Power of Antimatter

[DocMoriartty]

People here seem to think that Federation ships simply can't generate the power to take on Imp ships, since Imp ships are powered by "hypermatter" , and Federation ships are powered by antimatter. But in one of the Star Wars books, one of Han Solo's friends at the Imperial Academy blows up a whole moon with a small antimatter bomb. It took the whole death star to blow up a planet. If hypermatter is so powerful, why didn't they jsut use a small hypermatter bomb to blow up Aldeeran?

What is your point? You obviously read the book to be able to quote it yet you do not show the whole truth. The "moon" in question was little more than a small asteroid that was considered the school mascot.

[Connor MacLeod]

That the mascot moon's features were easily visible from the ground is an unsubstantiated assumption on your part.

Publius

as is your assumption that the planetoid was only several hundred meters in diameter.

In fact, try pluggin that size into Wong's asteroid calculator on his site.

1.5g of antimatter would have enough energy to fall nearly midway between the granite and nickel-iron levels for cratering a 300m diameter asteroid. To melt said asteroid would take 20.8 to 33.9 MT, and vaporizing it 103.8 to 202.1 MT.

Granted, that doesn't rule out a flat, thin disc, but if it's being referred to as a planetoid, then it's probably closer to being a sphere than a disc or an irregular lump.

Definition of planetoid (per The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000):

planetoid

SYLLABICATION: plan·e·toid
PRONUNCIATION: pln-toid
NOUN: See asteroid (sense 1).

asteroid

SYLLABICATION: as·ter·oid
PRONUNCIATION: st-roid
NOUN: 1. Astronomy Any of numerous small celestial bodies that revolve around the sun, with orbits lying chiefly between Mars and Jupiter and characteristic diameters between a few and several hundred kilometers. Also called minor planet, planetoid.

At a conservative estimate, then, a planetoid needs to be at least 2-3 kilometers in diameter, not several hundred meters. That bumps the cratering energies to MT values, and melting and vaporization energies to GT values.... none of which can be generated unassisted with 1.5g of antimatter.

I noticed your edition was two years out of date.

According to Encarta:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/ ... =planetoid

plan·e·toid [ plánn tòyd ] (plural plan·e·toids)
noun

astronomy See asteroid n.1



http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/ ... h=asteroid


as·ter·oid [ ást royd ] (plural as·ter·oids)
noun

1. astronomy rocky object orbiting Sun: an irregularly shaped rock that orbits the Sun, mostly in a band (asteroid belt) between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Asteroids range in size from the largest, Ceres, with a diameter of 930 km (580 mi) down to dust particles. Also called planetoid

*****

And Britannica:

http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?bo ... =planetoid

Main Entry: plan·et·oid
Pronunciation: 'pla-n&-"toid
Function: noun
Date: 1803
: a small body resembling a planet; especially : ASTEROID

http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?bo ... a=asteroid

Main Entry: 1as·ter·oid
Pronunciation: 'as-t&-"roid
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek asteroeidEs starlike, from aster-, astEr
Date: 1802
1 : any of the small celestial bodies found especially between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter

****

Briotannica isn't too specific, but according to Encarta at least there is no several km "lower limit"

[greenmm]

OK, that I will accept.

But that doesn't change the fact that we don't know the size of the moon. In fact, the only way that apparantly 1g of AM could release the energy to destroy said moon is if we're talkign about a planetoid under 40 m in diameter (according to Wong's calculator, and assuming cratering only). That's barely enough to land a shuttle on... although "docking" the shuttle would probably be more appropriate...

[SPOOFE]

But that doesn't change the fact that we don't know the size of the moon. In fact, the only way that apparantly 1g of AM could release the energy to destroy said moon is if we're talkign about a planetoid under 40 m in diameter (according to Wong's calculator, and assuming cratering only).

My dear sir, please go back and re-read the thread. You're assuming vaporization where the text said "destroyed". The text provided us with two bits of information - the yield of the explosion (through the amount of antimatter) and the results it had (the destruction - not vaporization - of the moon). The text leaves out one piece of information - the size of the moon.

By figuring out the largest possible object that 1 gram of AM could destroy, we establish an upper limit on the size of the moon. Ergo, any assumptions on your part - such as the assumption that the moon and its seal were visible with the naked eye - need to jibe with that upper limit.

[greenmm]

But that doesn't change the fact that we don't know the size of the moon. In fact, the only way that apparantly 1g of AM could release the energy to destroy said moon is if we're talkign about a planetoid under 40 m in diameter (according to Wong's calculator, and assuming cratering only).

My dear sir, please go back and re-read the thread. You're assuming vaporization where the text said "destroyed". The text provided us with two bits of information - the yield of the explosion (through the amount of antimatter) and the results it had (the destruction - not vaporization - of the moon). The text leaves out one piece of information - the size of the moon.

By figuring out the largest possible object that 1 gram of AM could destroy, we establish an upper limit on the size of the moon. Ergo, any assumptions on your part - such as the assumption that the moon and its seal were visible with the naked eye - need to jibe with that upper limit.

No...

assuming 100% efficiency in the reaction (ie. high-end), 1g of AM produces at most a 43.2 kT yield.

Using Wong's Asteroid Calculator, the yield needed to crater an asteroid depending on size is:

200 m diameter: 1.4 kT granite, 37.8 kT nickel-iron; avg. 19.6 kT
250 m diameter: 2.8 kT granite, 73.8 kT nickel-iron; avg. 38.3 kT
300 m diameter: 4.9 kT granite, 127.5 kT nickel-iron; avg. 66.2 kT

And the definition of "cratering", from Wong's site:

Cratering energy is the energy required to blast out a crater of depth equal to the radius of the asteroid, which should easily result in its catastrophic disruption. It is calculated based on bulk property data collated from material testing experiments, and extrapolated using numerical modelling techniques based on terrestrial cratering experiments. From "Energy Coupling to Asteroids and Comets", by B.P. Shafer et al., the thermophysical properties for hard granite asteroids are density = 2650 kg/m³, UTS = 374 MPa, and cratering depth = 88.4 m/kT1/3. From the same source, the thermophysical properties for nickel-iron asteroids are density = 7856 kg/m³, UTS = 600 MPa, and cratering depth = 29.8 m/kT1/3. And finally, the thermophysical properties for ice asteroids are density = 917 kg/m³, UTS = 17.5 MPa, and cratering depth = 138.4 m/kT1/3. Note that soft shale has a cratering depth equal to that of granite, so the granite cratering figures can be used for silicaceous asteroids in general.

So, again, as I'd pointed out, while 1 g of AM would severly damage a really small planetoid (ie. one under 300 m in diameter), I dispute that Carida's moon was that small, as the gravity of a 200-300m planetoid would be such that the character could not have "landed" on it and placed the AM capsule. He could have done an EVA, or used a thruster pack to go over to the planetoid... but that's not what the text says, is it?

[Coyote]

The incident was originally described in passing in the Dark Empire Sourcebook, on page 45, as such:

(Stuff deleted)

... it appears clear that whilst Cadet Spince carefully collected and placed the antimatter, he miscalculated the damage it would cause the planetoid. It appears that the force of the explosion caused more structural damage than he had anticipated. There is nothing scientifically offensive about the text as it is, and there exists a corresponding lack of need for an ad hoc justification of the event.

Publius

So it would appear that while Spince knew what he had (antimatter) and the explosive properties thereof, he failed to take into account the composition of the moon itself. So we're not dealing with some hardened nickel-iron or harder object here, which would make sense for the people that placed it in orbit and used it as an art project-- less mass, cheaper/easier to move about.

As for "Enterprise", look: no one in SW says that antimatter is weak or useless. It is powerful and ought not be handled cavalierly. But obviously, in the Star Trek universe, they're not doing something right with it-- it is not being used to its fullest potential. Perhaps for crew safety reasons it is diluted, or that dilithium crystal business somehow alters the properties and making it more stable...

Probably the reason that antimatter is not used as a standard munition in SW may be because it is too volatile for what they want to do with it (hey, we don't put nitroglycerine in hand grenades) or they just prefer the properties of hypermatter as well as 'proton' torpedoes... it may be a very mundane decision, like hypermatter has become cheaper to process for them and thus more cost effective.

[SPOOFE]

assuming 100% efficiency in the reaction (ie. high -end), 1g of AM produces at most a 43.2 kT yield.

Not the point of contention. Spare me your windbaggery, please.

I dispute that Carida's moon was that small, as the gravity of a 200-300m planetoid would be such that the character could not have "landed" on it and placed the AM capsule.

Dispute all you want. But you're wrong. One gram of antimatter reacting with one gram of matter could not possibly have destroyed a moon much greater than 300 meters in diameter. Ergo, since we are told the yield, and we are told the results, we can conclude that the moon's size was not greater than 300 meters in diameter.

What is so difficult about this logic?

He could have done an EVA,

If you had gone back and re-read the thread, as I had admonished, you would have noted that Mako Spince did, in fact, steal an EVA suit.

but that's not what the text says, is it?

My dear sir, you are either delightfully stupid or amusingly moronic. That is PRECISELY what the text says.

Of course, if you had gone back and re-read the thread when I told you to, you would have noted this and avoided looking like a simpleton.

Quoting Connor Macleod on page 3 (who was, in turn, quoting the original text): "He stole a gram of antimatter, then a small, one-man shuttle and a spacesuit from the Academy shuttle hanger, and took off."

Now I trust that you are now a wiser human being for having your simple mistake pointed out to you, hmm?

[Publius]

In response to the original post:

People here seem to think that Federation ships simply can't generate the power to take on Imp ships, since Imp ships are powered by "hypermatter" , and Federation ships are powered by antimatter.

First and foremost, this entire line of argument is factually incorrect. Hypermatter reactors are very rare, and are not found aboard most Imperial warships. Imperial Star Destroyers are powered by enormous solar ionisation reactors, not by hypermatter reactors. The actual point of contention is that the starships of the United Federation do not generate enough firepower through their photon torpedos and phaser weapons emplacements to overcome the defensive shields and armour of Imperial warships.

One will find that the power source used by either civilisation is largely irrelevant to that equation. Imperial Star Destroyers could be fueled by vodka, and that fact would be wholly unimportant. All that matters is the amount of power generated, and not the means of generation.

When viewed in this context, it becomes evident that Federal starships are generally inferior in warmaking capacity to Imperial warships in that they have less strategic manoeuvrability, less powerful weaponry, and less resistive defences. The fact that they use matter/antimatter annihilation as a power source is relevant only in that matter/antimatter annihilation does not provide sufficient power to their weapons systems to overcome the defences of Imperial warships.

Strictly speaking, the rest of the starting post is largely irrelevant to that point, demonstrating that an argument based on false pretences is most frequently unsound.

But in one of the Star Wars books, one of Han Solo's friends at the Imperial Academy blows up a whole moon with a small antimatter bomb. It took the whole death star to blow up a planet. If hypermatter is so powerful, why didn't they jsut use a small hypermatter bomb to blow up Aldeeran?

As can be seen, the actual size and final disposition of Carida's "mascot" is under contention. In the end, however, the fact remains that one gramme of antimatter shattered a small planetoid, the fragments of which remained in decaying orbit around the planet itself. This is not comparable in anything but a most cursory sense to the effect of the main artillery weapon aboard the Death Star, which in a single discharge accelerated the entire mass of an inhabited planet well beyond escape velocity in less than a second.

In any event, you misunderstand the nature of hypermatter. It is not a commonly used technology in the Galactic Empire; in fact, as late as 11 PED (29 BBY), hypermatter technology was still not yet advanced sufficiently for implementation as a power source for "an artificial construct the size of a small moon," as Mr Raith Sienar described it (Rogue Planet, p. 39). Mr Sienar continued to describe his expeditionary battle planetoid, and described the scale of this "small moon": "one large ball, ninety or a hundred kilometers [sic] in diameter" (op. cit., id.).

Perhaps the best description of hypermatter technology can be found in HoloNet News Vol. 531, #50, in 4 PED (22 BBY):

Ministry of Science Continues Hypermatter Studies

MINISCI ARCOLOGY, CORUSCANT - A sizable grant from Republic Sienar Systems has allowed the Ministry of Science to continue its research into translational hypermatter energy applications. "Today, we use hypermatter reactos to power the largest of lightspeed drives, but there are millions of other uses just waiting to be exploited," said scientist and engineer Paldis Doxin of the Magrody Institute. "Properly harnessing this energy could handle planetary power needs and revolutionize deep space mining."

Hypermatter was at that point used to power only the largest of hyperdrives. It would appear that those "certain advances" posited by Mr Sienar were, in fact, realised, thence the ability to employ a hypermatter reactor core as the main power generator for the first deep space mobile Imperial battle station, the Death Star.

As a side note, Republic Sienar Systems (RSS) -- which later transmogrified into Santhe/Sienar Technologies (SST), the parent corporation of Sienar Fleet Systems (SFS), one of the Galactic Empire's most prominent and successful defence contractors -- funded hypermatter research at the Magrody Institute of Programmable Intelligence. Mr Sienar, chief executive officer of RSS, created the expeditionary battle planetoid, which eventually evolved into the Death Star. Dr Nasdra Magrody, founder of the Magrody Institute, was later one of the principal designers of the Death Star, and worked for a time within the Maw Installation itself on the project.

As can clearly be seen, hypermatter is not in common use, despite its superior power generation potential. The question, of course, is this: Why should it be used in situations other than those in which it is?

The power generation systems of Imperial Star Destroyers are perfectly sufficient for their needs. To construct hypermatter-based power generators would be wasteful, as it would amount to wasting vast amounts of money in fixing something that was not broken.

Furthermore, the suggestion that hypermatter be used as a weapon in and of itself is somewhat curious. One does not know anything about the properties of hypermatter; Mr Sienar made reference to "a couple of large ice asteroids for fuel," but the context of his comment is vague, and one cannot begin to guess at how that might work. One does not know if hypermatter reacts violently with matter. It is entirely possible that it is rather like coal; burning coal provides power, but one would not seriously suggest using a coal bomb to destroy one's enemies.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Galactic Empire does, in fact, use antimatter as part of its arsenal. In (Marvel) Star Wars #53, the Empire laid an invisible interdiction mine field around the planet Shiva IV, which mine field consisted of antimatter particles. Similarly, the Dark Empire Sourcebook describes (p. 75) that, in the creation of the Fortress Worlds, "asteroid belts were mined with anti-matter particles and reflecting satellite arrays for surface based beams."

In his attempted subjugation of Shiva IV, Imperial General Sk'ar -- a notably non-human officer, who does not wear regulation uniform -- completely destroyed the city of K'avor with a large antimatter bomb. General Sk'ar kidnapped Shivan leader Warlord Aron and the Princess Leia, and attempted to destroy the capitol city of the Calian Confederacy, Illyruaqum, with another antimatter bomb, which was defused by the Princess Leia.

In closing, one should bear in mind two things: First, that hypermatter is not comparable to antimatter; the former's properties are wholly unknown, and it is not used with anything approaching the frequency of use of the latter. Second, the Empire has, and does use, antimatter weapons, when the use thereof is appropriate. That no such weapons have been created using hypermatter suggests that no such weapon is possible using hypermatter.

Publius

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm really getting tired of this. All this guy is trying to do is force circumstances to fit his viewpoint, rther than construct an explanation that fits all available facts.

So lets just simplify it. If you think you're so right, go ahead and prove:

1.) that its impossible for the "moon" in question to be a few hundred meters in diameter.

2.) that its impossible for Mako to have landed on said moon.

3.) That the details as given in the data is wrong based on either other EU proof, or real life physics (IE it could not orbit at geostationary, it could not be a few hundred meters in diameter, etc.)

And by "prove" I mean provide some substantial evidence to back up your claims. you know, like I've been doing, rather than blathering on about what is and isn't. I'm getting really tired of this one-sided debate. So either put up or concede.

[greenmm]

assuming 100% efficiency in the reaction (ie. high -end), 1g of AM produces at most a 43.2 kT yield.

Not the point of contention. Spare me your windbaggery, please.

You disputed my calculations for the max power of the antimatter. It's not windbaggery to restate an item being contested.

I dispute that Carida's moon was that small, as the gravity of a 200-300m planetoid would be such that the character could not have "landed" on it and placed the AM capsule.

Dispute all you want. But you're wrong. One gram of antimatter reacting with one gram of matter could not possibly have destroyed a moon much greater than 300 meters in diameter. Ergo, since we are told the yield, and we are told the results, we can conclude that the moon's size was not greater than 300 meters in diameter.

What is so difficult about this logic?

So your claim is that this cadet was such a dipshit that he didn't know how to do an elementary calculation to figure out how much energy 1g of AM would release? That he didn't have access to knowledge that can be learned from a high school physics course, let alone something he would have had at this academy?

My disputation is that a person so ignorant of the power of the antimatter he had was able to break into the antimatter storage area (considering the extreme volatility of antimatter, the tendency of hazing and practical jokes to occur at institutes of higher learning, and that the cadets have yet to graduate shows they haven't demonstrated their ability to be trusted unsupervised with dangerous materials such as antimatter, I strongly doubt the academy left the antimatter just lying around behind a door with an easy-to-bypass lock) and successfully abscond with it.

And let's not forget the other 2 parts of that quote. First, that the explosion was a cataclysmic event that the other cadets witnessed from the surface. Not with telescopic enhancement, not with sensors, but with their eyes. As someone else already pointed out on page 2 of this topic, with a moon under 300 m in diameter, you couldn't even see any details on it without extensive telescopic enhancement... and with an explosion that only blew it into big chunks, you're not talking about an event that will be easily noticed.

Secondly, it says he miscalculated the amount needed. He was trying to blow the seal off the moon, rather than blow up the moon itself. For him to miscalculate meant he made the attempt to calculate the power of the antimatter... which means he was conversant with the calculation we are all familiar with. There's only a few ways he could have messed up that calculation, then:

A. He plugged in the wrong speed for light. This is extremely doubtful; even today, it's easy to find the speed of light in a vaccuum. At an academy, particulary for someone who was familiar with the physics lab, he would have had even more opportunity to verify the speed of light value.
B. He overestimated how much energy he would need to blast the seal off. Possible, although I would think again that he could probably find that information readily enough. However, I think it's telling that the quote says he miscalculated the power of the antimatter, and not that he miscalculated how big of an explosion was needed.
C. He underestimated the efficiency of the reaction. Possible, and a candidate for a probable answer.
D. He underestimated how much antimatter he had. The quote says he miscalculated the power of the antimatter, and the power of an antimatter explosion relies on only 2 factors: the efficiency of the explosion (as I mentioned in C), and the mass of antimatter used. Again, this is not only a possible, but also probable, explanation, given the quote we do have.
E. The author is not very conversant with scientific concepts, particularly matter/antimatter annihilation reactions. Possible and probable explanation.

C and D are probable solutions, but without further information on the incident in question can't be conclusively proven either way with the quote. E is probable... but if we chalk up the "power of the antimatter" quote to an author mistake, then it leaves open any other details to being labeled mistakes as well.

He could have done an EVA,

If you had gone back and re-read the thread, as I had admonished, you would have noted that Mako Spince did, in fact, steal an EVA suit.

but that's not what the text says, is it?

My dear sir, you are either delightfully stupid or amusingly moronic. That is PRECISELY what the text says.

Of course, if you had gone back and re-read the thread when I told you to, you would have noted this and avoided looking like a simpleton.

Quoting Connor Macleod on page 3 (who was, in turn, quoting the original text): "He stole a gram of antimatter, then a small, one-man shuttle and a spacesuit from the Academy shuttle hanger, and took off."

Now I trust that you are now a wiser human being for having your simple mistake pointed out to you, hmm?

Spacesuit <> EVA suit. A spacesuit is designed to protect the wearer while in outerspace, but that doesn't mean it's designed for EVA maneuvers. The Apollo astronauts, for example, had spacesuits, but not EVA suits, because they were landing on the Moon and exploring its surface.

As for why he needed a suit if he had a shuttle... the unexpected. Had a problem occurred which required him to abandon the shuttle in orbit, or had a hole been made in the hull, he'd have been SOL if he didn't have a suit as backup to provide air for himself, let alone for placing the

It's possible this guy did have an EVA suit, but you cannot prove it by the dialogue you've provided. All you can prove conclusively is that he had a suit designed to protect him while in space, nothing more. Anything beyond that would require dialogue identifying it as an EVA suit, or a spacesuit fitted with systems that would enable it to perform EVA's.

Now, aren't you glad you now know the difference between a spacesuit and an EVA suit?

[greenmm]

I'm really getting tired of this. All this guy is trying to do is force circumstances to fit his viewpoint, rther than construct an explanation that fits all available facts.

So lets just simplify it. If you think you're so right, go ahead and prove:

1.) that its impossible for the "moon" in question to be a few hundred meters in diameter.

2.) that its impossible for Mako to have landed on said moon.

3.) That the details as given in the data is wrong based on either other EU proof, or real life physics (IE it could not orbit at geostationary, it could not be a few hundred meters in diameter, etc.)

And by "prove" I mean provide some substantial evidence to back up your claims. you know, like I've been doing, rather than blathering on about what is and isn't. I'm getting really tired of this one-sided debate. So either put up or concede.

1. A moon of said diameter wouldn't be visible to the naked eye, let alone the explosion that destroyed it... and if it wasn't visible, then it would be "cataclysmic", would it? The "proof" of its visiblity was already shown by someone else on page 2.

2. He could attempt to "dock" with said 300m rock, but the surface gravity would not allow a "landing" on it, as it would be 1/30 millionth as strong as the Earth's surface gravity -- in fact, the gravitational pull of Earth at a distance equal to the moon's orbit is a few orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational pull of a 300m nickel-iron planetoid. g = GM/(r^2), where g = gravitational acceleration, G = gravitational constant, M = mass of central object, and r = distance from gravitational center in m. For a 300m nickel-iron asteroid (the heaviest example), g = 329 nm/s per second. So he couldn't do any "walking" on said planetoid. An EVA suit would be required, but the quote doesn't say specifically that he had one (and no, a spacesuit is not always an EVA suit).

3. Already included it.

[Connor MacLeod]

1. A moon of said diameter wouldn't be visible to the naked eye, let alone the explosion that destroyed it... and if it wasn't visible, then it would be "cataclysmic", would it? The "proof" of its visiblity was already shown by someone else on page 2.

You keep assuming it must be visible to the naked eye. Nothing I have posted or Publius (or anyone else for that matter) has indicated such a requirement. Prove that it must be seen by the naked eye. That goes for your assertion about the "catacylsmic" explosion.

Stop adding details to the event that aren't there (although you're so utterly obsessed with proving it CANNOT be that way to the exclusion of common sense, I doubt you'll be that reasonable.)

2. He could attempt to "dock" with said 300m rock, but the surface gravity would not allow a "landing" on it, as it would be 1/30 millionth as strong as the Earth's surface gravity -- in fact, the gravitational pull of Earth at a distance equal to the moon's orbit is a few orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational pull of a 300m nickel-iron planetoid. g = GM/(r^2), where g = gravitational acceleration, G = gravitational constant, M = mass of central object, and r = distance from gravitational center in m. For a 300m nickel-iron asteroid (the heaviest example), g = 329 nm/s per second. So he couldn't do any "walking" on said planetoid. An EVA suit would be required, but the quote doesn't say specifically that he had one (and no, a spacesuit is not always an EVA suit).

Ever heard of the word "tractor beams?" what about "repulsors?" Maybe something like the landing claw the Falcon used to attach itself to the ISD in TESB? See, I can speculate too, but the key difference is that I'm trying to generate a theory that FITS the known facts. You, on the other hand, appear obsessed with treating it as some big scientific impossibility.

This is not proof. This is your speculation asserting that it CANNOT happen because you do not think so. Concession accepted.

3. Already included it.

You obviously don't understand what the word "evidence" means.

Beyond quoting a dictionary (which I was able to do as well, and countered already) you have not quoted any sources that contradict what is stated. The most you keep tossing out is your "assurances" that this cannot happen. Last I recall you aren't a higher order of canon than official sources.

Concession accepted. Give it up, sparky. You lost.

[SPOOFE]

You disputed my calculations for the max power of the antimatter.

An inaccurate contention, though it did provide me with amusement.

So your claim is that this cadet was such a dipshit that he didn't know how to do an elementary calculation to figure out how much energy 1g of AM would release?

No, that is not my claim. That is the text's claim. It states that Mako Spince made an error in calculating the explosion's yield. So, apparently, yes, he "was such a dipshit that he didn't know how to do an elementary calculation to figure out how much energy 1g of AM would release."

Secondly, it says he miscalculated the amount needed.

Exactly. So I take it that you agree with me that Mako Spince was, indeed, such a dipshit that "was such a dipshit that he didn't know how to do an elementary calculation to figure out how much energy 1g of AM would release?"

(Deluge of windbaggery snipped)

Spacesuit <> EVA suit. A spacesuit is designed to protect the wearer while in outerspace, but that doesn't mean it's designed for EVA maneuvers.

Semantic nonsense. Please provide evidence that, in Star Wars jargon, a "space suit" and an "EVA suit" are significantly different.

As for why he needed a suit if he had a shuttle... the unexpected.

Bullshit, my dear sir. How often do people in Star Wars wear space suits while flying a starship? Han and Company certainly didn't wear one through the entirety of their numerous flights on the Millenium Falcon.

Now, aren't you glad you now know the difference between a spacesuit and an EVA suit?

When you provide evidence of a difference, boy howdy, will I be glad to see it.

A moon of said diameter wouldn't be visible to the naked eye, let alone the explosion that destroyed it

Cite a single passage in the text that said that the moon, or the explosion that destroyed it, was visible to the naked eye.

and if it wasn't visible, then it would be "cataclysmic", would it?

Why not? It destroyed an ancient artifact. That seems pretty cataclysmic to me.

He could attempt to "dock" with said 300m rock, but the surface gravity would not allow a "landing" on it, as it would be 1/30 millionth as strong as the Earth's surface gravity

So? A "landing" simply refers to the act of being placed on land. Even if it's tiny land. All he has to do is fly the shuttle within a meter of the rock, set its repulsorlifts to remain steady, exit the vehicle in his spacesuit, and plant the antimatter.

An EVA suit would be required, but the quote doesn't say specifically that he had one (and no, a spacesuit is not always an EVA suit).

Saying that a spacesuit is not always an EVA suit is not proof. If the situation requires an EVA suit, and it says that he had a spacesuit, then we conclude that the spacesuit in this case was also an EVA suit.

Your inability to grasp even the most elementary of logic is astounding. Did you go to a special School of Illogic?

[greenmm]

1. A moon of said diameter wouldn't be visible to the naked eye, let alone the explosion that destroyed it... and if it wasn't visible, then it would be "cataclysmic", would it? The "proof" of its visiblity was already shown by someone else on page 2.

You keep assuming it must be visible to the naked eye. Nothing I have posted or Publius (or anyone else for that matter) has indicated such a requirement. Prove that it must be seen by the naked eye. That goes for your assertion about the "catacylsmic" explosion.

Stop adding details to the event that aren't there (although you're so utterly obsessed with proving it CANNOT be that way to the exclusion of common sense, I doubt you'll be that reasonable.)

Wrong page, it was on page 3... and lo and behold, it was from your own posting (bold added for the quote you say doesn't exist)...

Here's the incidetn as put forth in Han's Memory from "The Hutt Gambit"

*****

"That night, while Han plotted orbits and worked on ihs "Economics of Hyperspace Troop Movmeent" presentation, Mako broke into Professor Cal-Meg's physics lab. He stole a gram of antimatter, then a small, one-man shuttle and a spacesuit from the Academy shuttle hanger, and took off.

Landing on the small planetoid that was Carida's nearest of three satellites, Mako planted the antimatter capsule in the middle of the huge Academy Seal that had been laser-carved into the satellite decades ago, back when Carida was still a training planet for the troops of the now-vanished Republic. Mako triggered the antimatter explosion from a safe distance in spac, intending to blast the seal right off the face of the little moon.

But Mako had underestimated the power of the antimatter he'd stolen. The entire satellite blew up in a cataclysmic diplay that Han and the otehr cadets witnessed from the planet's surface.

Mako was immediately one of the prime suspects. He'd pulled so many pranks in his time, caused so much mayhem, that the officers began checking on him alomst before the debris from the shattered satellite had either plunged planetward or drifted into alignment, forming a disjointed ring around Carida."

The Hutt Gambit, page 55-56.

*****

Really, I don't see what is so "pseudoscientific" about it.

You quoted straight from the book, right? Well, guess what, there's the "cataclysmic" adjective you claimed didn't exist. And again, the event was witnessed by Han and the other cadets. It didn't specify a select group... and unless they all had macrobinoculars trained on the right vicinity, how did they observe it if it wasn't visible to the naked eye?

Concession accepted.

2. He could attempt to "dock" with said 300m rock, but the surface gravity would not allow a "landing" on it, as it would be 1/30 millionth as strong as the Earth's surface gravity -- in fact, the gravitational pull of Earth at a distance equal to the moon's orbit is a few orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational pull of a 300m nickel-iron planetoid. g = GM/(r^2), where g = gravitational acceleration, G = gravitational constant, M = mass of central object, and r = distance from gravitational center in m. For a 300m nickel-iron asteroid (the heaviest example), g = 329 nm/s per second. So he couldn't do any "walking" on said planetoid. An EVA suit would be required, but the quote doesn't say specifically that he had one (and no, a spacesuit is not always an EVA suit).

Ever heard of the word "tractor beams?" what about "repulsors?" Maybe something like the landing claw the Falcon used to attach itself to the ISD in TESB? See, I can speculate too, but the key difference is that I'm trying to generate a theory that FITS the known facts. You, on the other hand, appear obsessed with treating it as some big scientific impossibility.

This is not proof. This is your speculation asserting that it CANNOT happen because you do not think so. Concession accepted.

The facts have to match up with the information provided. You can't "land" on an object 300m in diameter in a traditional sense, because of the extremely small gravity. If he used some other method to attach to the moon, then why didn't the author use that term? The simplest reason: it wouldn't have described what Mako did. Did the MF "land" on the Star Destroyer with its landing claw? No, it grabbed onto the hull with the claw.

And I just know you're going to argue semantics and meanings... except that meanings are extremely important. Landing, grabbing, and tractoring have different meanings because different actions are being done and different results are being achieved. You pick the term based on which one describes it best. How can you claim that the author meant something other than the traditional meaning for "landed", and expect us to automatically give you the authority to do so?

Even worse, how can you stop there? If the author messed up on his word choice in this part of the narrative, then how can we take any other word he uses at face value? How can we be sure he truly meant to say "gram", and not "kilogram"? You're accusing me of focusing on one portion of the author's words, and saying that those words are misinterpreted, yet insist that you are positive that every other part is a 100% faithful account of the incident. Only you can't know that... and without another source of evidence, or an alternate account of the incident to corroborate the details, you can't reinterpret the terms of one portion without allowing people to reinterpret any other part of the narrative.

And yes, this is boiling down to dictionary definitions... but then, you're doing it as well. You're putting your own definition of what the verb "to land" means into this, while claiming I've lost for bringing dictionary definitions into this. Here's another definition for you to look up: hypocrite.

Concession accepted.

3. Already included it.

You obviously don't understand what the word "evidence" means.

Beyond quoting a dictionary (which I was able to do as well, and countered already) you have not quoted any sources that contradict what is stated. The most you keep tossing out is your "assurances" that this cannot happen. Last I recall you aren't a higher order of canon than official sources.

Concession accepted. Give it up, sparky. You lost.

Actually, I quoted you. Or did you forget that you were the one that provided us with the "cataclysmic" quote?

As for the visibility of a 350m moon (which is bigger than the 300m moon you're assuming), someone else already covered that on page 2. But since you're apparantly suffering from a vision deficiency as well as a swiss-cheese memory, I'll provide it again...

He's referring to "Dark empire." The incident is where Mako Spince, an Academy buddy of HAn Solo's stole a gram of anti-matter from a physics lab for use in a practical joke. He ended up accidentally blowing up the "mascot moon" of the academy.

"He [Mako] stole a gram of anti-matter from the school physics lab and used it to blow up the Academy's - 'mascot moon' - a barren rocky sphere, in high stationary orbit over the academy, emblazoned wiith the Academy's official seal!" [Excerpt from the Dark Empier trade paperback]

"high stationary orbit" over the Academy would suggest geostationary orbit... which would be around 36,000 km for an earthlike planet. 1 gram of antimatter is 9e13 joules, or about 21.5 kt. The moon would have to be large enough to see the symbol from the planet, presumably

Using Mike's "asteroid destruction calculator" we can estimate that the moon could be no larger than 275 meters or so in diameter... so it might be possible to dismiss the "having to see the seal from the planet" part, since thats the one that doesn't work (or one could assume one could see it using visual enhancement gear.) I don't think it would work otherwise


Or, if we wanted to be really nasty, we could use this as proof that SW antimatter is as unreasonably energetic as what Trekkies claim for TOS antimatter

Actually, it's something more like 1.80E+14 joules, since the gram of antimatter annhilates an equal quantity of matter (the total amount is two grams total.) This is something like 43 kT. This bumps up the size of the asteroid moon to around 350 meters in diameter. This makes it 10X bigger than our ISS, but it's angular size is still only 0.0097 degrees (0deg33'25.51".) For reference, the Moon has an angular size of 0.5 degrees. You'd need a telescope that could magnify up to 51X in order for it to look as 'big' as the Moon. In order to actually see anything on it, you'd need a telescope that could magnify 510 - 765X (Assuming 10 - 15 times beyond the basic value . . . like looking at the Moon with a pair of binoculars.) So you'd need really hefty visual enhancement gear. Short story, the writer of the book is an effing idiot.

The inability of a 300m diameter moon to be seen from the surface of a planet at 36,000 km above the surface (geosynch orbit for an Earth-size and Earth-mass planet) was already disproven. And, you were kind enough to provide us with the information that said explosion was cataclysmic, and seen by numerous cadets on the ground... an explosion that you claim was only enough to fracture the moon.

Again, there's only 2 solutions. Either the moon is a lot closer than a geosynch orbit (which allows for your "moon smaller than expected but antimatter amount was right" theory), or the moon is a lot bigger (which allows for my "moon is too big to be damaged by the amount of antimatter listed, so Mako misjudged how much antimatter he had with him" theory). Unfortunately, the information provided has just enough problems with it that either theory is equally valid, particularly since we have no visual evidence to use for comparisons and estimates.

That doesn't mean a loss, that means a tie.

[greenmm]

You disputed my calculations for the max power of the antimatter.

An inaccurate contention, though it did provide me with amusement.

Nice to know I can provide comic relief, since it's what I live for. [/sarcasm]

So your claim is that this cadet was such a dipshit that he didn't know how to do an elementary calculation to figure out how much energy 1g of AM would release?

No, that is not my claim. That is the text's claim. It states that Mako Spince made an error in calculating the explosion's yield. So, apparently, yes, he "was such a dipshit that he didn't know how to do an elementary calculation to figure out how much energy 1g of AM would release."

So your assumption is that he didn't have the first clue about antimatter. What evidence do you have that this is more likely than any of the following scenarios?
-- he misread the label on the cylinder
-- the cylinder was mislabeled before delivery to the lab
-- the label was worn, and the symbol for "kilo" was worn off
-- there was something about the moon itself that made it easy to blow up (ie. hollow, fractures)

Secondly, it says he miscalculated the amount needed.

Exactly. So I take it that you agree with me that Mako Spince was, indeed, such a dipshit that "was such a dipshit that he didn't know how to do an elementary calculation to figure out how much energy 1g of AM would release?"

(Deluge of windbaggery snipped)

Always nice to see that, when you want to make a point, it's OK, but when someone else wants to make sure that they present all the facts, it's "windbaggery". Reminds me of some of the "people" I've seen spotlighted on Wong's site.

So Mako was a real dipshit when it came to working out AM calculations, but he wasn't a dipshit when it came to figuring out how to use the capsule it was stored in and rig it so that he could detonate it or turn off the containment system remotely and from a distance? I'm sure the Empire makes their AM storage cylinders in such a way that any village idiot can figure out how to work the fail-safe systems built into it, as well as being nice enough to attach a remote-control system to every cylinder so that you can disengage every single safety and fail-safe system on it remotely with a handy transmitter, especially considering the volatility of AM when it contacts normal matter... especially considering the safety devices that we poor backwards low-tech humans put into our "primitive" fission and fusion devices.

Sorry, I don't buy that. If Mako was that big of a dipshit, the more likely consequence of his attempt would have been to have the AM blow up in his face before he could place it, thus removing him from the gene pool. Nor would he have bothered trying to calculate how much AM he needed, but simply would have grabbed the first AM cylinder he could find. That is completely opposite to the planning that was needed to pull off the rest of this stunt. Sorry, it just doesn't make sense... which makes it more likely that his mistake wasn't a lack of knowledge of antimatter, but some other mistake.

Spacesuit <> EVA suit. A spacesuit is designed to protect the wearer while in outerspace, but that doesn't mean it's designed for EVA maneuvers.

Semantic nonsense. Please provide evidence that, in Star Wars jargon, a "space suit" and an "EVA suit" are significantly different.

And what makes you so sure they are identical? If they already had an EVA suit for the TIE fighter pilot -- a suit already visually based off of standard stormtrooper armor -- then why develop the Armored Spacetrooper armor with its EVA capabilities?

*waits for gibberish to commence*

As for why he needed a suit if he had a shuttle... the unexpected.

Bullshit, my dear sir. How often do people in Star Wars wear space suits while flying a starship? Han and Company certainly didn't wear one through the entirety of their numerous flights on the Millenium Falcon.

Now, aren't you glad you now know the difference between a spacesuit and an EVA suit?

When you provide evidence of a difference, boy howdy, will I be glad to see it.

Ah, so you know from firsthand experience that every spacesuit ever made has been designed with EVA conditions in mind? Oh, I get it: you work for NASA, and are just moonlighting here.

Where's your proof that all SW spacesuits have EVA capabilities? Proof works both ways, remember: or as they say, I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

A moon of said diameter wouldn't be visible to the naked eye, let alone the explosion that destroyed it

Cite a single passage in the text that said that the moon, or the explosion that destroyed it, was visible to the naked eye.

See my response to Macleod.

and if it wasn't visible, then it would be "cataclysmic", would it?

Why not? It destroyed an ancient artifact. That seems pretty cataclysmic to me.

Destroyed a 300m rock? Then I suppose the destruction of the planetoid that formed our asteroid belt was the End of the Universe by your definition.

A 43.2 kT explosion to blow up a 300m rock isn't cataclysmic... especially to an Empire where light turbolasers can routinely blow up kilometer-long asteroids with no trouble at all (or did you forget the asteroids they shot up in TESB?).

He could attempt to "dock" with said 300m rock, but the surface gravity would not allow a "landing" on it, as it would be 1/30 millionth as strong as the Earth's surface gravity

So? A "landing" simply refers to the act of being placed on land. Even if it's tiny land. All he has to do is fly the shuttle within a meter of the rock, set its repulsorlifts to remain steady, exit the vehicle in his spacesuit, and plant the antimatter.

An EVA suit would be required, but the quote doesn't say specifically that he had one (and no, a spacesuit is not always an EVA suit).

Saying that a spacesuit is not always an EVA suit is not proof. If the situation requires an EVA suit, and it says that he had a spacesuit, then we conclude that the spacesuit in this case was also an EVA suit.

Your inability to grasp even the most elementary of logic is astounding. Did you go to a special School of Illogic?

No, it's an inference. It may be based in logic, but you're still inferring that he went EVA, which is based on another as-yet-unproven inferrence, that the moon was only 300m in diameter. As I responded to MacLeod, you're insisting that we allow for a very loose interpretation of the word "landed", while insisting on a strict interpretation of the stated yield of the antimatter. That's no different than my proposal, save for the reversed position (ie. listed yield was underestimated, strict interpretation of the term "landed"), but you're claiming that you have a superior position based on your self-proclaimed authority. Who made you ultimater arbiter of word definitions, interpretation of official material, and interpretation of how events occurred? Do we see the name George Lucas on your birth certificate? Are you the author of the passage? No to both... which makes your theory no more authoritative or sound than mine.

And actually, you made the logical goof:

All Jet Fighters are Aircraft
Therefore, all Aircraft are Jet Fighters

The first statement is true, because of what a jet fighter is. The second statement, although disguised as a logical conclusion, is false, because not every aircraft is a jet fighter. In this case, a jet fighter is a very specialized aircraft, but it is not identical to a Piper Cub prop plane, a C-17 Globemaster III transport, or even a UH-60 Blackhawk.

Same with spacesuits and EVA suits. Like a normal spacesuit, an EVA suit protects the wearer against the effects of space. However, it has additional systems in it so that the wearer can safely perform EVA's, and is purpose-built for that purpose. To claim otherwise is a logical fallacy.

So tell me... which School of Illogic did you teach at?

[SPOOFE]

So your assumption is that he didn't have the first clue about antimatter.

Keep your ignorant words out of my mouth, child. I made zero assumptions... I'm merely going by what the text says. The text specficially says that he underestimated the yield of the explosion. YOU concluded that this means that he "does have the first clue about antimatter". Learn how to read, please. I am here for debate, not to give lessons in argumentative logic.

What evidence do you have that this is more likely than any of the following scenarios?

The text, you illiterate simpleton. You quoted it, just now, in your response to Connor.

"But Mako had underestimated the power of the antimatter he'd stolen."

Does it say "But Mako misread the label on the cylinder"? Does it say "The cylinder that Mako stole was mislabeled before delivery to the lab"? Does it say "The label was worn"? Does it say "There was something about the moon..."? (Actually, that last one isn't necessarily excluded). No. It says that he had "UNDERESTIMATED THE POWER OF THE ANTIMATTER HE'D STOLEN".

Always nice to see that, when you want to make a point, it's OK, but when someone else wants to make sure that they present all the facts, it's "windbaggery".

There's a difference between making a point cogent to the topic at hand, and spewing a lot of unnecessary bilge that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

So Mako was a real dipshit when it came to working out AM calculations, but he wasn't a dipshit when it came to figuring out how to use the capsule it was stored in and rig it so that he could detonate it or turn off the containment system remotely and from a distance?

Apparently. I didn't write the book. Do you see anything in the book that would suggest otherwise?

Sorry, I don't buy that.

That's fine. There are still people who don't buy the notion that man landed on the Moon, either.

And what makes you so sure they are identical?

You said so yourself... the situation calls for an EVA suit. The text says he grabbed a "spacesuit". You admitted that a spacesuit may also be an EVA suit.

If they already had an EVA suit for the TIE fighter pilot -- a suit already visually based off of standard stormtrooper armor -- then why develop the Armored Spacetrooper armor with its EVA capabilities?

Because the Spacetrooper suit is meant for zero-G combat. A TIE pilot suit is not.

Quick, pop quiz: What's the difference between a shirt and a kevlar vest?

Ah, so you know from firsthand experience that every spacesuit ever made has been designed with EVA conditions in mind?

You just committed the fallacy of the excluded middle, my intellectually deprived chum. I said that ONE spacesuit, the one mentioned in the text, was also an EVA suit. Check that, actually... I said that just because the text described it as a "spacesuit", that doesn't rule out that it is also an EVA suit. Heck, you conceded that point already.

Please point out where I tried to place any blanket generalizations. It would be much appreciated.

Where's your proof that all SW spacesuits have EVA capabilities?

You're asking me to prove a contention I never made. Please don't do so. It only makes you look more the fool.

And again, the event was witnessed by Han and the other cadets.

Cite a passage from the book that says that the explosion was seen WITH THE NAKED EYE. I'm sure the other cadets had access to a simple device known as a "telescope".

By the way, the explosion is not the important part (actually, it's a red herring). What is important is the size of the moon. Please provide evidence that the moon was visible with the naked eye.

Destroyed a 300m rock? Then I suppose the destruction of the planetoid that formed our asteroid belt was the End of the Universe by your definition.

You truly are an imbecile of cosmic proportions. Are you claiming that only LARGE objects can have any value? Are you claiming that a 50 carat diamond is worthless because it is not kilometers in diameter? Are you claiming that ancient Egyptian artifacts have no worth because they have no significant graviational pull?

A 43.2 kT explosion to blow up a 300m rock isn't cataclysmic

You're right. Nobody has claimed otherwise. What WAS cataclysmic was the loss of an ancient symbol, with personal value to the academy. You DO know that the symbol on the moon was centuries old, right?

No, it's an inference. It may be based in logic, but you're still inferring that he went EVA, which is based on another as-yet-unproven inferrence, that the moon was only 300m in diameter.

Do you have another alternative? One that is possible, of course.

As I responded to MacLeod, you're insisting that we allow for a very loose interpretation of the word "landed", while insisting on a strict interpretation of the stated yield of the antimatter.

Please explain how it is "loose" to say that someone "landed on a 300-meter rock". Furthermore, please provide any alternate maximum yields for the annihilation of one gram of antimatter with one gram of matter.

And actually, you made the logical goof:

All Jet Fighters are Aircraft
Therefore, all Aircraft are Jet Fighters

For the third time, that is not my contention. A better analogy would be:

-All jet fighters are aircraft.
-Some aircraft are jet fighters.
-Only jet fighters have capabilities X, Y, and Z.
-Aircraft N has capabilities X, Y, and Z.
-Therefore, Aircraft N is a jet fighter.

Again, this is just another giant red herring, but the fact remains that there is nothing in the text to make us think that the "spacesuit" Mako Spince grabbed is not also an EVA suit. Ergo, it is wholly plausible to assume that the spacesuit was used for an EVA operation.

Like a normal spacesuit, an EVA suit protects the wearer against the effects of space. However, it has additional systems in it so that the wearer can safely perform EVA's, and is purpose-built for that purpose.

But you have to prove that NO "spacesuit" can be an EVA suit. That is the burden of proof. You have already admitted that SOME spacesuits are also EVA suits. Ergo, barring a more specific excerpt from the text, and assuming that Mako actually performed some sort of extra-vehicular activity, there is plenty of evidence to assume that his spacesuit was also an EVA suit.

So tell me... which School of Illogic did you teach at?

Apparently the same one where "I know you are, but what am I?" is considered the epitome of witty comebacks.

[Publius]

greenmm, the idea that Cadet Spince was unaware of how much antimatter he used is demonstrably incorrect. The mass of the stolen antimatter is independently confirmed in both The Hutt Gambit and the Dark Empire Sourcebook.

As has already been cited, the latter source further clarifies the matter; Cadet Spince testified that he collected the antimatter "a few nanograms [sic] at a time." The antimatter was not stolen in a single cylinder or container, but over a period of time, done with great care and planning.

The statement as given is that Cadet Spince underestimated the power of the antimatter he had stolen. The literal meaning of this is that he did not believe the antimatter was as powerful as it was; strictly speaking, that he misidentified the quantity of antimatter is not an acceptable interpretation of that sentence.

There are two reasonable interpretations of the event, (a.) that Cadet Spince was unaware of the explosive yield of a matter/antimatter annihilation reaction with one gramme of matter and one gramme of antimatter as reactants; or (b.) that Cadet Spince knew the explosive yield, but did not correctly calculate the effect of the yield on the planetoid.

Recall that, as cited, Professor Cal-Meg commented during the final session of the expulsion proceedings that "the placement was very precise," seeming to suggest that the specific placement of the antimatter had an effect on the result of the explosion. It is possible that a planetoid no younger than 50,000 years -- a minimum age referred to by Dean Wyrmyr -- may have gradually fractured, such that when a gramme of antimatter was placed at a structural weak point, it shattered the moon.

Publius

[SPOOFE]

Now, ignoring Greenmm's foolishness, let's get back to the topic of the thread:

(a.) that Cadet Spince was unaware of the explosive yield of a matter/antimatter annihilation reaction with one gramme of matter and one gramme of antimatter as reactants

Possibility... perhaps he only made calculations for the 1 gram of antimatter, as was done earlier in this thread, and didn't take into account that the total mass of the reactants would have been 2 grams (1 gram matter, 1 gram antimatter)?

(b.) that Cadet Spince knew the explosive yield, but did not correctly calculate the effect of the yield on the planetoid.

Possibility... perhaps, as Greenmm himself mentioned above, the moon was of unusually low density? Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned the possibility that the moon itself was artificially made.

Recall that, as cited, Professor Cal-Meg commented during the final session of the expulsion proceedings that "the placement was very precise," seeming to suggest that the specific placement of the antimatter had an effect on the result of the explosion.

Possibility... perhaps there was some way in which Mako managed to get the antimatter underground? That would have done significantly more damage.

[Connor MacLeod]

Wrong page, it was on page 3... and lo and behold, it was from your own posting (bold added for the quote you say doesn't exist)...

Here's the incidetn as put forth in Han's Memory from "The Hutt Gambit"

*****

"That night, while Han plotted orbits and worked on ihs "Economics of Hyperspace Troop Movmeent" presentation, Mako broke into Professor Cal-Meg's physics lab. He stole a gram of antimatter, then a small, one-man shuttle and a spacesuit from the Academy shuttle hanger, and took off.

Landing on the small planetoid that was Carida's nearest of three satellites, Mako planted the antimatter capsule in the middle of the huge Academy Seal that had been laser-carved into the satellite decades ago, back when Carida was still a training planet for the troops of the now-vanished Republic. Mako triggered the antimatter explosion from a safe distance in spac, intending to blast the seal right off the face of the little moon.

But Mako had underestimated the power of the antimatter he'd stolen. The entire satellite blew up in a cataclysmic diplay that Han and the otehr cadets witnessed from the planet's surface.

Mako was immediately one of the prime suspects. He'd pulled so many pranks in his time, caused so much mayhem, that the officers began checking on him alomst before the debris from the shattered satellite had either plunged planetward or drifted into alignment, forming a disjointed ring around Carida."

The Hutt Gambit, page 55-56.

*****

Really, I don't see what is so "pseudoscientific" about it.

You quoted straight from the book, right? Well, guess what, there's the "cataclysmic" adjective you claimed didn't exist. And again, the event was witnessed by Han and the other cadets. It didn't specify a select group... and unless they all had macrobinoculars trained on the right vicinity, how did they observe it if it wasn't visible to the naked eye?

Concession accepted.

Actually, I was referring to your repeated notion that the "explosion" must be visible to the naked eye. Nice how you used that to completely DODGE the point about proving that the moon OR the explosion had to be visible to the naked eye, by the way.

Point is. If they observed it, and it WASN't visible to the naked eye, then they must have had assistance of some kind. The amount of antimatter used (and hence the size of the moon) and its distance are fixed. How they observed it is not stated. Hence it is the variable open to interpretation, and visual aids fit the interpretation. Everyone seems able to grasp this fact except you.

The facts have to match up with the information provided. You can't "land" on an object 300m in diameter in a traditional sense, because of the extremely small gravity. If he used some other method to attach to the moon, then why didn't the author use that term? The simplest reason: it wouldn't have described what Mako did. Did the MF "land" on the Star Destroyer with its landing claw? No, it grabbed onto the hull with the claw.

1.) Provide this "Traditional" definition of landing.

2.) Provide that "landing" by definition would preclude using measures to attach the ship to KEEP it landed, such as a tractor beam or claw.

3.) I should mention that both the TESB novelization and the Galaxy Guide 3: The Empire Strikes back, both mention the Falcon using a *LANDING* claw to attach itself to the Avenger. I guess that means Mako could have used a kind of *LANDING CLAW* to attach itself to the planet.

4.) While we're on the subject of the Avenger, how does semantically nitpicking whether or not the Falcon's attachment to the Avenger's bridge tower can be called "landing" somehow disprove that similar methods can be used to attach to other objects? ("Well Chewie, I want to attach to that Star Destroyer, but this is a LANDING CLAW, and you can't Land on a STar Destroyer.. I guess my plan won't work.")

And I just know you're going to argue semantics and meanings... except that meanings are extremely important. Landing, grabbing, and tractoring have different meanings because different actions are being done and different results are being achieved. You pick the term based on which one describes it best. How can you claim that the author meant something other than the traditional meaning for "landed", and expect us to automatically give you the authority to do so?

You're a fine one to complain about nitpicking.

Landing, grabbing, and tractoring may be different terms, but that does not preclude the use of both at once... landing and THEN tractoring, for example.)

Anyhow, its irrelevant, since I already specified the Falcon used a LANDING claw to attach to the Avenger. I do suppose Mako could use a LANDING claw to LAND on the moon. Therefore, your semantic nitpicking of the defintions are automatically pointless (not like they wouldn't be anyhow even WITHOUT the TESB quote)

Even worse, how can you stop there? If the author messed up on his word choice in this part of the narrative, then how can we take any other word he uses at face value? How can we be sure he truly meant to say "gram", and not "kilogram"? You're accusing me of focusing on one portion of the author's words, and saying that those words are misinterpreted, yet insist that you are positive that every other part is a 100% faithful account of the incident. Only you can't know that... and without another source of evidence, or an alternate account of the incident to corroborate the details, you can't reinterpret the terms of one portion without allowing people to reinterpret any other part of the narrative.

The only one reinterpeting details is you. You're the one insisting that the scene is "wrong" and that reinterpretation is required. You're the only one obsessed with proving that the scene has something wrong with it, which has required you to repeatedly attempt to come up with "problems" in the quote (usually after someone has debunked your prior "attempts" because you cannot admit you're wrong.) first the amount of antimatter had to be correct, then The moon could not be the size it was, then the moon could not be at the distance it was, then Mako could not have landed on the moon... you're even nitpicking about the fricking SUIT he wore!

This is obviously a sign of desperation, although why proving this scene is inconsistent is so despareately important to you is beyond me. You have demonstrated a complete disregard for wishing to maintain continuity or even ATTEMPT to rationalize it WITHOUT resorting to assuming that someone is lying. That, if nothing else, invalidates any theory you come up with (because its obviously NOT neccesary to assume there is something wrong with the data we are given, despite the fact you assume there is.)

And yes, this is boiling down to dictionary definitions... but then, you're doing it as well. You're putting your own definition of what the verb "to land" means into this, while claiming I've lost for bringing dictionary definitions into this. Here's another definition for you to look up: hypocrite.

Concession accepted.

Red Herring. How Mako lands on the planet has no relevance to the details, beyond being one of your desperate attempts to somehow "prove" this incident is wrong. You have not proven why the insignificant gravity of the planet precludes landing at ALL, and even if it does, there is still the other options (landing claws from tESB, tractoring to the moon, which was done in Wraith Squadron) to MAINTAIN a landing on the moon. The fact he "landed" rather than docked, or boarded, or WHATEVER does not in any way preclude the use of other devices to assist in remaining so, unless you can provide evidence otherwise.

Stop obsessing over why you think the scene is wrong and deal with the facts as they are stated, like the rest of us are apparently able to do.

Actually, I quoted you. Or did you forget that you were the one that provided us with the "cataclysmic" quote?

As for the visibility of a 350m moon (which is bigger than the 300m moon you're assuming), someone else already covered that on page 2. But since you're apparantly suffering from a vision deficiency as well as a swiss-cheese memory, I'll provide it again...

He's referring to "Dark empire." The incident is where Mako Spince, an Academy buddy of HAn Solo's stole a gram of anti-matter from a physics lab for use in a practical joke. He ended up accidentally blowing up the "mascot moon" of the academy.

"He [Mako] stole a gram of anti-matter from the school physics lab and used it to blow up the Academy's - 'mascot moon' - a barren rocky sphere, in high stationary orbit over the academy, emblazoned wiith the Academy's official seal!" [Excerpt from the Dark Empier trade paperback]

"high stationary orbit" over the Academy would suggest geostationary orbit... which would be around 36,000 km for an earthlike planet. 1 gram of antimatter is 9e13 joules, or about 21.5 kt. The moon would have to be large enough to see the symbol from the planet, presumably

Using Mike's "asteroid destruction calculator" we can estimate that the moon could be no larger than 275 meters or so in diameter... so it might be possible to dismiss the "having to see the seal from the planet" part, since thats the one that doesn't work (or one could assume one could see it using visual enhancement gear.) I don't think it would work otherwise


Or, if we wanted to be really nasty, we could use this as proof that SW antimatter is as unreasonably energetic as what Trekkies claim for TOS antimatter

Actually, it's something more like 1.80E+14 joules, since the gram of antimatter annhilates an equal quantity of matter (the total amount is two grams total.) This is something like 43 kT. This bumps up the size of the asteroid moon to around 350 meters in diameter. This makes it 10X bigger than our ISS, but it's angular size is still only 0.0097 degrees (0deg33'25.51".) For reference, the Moon has an angular size of 0.5 degrees. You'd need a telescope that could magnify up to 51X in order for it to look as 'big' as the Moon. In order to actually see anything on it, you'd need a telescope that could magnify 510 - 765X (Assuming 10 - 15 times beyond the basic value . . . like looking at the Moon with a pair of binoculars.) So you'd need really hefty visual enhancement gear. Short story, the writer of the book is an effing idiot.

The inability of a 300m diameter moon to be seen from the surface of a planet at 36,000 km above the surface (geosynch orbit for an Earth-size and Earth-mass planet) was already disproven. And, you were kind enough to provide us with the information that said explosion was cataclysmic, and seen by numerous cadets on the ground... an explosion that you claim was only enough to fracture the moon.

1.) If you bothered reading it, you might notice he included the possibiltiy of "visual enhancement gear" - which I mentioned in response to his post. Small, personal binoculars like the ones Luke used to view the Devastator" provide 500x magnificationm, and larger devices like electrotelescopes (devices similar to electrobinoculars used to supplement planetary sensor grids that the Academy probably has and which cadets could have borrowed) can see things light mintues away. Since we are not told specifically HOW they view this event, and IF visual enhacement is required, then that IS the answer by default. Not this needless degree of "assuming something is wrong" crap you keep trying to insist on. Therefore, this does not disprove ANYTHING.

(and before you leap on the part about the magnification he stated, you might remember that it was an ASSUMPTION on his part, and even then this does not neccesarily mean that there were NO means available for detection. The fact they NEED magnification to view the event by default means they must have had it. THAT is the simplest theory, not this roundabout "someone must have fucked up" bullshit you keep spouting.)

2.) Who ever said anything about "numerous" cadets? We're not told how many see it, how they view it, or other relevant variables. Only that they saw it. I see you continue to insist on "improving" the evidence to make your position seem stronger.

Again, there's only 2 solutions. Either the moon is a lot closer than a geosynch orbit (which allows for your "moon smaller than expected but antimatter amount was right" theory), or the moon is a lot bigger (which allows for my "moon is too big to be damaged by the amount of antimatter listed, so Mako misjudged how much antimatter he had with him" theory). Unfortunately, the information provided has just enough problems with it that either theory is equally valid, particularly since we have no visual evidence to use for comparisons and estimates.

That doesn't mean a loss, that means a tie.

No, it means you keep assuming that we must assume the scene is fucked up or flawed somehow because you have an inability to get any facts through that neutronium-dense structure you call a skull. You have been *repeatedly" corrected by not only myself but two other people, yet you persist in this pointless attempt to "disprove" a scene for some meaningless reason. We only have to accept those two conclusions IF we assuem that your own narrow interpretation of events is correct, which we obviously do not.

Concession accepted.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Hey, does anyone besides me remember that people used to watch "Sputnik" as it passed over the earth. It was visible in the night's sky, with binoc's. Meteor showers are visible, and those are just small rocks burning up in the atmosphere.

[Slartibartfast]

You disputed my calculations for the max power of the antimatter.

An inaccurate contention, though it did provide me with amusement.

Nice to know I can provide comic relief, since it's what I live for. [/sarcasm]

I missed the sarcastic remark...

[greenmm]

greenmm, the idea that Cadet Spince was unaware of how much antimatter he used is demonstrably incorrect. The mass of the stolen antimatter is independently confirmed in both The Hutt Gambit and the Dark Empire Sourcebook.

As has already been cited, the latter source further clarifies the matter; Cadet Spince testified that he collected the antimatter "a few nanograms [sic] at a time." The antimatter was not stolen in a single cylinder or container, but over a period of time, done with great care and planning.

Are we talking about a WEG sourcebook for the RPG here? Do we have a ruling on how "official" that is, since the last I heard the RPG information is very far down on the scale in terms of acceptability for its information.

The statement as given is that Cadet Spince underestimated the power of the antimatter he had stolen. The literal meaning of this is that he did not believe the antimatter was as powerful as it was; strictly speaking, that he misidentified the quantity of antimatter is not an acceptable interpretation of that sentence.

There are two reasonable interpretations of the event, (a.) that Cadet Spince was unaware of the explosive yield of a matter/antimatter annihilation reaction with one gramme of matter and one gramme of antimatter as reactants; or (b.) that Cadet Spince knew the explosive yield, but did not correctly calculate the effect of the yield on the planetoid.

Recall that, as cited, Professor Cal-Meg commented during the final session of the expulsion proceedings that "the placement was very precise," seeming to suggest that the specific placement of the antimatter had an effect on the result of the explosion. It is possible that a planetoid no younger than 50,000 years -- a minimum age referred to by Dean Wyrmyr -- may have gradually fractured, such that when a gramme of antimatter was placed at a structural weak point, it shattered the moon.

Publius

Actually, I agree that those are the 2 possible interpretations. However, if in fact Mako stole the antimatter in smaller amounts in order to get 1 g of it, that speaks to multiple instances not only of bypassing security for the lab, but also having to either set up multiple storage cylinders for a simultaneous detonation or transferring the antimatter from the original container to a larger storage cylinder. In either case, if he really was that witless about how to handle antimatter, then increasing the number of times he had to handle it and fiddle with it before detonating it vastly increases the chance of his lack of wits resulting in an explosion. Doesn't it make more sense that he knew enough about antimatter then?

Now, you did bring up an interesting point about the moon potentially being hollow, riddled with cracks, or having some hidden flaw such that Mako's placement was in the right place to detonate it. However, if that were true, then it means the moon didn't have to be extremely small for the AM to burst it into chunks. In fact, if it were still just a few hundred meters in diameter, then weakening it with cracks or hollow spots would make it more likely that the explosion was enough to melt or vaporize it... yet the quote says it was only blasted into chunks.

[greenmm]

Hey, does anyone besides me remember that people used to watch "Sputnik" as it passed over the earth. It was visible in the night's sky, with binoc's. Meteor showers are visible, and those are just small rocks burning up in the atmosphere.

Visible if you're looking for it, expecting it, and know which part of the sky to look at.

[SirNitram]

Greenmm:

WEG is Official. It is not some special kind of Official that falls under all other Official: It is Official. It is often contradicted due to errors that are obviously against Canon, but since I know what you're going for is to say 'It's WEG, so we can overrule it, hah', no, you can't do that. You want WEG overruled, you'll need to find enough sources of equal ranking to dispute it, or sources higher up(IE, from the Canon level).

[Spartan]

Publius wrote:

First and foremost, this entire line of argument is factually incorrect. Hypermatter reactors are very rare, and are not found aboard most Imperial warships. Imperial Star Destroyers are powered by enormous solar ionization reactors, not by hypermatter reactors.

I have to disagree with you here SW2ICS page 3:

"Power Sources
Most starships use fusion systems that confine more-powerful hypermatter
annihilation cores. The interiors of the mightiest war vessels are dominated
by huge reactors cores and ultra-dense fuel silos, which enable them to
perform massive planetary bombardments and sustain hours of thousand-G accelerations before refueling."

Also the trade federation core ship diagram the primary reactor is identified as a hypermatter reactor. Also on page 18:

"Core-Ship design has changed little in the last century. In a typical
display of Neimoidian thrift, the spheres can serve a variety of craft: The
split-ring freighter-battleships of the Naboo blockade; larger, unarmored
container vessels and tankers; and newer warships of the post-Naboo period, including cruisers with improved weapons placement and smaller, faster destroyers that defend the fleets and chase down blockade runners."

From these quotes we learn these points:

1. Most starships civilian and military employ hypermatter reactor.
Most starships implies that nearly all hyperspace capable vessels, use hypermatter reactors

2. A mere shipping company use hypermatter reactors in large unarmored container vessels and tankers. So the tech can not possibly be that expensive or rare. Hypermatter technology is in common use.

3. Hypermatter technology had existed for at least 90-100 years prior to TPM. Because Core-Ship design has changed little in the last century, changing over to a brand new power source would certainly be more than a 'little' change.

5. Hypermatter reactions involve some form of annihilation reaction.

6. We are given an explanation of why all hyperdrives contain fusion systems, as they are a preparatory stage in the HM annihilation process.

6. SWICS2 implies that Hypermatter is the fuel for most large reactors which would include ISD/VSD reactors.


Publius also wrote:

The power generation systems of Imperial Star Destroyers are perfectly sufficient for their needs. To construct hypermatter-based power generators would be wasteful, as it would amount to wasting vast amounts of money in fixing something that was not broken.

As to ISD's mounting Solar Ionization reactors. Well the operating principles of the SIR have never been describe in official sources, but the SW2ICS tell us that hypermatter reactor cores are confined with in a larger reactor. A SIR must be a specific type hypermatter reactor. It might be the case that a SIR adds on to the basic hypermatter annihilation process, allowing the designers to call it a Solar Ionization Reactor.

Here's some speculation by Darth Wong:

If we look at the term "solar ionization" then it must simply refer to the energy conversion process. The word "solar" shouldn't even exist
in the SW galaxy, since Sol is OUR sun and doesn't exist there. At the very least, the term should be "stellar ionization" rather than "solar ionization." However, I will accept that the writers probably never thought of the fact that the word "solar" would have no meaning to a civilization that was not based on Earth.
Ionization refers to the act of stripping the electrons off the nuclei, and this REQUIRES energy rather than GENERATING energy. Therefore, all we can deduce from the term "solar ionization" is that whatever mechanism the reactor uses to generate energy, it uses that energy to ionize stellar gases into plasma. This plasma is probably used to carry energy out of the reactor and into energy conversion facilities where it can be used to power the ship.

That ISD are state to employ SIR's does not mean they do not use hypermatter.

Publius also wrote:

In any event, you misunderstand the nature of hypermatter. It is not a commonly used technology in the Galactic Empire; in fact, as late as 11 PED (29 BBY), hypermatter technology was still not yet advanced sufficiently for implementation as a power source for "an artificial construct the size of a small moon," as Mr. Raith Sienar described it (Rogue Planet, p. 39). Mr. Sienar continued to describe his expeditionary battle planetoid, and described the scale of this "small moon": "one large ball, ninety or a hundred kilometers [sic] in diameter" (op. cit., id.).

Here a more direct quotation:

(Ref: Rouge Planet p.39)

Pg. 39: "It's a dream, but an achievable dream, given certain advances in hypermatter technology. An implosion core with a plasma about a kilometer in diameter could power an artificial construct the size of a small moon.

Two things of note here Sienar notes that to build the DS advances in hypermatter are required. Not that entirely new physical principles are needed. If they know that advance are possible then they must have long standing theoretical and practical knowledge on Hypermatter. Secondly a hypermatter reactor apparently uses something called an implosion core.

Publius also wrote:

Furthermore, the suggestion that hypermatter be used as a weapon in and of itself is somewhat curious. One does not know anything about the properties of hypermatter; Mr. Sienar made reference to "a couple of large ice asteroids for fuel," but the context of his comment is vague, and one cannot begin to guess at how that might work. One does not know if hypermatter reacts violently with matter. It is entirely possible that it is rather like coal; burning coal provides power, but one would not seriously suggest using a coal bomb to destroy one's enemies.

This is not entirely true, from ICS we know that hypermatter reactions involve some form of annihilation reaction.

I agree, with all your other points in this thread, so this is not a slam or anything.