Seismic Charges and Versus debates

[Robert Walper]

The scene cuts several times, but it's implied that that same charge (2nd one) continues to blast and toss asteroids all over for seconds worth of OWK's flight speed. It's origin point itself is beyond the first big asteroid blown. If we take what's shown on screen it's about 8 seconds worth, if you add in Jango's screen it brings it to 10-11sec. It takes OWK 2secs+/- a few frames to clear the biggest asteroid, which is only half in the frame making it 500m+ from quick ghetto scaling, so a few hundred meter per second speed at least. That's all rough numbers but gives 2km blast radius minimum. Add in the distance he covers between cuts and it's reasonable for multi-km blast with no sign of the wave having any trouble with roids in it's path in the later stages.

Very crude estimations, but I understand your point. My issue being the blast wave itself I can easily accept being several kilometers in diameter, but no asteroid it destroys is the near the diameter of the actual blast wave itself.

[Lord Poe]

[quote="Meest"]Here's a quick gif showing the same charge from the screenshot above after several seconds and multiple asteroids it blasted through, KE (left side roids) and thorough fragmentation.


At that point, the shockwave had been propagating for 8 seconds. And it STILL completely turned that asteroid into rubble.

The absolute, lower limit for that asteroid is of course, the size of the Jedi starfighter: 8 m x 3.92 m.

And of course, anyone eyeballing the scene can see that asteroid is MUCH bigger. We know its BIGGER than the Millennium Falcon, too, because if you look at the left-hand corner of the above animated gif, there is a Falcon-sized asteroid behind the big one that gets caught by the seismic wave.

[Lord Poe]

Here's a quick gif showing the same charge from the screenshot above after several seconds and multiple asteroids it blasted through, KE (left side roids) and thorough fragmentation.

At that point, the shockwave had been propagating for 8 seconds. And it STILL completely turned that asteroid into rubble.

The absolute, lower limit for that asteroid is of course, the size of the Jedi starfighter: 8 m x 3.92 m.

And of course, anyone eyeballing the scene can see that asteroid is MUCH bigger. We know its BIGGER than the Millennium Falcon, too, because if you look at the left-hand corner of the above animated gif, there is a Falcon-sized asteroid behind the big one that gets caught by the seismic wave.

[Lord Poe]

The scene cuts several times, but it's implied that that same charge (2nd one) continues to blast and toss asteroids all over for seconds worth of OWK's flight speed. It's origin point itself is beyond the first big asteroid blown. If we take what's shown on screen it's about 8 seconds worth, if you add in Jango's screen it brings it to 10-11sec. It takes OWK 2secs+/- a few frames to clear the biggest asteroid, which is only half in the frame making it 500m+ from quick ghetto scaling, so a few hundred meter per second speed at least. That's all rough numbers but gives 2km blast radius minimum. Add in the distance he covers between cuts and it's reasonable for multi-km blast with no sign of the wave having any trouble with roids in it's path in the later stages.

You win the prize for posting before me! We must have rewatched the scene at nearly the same time!

Wow, this REALLY shows that the AOTC:ICS has no validity whatsoever...

[Robert Walper]

Wow, this REALLY shows that the AOTC:ICS has no validity whatsoever...

Who's disputing the ICS? I most certainly am not, but I am asking for verification the asteroids in question are "multi kilometers" is size.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Not necessarily. Compare a pirate today with a bolted on cruise missile launcher and a nuke warhead to a Ticonderoga class cruiser. Though a civilian getting strategic level weapons is where the example gets sticky. I'm not saying thats what happened, but thats about the most rational argument you can come up with for Jango having more firepower then a ship of the line.

Yeah, which never happens and is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I can see how you Trekkies managed to not get stomped for so long. You're great at coming up mitigating BS.

[Alyeska]

Not necessarily. Compare a pirate today with a bolted on cruise missile launcher and a nuke warhead to a Ticonderoga class cruiser. Though a civilian getting strategic level weapons is where the example gets sticky. I'm not saying thats what happened, but thats about the most rational argument you can come up with for Jango having more firepower then a ship of the line.

Yeah, which never happens and is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I can see how you Trekkies managed to not get stomped for so long. You're great at coming up mitigating BS.

Fuck you IP. I already said a condition in which someone like Jango getting said weaponry would be absurd. I was throwing up an example of an argument the other side would make.

[Kane Starkiller]

I did a quick scaling job on the asteroid:
Link:+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/up ... dedit2.jpg

The width of the Obi's starfighter comes out to be 49px, the heigth of the asteroid is 338px while the width of the visible part of the asteroid is 1003px.
If the width of the starfighter is 4m then the heigth of the asteroid is about 30m while the width of the visible part us 82m.
The width of the entire asteroid is probably about 100-200m.

[althornin]

I imagine the charges would eb relatively useless against a ship, since they generate a flat plane blast instead of a shaped charge or omnidirectional blast.

?

Ummm...you do understand that is completely illogical stance since it DOESN'T generate such.

It propagates a from a single point of goes outward...thus an OMNIDIRECTIONAL blast...or did you miss how it exploded?

Umm, did you miss how it propogates in a plane, not a sphere? Thus, "flat plane balst", and NOT omnidirectional.

Omnidirectional from a single point is a sphere.

[Robert Walper]

I did a quick scaling job on the asteroid:
Link:+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/up ... dedit2.jpg

The width of the Obi's starfighter comes out to be 49px, the heigth of the asteroid is 338px while the width of the visible part of the asteroid is 1003px.
If the width of the starfighter is 4m then the heigth of the asteroid is about 30m while the width of the visible part us 82m.
The width of the entire asteroid is probably about 100-200m.

Thank you KS. This is the kind of verification I was looking for, and seems to convincingly dispute the assertion the asteroids in question being destroyed were "multi-kilometer" in size.

Mind you, if anyone has counter evidence by all means show it.

[Ender]

I did a quick scaling job on the asteroid:
Link:+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/up ... dedit2.jpg

The width of the Obi's starfighter comes out to be 49px, the heigth of the asteroid is 338px while the width of the visible part of the asteroid is 1003px.
If the width of the starfighter is 4m then the heigth of the asteroid is about 30m while the width of the visible part us 82m.
The width of the entire asteroid is probably about 100-200m.

Thank you KS. This is the kind of verification I was looking for, and seems to convincingly dispute the assertion the asteroids in question being destroyed were "multi-kilometer" in size.

Mind you, if anyone has counter evidence by all means show it.

Go to the Ask The Jedi Council section of TOS.

According to the SFX guys, that big asteroid is Eros, from our local asteroid belt. They imaged it from NASA photos and dropped it straight in. It measures 11 km by 13 km by 11 km.

Any other questions?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Fuck you IP. I already said a condition in which someone like Jango getting said weaponry would be absurd. I was throwing up an example of an argument the other side would make.

So you replied to Mike's assertion that its impossible to come up with a reasonable model whereby the Slave 1's firepower would be grossly disproportionate to that the Empire's warships could field against the Federation...with an example of a completely unreasonable model? You're trying to prove his point?

[Vympel]

Pretty much yeah that's what he was doing. He wasn't seriously making that argument.

[Darth Wong]

I did a quick scaling job on the asteroid:
Link:+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/up ... dedit2.jpg

The width of the Obi's starfighter comes out to be 49px, the heigth of the asteroid is 338px while the width of the visible part of the asteroid is 1003px.
If the width of the starfighter is 4m then the heigth of the asteroid is about 30m while the width of the visible part us 82m.
The width of the entire asteroid is probably about 100-200m.

Thank you KS. This is the kind of verification I was looking for, and seems to convincingly dispute the assertion the asteroids in question being destroyed were "multi-kilometer" in size.

Of course, because incredibly simplistic flat-plane 2D scaling (in a scene where Obi-Wan's fighter is heading straight toward the viewer at high speed, no less) is "convincing" ... if you're an idiot.

[Kane Starkiller]

Of course, because incredibly simplistic flat-plane 2D scaling (in a scene where Obi-Wan's fighter is heading straight toward the viewer at high speed, no less) is "convincing" ... if you're an idiot.

Yes that picture maybe isn't the best joice. So I did another scaling:
Link:+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/asteroid2edit.jpg

I get a length of the fighter being 58px and heigth of the asteroid 375px. If the fighter is 8m long the asteroid would be 52m high. There is a perspective error making the fighter look shorter than it really is. The heigth of the asteroid will likely be about 40m.
That's quick and dirty but I don't see how that asteroid could be anything close to a kilometer size.

[Darth Wong]

Of course, because incredibly simplistic flat-plane 2D scaling (in a scene where Obi-Wan's fighter is heading straight toward the viewer at high speed, no less) is "convincing" ... if you're an idiot.

Yes that picture maybe isn't the best joice. So I did another scaling:
Link:+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/asteroid2edit.jpg

I get a length of the fighter being 58px and heigth of the asteroid 375px. If the fighter is 8m long the asteroid would be 52m high. There is a perspective error making the fighter look shorter than it really is. The heigth of the asteroid will likely be about 40m.
That's quick and dirty but I don't see how that asteroid could be anything close to a kilometer size.

And precisely how does that eliminate the depth scaling issue?

[Kane Starkiller]

And precisely how does that eliminate the depth scaling issue?

If you mean how do we know that the fighter isn't closer to the camera then the asteroid the engine glow of the fighter can give us an answer.
If you look at the part of the film in question(or even the GIF animation on this page) you will see a yellow glow moving across the upper surface of the lower asteroid. This is obviously the engine glow of the starfighter. At one point the glow crosses the shadow of the upper asteroid cast on the lower one.
Thus the starfighter does indeed move beneath the asteroid.

[Robert Walper]

Thank you KS. This is the kind of verification I was looking for, and seems to convincingly dispute the assertion the asteroids in question being destroyed were "multi-kilometer" in size.

Mind you, if anyone has counter evidence by all means show it.

Go to the Ask The Jedi Council section of TOS.

They did visual scaling and/or calculations?

According to the SFX guys, that big asteroid is Eros, from our local asteroid belt. They imaged it from NASA photos and dropped it straight in. It measures 11 km by 13 km by 11 km.

Which is an utterly useless arguement. It doesn't matter how big the actual object is that the SFX guys used as a reference, only how big the object is relative to objects of known size in the film itself.

[Mange]

I did a quick scaling job on the asteroid:
Link:+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/up ... dedit2.jpg

The width of the Obi's starfighter comes out to be 49px, the heigth of the asteroid is 338px while the width of the visible part of the asteroid is 1003px.
If the width of the starfighter is 4m then the heigth of the asteroid is about 30m while the width of the visible part us 82m.
The width of the entire asteroid is probably about 100-200m.

Thank you KS. This is the kind of verification I was looking for, and seems to convincingly dispute the assertion the asteroids in question being destroyed were "multi-kilometer" in size.

Mind you, if anyone has counter evidence by all means show it.

Go to the Ask The Jedi Council section of TOS.

According to the SFX guys, that big asteroid is Eros, from our local asteroid belt. They imaged it from NASA photos and dropped it straight in. It measures 11 km by 13 km by 11 km.

Any other questions?

They've removed the Ask the Jedi Council section from the OS. Just because the SFX crew used Eros, it doesn't mean they used its real size (although that is the logical assumption). I watched AOTC the other day, and there are two possible multi-km asteroids I can think of, the asteroid which the first seismic charge detonates in close proximity to, and the one which is shown in the moving GIF here.
I don't know which movie the trekkie side has been watching. One claim is that there's "no visible heating of the rock". Couldn't he see the glowing "asteroidlets" or the heating effect the planar wave had on the asteroids?

[Alyeska]

Pretty much yeah that's what he was doing. He wasn't seriously making that argument.

We have a winner. I wasn't even playing deviles advocate, I was just showing a potential theory the other side would make.

For shits sake IP, read my first bloody post in the thread.

[Kane Starkiller]

I watched AOTC the other day, and there are two possible multi-km asteroids I can think of, the asteroid which the first seismic charge detonates in close proximity to, and the one which is shown in the moving GIF here.

I already scaled the one showed on the GIF and it doesn't come out to be anything close to a kilometer. See my posts from above.

As for the one in front of the seismic charge:
Image:+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/as ... stance.jpg

First I determined the size of the seismic charge itself.
From this picture:
+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/he ... eredit.jpg
I measured the heigth of the Slave1 as being 163px while the width of the thruster is 40px. If Slave1 is 20m high the thruster is 4.9m wide.
From this picture:
+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/seismicedit.jpg
We can measure the length of the seismic charge as being 1.5m.

Let's go back to the first picture:
+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/as ... stance.jpg
If the length of the seismic charge is 1.5m then the distance from the camera to the charge is no more than 100m.
Of course we still don't know how distant is the asteroid from the charge.
Take a look at the following picture:
+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/as ... hatter.jpg
As you can see the shockwave has already ripped through the asteroid while still being far away from the camera. Obviously the charge is closer to the asteroid than to the camera.
So the distance between the camera and the asteroid would be some 200m.
The asteroid obviously isn't close to a even 500m size.

[Mange]

I watched AOTC the other day, and there are two possible multi-km asteroids I can think of, the asteroid which the first seismic charge detonates in close proximity to, and the one which is shown in the moving GIF here.

I already scaled the one showed on the GIF and it doesn't come out to be anything close to a kilometer. See my posts from above.

As for the one in front of the seismic charge:
Image:+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/as ... stance.jpg

First I determined the size of the seismic charge itself.
From this picture:
+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/he ... eredit.jpg
I measured the heigth of the Slave1 as being 163px while the width of the thruster is 40px. If Slave1 is 20m high the thruster is 4.9m wide.
From this picture:
+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/seismicedit.jpg
We can measure the length of the seismic charge as being 1.5m.

Let's go back to the first picture:
+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/as ... stance.jpg
If the length of the seismic charge is 1.5m then the distance from the camera to the charge is no more than 100m.
Of course we still don't know how distant is the asteroid from the charge.
Take a look at the following picture:
+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/as ... hatter.jpg
As you can see the shockwave has already ripped through the asteroid while still being far away from the camera. Obviously the charge is closer to the asteroid than to the camera.
So the distance between the camera and the asteroid would be some 200m.
The asteroid obviously isn't close to a even 500m size.

Kane, besides what DW has pointed out, there is one other thing quite obvious with the asteroid in the GIF, we never see the entire asteroid in frame.

[Meest]

And precisely how does that eliminate the depth scaling issue?

If you mean how do we know that the fighter isn't closer to the camera then the asteroid the engine glow of the fighter can give us an answer.
If you look at the part of the film in question(or even the GIF animation on this page) you will see a yellow glow moving across the upper surface of the lower asteroid. This is obviously the engine glow of the starfighter. At one point the glow crosses the shadow of the upper asteroid cast on the lower one.
Thus the starfighter does indeed move beneath the asteroid.

Here's a gif of the approach right before, you can see how far back the glow trails. See how it doesn't project a shadow in that light but Obi transverses it for up to a second. Also Obi later on turns and exits the area at a 90 degree angle, showing that that asteroid is a lot bigger than you think.

[Junghalli]

For what it's worth seismic mines always looked like they used some kind of technobabble effect instead of DET to me. I'm surprised some Trekkies didn't exploit this.

[Meest]

I watched AOTC the other day, and there are two possible multi-km asteroids I can think of, the asteroid which the first seismic charge detonates in close proximity to, and the one which is shown in the moving GIF here.

I already scaled the one showed on the GIF and it doesn't come out to be anything close to a kilometer. See my posts from above.

As for the one in front of the seismic charge:
Image:+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/as ... stance.jpg

First I determined the size of the seismic charge itself.
From this picture:
+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/he ... eredit.jpg
I measured the heigth of the Slave1 as being 163px while the width of the thruster is 40px. If Slave1 is 20m high the thruster is 4.9m wide.
From this picture:
+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/seismicedit.jpg
We can measure the length of the seismic charge as being 1.5m.

Let's go back to the first picture:
+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/as ... stance.jpg
If the length of the seismic charge is 1.5m then the distance from the camera to the charge is no more than 100m.
Of course we still don't know how distant is the asteroid from the charge.
Take a look at the following picture:
+http://www.geocities.com/idesdjurdja/as ... hatter.jpg
As you can see the shockwave has already ripped through the asteroid while still being far away from the camera. Obviously the charge is closer to the asteroid than to the camera.
So the distance between the camera and the asteroid would be some 200m.
The asteroid obviously isn't close to a even 500m size.

First off why are your images scaled up and horribly compressed? I'm getting 3DPI quality on yours and 72DPI for mine.

Anyways here's an example of how skewwed perspective can be.