the assumption of solid nickel-iron composition.

Mike DiCenso wrote:

PunkMaister wrote: You would need far more power than kilotons to vape asteroids in the fashion we see in TESB you realize that don't you?

Is that so? What proof do you have that we need significantly more energy to totally vaporize the asteroids in that fashion? In fact, how do you know that turbolasers are even direct energy weapons, and in fact are not opening small openings into hyperspace to destroy the asteroids (read: the same technique the Death Star superlaser is said to use in the Death Star EU novel to destroy planets)?

PunkMaister wrote: In fact to give you a scale of things right now we have nothing in our arsenal that could vaporize an asteroid in the fashion we see in TESB and we are talking megaton range weapons and cannot even being to do what we see in TESB.

For small asteroids of a few meters to a couple of tens of meters, that is potentially within our current range of high-end kiloton range weapons.
-Mike

Asteroids of a few meters would just burn up in our own atmosphere so why would we even bother? More importantly why would an ISD that is miles long and kilometers wide be even concerned with what relatively speaking are small pebbles by comparison, when the captain told Vader he was reluctant to enter the asteroid field his concern was obviously for the big ones and not the small meters wide asteroids you allege.

Here are some NASA links about their current plans for asteroid defense

And some counterarguments here!

PunkMaister wrote:You would need far more power than kilotons to vape asteroids in the fashion we see in TESB you realize that don't you?

No. From some of the work Rask did, the visuals even contradict the idea of complete vaporization, i.e. the asteroid expands to slowly. It's possible they're megaton weapons... but definetly not certain.