StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm in a debate (SW vs WH40K), and i was looking for some backing up to the idea that SW ships have neutronium-clad hulls. Where did this come from, where is it mentioned?

Also, what is the weight or mass or whatever of a star destroyer?

Any help is appreciated.

18-Till-I-Die wrote:I'm in a debate (SW vs WH40K), and i was looking for some backing up to the idea that SW ships have neutronium-clad hulls. Where did this come from, where is it mentioned?

The AOTC:ICS

Also, what is the weight or mass or whatever of a star destroyer?

I'd imagine it would be fairly high. I believe there were a few threads discussing this not too long ago.

Would the amount of neutronium make it be extremely heavy though? Like billions of tons, or more? I've heard that somewhere i thought.

They have mass lightening technology. Converting mass to neutrinos or some such mathematically sound, theoretically possible, yet physically impossible hoo-hah.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:They have mass lightening technology.

No they don't. Where did that come from?

Converting mass to neutrinos or some such mathematically sound, theoretically possible, yet physically impossible hoo-hah.

No, they convert waste heat to neutrinos to radiate it away, which is how numerous stellar events (eg supernovas) do it.

18-Till-I-Die wrote:Would the amount of neutronium make it be extremely heavy though? Like billions of tons, or more? I've heard that somewhere i thought.

Neutronium is extremely dense, but mass is dependent on mass and volume. The way it is suppossedly explained is that there are a bunch of microscopic spheres of neutronium set in a lattice one next to each other running through the heavy plating, with heavy metals making up the rest (and bluk) of the armor. Thus there is a low volume.

Mathmatically, the cap on an ISDs weight is (for 4000 Gs accel and a 2.5*10^25 total reactor power) ~3 trillion tons. But that's an upper limit and even then most of it would be the ejecta mass.

Oh, I guess I was confused with the "SW ships carry hypermatter, whose mass is not confined to our 3 dimensions, therefore it's not as heavy as it should be" thing I heard somewhere else in this forum. Bleh.

No, hypermatter is complex mass; which allows them to avoid paying for some of the inertial penalties of fuel mass. Therefore it has a higher energy density than even M/AM annhiliation.

18-Till-I-Die wrote: Also, what is the weight or mass or whatever of a star destroyer?

According to figures in the ROTS ICS, if the venator can output 40,000 tonnes from its engines every second (I assume that at maximum engine power, all annihilated matter is diverted to the engines) a velocity of c, and can accelerate at 3000G, then the mass of the ship is about 4E11 kg. If that's the case, then the average density of the ship is greater than that of iron. That's not even factoring in the hollowness of the ship! Since IP says that the fuel does not contribute to the mass, and consideing that the ship does have a huge habitible volume, you can probably surmise that the materials used to make the ship must be denser than lead or depleted uranium.

The complex matter may or may not, depending on where they let it rest at. The ejecta mass most certainly does have real mass.

Ender wrote:The complex matter may or may not, depending on where they let it rest at. The ejecta mass most certainly does have real mass.

No doubt, but isn't the ejecta's time aboard the ship rather short?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:No, hypermatter is complex mass; which allows them to avoid paying for some of the inertial penalties of fuel mass. Therefore it has a higher energy density than even M/AM annhiliation.

Oh for crying out loud:

Star Wars technical commentariles wrote: Approximately five SPHA-T guns were able to penetrate the shields and cut into a single launching core ship. If the core ships were fully shielded (as a sane and cowardly Neimoidian captain must command when evacuating an invasion zone), then we infer a lower limit on the output of an individual SPHA-T. By this reckoning, each gun yielded an instantaneous maximum firepower of around ~1.2×1023 W. However this rate was only sustainable for a little over a second before the SPHA-Ts were exhausted. This implies that the gun's reactor initially carries, and eventually annihilates, the equivalent of around a million tons of fuel. This much mass-energy, in whatever exotic form it takes, must contribute significantly to the effective weight of the walker.

And that means that all of it "counts" in magnitude as real mass? Here's a hint: complex mass is expressed a + bi kg, where a is a real number. Therefore, some of the complex mass does count inertially as tardyons, and contributes to the real mass-energy of the walker.

Ender already posted his work that hypermatter has a greater energy density than matter/antimatter annhiliation.

Ender wrote:Based off calculating the Falcon's trip to Bespin, It's MR is 7 and some change. (7.4-7.5). Interestingly, this completely rules out anything with a known power density as the primary power source. Fission and Fusion cap out at 2-3 for varying efficiencies, and AM has a max of 4.

Your work is extremely impressive by the way.

*makes mental note for future*

I'm actually rather partial to both WH40K and SW. Think about it, both are ruled by a tyrannical despot that has to be worshipped as a god. Both suck the life energies out of their serfs to maintain their own life force, and in the absence of both, their worlds would crumble. And if you haven't seen WH40K ships, they look downright badass! (Try Battlefleetgothic.com for some views)

But that's my personal opinion, and I digress. Has anyone here considered mass lightening fields? Asine though it may sound... hey naysayer! Trek gets to use them, so let's be fair here, if a SD can accelerate at 3000 G's, there wouldn't be much left of the crew, and when it got done accelerating, you'd need a mop to restaff the ship. Maybe this could represent a discrepency between the mass of the ship if set on a scale versus the effective mass for accelerating with said reactor output?

I see neutronium armor as being an effective defense through it being dense and there actually being a lot of it per volume, meaning you'd have to melt a lot of freakin' armor to have any discernable effect on the insides of the ship. I don't know if neutronium armor would have any other characteristics besides that that would make it effective protection against something like say, a Turbo Laser bolt.

My point is, a Star Destroyer could actually be really massive, just that some sort of *mass lightening* field helps it maneuver despite its bulk.

But in the end I am really partial to the gothic spires as well as the sleek, elegant dagger shape, and I'd really hate to see any harm come to either. I'm of the understanding that a WH40K Lance Battery can melt a whole continent (I may not understand it correctly, but I'll look it up when I have time, I have Caves of Ice). Like an ISD, it should be more than enough to vaporize Enterprise. Or even better, let the Orks take care of it, that would be something to watch.

You should really take W40K comparisons/vs with SW to Other Sci Fi.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:And that means that all of it "counts" in magnitude as real mass? Here's a hint: complex mass is expressed a + bi kg, where a is a real number. Therefore, some of the complex mass does count inertially as tardyons, and contributes to the real mass-energy of the walker.

Ender already posted his work that hypermatter has a greater energy density than matter/antimatter annhiliation.

That work, and what you posted really do nothing to refute what he posted. I was talking fuel, he was talking about the energy. As in how a 1e25 reactor will have a mass of 100,000 tons inside it because of good ole e=mc^2

wilfulton wrote:But that's my personal opinion, and I digress. Has anyone here considered mass lightening fields? Asine though it may sound... hey naysayer! Trek gets to use them, so let's be fair here,

How about we be realistic and look at the violation of conservation of energy instead?

if a SD can accelerate at 3000 G's, there wouldn't be much left of the crew, and when it got done accelerating, you'd need a mop to restaff the ship.

Yes, hence acceleration compensators, AKA artificial gravity.

Maybe this could represent a discrepency between the mass of the ship if set on a scale versus the effective mass for accelerating with said reactor output?

What you just said makes no sense.

I see neutronium armor as being an effective defense through it being dense and there actually being a lot of it per volume, meaning you'd have to melt a lot of freakin' armor to have any discernable effect on the insides of the ship. I don't know if neutronium armor would have any other characteristics besides that that would make it effective protection against something like say, a Turbo Laser bolt.

Neutronium is nice because it is superconductive and a heat sink. Otherthen that it offers no good material properties. It would behave like a liquid for petes sake.

My point is, a Star Destroyer could actually be really massive, just that some sort of *mass lightening* field helps it maneuver despite its bulk.

Or the engines could just be really powerful.

Ender wrote:

wilfulton wrote:But that's my personal opinion, and I digress. Has anyone here considered mass lightening fields? Asine though it may sound... hey naysayer! Trek gets to use them, so let's be fair here,

How about we be realistic and look at the violation of conservation of energy instead?

Okay. didn't I get through saying it was asinine, but I'll follow you for discussion's sake

if a SD can accelerate at 3000 G's, there wouldn't be much left of the crew, and when it got done accelerating, you'd need a mop to restaff the ship.

Yes, hence acceleration compensators, AKA artificial gravity.

And...how pray tell might something like this work? Any ideas? The artificial gravity generator is nice, but the only only type of artificial gravity we really know how to duplicate is with a centrifuge...and I think we begin to see problems here.

Maybe this could represent a discrepency between the mass of the ship if set on a scale versus the effective mass for accelerating with said reactor output?

What you just said makes no sense.

Elaboration and elaboration only. Let's say you just set an ISD on a scale, say your bathroom scale, according to the amount of weight pushing down on it under an arbitrary 1 earth G (which is how we define mass, if I am not mistaken) it weighs...say 1e12 tons, according to your bathroom scale. Then compare it to the nonsense mass lightening field I alluded to (hey, this is sci-fi, we can have cool toys if we want, the purpose is to entertain, and having to follow all the rules all the time is a real drag). It doesn't really make sense to me either to tell the truth, but I keep with the spirit of fiction. To entertain.

I see neutronium armor as being an effective defense through it being dense and there actually being a lot of it per volume, meaning you'd have to melt a lot of freakin' armor to have any discernable effect on the insides of the ship. I don't know if neutronium armor would have any other characteristics besides that that would make it effective protection against something like say, a Turbo Laser bolt.

Neutronium is nice because it is superconductive and a heat sink.

I was not aware of this. Elaborate please (where can I go to reference this, I would really like to know more about it, and, since I'm unaware of any neutronium anywhere but in neutron stars, how you know this)

Otherthen that it offers no good material properties. It would behave like a liquid for petes sake.

As I said, a lot of things in sci-fi don't make sense. The point is to entertain, not follow the laws of physics to the letter.

My point is, a Star Destroyer could actually be really massive, just that some sort of *mass lightening* field helps it maneuver despite its bulk.

Or the engines could just be really powerful.

Hey, what's wrong with lots of power?

err... I did adress some things in the quote box above. You'll have to bear with me, it's late, I have to get up for work in the morning, and I really don't know the finer points of this system yet.

wilfulton wrote:

Ender wrote:How about we be realistic and look at the violation of conservation of energy instead?

Okay. didn't I get through saying it was asinine, but I'll follow you for discussion's sake

If you admit the idea is wrong and with no merit, why propose it?

Yes, hence acceleration compensators, AKA artificial gravity.

And...how pray tell might something like this work? Any ideas?

I gave you the official explanation, now you are demanding I hammer out the physics rather then admit that you are wrong. Nice.

The artificial gravity generator is nice, but the only only type of artificial gravity we really know how to duplicate is with a centrifuge...and I think we begin to see problems here.

First off, again I don't need to explain how the individual piece of technology works, just provide the official explanation and the base physics behind it. Secondly, look up superconducting ion lattices. There are other ways to mess with gravity, atleast theoretically.

What you just said makes no sense.

Elaboration and elaboration only. Let's say you just set an ISD on a scale, say your bathroom scale, according to the amount of weight pushing down on it under an arbitrary 1 earth G (which is how we define mass, if I am not mistaken)

No, that's how we define weight.
Mass is independent of a gravity field.

it weighs...say 1e12 tons, according to your bathroom scale. Then compare it to the nonsense mass lightening field I alluded to (hey, this is sci-fi, we can have cool toys if we want, the purpose is to entertain, and having to follow all the rules all the time is a real drag). It doesn't really make sense to me either to tell the truth, but I keep with the spirit of fiction. To entertain.

I point out you make no sense, you respond with incoherent babble. I see you won't last long here.

Neutronium is nice because it is superconductive and a heat sink.

I was not aware of this. Elaborate please (where can I go to reference this, I would really like to know more about it, and, since I'm unaware of any neutronium anywhere but in neutron stars, how you know this)

Let me see if I get this straight: You want to know how I know that a huge ammount of supecooled mass will act as a good heatsink? And how I know that matter brought to a fraction of a degree above absolute zero will reach its superconducting state?
Are you simply trolling?

Other then that it offers no good material properties. It would behave like a liquid for petes sake.

As I said, a lot of things in sci-fi don't make sense. The point is to entertain, not follow the laws of physics to the letter.

Read the site's motto beneath the banner. Note the SCIENCE part.

I actually think Battlefleet Gothic ships look fucking retarded.

WH40K has got to be one of the most wanked universes ever. Their tech level is unimpressive, but because all the fluff is written by fanboys-now-staff, it's uberised out the ass. The very idea of WH40K-level technology even distracting the GE is ridiculous.

Their psykers, on the other hand, are a serious threat. Their utterly stupid floating cathedrals are not.

Star Destroyers have Mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

Ender Wrote:

Let me see if I get this straight: You want to know how I know that a huge ammount of supecooled mass will act as a good heatsink? And how I know that matter brought to a fraction of a degree above absolute zero will reach its superconducting state?
Are you simply trolling?


Okay, I follow you. But I don't understand why the neutronium in your armor would be cooled to near absolute zero. I would think it would be more at the equillibrium temperature of the hull, considering bombardment of thermal radiation from space (i.e. if say, it were orbiting earth, it would be 200 degrees on the sunlit side and as many below zero on the unlit side). I suppose you could artificially cool it.

I thought, however, that this would fit in with what I described in my original post, that by virute of being dense, there would be a lot of netronium to heat. 200 degrees will not cause most structural materials to fail catastrophically. Both titanium and iron (and even aluminum, which we use in our own pathetically primitive spacecraft ) will hold just fine at this temperature, and it would take a lot of TL fire to heat it above this point, and thus cause it to heat up to the point where it boils away, sublimes, or is just simply penetrated. On the shadow side, it would work out that you'd have to heat it even further.
My point was don't be decieved by the thickness of the armor, there's really a lot more to it.

NOW, even Pluto is a bit above Absolute zero, and so the armor on a ship orbiting out there would still have to be artificially cooled, requiring an expenditure of energy to maintain. Is this a sensible thing? Armor that requires energy to maintain? I don't see how the neturonium armor could be superconducting, never mind that all superconducting materials we have today are made of atoms.

Okay, if you really want to get scientific, neutronium is comprised entirely of neutrons. There are no crystalline lattices whose electron patterns are conducive to the free movement of electrons through them, without meeting any resistance whatsoever. None, it's all neutrons. In addition, I don't know how neutronium works, because I wonder if it isn't held together by gravity, after all, where else do we see it but in neutron stars, whose gravity is so high that the atomic structure cannot hold?

And for the last part, allow me to defend myself thusly.
I joined this board because I have an interest in science fiction, and would like to assosciate with other people who have a like interest. I didn't come in to start flame wars, because I prefer a civil discussion without needing to insult each other's integrity. I deal with jerks and dumbfucks all day at work, so I don't need to deal with them on something I do for fun. If I'm wrong, I can stand corrected, that's no problem. My degree is in foreign language, not science, I only took one year of Chemistry in College and that was because it was required.

And I'm also aware that there is a lot of junk science out there that a lot of people are so convinced of. Try doing a web search without having to sift through it. So if forgive me if I ask where I can go to look something up real quick. As I said, I joined this discussion because I have an interest, you don't need to make me look like an ass to prove a point.

wilfulton wrote:Okay, I follow you. But I don't understand why the neutronium in your armor would be cooled to near absolute zero. I would think it would be more at the equillibrium temperature of the hull, considering bombardment of thermal radiation from space (i.e. if say, it were orbiting earth, it would be 200 degrees on the sunlit side and as many below zero on the unlit side). I suppose you could artificially cool it.

Wheteher supercooled temperatures is a prereq for neutronium maintaining its form or not I don't know. However the hulls are artifically cooled, if they were not they could just use infared scanners and completely ignore ECM and blast each other from long range.

I thought, however, that this would fit in with what I described in my original post, that by virute of being dense, there would be a lot of netronium to heat. 200 degrees will not cause most structural materials to fail catastrophically. Both titanium and iron (and even aluminum, which we use in our own pathetically primitive spacecraft ) will hold just fine at this temperature, and it would take a lot of TL fire to heat it above this point, and thus cause it to heat up to the point where it boils away, sublimes, or is just simply penetrated. On the shadow side, it would work out that you'd have to heat it even further.
My point was don't be decieved by the thickness of the armor, there's really a lot more to it.

If the heavy armor is all made of the same alloys, then the extra stuff cancels out and only relative thickness becomes important.

NOW, even Pluto is a bit above Absolute zero, and so the armor on a ship orbiting out there would still have to be artificially cooled, requiring an expenditure of energy to maintain.

Not necessarily. Depends on you you rig the coolant system, you can concievably use natural circulation.

Is this a sensible thing? Armor that requires energy to maintain?

It would require energy to stabalize the neutronium anyways, plus the tensor fields to keep the frame from failing under the stress from the engines.

I don't see how the neturonium armor could be superconducting, never mind that all superconducting materials we have today are made of atoms.

Evidence is starting to point towards being superconducting as a thermodynamic state rather then relating to the compound. Besides it has to be thermally superconductive, not electrically.

Okay, if you really want to get scientific, neutronium is comprised entirely of neutrons.

No, the outer layer is dense degenerate material not yet collapsed to a neutron state, then basically a neutron soup of degenerate matter, then a strange matter in the very interior.

There are no crystalline lattices whose electron patterns are conducive to the free movement of electrons through them, without meeting any resistance whatsoever. None, it's all neutrons.

I would really reccomend you investigte a subject before you begin speaking about it.

In addition, I don't know how neutronium works, because I wonder if it isn't held together by gravity, after all, where else do we see it but in neutron stars, whose gravity is so high that the atomic structure cannot hold?

Mostly it is gravity, though I've read some thigs that suggest the strange matter in the core would remain intact outside the gravitational influence.

And for the last part, allow me to defend myself thusly.
I joined this board because I have an interest in science fiction, and would like to assosciate with other people who have a like interest. I didn't come in to start flame wars, because I prefer a civil discussion without needing to insult each other's integrity. I deal with jerks and dumbfucks all day at work, so I don't need to deal with them on something I do for fun. If I'm wrong, I can stand corrected, that's no problem. My degree is in foreign language, not science, I only took one year of Chemistry in College and that was because it was required.

That's great. My speciality has nothing to do with rocketry. So you know what I did? I typed in www.google.com and researched the unholy hell out of it. I may not be able to preform feats of engineering and apply theoretical science, but I can do the basic math and cite other sources.

Just like everyone else here who enters a tech discussion needs to. So your options are : Do the legwork, take a beating til the point where you pick up enough on your own, or stay out of tech discussions.

Believe me, this is one of the lighter arguments. I keep my kid gloves on for noobs. Hit the archives and look up Mark Xaiver and his plasma blob thoery to watch techies really go at it.

And I'm also aware that there is a lot of junk science out there that a lot of people are so convinced of. Try doing a web search without having to sift through it. So if forgive me if I ask where I can go to look something up real quick. As I said, I joined this discussion because I have an interest, you don't need to make me look like an ass to prove a point.

You did that yourself.

Could the artificial gravity be produced by graviton particles? I googled the concept of gravitons and found this among other things. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/ma ... .Ph.r.html

Ender wrote:Yes, hence acceleration compensators, AKA artificial gravity.

wilfulton wrote:And...how pray tell might something like this work? Any ideas? The artificial gravity generator is nice, but the only only type of artificial gravity we really know how to duplicate is with a centrifuge...and I think we begin to see problems here.

The mechanism for achieving it doesn't matter. It's obvious that they do have the capability for artificially generating gravitational fields (they don't float about their ships).

Ender wrote:Read the site's motto beneath the banner. Note the SCIENCE part.

The site's motto wrote:Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people

Lol looks like the entire motto is being fulfilled.