It's raining asteroids! TESB topic.

[His Divine Shadow]

Now come on guys. You've known Uncle Poe as a Trekkie Terminator for quite some time, right? That tower was destroyed. If we saw this same scene on Star Trek we'd be all over Trekkies who were trying to refute it.

I'm really amibigous about this now, it matters not in debates since they got shields that take TT level firepower anyway.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

1) Anyway, Hits around the Falcon when being chased by the TIEs are flakbursts. I heartily disagree with the implication that these are shield interactions. This would mean that the Falcon's shields extend a full ship-length behind it!

There are references in the EU (of which I'll dig up for you if I can find the original "Flak burst" thread where Connor MacLeod and I debated) where when someone puts full power to shields they extend several meters away from the hull (in one instance Wedge does so, and they extend 20 meters). Obviously since they were being shot at by TURBOLASERS, having full power to shields is a good idea, even if it does increase yout target area.

2) Hits around the Falcon after it emerges from the asteroid field and being chased by Avenger are clearly hits to asteroids. The difference between the two are a spherical white burst, compared to a colored spiky non-spherical one.

Frankly, I can't remember what your talking about (nor do I have the time to watch TESB over again), but even if what you say is true, why is it relevent?

I haven't the scientific background to explain it, but TLs DO flak burst. At least, in my opinion.

How the hell can an energy weapon just explode in thin air? There is no mechanism that can do this! Furhtermore, even if they DID flak burst, they do so with only the power of tons of TNT. Not kilotons, or megatons, plain old tons. Where does all the energy go if these are as powerful as kilotons of TNT?

Finally, I give you a concrete piece of evidence that these are indeed shield/bolt interactions. In TPM, when the AATs fire on the Gungan shield, you will notice their lasers touch the shield explode much like they do when they hit the Falcon in TESB. Don't even try and BS your way outta that with "flak bursts". That's a shield/bolt interaction through and through. ALL other instances of these "flak bursts" can be explained in this manner.

Case closed. And sorry for the thread hijack.

[Howedar]

Now come on guys. You've known Uncle Poe as a Trekkie Terminator for quite some time, right? That tower was destroyed. If we saw this same scene on Star Trek we'd be all over Trekkies who were trying to refute it.

Probably. The problem is that the scene doesn't make sense as it is. The tower does not get damaged or destroyed, it literally disappears.

I agree that it is gone after the asteroid hit.

[Warspite]

Probably. The problem is that the scene doesn't make sense as it is. The tower does not get damaged or destroyed, it literally disappears.

I agree that it is gone after the asteroid hit.

The asteroid impacts between us (the camera) and the rest of the tower, with the "explosion" completely hiding the tower.
It's only just before the scene changes that the explosion is starting to diminish, along with the fireball.
It all boils down to correlate the position of the tower before the impact, with the position of the tower after the impact, but the ISD is not moving paralel to us, so there "may" be a slight perspective problem that "may" create false dimensions.

[Slartibartfast]

THE. CAPTAIN. DOES. NOT. LEAVE. THE. BRIDGE.

Well, the incompetant one on Star Trek do.

So does the captain of the Love Boat. That oughta tell you something...

[Isolder74]

THE. CAPTAIN. DOES. NOT. LEAVE. THE. BRIDGE.

Well, the incompetant one on Star Trek do.

So does the captain of the Love Boat. That oughta tell you something...

Well he has to sleep sometime you know

[Vympel]

Poe, just because the novelization mentions flak doesn't mean that TLs must flak burst- the novelization also mentions a variety of weapons fired by the Death Star, including "explosive solids".

Not to mention it's an incredibly inane idea

[Connor MacLeod]

Poe, just because the novelization mentions flak doesn't mean that TLs must flak burst- the novelization also mentions a variety of weapons fired by the Death Star, including "explosive solids".

Not to mention it's an incredibly inane idea

He's also I think referring to the TESB novelization, which is more specific (although not specific enough to justify the ludicrous notion of energy bolts actually detonating like bombs.) ROTJ novel makes mention of flak bursting as well, IIRC.

[Connor MacLeod]

1) Anyway, Hits around the Falcon when being chased by the TIEs are flakbursts. I heartily disagree with the implication that these are shield interactions. This would mean that the Falcon's shields extend a full ship-length behind it!

So? According to Courtship of Princess Leia, the Falcon extended its shields fifty meters in front of the ship itself. In Rogue Squadron, Corran threw full power to aft shields and they materialized twenety meters behind the ship. That's my theory though, and even if its onyl supported by official evidence, it does fit pretty damn well.

And even if we assume they shields don't extend, Mike's postulated that the "at distance" flak bursting is a side effect of volumetric shields (the shield strength tapers off iwth distance, and has three dimensions, its not a two dimensional or thin "wall" effect.) - You should recall all the discussions about volumetric shielding that occured in email.

I haven't the scientific background to explain it, but TLs DO flak burst. At least, in my opinion.

In regards to that, Mike suggested the following question: Why is it flak bursting appears to only occur with certain bolts and not others (even with paired bolts, only one of the two actually "flak bursts") To that, I add my own question: What possible benefit is flak bursting against a
shielded vessel (where concentrated fire is of more use in piercing shields as opposed to assiting in dissipation by delivering the energy in a dispersed fashion like a bomb.)

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Go away Connor! This time I get to distribute the smackdown damnit!

[Connor MacLeod]

Go away Connor! This time I get to distribute the smackdown damnit!

You have to be certain of being able to deliver an effective smackdown first.

Besides which, Wayne is a bit out of your league, little gnome (I'm maybe almost capable ) - he's been at this far longer than you or I have, and has quite a good record at it.

[JodoForce]

If you look at the scene frame-by-frame there are frames where you seem to see the outline of the bridge tower within the explosion--like in this frame for example:



But it's far back from where the tower should be if it was still attached to the ship. If that's indeed the outline of the tower I'm seeing here, it must have been knocked off the ship like I suggested or crumpled back like Dark Hellion suggested.

[SPOOFE]

(In response to the above image)

Sigh.

Hold a black cloth up in front of a black wall. Turn the contrast on your camera WAY down. Then tell me if you can still see the black cloth.

Until you can do that, all that image proves is that dark dust from a dark asteroid is hard to see when it's in front of a dark background.

Notice the right (our view) side of the explosion... a HUGE gout of dirt, FAR larger than the "bright" part of the explosion. Why isn't a similar plume of "powder" visible on the other side? Well, that's why contrast is important in filming, ladies and gentlemen.

[JodoForce]

You can see the hull of the Executor on top and the hull of the ISD at the bottom, both immediately to the left of the visible end of the cloud. Why should the centre portion be any different? Honestly we've been through this many times before.

[Phil Skayhan]

To that, I add my own question: What possible benefit is flak bursting against a
shielded vessel (where concentrated fire is of more use in piercing shields as opposed to assiting in dissipation by delivering the energy in a dispersed fashion like a bomb.)

Possibly in a situation where the contents of the ship are too valuable to risk damage to. For example, the Falcon escaping from Mos Eisly in ANH. The use of flak bursts could allow for a more controlled dissapation of a ship sheilds.

The scene I would scrutinize most is in ESB where the Falcon is emerging from the asteroid field with the Avenger in pursuit.

Please ignore the overlay. I was hoping to use this image to aid in scaling the infamous asteroid.

Now the two bolts forming the "X" in front of the Falcon are about to " flak burst". How could this possibly be shield interaction? Brian Young believes these to be more asteroids being hit, but I disagree because with the amount of bloom we should be able to see the asteroids themselves before the bolts impact.

[Phil Skayhan]

Edit: Obviously I disagree with Wayne here too.....that's a first.

[Phil Skayhan]

Larger image of asteroid scene

[SPOOFE]

You can see the hull of the Executor on top and the hull of the ISD at the bottom, both immediately to the left of the visible end of the cloud.

The position of the Executor's engines indicates that it's at an angle where you should be able to see the "edge" of its hull before the dorsal superstructure of the ISD "meets" it. Either way, in that image, it's not clear what's part of the Executor and what's merely an artifact from lossy analog compression.

Why should the centre portion be any different?

Because the right side of the "cloud" shows that the damn thing isn't symmetrical.

Honestly we've been through this many times before.

Then where'd the debris from the destroyed ISD tower go? Just *POOF* vanished into thin... er... vacuum?

If you wish for the issue to be so cut and dried, that is what you need to explain. No debris = no destroyed bridge.

[SPOOFE]

The position of the Executor's engines indicates that it's at an angle where you should be able to see the "edge" of its hull before the dorsal superstructure of the ISD "meets" it.

I meant to say, "The position of the Executor's engines indicates that it's at an angle where you should NOT be able to see the "edge" of its hull before the dorsal superstructure of the ISD "meets" it.

[JodoForce]

Either way, in that image, it's not clear what's part of the Executor and what's merely an artifact from lossy analog compression.

Well you could always go watch your DVD again

Then where'd the debris from the destroyed ISD tower go? Just *POOF* vanished into thin... er... vacuum?

If you wish for the issue to be so cut and dried, that is what you need to explain. No debris = no destroyed bridge.

Apparently you didn't read the words that went with the image in my post, and missed a lot of posts above too.

If you look at the scene frame-by-frame there are frames where you seem to see the outline of the bridge tower within the explosion--like in this frame for example:

(img)

But it's far back from where the tower should be if it was still attached to the ship. If that's indeed the outline of the tower I'm seeing here, it must have been knocked off the ship like I suggested or crumpled back like Dark Hellion suggested.

[JodoForce]

Brian Young believes these to be more asteroids being hit, but I disagree because with the amount of bloom we should be able to see the asteroids themselves before the bolts impact.

The asteroids could be too small for the eye to see, more like mere debris--although there is then the question of whether that would make the turbolaser burst.

[Phil Skayhan]

The asteroids could be too small for the eye to see, more like mere debris--although there is then the question of whether that would make the turbolaser burst.

Yes, I considered that. However, when we see asteroids destroyed earlier (right side if pic) the bloom does not exceed the perimeter of the asteroid by very much. For the amount of bloom witnessed in the exiting of the field, the asteroid would have to be around 80 m as Brian Young states.

[JodoForce]

Doesn't the size of the bloom depend on the firepower of the shot rather than the size of the asteroid?

[Phil Skayhan]

Doesn't the size of the bloom depend on the firepower of the shot rather than the size of the asteroid?

I was just thinking about that.....adding another variable to the equation.

I honestly don't know. I'm looking at the asteroid impacts (bottom of page) to the ventral side of the Avenger. The size of the bloom appears uniform taking into account our perspective to both. This would seem to indicate that the bloom size may indeed be dependant on the power of the shot and/or shield.

No matter how many times I look at this scene, there's always something new to consider.

[JodoForce]

On second thought... no, turbolasers are beam weapons not explosive weapons, the material of the asteroid is solely responsible for any explosion that may occur... the explosion size should be dependent on asteroid size.