StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Why would you put three different systems like sensors, communications, and shields all into the same housing?

That doesn't make any sense, particularly if those domes are destroyed, you've got major componets for THREE systems out at the same time.

Not to mention a little thing called mutual interference.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Why would you put three different systems like sensors, communications, and shields all into the same housing?

That doesn't make any sense, particularly if those domes are destroyed, you've got major componets for THREE systems out at the same time.

Not to mention a little thing called mutual interference.

To Spanky: While what you said sounds logical for me also, designers use to make mistakes. Why didn't have the exhaust port on DS1 particle shield? We could list several proof to verify that SW technology is not perfect either.

To Skimmer: Shields don't interfere with sensors neither short range communication. For Holonet transmission, you have to switch of the shield and it doesn't matter where the devices are located.

Side note:

Boba Fett wrote:While what you said sounds logical for me also, designers use to make mistakes. Why didn't have the exhaust port on DS1 particle shield?

Because the particle shielding would make it impossible to serve its primary function. It is in the novelization. (I can provide the hungarian quote if you wish.) It is possible that the energy generation produced some unwanted particles as by-products or the most effective method of the heat exhausting required some particles to flow out.

OK, then it was a wrong example. Thanks for correcting me vakundok!

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:No, the best idea theory is that they're scanner globes.

No, it's not. That ignores the official evidence presented in the opening post, which says they perform multiple functions. Official explanation beats out fan speculation.

Also, note that these are not the only projectors, long-range scanners, or communications devices on the ship.

I always took everything Stas Bush said with a five ton grain of salt. The guy cannot be trusted because he appeared to be nuts.

And that example of official "evidence" reaks of the same dodgy compromise that produced the 12.8 KM Executor length...

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:I always took everything Stas Bush said with a five ton grain of salt. The guy cannot be trusted because he appeared to be nuts.

Ad hominem. Whether or not he's nuts does not automatically make his argument -- and especially evidence -- wrong.

And that example of official "evidence" reaks of the same dodgy compromise that produced the 12.8 KM Executor length...

Irrelevant. Just because starwars.com's Databank is wrong in one instance (and several others) doesn't mean it's automatically wrong in another. Each piece of evidence must be evaluated separately. It's also right in a lot of places. I've found the site to contain a higher quantity of reliable data than of unreliable data.

I'm in favor of the multipurpose theory. The domes being shield generators may have had brain bug origins, but it is nontheless official and must be accepted unless contradicted by canon evidence. It may very well be a bullshit "compromise" like the 12.8 km SSD length, but it is different because it only lacks canon support rather than being directly contradicted by canon. The idea that external shield generators on an ISD are silly because they aren't found on other SW ships is also incorrect. The EGTVV also points out external shield generators on A-wings, X-wings, Medium Transports, and Mon Cal Cruisers.

As for the starwars.com quote that supposedly supports the theory that the domes are scanners:

The superstructure above juts from the flat upper surfaces of the ship like an aircraft carrier's "island" command tower, complete with equipment finishing off its upper reaches like the communications and scanning gear of a carrier.

The quote in NO WAY states that the domes are for the purposes of communications and scanning. All it does is compare the APPEARANCE of the ISD to an aircraft carrier.

Thw domes could contain multiple dishes and antennas. The dome design would provide the instraments with fair combat protection. If the superstucture was more exposed it would be vernrable to things like micrometerited. Many antennas in the same mounting would not interfer with each other unless they used the same frequencies(or were harmonics of each other). It entirely possible that they also contain a shield projecter for the bridge area to provide extra protection for the command staff. but to take them out you would have to take out the main shields.

Jim Raynor wrote:I'm in favor of the multipurpose theory.

I'm not, but I'm left with little choice without conclusive evidence.

Jim Raynor wrote:The domes being shield generators may have had brain bug origins, but it is nontheless official and must be accepted unless contradicted by canon evidence.

Yes, unless.. the mandel blueprint can be considered official, of which I have seen no evidence against. It predates the later label, so it should overrule it as per canon policy. It should be noted though, that in some cases the policy has changed afterwards. But in case of the SSD lenght, it doesn't matter since the movies takes precedence.

We have three cases of various official evidence supporting one or the other:

1. The domes are scanners.

2. The domes are shield generators or projectors or both.

3. The domes are both sensors and generators.

The question is, which one stands? As far as the movies goes:

1. The Executor lost bridge shields, and the domes were intact.

2. An ISD was seen with a flaming bridge. The domes were intact.

This can be assumed to only prove that shield generators doesn't have to blow up when they fail to protect a ship - but that goes against official evidence, so it's out.


The official:

1. Most ships have shields, but only Star Destroyers has the domes. (There's an antenna that looks suspicious on the MF, though..)

2. Star Destroyers has several shield facings (6). But ISD only have 2 domes as far as I have seen. An Executor has more.

Jim Raynor wrote:It may very well be a bullshit "compromise" like the 12.8 km SSD length, but it is different because it only lacks canon support rather than being directly contradicted by canon. The idea that external shield generators on an ISD are silly because they aren't found on other SW ships is also incorrect. The EGTVV also points out external shield generators on A-wings, X-wings, Medium Transports, and Mon Cal Cruisers.

As for the starwars.com quote that supposedly supports the theory that the domes are scanners:

The superstructure above juts from the flat upper surfaces of the ship like an aircraft carrier's "island" command tower, complete with equipment finishing off its upper reaches like the communications and scanning gear of a carrier.

The quote in NO WAY states that the domes are for the purposes of communications and scanning. All it does is compare the APPEARANCE of the ISD to an aircraft carrier.[/quote]

I'm aware that it doesn't explicitly say that. You're splitting hairs though. I think it makes it obvious that the intention for the domes never was shields. It's not an in-universe explanation, but it's pretty much what we are left with..

Later documents override earlier ones, not the other way around. Hence the SE films taking presidence over the original versions.

Howedar wrote:Later documents override earlier ones, not the other way around. Hence the SE films taking presidence over the original versions.

If that was true as a rule, we wouldn't be stuck with WEG material throughout the books.