Which is better overall

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-02-08 10:30pm

I would like to compare the Sun Crusher's torp to the trilithium torp to see which one is better. Both have their storng points, the Sun Crusher's being that it can be used on more than just a star and could be easier to produce, while the trilithium causes the reaction to occur at a faster pace. Can someone help me out here?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-08 10:40pm

Admiral Johnason wrote:I would like to compare the Sun Crusher's torp to the trilithium torp to see which one is better. Both have their storng points, the Sun Crusher's being that it can be used on more than just a star and could be easier to produce, while the trilithium causes the reaction to occur at a faster pace. Can someone help me out here?

They're both stupid. Technowanking at its finest.

Sonnenburg · Post by **Sonnenburg** » 2003-02-08 10:44pm

KJA vs. B&B. Oughtta be a Celebrity Deathmatch.

Does the Suncrusher take out the whole system like trilithium does, or not?

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-02-08 10:44pm

Sorry, never mind then. What is techowanking?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-02-08 10:55pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Admiral Johnason wrote:I would like to compare the Sun Crusher's torp to the trilithium torp to see which one is better. Both have their storng points, the Sun Crusher's being that it can be used on more than just a star and could be easier to produce, while the trilithium causes the reaction to occur at a faster pace. Can someone help me out here?
They're both stupid. Technowanking at its finest.

Are you talking about their scientific "principle" and workings or are you talking about their value as weapons?

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-02-08 10:58pm

The value as weapons.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-02-08 11:00pm

Admiral Johnason wrote:The value as weapons.

Though I was asking Wong.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-02-08 11:00pm

I apologize.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-08 11:06pm

Shinova wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:They're both stupid. Technowanking at its finest.
Are you talking about their scientific "principle" and workings or are you talking about their value as weapons?

I'm talking about their scientific and dramatic value. As uber-terror weapons, I suppose they would be very effective. So would my imaginary "zero-point quantum masturbation" gun.

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-02-08 11:10pm

I am serious, which one is the best overall? It is the same sort of question like: when comparing the Tommy guns and the Grease guns of WWII, which was better. The Grease was cheaper and easier to makewhile the Tommy had a better rate of fire and could carry more rounds in a clip.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-02-08 11:19pm

From what I know of the Resonance torpedo launcher of the Sun Crusher, it would make a superior tactical weapon. It consumes the target creating a chain reaction that ends up destroying it, or at least heavily damaging it. Mass however is an important thing. Because of the Death Star Prototype not being as massive as a star, only part of it was consumed and destroyed. Nonetheless this indicates the Resonance torpedo can be used tactically or strategically against targets other then stars.

The Trilithium torpedo has advantages of its own. It can seemingly be carried on any ship with a torpedo launcher. It is placed in a standard torpedo casing. The only hard part is figuring out how to isolate the Trilithium itself, though it seems that’s more of a scientific problem and it doesn’t require massive resources. Once the secret is out, it would seem to be fairly simple to produce.

In Conclussion as a strategic weapon for ease of carrying, the Trilithium torpedo can be carried on just about any starship. However the Resonance torpedo can be used against more then just stars.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-02-08 11:20pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Shinova wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:They're both stupid. Technowanking at its finest.
Are you talking about their scientific "principle" and workings or are you talking about their value as weapons?
I'm talking about their scientific and dramatic value. As uber-terror weapons, I suppose they would be very effective. So would my imaginary "zero-point quantum masturbation" gun.

Is that a euphemism

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-02-08 11:23pm

Admiral Johnason wrote:I am serious, which one is the best overall? It is the same sort of question like: when comparing the Tommy guns and the Grease guns of WWII, which was better. The Grease was cheaper and easier to makewhile the Tommy had a better rate of fire and could carry more rounds in a clip.

Here's my take on this:

Both are equal:

For the trilithium torpedo, its value lies in its relative ease to smuggle it in, bring it close to the sun, launch, then escape the system at warp or higher speeds.

For the sun crusher, its value is in its seeming indestructability, which guarantees that the ship will reach a close distance to the sun and launch its payload.

So the trilithium torpedo can be found by local security forces and the threat nullified, while the sun crusher is more obvious but has a better chance at withstanding enemy fire and suceeding in its mission.

Both are equal but one if more covert and the other more obvious but impervious.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-02-08 11:32pm

Supernova weapons are techonwank in the same fashion that "kiloton range" handguns are. Its such excessively high overkill for the purposes that its only use is in "oh cool" factor.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-08 11:48pm

Also, they are based on an idiotic misconception about how a supernova works. Even if you did all the things a trilithium torpedo or the Tox Uthat is supposed to do, you'd have a helluva lot longer than a few hours to get off before it blows up. Try more like a few million years.

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-02-08 11:52pm

Sonnenburg wrote:Does the Suncrusher take out the whole system like trilithium does, or not?

Yep. Took out the entire Caridia system.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-02-09 11:23am

Hence why I prefer the Centerpoint repulsor(Think about it: It doesn't set off a supernova, just mimics the last stage of the star collapsing inwards. even then, you have weeks before it actually goes off BANG).

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-02-09 12:40pm

That's all I wanted to know. Thanks for the answers.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-02-09 01:21pm

KJA is to Star Wars what B&B is to Star Trek.

The sad thing is, now he's been unleashed on the Dune universe as well... Heaven Help Us!

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-02-09 05:37pm

How is he invloved in Frank Herbert's Dune series... Please, for the sweet love of God, tell me he isn't doing the televised version of Children of Dune.

ali-sama · Post by **ali-sama** » 2003-02-09 05:44pm

Admiral Johnason wrote:How is he invloved in Frank Herbert's Dune series... Please, for the sweet love of God, tell me he isn't doing the televised version of Children of Dune.

god no.
no. Noooooooo!!

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-02-09 05:49pm

Why would you need to blow up a star?

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-02-09 07:20pm

You would blow up a star for the Emperor's 50th Birthday party at the Playboy Spacestation. but seriously, you could take out a heavly fortified system when they are just a thorn in your side and not worth a major assult by a good chunk of your forces.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2003-02-09 07:31pm

Off-topic:

What would instigating instantaneous and complete fusion reaction of all the hydrogen in a star do?

Admiral Johnason · Post by **Admiral Johnason** » 2003-02-09 07:34pm

It would turn the star into a ball of Helium or other denser substances.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Which is better overall

Which is better overall

Re: Which is better overall

Re: Which is better overall

Re: Which is better overall

Re: Which is better overall