Vorlon battleship vs. ISD

[seanrobertson]

Hiya all.

Those of you familiar with me know what I think. I haven't
kept up with all of Bean's latest posts regarding the
firepower and shields of an Imperator, though
I don't think 2.5E24W shields or several dozen teratons
of firepower/sec. (well over 5E22W) are at all unreasonable.

However, I'm in an entertaining debate at Spacebattles,
and I thought some of the claims about the Vorlon BB
were worth sharing I invite you to come read
the thread and participate if you so wish:
http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... adid=38536

Basically, I'm faced with the claim that a Vorlon ship
can somehow muster a firepower of 10 teratons per second
(4E22W). I, of course, think I utterly destroyed this fantasy.
But the way in which the figure was derived is...well, shit.
It's FUNNY!

To save you some time, this is pretty much it:



In the episode "War Zone" the Excalibur fired on a Drakh Cruiser, which according to Tim Earls is 3,316 meters long... and he would know since Tim determined all the cannon sizes for the ships and vessels in the Babylon 5 universe. Beam went right through the damaged Drakh vessel in a hundredth of one second and continued on for several hundred more kilometers until the beam was out of sight. Given that the beam is approximately 235 meters in diameter, a volume of some 130 million cubic meters was instantly brought to its vapor point. Thus knowing this, we can calculate a more accurate lower limit to Exclaibur's main guns, as compared to the asteroid scene from "A Call to Arms."

Adjusting for empty space, the total mass vaporized would have been roughly 52.05 million metric tons. If the Drakh vessel was comprised of iron, the total power required to accomplish this feet would have been 4.05*10^17 watt, lending some support to the figure seen in "A Call to Arms." Unfortunately, the beam not only destroyed the damaged Drakh vessel, but went right through the Drakh Cruiser and kept on going until the beam was out of sight. This would suggest that the weapon firepower is at least an order of magnitude greater than the figure established above. For the sake of being conservative however, we will continue to only deal with the figures stated above.

Drakh Cruisers are not made of iron of course, and their armor and technology (which is Shadow based), is superior to that of the Minbari. If their ships are constructed of matterial equal to that of the Minbari, estimated to be some 80 times stronger than our base matterial, then the total power required to blast through the Drakh ship would have been 32.5*10^18 watt, or adjusting for the duration of the blast, a total beam discharge of 4.07*10^21 joule. This figure corresponds to the total energy output figure based on the ship's time average reactor output, and as such we can assume that the ship's maximum beam output is in the range of 1.0 and 7.0*10^21 joule


This hails from B5Tech.com, somewhere. At the moment I can't
pull the website up to find the exact page, though I suspect
it's in his "Science" section under "Essays."

Those Imperials among us better watch out!

[Sea Skimmer]

B5tech is full of crap, as usual. Two-megaton weapons are effective against B5 ships, and no B5 power has multiple orders of magnitude more firepower and protection then another.

[Master of Ossus]

Daaaaah! Where the heck did he get all of that information? How can he even tell that the beam tore through the ship in one hundredth of one second, and how can he "adjust" for open areas in the ship (very questionably)?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Concidering <2 and <250 megatons are a threat to B5 ships, that's BS.

[Shinova]

I think that quote sounds fairly reasonable (This is coming from a non-physicist, mind you). What's wrong with it?

[Shinova]

I think that quote sounds fairly reasonable (This is coming from a non-physicist, mind you). What's wrong with it?

And don't bring up the destruction of the Black Star. That and Call to Arms are separate incidents.

[Durandal]

It's impossible to say that the beam went through the ship in 1/100 of a second. NTSC is 30 frames per second, meaning that the minimum amount of time is 1/30 of a second.

[Durandal]

In the episode "War Zone" the Excalibur fired on a Drakh Cruiser, which according to Tim Earls is 3,316 meters long... and he would know since Tim determined all the cannon sizes for the ships and vessels in the Babylon 5 universe. Beam went right through the damaged Drakh vessel in a hundredth of one second and continued on for several hundred more kilometers until the beam was out of sight. Given that the beam is approximately 235 meters in diameter, a volume of some 130 million cubic meters was instantly brought to its vapor point. Thus knowing this, we can calculate a more accurate lower limit to Exclaibur's main guns, as compared to the asteroid scene from "A Call to Arms."

We didn't see any vapor, so claiming that it was brought to its vapor point, rather than simply being disintegrated, it a baseless assumption.

Also, how does he know the beam was as wide as 2 1/2 football fields?

Adjusting for empty space, the total mass vaporized would have been roughly 52.05 million metric tons. If the Drakh vessel was comprised of iron, the total power required to accomplish this feet would have been 4.05*10^17 watt, lending some support to the figure seen in "A Call to Arms." Unfortunately, the beam not only destroyed the damaged Drakh vessel, but went right through the Drakh Cruiser and kept on going until the beam was out of sight. This would suggest that the weapon firepower is at least an order of magnitude greater than the figure established above. For the sake of being conservative however, we will continue to only deal with the figures stated above.

Baseless assumption. The fact that the beam carried on after going through the Drakh ship only means that it doesn't radiate a significant portion of its firepower off as light.

Drakh Cruisers are not made of iron of course, and their armor and technology (which is Shadow based), is superior to that of the Minbari. If their ships are constructed of matterial equal to that of the Minbari, estimated to be some 80 times stronger than our base matterial, then the total power required to blast through the Drakh ship would have been 32.5*10^18 watt, or adjusting for the duration of the blast, a total beam discharge of 4.07*10^21 joule. This figure corresponds to the total energy output figure based on the ship's time average reactor output, and as such we can assume that the ship's maximum beam output is in the range of 1.0 and 7.0*10^21 joule

Baseless, meaningless speculation. 80 times stronger in what respect? Specific heat capacity? Stress resistance? What does "80 times stronger" mean? It certainly doesn't mean that we multiply all data on the material by 80.

Also, he forgot to factor in the latent heat of sublimation, the process which he is assuming by skipping over the melting phase.

[seanrobertson]

It's impossible to say that the beam went through the ship in 1/100 of a second. NTSC is 30 frames per second, meaning that the minimum amount of time is 1/30 of a second.

Agreed. That was one of the first things I pointed out.
The moron I'm arguing with has yet to say anything
about that.

[seanrobertson]

We didn't see any vapor, so claiming that it was brought to its vapor point, rather than simply being disintegrated, it a baseless assumption.

Indeed. It's also worthy of note that the thing was hit on its
engine IIRC, and the ship was already a *flaming wreck*!

Also, how does he know the beam was as wide as 2 1/2 football fields?

Undoubtedly it's some half-assed scaling based on the width
of the beam as it leaves the ship...I honestly don't know, nor
could I care since the exercise is totally flawed before we could
even *consider* the volume "vaporized" (if that was the case).


[/quote]
Baseless assumption. The fact that the beam carried on after going through the Drakh ship only means that it doesn't radiate a significant portion of its firepower off as light.
[/quote]

Moreover, the density figures he provided were rather insulting,
equating to a ship that's 5% solid (and over a billion metric
tons taken altogether, to boot...sheer lunacy).

Baseless, meaningless speculation. 80 times stronger in what respect? Specific heat capacity? Stress resistance? What does "80 times stronger" mean? It certainly doesn't mean that we multiply all data on the material by 80.

Agreed. I asked the same questions and have yet to get a response.
All I got was some stupid bit about how technological progression
was "linear" (my words), and since the Drakh were so many years
ahead of humans, they "must have hull materials arbitrarily
stronger than ours." Of course, the original publisher of that
document simply decided that "strength" = thermal properties.

Also, he forgot to factor in the latent heat of sublimation, the process which he is assuming by skipping over the melting phase.

Good point.

[Yogi]

It's impossible to say that the beam went through the ship in 1/100 of a second. NTSC is 30 frames per second, meaning that the minimum amount of time is 1/30 of a second.

Actually, it's sixty fields per second (1 field = 1/2 frame), meaning that technically, it could have happened in 1/60 of a second. Not likely though.

[Connor MacLeod]

I think that quote sounds fairly reasonable (This is coming from a non-physicist, mind you). What's wrong with it?

1.) ACTA - the asteroid destruction scene.

2.) The Long Road - destruction of the "mine" area.

3.) The exacte "quote" contains a number of assumptions that are unsubstantiated. Its not neccesarily anything about the math or the physics, but the assumptions he makes are not supported ones, or neccesarily evne reasonable.

Let me ask you this, simply. We've seen the main gun beam. Its no larger than the front "bulb" of the Excalibur Yet this beam manages to easily engulf the entire vessel that is supposed to be several kilometers long?

[Shinova]

I think that quote sounds fairly reasonable (This is coming from a non-physicist, mind you). What's wrong with it?

1.) ACTA - the asteroid destruction scene.

2.) The Long Road - destruction of the "mine" area.

3.) The exacte "quote" contains a number of assumptions that are unsubstantiated. Its not neccesarily anything about the math or the physics, but the assumptions he makes are not supported ones, or neccesarily evne reasonable.

Let me ask you this, simply. We've seen the main gun beam. Its no larger than the front "bulb" of the Excalibur Yet this beam manages to easily engulf the entire vessel that is supposed to be several kilometers long?

Which way did it engulf? Front to back or from side-to-side?

[Connor MacLeod]

Durandal's points are all essentially correct. Just to add, there currently IS no more reliable example for Excalibur firepower than the ACTA Asteroid scene, despite the MANY efforts to discount that one.

[Connor MacLeod]

I think that quote sounds fairly reasonable (This is coming from a non-physicist, mind you). What's wrong with it?

1.) ACTA - the asteroid destruction scene.

2.) The Long Road - destruction of the "mine" area.

3.) The exacte "quote" contains a number of assumptions that are unsubstantiated. Its not neccesarily anything about the math or the physics, but the assumptions he makes are not supported ones, or neccesarily evne reasonable.

Let me ask you this, simply. We've seen the main gun beam. Its no larger than the front "bulb" of the Excalibur Yet this beam manages to easily engulf the entire vessel that is supposed to be several kilometers long?

Which way did it engulf? Front to back or from side-to-side?

Front to back. Havent you ever seen War Zone?

[Connor MacLeod]

Hiya all.

Those of you familiar with me know what I think. I haven't
kept up with all of Bean's latest posts regarding the
firepower and shields of an Imperator, though
I don't think 2.5E24W shields or several dozen teratons
of firepower/sec. (well over 5E22W) are at all unreasonable.

However, I'm in an entertaining debate at Spacebattles,
and I thought some of the claims about the Vorlon BB
were worth sharing I invite you to come read
the thread and participate if you so wish:
http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... adid=38536

Basically, I'm faced with the claim that a Vorlon ship
can somehow muster a firepower of 10 teratons per second
(4E22W). I, of course, think I utterly destroyed this fantasy.
But the way in which the figure was derived is...well, shit.
It's FUNNY!

To save you some time, this is pretty much it:



In the episode "War Zone" the Excalibur fired on a Drakh Cruiser, which according to Tim Earls is 3,316 meters long... and he would know since Tim determined all the cannon sizes for the ships and vessels in the Babylon 5 universe. Beam went right through the damaged Drakh vessel in a hundredth of one second and continued on for several hundred more kilometers until the beam was out of sight. Given that the beam is approximately 235 meters in diameter, a volume of some 130 million cubic meters was instantly brought to its vapor point. Thus knowing this, we can calculate a more accurate lower limit to Exclaibur's main guns, as compared to the asteroid scene from "A Call to Arms."

Adjusting for empty space, the total mass vaporized would have been roughly 52.05 million metric tons. If the Drakh vessel was comprised of iron, the total power required to accomplish this feet would have been 4.05*10^17 watt, lending some support to the figure seen in "A Call to Arms." Unfortunately, the beam not only destroyed the damaged Drakh vessel, but went right through the Drakh Cruiser and kept on going until the beam was out of sight. This would suggest that the weapon firepower is at least an order of magnitude greater than the figure established above. For the sake of being conservative however, we will continue to only deal with the figures stated above.

Drakh Cruisers are not made of iron of course, and their armor and technology (which is Shadow based), is superior to that of the Minbari. If their ships are constructed of matterial equal to that of the Minbari, estimated to be some 80 times stronger than our base matterial, then the total power required to blast through the Drakh ship would have been 32.5*10^18 watt, or adjusting for the duration of the blast, a total beam discharge of 4.07*10^21 joule. This figure corresponds to the total energy output figure based on the ship's time average reactor output, and as such we can assume that the ship's maximum beam output is in the range of 1.0 and 7.0*10^21 joule


This hails from B5Tech.com, somewhere. At the moment I can't
pull the website up to find the exact page, though I suspect
it's in his "Science" section under "Essays."

Those Imperials among us better watch out!

I'm betting this response was from either Hunnter or Adarx, wasn't it?

[seanrobertson]

[I'm betting this response was from either Hunnter or Adarx, wasn't it?

LOL Yeah, it was from Adarx.

The other thing he's supporting is the notion of Shadow beams
penetrating to the mantle of a planet, as per that oft-quoted
JMS statement. It's another B5Tech position. I don't have to
tell you this...you've no doubt seen it.

I keep telling them, look: that stuff can't have come
from the mantle, at least if we assume the mantle is
at a depth somewhat similar to Earth's. Maybe a magma
pocket not too far beneath the surface, but for their model
to work (as I've said a million times, and again, you already
know too well), the stuff would have to be moving at a stunning
rate. But then, it just stops when it reaches the surface, or
slows to a relative standstill? Why wouldn't it blast out of
the atmosphere like the ejecta 8472 caused when they fired
on that Borg planet?

Don--hi, Don...I know you're here, so I'm not trying to
speak behind your back--mentioned that the Shadow attack
must've melted several hundred square kilometers for
us to see those glowing areas from the shot in which
the Shadows leave the scene (perhaps scaling from
the curvature of the planet?).

Trouble is, where did all of that energy come from? When
the Shadows shot the area around the base, we didn't see
all of that melting action going on--assuming it even is
feasible to scale that site relative to the planet, from orbit
(not, IMO), that the beams did all of the work, etc.

He at least tries something original, supported by some figures,
even if the assumptions don't hold up under scrutiny. Most others
just offer the excuse, "Well, the Shadows were only trying
to imitate Centauri levels of firepower!" or somesuch. (That
begs the question, why in the hell did three ships attack, then?)

The typical response is, "The only difference between the
Centauri and the Shadows doing the job is time." Well, duh!
Time is a FUNCTION of firepower. This is always dismissed out
of hand.

Then we've got the "invincible Vorlon fighters" and no-limits
fallacies. Trying, to say the least.

[Connor MacLeod]

[I'm betting this response was from either Hunnter or Adarx, wasn't it?

LOL Yeah, it was from Adarx.

The other thing he's supporting is the notion of Shadow beams
penetrating to the mantle of a planet, as per that oft-quoted
JMS statement. It's another B5Tech position. I don't have to
tell you this...you've no doubt seen it.

I keep telling them, look: that stuff can't have come
from the mantle, at least if we assume the mantle is
at a depth somewhat similar to Earth's. Maybe a magma
pocket not too far beneath the surface, but for their model
to work (as I've said a million times, and again, you already
know too well), the stuff would have to be moving at a stunning
rate. But then, it just stops when it reaches the surface, or
slows to a relative standstill? Why wouldn't it blast out of
the atmosphere like the ejecta 8472 caused when they fired
on that Borg planet?

Don--hi, Don...I know you're here, so I'm not trying to
speak behind your back--mentioned that the Shadow attack
must've melted several hundred square kilometers for
us to see those glowing areas from the shot in which
the Shadows leave the scene (perhaps scaling from
the curvature of the planet?).

Trouble is, where did all of that energy come from? When
the Shadows shot the area around the base, we didn't see
all of that melting action going on--assuming it even is
feasible to scale that site relative to the planet, from orbit
(not, IMO), that the beams did all of the work, etc.

He at least tries something original, supported by some figures,
even if the assumptions don't hold up under scrutiny. Most others
just offer the excuse, "Well, the Shadows were only trying
to imitate Centauri levels of firepower!" or somesuch. (That
begs the question, why in the hell did three ships attack, then?)

The typical response is, "The only difference between the
Centauri and the Shadows doing the job is time." Well, duh!
Time is a FUNCTION of firepower. This is always dismissed out
of hand.

Then we've got the "invincible Vorlon fighters" and no-limits
fallacies. Trying, to say the least.

I would love to see the math and sources Don cites for that conclusion (I saw that as well.) Have you asked him/challenged him on it?

Thats always the way it is with Fivers. They sally forth when they sense an easy kill in large numbers (reminding me quite often of attacks by Orcs in the Lord of the Rings movie - although a couple of them do seem to be genuinely interested in attempting an objective analysis like Phalanx.) yet even if you manage to cut their arguments to pieces, they'll hide behind the "holding back" shield and retreat to lurk in the shadows, only to spring forth again with the SAME old arguments once more if they think you aren't pestering them further.

I dont know if you've noticed, but they tend to center themselves around the same basic "arguments" - rapid SPK production, the ability of the FO's to create matter from energy, Technomage capabilities, the whole "mantle" scene, the SPK/VPK, those cute little "tricks" like jump tactics and the claim that Shadow weapons will ignore armor and shields, Racing the Night's example for the main gun (ignoring contrary examples of course), and so forth.

If you really get into debates with some of them (like Adam Warlock) the debates drift heavily into the realm of speculation with little substantial proof (or if there is proof, its usually ambiguous evidence given a particular "spin" -) I believe you were familiar with his claims about the SPK creating "millions" of craters and that Ericsson only saw part of the planet, hence his claim of "thousands".

[Connor MacLeod]

For that matter is it just me or is Adarx rapidly becoming an embarassment to even the Fivers? I mean that guy is close to competing with Darkstar for the strength of a Wall of Ignorance. Give him a few more weeks and he'll be declaring victory no matter what anyoen else says (even on his side.)

Have you seen him in the B5 FirstOnes vs Culture thread? He and Elizar/Dark Lord are the only humans I know of who actually think the FO's could match the culture. No Trekkie or WArsie to my knowledge has been so insane. (and if any of you are familiar with the Cultureverse, you'd know why.)

[GSV Use Psychology]

Have you seen him in the B5 FirstOnes vs Culture thread? He and Elizar/Dark Lord are the only humans I know of who actually think the FO's could match the culture. No Trekkie or WArsie to my knowledge has been so insane. (and if any of you are familiar with the Cultureverse, you'd know why.)

Well to be honest he seems to mostly argue about the Triad beating the Culture. The other FO's hardly rate as cannonfodder.

[pecker]

Well, calcs have been done on the Nuke from ItB, and I think it's been shown that it couldn't have been 2MT due to it's effect on the asteroids. But that's jsut what I hear.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

Durandal's points are all essentially correct. Just to add, there currently IS no more reliable example for Excalibur firepower than the ACTA Asteroid scene, despite the MANY efforts to discount that one.

No shit. Im just in debate with Elizar or former Dark Lord that did the explosion in RTN result solely from the beam. The fact that it hit a power matrix tells something but offcourse he ignores this because it gives nicer numbers if the explosion resulted solely from the beam. Allso he makes an absurd assumption that the beam was not fully operational in ACTA which does not have any basis of anykind.

He assumes that since it is untested they dont have a clue what it does, he allso assumes that it has some magical exotic component ALA ndf etc. that throws all calculations out of the window, that allso was an unsubstantiated claim.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

Well, calcs have been done on the Nuke from ItB, and I think it's been shown that it couldn't have been 2MT due to it's effect on the asteroids. But that's jsut what I hear.

AFAIK the most accepted explanation for ITB is that the asteroid fragments resulted from the explosion of the nuke impacted the open gunports of the Black Star, since the BS was preparing to fire there was allready a high charge in the ports, the collision resulted in a feedback and an overload.

[Connor MacLeod]

Durandal's points are all essentially correct. Just to add, there currently IS no more reliable example for Excalibur firepower than the ACTA Asteroid scene, despite the MANY efforts to discount that one.

No shit. Im just in debate with Elizar or former Dark Lord that did the explosion in RTN result solely from the beam. The fact that it hit a power matrix tells something but offcourse he ignores this because it gives nicer numbers if the explosion resulted solely from the beam. Allso he makes an absurd assumption that the beam was not fully operational in ACTA which does not have any basis of anykind.

He assumes that since it is untested they dont have a clue what it does, he allso assumes that it has some magical exotic component ALA ndf etc. that throws all calculations out of the window, that allso was an unsubstantiated claim.

Actually I think that RTN suffers from much of the same problems as The Die is cast. The firepower estimate claims seem to be largely based on the size of the so-called "shockwave" we see relative to the planet (and that "plume" that ejects up into the air.

I suggest either consulting with Ted C (on SB, who has done calcs on the scene), asking Brian Young and Babtech about it, or checking their "claims" with analysis concerning TDIC and what energy levels of the magnitude they claim would REALLY look like on a planet. Remember that in TDIC there are OTHER factors than the shockwaves concerning the visuals that make the "firepower" estimates derived from such questionable.

[Connor MacLeod]

Have you seen him in the B5 FirstOnes vs Culture thread? He and Elizar/Dark Lord are the only humans I know of who actually think the FO's could match the culture. No Trekkie or WArsie to my knowledge has been so insane. (and if any of you are familiar with the Cultureverse, you'd know why.)

Well to be honest he seems to mostly argue about the Triad beating the Culture. The other FO's hardly rate as cannonfodder.

Well from what I understand the other FO's are supposed to be able to technologically match the other FO's (if not in raw ability). And they tend to make some absurd claims about the technomages (ability to create stable/permanant matter from energy, the "spell of destruction" is another example - I've seen claims that a single TM could destroy the whole universe if he wanted. I've assumed the latter was always a joke. I hope.)

Regardless, even the notion that the Triad is equal to the Culture is a bogus, weakly-constructed claim backed up by the ol' Fiver "They're holding back" Cliche (when aer the first ones NOT ever holding back? )