Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
Maliciously? Who would do that?Connor MacLeod wrote:The lack of decent straightforward statistics in the datafiles, for example. Some other things I've noticed that differ substantially from Curtis' prior work (even as a contributor) points to the fact someone mutiliated Curtis' original work with the ROTS ICS (probably maliciously.)Darth Yoshi wrote:I say keep some of the EU and trash the crap.
BTW, what do you mean about butchery in the ICS, Connor?
Saxton has lots of enemies in LFL. People that don't like Saxton actually doing research and rolling over their work (had Star Wars been real history, their sloppy research would have been cause of thousands of fraud accusations). He probably used up the last of his influence to give us the Imperator.Pure Sabacc wrote:Maliciously? Who would do that?
It is, however, about trying to maintain realism to the maximum possible degree with your story. Even LFL recognized that for a while - you know, kind of why Saxton was hired.swaaye wrote:Science FICTION isn't about having authors try to rationalize everything with reality.
Star Trek goes with "scientific detail" (technobabble) too. The problem is whether that so-called detail is bull or not. If it is bull, it is better off not there. If it isn't, kudos for him.If you want more science, go out and read his Conqueror's trilogy. He goes really overboard with scientific detail there.
No, most of us went outside, had other hobbies, played sports, interacted with people, and basically had lives.swaaye wrote:I am blown away that some of you can come here and say we should dump the EU. Uhh...what were you people living on from 1983-1999? Watching the old trilogy every day?
My response is the same to you. Jesus man, they are just stories, mostly of very poor quality, about a fictional universe.I grew up with those EU books. I recall some of them fondly every week. They are part of me, because they made up a lot of my youth. There are many really great books in there. It just blows my mind that some of you can say "dump them." Absolutely unbelievable.....
Yes, because most of it is utter crap.I look over at Survivor's Quest on my bookshelf and think how much Zahn has done for Star Wars. The games that use his material (TIE Fighter for God's sake!). The other authors. The sourcebooks. The card games. The Thrawn Trilogy. Hand of Thrawn Duology. Mara Jade. Jacen & Jaina. Pellaeon. Talon Karrde. Noghri. And some of you want to dump all of this......
So what? Most of those were just mediocre games. So what if there are a few less troops or fighters in a fictional universe? hell, subtracting some of the more wankish designs would be a good thing.And if we dump the EU that means that we have to throw away some of the best of LucasArts too. X-Wing, TIE Fighter, X-Wing Alliance. The entire Dark Forces series, from the original through Jedi Knight 2 (Jedi Academy isn't part of DF as Kyle isn't the main char). Kyle Katarn. Jan. Dark Troopers. Harkov, Zaarin, TIE Defenders, Assault Gunboats. OMG!
What the fuck. Seriously. The movies are what matter, are what tell the story, are what it is all about. Could the writing have used a little bit of punching up? Yes. But lets not even begin to pretend that anything in the EU comes close to it on a story scale. It's only now ater the poor performance of the clone wars and NJO books that Del Ray is going "Oh, hey, maybe we should let Denning go through the Cambellian mythos, which is what this whole thing is about anyways". And show me a single story out there that really touches on the truth of what the series is about - the importance of fathers?To me, the EU is Star Wars. Without the EU, it's a whole lot less interesting. Hell, without the EU I'm not interested.
No, I grew up on hiking, construction, computers, hanging with my friends, etc.Star Wars would be like the Matrix on my interest scale: a passing sci-fi flick to catch. Didn't you people grow up with this stuff too?
That's pretty sad actually. You make it sound like you have let your hobby take over your life. I hope that isn't actually the case.WTF. I remember a summer when I was around 12-13 when my sister and I would pick a Star Wars movie out of the original trilogy (this is WAY before the prequels) and watch one every night. I remember reading Zahn's Thrawn Trilogy when I was in 8th grade for the first time....ignoring the teacher in class too as I read them. Hahah. Lol. Star Wars is engrained in me. The movies, the books, the games, all of it.
Because most of it barely deserves the praise of being called "crap"So. I ask you all. How can you really consider what this thread suggests? How can you even REMOTELY consider this.
You are a fucking moron. This is freshman level high school knowledge, and in your complete and utter ignorance you decide to mock it.swaaye wrote:Heh, well energy can't have momentum. It's substantially massless. But perhaps how the tech works it somehow does.....but it seems like more of a "ooh wow" then than anything else...
Not saying that it's not really cool or I want them to stop, but physically energy doesn't have any means to push matter around.... ALTHOUGH you know how solar sails (really BIG sails pushing really tiny matter) could be used to propel objects by catching moving particles in space? Well perhaps this is some sort of transmitted radiation or particle energy that because of its density it can push matter? LOL! Hmm...
Yes, a Master's degree in physics, yet he thinks ceramics are a superior armor then metals. A Master's degree in physics yet he uses starfighters despite the obvious delta V problems. A Master's degree in physics yet he uses plasma as a weapons system.swaaye wrote:Zahn has a Masters degree in Physics, btw. His Conquerors trilogy is FILLED with scientific descriptions. Thrawn Trilogy & Duology have some too, but he was way less "enthusiastic" about injecting it into those books...
Unknown, it was canceled/classified right as it hit the important testing phase, and the details of the earlier tests are yet to be released. We still hae something like 10 years before FOIA means we will have access to them.Connor MacLeod wrote:And Shiva star had a range of what, exactly?Ender wrote: Yes and no. His point with that was more aboout slow moving blobs in scifi. You can have a design that shots little blobs, you just have to make them go really fast for them to be effective. This is how star shiva was suppossed to work before its funding was cut/it went black budget (take your pick)
Incidently, that bit is now cited on atomic rocket as a"definitive analysis". Nifty.
Well, the idea was to use it as point defense agaisnt missiles, so-I'd say its likely the case, but I can't say that with certainty.Does the projectile persist for multiple seconds (like the TESB ion bolt?)
High orbit would be 30,000-40,000 km.By contrast, what is the range of Ion cannons?
If the blob can stick together for a few seconds, yes.Can a 10,000 km/s velocity match that? (and lets not even get into the energy of the ion bolt... )
Might that have something to do with the shields there?Last time I measured it (which was awhile back) between 2-5 seconds. And it probably HAS to be a tracer , since the velocity of the bolt seems to vary extensively (it propogates very slowly on emission, then very fast up to the ISD, then very slowly when it hits said ISD.)
Granted I am not privy to the basis behind how shields work, but only in designs that have a far greater surface area then volume does the dissipation rate of shields end up being greater then the peak power of the reactor. So I'm doubtful it would be int the e25 watts range. On top of that, there is the factor of intensity and the fact that the EMP effect could help bring down the shields too without physically overwhelming them, though that requires the shield itself to transfer and generate the EMP effect upon interacting with the ion blast, which is by no means a given.Connor MacLeod wrote: 1.) The ion bolt was required to possess enough energy to overload the shields of said ISD. In the case of the ISD, this is going to be at least in the e24-e25 watt range, but that's being bare-assed conservative. In reality its probably going to be at least an order of magnitude, if not two (maybe even three), greater.
Agreed, assuming tha the intensity or EMP effect don't reduce the energy required. Remember, the recoil force didn't cause the ice of the glacier to shatter.2.) The "bolt" has to carry that energy in some form, and with that much energy, its got substantial momentum behind it - more than enough to visibly shove that target aside at the estimated velocites we could infer from the movie.
Ah, the no limits fallacy. Such a dear old friendswaaye wrote:Science FICTION isn't about having authors try to rationalize everything with reality. WTF is with everyone wanting realism? You do realize that we have such a limited understanding of the universe that practically anything is possible.
The ideas of a scientist should be more rational dimbulb.Reality is what our little planet has made of it, and that is one extremely small little viewpoint. How can you assume you know what is real? This is fantasy, we're making up what we dream can be possible. Zahn as a scientist obviously is going to have some crazy ideas.
Yeah, what with his ceramic armors, and plasma weapons, and high thrust starships...If you want more science, go out and read his Conqueror's trilogy. He goes really overboard with scientific detail there.
Which is presumably why he "reverse-trigger" them, so they might have to act externally. (On the other hand, it might also be analogous to the tactics used to protect shielding from Vong "grabbing" attacks.)Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: Point, but they are acting internally. IIRC, force (holding the ship together against a million gees) does not require energy, but work (changing the ships velocity) requires energy.
Maybe you should try rereading what I said:They don't? They won't need the propellant, but for energy they will still have to very ... clever to use gravitics to circumvent the law of conservation of energy.
Do you really need me to point out the disparity between Dooku's (canon) 5,000-20,000 gee acceleration and the fact that the Sailer's own ion engines can't produce more than 30 gees of accel tops? (how bout the fact the Falcon can pull more than 20 million gees accel with its repulsors for brief periods but an only pull about 3000 gees or so with its ion engines?)Connor MacLeod wrote: Since they don't behave on the same principles as a reaction drive, you don't neccesarily need the huge energy outputs (or the propellantt) you do to achieve canon performance with ion drives (of course, you can't really use a repulsor away from any mass/gravity well as well.)
First off, they only provide propulsion if they have something to push against You know, like a planet.I can almost buy this, but tell me this: Why did ACs not become primary sublight propulsion systems?
Who the fuck said AC can provide propulsive force without something to push on? They're related technologies (as noted in the AOTC:ICS - including the fact that they all use subnuclear knots of spacetime) and we have examples of one kind of gravitic device being modified to another use.It is better than repulsorlifts, since it apparently can work in deep space without significant gravity to push on.
1.) You apparently remain oblivious to the fact that gravitational phenomena ARE detectable by sensors (did oyu forget Luke was able to detect the gravity well the Interdictor created? To sufficient accuracy that he could plot the edge of said well.)Unlike ion engines, it does not generate a nice, heated ion trial. And it provides more acceleration.
Obviously you need to reread what the fuck I posted, ,since its evident you have no fucking idea what I am talking about (or what you are talking about, for that matter.)It stands to reason that if the AC can damage itself to generate a delta-v equivalent to many seconds of ion thrust, it can be modified to use a somewhat lower acceleration, and be better braced as a primary propulsion system.
What I see is that you havent' bothered reading what the hell I am posting.I can see him not being able to correct scientific bull, yes. I can even see them forced to use things like the 8km length. He does not have to write scientific bull in his escapees. You see the distinction?
We don't actually know that anyone did anything, and I certainly have no solid proof that they did. I simply suspect (given that he had a different editor under the ROTS book than under the previous books, and the obvious differences between the two, including the lack of datafile information) that someone clearly butchered his writing. Do you serisouly think Curtis would have forgone the datafile info for reactors or shields or weapons outputs (or for that matter, passed up an opportunity to overturn "Imperial-class" for his preferred "Imperator" designation) if someone was not preventing him from doing so (or circumventing his intentions?) I certtainly don't.They sabotaged his work? I know that they didn't allow a lot of stats. But sabotage? Where?!
Line of sight limitations would have limited the range to hundreds, maybe thousands of kilometers tops (depending on altitude.) And that's actually being rather generous (considering that we're only talking a megawatt range output, as opposed to multi-gigaton/teraton outputs.)Ender wrote: Unknown, it was canceled/classified right as it hit the important testing phase, and the details of the earlier tests are yet to be released. We still hae something like 10 years before FOIA means we will have access to them.
Yet we know the apparent output of the beam. We also know its velocity. We can presumably estimate its mass as well. I would imagine one could determine the rate at which the "plasma" would expand, since the plasma is only useful so long as it does not disperse too badly.Well, the idea was to use it as point defense agaisnt missiles, so-I'd say its likely the case, but I can't say that with certainty.
As a lower limit. Geosynch orbit for an Earthlike planet (Hoth might be somewhat larger) is around 36,000 km. High orbit can be much higher (soem figures I have seen go as high as 90,000-100,000 km.)High orbit would be 30,000-40,000 km.
And barring a magical containment field, how likely is that?If the blob can stick together for a few seconds, yes.
At the point of contact its a possibility (although since we don't see shield interactions until the bolt is very close to the superstructure, this can be argued), but what about when the bolt actually fires (the shields in that section are "open" remember.)Might that have something to do with the shields there?
Actually, the dissipation rate appears to be typically/consistently between 1/5 and 1/3 the maximum reactor output (according to the AOTC:ICS - this is suspeiciiously consistent with the "25%" figure from the ISB.) However, I'm factoring in the heat sink capacity as well as the dissipation rate. Heat Sink capacity is arguably much greater than the dissipation rate (Isard's Revenge, ROTJ, etc.)Granted I am not privy to the basis behind how shields work, but only in designs that have a far greater surface area then volume does the dissipation rate of shields end up being greater then the peak power of the reactor. So I'm doubtful it would be int the e25 watts range.
The beam still has to get *through* the shields in order to do anything to the ship (or the internals.) Ray shields *may* not stop it (depending on your source and interpretation), but if they didn't, particle shielding would (the particles have kinetic energy remember?)On top of that, there is the factor of intensity and the fact that the EMP effect could help bring down the shields too without physically overwhelming them, though that requires the shield itself to transfer and generate the EMP effect upon interacting with the ion blast, which is by no means a given.
Its a fixed emplacement. One would assume they have means to brace or counter the weapon's recoil (much like with the SPHA-T, whose firepower is considered to be of similar magnitude.)Agreed, assuming tha the intensity or EMP effect don't reduce the energy required. Remember, the recoil force didn't cause the ice of the glacier to shatter.
Not my point. I can buy the "reverse-triggering" transferring the force to external. I'm pointing out that the AC in the "hold-ship-together" examples don't have to do work, only apply force.Connor MacLeod wrote:Which is presumably why he "reverse-trigger" them, so they might have to act externally. (On the other hand, it might also be analogous to the tactics used to protect shielding from Vong "grabbing" attacks.)
If you assume the Falcon stopped in Rebel Dawn. But I accept your Dooku example.Do you really need me to point out the disparity between Dooku's (canon) 5,000-20,000 gee acceleration and the fact that the Sailer's own ion engines can't produce more than 30 gees of accel tops? (how bout the fact the Falcon can pull more than 20 million gees accel with its repulsors for brief periods but an only pull about 3000 gees or so with its ion engines?)
Would be a problem there. Luke's fighter apparently altered its tangential velocity when it crash-stopped, not its radial.This fact tends to put additional limitations on them. They will only provide thrust to a ship parallel to the mass (meaning that a ship facing towards a planet can slow itself down or speed itself up, but would have difficulty turning itself or moving laterally.)
Ah, all right. Thanks for reminding me about the artificial gravwell.And in no cases did the AC's NOT have a nearby source of gravity (or mass) to act upon. In HTTE Luke's X-wing was trapped in an tractor beam, after all (A gravitic device.) Indeed, Luke used his AC to "neutralize" the attractive force of the tractor beam to escape and allow his proton torpedoes to be latched onto. And AC DO counteract gravitational effects acting on the ship, including external ones (which would obviously include tractor beams, wouldn't you think?)
Phew! I was thinking you were talking about some sabotage beyond those that I hadn't heard about from this board already.We don't actually know that anyone did anything, and I certainly have no solid proof that they did. I simply suspect (given that he had a different editor under the ROTS book than under the previous books, and the obvious differences between the two, including the lack of datafile information) that someone clearly butchered his writing. Do you serisouly think Curtis would have forgone the datafile info for reactors or shields or weapons outputs (or for that matter, passed up an opportunity to overturn "Imperial-class" for his preferred "Imperator" designation) if someone was not preventing him from doing so (or circumventing his intentions?) I certtainly don't.
He has allies. One thing you are just going to have to accept is that people here flame more in general. If you like EU and don't like flames, I suggest TFN. There, they put civility near the top in importance.swaaye wrote:Ender, wtf is your problem? Lol. I'm not going to bother responding directly to your hostility. Are all of your 6,000+ posts like this? Do you really have friends?
A point of note. That was Ender being civil. He noted one fallacy and then tendered a couple of his ideas. If he was being uncivil...you would have most certainly seen it.swaaye wrote:Ender, wtf is your problem? Lol. I'm not going to bother responding directly to your hostility. Are all of your 6,000+ posts like this? Do you really have friends? I don't remember insulting anyone personally in my post about the EU and what Star Wars means to me. If you take my post to mean that my entire life is Star Wars, well, that's your call I guess. But it sure is not true at all. I don't have 6,000+ posts, sir.
I find it hard to believe that anyone can sustain a heavy interest in Star Wars based on the movies alone.
Will check out TFN. Thanks.Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: He has allies. One thing you are just going to have to accept is that people here flame more in general. If you like EU and don't like flames, I suggest TFN. There, they put civility near the top in importance.
How the hell do you figure they aren't doing work? The AC's are providing enough acceleration to match whatever acceleration is imparted to the ship (by the engines, by weapons impacts, etc.) Since we're talking changes in velocity, one would assume work is in fact being done (it takes energy to accelerate an object to a different velocity.)Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: Not my point. I can buy the "reverse-triggering" transferring the force to external. I'm pointing out that the AC in the "hold-ship-together" examples don't have to do work, only apply force.
The REbel Dawn example is still valid even if he didn't "stop - the value might be several times lower than the 20 million gee figure, but its still substantially greater acceleration than ion engines produce.If you assume the Falcon stopped in Rebel Dawn. But I accept your Dooku example.
Why? Gravitic devices can provide acceleration in directions other than the ship is facing.Would be a problem there. Luke's fighter apparently altered its tangential velocity when it crash-stopped, not its radial.
I repeat, there's no actual *proof* of sabotage. There's just belief and hearsay and speculation about that based on the fact that there are people who can and do badmouth Curtis and his methods and ideas.Phew! I was thinking you were talking about some sabotage beyond those that I hadn't heard about from this board already.