StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Don't forget Ender, that the 200GT figure is for MTLs. A warship like a Star Destroyer would be using her heavy side guns for a BDZ too, of which have been rated at up to 10TT, I believe.

This is what would happen if a 200-gigaton equivalent beam weapon were fired into an atmosphere (as described to me by someone else on a different message board... let's see how much I remember):

1. As it enters the atmosphere, all the air that the beam comes in contact with will become super-excited, turning into a plasma that will than expand and rain down on the surrounding countryside. I imagine it'd look pretty beautiful, but the beam will probably be travelling too fast for you to appreciate it very long.

2. Upon striking the ground, it will cause the matter it comes in contact with to vaporize, probably jump up into a plasma state, as well (plasmify?). This vaporized matter will expand extremely rapidly, causing a superhot front the erupt from the blast site. Plasmified matter will also expand, causing other matter to vaporize, and thus expand. This rapidly expanding cloud of superhot gas will create a shockwave which will level the surrounding area until the pressure from the atmosphere equalizes the pressure from the expanding front. This equalization happens surprisingly quickly.

Furthermore, keep in mind that an explosion "thousands of times more powerful" doesn't mean that it'll create a shockwave that covers "thousands of times more space". An explosion is three-dimensional... the blast front will travel upwards, as well. With a 200 gigaton blast, there's bound to be "atmospheric blowout"... where the uppermost front of the blast will actually "channel" above the significant density of the atmosphere and vent some of the energy out into space. I imagine that several hundred such blasts will cause a good chunk of the planet's atmosphere to be ejected from the planet.

3. After the blast front subsides, the superheated matter left behind will slowly ooze into a formless, congealing lump. Chances are the original focused beam dug a pretty deep hole in the ground, and it might even fill in. The air will still be extremely hot for a long time, and this excited state will cause all sorts of atmospheric problems. There might've even been enough ejecta to cause a minor nuclear winter. At the very least, significant ecological damage in the surrounding few hundred kilometers of the blast will result, with the effects of the blast felt all over the planet to one extent or another.

I imagine that it'd look pretty damned cool.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Don't you find the power of TL a little bit too high?

Simple put, yes. But thats just my opinion on the firepower itself. The figures are all quite offical and have plenty of standing.

Y'all need to ease up a bit. I'm here, saying what I know, maybe eating a few books , but I'm participating in a reasonable manner. Ain't no reason to go spouting off with expletives and aspersions when I'm mistaken about something. Just correct a poster in a civil manner, and we'll all be a bit happier.

As I recall, the Coral Vanda was being rocked with direct hits, and Pallaeon watching the display saw the red turbolasers go beneath the surface of the water before STRIKING THE CASINO. Low-power is a possibility, I admit that. Besides, if its cruising the seafloor, chances are its designed to take a beating.

You're right, its not a bomb. Damage on Borealis was likely contained, though I imagine it was a hellacious thing to watch.


Rembember folks, its just books. I got my Star Wars Fan Club card too, but its still just books. And movies. And 200,000 registered Jedi Knights in the commonwealth. But... that's another thread now isn't it.

Don't you find the power of TL a little bit too high?

I think anyone on the recieving end of any kind of turbolaser weapon would find it "a little bit too high"

Just correct a poster in a civil manner

Yes, it is unfortunate that this doesn't happen more often. However, when Obi-wan Kenobi said that "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy," he hadn't heard of Stardestroyer.net.

Besides, it's more fun to pound them into the ground shouting "wrong, wrong, wrong!!" first and then tell them why they're wrong.

OT: Spanky, why does your avatar change every 5 minutes? I mean I like them, the anichix are cute, but is it a script or are you doing that manually?

I do it manually, usually changing it twice a day. And for the most part, on alternating weeks (this one included) but excluding weekends, it's the same girl: Asuka Langley Soryu from Evangelion.

Cool cool. Learn somethin' new every day.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Don't forget Ender, that the 200GT figure is for MTLs. A warship like a Star Destroyer would be using her heavy side guns for a BDZ too, of which have been rated at up to 10TT, I believe.

That was a calc for just the HTLs. An ISD1 has no MTLs, just 12 HTLs, 120 LTLs, point defense guns, ion cannons and some antifighter lasers. 10 TT was just Bean's high end guess.

Where's 120 LTLs come from?

EDIT:

An ISD I has 6 topside HTL turrets, 3 starboard, 3 port, all with twin barrels. It also has 2 topside HIC turrets, again with two barrels each.

It has 2 brim trench HTL turrets, 4 barrels each, one port, one starboard.

It has 3 axial defense TL turrets with two barrels each just forward of the terrace superstructure.

It has two TLs mounted along the port and starboard side of the docking bay (listed as tractor beams in the EGtWT, which can be seen firing in the opening ANH scene), presumably single-barreled each.

Unspecified number of defensive guns/defensive lasers/LTLs mounted throughout the structure.

An ISD II has 8 topside HTL turrets, 4 port, 4 starboard. Each has 8 barrels.

It retains (presumably) the TLs mounted with the tractor beams along the sides of the hangar bay.

It has countless defense lasers/LTLs similarly to the ISD I.

Let's Play With Numbers

Features gun calcs based on Acclamator figures and BDZ figures.

I calced ISD Mk. I firepower as follows:

ISD I HTL (per barrel) Firepower: 9.6 Teratons

ISD I HTL Turret Firepower: 19.2 Teratons per burst

ISD I HTL Quad Battery: 38.4 Teratons per burst

The only 120 Megaton TLs I've heard from come from Edam's bullshit BTM calcs (the ones where he assumes one bar on the chart corresponds to an order of magnitude change, and concluded that all fighter-grade proton torpedoes must be low-megaton range at most.)

That's my guess, anyhow.

Ender wrote:

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Don't forget Ender, that the 200GT figure is for MTLs. A warship like a Star Destroyer would be using her heavy side guns for a BDZ too, of which have been rated at up to 10TT, I believe.

That was a calc for just the HTLs. An ISD1 has no MTLs, just 12 HTLs, 120 LTLs, point defense guns, ion cannons and some antifighter lasers. 10 TT was just Bean's high end guess.

Actually I think the "LTLs" on an ISd-1 are comparable in size to the MTLS on an Acclamator (I should point out we dont know really for sure whether or not the TLs on the ISD-1 are light or medium..)

REmember that WOTC gave the ISD-1 40 laser cannons also,.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:A warship like a Star Destroyer would be using her heavy side guns for a BDZ too, of which have been rated at up to 10TT, I believe.

Holy shit!
That's just... holy shit!

Stop saying "it harms the atmosphere". Not every atmosphere is the same.

It's been never stated that the mixture of atmosphere on any SW planet is the same what we have on Earth. Not every mixture of gas would explode or turned into plasma.

On the other hand how would you explain the ground based TL batteries.

Every shot they make would create the same effect - as SPOOFE described - and the defensive fire would make short work on the inhabitants of the same planet...

The defending TL artillery shoots down the capital ship in orbit and the planet surface is bathing in plasma because of the defensive fire.

Boba Fett wrote:Stop saying "it harms the atmosphere". Not every atmosphere is the same.

It's been never stated that the mixture of atmosphere on any SW planet is the same what we have on Earth. Not every mixture of gas would explode or turned into plasma.

On the other hand how would you explain the ground based TL batteries.

Every shot they make would create the same effect - as SPOOFE described - and the defensive fire would make short work on the inhabitants of the same planet...

The defending TL artillery shoots down the capital ship in orbit and the planet surface is bathing in plasma because of the defensive fire.

Aren't the TL bolts contained, somehow, like an EM field which holds the burning plasma or whatever energy....

Boba Fett wrote:Stop saying "it harms the atmosphere". Not every atmosphere is the same.

It's been never stated that the mixture of atmosphere on any SW planet is the same what we have on Earth. Not every mixture of gas would explode or turned into plasma.

On the other hand how would you explain the ground based TL batteries.

Every shot they make would create the same effect - as SPOOFE described - and the defensive fire would make short work on the inhabitants of the same planet...

The defending TL artillery shoots down the capital ship in orbit and the planet surface is bathing in plasma because of the defensive fire.

Good point.

Mos Eisley spaceport clearly has at least one very tall gun tower, one that mounts a nearly cubical twin-gun turret exactly like those shown on the Death Star and presumably also used on Imperial capital ships.

Even if Mos Eisley is assumed to be protected by a theater shield when danger threatens, the only ways the turret could fire without incinerating the spaceport would be: 1) having the turret tower project beyond the top of the shield, making the turret extremely vulnerable; or 2) having the turbolaser bolts produce minimal lateral scattering of harmful effects and passing through intentional gaps or windows in the shield. I suspect that anser 2) is more logical overall.

Blaster bolts, which are presumably broadly based on the same technological principles as turbolaser bolts, do not appear to interact particularly strongly with the atmospheric gases they pass through, and there is at least one canon instance of blaster fire passing harmlessly into (very dirty water).

In the trash compactor scene in SW:ANH, Han Solo repeatedly fires into the muck-laden water with his captured E-11. The blaster bolts simply push the water surface aside, much as a physical bullet would. If blasters were unduly reactive with water and atmosphere, those few shots should have probably converted a substantial volume of surface water into steam, painfully scalding our intrepid band of heroes.

On the other hand, there is substantial official evidence, quoted on Mike's site, that shows that turbolasers very definitely can be fired from orbit, hitting planetside targets in such a way that titanic clouds of scalding steam are generated by ocean strikes.

Nothing similar happened when, in Han Solo's Revenge, a CSA Victory-class destroyer uses one of its lateral turbolaser turrets to fire on a slaver vessel substantially larger than the Falcon but small enough to be drawn into the destroyer's boarding lock. Thus, the slaver vessel had to be roughly comparable in size to a Corellian Corvette. Both vessels, along with the Millenium Falcon, were in atmosphere at the time. The effect was described as follows: "...opening a huge hole in the slaver's hull and evaporating most of her power plant."

Boba Fett wrote:Stop saying "it harms the atmosphere". Not every atmosphere is the same.

It's been never stated that the mixture of atmosphere on any SW planet is the same what we have on Earth. Not every mixture of gas would explode or turned into plasma.

Why not? Ionisation energies vary by less than an order of magnitude across the periodic table. Changing the mixture or composition shouldn't help.

On the other hand how would you explain the ground based TL batteries.

Every shot they make would create the same effect - as SPOOFE described - and the defensive fire would make short work on the inhabitants of the same planet...

The defending TL artillery shoots down the capital ship in orbit and the planet surface is bathing in plasma because of the defensive fire.

Solids are typically maybe 1,000 to 10,000 times denser than gases. It's possible to conceive of a beam (or bolt!) of particles that interact with matter insufficiently strongly to ionise gases but strongly enough to vapourise solids - ionisation energy for a cubic metre of gas is maybe 1/100th the energy required to vapourise a cubic metre of metal. If it were less than 1/1000th the energy, then a weapon capable of just vapourising the metal would ionise the gas. I doubt the leeway here is more than a factor of 100, though, so SW ship-toted weapons (and ground-based TLs capable of taking on orbital targets) probably exceed it by many times. The system is probably not as simple as just a beam of particles, without containment of any kind.

Correct me if I am wrong:

Isn't tonnage scaled from tons of TNT? If that is the case and a turbolaser is say 200GT that means it should be the same as 200GT of TNT...which is a big ass explosion. But if its not an explosion and you mean the force or energy given off in the explosion is the same as this turbolaser then wouldn't it be more correct to state them as in that unit? Joules? Just wondering, its something that has always bugged me, I've been affraid to ask because someone (not to mention people) might jump out and call me a "Fucking idiot" for just asking a question

Super-Gagme wrote:Correct me if I am wrong:

Isn't tonnage scaled from tons of TNT? If that is the case and a turbolaser is say 200GT that means it should be the same as 200GT of TNT...which is a big ass explosion. But if its not an explosion and you mean the force or energy given off in the explosion is the same as this turbolaser then wouldn't it be more correct to state them as in that unit? Joules? Just wondering, its something that has always bugged me, I've been affraid to ask because someone (not to mention people) might jump out and call me a "Fucking idiot" for just asking a question

One kiloton = the amount of energy (joules) released by the detonation of 1,000 tons of TNT

One megaton = amount of energy released by 1,000,000 tons of TNT

One gigaton = amount of energy released by 1,000,000,000 tons of TNT

Its a measure of energy. One can have kinetic or thermal radiation measured in kilo/mega/giga-tons of TNT, but usually for modern purposes it describes massive explosive devices like nuclear weapons.

In vs. debates, when one says that a TL has 200 gigaton yield, they mean that each shot from that TL delivers the energy equivalent of 200 billion tons TNT exploding.

An Acclimator is that ship that looked like a miniature Star Destroyer in AOTC, right? I don't recall ever seeing one of those fire a shot, much less a shot that hit something that would give us any kind of data regarding its yield.

The AOTC ICS published that the Acclamator's primary quad-turbolaser turrets had 200 gigaton-per-shot yields.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Super-Gagme wrote:Correct me if I am wrong:

Isn't tonnage scaled from tons of TNT? If that is the case and a turbolaser is say 200GT that means it should be the same as 200GT of TNT...which is a big ass explosion. But if its not an explosion and you mean the force or energy given off in the explosion is the same as this turbolaser then wouldn't it be more correct to state them as in that unit? Joules? Just wondering, its something that has always bugged me, I've been affraid to ask because someone (not to mention people) might jump out and call me a "Fucking idiot" for just asking a question

One kiloton = the amount of energy (joules) released by the detonation of 1,000 tons of TNT

One megaton = amount of energy released by 1,000,000 tons of TNT

One gigaton = amount of energy released by 1,000,000,000 tons of TNT

Its a measure of energy. One can have kinetic or thermal radiation measured in kilo/mega/giga-tons of TNT, but usually for modern purposes it describes massive explosive devices like nuclear weapons.

In vs. debates, when one says that a TL has 200 gigaton yield, they mean that each shot from that TL delivers the energy equivalent of 200 billion tons TNT exploding.

It used to be based on that. It has now been scientifically standardized. 1 ton = 4.186E9 joules. Kilo, megat, giga etc go up accordingly.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Where's 120 LTLs come from?

According to the site, it comes from the original trilogy ICS. However I have never been able to find that quote when I poured through it.

It has 2 brim trench HTL turrets, 4 barrels each, one port, one starboard.

I was under the impression these were ion cannons. While it would not change the calc as they do not seem to be able to be brought to bear, has it ever been determined what they are?

It has 3 axial defense TL turrets with two barrels each just forward of the terrace superstructure.

By size these wlook to be LTLs

It has two TLs mounted along the port and starboard side of the docking bay (listed as tractor beams in the EGtWT, which can be seen firing in the opening ANH scene), presumably single-barreled each.

Again, I believe by size that these are LTLs. I believe that comes from TLCs analysis of beam size.

Let's Play With Numbers

Features gun calcs based on Acclamator figures and BDZ figures.

I calced ISD Mk. I firepower as follows:

ISD I HTL (per barrel) Firepower: 9.6 Teratons

ISD I HTL Turret Firepower: 19.2 Teratons per burst

ISD I HTL Quad Battery: 38.4 Teratons per burst

[/quote]I'm looking at that now... How did you get those figures? Scaling directly from the TLs on an acclamator should yield different values, for it to work out via time you need to assume an irregular value (34 mins and some change), going by BDZ calcs they don't match up...

Do you have your work handy?