Executor Question

[Chardok]

Exactly how is executor pronounced in this context?
ecks-EK-u-ter? As in the executor of an estate? Or.
ECKS-eh-KYU-ter like someone who executes?


Just curious.....

[Ghost Rider]

Exactly how is executor pronounced in this context?
ecks-EK-u-ter? As in the executor of an estate? Or.
ECKS-eh-KYU-tor like someone who executes?


Just curious.....

Like an executor of an estate.

[Master of Ossus]

Exactly how is executor pronounced in this context?
ecks-EK-u-ter? As in the executor of an estate? Or.
ECKS-eh-KYU-ter like someone who executes?

The first. I have NO idea why Kenner thought that it would be "too scary" for kids to use that name.

BTW, the second pronunciation (which for some strange reason is the one I almost invariably hear) is not even a correct pronunciation for a word. The word, then, would be "Executioner." "Executor" refers specifically to people to carry out instructions, for example, after someone has died.

Now, Super Gagme:

1. Why is published material a prerequisite for your acceptance of the 17.6 km figure? Not only is this an appeal to authority to demand such a source, but it's ALSO an appeal to the lack of inferior authority (since the films override all published sources).
2. It's clear from the images and text that the Executor is approximately 17.6 km long. I have no idea why you're refusing to accept this figure.
3. You stated earlier that you would be "neutral" if you saw an additional source describing the ship as 17.6 km long. That source has been provided to you, yet you still refuse to accept the correct figure for the length of the starship. Are you renegging on your previous statement?
3a. Why is it that you are only becoming a "neutral" in this case? It's quite obvious what the correct figure is, and I see no room for ambiguity when the films demonstrate conclusively how long the Executor actually was.
4. Where did you get the quote in your signature? Are you a sagehen, or aren't you? Who is the quote referring to, who has a pomona.edu address?

[CmdrWilkens]

if i create a SOP to resc the ship in the last sec because bridge is delt with, why do i locate all sensors in a brdige that can be destroyed so easy?
if i prog a SOP, it will have mini sensors... i mean sensors can be anything as long as they locate anything that is bigger than a 17.8 km ship, the range could be very small as well

Once again emergency SOPs assume that you have virtually nothing available to you. Sure you have redundant sensor suites out the ass BUT you can't garuntee that even a redundant sensor system will be able to see in all directions in a catastrophic situation.

Let me put it this way by imagining a very different scenario:
SSD is fighting around Nklon
Catastrophy happens and shielding is lost
All the sensors on the side facing the sun are now slagged and useless
The body of the SSD means sensors not on the side facing the sun can no longer see any objects in that entire HALF of the sky
Write an emergency SOP for this situation.

That is the kind of catastrophy you plan for: total loss of C&C functions along with a host of other problems. If you lose the bridge then you sure as hell have lost a lot of other systems already (theoretically).

If I were writing an emergency procedure I sure as hell would assume that my computer, sensors, shields, and just about everything else are fried. I would assume the engines are okay because if they aren't we're already dead.

Once again when you plan for catastrophes you assume nothing if at all possible. Basically you assume only that:
1) The ship is still intact enough to manuever (other wise you're a sitting duck and no SOP will change that)
2) The engines can work (otherwise you're a sitting duck and no SOP will change that)

You assume only that the absolute necessities for a chance at living are operational (computers, shields, weapons, sensors, tractor beams, docking bays, and communications gear don't count).

[Lord Pounder]

It's amazing how many dumb fucks post here. In this thread we have Super Gnome or what ever the fuck failing to understand Lucas's own policy of official.

I'll type it out in really big letters so you get in your thick head.
VISUALS FROM THE MOVIES OVERRIDE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE.

Bitch all you want. Cry all you want THATS whats official.

[CmdrWilkens]

Well again here's the problem:
1) You are assuming the SOP is computerized rather than the engine techs seeing the bridge being lost and manually jamming the throttles to full
2) SOPs again are designed to minimize the chance of a mechanical fault. In other words if you assume that you have sufered catastrophic damage then you also assume that you neat computer programs won't be able to function properly.

Once more let me repeat, for dire emergencies you trust mechanical systems as little as physically possible.

3) The corollary to that is actually part of point #1, a lot of SOPs detail what the CREW, not the Computer should do. If the Executor's SOP is similair to modern evasion emergency SOPs then the engineers down by the engines simply gunned them, probably assuming that the secondary bridge would attempt to take contol.

Here's my bet for normal emergency (haha) SOP and what happened at Endor:

Catastrophic Emergency SOP:
Asumption 1: Primary control of vessel has been lost
Assumption 2: C&C is currently waiting to be re-established
Conclusion 1: Escape current locaiton to minimize chance of being attacked while unable to effectively respond
Action 1: Thrusters to full
Action 2: Assume control from secondary C&C location
Action 3: Resume course as directed from secondary C&C location

Now at Endor I bet the engineer's jamemd the engines to full and they just misfired before the secondary bridge could react and gain control of the situation. now I include it all as a likely action because in most battles the planets are going to be well away from you and I doubt anybody ever thought to include the prescence of a 900km wide battlestation in their SOPs. Remember these wouldhave been written when the ship was built and reviewed on a regular basis and when directed. Unless Piett ordered a review of their SOP before the battle its likely that nobody thought to change things.

I think you make much sense, but here's my $.02:

The destruction of the Executor seems to me to be similar to what happened to the Kursk when it crashed. In the case of the Executor, could not the explosive loss of their command bridge combined with continued venting of atmosphere from the breach and temporary loss of atitude control be what turned the ship towards the DS? With a hole that big and spreading, it would have spun the ship like a balloon with a slow leak.

I mean, the ship had suffered pretty much a catastrophic hit and was in the middle of emergency procedures. Could it be that internal sensor displays and/or communications were so bad at that time that no one in the engine room knew that the ship was turning? I mean, it isn't being done by the engines, so they shouldn't be aware of it. When they restarted engines and atitude, they wouldn't have been aware of the change in orientation.

This to me is the only plausible explanation for why the Executor turned TOWARDS the Death Star to crash into it head-on. Gravity could have pulled it in, but as stated previously, it would not have turned the ship while it was in a vacuum.

Does this make sense to anyone else?

Here's a few problems

1) The Executor can only turn with its engines running, that'sthe drawback of space, there isn't a mass (the ocean) that you can deflect to change course.

2) The rapidity of the descent is HIGHLY suggestive of the idea that they slammed the engines to full and THEN realized that they were misfiring and changing course.

3) A turn in progress is unlikely since the Executor is still moving in its plane for some time after the A-Wing strike. Unless the reaction time in the engine room is beyond slow there is little plausibility in the idea that the bridge was trying to manuever in any way other than, perhaps, a slow turn for which there is no evidence.


Essentially there is little reason to believe the ship was already turning. Meanwhile a fault in the engine controls (given the pounding the ship was taking) is far from unbelievable and explains the rapid turn and descent in conjunction with an emergency escape SOP.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Here's a few problems

1) The Executor can only turn with its engines running, that'sthe drawback of space, there isn't a mass (the ocean) that you can deflect to change course.

2) The rapidity of the descent is HIGHLY suggestive of the idea that they slammed the engines to full and THEN realized that they were misfiring and changing course.

3) A turn in progress is unlikely since the Executor is still moving in its plane for some time after the A-Wing strike. Unless the reaction time in the engine room is beyond slow there is little plausibility in the idea that the bridge was trying to manuever in any way other than, perhaps, a slow turn for which there is no evidence.

Essentially there is little reason to believe the ship was already turning. Meanwhile a fault in the engine controls (given the pounding the ship was taking) is far from unbelievable and explains the rapid turn and descent in conjunction with an emergency escape SOP.

I believe you misunderstood me. I postulated that the venting atmosphere PUSHED the end of the ship around such that it turned the SSD towards the DS. However, it has been pointed out to me that the force of the venting was not likely strong enough to effect a rapid turn.

I agree that a misfiring directional thruster is likely the cause of the arbitrary turn.

I also agree with my learned colleague that "full throttle, no questions" is likely SOP. The fact is, the Empire suffered from delusions of invulnerability. As such, they probably did not expect the catastrophic loss of the command deck with relatively minor damage to the rest of the ship. The engine crew undoubtedly COULD have checked sensors, but to them if the bridge is gone half of the ship must be on fire, and all computer readouts would be suspect.

You also have to realize that the Executor crashed AFTER the Emperor died, so there was a sudden 40% drop in efficiency (If we believe Tim Zahn). Between the explosions and the lack of battle meditation, I believe accidents are remarkably prone to happen.

Hey look, I'm contributing WITHOUT flaming!

[CmdrWilkens]

I believe you misunderstood me. I postulated that the venting atmosphere PUSHED the end of the ship around such that it turned the SSD towards the DS. However, it has been pointed out to me that the force of the venting was not likely strong enough to effect a rapid turn.

I agree that a misfiring directional thruster is likely the cause of the arbitrary turn.

I also agree with my learned colleague that "full throttle, no questions" is likely SOP. The fact is, the Empire suffered from delusions of invulnerability. As such, they probably did not expect the catastrophic loss of the command deck with relatively minor damage to the rest of the ship. The engine crew undoubtedly COULD have checked sensors, but to them if the bridge is gone half of the ship must be on fire, and all computer readouts would be suspect.

You also have to realize that the Executor crashed AFTER the Emperor died, so there was a sudden 40% drop in efficiency (If we believe Tim Zahn). Between the explosions and the lack of battle meditation, I believe accidents are remarkably prone to happen.

Hey look, I'm contributing WITHOUT flaming!

Amazing eh?

Anyway yes misfiring thruster is almost certainly the cause and the drop in efficiency after the Emperor's death would certainly explain why they didn't notice and/or correct the mistake sooner (if one thruster works and the other doesn't a quick crew would have fixed it or tried a complete loop to avoid the DSII).

Though I do disagree as to the posibility of loss of the comand deck beign envisioned. Experience within the Death Squadron of the pummeling of ships in the asteroid field (at least one ship completely destroyed and another with major bridge damage) would have lead to a serious look at the chance of losing the bridge if only temporarily. I think it was only because they thought of this and created an SOP which simply didn't take into account the prescene of an object exponentially bigger than them in the picture.

[Lex]

to let that aside now, somewhere in the THrawn Trilogie, Thrawn says the imperials at ender were empowered by Palpatine.. what if Palpatines death caused confusion on the executor and their help bridge as well?

[Boba Fett]

It's amazing how many dumb fucks post here. In this thread we have Super Gnome or what ever the fuck failing to understand Lucas's own policy of official.

I'll type it out in really big letters so you get in your thick head.
VISUALS FROM THE MOVIES OVERRIDE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE.

Bitch all you want. Cry all you want THATS whats official.

Exactly my thoughts Pounder!

BURN THE HERETIC!!!

[Ender]

I didnt even adress you

Which is relevent, how? You're being stupid about a point I brought up in the first place. I'm damn well going to correct you.

1)Hä?

So, do you not bother to read the entire thread before you begin posting?I said that pages ago.

2)A system that brings your ship into a sun, planet or moon is pointless and not even some stupid imperial officers with too much times in their hand would invent something like this. If you build a SOP you want it to bring a heavily damaged ship out of the battlezone to ensure it survives. Driving it into a moon, or a moonlike battlestation is a "very bad idea"

So would a system that brings you crashing into a sandbar, coral reef, or submerged wreck. Do you know why that isn't an issue? Because the ocean is so vast you aren't likely to hit something. Same applies to space. Even in a system odds you are going to hit something before you get to where you can jump to hyperspace are absymally low.

[Ender]

if i create a SOP to resc the ship in the last sec because bridge is delt with, why do i locate all sensors in a brdige that can be destroyed so easy?
if i prog a SOP, it will have mini sensors... i mean sensors can be anything as long as they locate anything that is bigger than a 17.8 km ship, the range could be very small as well

Thank you for demonstrating again why civillians have no business dictating policies for an armed force.

What part of "as few systems as possible" do you not get? Seriously, it's not that hard a concept. What, you're gonna have thousands of sensors so they won't all get knocked out? Great, but what if they take out he fucking computer? What if you have to run off emergency power and thus the main computer is offline (ref DFR, showing that with the Main Computer off emergency power still lets the ship operate). You wnat as few systems as possible so that you can operate.

Does the fact that it was a fluke that they were operating so close to the planet escape you? Or do you really think space is just a clusterfuck of celestial bodies you are going to run into?

[Sharp-kun]

Does the fact that it was a fluke that they were operating so close to the planet escape you? Or do you really think space is just a clusterfuck of celestial bodies you are going to run into?

Common sense dictates that a good proportion of battles will take place in the vicinity of planets, whether you be attacking or defending, or merely caught by surprise in orbit.

Planets are what need to be captured to win, and so are where many conflicts will occur.

[CmdrWilkens]

Does the fact that it was a fluke that they were operating so close to the planet escape you? Or do you really think space is just a clusterfuck of celestial bodies you are going to run into?

Common sense dictates that a good proportion of battles will take place in the vicinity of planets, whether you be attacking or defending, or merely caught by surprise in orbit.

Planets are what need to be captured to win, and so are where many conflicts will occur.

However, as has been shown time and again, an assaulting force usually can't just show up right outside the system. Numerous times they've had to make noticeable journeys in system (Enemy Lines duology, X-Wing series, Black Fleet Crisis Trilogy, etc). In other words most battles will be fought well outside the area in which you are likely to hit a planet. Hell all the fighting to take Coruscant so many times the fleet battles almsot universally take place outside the range of ground based weaponry. At the same time this weaponry must be logn enough ranged that ships can sit inside its envelope yet still eb otuside the engagement range of their enemies (otherwise the original Thrawn trilogy has a logical disconnect).

[Connor MacLeod]

The Executor's systems could also have been heavily scrambled by ion cannon fire from the Rebel fleet (Aside from whatever damage that TLs may have caused.) Remember that Ackbar ordered "Concentrate all fire" on the Executor. With a sufficiently heavy ion barrage, the Executor's systems may have failed or been malfunctioning, which may very well contribute to its destruction.

[Connor MacLeod]

Hell all the fighting to take Coruscant so many times the fleet battles almsot universally take place outside the range of ground based weaponry. At the same time this weaponry must be logn enough ranged that ships can sit inside its envelope yet still eb otuside the engagement range of their enemies (otherwise the original Thrawn trilogy has a logical disconnect).

The battle to take Coruscant is up to debate actually. But in The LAst Command when Thrawn assaulted Coruscant, he was certain not to take his force within range of the ground defenses (which apparently reached as far as the mid/Geostationary orbit Golan platforms.) In fact, during the intial stages of the battle (I'd have to find all the quotes I'd made of the scene, but I did an analysis on this for weapons range long ago.) Thrawn's fleet had just entered effective weapons range of the Golan platforms dsuring the intial stages of the battle. And still then they were able to fire on Coruscant's defensive fleet which was stationed on drydocks in low orbit about the planet!

[CmdrWilkens]

Hell all the fighting to take Coruscant so many times the fleet battles almsot universally take place outside the range of ground based weaponry. At the same time this weaponry must be logn enough ranged that ships can sit inside its envelope yet still eb otuside the engagement range of their enemies (otherwise the original Thrawn trilogy has a logical disconnect).

The battle to take Coruscant is up to debate actually. But in The LAst Command when Thrawn assaulted Coruscant, he was certain not to take his force within range of the ground defenses (which apparently reached as far as the mid/Geostationary orbit Golan platforms.) In fact, during the intial stages of the battle (I'd have to find all the quotes I'd made of the scene, but I did an analysis on this for weapons range long ago.) Thrawn's fleet had just entered effective weapons range of the Golan platforms dsuring the intial stages of the battle. And still then they were able to fire on Coruscant's defensive fleet which was stationed on drydocks in low orbit about the planet!

Yet the fleet was able to retreat to a point that they couldn't suport the orbiting stations while Thrawn couldn't hit them withotu entering ground weapons range. My point is that this demonstrates the distance above the planet at which the earlier battles in the X-Wing series take place. That in turn shows the distances even for a planetary assault are rather in the terms of excessive as far as safety concerns about hitting a planet even when fighting above one.

[Connor MacLeod]

Hell all the fighting to take Coruscant so many times the fleet battles almsot universally take place outside the range of ground based weaponry. At the same time this weaponry must be logn enough ranged that ships can sit inside its envelope yet still eb otuside the engagement range of their enemies (otherwise the original Thrawn trilogy has a logical disconnect).

The battle to take Coruscant is up to debate actually. But in The LAst Command when Thrawn assaulted Coruscant, he was certain not to take his force within range of the ground defenses (which apparently reached as far as the mid/Geostationary orbit Golan platforms.) In fact, during the intial stages of the battle (I'd have to find all the quotes I'd made of the scene, but I did an analysis on this for weapons range long ago.) Thrawn's fleet had just entered effective weapons range of the Golan platforms dsuring the intial stages of the battle. And still then they were able to fire on Coruscant's defensive fleet which was stationed on drydocks in low orbit about the planet!

Yet the fleet was able to retreat to a point that they couldn't suport the orbiting stations while Thrawn couldn't hit them withotu entering ground weapons range. My point is that this demonstrates the distance above the planet at which the earlier battles in the X-Wing series take place. That in turn shows the distances even for a planetary assault are rather in the terms of excessive as far as safety concerns about hitting a planet even when fighting above one.

Thrawn had ISDs with heavy turbolasers and such. The NR defense fleet had a couple of dreadnaughts (at least one) and mostly Corvettes/gunships and Escort frigate scale vessels.

[Ender]

Does the fact that it was a fluke that they were operating so close to the planet escape you? Or do you really think space is just a clusterfuck of celestial bodies you are going to run into?

Common sense dictates that a good proportion of battles will take place in the vicinity of planets, whether you be attacking or defending, or merely caught by surprise in orbit.

Planets are what need to be captured to win, and so are where many conflicts will occur.

So, have you read a lick of the EU? 99.9% of the battles occur outside of the gravity well of the planets. In other words, WHERE THERE IS NO CHANCE OF RUNNING INTO THEM BEFORE YOU CAN MAKE A BLIND JUMP OUT OF THERE.

Seriously, do you think the defenders are going to let you attack them right up next to there with them pinned against the planet so they can't move like the Empire did to the rebels at Endor? You do realize taht you can engage close enough to a planet to take it without being on top of it, right?

[CmdrWilkens]

Yet the fleet was able to retreat to a point that they couldn't suport the orbiting stations while Thrawn couldn't hit them withotu entering ground weapons range. My point is that this demonstrates the distance above the planet at which the earlier battles in the X-Wing series take place. That in turn shows the distances even for a planetary assault are rather in the terms of excessive as far as safety concerns about hitting a planet even when fighting above one.

Thrawn had ISDs with heavy turbolasers and such. The NR defense fleet had a couple of dreadnaughts (at least one) and mostly Corvettes/gunships and Escort frigate scale vessels.

I think that is highly indicative of even greater range of fighting. Since Thrawn had the longer range weapons yet still couldn't engage the Rebels without coming into the range of ground based weaponry. To me this indicates that even when fighting in a planetary assault style you won't be that close to the planet until the final assault stages.