Turbo laser cannons power.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-01-31 09:16pm

I was fasinated by the annallissis of the performance of the weapons described. Although I did not run the numbers, ( More on that later.) they appier to be correct in their computations.

The defects are that they are based on faulty assumetions.

1. That the Asteroid was "Vaporised".

2. That the Asteroid was similar to metiors found on Earth.

3. That there was not a simpler explination.

Using the figures quoted, it was plainly impossable for the "Astroid" to be "Vaporised" In the text, it states that the phenominon lasted .25-.3 seconds. If the mass quoted, about 32,000 metric tons as I recall, was heated to incandessance it would have taken many minutes to dissipate not fractions of a second. We know this fron space weapons tests of both conventional and nuclear explosives. Conventional explosives dissipate in tiny fractions of a second like those shown in the movie. While nuclear shots in the energy range cited that massed only 363 pounds ( about 165 kilos off the top of my head.) required many seconds (2-3 dozen depending) for the bomb residue to disperse enough that it was no longer visable to the naked eye. Therefore, the yeald must have been in the kilogram range or the incandesant halo would certanly been visable for much, thousands of times, longer.

We know from the many direct observations and remote spectographs that "Asteroids" are not "Rocky Iron" but more like soft lumps of talcum powder. Metiors that reach the surface of the planet to be found are inevitably (+-90%) Rocky Iron because the ones made up of other things burn up before landing. Spectrographic examination of the "Trails" left by metiors that do not reach the ground, indicate that most are not Iron at all.

A far simpler explanation is that they were soft, pulverised and scattered by the shot. The effects seen can be explained by shock wave disrupting the surface to make it look like it was hot. Uniform distribution of dust and gas like the "dome" effect of nuclear shots. We have no sensor readings of temperatue to know other wise for sure. See slo-mo film of a very high velocity projectile hitting anything. My favorite is an apple that goes from red to white in a blink as a rifle bullet hits it. That shock wave could have come from "explosive heating" by X or Gamma-rays, that pennitraited into the core of the target. This effect is well known and understood due to experiments conducted for the SDI program. The "Tracer" effect of the shot moving at such slow reallitive speed could have been a "Follow threw" projectile that followed the beam, much like a laser guided bomb, to pennitrait into the target before detonation. If we consult Explosive Demolition Manuals, we can deduce the yeald of the charge. It would have been between 32 and 50 kilos, average 40 for a 20m diamiter Astroid. We know this from standard tables used in BDA and Military Manuals. (Bomb Damage Assessment) A 750 pound GP bomb with 169 kilos of PBX, leaves a crater 14 meters across and 2 deep in soft ground, throwing debris for hundreds of meters. That includes working against gravity. In free fall orbit, the only gravity that we must concider is that between the various particles of the astroid it self. It is overcome by very few joules of energy. A hard rock like object shatters easily requiring less charge to do the same work. An AP bomb exploding deep in rock has a much larger "shatter" zone than the above crater. The charge scatters the debris just enough to become invisable in the thin light due to the failure of the human eye to discern small objects of low contrast, without evolving so much gas that it takes to long to dissipate.

The above scenario meets all of our "facts" as seen on the film and requires no twisting of reality or suspention of disbelife to make it work. It is therefore the best solution to our "problem". The same mechanism can also explain how "blasters" work so devistatingly without causing large "side" effects.

Your replies are well come as always, sincerely, Stewart.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-31 09:19pm

Except for that a nuclear weapon has never been detonated in space. Upper atmosphere, yes, but never in space.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2004-01-31 09:27pm

Can you perhaps keep it to one thread at a time please Stewart, it'll make it more convient for those popping your bubbles.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-01-31 09:47pm

I did not know what the protocall was. I thought that sice they were on two different subjects that they could co-exist harmlessly.

P. S. What do you mean getting my bubble poped?

Sincerely, Stewart.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-31 10:00pm

Just so you know, Stewart, we don't give points for politeness here.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-01-31 10:44pm

Spanky ease off, we get nice one's so seldom here and I much prefer blith ignorance to poo flinging monkey's that normaly come

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-01-31 11:07pm

No weapons have been detonated in space? There were several tests that I know of, well out of the atmosephere as we know it. 99.99% of it, the air that is, is below 100,000'. One of the tests was over 500 or 1,000 miles up ( I can't remember which.) and at least one other was over 300,000'. (316,000' If I remember corectly.) I think either of those would qualify as in space. A third, Nike Hercules/W-43?, was about 150,000' up, IIRC. I think that there were other tests also, but I do not know the particulars.

You can watch vidio of the second test on the "Atomic Bomb Vidio" that you can rent at the store. The camera is much better than the eye at showing the burst and disipation of the debris over several minutes. Eye witnesses at the time claimed that they could see it from Hawii for 20-30 seconds. That is over 1,000 miles away from the test shot. The weapon and capsule weighed 363 pounds.

The time for any given mass of anything to dissapate at incandessant tempuratures can be calculated from standard formula. It is not my aria of expertise, but I know someone who can do it for me. I do not worry about it because I know that +-32,000 tons of asteroid would take two or three orders of magnatude longer than the film depicts.

Conventional shots used to "calibrate" the instramentation for the nuclear tests were done to explore the effects needed. They determined that a 225 kilo (500Lb.) charge of PBX-9504 would have an effective range of only 21 feet. Thus the need for nuclear explosives that gave off their energy in three distinct forms, blast, thermal and hard radiation. The blast radius in space was not much different than that of a similar mass of conventional charge. The hard radiation dissapated quickly and was not sufficiant to give a large increase in leathal radius. The thermal radiation consisting mostly of X-Rays, was, it turned out, leathal over quite long distances. (3-5 miles) The effect was damage by shock from the X-rays "boiling off" the vehical's skin at super- sonic velosity.

Hope this helps, sincerely, Stewart.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-31 11:13pm

I repeat my assertion: No nuclear weapons have ever been detonated in space. The highest they were detonated was in the upper reaches of the atmosphere.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2004-01-31 11:27pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I repeat my assertion: No nuclear weapons have ever been detonated in space. The highest they were detonated was in the upper reaches of the atmosphere.

STARFISH PRIME, July 9, 400-kilometer altitude, 1.4 megaton
CHECKMATE, October 20, tens of kilometers altitude, low (less than 20 kt)
BLUEGILL 3 PRIME, October 26, tens of kilometers altitude, submegaton (less than 1 Mt, but more than 200 kt)
KINGFISH, November 1, tens of kilometers altitude; submegaton (less than 1 Mt, but more than 200 kt)
TIGHTROPE, November 4, tens of kilometers altitude, low (less than 20 kt)

IIRC the Ionosphere reaches an altitude of 350KM. I believe Starfish Prime qualifies as a nuclear detonation in space.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-01-31 11:33pm

...Except for that one...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-01 01:12am

Stewart at SDI wrote:I was fasinated by the annallissis of the performance of the weapons described. Although I did not run the numbers, ( More on that later.) they appier to be correct in their computations.

The defects are that they are based on faulty assumetions.

1. That the Asteroid was "Vaporised".

2. That the Asteroid was similar to metiors found on Earth.

3. That there was not a simpler explination.

Don't be ridiculous; what "simpler explanation" is there for the asteroid turning into a bright glowing flash?

Using the figures quoted, it was plainly impossable for the "Astroid" to be "Vaporised" In the text, it states that the phenominon lasted .25-.3 seconds. If the mass quoted, about 32,000 metric tons as I recall, was heated to incandessance it would have taken many minutes to dissipate not fractions of a second. We know this fron space weapons tests of both conventional and nuclear explosives. Conventional explosives dissipate in tiny fractions of a second like those shown in the movie.

Hey Einstein, here's a news flash for ya: conventional explosives vapourize themselves. You have just proven the point: the asteroids were vapourized.

While nuclear shots in the energy range cited that massed only 363 pounds ( about 165 kilos off the top of my head.) required many seconds (2-3 dozen depending) for the bomb residue to disperse enough that it was no longer visable to the naked eye. Therefore, the yeald must have been in the kilogram range or the incandesant halo would certanly been visable for much, thousands of times, longer.

Another news flash for our self-proclaimed space weapons expert: nuclear explosives involve many, many orders of magnitude more energy per unit mass than is necessary for vapourization.

We know from the many direct observations and remote spectographs that "Asteroids" are not "Rocky Iron" but more like soft lumps of talcum powder.

Interestingly, NASA disagrees with your universal generalization by stating that there are several types of asteroids, with rocky iron asteroids being one of them.

Metiors that reach the surface of the planet to be found are inevitably (+-90%) Rocky Iron because the ones made up of other things burn up before landing. Spectrographic examination of the "Trails" left by metiors that do not reach the ground, indicate that most are not Iron at all.

I notice that you are assuming NEOs flying around our solar system after 5 billion years should be chemically and microstructurally identical to those produced by the catastrophic collision of two planets in the Hoth system.

A far simpler explanation is that they were soft, pulverised and scattered by the shot.

... in such a manner which looks exactly like that of a chemical explosive going off in space, by your own admission, and a chemical explosive vapourizes itself.

The effects seen can be explained by shock wave disrupting the surface to make it look like it was hot.

How do you scatter powder without heating it, in such a manner that it glows?

Uniform distribution of dust and gas like the "dome" effect of nuclear shots. We have no sensor readings of temperatue to know other wise for sure. See slo-mo film of a very high velocity projectile hitting anything. My favorite is an apple that goes from red to white in a blink as a rifle bullet hits it.

Perhaps you failed to notice that it does not actually glow when this is happening. Since the inside of an apple is white, did it ever occur to you that there might be another reason for this phenomenon?

The "Tracer" effect of the shot moving at such slow reallitive speed could have been a "Follow threw" projectile that followed the beam, much like a laser guided bomb, to pennitrait into the target before detonation. If we consult Explosive Demolition Manuals, we can deduce the yeald of the charge. It would have been between 32 and 50 kilos, average 40 for a 20m diamiter Astroid. We know this from standard tables used in BDA and Military Manuals. (Bomb Damage Assessment) A 750 pound GP bomb with 169 kilos of PBX, leaves a crater 14 meters across and 2 deep in soft ground, throwing debris for hundreds of meters. That includes working against gravity. In free fall orbit, the only gravity that we must concider is that between the various particles of the astroid it self. It is overcome by very few joules of energy. A hard rock like object shatters easily requiring less charge to do the same work. An AP bomb exploding deep in rock has a much larger "shatter" zone than the above crater. The charge scatters the debris just enough to become invisable in the thin light due to the failure of the human eye to discern small objects of low contrast, without evolving so much gas that it takes to long to dissipate.

All of which is based on your completely baseless assumption of non-heated pulverization of a soft asteroid even though the asteroids were described as nickel-iron asteroids, looked like well-consolidated rocky asteroids, and were produced in a vastly different fashion than the asteroids you attempt to use as a universal benchmark.

The above scenario meets all of our "facts" as seen on the film and requires no twisting of reality or suspention of disbelife to make it work.

Wrong. You assume that it is possible to make something incandescent without heating it, you ignore the fact that the effect looks exactly like a known space-borne vapourization event, and you pretend that it is somehow disproven by an event which releases vastly more energy per unit mass than is necessary to vapourize the object.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-01 01:21am

It amuses me that he started off with Occam's Razor, then uses it to justify a very strange mechanism for what we see, which can most easily be explained with a simple vaporized asteroid.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-01 02:33am

What. A. Fucking. Moron.

That was sad, SD1. I particularly like the part when you claim that an apple being hit by a high-velocity slug turns white, proving that an asteroid that glows as it disperses can be made to do the same thing.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-01 02:35am

It particularly amuses me that he tries to prove the asteroid didn't vapourize by showing that the explosion didn't look like a nuclear blast ... in which the yield to weight ratio could easily be 1 megaton per ton. He has thus proven that the 250,000 ton asteroid in TESB was probably not hit with a 250 gigaton weapon. But since the point-defense trench guns on an ISD are not supposed to be anywhere near that powerful, I'm not sure what he hopes to prove through this triumph

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2004-02-01 05:10am

These would be the same "soft" asteroids that collided with each other, got Millennium Falcon landing on it, TIE fighters crashing into, TIE Bombers bombing on, without dispersing into as much as a puff of the similiar-to-a-nuclear-explosion-but-not-the-same dust?

Hm..

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-03 01:41am

Hey Stewart, you've posted several times in this forum since I posted my rebuttal to the argument you've put forth in this thread. Why do you ignore this thread, since it has far fewer responses than the others in which you do choose to respond while simultaneously complaining about having to deal with so many responses?

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-02-03 12:50pm

Stewart, your theory is alright, if a little bad in explaination and examples. However, that's a mute point.

Are you aware of LucasArts policy on Star Wars material?
Unless it's got 'Tales' or 'Infinities' clearly labeled on it, it's all part of the movie saga, it's all true.

Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections, Attack of the Clones puts Turbolaser firepower in nice clear print at 200 GIGATONS. (Ya know, 200,000 megatons), PER SHOT.

Darth Wongs calculations and explaination line up nearly perfectly with that.
Your's do not.

Oh, case in point, do you know what the vaporization rate is some metals?
Less then a second.

Your weapons basic knowledge MIGHT be impressive, however, your knowledge of basic engineering, thermodynamics, physics, mathematics and logic are, quite frankly, sadly lacking.

I suggest you put your copy of the Jolly Rogers Handbook (or whatever textfile or manual) down, and go back to your Grade 6 textbooks.

Come back when you recieve a proper high school education with at least 3 years of science.

Stewart at SDI · Post by **Stewart at SDI** » 2004-02-03 02:25pm

Sorry that I have not been able to reply before now. I just finnished reading all the replies to the other thred.

My point is not the energy used or that published in a book but the effects as we have seen them in the movie. I see no reason why they would use "200 Gigatons" worth of firepower, when the +-15 kilotons needed to "vaporise" the object acording to the other posting that I read on this site is more than enough to do the job.

My obsevation is that 32kilotons of rock, iron or whatever if heated to vaporisation by any level of energy imput would take much to long to dissipate, minutes not fractions of a second, to account for what we have seen on film. If blown apart and "pushed" by the radiation of the detonation, the incandessant gas it self would form a very large cloud/fireball many miles in diamiter not a few dozen yards as depicted in the movie. The "hailow" effect of such blasts is well known and understood, it looks like a smoke ring when in space. It is simply imposable for any known effect to duplicate that seen on screen if the energy level is within many orders of magnatude claimed in the book or elswere on this site. Therefore, you either have to have another explination (like mine) or you must suspend disbelief and invent some new effect that goes counter to everything we know today. Which is it?

It does not mater what the asteroid is made of. If you had read my whole post you would have seen that I mentioned that solid rock does not require as much energy to fracture as the softer "lump of talc" because the mechanics are different.

The effect of appiring to heat up is easily explained buy the dust shock effect and has nothing to do with heat. That effect is were dust particules are blasted away from the surface by a shockwave. The dust like the core of the apple apears bright because of it's uniform surface shape. Even if the object is solid without any "dust" at all, an effect known as "spalling" would make some from the existing surface.

I propose to buy lunch for some Physics Profs I know down at Fermi Lab and shair the two therories with them and find out which is the most likely of the two or whether a third or more possabilities are better. Care to take me up on it?

Sincerely, Stewart.

DaveJB · Post by **DaveJB** » 2004-02-03 02:42pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I repeat my assertion: No nuclear weapons have ever been detonated in space. The highest they were detonated was in the upper reaches of the atmosphere.
STARFISH PRIME, July 9, 400-kilometer altitude, 1.4 megaton
CHECKMATE, October 20, tens of kilometers altitude, low (less than 20 kt)
BLUEGILL 3 PRIME, October 26, tens of kilometers altitude, submegaton (less than 1 Mt, but more than 200 kt)
KINGFISH, November 1, tens of kilometers altitude; submegaton (less than 1 Mt, but more than 200 kt)
TIGHTROPE, November 4, tens of kilometers altitude, low (less than 20 kt)

IIRC the Ionosphere reaches an altitude of 350KM. I believe Starfish Prime qualifies as a nuclear detonation in space.

Actually the Ionosphere/Exosphere boundry isn't until around 500KM, and the Exosphere is speculated to reach up to 10,000KM. And detonating a nuke in space would be extremely hazardous because of the EM pulse.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-02-03 02:43pm

DaveJB wrote:Actually the Ionosphere/Exosphere boundry isn't until around 500KM, and the Exosphere is speculated to reach up to 10,000KM. And detonating a nuke in space would be extremely hazardous because of the EM pulse.

Hazardous to who? You are aware we're sitting in a system heated by what is, essentially, a gargantuan fusion bomb?

DaveJB · Post by **DaveJB** » 2004-02-03 02:47pm

SirNitram wrote:
DaveJB wrote:Actually the Ionosphere/Exosphere boundry isn't until around 500KM, and the Exosphere is speculated to reach up to 10,000KM. And detonating a nuke in space would be extremely hazardous because of the EM pulse.
Hazardous to who? You are aware we're sitting in a system heated by what is, essentially, a gargantuan fusion bomb?

"Extremely hazardous" is probably too much of a generalisation, now that I think about it, what with yield, position and everything. But since it would be more focused and would be generated much closer to Earth... well, I don't think it'd have the same effect that we saw in Goldeneye, but I doubt it'd be good for global communications.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-02-03 02:52pm

Stewart at SDI wrote:Sorry that I have not been able to reply before now. I just finnished reading all the replies to the other thred.

My point is not the energy used or that published in a book but the effects as we have seen them in the movie. I see no reason why they would use "200 Gigatons" worth of firepower, when the +-15 kilotons needed to "vaporise" the object acording to the other posting that I read on this site is more than enough to do the job.

Are you deliberately stupid? This site estimates roughly 1/3 megaton to vapourize that asteroid. The 200 gigaton figure comes from the huge heavy turrets on the topside flanking the superstructure (which were not used in this incident), and is totally irrelevant.

My obsevation is that 32kilotons of rock, iron or whatever if heated to vaporisation by any level of energy imput would take much to long to dissipate, minutes not fractions of a second, to account for what we have seen on film.

All right, it's clear that you're either an idiot or a troll, since you completely ignored the point I made before about vapourization vs total ionization a la nuclear fireball. You're also continuing to assume that this asteroid has the density of ice for some asinine reason.

If blown apart and "pushed" by the radiation of the detonation, the incandessant gas it self would form a very large cloud/fireball many miles in diamiter not a few dozen yards as depicted in the movie. The "hailow" effect of such blasts is well known and understood, it looks like a smoke ring when in space. It is simply imposable for any known effect to duplicate that seen on screen if the energy level is within many orders of magnatude claimed in the book or elswere on this site. Therefore, you either have to have another explination (like mine) or you must suspend disbelief and invent some new effect that goes counter to everything we know today. Which is it?

Since you are deliberately ignoring the material on the site in order to pretend that I'm claiming 200 gigatons to vapourize a 40m rock, it's pretty obvious that your whole point is meaningless. Not to mention the fact that your explanation completely contradicts observation.

It does not mater what the asteroid is made of. If you had read my whole post you would have seen that I mentioned that solid rock does not require as much energy to fracture as the softer "lump of talc" because the mechanics are different.

And for the umpteenth time, the fact that metallic TIE fighters explode on contact with these "soft lumps of talc" without even denting them easily disproves your moronic theory. Try again.

The effect of appiring to heat up is easily explained buy the dust shock effect and has nothing to do with heat. That effect is were dust particules are blasted away from the surface by a shockwave. The dust like the core of the apple apears bright because of it's uniform surface shape. Even if the object is solid without any "dust" at all, an effect known as "spalling" would make some from the existing surface.

AND IT WOULD NOT GLOW, MORON.

I propose to buy lunch for some Physics Profs I know down at Fermi Lab and shair the two therories with them and find out which is the most likely of the two or whether a third or more possabilities are better. Care to take me up on it?

This is what we call the "I'm going to run and ask my Daddy" argument.

Buy a clue, Stewart. NO ONE BELIEVES YOU. No one believes your claims of vast expertise. No one believes your claims of hob-nobbing with all of these experts. Every single piece of data you've brought up could have easily been gleaned by a Google search, and you have made numerous elementary mistakes on physics theory. You can bullshit about your background and your various well-connected anonymous friends all day long; no one cares. Answer the points we've raised YOURSELF, rather than mumbling some vague bullshit about going to ask one of these experts you supposedly know.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-02-03 04:26pm

Darth Wong wrote: Are you deliberately stupid? This site estimates roughly 1/3 megaton to vapourize that asteroid. The 200 gigaton figure comes from the huge heavy turrets on the topside flanking the superstructure (which were not used in this incident), and is totally irrelevant.

To be fair, the 200 GT were brought up by Solauren, not Stewart.

Stewart:
1. There is a policy on this board on what is canon and what is not. Look it up here. If you want to argue from the POV that the books are irrelevant, fine. But you'll have to take your arguments elsewhere. In this forum, we have adopted the official Lucasfilm policy.
2. You can go ask anybody you want about anything you want, but it will be irrelevant here. If you post something, make sure to back it up, not with claims, but with actual references. Everybody can say "I asked Prof. Hawking and he said I was right", but links on actual quotes would help boost yuor credibility.

Since you don't appear to have read either The Site or this forum, you don't seem to have an idea how many people come here and post the same arguments you do. Rebutting the same claims over and over again means that poeple get angry over the apparent stupidity of posters. Go read the site, then come back if you think you have any real arguments that you can back up with fact. If you don't, prepare to be ridiculed.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-02-03 05:13pm

Stewart at SDI wrote:I was fasinated by the annallissis of the performance of the weapons described. Although I did not run the numbers, ( More on that later.) they appier to be correct in their computations.

The defects are that they are based on faulty assumetions.

1. That the Asteroid was "Vaporised".

How is this an "assumption?"

Turbolaser Commentaries wrote: The vaporisation figure has been in debate for some time. Many state that the asteroids simply broke apart under the influence of the heat: part of the asteroid may heat up faster than other parts, and expansion stress would cause the asteroid to shatter. But this event is not witnessed in the film. The asteroids were vaporised in the film. The asteroids turned into red-glowing liquid, and then vanished from sight within 1/4 second. The asteroid material could not shed over 1000 degrees Celsius in a fraction of a second to eliminate the glow, as this would require an artificial mechanism as powerful as the turbolaser bolt itself. The rock must have been turned into vapor to account for the asteroids "flashing out of sight".

Mike Wong wrote: Some Federation cultists have been claiming that these asteroids were not actually being vapourized, but they apparently lack an understanding of Occam's Razor. The visual effects in TESB were completely consistent with vapourization, therefore the simplest theory that fits the facts is the theory that these asteroids were indeed vapourized. The rapidly dispersing gas cloud would quickly become invisible, as do most gases in space (except for those which are kept in a continual state of excitation by outside sources such as enclosed stars or black holes, eg. in a nebula).

If you have evidence that suggests that this is untrue, I would appreciate you citing your sources and providing said evidence, as you have not done so.

2. That the Asteroid was similar to metiors found on Earth.

That's actually a conservative assumption. But even assuming your correct, so what? The following source tells us the composition of the asteroids (the scene takes place in the Hoth asteroid belt at the time of the escape from Hoth in TESB):

[quote="Tales of the Bounty Hunters, page 102]
Solo's last maneuver had been to strafe the Star Destroyer. Then he'd gone off the scopes. Dengar figured Solo must have gone back into the asteroid field. Perhaps Solo had shut down systems for a bit, so that his own ship seemed no more than an asteroid, but as Dengar sped into the asteroid field himself, he saw that even Solo himself wasn't crazy enough to risk such a maneuver. Rocks the size of his ship hurtled toward him, and these weren't the soft carbonaceous chrondites that his weapons might punch a hole through- these were nickel-iron rocks that could smash him to pieces. [/quote]

Unless you have more substantial, higher evidence to contradict that, it stands as correct. In any case, so what? Mike's done calculations for melting and vaporization for ice, silicon/rocky, AND iron asteroids. Apparently you did not read the website.

And if you don't like any of those conclusions, ,you can look at a thorough analysis of the asteroid vaporization scene by cmdrwilkens here

3. That there was not a simpler explination.

Does your "simpler explanation" fit the facts the way vaporization does? A theory is not automatically better just because it is simpler.

Using the figures quoted, it was plainly impossable for the "Astroid" to be "Vaporised" In the text, it states that the phenominon lasted .25-.3 seconds. If the mass quoted, about 32,000 metric tons as I recall, was heated to incandessance it would have taken many minutes to dissipate not fractions of a second.

First off, cite your source. Its rather clear you're referring to the discussion in Brian Young's Turbolaser commentaries page, even though you're remarkably vague about it.

Second, what the hell are you talking about? What proof do you have it would take many minutes to dissipate? When you add energy to something, it tends to expand. In something as diffuse as vapor or gas, at the kinds of enerrgies we are talking about, this translates into very RAPID expansion.

In fact, you evidently ignored this point on the very page you are citing:

Turbolaser commentaries wrote: Curtis Saxton suggests that the asteroids did not shatter because the melting/vaporization was "supersonic". This means that the asteroids were melted/vaporised before this expansion stress could take effect. This appears to be a valid theory, since the entire vaporization process took approximately 1/4 second (note from MW: this idea deserves further explanation: speed is everything. Thermal conductivity through the asteroid's mass is insufficient to account for the effects we saw, because the rock simply cannot conduct that much heat that quickly, even if it's pure iron. The effect would be more of an explosive effect, with a tiny area being superheated and a concussive shock wave moving out and shattering the asteroid. However, in order to shatter these asteroids so quickly, the fragments would have had to move through the rest of the asteroid at more than 600 m/s! This would require extremely rapid large-scale deformation of material, and the mechanics of solid material deformation happens to be an area which I've studied in depth. Deformation involves work, as defined by the stress-strain curve of the material, and that work becomes energy in the resulting deformed matter; this effect is known as work heating. The question of whether the asteroid was heated or shattered is therefore moot, because the act of shattering it at such great speed would create so much work-heating that the resulting material would be superheated anyway).

Again, please cite evidence indicating it would take many "minutes" to dissipate rather than seconds.

I also like how you ignore the fact that on that [same] page, Brian Young notes other asteroid examples that illustrate yields of thousands or tends of thousands of terajoules.

We know this fron space weapons tests of both conventional and nuclear explosives.

Source?

Conventional explosives dissipate in tiny fractions of a second like those shown in the movie. While nuclear shots in the energy range cited that massed only 363 pounds ( about 165 kilos off the top of my head.) required many seconds (2-3 dozen depending) for the bomb residue to disperse enough that it was no longer visable to the naked eye.

1.) what the hell are "nuclear shots", and what does this have to do with the asteroid vaporizations? And even so, how does this translate into the "minutes" you are claiming?

2.) Mike already pointed this out: conventional explosives vaporize themselves in the process. This only proves the fact they were vaporized rapidly.

Therefore, the yeald must have been in the kilogram range or the incandesant halo would certanly been visable for much, thousands of times, longer.

How do you move from "dozens of seconds" to "thousands of times longer" or "minutes" exactly? You seem to have skipped that part.

Second, you seem to be making alot of vague and arbitrary assumptions in your "nuclear explosive = asteroid" claim, such as the amount and yield of explosive you are comparing too (IE how much energy is used to vaporize a given quantity of explosive), and you seem to be assumign this would not scale up.

For example, if we're talking about 1 kilo of TNT, the enerrgy release should be 4.185 Megajoules. since the asteroid is tens of millions of times more massive than a 1 kilo TNT explosion, the energy requirement to achieve the same effects should be roughly comparable (within an order of magnitude or so, although this also would assume the asteroid is of the same density as the explosive, when it is much denser.) The energy level fo vaporize a 32,000 ton asteroid in a fraction of a second is still well over in the tens or hundreds of TJ range.

We know from the many direct observations and remote spectographs that "Asteroids" are not "Rocky Iron" but more like soft lumps of talcum powder. Metiors that reach the surface of the planet to be found are inevitably (+-90%) Rocky Iron because the ones made up of other things burn up before landing. Spectrographic examination of the "Trails" left by metiors that do not reach the ground, indicate that most are not Iron at all.

Prove it. And then even assuming you're right, that does not apply here since we have direct evidence citing the composition (And the aforementioned cmdrwilken's link is even more thorough, but agrees with the conclusions made by Curtis Saxton, Mike Wong, AND Brian Young.

A far simpler explanation is that they were soft, pulverised and scattered by the shot. The effects seen can be explained by shock wave disrupting the surface to make it look like it was hot. Uniform distribution of dust and gas like the "dome" effect of nuclear shots.

Except we would be seeing debris from fragmentation, which we clearly do not see. Moreover, Mike has already explained the "shockwave" aspect in detail, as I have already noted. It doesn't change the results in the least.

We have no sensor readings of temperatue to know other wise for sure.
See slo-mo film of a very high velocity projectile hitting anything. My favorite is an apple that goes from red to white in a blink as a rifle bullet hits it. That shock wave could have come from "explosive heating" by X or Gamma-rays, that pennitraited into the core of the target. This effect is well known and understood due to experiments conducted for the SDI program.

Cite a source please. You're remarkably vague about providing evidence.

The "Tracer" effect of the shot moving at such slow reallitive speed could have been a "Follow threw" projectile that followed the beam, much like a laser guided bomb, to pennitrait into the target before detonation. If we consult Explosive Demolition Manuals, we can deduce the yeald of the charge. It would have been between 32 and 50 kilos, average 40 for a 20m diamiter Astroid. We know this from standard tables used in BDA and Military Manuals. (Bomb Damage Assessment) A 750 pound GP bomb with 169 kilos of PBX, leaves a crater 14 meters across and 2 deep in soft ground, throwing debris for hundreds of meters. That includes working against gravity. In free fall orbit, the only gravity that we must concider is that between the various particles of the astroid it self. It is overcome by very few joules of energy. A hard rock like object shatters easily requiring less charge to do the same work. An AP bomb exploding deep in rock has a much larger "shatter" zone than the above crater. The charge scatters the debris just enough to become invisable in the thin light due to the failure of the human eye to discern small objects of low contrast, without evolving so much gas that it takes to long to dissipate.

1.) There was no debris visible from the destruction of the asteroids.

2.) turbolasers aren't bombs or artillery shells. They're beam weapons.

The above scenario meets all of our "facts" as seen on the film and requires no twisting of reality or suspention of disbelife to make it work.
It is therefore the best solution to our "problem". The same mechanism can also explain how "blasters" work so devistatingly without causing large "side" effects.

Actually your theory is the more complex of the two (involving more unknowns.) You still haven't shown how "vaporization" contradicts the observed scenes except for saying "I don't think they were vaporized."
For that matter, for all we know your entire argument is composed of nothing but assumptions, since you've provided very little explanation or evidence about how or where the conclusions came from.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-02-03 05:18pm

Stewart at SDI wrote:No weapons have been detonated in space? There were several tests that I know of, well out of the atmosephere as we know it. 99.99% of it, the air that is, is below 100,000'. One of the tests was over 500 or 1,000 miles up ( I can't remember which.) and at least one other was over 300,000'. (316,000' If I remember corectly.) I think either of those would qualify as in space. A third, Nike Hercules/W-43?, was about 150,000' up, IIRC. I think that there were other tests also, but I do not know the particulars.

The asteroid vaporizations occured well beyond those ranges, unless you think Hoth is situated directly in the center of the asteroid field.

You can watch vidio of the second test on the "Atomic Bomb Vidio" that you can rent at the store. The camera is much better than the eye at showing the burst and disipation of the debris over several minutes. Eye witnesses at the time claimed that they could see it from Hawii for 20-30 seconds. That is over 1,000 miles away from the test shot. The weapon and capsule weighed 363 pounds.

So you're comparing nuclear explosions in an atmosphere to what is most blatantly occuring in a vaccuum?

Maybe while you're at it you can provide evidencee of the "debris" we're supposed to be seeing in the incident (as well as why we're not seeing vapor) that is supposed to make your theory the superior one.

The time for any given mass of anything to dissapate at incandessant tempuratures can be calculated from standard formula. It is not my aria of expertise, but I know someone who can do it for me. I do not worry about it because I know that +-32,000 tons of asteroid would take two or three orders of magnatude longer than the film depicts.

You admit its not your area of expertise, yet you blithely dismiss it as "irrelevant" without backing up your assertion?

The words "prove it" have no meaning to you, do they?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Turbo laser cannons power.

Turbo laser cannons power.

Sorry, I was just having so much fun.

Why do you think that...?

Re: Turbo laser cannons power.

Weapons effects visuals.

Re: Weapons effects visuals.

Re: Weapons effects visuals.

Re: Turbo laser cannons power.

Re: Why do you think that...?