It's raining asteroids! TESB topic.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-07-07 11:28am

JodoForce wrote:Where is there proof that the hologram of the captain holding up his hands against the blast was recorded after the blast? That it is SHOWN onscreen after the blast doesn't mean anything--would you demand that simultaneous events be shown together split-screen?

We see some bright flashes in the hologram of the captain whose hologram blinks out moments LATER. Those bright flashes would be the asteroid impact. He's still standing a few seconds AFTER said impact.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-07-07 12:45pm

Vexx wrote:
Explain how the Captain of the vessel in question was able to remain transmitting seconds after the explosion then. He should've been dead.
Not transmitting from the bridge, perhaps.

Thank you for demonstrating that, like Anderson, you know uck all about naval vessels.

THe Captain does not leave the bridge. it is the XO and COB that go around and check on things.

Let me repeat this

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

Go ahead, point out these good and bad points.
Both Wong and Darkstar are fanatics. They're both at the extreme limits, just on opposite sides. Calculations from someone who's never given a thought to Star Wars and Star Trek crap, who doesn't give a damn and just did the calculations to figure it out would be in the middle, IE unbiased, which Wong and DS certainly aren't.

Another bad point, both of their calculations are wrong. About almost everything.

Yes, Young's and Wong's calcs are fubared, which is why in over 5 years no one has been able to disprove them, right?

Nice of you to show why they are wrong BTW

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-07-07 12:52pm

Vexx, I would like to see your figures, but I also have some questions about the applicability of this particular website. Most of the time when a site like this allows you to calculate what kind of a nuclear weapon it would take to destroy an asteroid, they mean "destroy" in the sense of "fragment." When the ISD was firing on asteroids in the Hoth asteroid belt, it was actually vaporizing the rocks. Some of these little calculators also rely on the warhead burrowing into the asteroid, prior to its detonation, which may or may not be directly comparable to the nature of turbolaser fire.

Regardless of how applicable the calculations are, they will be interesting to use as a frame of reference, but I think it would be wise to remember that there are almost certainly going to be considerable differences in the circumstances that both groups use to calculate asteroid destruction, and that the estimates of how much energy was involved in a situation with the same information plugged in but that use different methods to determine yield, will thus differ, also.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-07-07 01:11pm

Ok, i was one of the people who voted darkstar. I meant it as an ironic joke...or something

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2003-07-07 01:17pm

Vexx seems to think, that his thoughts are the only one, which count....

seanrobertson · Post by **seanrobertson** » 2003-07-07 01:23pm

Vexx wrote: In comparison to 4000 meter wide asteroids travelling at tens of thousands of kilometers an hour.

That makes zero sense.

Explain why a 4 km-wide asteroid, regardless of its velocity, is at ALL relevant to Brian's figures.

FWIW, you might also recall that a FIGHTER-CLASS WEAPON in Star Wars can shred an asteroid of that size. (I assume you saw and paid attention to a little bit of "AOTC.")

Both Wong and Darkstar are fanatics.

My patience with you is wearing thin. I'm trying very hard to be less-than-nasty, but your total ignorance of Michael's site makes this...trying.

Do me a favor, and go look up "argumentum ad hominem" somewhere. You could find it at SD.net, but given your total lack of familiarity with almost everything in it, you might try Google instead.

You will find that dismissing someone's figures on the basis of fanaticism is a perfect example of this weak induction fallacy.

Btw, you were talking about BRIAN, whether or not we "trust him" (which, of course, I do, but trust is beside the point).

How did MIKE enter this?!

Stop baiting and switching. You are coming across as a real troll.

They're both at the extreme limits, just on opposite sides. Calculations from someone who's never given a thought to Star Wars and Star Trek crap, who doesn't give a damn and just did the calculations to figure it out would be in the middle, IE unbiased, which Wong and DS certainly aren't.

That is terrible "reasoning."

If you are not simply trolling, I'll say I'm sorry to be harsh, but that's just fucking child's thinking.

Why? "Bias" does NOT invalidate an argument. Pure and simple. Look up the fallacy I told you to; you'll see that what you're going on about is the equivalent of "Charles Manson is a mean man, so I don't trust him when he says HE IS LOCKED UP IN PRISON."

Besides, you know so precious little about how to arrive at these conclusions that you're confusing shattering asteroids with VAPORIZING them. How could you even tell if Brian or Mike were "wrong," "biased," or whatever the hell you're going on about? Why do you think "destroy" MUST ALWAYS MEAN THE SAME THING?

For your own sake, READ A LOGIC TEXT. Pay SPECIAL attention to common fallacies. You are making a fallacious argument right now, BIG TIME.

Another bad point, both of their calculations are wrong. About almost everything.

Try to prove it, now, or buzz off. I'm thinking more and more that you are using this poor excuse of a thread just to troll. At this rate, I predict you'll be given a "village idiot" title pretty soon.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-07-07 01:28pm

What does it matter if they're "fanatics" or if you "trust" them? The calculations are simple and easy for ANYONE to double-check.

This is an ad hominem. You do not trust the person, you trust the calculations.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-07-07 01:30pm

And how do you research into a simple matter of finding the size, volume, mass and then energy to vaporize?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-07-07 01:49pm

I should point out that "trust" is irrelevant for another reason. The calculations that Brian Young, Mike Wong, Curtis Saxton, and DarkStar are all easily verifiable. Once you determine that their calculations are correct, go back and look at the original parameters they plugged in to run their calculations, and then determine whether or not those parameters are reasonable.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-07-07 01:52pm

Master of Ossus wrote:I should point out that "trust" is irrelevant for another reason. The calculations that Brian Young, Mike Wong, Curtis Saxton, and DarkStar are all easily verifiable. Once you determine that their calculations are correct, go back and look at the original parameters they plugged in to run their calculations, and then determine whether or not those parameters are reasonable.

The calculations are simple and easy for ANYONE to double-check.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-07-07 02:04pm

Ender wrote:THE. CAPTAIN. DOES. NOT. LEAVE. THE. BRIDGE.

Well, the incompetant one on Star Trek do.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-07-07 02:15pm

FYI on the ESB asteroid scene. The forward section of the bridge was completely destroyed. The forward structure as well as both domes completely disapear and do not emergy from a debris cloud as they should. Does this mean the ISD was destroyed? No. Does this mean the captain was killed? Probably not. Vader was ordering his commanders to communicate via the holonet and that requires leaving the shields down. Its entirely likely that the Captain realized the bridge was in possible danger and was in some other command point.

Now, I do really have to trot this debate out again? I already provided the screen shots that prove the forward section of the bridge disapears and I don't really want to have to do that again.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-07-07 02:32pm

Ender wrote: THE. CAPTAIN. DOES. NOT. LEAVE. THE. BRIDGE.

That's gotta be a pain when he needs to go to the toilet

Well, we see Admiral Piett in the security foyer of the Excecutor. Which has a holonet transmission area. (SWTJ)

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-07-07 03:10pm

NecronLord wrote:
Ender wrote: THE. CAPTAIN. DOES. NOT. LEAVE. THE. BRIDGE.
That's gotta be a pain when he needs to go to the toilet

Well, we see Admiral Piett in the security foyer of the Excecutor. Which has a holonet transmission area. (SWTJ)

And we have seen from several SW novels that the captain does indeed leave the bridge. On Corellian Corvettes the Holohet transmission is in the secondary bridge, not the primary.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-07-07 03:28pm

Well, it's right next to the bridge on an ISD.

http://www. angelfire.com/scifi2/iimperium/images /isdbridge.jpg

You know the procedure, remove the spaces.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-07-07 04:15pm

Alyeska wrote:
NecronLord wrote:
Ender wrote: THE. CAPTAIN. DOES. NOT. LEAVE. THE. BRIDGE.
That's gotta be a pain when he needs to go to the toilet

Well, we see Admiral Piett in the security foyer of the Excecutor. Which has a holonet transmission area. (SWTJ)
And we have seen from several SW novels that the captain does indeed leave the bridge. On Corellian Corvettes the Holohet transmission is in the secondary bridge, not the primary.

THe Night Caller is a special case, most corvettes lack a holocom from what I've seen.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-07-07 04:18pm

Darth Servo wrote:
Ender wrote:THE. CAPTAIN. DOES. NOT. LEAVE. THE. BRIDGE.
Well, the incompetant one on Star Trek do.

Starfleet is also suppossedly not a military organization.

I will state it again: Military protocal states that while in command the captain does not leave the bridge area. If command attention in another area is required, the Chief of the Boat or Executive Officer goes. This is a simple fact.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-07-07 05:13pm

Ender wrote:
Darth Servo wrote:
Ender wrote:THE. CAPTAIN. DOES. NOT. LEAVE. THE. BRIDGE.
Well, the incompetant one on Star Trek do.
Starfleet is also suppossedly not a military organization.

I will state it again: Military protocal states that while in command the captain does not leave the bridge area. If command attention in another area is required, the Chief of the Boat or Executive Officer goes. This is a simple fact.

Military protocol also does not allow the commander of a fleet to sumarily execute his captains for failing a task. Unless you can provide anything else, that statement is meaningless. The bridge of the ISD was destroyed. That means either the captain survived and was NOT on the bridge, or that wasn't the captain we saw on the holonet transmission.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-07-07 05:18pm

Alyeska wrote:
Military protocol also does not allow the commander of a fleet to sumarily execute his captains for failing a task.

Except Vader wasn't the fleet commander, Ozzel/Piett was.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-07 05:19pm

Or the bridge tower was torn out of the way somewhat but the structural integrity was not compromised. We only know that the bridge tower does not appear from the dust cloud ontime, we don't know that it was destroyed.

Vexx · Post by **Vexx** » 2003-07-07 05:22pm

A couple of things I'd like to say before I go on to crunching the numbers.

First, I'm disturbed that so many of you decided to try and flame me before I even put any numbers out. It just goes to show how unwilling most of you are to even consider other information. You're going to believe what you want no matter what.

Second, I'm surprised by Ossus. I had heard he was one of the worst "rabbid Warsies" but he was one of the only ones (if not THE only) that's actually willing to look at and consider my figures. Hats off to you Ossus, and I owe you an apology, you actually seem to be a fair person.

Third:

I will state it again: Military protocal states that while in command the captain does not leave the bridge area. If command attention in another area is required, the Chief of the Boat or Executive Officer goes. This is a simple fact.

The Empire is not the United States Military. Trying to make the two seem the same is baseless and quite irrelevant. I don't understand how you can try to make an arguement by comparing two completely different things.

Anyway, onto the bridge tower asteroid hit.

For this I used the asteroid impact calculator. It has 3 main criteria for determing the relative yield in TNT that an asteroid will create through impact on something. The 3 criteria are: Diameter, Density and Velocity.
The diameter, according to SD.net, is 70 meters. The average density of iron is 8.0grams/cm^3, according to earthsci.terc.edu. The velocity I figured was about 500 meters per second.

The resulting energy according to the calculator was 179594380030216 joules. That equals about 50 kilotons of TNT. How?

According to www.csulb.edu, 1 kilogram of TNT equals 4x10^6 joules (4000000). I used a rounded 200000000000000 (2x10^14) figure for the amount the calculator gave, divided that by 4x10^6 to find out how many kilograms of TNT it would take to create that much energy, and then multiplied that by 1000 because there are 1000 kg in a metric ton. That came out to 50,000(tons), or 50 kilotons, the same figure given by www.csulb.edu. SD.net claims the asteroid had a kinetic force of 5 x 10^14 joules, which actually is only 2.5 times larger, and equals 125 kilotons of TNT.

So anyway, that's how I came up with those figures. What do you think? Do you see anything wrong with the calculations? Most importantly, how can an ISD, which is designed to take 300GT (according to SD.net) HTL shots, be destroyed (or atleast heavily damaged) by an equivilent 50 kiloton blast? I've heard the arguement, "The shields were weakened by asteroid hits", but that's not a very good excuse.. But even if it's assumed a Star Destroyer is only able to take a single of its own HTL shots before being destroyed, it would have to have been hit by 5,999,999,999 70 meter wide asteroids. That's not very likely.

On a related side-topic, in TESB a TIE fighter is destroyed by a meteor crashing into it. I don't have screen-caps on hand but I can estimate a generous 10 meter diameter for the asteroid, and the same 8mg/cm^3 density, and, let's say, 200 meters a second velocity. That equals to being only 19 tons of TNT! Even if every variable is included, that number won't be going up very much. What the hell good is a TIE fighter in a universe where capital ships are designed to take many hundreds of gigatons of energy? That would mean that a single HTL bolt could vapourize billions of TIE fighters.

Anyway, these are just the figures I've come up with. If you see anything wrong, tell me and I'll do my best to answer to them.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-07-07 05:26pm

Alyeska wrote:Military protocol also does not allow the commander of a fleet to sumarily execute his captains for failing a task.

All the more reason to stay on the bridge.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-07-07 05:26pm

Vexx wrote:Second, I'm surprised by Ossus. I had heard he was one of the worst "rabbid Warsies" but he was one of the only ones (if not THE only) that's actually willing to look at and consider my figures. Hats off to you Ossus, and I owe you an apology, you actually seem to be a fair person.

Thanks, I think.

D.Turtle · Post by **D.Turtle** » 2003-07-07 05:35pm

Most importantly, how can an ISD, which is designed to take 300GT (according to SD.net) HTL shots, be destroyed (or atleast heavily damaged) by an equivilent 50 kiloton blast? I've heard the arguement, "The shields were weakened by asteroid hits", but that's not a very good excuse.. But even if it's assumed a Star Destroyer is only able to take a single of its own HTL shots before being destroyed, it would have to have been hit by 5,999,999,999 70 meter wide asteroids.

The shields weren't weakened: They were down (lowered), because of the holo-conference with Vader.

On a related side-topic, in TESB a TIE fighter is destroyed by a meteor crashing into it. I don't have screen-caps on hand but I can estimate a generous 10 meter diameter for the asteroid, and the same 8mg/cm^3 density, and, let's say, 200 meters a second velocity. That equals to being only 19 tons of TNT! Even if every variable is included, that number won't be going up very much. What the hell good is a TIE fighter in a universe where capital ships are designed to take many hundreds of gigatons of energy? That would mean that a single HTL bolt could vapourize billions of TIE fighters.

Very simple: Energy-wise the HTL could probably vapourize an uncountable number of Ties. However: The HTL would have to HIT all those ties. That is a Ties defence: speed and maneuvrability. Not armor or shields, only speed, maneuvrability, and the skills of the pilot.

Vexx · Post by **Vexx** » 2003-07-07 05:44pm

True. But there's too big a difference.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It's raining asteroids! TESB topic.

Who do I trust?