It's raining asteroids! TESB topic.

[Vexx]

Hi.

I'm going to go through my own hazing. So be happy.

Anyway, all those posts about "what if" and "blah blah super soldier hologram commandos" piss me off so I've decided to try and make a topic RELEVANT to something. The topic of this post is the asteroid field scene in TeSB.

Sure, there are calculations done by Mr. Young and that guy from st-vs-sw.net but I don't trust either of them. They're not exactly "experts" in the field. Of course, neither am I, so I went about this looking for people who were. And I found some. It just so happens that around the internet, people have created elaborate calculation tables for things such as the destructive yield of asteroid impacts dependant on size, density and speed, and I also found one on how to destroy an asteriod dependant on its size, as in, I assume, how to destroy an asteroid barreling towards the planet with nuclear weapons. I thought, "these are perfect!" I can calculate both the asteroid-destroying Falcon chase scenes and calculate the asteriod hitting the ISD bridge tower.

Anyway, before I go about showing what I found I want to see people's reactions, and of course, disputes. Don't worry, I'll give what I found and the sources, but first I want to hear what you think. Would you trust such calculations? Keep in mind, the calculations take into account its size, velocity and density (and therefore mass), so I don't see how they could be wrong.

So what do you people think? Hey I'll post a poll!

Lol this ought to be funny.

Shout out to y'all!

(Note: I'm not trying to piss people off. I'm not a Trekkie nor a Warsie. I love and hate both universes equally.)

[Vympel]

I suspect you're about to be blasted hard. But by all means, proceed.

[Vympel]

Who the fuck voted Darkstar?

[Vexx]

Someone voted Darkstar? Rofl

[omegaLancer]

Vexx , I love to hear your figures. I also research the matter looking at how to stop them from striking the earth. Actual destructions of asteriods and meteors would be very difficult using nukes.

Even using a laser or energy weapon is beyond the realm of modern lasers. And the problem become more complex if the Meteor is a collection of smaller meteor being losely held together by their mutual gravity.

Some of the better schemes actually involve deflecting them by using special devices.

Actually the figure and the methods used to compute meteor destruction by the Mike and brian may actually be a low ball figure.

Good luck, I fear you will need it....

[Vexx]

Using a laser or beam weapon would be entirely useless, from my point of view. Unless the laser/beam was incredibly wide, the most it could do would be to bore through the damn thing. And part of the problem of dealing with asteroid impacts comes from the velocity of the thing. A mass-less laser beam probably wouldn't stop a huge asteroid travelling at thousands of kph. And most nuke-bound theories involve deflecting the asteroid. But keep in mind, they're talking about asteroids thousands of meters wide travelling at blinding speeds, not the small slow moving asteroids in TESB.

[TurboPhaser]

How about 'I don't trust anyone'?

I trust my own opinions. My opinion is that the bridge tower was destroyed. To be quite honest, anyone trying to say otherwise, sounds like unscrupulous 'worming out' to me.

I trust neither Mike Wong nor Darkstar, both of them have good points and bad points in their anaylses of this TESB scene.

[Vympel]

But keep in mind, they're talking about asteroids thousands of meters wide travelling at blinding speeds, not the small slow moving asteroids in TESB.

40m wide is small? 'Slow moving'? Slow in comparison to what?

[Sea Skimmer]

The people who create the tables are on the stupid side if they're hoping to completely vaporize asteroids of any significant size. Simply hitting one side and letting the limited vaporization push them off course works much better.

[Vympel]

?
I trust my own opinions. My opinion is that the bridge tower was destroyed.

Explain how the Captain of the vessel in question was able to remain transmitting seconds after the explosion then. He should've been dead.

To be quite honest, anyone trying to say otherwise, sounds like unscrupulous 'worming out' to me.

Or they've just watched the film.

I trust neither Mike Wong nor Darkstar, both of them have good points and bad points in their anaylses of this TESB scene.

Go ahead, point out these good and bad points.

[TurboPhaser]

No thank you, I'd rather not at this time. I merely stated my opinion, I didnt really ask to debate it.

[Vympel]

No thank you, I'd rather not at this time. I merely stated my opinion, I didnt really ask to debate it.

And I'm not surprised. Regardless, this *is* the versus forum, and you should expect to be called on your opinions.

[Vexx]

But keep in mind, they're talking about asteroids thousands of meters wide travelling at blinding speeds, not the small slow moving asteroids in TESB.

40m wide is small? 'Slow moving'? Slow in comparison to what?

In comparison to 4000 meter wide asteroids travelling at tens of thousands of kilometers an hour.

Explain how the Captain of the vessel in question was able to remain transmitting seconds after the explosion then. He should've been dead.

Not transmitting from the bridge, perhaps.

Go ahead, point out these good and bad points.

Both Wong and Darkstar are fanatics. They're both at the extreme limits, just on opposite sides. Calculations from someone who's never given a thought to Star Wars and Star Trek crap, who doesn't give a damn and just did the calculations to figure it out would be in the middle, IE unbiased, which Wong and DS certainly aren't.

Another bad point, both of their calculations are wrong. About almost everything.

[Vexx]

How about 'I don't trust anyone'?

I trust my own opinions. My opinion is that the bridge tower was destroyed. To be quite honest, anyone trying to say otherwise, sounds like unscrupulous 'worming out' to me.

I trust neither Mike Wong nor Darkstar, both of them have good points and bad points in their anaylses of this TESB scene.

I agree on, whole-heartedly.

[KhyronTheBackstabber]

I trust my own opinions. My opinion is that the bridge tower was destroyed. To be quite honest, anyone trying to say otherwise, sounds like unscrupulous 'worming out' to me.

Let's see. Three star destroyers, with three bridges, are chasing the falcon. Three star destroyers, with three bridges, enter the asteroid field. One takes an asteroid to the bridge. After losing the Falcon, three star destroyers, with three bridges, jump to hyperspace. What’s so unscrupulous about that?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

If you must insist I decide now, I "trust" Young. I'd tell you why. His methodology is very simple to understand (so it can be verified easily.) Find the size and likely compositions of the asteroids (we do this by scaling.) Assume vaporization (he justifies his decision - and I see no reason to say it is false.) After that, calculate a thermodynamic lower limit for the energy required assuming everything goes perfectly.

Don't "trust" or "mistrust" people based on whether they are "experts" - the calculation Wong and Young used is simple enough that a high-school student could have replicated the feat. The only part that cannot be readily verified is his scaling size. But an outside expert will not have scaled TESB asteroids either.

Base it on whether it is logical and applies to the situation. Distrust a logicaly derived solution only because you have an objection (the most famous two are "the asteroids were only fragmented" and "the asteroids are smaller than you think,) not on the sole basis that they weren't "experts."

Part of the reason for me (and for at least some of the others) not trusting your "experts" is because I hadn't even seen their work. Showing us their work, and letting their logic sweep over us (or letting us kick your butt because it turned out you used a calculation inapplicable to our purposes) is the best way for us to decide these things.

[Lord of the Farce]

Both Wong and Darkstar are fanatics. They're both at the extreme limits, just on opposite sides. Calculations from someone who's never given a thought to Star Wars and Star Trek crap, who doesn't give a damn and just did the calculations to figure it out would be in the middle, IE unbiased, which Wong and DS certainly aren't.

Another bad point, both of their calculations are wrong. About almost everything.

Wow, how original.
Unless you care to provide some serious evidence for your ranting, no matter how much you stick your finger in your ear and chat "Mike Wong is biased! Nah nah nah! I can't hear you!", nobody will take your ranting seriously.

Oh yeah, and are we suppose to take that implication of yours that you are not biased about this subject seriously?

[Vympel]

Not transmitting from the bridge, perhaps.

Bzzt. He's the Captain of the vessel. Where else was he going to be? Also note that where Darth Vader was recieving the conference call was also just down from the bridge pits.

Both Wong and Darkstar are fanatics. They're both at the extreme limits, just on opposite sides. Calculations from someone who's never given a thought to Star Wars and Star Trek crap, who doesn't give a damn and just did the calculations to figure it out would be in the middle, IE unbiased, which Wong and DS certainly aren't.

One-sided conclusions are not wrong. One-sided methods are.

Another bad point, both of their calculations are wrong. About almost everything.

We've heard this all before, and you just like everyone before you is just going to fuck it up and either

a: end up admitting you were wrong
b: run off screaming bias



Sure they are. Prepare to come crashing down to Earth.

[Ghost Rider]

Oh yay another "Wong is wrong and I have proof...but I don't wanna show it right now."

Jesus fucking christ....if you have PROOF, show it dammit...unless like legions before you don't have it.

[TurboPhaser]

No thank you, I'd rather not at this time. I merely stated my opinion, I didnt really ask to debate it.

And I'm not surprised. Regardless, this *is* the versus forum, and you should expect to be called on your opinions.

I dint say I wouldnt proivide those bits did I? I intend to, but do yoiu have any idea how much info I will have have to sift through on both Wong's and Darkstar's sites? I have a job, therfore I do not regulary have the 2 hours free time to trudge through all that info looking for the bits I need.

Let me repeat: I intend to show what i said, but, believe it or not, I do not have the time at the moment. I do have a life outside these forums, and unfortunatley I cannot put all my time into posting here.

Please be patient.

[Ghost Rider]

No thank you, I'd rather not at this time. I merely stated my opinion, I didnt really ask to debate it.

And I'm not surprised. Regardless, this *is* the versus forum, and you should expect to be called on your opinions.

I dint say I wouldnt proivide those bits did I? I intend to, but do yoiu have any idea how much info I will have have to sift through on both Wong's and Darkstar's sites? I have a job, therfore I do not regulary have the 2 hours free time to trudge through all that info looking for the bits I need.

Let me repeat: I intend to show what i said, but, believe it or not, I do not have the time at the moment. I do have a life outside these forums, and unfortunatley I cannot put all my time into posting here.

Please be patient.

Yes, but like any debate or challenge...most are not going to just wait after you've made the challenge. They want to see immediately what made you think otherwise...and providing immediate proof is a good step in that direction.

It's far better to have said weapon ready when making the challenge...then go"Well, I have it, but wait okay?"

[JodoForce]

Explain how the Captain of the vessel in question was able to remain transmitting seconds after the explosion then. He should've been dead.

Where is there proof that the hologram of the captain holding up his hands against the blast was recorded after the blast? That it is SHOWN onscreen after the blast doesn't mean anything--would you demand that simultaneous events be shown together split-screen?

[Vympel]

Where is there proof that the hologram of the captain holding up his hands against the blast was recorded after the blast?

Recorded? WTF? Bridge slams into asteroid. Cut. Captain's image is still being transmitted while Needa speaks to Vader. Fades out as he puts his hand over his face. What's the big mystery? I need to PROVE it actually happened after, even though that's what is explicitly shown on screen? That's an incredibly stupid argument from visual effects.

That it is SHOWN onscreen after the blast doesn't mean anything--would you demand that simultaneous events be shown together split-screen?

And your reasoning that it should be simultaneous is .....? Oh yes, you're including your conclusion (the bridge was destroyed) as a premise, instead of just looking at the visual evidence at face value and making a common sense conclusion. How silly of me.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Both Wong and Darkstar are fanatics. They're both at the extreme limits, just on opposite sides. Calculations from someone who's never given a thought to Star Wars and Star Trek crap, who doesn't give a damn and just did the calculations to figure it out would be in the middle, IE unbiased, which Wong and DS certainly aren't.

Another bad point, both of their calculations are wrong. About almost everything.

Perhaps you didn't understand his post. He wanted SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, not accusations.

[seanrobertson]

Hi.

I'm going to go through my own hazing. So be happy.

Anyway, all those posts about "what if" and "blah blah super soldier hologram commandos" piss me off so I've decided to try and make a topic RELEVANT to something. The topic of this post is the asteroid field scene in TeSB.

Sure, there are calculations done by Mr. Young and that guy from st-vs-sw.net but I don't trust either of them.

Trust is irrelevant.

Either they are right, or they are not. Your undefined perception of their "trustworthiness" has zero to do with the validity of their statement.

They're not exactly "experts" in the field. Of course, neither am I, so I went about this looking for people who were.

How is Brian NOT "expert enough" to figure out the energy requirements of vaporizing asteroids? Are you calling him stupid or something?

It is NOT rocket science. Once the asteroids are scaled, you have an idea of their volume.

Once you know their volume, you can estimate their MASS.

We KNOW that, to VAPORIZE a certain MASS of material, you MUST input a certain level of energy.

Incidentally, Brian's estimates are corroborated by Michael's, and also a person I'd say is VERY MUCH an "expert," DOCTOR of astrophysics, Curtis Saxton.

How in the name of God did you overlook THAT?

And I found some. It just so happens that around the internet, people have created elaborate calculation tables for things such as the destructive yield of asteroid impacts dependant on size, density and speed, and I also found one on how to destroy an asteriod dependant on its size, as in, I assume, how to destroy an asteroid barreling towards the planet with nuclear weapons.

That's not vaporizing asteroids. "Destroy" is contextually-sensitive.

From your little time around here, you should know that already, too.

I thought, "these are perfect!" I can calculate both the asteroid-destroying Falcon chase scenes and calculate the asteriod hitting the ISD bridge tower.

Err...why couldn't you do that already?

Show me these "calculators." And show me where you're coming up with the values to plug into them.

In the meantime, Michael has an essay on the bridge impactor. If you're going to whip out *.5mv^2, you should know that the momentum of the impact is of tremendous importance.

*You know, the means of determining a object's kinetic energy. You didn't need a calculator to tell you that, did you?

Anyway, before I go about showing what I found I want to see people's reactions, and of course, disputes. Don't worry, I'll give what I found and the sources, but first I want to hear what you think. Would you trust such calculations? Keep in mind, the calculations take into account its size, velocity and density (and therefore mass), so I don't see how they could be wrong.

Vexx,

I am 99% sure you are just trolling.

I do not see how someone could be so ignorant of SD.net and Turbolaser Commentaries. You are speaking as if Brian didn't take these things into account, but if you'd look at the fucking page, you'd SEE figures for volume, mass, density--EVERYTHING he used to derive his conclusions.

Same story with Michael's TL page, particularly the nifty TESB derivative thereof.

Start reading the damned site before posting such things. If you just want a hazing, do NOT drag Brian into it. That's inviting more than a hazing.

So what do you people think? Hey I'll post a poll!

Lol this ought to be funny.

Shout out to y'all!

(Note: I'm not trying to piss people off. I'm not a Trekkie nor a Warsie. I love and hate both universes equally.)

Again, love/hate is irrelevant. Either the figures stand, or they don't.

Present your figures, but please, READ THE DAMN SITE FIRST!