Idiot on Spacebattles

[SAMAS]

Thread here

This guy claims that the Executor's reactor couldn't have been very powerful, because the explosion caused by it crashing into the Death Star in Return of the Jedi wasn't big enough.

Some others(myself included) are trying to show him that it wasn't the Executor that exploded. He's being retardedly stubbourn about it(and has one or two suppourters).

But I do have a request. I don't have the original trilogy at all. Does anybody happen to have a shot of the Executor's crash, preferably showing the beginning of the explosion, where most of the ship's structure can still be seen?

[Lord Poe]

These idiots are cropping up like crabs on a hooker. Is it because the Trek franchise has taken a nosedive?

[Isolder74]

As for the Executer being 'destroyed' when it hit the Death Star point out that the USS Tennesee was destroyed at Pearl Harbor but its was intact enough to raise and repair. so it is easy to speculate that since this explosion wasn't enough to obliterate the ship the wreck must have still been sitting on the surface of the Death Star until it was indeed destroyed when the Death Star exploded.

[Isolder74]

also not unrelated plume on the port side of the ship trail from the backside. could be the damage the novel desribs, could it not

[Darth Lucifer]

Originally Posted by Victory Is Life
Tibannia Gas is ignitable?

Torgus: It's a friggin supercoolant for hyperdrives, so probably not.

I just have to throw out (since I can't post there yet-just registered) that there are coolants/refrigerants that are flammable. I don't know if there is a canon source on the properties of Tibanna Gas, but just because something cools, doesn't mean it can't burn(combust).

A coolant is a refrigerant, which is merely a substance that absorbs and releases heat. By extension, a "supercoolant" could mean that Tibanna Gas can absorb and release massive quantities of heat. Again, no proof of flammability.

[Darth Lucifer]

I'm sorry, I meant ignitable when I opened with flammable. It's late and I'm tired.

[Darth Wong]

They're committing the classic Trekkie geek sin: assuming that Star Trek sets the rules and paradigms for all of sci-fi (and sometimes they even think this is true of real life). In Star Trek, a ship releases a vast amount of stored energy when it explodes, because for some asinine reason the system is designed to be super-volatile that way. In real-life, a nuclear fission reactor, a nuclear fusion reactor, and any other kind of reactor we have ever built will not release its entire stored energy in one titanic blast when it's destroyed. So there's no reason to assume that a SW reactor must do so, unless (as mentioned previously) you're one of these numb-skulled Trekkies who makes assumptions about other sci-fi series based on Trek.

[Darth Lucifer]

They're committing the classic Trekkie geek sin: assuming that Star Trek sets the rules and paradigms for all of sci-fi (and sometimes they even think this is true of real life). In Star Trek, a ship releases a vast amount of stored energy when it explodes, because for some asinine reason the system is designed to be super-volatile that way. In real-life, a nuclear fission reactor, a nuclear fusion reactor, and any other kind of reactor we have ever built will not release its entire stored energy in one titanic blast when it's destroyed. So there's no reason to assume that a SW reactor must do so, unless (as mentioned previously) you're one of these numb-skulled Trekkies who makes assumptions about other sci-fi series based on Trek.

Amen. A large candle has more stored energy than a hand grenade...it's just released in a small amount over a long period of time, unlike a grenade which releases all of its energy instantly. Even if you throw a candle into a fire, it's not going to explode like a grenade.

[Sarevok]

They're committing the classic Trekkie geek sin: assuming that Star Trek sets the rules and paradigms for all of sci-fi (and sometimes they even think this is true of real life). In Star Trek, a ship releases a vast amount of stored energy when it explodes, because for some asinine reason the system is designed to be super-volatile that way. In real-life, a nuclear fission reactor, a nuclear fusion reactor, and any other kind of reactor we have ever built will not release its entire stored energy in one titanic blast when it's destroyed. So there's no reason to assume that a SW reactor must do so, unless (as mentioned previously) you're one of these numb-skulled Trekkies who makes assumptions about other sci-fi series based on Trek.

Well that is due to the highly unstable anti-matter fuel Star Trek ships use. As soon as the ship is heavily damaged and magentic containment fails tons of antimatterannihalate matter creating a massive explosion.

The fact that Star Wars dont explode like that goes on to show just how safe their reactor design is compared to Star Trek ships.

[Shroom Man 777]

Well that is due to the highly unstable anti-matter fuel Star Trek ships use. As soon as the ship is heavily damaged and magentic containment fails tons of antimatterannihalate matter creating a massive explosion.

I think he already knows that.

[Robert Walper]

Out of curiousity, any ideas on what did cause said explosion? After all, the Executor is a 17 kilometer length starship. The explosion was huge, as it engulfed and surpassed the Executor in size.

[SAMAS]

These idiots are cropping up like crabs on a hooker. Is it because the Trek franchise has taken a nosedive?

Thanks, although somebody already one-upped it with this little gem:

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Out of curiousity, any ideas on what did cause said explosion? After all, the Executor is a 17 kilometer length starship. The explosion was huge, as it engulfed and surpassed the Executor in size.

I'd say the fact that it's a 17 kilometer starship colliding into the surface of a 900 kilometer battlestation would be a pretty good candidate.

[Tribun]

BTW., wasn't the explosion re-done for the DVD of ROTJ?

I remember that effect was MUCH worse in the original and Special Edition release.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

No, it's exactly the same.

And yes it is.

[Darth Servo]

They're committing the classic Trekkie geek sin: assuming that Star Trek sets the rules and paradigms for all of sci-fi (and sometimes they even think this is true of real life). In Star Trek, a ship releases a vast amount of stored energy when it explodes, because for some asinine reason the system is designed to be super-volatile that way.

They would retort that there is precedent for that thinking in SW. The two Death Stars and the Trade Fed ship.

[consequences]

Actually, Arthur Dent is annoying me more than the other guy, who has already established his credentials as an imbecilic fuckwit of a shitstain.

[Junghalli]

As I recall an ISD mounts its reactor at the bottom of the ship near the back (logical, since that makes it close to the engines and presumably they use the heat from the reactor to warm the rocket exhaust). An SSD may be different, but I can't think why. The Executor collided with the DS nose-first, so its reactor would still be about 15 km above the DS's surface in the pic.
As for what caused the explosion I'd go with the KE of the impact, which was undoubtedly huge (the Executor must have been moving at hundreds of kilometers per minute at least, judging by how long it took its 17 km length to smash into the DS). Either that or it might be missile magazines or fuel igniting.
BTW I very much doubt it would have survived.

[Sea Skimmer]

Out of curiousity, any ideas on what did cause said explosion? After all, the Executor is a 17 kilometer length starship. The explosion was huge, as it engulfed and surpassed the Executor in size.

My guess is that the Death Star II being a massive and heavily battlestations and all, they had munitions like missile warheads stored relatively (even a kilometer would be pretty close with something this big hitting) near the surface. We know Star War's warheads can get to be quite absurdly powerful and a magazine full of the things detonating could easily create a huge explosion. There's also the shear impact energy vaporizing and do other nasty things to the structure of the station, possibly minor reactors powering turbolasers blowing up and probably a couple other things that could have blown.

[ANGELUS]

This guy claims that the Executor's reactor couldn't have been very powerful, because the explosion caused by it crashing into the Death Star in Return of the Jedi wasn't big enough.

Well, what did you expect? this is the same moron that a couple of months ago begun a thread with the idiotic idea that a Dominion Dreadnaught would take out a Super Star Destroyer. Remember?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

They would retort that there is precedent for that thinking in SW. The two Death Stars and the Trade Fed ship.

When you consider that both the DSs are near firing status (and thus with 1E38J almost ready to deliver), that explosion pales so much it is clear SW's standards of safety are being maintained.

[General_Paul]

They're committing the classic Trekkie geek sin: assuming that Star Trek sets the rules and paradigms for all of sci-fi (and sometimes they even think this is true of real life). In Star Trek, a ship releases a vast amount of stored energy when it explodes, because for some asinine reason the system is designed to be super-volatile that way. In real-life, a nuclear fission reactor, a nuclear fusion reactor, and any other kind of reactor we have ever built will not release its entire stored energy in one titanic blast when it's destroyed. So there's no reason to assume that a SW reactor must do so, unless (as mentioned previously) you're one of these numb-skulled Trekkies who makes assumptions about other sci-fi series based on Trek.

Um, sorry to rain on your parade Darth Wong, but I'm a bit of a trekkie myself, and I don't assume that Trek sets the standard, quite the opposite, I believe that every series sets the standard for any sequel series that follow, not for the entire Sci-Fi genre. I know there are a lot of loud mouth idiot trekkies, but can we at least hold off on complete trek bashing? I mean, without Trek, Science Fiction wouldn't be where it is today. It exposed a major audience to Science Fiction that hadn't been exposed before to it. Without the Original Series of Star Trek there to rocket Science Fiction into the lexicon of Modern America, Star Wars might not have happened. But enough of my rant, we all know that the Executor was in a Combat situation, so all the safety systems must have been on, to prevent a cascade effect that would have spread to all other systems. Or maybe I'm full of shit, either way, that's my two cents worth.

[Isolder74]

The way I see it, what happens is a ship in the caose of battle getting hit in just the right place at just the right time. Imagine a WWII Aircraft Carrier having the bridge hit while is was manuvering near a coral reef. If it hit the reef and sank as a result of the bridge being out, what destroyed the ship?

The Bridge hit or the reef?

[Lord Poe]

Without the Original Series of Star Trek there to rocket Science Fiction into the lexicon of Modern America, Star Wars might not have happened.

Don't be a fucking idiot. Trek was a failed TV show that barely limped into its third season. "2001, A Space Odyssey" launched sci-fi into the public conciousness in the late-60's, not Trek. FFS "Planet Of The Apes" had more of an influence on sci-fi than Trek did.

And if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that Star Wars may not have happened had it not been for "Flash Gordon".

[Darth Lucifer]

Without the Original Series of Star Trek there to rocket Science Fiction into the lexicon of Modern America, Star Wars might not have happened.

Or happened diferently. Or maybe it wouldn't have affected it at all. No way to know, unless, General, you can either;

A) use telepathy to get inside of George Lucas head and read his mind to see what he may or may not have ripped off (from) Trek or...

B) Time travel and prevent ST from ever airing somehow.

Let me know what you dig up.