Turbolaser Speed and Range

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-07-05 12:15pm

A bit broken off from the thread I started in the Pure Star Wars forum, but the results there were inconclusive and unsatisfactory, seeing as how what comes from this will likely be used in many SW vs. debates to come. Over at SB.COM, they've started this thread on the speed and range of turbolasers. So far, the consensus seems to be that TL bolts are quite slow, as their progress of travel can be easily seen with on the screen. There are some who maintain that TL bolts can have variable speeds and actually gain momentum with distance. However, I've yet to see that proven. Why is this important? A large contengent of Trekkies maintain that Trek ships can strike Imperial ships from incredible distances, while the slow-moving TL bolts fired by Imperial ships would take days or more to reach the Trek ships (if the Imperial ships fired at all).

Looking for all of your two-cents worth on this.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-07-05 03:15pm

Turbolaser bolts must have different speeds. For example, the bolts in ROTJ, in a full scale battle, are much faster than the ones in ANH and TESB.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2004-07-05 03:40pm

The turbolaser tracer bolts would be fired at whatever speed would be useful for targetting the turbolasers themselves, which travel at lightspeed, as has been thoroughly established. It's as simple as that. Not my fault about idiots who don't like the ICS...

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2004-07-05 04:16pm

True velocity of turbolaser bolts is "whatever they need to be". They hit the target visibly in 1-3 seconds with apparent disregard of distance. Theorizing about it gives me a headache. I don't think it's possible to make a unified all-encompassing theory about turbolasers that matches all evidence.

Mad's theory is good for medium-heavy turbolasers but doesn't give any timelimit. It also doesn't explain any other weapon type.

Techno_Union · Post by **Techno_Union** » 2004-07-06 01:41pm

Since the SW Clone Wars cartoon is lower canon, can we pull some scenes form there to help, such as the Acclamators firing at orbital stations over Muunilist? Their turbolasers took a fraction of a second to go at least a km.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-07-06 03:47pm

nightmare wrote:True velocity of turbolaser bolts is "whatever they need to be". They hit the target visibly in 1-3 seconds with apparent disregard of distance.

Are there any canon examples of TLs velocity being FTL?

Techno_Union · Post by **Techno_Union** » 2004-07-06 04:03pm

EPII ICS wrote:Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible "bolt" is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed.

Shadow's of the Empire Pg326 wrote:A hard green beam of light flashed between the two ships. The sighting ray of a big ship's cannon--you couldn't see the laser itself in vacuum, of course, but it followed the ionized marker you could see precisely.

Destiny's Way wrote:He triggered the first pair of concussion missiles, knowing that unlike the laser cannon, they did not strike at the speed of light.

EGTW&T Pg3 wrote:The final particle beam, or "bolt," contains high-
energy particles that cause tremendous damage to anything they hit; the bolt's visible light is a harmless by-product of this reaction.

I pulled these from Mad at SB.com in the same thread.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-07-06 04:08pm

Well, canonically for speed:

According to the TESB (movie, novels, and radio drama), the Rebels were afraid to keep the Hoth Shield open for more than a few seconds (if not much less - some suggest a fraction of a second) - a short enough time that they suggested that timing was important. Given the approximate distance of tens of thousnads of kilometers or so from Hoth for the Imperial warships, this suggests a velocity of thousands/tens of thousands of kilometers a second, at a bare minimum.

We also know they considered bombarding the planet from outside the orbit of Hoth (if not from near the asteroid field itself) - which places weapons ranges easily in the hundreds of kilometrs.

There's also the "lightspeeD" reference in the AOTC ICS, which was echoed by Destiny's Way, the Allston Wraith Squadron novels, and Allston's "Rebel Stand."

Range wise, there are incidents in the Corellian trilogy suggesting hundreds of thosuands of kilometers and tens of thousands of kilometers (minimum) velocities, the Thrawn Trilogy includes some range examples as well. I also believe the WEG Star Wars Sourcecbooks give indications of weapons range/velocity (one suggests ships can engage in combat at speeds in excess of thousands of kilometers a second, and another suggests sensor ranges in conjunction with weapons targeting that imply a range of around a million kilometers, IIRC.)

That's all I can recall off the top of my head (I did a more thorough analysis some time back, though.) If anyone is curious about something I mentioned, just ask for clarification.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-07-06 04:10pm

Oh yeah, I forgot Destiny's Way and Star by Star. The former suggests that the Falcon's guns and missiles have a range of at least tens of thousands of kilometers (minimum) - as well as some suggested missile accelerations. Star by Star is relevant/interesting because it involves combat by ships moving at relatavistic speeds against targets moving at relatavistic speeds (mostly referring to fighters) - which suggests implicitly ranges at least in the tens or hundreds of thousnads, if not millions of kilometers.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-07-06 04:15pm

another mention: In Dark Empire I believe there is a mention of rebel fighters (and warships) engaging the World Devastators from low orbit (IIRC correctly), which would suggest ranges of hundreds to thousands of kilometers in a large-scale battle (not much for a capital ship, of course, but its rather prodigious range for a SW fighter against another SW fighter.)

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2004-07-06 05:35pm

Augustus wrote:
nightmare wrote:True velocity of turbolaser bolts is "whatever they need to be". They hit the target visibly in 1-3 seconds with apparent disregard of distance.
Are there any canon examples of TLs velocity being FTL?

No. The DS1 superlaser strikes in a significant fraction of C (visibly, of course), and the AOTC:ICS gives lightspeed. Then there's the event Connor mentioned. But we haven't seen anything FTL, and I don't think we will. Still, the "whatever they need to be" meant the artistic license, and I think that holds true as an outside SoD principe.

Augustus · Post by **Augustus** » 2004-07-06 05:43pm

MAD's theory over at SB.com sounds alot like the old Meson Gun from the Traveller RPG.

http://www.tip.net.au/~davidjw/libdata/ ... songun.htm

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2004-07-06 06:32pm

My turbolaser theory has been presented here in several different turbolaser threads here, as well. It's pretty well accepted by now, though, as nightmare pointed out, it doesn't cover blasters or other weapon types as of yet.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-07-06 09:56pm

The problem with turbolasers and blasters is that you really can't formulate a single consistent theory to explain all of the phenomena at once. All attempts to do so have ended in failure to one degree or another.

Mind you, I suppose one might always simply argue that the particles of a turbolaser have a dual nature; it wouldn't be the first time such an explanation has been used in physics

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-07-06 11:29pm

Connor MacLeod wrote:
We also know they considered bombarding the planet from outside the orbit of Hoth (if not from near the asteroid field itself) - which places weapons ranges easily in the hundreds of kilometrs.

There's also the "lightspeeD" reference in the AOTC ICS, which was echoed by Destiny's Way, the Allston Wraith Squadron novels, and Allston's "Rebel Stand."

I hesitate in using those quotes because of the "game source" materials of the novelisation, plus the known influence of Micheal Stackpole who regards them as true lasers............

Darth Wong wrote:The problem with turbolasers and blasters is that you really can't formulate a single consistent theory to explain all of the phenomena at once. All attempts to do so have ended in failure to one degree or another.

Mind you, I suppose one might always simply argue that the particles of a turbolaser have a dual nature; it wouldn't be the first time such an explanation has been used in physics

That's....... evil.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2004-07-08 05:54am

PainRack wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The problem with turbolasers and blasters is that you really can't formulate a single consistent theory to explain all of the phenomena at once. All attempts to do so have ended in failure to one degree or another.

Mind you, I suppose one might always simply argue that the particles of a turbolaser have a dual nature; it wouldn't be the first time such an explanation has been used in physics
That's....... evil.

Evil and brilliant.. I like it. it would be an elegant solution.. now I just have to figure out how it could work.

AdmiralPorkins · Post by **AdmiralPorkins** » 2004-07-11 05:00pm

Darth Wong wrote:The problem with turbolasers and blasters is that you really can't formulate a single consistent theory to explain all of the phenomena at once. All attempts to do so have ended in failure to one degree or another.

Mind you, I suppose one might always simply argue that the particles of a turbolaser have a dual nature; it wouldn't be the first time such an explanation has been used in physics

It seems to be the geenral consensus that SW weapons are an order of magnitude more powerful than the ST weapons. However, I am having difficulty finding the explanations on what powers SW technology. ST is powered by antimatter, what powers SW? Can you point me to the relevant sources please. Sorry if this has been done before, but I after looking around I have had little success.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-07-11 05:04pm

AdmiralPorkins wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The problem with turbolasers and blasters is that you really can't formulate a single consistent theory to explain all of the phenomena at once. All attempts to do so have ended in failure to one degree or another.

Mind you, I suppose one might always simply argue that the particles of a turbolaser have a dual nature; it wouldn't be the first time such an explanation has been used in physics
It seems to be the geenral consensus that SW weapons are an order of magnitude more powerful than the ST weapons. However, I am having difficulty finding the explanations on what powers SW technology. ST is powered by antimatter, what powers SW? Can you point me to the relevant sources please. Sorry if this has been done before, but I after looking around I have had little success.

Why does there have to be an explanation as to what powers it? Canon sources show and demonstrate the power of a turbolaser and that it works in the movies and/or books. Anymore than that is really needless technobabble.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-07-11 05:04pm

AdmiralPorkins wrote:
It seems to be the geenral consensus that SW weapons are an order of magnitude more powerful than the ST weapons. However, I am having difficulty finding the explanations on what powers SW technology. ST is powered by antimatter, what powers SW? Can you point me to the relevant sources please. Sorry if this has been done before, but I after looking around I have had little success.

Several sources such as the AOTC:ICS cite hypermatter reactors as a power source for starships such as the Trade Federation Core Ships and of course the Death Star.

AdmiralPorkins · Post by **AdmiralPorkins** » 2004-07-11 05:35pm

Why does there have to be an explanation as to what powers it? Canon sources show and demonstrate the power of a turbolaser and that it works in the movies and/or books. Anymore than that is really needless technobabble.

That's a fair point. No technobable is given in SW therefore we don't need to worry how the SW tech works. However, ST technobabble is used for various calculations in debates that give results which show its tech to give lower power levels than SW tech. It is therefore reasonable to question what powers SW tech so that similar calculations can be made for a fair comparison of SW and ST tech. Since no explanations are given for SW it seems a little unfair. I will get to the subject of hypermatter in my next post in this thread.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-07-11 05:37pm

AdmiralPorkins wrote:
Why does there have to be an explanation as to what powers it? Canon sources show and demonstrate the power of a turbolaser and that it works in the movies and/or books. Anymore than that is really needless technobabble.
That's a fair point. No technobable is given in SW therefore we don't need to worry how the SW tech works. However, ST technobabble is used for various calculations in debates that give results which show its tech to give lower power levels than SW tech. It is therefore reasonable to question what powers SW tech so that similar calculations can be made for a fair comparison of SW and ST tech. Since no explanations are given for SW it seems a little unfair. I will get to the subject of hypermatter in my next post in this thread.

you don't need to know what powers something in order to make calculations on the damage it causes. the power mechanism behind the device is rather irrelevant as long as you can observe the effects.

AdmiralPorkins · Post by **AdmiralPorkins** » 2004-07-11 05:47pm

Several sources such as the AOTC:ICS cite hypermatter reactors as a power source for starships such as the Trade Federation Core Ships and of course the Death Star.

Thanks for the info Cpl Kendall. Now this raises an interesting issue. Whereas antimatter is currently a scientific theory and there are people actively researching this area, hypermatter on the other hand is pure fiction. Calculations can therefore be made on ST technology that claims to use antimatter as its power source. However, similar calculations for hypermatter cannot be made for SW technology. We therefore have to rely on "reverse engineering" events and effects made by SW tech in order to guess the power output of said technology, and also we rely heavily on figures quoted by canon sources that have no scientific theoretical backing which are merely stated as fact. I think the deck is stacked heavily against ST which is a victim of its own technobabble I think.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-07-11 05:51pm

AdmiralPorkins wrote: However, similar calculations for hypermatter cannot be made for SW technology.

Actually, it's trivially easy to work out the lower-limit for Hypermatter's energy-density(Or, more accurately, Effective Energy Density). Solve E=MC^2 for M, then solve for density of known volume of powerplant..

We therefore have to rely on "reverse engineering" events and effects made by SW tech in order to guess the power output of said technology, and also we rely heavily on figures quoted by canon sources that have no scientific theoretical backing which are merely stated as fact.

Of course. Exactly like how we work out the yield of a Photon Torpedo; their observed detonations and not wild claims of how much antimatter they could hold.

I think the deck is stacked heavily against ST which is a victim of its own technobabble I think.

Trust me, it's stacked for many reasons because of technobabble, but not because it claims(And utterly, UTTERLY fails) to use realistic tech.

AdmiralPorkins · Post by **AdmiralPorkins** » 2004-07-11 05:53pm

you don't need to know what powers something in order to make calculations on the damage it causes. the power mechanism behind the device is rather irrelevant as long as you can observe the effects.

I agree that would be the case to a certain extent for blasting asteroids say, but if you have weapons hitting shields you need to know the power output of either the weapons or the shields in order to make the relevant calculations.

Also we have to be careful when making calculations for even such simple events as blasting an asteroid because there is a big difference in the energy required in blasting it to pieces and vapourising it.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-07-11 06:00pm

AdmiralPorkins wrote:
you don't need to know what powers something in order to make calculations on the damage it causes. the power mechanism behind the device is rather irrelevant as long as you can observe the effects.
I agree that would be the case to a certain extent for blasting asteroids say, but if you have weapons hitting shields you need to know the power output of either the weapons or the shields in order to make the relevant calculations.

But we have both stated yields of shields from the ICS, and can derive shield estimates from events.

Also we have to be careful when making calculations for even such simple events as blasting an asteroid because there is a big difference in the energy required in blasting it to pieces and vapourising it.

It's trivially easy to discern a vaporization effect from a shattering event.

Vaporization:

Shattering:

Unless one is completely ignorant of the differences of the reactions, it is hard to confuse the two!