Besides a ship which is a mile long and 750m wide that's huge compared to the enterprise and I just thought of this SD tractorbeams the ship fires it's ion cannons and turbolasers which are plasma thank u and destroy it with no problem
@Idazmi7 ok like i said before there not lasers thier superheated gas which is plasma lasers are beams of light consentrated at a fixed point. now since i cleared that up. and if u remember SD has sheilds called deflector sheild which does the same. and that city crap how about an intire planet on battlefront 2 a fleet of destroyers literaly glassed a planet to destroy the droids. and seriously dude give up the federation is out maned and out guned by like 5 to 1 margin so theres no way
@Starkiller22475 Actually, the Empire's individual ships are not that powerful. (Echo Base was hit by Turbolasers, and only had a few cave-ins) In the Star Trek episode, Mirror Mirror, the Mirror Universe U.S.S. Enterprise (the 86 year old model) destroyed several planetary civilizations with it's *phasers*. (Torpedoes pack more punch) Also, Blasters, plasma or not, cannot penetrate magnetically sealed objects. (Federation Shields are magnetic) Klingon disruptors are plasma too. No prob there.
@Idazmi7 Echo Base was not hit by SD fire because it had a shield generator, those cave-ins where from the ground attack. Not that I'm saying who would win because I don't care but in classic trek ships seem more powerful than in later series. if klingon weapons are plasma,plasma can clearly damage fed ship. stupid to argue over which would win cuz we don't know how there tech would effect the other.
@Starkiller22475 Lasers don't affect Federation shields. Federation Shields are also magnetic. Blaster weapons cannot penetrate "magnetic seals" at all. Not to mention, the old Enterprise can destroy cities with just it's phasers, and can even level an M-class planet's surface, as per the Original Series episodes "Mirror, Mirror", and "A Taste of Armageddon". The old Enterprise is 86 years old in Trek time, making it the OUTDATED MODEL.
And firepower one SD has 60 tain& bak XX-9 turbolasers and guess how many SD the empire has 25,000 not including smaller ships or SSD's so sorry federation will not win it's impossible
Wow no body listens around here if you like the hard facts here it goes the empire will demolish the federation on two things speed and firepower. Hyperspace turns your ship into a different state of matter and literally one ship can cross the galaxy in hours
so why don't you have the crew picked up by long range Transport created by the Mutants from DS9 and a Wormhole generator and have SD9 Vs Deathstar or Q give Picard to get one powered wish and have him pull in all of the rest of the ST Universe...and have an all out STvsSW and call it
Two, I have NEVER seen any shielding used in any of your movies, tho I have in your books, and they don't last long at all.
Three, star trek ships are faster and more accurate than star wars ships. a star trek ship at full impulse can turn on a dime and travels at 80% of the speed of light, while firing accurately enough to destroy a small satellite, or fighter.
@RedneckRapture You should watch them again, they make constant references to shields, and we see shield flares on a regular basis, we also see containment shields often. Shields in Star Wars aren't as "visible" as they are in TNG Trek, they are hull hugging and don't make nearly as big of a flare when hit by weak objects.
Sorry but again you overestimate Star Trek's capabilities while underestimating Star Wars. Trek ships cannot "turn on a dime" at full impulse or go anywhere near that fast.
Full Impulse is roughly 1,000g. Slower than the max acceleration of nearly everything in Star Wars, even ISDs have an acceleration of 2,200g give or take. While Acclamators, which are still larger than any ship in the Federation, have 3,500g acceleration.
Their top speed is never mentioned, but top speed in sublight space is a meaningless concept, especially when you have relativistic shielding to protect your vessels from time dilation the closer you get to C.
@Perion Going here since there are so many comments. First, when you can't defeat something, you throw it out, throw up some crap reason like you did with isotons. That doesn't fly. Second, your 'facts' contradict what happens IN THE MOVIES AND BOOKS. Third, if an army of Ewoks can beat 'Elite' Imperial troops, what makes you think the Empire has anywhere near the ability to defeat a force as strong as the Federation? I bet the Empire couldn't invade France. Sorry, your credibility is gone.
@RedneckRapture How is the fact that the figures are using a unit of measurement that is completely made up with no conversion to real world units a crap reason to disregard them? I don't have to defeat something that says absolutely nothing about their capabilities. The Ewoks are not to be underestimated, and even so they were providing little more than a distraction for the Stormtroopers, who were winning until Chewie stole an AT-ST and Han convinced them to open their doors.
@RedneckRapture Sticking out of their black body glove perhaps, but that part was never designed to hold up to kinetic impacts. Besides, it's still better than pajamas.
@RedneckRapture Your consistent refusal to accept the canon facts and instead focus on the few contradictions in the lower tier books (there are none in the films as I pointed out) If you think my credibility is gone then it is because you have convinced yourself of your own bias and delusions.
@Perion You've got no grounds to accuse me of bias and delusions. Your figures on your star wars ship speeds are way off from what is stated, STATED in the movies. I quote. "It'll make .5 past light speed." That = 1.5x the speed of light. Yet you put in some bogus numbers. And I'm not alone in this either. Then there's an asteroid crushing the bridge of a star destroyer. If it were as hard as you'd lead us to believe, the 'roid should have bounced off or been obliterated itself.
@RedneckRapture Sorry but that's the misinterpretation of the ".5 past light speed" statement in the films, you are not alone no, it is a common misconception. The term "Light speed" in Star Wars is used to describe pretty much anything FTL, and is referring to the class of the Hyperdrive as being a 0.5. The canon travel time between Tatooine to Alderaan would be impossible at 1.5c. (taking mere hours) as would the travel times from the core worlds to the outer rim tens of thousands of ly away.
@Perion Again, travel time is based upon filler and need. Lucas doesn't take scale into consideration when telling his stories, so that's out the window.
@RedneckRapture Sorry, but a canon source already exists that does not require you to throw them out the window, you just choose to ignore it. Again we have dialogue in the film that places the arrival time in hours, that goes far beyond "filler and need" in terms of on screen storytelling and the like, so that is not a valid argument on your part. And having things that would otherwise take tens of thousands of years also goes beyond, far beyond.
@RedneckRapture Again the Asteroid I already explained, since Star Trek has done pretty much the exact same thing with the Dyson Sphere and the USS Jenolan if not worse (the Jenolan could still move after sliding out and taking a gash out of the Carbon Neutronium surface, yet the Enterprise couldn't be salvaged after sliding out and taking a gash out of soil and trees) So Trek is just as guilty of this as Wars.
@Perion And yet in Generations the Enterprise B went thru our asteroid belt just fine, no worries. The Enterprise D went into one to recover a downed ship. You're just too proud to admit that star trek would easily rape star wars and are making up figures to try to back that up. I like star wars, I like the movies, books, and games, but everything I've seen and read indicates they would be no match for star trek.
@RedneckRapture There are no scenes in Generations where the Enterprise flies through an Asteroid field, B or D. The one in "Final Mission" was an asteroid belt closer to the kind in our solar system, far too diffuse to be of any real threat. Nowhere near as dense or violent as the one in Genesis (which is the one Data refused to enter) Let alone as dense or violent as the one in Empire Strikes Back, which was far worse.
@RedneckRapture Clearly you have not been seeing or reading the right materials, and/or have been misinterpreting what you have. The fact that your arguments that you claim have support in the films or other canon material are either based on misinterpretations or low tier canon overridden by higher tier. (Keep in mind game mechanics are completely non canon, so the affects of a weapon or speed of a ship in a video game has no bearing on anything whatsoever.)
@Perion Just before the distress call in Generations the captain announces casually that they've cleared the asteroid belt. No sighs of relief or anything. In TNG, they repeatedly interact with asteroid belts. So once again, your information is flawed.
@RedneckRapture Did you forget my statement regarding the Asteroid belt in our solar system being diffuse? In our solar system, if you were standing, or even had a picture of one asteroid in the belt, odds are you would not be able to so much as see another asteroid in there, My information is not flawed, as There was no scene of the Enterprise B flying through the belt, that it occurred in dialogue that I forgot about changes nothing beyond nitpicking semantics.
@Perion Which reminds me, the asteroid belt in ESB would not exist. Such a violent field would stay violent for a few years before running out of material to be violent with and turning into Earth's asteroid belt. Chalk up another thing that isn't scientifically possible in star wars.
@RedneckRapture The NASA Space shuttle could navigate our asteroid belt with zero trouble provided it have enough fuel for the few manoeuvres (if any) it would need to make.
@RedneckRapture Your unfamiliarity and casual dismissal of the figures I gave as "fan speculation" in spite of them coming from the Novelizations of the films, The ICS and ITW books, which are film source books/tie ins. As well as from behind the scenes ILM interviews and George Lucas's own words on the DVD commentaries. All of which clear up the misconceptions you have made about Star Wars.
@Perion I'm dismissing your numbers because you are dismissing mine. Plain and simple. Lucas is a film maker. He didn't spend half the time looking into the scientific aspects of his story as star trek did. In regards to Lucas, this comes from a man who, in the movies themselves, put MANY inconsistencies in.
@RedneckRapture Sorry but you are missing the point as to why I am dismissing your numbers, simply sticking out your tongue and saying that without understanding the reasons why is childish. You are focusing on only the most superficial factors. Star Trek is no less guilty of rampant inconsistencies (far moreso in fact) than Star Wars, so don't throw stones from a glass house.
@Perion Look at your own numbers before you start ranting about mine. Mine are there, mine are valid based off how things work in star trek. Everything there is has at least an attempt to explain it in there. In Star Wars, there's no attempt, and by Lucas' own admission, star wars isn't science fiction, its 'space fantasy'. None of your numbers can be verified by their effects in world, so to speak, while mine can.
@RedneckRapture Yours are there, but we can't do anything with them because they don't mean anything, how many times must I explain that to you? In Star Wars there is no attempt on screen, and to be honest the franchise is better for it, no nonsensical technobable bogging things up and making things sound silly, instead they have a man with a PHD in Theoretical astrophysics to do it for them.
Sorry but your numbers cannot be verified at all, because they mean, quite literally, nothing.
@Perion Same thing with yours then. You can't throw up anything that proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that your weapons are as strong as you say, which puts us back to square one, observations. And in that category, Star Trek very badly beats out star wars.
@RedneckRapture Star Trek has every bit as much fantasy as Wars, but they put up the pretence of sci-fi (soft as snow though it may be) by using technnobable that by the writers' own admission, mean nothing. They act like it's a sci-fi, but it's one of the softest ones out there.
@Perion Like you should be talking about soft and hard sci fi when you're arguing on behalf of one of the softest sci fi genres in existence. It fits into the 'very soft' category. No attempt is made at consistency. Every single device works in such a fashion that 'plot device' is screamed at the top of its lungs.
@RedneckRapture As for the Misconceptions about Star Trek, such as the patently absurd 690 gigaton nonsense (which is ridiculous on so many levels) and the belief that the Isoton figures actually mean anything that we can gauge and compare. Are, in fact, the ones that are mere fan speculation with zero evidence or support in the canon.
@Perion Your dismissal of isotons is showing how flawed your own argument is. You are so quick to dismiss a figure that goes beyond what you think it should when it is more logical than your own numbers are. Then you argue about gauging and comparing when you cannot gauge and compare any of your numbers to the effects of your weaponry and technology in star wars. Star Wars FAILS scientifically, its weapons are weak, its ships are weaker still. It's only saving grace is the storyline.
@RedneckRapture How is a number that means absolutely NOTHING more logical than numbers that actually mean something, it doesn't go beyond anything, it actually fails to measure up. Again Trek Fails at least as hard if not even harder scientifically, cracks in event horizons, temperatures below absolute zero, black holes that are literal holes that you can survive, just to name a few. Trek just puts in nonsensical technobable that even the actors and writers admit mean absolutely nothing.
@Perion Here's some REAL science for you. If turbolasers put out the energy you said they would, not only would the energy vaporize the cannon firing it upon firing, the entire pathway the energy followed from reactor to gun would be vaporized as well. And even IF they managed to have that not happen, one shot would vaporize a star destroyer as easily as a city, and since that doesn't happen, even against a much smaller ship, your numbers are false.
@RedneckRapture That assumes the guns aren't capable of actually withstanding the energy of their own weapons, which given we know sci-fi always has super-fantastical-metals and conduction methods, this is clearly not a problem and you are creating a false dilemma.
@Perion Even sci fi has its limits in terms of credibility. In star trek, the massive amount of energy is stored in high temperature plasma and transfered across the ship in EPS conduits. Star Wars never makes mention of HOW its energy is transferred, so you go with what you know in reality. Such extremely high watts, or joules, would vaporize the conduits transfering them.
@Perion Then there's the whole speed issue. It is stated in the movie by han solo that his ship, which can outrun any other ship, can only make .5 past light speed. Since that's IN THE MOVIE I'm going to say you don't understand it. We know, for a fact, filmmakers have travel time be based on three things: Filler and need. Since lucus is a film maker, you can't trust anything he puts down in terms of travel time.
@RedneckRapture sorry, but I'm afraid that you don't understand it, and the travel times are also given on screen, so either the 0200 hours timeframe is wrong, the 0.5 past lightspeed is wrong, or the 1.5c interpretation of han solo's dialogue is wrong, given the canon EU materials that give an explanation that satisfies both lines of dialogue sufficiently (that he was referring to the grade of hyperdrive.) there is no need for your interpretation and, it in fact violates the canon.
@RedneckRapture I'm not talking about travel time in real time screen time, but even that is clearly enough to disprove the 1.5c myth since Anakin isn't long dead by the time they reached coruscant in Episode I (Tatooine is tens of thousands of lightyears away from coruscant). And Millenia hadn't gone by on Naboo while they were gone.
But we clearly hear Han give an ETA to Alderaan, as well as brag about making a run that normally travels 12 parsecs in less distance, which Lucas confirms.
@RedneckRapture Simply saying "Lucas is wrong" doesn't cut it, because again, the EU has a valid explanation that you cannot disregard, as there is nothing that contradicts it. Only one interpretation of the line which the EU says is the wrong interpretation. and the EU > your misconception.
@Perion We are both wrong. I had a REAL Star Wars junkie explain it to me. Hyperspace is much like the hyperspace in Babylon 5. The go into another dimension and cut a corner, so to speak, to reach their destination. So there's no real speed to base the travel on, it's how many jumps and the proportional distance to travel. That, however, means the ships themselves don't generate enough energy to go FTL, which makes them less powerful, in terms of output, than star trek vessels.
@RedneckRapture There are multiple explanations for how Hyperspace in Star Wars works, the Babylon 5 analogy is one of many, but the power output figures for Star Wars ships are vastly beyond that of Trek vessels.
@Perion No they're not. I have plenty of friends who are star wars nerds. They attend the conventions and everything. Even they admit the output of a warp core, if you were to convert it to star wars measurements, beats out the output of a hypermatter core by a factor of ten.
@Perion Let's see, hull strength, aside from the hull not being able to withstand one shot, either fired from the ship or impacting the ship, is still incredibly weak. In star trek, a freighter took a hit from an asteroid and was disabled, with the crew able to abandon ship. In star wars, a freaking STAR DESTROYER had its bridge section blown clear off by an asteroid. And science today shows most asteroids are made out of common metals, no super hard metals like in sci fi programs.
@RedneckRapture Again you ignore the USS Jenolan vs Dyson Sphere, as well as Enterprise-D Saucer vs dirt and tress (USS Jenolan 1 Enterprise-D Saucer 0) sorry but those instances alone show that the Star Destroyer getting hit by the asteroid is in no way contradictory to it having Carbon Neutronium, any more than the Jenolan is contradictory to the Dyson Sphere. Also I'd like you to cite the source of this freighter scene so that it may be given more objective analysis.
@Perion Episode of TNG named "Angel One". As for the asteroid, it would have likely broken up in a planet's atmosphere. The damage done to the saucer section during Generations was caused first by the engineering section of the ship being destroyed, followed by it crash landing into a planet. You'll notice the hull wasn't damaged, just the insides were torn apart by the shock of the impact. Not like the star destroyer who had its entire bridge tower taken off by a rock.
@RedneckRapture And yet the Saucer section could not be salvaged, and we saw just how bad it was all over the place, it was also a sliding impact at a very low angle, rather than a direct hit. The only clear damage it took when hit by the shockwave was going off course. again the asteroid vs star destroyer argument is old hat, and has been debunked a long time ago.
@Perion The Enterprise D wasn't really taken back up and repaired because half the ship was destroyed, all the equipment was destroyed by shock damage, and there was still the damage the saucer sustained from fighting the Klingons. Even with that, however, a large portion of the Enterprise E was made from the scrap of the Enterprise D. Again, another stunning example of how you didn't do your research.
@RedneckRapture there was no damage to the saucer sustained from fighting the klingons, not one hit from the Bird of Prey landed on the saucer, sorry. Also prove that any of the Enterprise E was made from scrap of the D, where do they say that in First Contact, Insurrection or Nemesis?
@Perion Shock damage. During the fight systems were blowing out on the bridge. As for parts of D being in E, it is described in the book "Ship of the Line". And before you say that it's not cannon, it IS cannon. Or shall we throw out all your books as well for being non-cannon?
@Perion Based off of that, a shot fired from a railgun could penetrate a star destroyer's hull. How would it stand up to a shot from one of your turbolasers? How could it withstand even a nuclear blast, much less the much more potent weapons in Star Trek? Next we reach your tactics. Imperial Star Destroyers are a very vulnerable class of ship. Put a shot in the hangar bay, which is wide open during combat, and the ship is gutted.
@RedneckRapture For one, Heat and Kinetic energy are two completely different things, and we're not talking about simple hull strength, since you seem to ignore the existence of the shields. We see Jem'Hadar bug fighters ramming into ships, sometimes fully shielded and taking them out, at quite low speeds relatively speaking. A Railgun would make swiss cheese out of Federation ships, It's affect on the shields of an ISD, not so much.
@Perion Railguns would have no effect at all on a Federation ship, or its shields, for two reasons. One, the deflector dish alone has enough energy to deflect away a railgun shot, since we have seen time and time again that a deflector dish all the various things in space from swiss cheesing the ship while it's at warp. Second, the newer federation ships have ablative armor that dissipates shock and heat. Not only does that negate railguns, it also negates your turbolasers.
@RedneckRapture Sorry the Deflector dish is only capable of deflecting kilojoule to low gigajoule impacts, not Terajoule level or above, same with the ablative armor, since otherwise Ramming attacks wouldn't work, which they clearly do as recently as nemesis, which is the last piece of canon trek to take place in the 24th century.
Ablative armour won't negate 8,000 photon torpedoes, it won't negate a single Turbolaser shot.
@Perion One, a turbolaser shot is not worth 8,000 torpedoes. It's not even worth one. Two, the best railgun we have in existence fires at megajoules. More than enough energy to pierce a star destroyer's hull, yet not enough to go thru star trek shielding.
@RedneckRapture You still don't get it, you think you're right, I know you're wrong, I'm not debating this with you anymore, honestly you can't even seem to realize that much.
Come by to Stardestroyer(dot)net if you want to continue trying to prove your misconceptions, they'll be happy to set you straight if you are willing to actually change your views.
@Perion Next are the strength of your missiles. From reading in books, we see that proton torpedoes consistantly do the same amount of damage as a 2000 pound bomb. Rogue squadron strafing runs destroy buildings, not cities, in the books. Next are your reactor cores. When the death star went up, the explosion was relatively minor. Its destruction did nothing to Endor, which was right below it, even tho the reactor core was targeted and breached.
@RedneckRapture Sorry but you are using low tier canon to argue against higher tier canon, the ICS wins out over the Rogue Squadron books. As for the Death Star's destruction that has also been explained quite sufficiently if you do the research. Also even nuclear reactors don't go up like nuclear bombs, there's no reason to assume Hypermatter reactors do too.
We also know from the books that Y-Wing runs can flatten mountain ranges.
@Perion So can runs by shuttlecraft. A simple 54 isoton gravimetric charge, which can be dropped by a ship, or a shuttle, can destroy a small planet. An enriched ultritium bomb with a 90 isoton yield can destroy an 800 kilometer area, and was used in the dominion war. Star Wars weaposn are a joke.
@Perion In Star Trek, the Borg were going to modify a torpedo on Voyager to have an explosive force that would have effected the entire solar system, and whose shock wave would have been felt 5 light years from the detonation point. I'm not even going into Genesis torpedoes, or the fact that some ships can fire their full weapons compliment while cloaked. Do I need to go on tearing down your misconceptions and keep comparing star wars to star trek? Star Wars is NOTHING next to Star Trek.
@RedneckRapture And yet the blast would have no direct affect on the worlds within that radius, only the threat of nanoprobe infection (Janeway didn't say it would kill innocent lives, only put them at risk/endanger them, so it clearly does not do any appreciable damage) Not to mention the fact that the bomb spreads the nanoprobes rather than destroys them, which considering they are nanites, means the actual force of the blast is small at any given range, it just has a long duration/radius.
@Perion Yes, and the shockwave from exploding star wars weapons, even those designed to cause a lot of damage, don't have anywhere near the same radius. Then there's the sun crusher. It uses the exact same kind of system as was used in Generations to destroy a star. Only thing is, in Star Wars, it's called a torpedo. In Star Trek, it was a modified PROBE.
@RedneckRapture That's because in Star Wars it was purpose built and the sun crusher has other nifty features, like armour that makes neutronium look like tin foil.
In the Films we never see them use their Turbolaser weaponry on the ISDs in atmosphere against unshielded, unarmoured targets, which can absorb a tremendous deal of that energy. Certainly not to the extents of a Base Delta Zero. However the vapourizing of the asteroid in ESB requires megatons of energy.
@RedneckRapture The Genesis device was a one shot wonder, and not even all that wonderous, all the files and scientists who made it are long since dead, all that remains is the promotional video and historical files regarding the events surrounding it. Not only that, but the Device only affects matter, no evidence that it would have any affect on shielding whatsoever. Cloaking Devices can easily be detected, as many sensors used in Star Wars are tachyon based, (continued)
@RedneckRapture As well as the fact that even phase and thalaron cloaked ships have mass and affect gravity (and are affected by it) Only one ship was able to fire both torpedoes and particle weapons, and even then it never fired them all at once (given worf's list of the mounts on the vessel, either it can't focus it's fire anywhere near efficiently or they are very limited in utility while cloaked.) and It was, again destroyed with no evidence that one would be made any time soon.
@RedneckRapture You haven't torn down a single one of my points, you only hold on to your own misconceptions which I have proven wrong consistently. Focusing on only the most superficial factors that I have given you, ignoring the rest (such as Ignoring the valid reasons why Isoton yields are useless). You can go on and on as much as you want, so far the only things you have said that I haven't already heard before, have been absurd, irrelevant and based on false premises.
@Perion Your points are torn. All you're doing is ignoring truths and trying to turn things around, very badly. The sad part is the fact that you are failing to realize that and still trying to prop up the weak points of star wars instead of moving on to the very few good points that would make a fight between Star Wars and Star Trek a stalemate. Such as the fact that Star Wars has an entire galaxy of resources to throw into production. Or that it has more people. Or...((continued))
@RedneckRapture Weak points? sorry, but you are the one who is missing the point of any of this, misunderstanding the reasons for my not acknowledging the Isoton figures and other such nonsense, as well as thinking that the 0.5 past lightspeed must ONLY mean 1.5c while there is canon evidence that it does not. All my explanations are backed up by the EU, most nearly quoted directly, yours are either misconceptions, fabrications, idle speculation, or non-canon sources and inadmissible by default
@Perion Or that after the rebellion was finished, the Empire destroyed, there would have been no reason for the Federation in Star Trek to fight anyone in Star Wars. Or that neither side could reach each other. Or that small operations are key in BOTH universes and would be the major part of the war. In that score they are both equal. Star Trek packs a heavier punch, Star Wars has more experienced people for ground operations. Nope, you ignored all those and embarked on a losing argument.
@RedneckRapture considering the Empire was not destroyed after Endor, or even 100 years afterwards, as for reaching each other, that's what a wormhole is for. No need for small operations when 150 acclamators are more than sufficient.
@RedneckRapture You continue refusing to listen to reason, and your further attempts have been underwhelming at best, and to be frank, downright boring. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing that shows any sign you are starting to understand, correct your mistakes, and concede. Certainly nothing that disproves any of what I've said. For these reasons I see no further point in continuing this debate. Good by, good luck, Live long and prosper, May the Force be with you and god bless.
@RedneckRapture It's clear that you have convinced yourself so thoroughly of your misconceptions that you are unwilling to listen to reason, even going so far as to come up with nonsensical speculation and try to pass it off as definitive proof and convincing yourself that you are actually "winning" this debate. When all is said and done the real Trek vs Wars debate ended a decade ago, pretty well all your arguments were brought up then, and shot down, and no new ones have made any difference.
The only thing that remains those who are relatively new and have listened to those who refuse to admit defeat (such as the people who invented the 690 gigaton figure, from a misreading of a non-canon book I might add) or are those people.
And those like myself who are also relatively new (about 5 years give or take) Who educate those who have not yet gone so far as to be beyond reason.
@RedneckRapture And again, there's the fact that Data refuses to take the Enterprise D into an asteroid field that was downright tame compared to the one in Empire Strikes Back, due to the field being too dense and violent for them to handle even with their shields at maximum and they would only be chasing a torpedo or two, which performed poorly when hitting the asteroids they were testing them on.
@Perion Then you go and try to discredit a unit of measure used as the basis for all measurements in a show when you can't even get your own figures right. And you have the nerve to stand there and tell ME that I'm deluded? Look in the mirror.
@RedneckRapture The figures I state are backed up by the canon, and use real world units of measure that actually say something, the Isoton yields you state may be canon, but say absolutely nothing since Isotons are poorly defined at best.
@Perion I'm done with this argument. You are so thick headed you make no attempt to argue numbers. Instead you make up numbers and try to throw out established numbers. Your ego is involved in this argument since it was proven that star trek beats star wars, and so now you won't admit anything that is outside your idea of how things should be. We are both looking like idiots here, you for BEING an idiot, and me for arguing with you. So I'm done.
@RedneckRapture Well at least now you at least partially get it, but you still manage to make some misconceptions to finish with, along with quite a few others along the way.
@Perion I knew you were a part of that mistaken web site. I could tell by how biased you were. Good luck with your imaginary world. Those of us with brains know better than to rely on any information there.
@Perion NERD!!!! You basically pick and chose random bits of info just so you could make star wrs sound better than star trek? Dear gods, you are, what I would call, A twat!! Here's a thought: dop some research on actual facts before trying to come up with some crappy, non-winning arguement
@Perion I have been asked to post this: Star Trek's torpedoes do beat out Star Wars turbolasers. I got this by doing a simple equation based off canon figures. The premixed torpedo warhead in a photon torpedo is designed to get the same destructive force as an antimatter pod rupturing. They contain 100 cubic meters of liquid antideuterium. Its density is 160kg per cubic meter. That gave TNG torpedoes a force of 690 gigajoules. Torpedoes have since been upgraded and do 25 isotons (932.25 gj) Cont
@RedneckRapture I will not continue this fruitless debate anymore than to point out that you are ignoring two inescapable points that completely demolish that theory, A) the Tech manual is non-canon, B) The tech manual simply states (repeatedly) in the entry for torpedoes that they simply release their energy faster, not that they release more "more energy per unit time" note that "unit time" part.
not to mention there is no official Isoton to SI unit conversion, so that is moot.
@RedneckRapture I will accept your 1.864 terajoule and 690 gigajoule figure, since even slave one carried 8 terajoules per shot, your concession is accepted.
@Perion Yeah, sorry, but no. I put that post up because i had a friend go through all the trouble to do research. It is cannon Star Trek that lasers, even high powered ones, don't penetrate the navigational shields of a starship. Add to that the fact that in star wars communities your site is considered way out there, and you get someone who is just deluded enough not to argue with.
@RedneckRapture And yet, we see in the very next episode after the "Lasers don't penetrate nav shields" Picard refuses to "Endanger this ship under any circumstances" when they detect laser weapons fire. Not to mention the fact that while the weapons in Star Wars are called lasers, they clearly have different characteristics from that of a l.a.s.e.r. your friend clearly didn't research it properly. Starfleet jedi is even more out there than SDN. That is all I will say on the matter.
@Perion I do not CARE about starfleet jedi. There are radicals on both sides of the aisle in everything. You are a star wars radical. You blatantly make up numbers to support your side and try to tear down actual numbers that support the other. I'm guessing starfleet jedi does the same, just for star trek. Personally I'd like to lock you two in a room together and see who's alive after an hour. I'd even sell tickets to people who want to watch and share the profits with the winner.
@RedneckRapture Also Trek ships are much smaller than ISDs, and are made out of weaker materials (Tritanium and Duranium rather than Neutronium) so they mass much, much less. The few ships that ARE of similar size to an ISD (such as the dominion battleship) display similar maneuverability if not less. We've seen them try to shoot at satellites and fighters, they miss horribly while the satellite just drifts slowly and they're at point blank range, even with a target lock.
@RedneckRapture Your right there's no way Picard's shuttle would have survived to get back to the Enterprise, Also the sillyness of their shots causing any damage to the Star Destroyer at all, much less somehow getting through their shields and blowing up a sensor globe.
And The Star Destroyer only using Point Defense guns followed by them even bothering to use the Death Star? Only to dial it down so far it doesn't instantly vapourize the enterprise even after 2 hits?
@Perion I meant that their weapons had any effect at all on the Enterprise's shields. According to your star wars movies, the amount of destruction delivered by a turbolaser is roundabouts equal to a shot from a 155mm howitzer firing a high explosive shell. A Galaxy class can shrug off multiple nuclear blasts as if they were nothing.
@RedneckRapture We never see Turbolasers firing on anything other than Asteroids and other ships in the films. The light point defense guns (which probably aren't even turbolasers) are seen vapourizing 40m asteroids in 1/15th of a second, requiring the force of 6 megatons to acomplish (Making them at least as powerful as a System 5 Planetary Disruptor per shot )
It depends on the yield of the nuclear blast, also nukes lose a considerable level of effectiveness in space.
The Effect of the Turbolasers on other ships cannot be gauged easily due to the fact that they are shielded and made of increadibly powerful materials. Indeed "Durasteel" is similar to the material that the Dyson Sphere is made out of (a carbon neutronium alloy) but adds numerous new materials the Federation have never even heard of into the mix.
The highest canon sources of Turbolaser firepower that does not contradict the films are the ICS books, which puts even mediums into the gigatons
By contrast, a Photon torpedo is, at best 24 megatons (even that is being generous) while the Turbolasers from an acclamator, which was never designed for heavy ship to ship combat, carries 200,000 megatons per shot, making it more than 8,000 times more powerful. On top of that this is in a concentrated bolt, rather than a disperse blast, so the amount of energy vs surface area on shields or armour is much, much higher. ISDs are 300x more powerful than Acclamators.
@Perion And I call bullshit on that too. One, a super star destroyer in a cannon book bombarded a planet and each impact had the force of an artillery shell. That's what i'm basing it off of, while a federation phaser, fired at a planet's surface from the same position in orbit, actually bores through the crust of the planet. Sorry kid, star wars ships are inferior.
@RedneckRapture the EU is vast and full of contradictions, another source has 3 Star Destroyers blowing the atmosphere clear off a planet and reducing the surface to molten slag in under an hour. Also the story novels/books are at a much lower order of canon than say the tech based ones like the ICS which is a movie tie/in. There are also mentions in the ROTJ novelization (which overrides whatever book it was you are citing) that single Turbolaser shots can vapourize cities.
@RedneckRapture And the Enterprise has never bored down through the crust of a planet with it's phasers, the furthest down we saw them go was maybe a few km, judging from that shaft Data was standing under when he and his mother went down there. Visuals trump Dialogue (and diagrams)
@Perion Bullshit flag. If their Star Destroyers could do that, the Empire WOULDN'T NEED THE DEATH STAR. Aside from that, shields on an ISD couldn't stop a Federation ship from beaming out stuff like power cores, or beaming in a torpedo onto the bridge. The Empire couldn't handle the Federation. What would the Empire do if it faced invasion by the bad guy in Star Trek, the Borg, with MILLIONS of cubes who consider their technology irrelevant and just wipe them out?
@RedneckRapture Shields stop transporters, plain and simple, not to mention the advanced ECM and Neutronium hulls on an ISD would make far too much interference for them to do so. Planetary shielding is powerful enough to repell the firepower of an entire fleet of ISDs, and even hold back the Death Star's blast for 1/10th of a second. They need the Death Star to get through said shields and reduce the planet to an asteroid field, rather than simply Base Delta Zero it.
@RedneckRapture The Empire could handle the Federation with their eyes closed, Send in 150 Acclamators, 1 to each major planet in the Federation simultaniously, they would blow through their defenses (or more likely just hyper directly into orbit and blast their defenses apart from behind,) Land the ship (more than twice the size of the largest federation vessel capable of landing, and many, many times the mass) And land 16,000 heavily armed and armoured troops along with hundreds of vehicles.
@RedneckRapture The Federation would surrender within minutes from such a shocking and devastating lightning campaign, considering the fact that a mere 2,000 light infantry from romulas were expected to get "dug in" and become a "fact of life" on one of the Federation founding Members is telling of the kind of ground forces the Federation and it's allies/enemies are used to. The ground tactics displayed during the Dominion War were positively napoleonic, and no use of combined arms whatsoever.
@RedneckRapture There are not "Millions of Cubes" the only time someone even suggests such a number is Chakotay using Hyperbole. By extrapolating the casualties taken by the Borg during their war with the Undine they give us the overall number of how many Cubes the Borg have, and it's nowhere near even half a million.
Doesn't help that the Borg over-rely on their adaptation abilities, if and when they face off against a race they cannot adapt to, they lose hard.
@Perion Federation phasers are just as lethal as torpedoes and tactics in Star Trek rely on their use for disabling shields for torpedo shots. Their directed energy is more lethal than the pulses of energy at overloading shields, and can even damage systems while shields are up. Shielding in Star Trek is FAR beyond anything in Star Wars, an Intrepid class long range science vessel can take several torpedo shots, and that ship isn't a combat class.
@RedneckRapture We have seen both Phasers and Photon Torpedoes used on a regular basis, in fact, some battles are fought exclusively with torpedoes. The Idea that Torpedoes are only used after the shields are down is something that has only come up very recently, after the shows were gone (first known use of that was Star Trek Legacy, that's it.)
Ships take damage when their shields are up in Trek because their shields aren't up all the time, they flicker on and off at a set frequency.
@Perion If your Star Destroyers went up against a Sovereign class Battleship, not only would they be facing photon torpedoes and phasers, they would also phase quantum torpedoes, whose distructive power comes from actually undoing the molecules of the target they impact. And yes, there are millions of Borg cubes in the Delta Quadrant. That's why the entirety of the Alpha Quadrant is afraid of a Borg invasion. (continued)
@RedneckRapture There ie zero evidence that Quantum Torpedoes opperate in such a manner, not only is this never described on screen, but even the DS9 tech manual states that the energy comes from zero point release. Again there are not Millions of Borg Cubes, the only remote evidence to that was Hyperbole by Chakotay in "Scorpion Part 1" which actuall calcuations based on known Borg casualties and the projections of the Borg to their eventual defeat gives us their actual fleet strength.
Federation ground tactics have a lot more tactics to them than you've seen, since Star Trek doesn't go into detail about ground fighting. There are drones used for mobile fire, site to site transportations used to move large amounts of troops in and out of combat zones, heavily armored vehicles armed with higher yield phaser cannons, and the ability to target precision strikes from orbit. There is also the fact that our Red Shirts die a lot less frequently than your stormtroopers.
@RedneckRapture the fact that Trek doesn't go into detail about ground fighting doesn't give you the right to make things up. We have never seen Drones used for "mobile fire" aside from the ones used by Hugh.
We have never seen a single instance of any combat vehciles in Trek, not even in the background, their very existance has no support in canon. Site to site transporters can be blocked easily, by anything from certain types of ore to active ECM. Relying on starships from orbit is folly.
@Perion If you had done any research, you know ECM is all but useless in star trek, since sensors can easily pierce jamming and torpedoes have onboard ECCM. Ships engage accurately from hundreds of miles apart, and are able to target subsystems on ships. They can easily target a relatively slow moving spot on a planet's surface.
@RedneckRapture If ECM was "all but useless" then they wouldn't have so much trouble with Nebulae, interference from ore or a ship hiding on the far side of a celestial body (or even in a lagrange point) You over-estimate the strength of Trek ECCM.
Star Destroyers are known to be capable of hitting target vessels from a range of up to 10 light minutes, (that's over 100 million miles.) Vader planned on hitting Echo base with a precise, clean bombardment from the outskirts of the Hoth system.
@RedneckRapture Stormtroopers see far more active combat than Red shirts, at far higher intensities so it only makes sense that more of them would die on a more regular basis. You are incorrect about your assumptions and assesments. We never see any of the following in Trek ground combat, nor is it ever even mentioned.
Vehicles beyond the "Hopper" troop transports, the Federation's answer to the UH1 Huey, but which requires infantry support rather than providing the opposite.
@RedneckRapture Unless you are talking about the Drones from Inssurection with the transporter tags, which are very unimpressive. We never see any heavy weapons beyond the "Worfzooka" which carries a less impressive blast than a standard E-11 or DL-44, no sustained fire support weapons, and the "wide beam" of phasers is never used except to stun, even when a light kill setting would prove usefull. This is actually consistent with the theory that wide beam CANNOT kill, since it disperses the beam
@RedneckRapture The only times Wide Beam on kill is suggested to cause any widespread destruction it is used for intimidation with those unfamiliar with a Phaser's capabilities, often by those such as Kirk and Riker, who are well known for their bluffs and misinformation.
IE the Wide-Beam-blow-up-a-building capability is under the same category as the Corbomite Device, the Crimson Shield and the Photonic Cannon.
@Perion Hand phasers have enough force to destroy several hundred cubic meters of solid rock with a single shot, stormtroopers don't stand a chance. The Isoton was made for star trek as a more efficient means than saying 'several hundred gigatons.' For example, a standard torpedo on Voyager delivers a 25 isoton yield. The is equivalent to 690 gigatons of explosive energy. More than your star destoyers can put out. Their high yield warheads deal in the 200 isoton range. (continued)
@RedneckRapture We have never seen Hand Phasers do anything even remotely like that, the only mention of that is in the TNG Tech Manual and is contradicted on screen in TNG: Chain of Command part 1 Where It took worf 3 solid seconds to disentegrate a few dozen cubic inches of granite on Setting 16 (Max Setting for a Type 2 Hand Phaser).
Isoton was made for Star Trek so they wouldn't have to bother making a real yield and just throw out random numbers.
@RedneckRapture The 690 gigaton nonsense is based on willfully misreading this line from the TNG Tech Manual "While the maximum payload of antimatter in a standard photon torpedo is only about 1.5 kilograms, The released energy per unit time is actually greater than that calculated for a Galaxy class antimatter pod rupture." pg 129
Note the use of "per unit time" in this quote, All this line is saying is that a Photon torpedo releases it's energy faster than an antimatter storage pod does.
@RedneckRapture Those who propose the absurd 690gt figure blithely ignore the "per unit time" part of the sentance, as well as the 1.5 kilogram maximum payload. which precludes anything greater than 64 Megatons. I should also point out that the 690gt pt nonsense only cropped up long AFTER the ICS books published the 200 gigaton figure. No-one in the Star Wars debating comunity had even heard of it until 2009, thanks to myself actually who brought it to their attention and debunked it easily.
Federation shielding has come a long way since the first disastrous battle with the Borg. Covariant shielding can take everything an Intrepid class ship can dish out and barely even feel it. Regenerative shielding, the kind of shielding on a Federation assault ship such as the Prometheus class, is in essence two shield systems that regenerate VERY fast, in 45 seconds from zero to full, that rotate when one is depleted. Your best weapons destroy planets, our best weapons destroy star systems
@RedneckRapture The Death Star was far from the best weapon in the Imperial Arsenal, there were several others that, ironically one of which COULD destroy entire star systems, and THAT wasn't even it's only feat, but it's Quantum-crystalline Armour, which made Neutronium look like Tin foil.
Also the Federation has never shown the ability to destroy stars systems, There was never any hint that they knew how to make Trilithium weapons, or that what happened in "half a life" applied to other stars
@Perion So sorry kid. Star Wars technology is best comparable to World War 2. While Star Trek technology is best comparable to modern day American military. Star Wars would epicly fail in a fight against Star Trek.
@RedneckRapture I'm not here to insult you, simply to point out your mistakes, you have clearly bought into the stories of the wrong people. A more accurate comparison would be Star Wars as modern day america, with Star Trek as ancient egypt (proportionately speaking).
@RedneckRapture Name one time where we've seen a photon torpedo make a 90 degree turn in under 1 meter. We've seen the superior guidance system of Star Wars ordnance multiple times (Episode 2 we see Concussion Missiles deftly navigate an asteroid field better than Dax did in "Changes of Heart" . Episode 3 we see missiles come back around after being evaded by two pilots who can see the future, and of course we see in Episode 4 the aformentioned 90 degree turn in under 1 meter)
@Perion Ok, one, you have some required reading in the form of the ds9 manual, which says 25 isoton max yield of a regular torpedo. Keep in mind DS9 tech is a few years older than tng tech, so the technology is still improving. Two, a direct impact on the main gun of the death star by a single torpedo will disable the weapon. Three, a high yield torpedo, with 200 isotons of energy upon detonation, will disable the station by ripping out most of it. A tricobalt torpedo would completely destroy it
@RedneckRapture One, The manuals are non-canon, and again Isotons are a meaningless units of measurement.
DS9 Tech is actually newer than TNG tech since it involves stuff during the Dominion War but honestly it doesn't matter since the Tech Manual is non-canon and the Isoton figure is meaningless.
But even a 800 Teraton blast wouldn't do much damage to the Death Star, it' designed to withstand far more and respond in kind.
@Perion Well, since you're disregardnig the unit of measure used in star trek because it's beating down your arguments, I guess that means that I win and you lose, since you can't defeat the arguments I put forward based off specs from the star trek universe. And it's not the blast that would have destroyed the death star, it would be the subsequent tear in subspace that would rip the station apart.
Oh, btw, the stats for torpedo yield are FROM star trek episodes, so those figures ARE cannon.
@RedneckRapture I'm disregarding it because it doesn't mean anything, there is no real life unit of measurement as "Isotons" actually no, that's not true, there IS a unit of measurement that is technically called Iso ton. where one iso ton is equal to one ton of tnt. (The prefix iso means, "same as")
Tricobalt torpedoes are also impossible to quantify, as cochranes are just as meaningless as isotons. The figures on the show are canon, but unless they use real world units, they are meaningless.
@Perion Ah, so you're saying when humanity gets to the future and needs a better way to measure energy, we won't be allowed to use a new term for it? You're even more foolish than I thought. Isotons count, and since 25 isotons beats out your turbolasers. Funny thing is, they aren't the most powerful weapon star trek has. Later on, all federation ships are equipped with transphasic torpedoes. Those would render shields useless. Then there's federation timeships. Need I continue? You're outclassed
@RedneckRapture Sorry but you're presuming far too much. How does 25 isotons beat out 200,000 gigatons? you don't even know what an Isoton is, no one does. Because it has no known meaning, there is no way to compare it to real world units of measurement, I doubt even the writers know how much energy is in 1 isoton using SI units.
For that reason the Isoton units are inadmissible since there is no way to compare them without a proper, official Isoton to Megaton conversion and vice versa.
LOL I could Imagine Q bringing both universes together
Teletran35 2 months ago
Very funny @ 4:38
PowerLevel2011 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos
Noo the enterprise!!:'(
BaMFGiakStealth 2 months ago
@BaMFGiakStealth Look on the bright side: It took all of that to kill just ONE starship!
:)
Idazmi7 2 months ago
How many of you went NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO when they were taking Picard out of the shuttle?
MultiBigJC 3 months ago
@MultiBigJC I sure did
imsokewl27 1 month ago
who woulda thought of Q as star treks yoda!? lol
gargoylemon 4 months ago
Can't* sorry just saw that
Starkiller22475 5 months ago
Besides a ship which is a mile long and 750m wide that's huge compared to the enterprise and I just thought of this SD tractorbeams the ship fires it's ion cannons and turbolasers which are plasma thank u and destroy it with no problem
Starkiller22475 5 months ago
Comment removed
Idazmi7 5 months ago
@Idazmi7 ok like i said before there not lasers thier superheated gas which is plasma lasers are beams of light consentrated at a fixed point. now since i cleared that up. and if u remember SD has sheilds called deflector sheild which does the same. and that city crap how about an intire planet on battlefront 2 a fleet of destroyers literaly glassed a planet to destroy the droids. and seriously dude give up the federation is out maned and out guned by like 5 to 1 margin so theres no way
Starkiller22475 5 months ago
@Idazmi7 the federation can win. read my pereous comments before you say somthing i already answered like the laser thing.
Starkiller22475 5 months ago
@Starkiller22475 Actually, the Empire's individual ships are not that powerful. (Echo Base was hit by Turbolasers, and only had a few cave-ins) In the Star Trek episode, Mirror Mirror, the Mirror Universe U.S.S. Enterprise (the 86 year old model) destroyed several planetary civilizations with it's *phasers*. (Torpedoes pack more punch) Also, Blasters, plasma or not, cannot penetrate magnetically sealed objects. (Federation Shields are magnetic) Klingon disruptors are plasma too. No prob there.
Idazmi7 5 months ago
@Idazmi7 Echo Base was not hit by SD fire because it had a shield generator, those cave-ins where from the ground attack. Not that I'm saying who would win because I don't care but in classic trek ships seem more powerful than in later series. if klingon weapons are plasma,plasma can clearly damage fed ship. stupid to argue over which would win cuz we don't know how there tech would effect the other.
TheBeskar 4 months ago
@TheBeskar Star Wars fans like to say that plasma would simply cut through Federation ships effortlesly.
Idazmi7 4 months ago
@Starkiller22475 Lasers don't affect Federation shields. Federation Shields are also magnetic. Blaster weapons cannot penetrate "magnetic seals" at all. Not to mention, the old Enterprise can destroy cities with just it's phasers, and can even level an M-class planet's surface, as per the Original Series episodes "Mirror, Mirror", and "A Taste of Armageddon". The old Enterprise is 86 years old in Trek time, making it the OUTDATED MODEL.
Idazmi7 5 months ago
And firepower one SD has 60 tain& bak XX-9 turbolasers and guess how many SD the empire has 25,000 not including smaller ships or SSD's so sorry federation will not win it's impossible
Starkiller22475 5 months ago
Wow no body listens around here if you like the hard facts here it goes the empire will demolish the federation on two things speed and firepower. Hyperspace turns your ship into a different state of matter and literally one ship can cross the galaxy in hours
Starkiller22475 5 months ago
so why don't you have the crew picked up by long range Transport created by the Mutants from DS9 and a Wormhole generator and have SD9 Vs Deathstar or Q give Picard to get one powered wish and have him pull in all of the rest of the ST Universe...and have an all out STvsSW and call it
Star trek/StarWars; Universal WARS
waywardtravler777 6 months ago
Two, I have NEVER seen any shielding used in any of your movies, tho I have in your books, and they don't last long at all.
Three, star trek ships are faster and more accurate than star wars ships. a star trek ship at full impulse can turn on a dime and travels at 80% of the speed of light, while firing accurately enough to destroy a small satellite, or fighter.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture You should watch them again, they make constant references to shields, and we see shield flares on a regular basis, we also see containment shields often. Shields in Star Wars aren't as "visible" as they are in TNG Trek, they are hull hugging and don't make nearly as big of a flare when hit by weak objects.
Sorry but again you overestimate Star Trek's capabilities while underestimating Star Wars. Trek ships cannot "turn on a dime" at full impulse or go anywhere near that fast.
Perion 8 months ago
Comment removed
Perion 8 months ago
Full Impulse is roughly 1,000g. Slower than the max acceleration of nearly everything in Star Wars, even ISDs have an acceleration of 2,200g give or take. While Acclamators, which are still larger than any ship in the Federation, have 3,500g acceleration.
Their top speed is never mentioned, but top speed in sublight space is a meaningless concept, especially when you have relativistic shielding to protect your vessels from time dilation the closer you get to C.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Look it up. They DO go that fast, and HAVE gone that fast.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture what episode/movie.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Going here since there are so many comments. First, when you can't defeat something, you throw it out, throw up some crap reason like you did with isotons. That doesn't fly. Second, your 'facts' contradict what happens IN THE MOVIES AND BOOKS. Third, if an army of Ewoks can beat 'Elite' Imperial troops, what makes you think the Empire has anywhere near the ability to defeat a force as strong as the Federation? I bet the Empire couldn't invade France. Sorry, your credibility is gone.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture How is the fact that the figures are using a unit of measurement that is completely made up with no conversion to real world units a crap reason to disregard them? I don't have to defeat something that says absolutely nothing about their capabilities. The Ewoks are not to be underestimated, and even so they were providing little more than a distraction for the Stormtroopers, who were winning until Chewie stole an AT-ST and Han convinced them to open their doors.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Tell that to the storm troopers laying dead on the ground with arrows sticking out of them.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Sticking out of their black body glove perhaps, but that part was never designed to hold up to kinetic impacts. Besides, it's still better than pajamas.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion So take your 'My Little Pony' fleet and clear the way for a REAL force.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Your consistent refusal to accept the canon facts and instead focus on the few contradictions in the lower tier books (there are none in the films as I pointed out) If you think my credibility is gone then it is because you have convinced yourself of your own bias and delusions.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion You've got no grounds to accuse me of bias and delusions. Your figures on your star wars ship speeds are way off from what is stated, STATED in the movies. I quote. "It'll make .5 past light speed." That = 1.5x the speed of light. Yet you put in some bogus numbers. And I'm not alone in this either. Then there's an asteroid crushing the bridge of a star destroyer. If it were as hard as you'd lead us to believe, the 'roid should have bounced off or been obliterated itself.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Sorry but that's the misinterpretation of the ".5 past light speed" statement in the films, you are not alone no, it is a common misconception. The term "Light speed" in Star Wars is used to describe pretty much anything FTL, and is referring to the class of the Hyperdrive as being a 0.5. The canon travel time between Tatooine to Alderaan would be impossible at 1.5c. (taking mere hours) as would the travel times from the core worlds to the outer rim tens of thousands of ly away.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Again, travel time is based upon filler and need. Lucas doesn't take scale into consideration when telling his stories, so that's out the window.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Sorry, but a canon source already exists that does not require you to throw them out the window, you just choose to ignore it. Again we have dialogue in the film that places the arrival time in hours, that goes far beyond "filler and need" in terms of on screen storytelling and the like, so that is not a valid argument on your part. And having things that would otherwise take tens of thousands of years also goes beyond, far beyond.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Again the Asteroid I already explained, since Star Trek has done pretty much the exact same thing with the Dyson Sphere and the USS Jenolan if not worse (the Jenolan could still move after sliding out and taking a gash out of the Carbon Neutronium surface, yet the Enterprise couldn't be salvaged after sliding out and taking a gash out of soil and trees) So Trek is just as guilty of this as Wars.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion And yet in Generations the Enterprise B went thru our asteroid belt just fine, no worries. The Enterprise D went into one to recover a downed ship. You're just too proud to admit that star trek would easily rape star wars and are making up figures to try to back that up. I like star wars, I like the movies, books, and games, but everything I've seen and read indicates they would be no match for star trek.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture There are no scenes in Generations where the Enterprise flies through an Asteroid field, B or D. The one in "Final Mission" was an asteroid belt closer to the kind in our solar system, far too diffuse to be of any real threat. Nowhere near as dense or violent as the one in Genesis (which is the one Data refused to enter) Let alone as dense or violent as the one in Empire Strikes Back, which was far worse.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Clearly you have not been seeing or reading the right materials, and/or have been misinterpreting what you have. The fact that your arguments that you claim have support in the films or other canon material are either based on misinterpretations or low tier canon overridden by higher tier. (Keep in mind game mechanics are completely non canon, so the affects of a weapon or speed of a ship in a video game has no bearing on anything whatsoever.)
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Just before the distress call in Generations the captain announces casually that they've cleared the asteroid belt. No sighs of relief or anything. In TNG, they repeatedly interact with asteroid belts. So once again, your information is flawed.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Did you forget my statement regarding the Asteroid belt in our solar system being diffuse? In our solar system, if you were standing, or even had a picture of one asteroid in the belt, odds are you would not be able to so much as see another asteroid in there, My information is not flawed, as There was no scene of the Enterprise B flying through the belt, that it occurred in dialogue that I forgot about changes nothing beyond nitpicking semantics.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Which reminds me, the asteroid belt in ESB would not exist. Such a violent field would stay violent for a few years before running out of material to be violent with and turning into Earth's asteroid belt. Chalk up another thing that isn't scientifically possible in star wars.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture The NASA Space shuttle could navigate our asteroid belt with zero trouble provided it have enough fuel for the few manoeuvres (if any) it would need to make.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Your unfamiliarity and casual dismissal of the figures I gave as "fan speculation" in spite of them coming from the Novelizations of the films, The ICS and ITW books, which are film source books/tie ins. As well as from behind the scenes ILM interviews and George Lucas's own words on the DVD commentaries. All of which clear up the misconceptions you have made about Star Wars.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion I'm dismissing your numbers because you are dismissing mine. Plain and simple. Lucas is a film maker. He didn't spend half the time looking into the scientific aspects of his story as star trek did. In regards to Lucas, this comes from a man who, in the movies themselves, put MANY inconsistencies in.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Sorry but you are missing the point as to why I am dismissing your numbers, simply sticking out your tongue and saying that without understanding the reasons why is childish. You are focusing on only the most superficial factors. Star Trek is no less guilty of rampant inconsistencies (far moreso in fact) than Star Wars, so don't throw stones from a glass house.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Look at your own numbers before you start ranting about mine. Mine are there, mine are valid based off how things work in star trek. Everything there is has at least an attempt to explain it in there. In Star Wars, there's no attempt, and by Lucas' own admission, star wars isn't science fiction, its 'space fantasy'. None of your numbers can be verified by their effects in world, so to speak, while mine can.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Yours are there, but we can't do anything with them because they don't mean anything, how many times must I explain that to you? In Star Wars there is no attempt on screen, and to be honest the franchise is better for it, no nonsensical technobable bogging things up and making things sound silly, instead they have a man with a PHD in Theoretical astrophysics to do it for them.
Sorry but your numbers cannot be verified at all, because they mean, quite literally, nothing.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Same thing with yours then. You can't throw up anything that proves, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that your weapons are as strong as you say, which puts us back to square one, observations. And in that category, Star Trek very badly beats out star wars.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Star Trek has every bit as much fantasy as Wars, but they put up the pretence of sci-fi (soft as snow though it may be) by using technnobable that by the writers' own admission, mean nothing. They act like it's a sci-fi, but it's one of the softest ones out there.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Like you should be talking about soft and hard sci fi when you're arguing on behalf of one of the softest sci fi genres in existence. It fits into the 'very soft' category. No attempt is made at consistency. Every single device works in such a fashion that 'plot device' is screamed at the top of its lungs.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture As for the Misconceptions about Star Trek, such as the patently absurd 690 gigaton nonsense (which is ridiculous on so many levels) and the belief that the Isoton figures actually mean anything that we can gauge and compare. Are, in fact, the ones that are mere fan speculation with zero evidence or support in the canon.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Your dismissal of isotons is showing how flawed your own argument is. You are so quick to dismiss a figure that goes beyond what you think it should when it is more logical than your own numbers are. Then you argue about gauging and comparing when you cannot gauge and compare any of your numbers to the effects of your weaponry and technology in star wars. Star Wars FAILS scientifically, its weapons are weak, its ships are weaker still. It's only saving grace is the storyline.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture How is a number that means absolutely NOTHING more logical than numbers that actually mean something, it doesn't go beyond anything, it actually fails to measure up. Again Trek Fails at least as hard if not even harder scientifically, cracks in event horizons, temperatures below absolute zero, black holes that are literal holes that you can survive, just to name a few. Trek just puts in nonsensical technobable that even the actors and writers admit mean absolutely nothing.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion There IS a theory in reality that a black hole could be a wormhole into another reality.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@Perion Here's some REAL science for you. If turbolasers put out the energy you said they would, not only would the energy vaporize the cannon firing it upon firing, the entire pathway the energy followed from reactor to gun would be vaporized as well. And even IF they managed to have that not happen, one shot would vaporize a star destroyer as easily as a city, and since that doesn't happen, even against a much smaller ship, your numbers are false.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture That assumes the guns aren't capable of actually withstanding the energy of their own weapons, which given we know sci-fi always has super-fantastical-metals and conduction methods, this is clearly not a problem and you are creating a false dilemma.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Even sci fi has its limits in terms of credibility. In star trek, the massive amount of energy is stored in high temperature plasma and transfered across the ship in EPS conduits. Star Wars never makes mention of HOW its energy is transferred, so you go with what you know in reality. Such extremely high watts, or joules, would vaporize the conduits transfering them.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@Perion Then there's the whole speed issue. It is stated in the movie by han solo that his ship, which can outrun any other ship, can only make .5 past light speed. Since that's IN THE MOVIE I'm going to say you don't understand it. We know, for a fact, filmmakers have travel time be based on three things: Filler and need. Since lucus is a film maker, you can't trust anything he puts down in terms of travel time.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Ack, counting fail, two things, not three.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture sorry, but I'm afraid that you don't understand it, and the travel times are also given on screen, so either the 0200 hours timeframe is wrong, the 0.5 past lightspeed is wrong, or the 1.5c interpretation of han solo's dialogue is wrong, given the canon EU materials that give an explanation that satisfies both lines of dialogue sufficiently (that he was referring to the grade of hyperdrive.) there is no need for your interpretation and, it in fact violates the canon.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture I'm not talking about travel time in real time screen time, but even that is clearly enough to disprove the 1.5c myth since Anakin isn't long dead by the time they reached coruscant in Episode I (Tatooine is tens of thousands of lightyears away from coruscant). And Millenia hadn't gone by on Naboo while they were gone.
But we clearly hear Han give an ETA to Alderaan, as well as brag about making a run that normally travels 12 parsecs in less distance, which Lucas confirms.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Simply saying "Lucas is wrong" doesn't cut it, because again, the EU has a valid explanation that you cannot disregard, as there is nothing that contradicts it. Only one interpretation of the line which the EU says is the wrong interpretation. and the EU > your misconception.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion We are both wrong. I had a REAL Star Wars junkie explain it to me. Hyperspace is much like the hyperspace in Babylon 5. The go into another dimension and cut a corner, so to speak, to reach their destination. So there's no real speed to base the travel on, it's how many jumps and the proportional distance to travel. That, however, means the ships themselves don't generate enough energy to go FTL, which makes them less powerful, in terms of output, than star trek vessels.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture There are multiple explanations for how Hyperspace in Star Wars works, the Babylon 5 analogy is one of many, but the power output figures for Star Wars ships are vastly beyond that of Trek vessels.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion No they're not. I have plenty of friends who are star wars nerds. They attend the conventions and everything. Even they admit the output of a warp core, if you were to convert it to star wars measurements, beats out the output of a hypermatter core by a factor of ten.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@Perion Let's see, hull strength, aside from the hull not being able to withstand one shot, either fired from the ship or impacting the ship, is still incredibly weak. In star trek, a freighter took a hit from an asteroid and was disabled, with the crew able to abandon ship. In star wars, a freaking STAR DESTROYER had its bridge section blown clear off by an asteroid. And science today shows most asteroids are made out of common metals, no super hard metals like in sci fi programs.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Again you ignore the USS Jenolan vs Dyson Sphere, as well as Enterprise-D Saucer vs dirt and tress (USS Jenolan 1 Enterprise-D Saucer 0) sorry but those instances alone show that the Star Destroyer getting hit by the asteroid is in no way contradictory to it having Carbon Neutronium, any more than the Jenolan is contradictory to the Dyson Sphere. Also I'd like you to cite the source of this freighter scene so that it may be given more objective analysis.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Episode of TNG named "Angel One". As for the asteroid, it would have likely broken up in a planet's atmosphere. The damage done to the saucer section during Generations was caused first by the engineering section of the ship being destroyed, followed by it crash landing into a planet. You'll notice the hull wasn't damaged, just the insides were torn apart by the shock of the impact. Not like the star destroyer who had its entire bridge tower taken off by a rock.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture And yet the Saucer section could not be salvaged, and we saw just how bad it was all over the place, it was also a sliding impact at a very low angle, rather than a direct hit. The only clear damage it took when hit by the shockwave was going off course. again the asteroid vs star destroyer argument is old hat, and has been debunked a long time ago.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion The Enterprise D wasn't really taken back up and repaired because half the ship was destroyed, all the equipment was destroyed by shock damage, and there was still the damage the saucer sustained from fighting the Klingons. Even with that, however, a large portion of the Enterprise E was made from the scrap of the Enterprise D. Again, another stunning example of how you didn't do your research.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture there was no damage to the saucer sustained from fighting the klingons, not one hit from the Bird of Prey landed on the saucer, sorry. Also prove that any of the Enterprise E was made from scrap of the D, where do they say that in First Contact, Insurrection or Nemesis?
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Shock damage. During the fight systems were blowing out on the bridge. As for parts of D being in E, it is described in the book "Ship of the Line". And before you say that it's not cannon, it IS cannon. Or shall we throw out all your books as well for being non-cannon?
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@Perion Based off of that, a shot fired from a railgun could penetrate a star destroyer's hull. How would it stand up to a shot from one of your turbolasers? How could it withstand even a nuclear blast, much less the much more potent weapons in Star Trek? Next we reach your tactics. Imperial Star Destroyers are a very vulnerable class of ship. Put a shot in the hangar bay, which is wide open during combat, and the ship is gutted.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture For one, Heat and Kinetic energy are two completely different things, and we're not talking about simple hull strength, since you seem to ignore the existence of the shields. We see Jem'Hadar bug fighters ramming into ships, sometimes fully shielded and taking them out, at quite low speeds relatively speaking. A Railgun would make swiss cheese out of Federation ships, It's affect on the shields of an ISD, not so much.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Railguns would have no effect at all on a Federation ship, or its shields, for two reasons. One, the deflector dish alone has enough energy to deflect away a railgun shot, since we have seen time and time again that a deflector dish all the various things in space from swiss cheesing the ship while it's at warp. Second, the newer federation ships have ablative armor that dissipates shock and heat. Not only does that negate railguns, it also negates your turbolasers.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Sorry the Deflector dish is only capable of deflecting kilojoule to low gigajoule impacts, not Terajoule level or above, same with the ablative armor, since otherwise Ramming attacks wouldn't work, which they clearly do as recently as nemesis, which is the last piece of canon trek to take place in the 24th century.
Ablative armour won't negate 8,000 photon torpedoes, it won't negate a single Turbolaser shot.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion One, a turbolaser shot is not worth 8,000 torpedoes. It's not even worth one. Two, the best railgun we have in existence fires at megajoules. More than enough energy to pierce a star destroyer's hull, yet not enough to go thru star trek shielding.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture You still don't get it, you think you're right, I know you're wrong, I'm not debating this with you anymore, honestly you can't even seem to realize that much.
Come by to Stardestroyer(dot)net if you want to continue trying to prove your misconceptions, they'll be happy to set you straight if you are willing to actually change your views.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Next are the strength of your missiles. From reading in books, we see that proton torpedoes consistantly do the same amount of damage as a 2000 pound bomb. Rogue squadron strafing runs destroy buildings, not cities, in the books. Next are your reactor cores. When the death star went up, the explosion was relatively minor. Its destruction did nothing to Endor, which was right below it, even tho the reactor core was targeted and breached.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Sorry but you are using low tier canon to argue against higher tier canon, the ICS wins out over the Rogue Squadron books. As for the Death Star's destruction that has also been explained quite sufficiently if you do the research. Also even nuclear reactors don't go up like nuclear bombs, there's no reason to assume Hypermatter reactors do too.
We also know from the books that Y-Wing runs can flatten mountain ranges.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion So can runs by shuttlecraft. A simple 54 isoton gravimetric charge, which can be dropped by a ship, or a shuttle, can destroy a small planet. An enriched ultritium bomb with a 90 isoton yield can destroy an 800 kilometer area, and was used in the dominion war. Star Wars weaposn are a joke.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@Perion In Star Trek, the Borg were going to modify a torpedo on Voyager to have an explosive force that would have effected the entire solar system, and whose shock wave would have been felt 5 light years from the detonation point. I'm not even going into Genesis torpedoes, or the fact that some ships can fire their full weapons compliment while cloaked. Do I need to go on tearing down your misconceptions and keep comparing star wars to star trek? Star Wars is NOTHING next to Star Trek.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture And yet the blast would have no direct affect on the worlds within that radius, only the threat of nanoprobe infection (Janeway didn't say it would kill innocent lives, only put them at risk/endanger them, so it clearly does not do any appreciable damage) Not to mention the fact that the bomb spreads the nanoprobes rather than destroys them, which considering they are nanites, means the actual force of the blast is small at any given range, it just has a long duration/radius.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Yes, and the shockwave from exploding star wars weapons, even those designed to cause a lot of damage, don't have anywhere near the same radius. Then there's the sun crusher. It uses the exact same kind of system as was used in Generations to destroy a star. Only thing is, in Star Wars, it's called a torpedo. In Star Trek, it was a modified PROBE.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture That's because in Star Wars it was purpose built and the sun crusher has other nifty features, like armour that makes neutronium look like tin foil.
In the Films we never see them use their Turbolaser weaponry on the ISDs in atmosphere against unshielded, unarmoured targets, which can absorb a tremendous deal of that energy. Certainly not to the extents of a Base Delta Zero. However the vapourizing of the asteroid in ESB requires megatons of energy.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture The Genesis device was a one shot wonder, and not even all that wonderous, all the files and scientists who made it are long since dead, all that remains is the promotional video and historical files regarding the events surrounding it. Not only that, but the Device only affects matter, no evidence that it would have any affect on shielding whatsoever. Cloaking Devices can easily be detected, as many sensors used in Star Wars are tachyon based, (continued)
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture As well as the fact that even phase and thalaron cloaked ships have mass and affect gravity (and are affected by it) Only one ship was able to fire both torpedoes and particle weapons, and even then it never fired them all at once (given worf's list of the mounts on the vessel, either it can't focus it's fire anywhere near efficiently or they are very limited in utility while cloaked.) and It was, again destroyed with no evidence that one would be made any time soon.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture You haven't torn down a single one of my points, you only hold on to your own misconceptions which I have proven wrong consistently. Focusing on only the most superficial factors that I have given you, ignoring the rest (such as Ignoring the valid reasons why Isoton yields are useless). You can go on and on as much as you want, so far the only things you have said that I haven't already heard before, have been absurd, irrelevant and based on false premises.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Your points are torn. All you're doing is ignoring truths and trying to turn things around, very badly. The sad part is the fact that you are failing to realize that and still trying to prop up the weak points of star wars instead of moving on to the very few good points that would make a fight between Star Wars and Star Trek a stalemate. Such as the fact that Star Wars has an entire galaxy of resources to throw into production. Or that it has more people. Or...((continued))
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Weak points? sorry, but you are the one who is missing the point of any of this, misunderstanding the reasons for my not acknowledging the Isoton figures and other such nonsense, as well as thinking that the 0.5 past lightspeed must ONLY mean 1.5c while there is canon evidence that it does not. All my explanations are backed up by the EU, most nearly quoted directly, yours are either misconceptions, fabrications, idle speculation, or non-canon sources and inadmissible by default
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Or that after the rebellion was finished, the Empire destroyed, there would have been no reason for the Federation in Star Trek to fight anyone in Star Wars. Or that neither side could reach each other. Or that small operations are key in BOTH universes and would be the major part of the war. In that score they are both equal. Star Trek packs a heavier punch, Star Wars has more experienced people for ground operations. Nope, you ignored all those and embarked on a losing argument.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture considering the Empire was not destroyed after Endor, or even 100 years afterwards, as for reaching each other, that's what a wormhole is for. No need for small operations when 150 acclamators are more than sufficient.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture You continue refusing to listen to reason, and your further attempts have been underwhelming at best, and to be frank, downright boring. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing that shows any sign you are starting to understand, correct your mistakes, and concede. Certainly nothing that disproves any of what I've said. For these reasons I see no further point in continuing this debate. Good by, good luck, Live long and prosper, May the Force be with you and god bless.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture It's clear that you have convinced yourself so thoroughly of your misconceptions that you are unwilling to listen to reason, even going so far as to come up with nonsensical speculation and try to pass it off as definitive proof and convincing yourself that you are actually "winning" this debate. When all is said and done the real Trek vs Wars debate ended a decade ago, pretty well all your arguments were brought up then, and shot down, and no new ones have made any difference.
Perion 8 months ago
The only thing that remains those who are relatively new and have listened to those who refuse to admit defeat (such as the people who invented the 690 gigaton figure, from a misreading of a non-canon book I might add) or are those people.
And those like myself who are also relatively new (about 5 years give or take) Who educate those who have not yet gone so far as to be beyond reason.
Perion 8 months ago
Comment removed
Perion 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RedneckRapture And again, there's the fact that Data refuses to take the Enterprise D into an asteroid field that was downright tame compared to the one in Empire Strikes Back, due to the field being too dense and violent for them to handle even with their shields at maximum and they would only be chasing a torpedo or two, which performed poorly when hitting the asteroids they were testing them on.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Then you go and try to discredit a unit of measure used as the basis for all measurements in a show when you can't even get your own figures right. And you have the nerve to stand there and tell ME that I'm deluded? Look in the mirror.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture The figures I state are backed up by the canon, and use real world units of measure that actually say something, the Isoton yields you state may be canon, but say absolutely nothing since Isotons are poorly defined at best.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion I'm done with this argument. You are so thick headed you make no attempt to argue numbers. Instead you make up numbers and try to throw out established numbers. Your ego is involved in this argument since it was proven that star trek beats star wars, and so now you won't admit anything that is outside your idea of how things should be. We are both looking like idiots here, you for BEING an idiot, and me for arguing with you. So I'm done.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Well at least now you at least partially get it, but you still manage to make some misconceptions to finish with, along with quite a few others along the way.
Oh well.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion I knew you were a part of that mistaken web site. I could tell by how biased you were. Good luck with your imaginary world. Those of us with brains know better than to rely on any information there.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@Perion NERD!!!! You basically pick and chose random bits of info just so you could make star wrs sound better than star trek? Dear gods, you are, what I would call, A twat!! Here's a thought: dop some research on actual facts before trying to come up with some crappy, non-winning arguement
InflatableKMH 8 months ago
@Perion I have been asked to post this: Star Trek's torpedoes do beat out Star Wars turbolasers. I got this by doing a simple equation based off canon figures. The premixed torpedo warhead in a photon torpedo is designed to get the same destructive force as an antimatter pod rupturing. They contain 100 cubic meters of liquid antideuterium. Its density is 160kg per cubic meter. That gave TNG torpedoes a force of 690 gigajoules. Torpedoes have since been upgraded and do 25 isotons (932.25 gj) Cont
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture I will not continue this fruitless debate anymore than to point out that you are ignoring two inescapable points that completely demolish that theory, A) the Tech manual is non-canon, B) The tech manual simply states (repeatedly) in the entry for torpedoes that they simply release their energy faster, not that they release more "more energy per unit time" note that "unit time" part.
not to mention there is no official Isoton to SI unit conversion, so that is moot.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Quantum torpedoes deal 50 isotons. That's 1.864 terajoules.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture I will accept your 1.864 terajoule and 690 gigajoule figure, since even slave one carried 8 terajoules per shot, your concession is accepted.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Yeah, sorry, but no. I put that post up because i had a friend go through all the trouble to do research. It is cannon Star Trek that lasers, even high powered ones, don't penetrate the navigational shields of a starship. Add to that the fact that in star wars communities your site is considered way out there, and you get someone who is just deluded enough not to argue with.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture And yet, we see in the very next episode after the "Lasers don't penetrate nav shields" Picard refuses to "Endanger this ship under any circumstances" when they detect laser weapons fire. Not to mention the fact that while the weapons in Star Wars are called lasers, they clearly have different characteristics from that of a l.a.s.e.r. your friend clearly didn't research it properly. Starfleet jedi is even more out there than SDN. That is all I will say on the matter.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion I do not CARE about starfleet jedi. There are radicals on both sides of the aisle in everything. You are a star wars radical. You blatantly make up numbers to support your side and try to tear down actual numbers that support the other. I'm guessing starfleet jedi does the same, just for star trek. Personally I'd like to lock you two in a room together and see who's alive after an hour. I'd even sell tickets to people who want to watch and share the profits with the winner.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture ppl, ppl, can't we all get along?
hulkmeister23 7 months ago
@hulkmeister23 FUCK NO!!
imsokewl27 6 months ago
@imsokewl27 so a crossover between franchises is out of the question, then?
hulkmeister23 6 months ago
@RedneckRapture Also Trek ships are much smaller than ISDs, and are made out of weaker materials (Tritanium and Duranium rather than Neutronium) so they mass much, much less. The few ships that ARE of similar size to an ISD (such as the dominion battleship) display similar maneuverability if not less. We've seen them try to shoot at satellites and fighters, they miss horribly while the satellite just drifts slowly and they're at point blank range, even with a target lock.
Perion 8 months ago
Two words sum this up: Bull Shit.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Your right there's no way Picard's shuttle would have survived to get back to the Enterprise, Also the sillyness of their shots causing any damage to the Star Destroyer at all, much less somehow getting through their shields and blowing up a sensor globe.
And The Star Destroyer only using Point Defense guns followed by them even bothering to use the Death Star? Only to dial it down so far it doesn't instantly vapourize the enterprise even after 2 hits?
Guess palpy was bored.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion I meant that their weapons had any effect at all on the Enterprise's shields. According to your star wars movies, the amount of destruction delivered by a turbolaser is roundabouts equal to a shot from a 155mm howitzer firing a high explosive shell. A Galaxy class can shrug off multiple nuclear blasts as if they were nothing.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture We never see Turbolasers firing on anything other than Asteroids and other ships in the films. The light point defense guns (which probably aren't even turbolasers) are seen vapourizing 40m asteroids in 1/15th of a second, requiring the force of 6 megatons to acomplish (Making them at least as powerful as a System 5 Planetary Disruptor per shot )
It depends on the yield of the nuclear blast, also nukes lose a considerable level of effectiveness in space.
Perion 8 months ago
The Effect of the Turbolasers on other ships cannot be gauged easily due to the fact that they are shielded and made of increadibly powerful materials. Indeed "Durasteel" is similar to the material that the Dyson Sphere is made out of (a carbon neutronium alloy) but adds numerous new materials the Federation have never even heard of into the mix.
The highest canon sources of Turbolaser firepower that does not contradict the films are the ICS books, which puts even mediums into the gigatons
Perion 8 months ago
By contrast, a Photon torpedo is, at best 24 megatons (even that is being generous) while the Turbolasers from an acclamator, which was never designed for heavy ship to ship combat, carries 200,000 megatons per shot, making it more than 8,000 times more powerful. On top of that this is in a concentrated bolt, rather than a disperse blast, so the amount of energy vs surface area on shields or armour is much, much higher. ISDs are 300x more powerful than Acclamators.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion And I call bullshit on that too. One, a super star destroyer in a cannon book bombarded a planet and each impact had the force of an artillery shell. That's what i'm basing it off of, while a federation phaser, fired at a planet's surface from the same position in orbit, actually bores through the crust of the planet. Sorry kid, star wars ships are inferior.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture the EU is vast and full of contradictions, another source has 3 Star Destroyers blowing the atmosphere clear off a planet and reducing the surface to molten slag in under an hour. Also the story novels/books are at a much lower order of canon than say the tech based ones like the ICS which is a movie tie/in. There are also mentions in the ROTJ novelization (which overrides whatever book it was you are citing) that single Turbolaser shots can vapourize cities.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture And the Enterprise has never bored down through the crust of a planet with it's phasers, the furthest down we saw them go was maybe a few km, judging from that shaft Data was standing under when he and his mother went down there. Visuals trump Dialogue (and diagrams)
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Bullshit flag. If their Star Destroyers could do that, the Empire WOULDN'T NEED THE DEATH STAR. Aside from that, shields on an ISD couldn't stop a Federation ship from beaming out stuff like power cores, or beaming in a torpedo onto the bridge. The Empire couldn't handle the Federation. What would the Empire do if it faced invasion by the bad guy in Star Trek, the Borg, with MILLIONS of cubes who consider their technology irrelevant and just wipe them out?
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Shields stop transporters, plain and simple, not to mention the advanced ECM and Neutronium hulls on an ISD would make far too much interference for them to do so. Planetary shielding is powerful enough to repell the firepower of an entire fleet of ISDs, and even hold back the Death Star's blast for 1/10th of a second. They need the Death Star to get through said shields and reduce the planet to an asteroid field, rather than simply Base Delta Zero it.
Also, The Borg are a joke.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture The Empire could handle the Federation with their eyes closed, Send in 150 Acclamators, 1 to each major planet in the Federation simultaniously, they would blow through their defenses (or more likely just hyper directly into orbit and blast their defenses apart from behind,) Land the ship (more than twice the size of the largest federation vessel capable of landing, and many, many times the mass) And land 16,000 heavily armed and armoured troops along with hundreds of vehicles.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture The Federation would surrender within minutes from such a shocking and devastating lightning campaign, considering the fact that a mere 2,000 light infantry from romulas were expected to get "dug in" and become a "fact of life" on one of the Federation founding Members is telling of the kind of ground forces the Federation and it's allies/enemies are used to. The ground tactics displayed during the Dominion War were positively napoleonic, and no use of combined arms whatsoever.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture There are not "Millions of Cubes" the only time someone even suggests such a number is Chakotay using Hyperbole. By extrapolating the casualties taken by the Borg during their war with the Undine they give us the overall number of how many Cubes the Borg have, and it's nowhere near even half a million.
Doesn't help that the Borg over-rely on their adaptation abilities, if and when they face off against a race they cannot adapt to, they lose hard.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Federation phasers are just as lethal as torpedoes and tactics in Star Trek rely on their use for disabling shields for torpedo shots. Their directed energy is more lethal than the pulses of energy at overloading shields, and can even damage systems while shields are up. Shielding in Star Trek is FAR beyond anything in Star Wars, an Intrepid class long range science vessel can take several torpedo shots, and that ship isn't a combat class.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture We have seen both Phasers and Photon Torpedoes used on a regular basis, in fact, some battles are fought exclusively with torpedoes. The Idea that Torpedoes are only used after the shields are down is something that has only come up very recently, after the shows were gone (first known use of that was Star Trek Legacy, that's it.)
Ships take damage when their shields are up in Trek because their shields aren't up all the time, they flicker on and off at a set frequency.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion If your Star Destroyers went up against a Sovereign class Battleship, not only would they be facing photon torpedoes and phasers, they would also phase quantum torpedoes, whose distructive power comes from actually undoing the molecules of the target they impact. And yes, there are millions of Borg cubes in the Delta Quadrant. That's why the entirety of the Alpha Quadrant is afraid of a Borg invasion. (continued)
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture There ie zero evidence that Quantum Torpedoes opperate in such a manner, not only is this never described on screen, but even the DS9 tech manual states that the energy comes from zero point release. Again there are not Millions of Borg Cubes, the only remote evidence to that was Hyperbole by Chakotay in "Scorpion Part 1" which actuall calcuations based on known Borg casualties and the projections of the Borg to their eventual defeat gives us their actual fleet strength.
Perion 8 months ago
Federation ground tactics have a lot more tactics to them than you've seen, since Star Trek doesn't go into detail about ground fighting. There are drones used for mobile fire, site to site transportations used to move large amounts of troops in and out of combat zones, heavily armored vehicles armed with higher yield phaser cannons, and the ability to target precision strikes from orbit. There is also the fact that our Red Shirts die a lot less frequently than your stormtroopers.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture the fact that Trek doesn't go into detail about ground fighting doesn't give you the right to make things up. We have never seen Drones used for "mobile fire" aside from the ones used by Hugh.
We have never seen a single instance of any combat vehciles in Trek, not even in the background, their very existance has no support in canon. Site to site transporters can be blocked easily, by anything from certain types of ore to active ECM. Relying on starships from orbit is folly.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion If you had done any research, you know ECM is all but useless in star trek, since sensors can easily pierce jamming and torpedoes have onboard ECCM. Ships engage accurately from hundreds of miles apart, and are able to target subsystems on ships. They can easily target a relatively slow moving spot on a planet's surface.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture If ECM was "all but useless" then they wouldn't have so much trouble with Nebulae, interference from ore or a ship hiding on the far side of a celestial body (or even in a lagrange point) You over-estimate the strength of Trek ECCM.
Star Destroyers are known to be capable of hitting target vessels from a range of up to 10 light minutes, (that's over 100 million miles.) Vader planned on hitting Echo base with a precise, clean bombardment from the outskirts of the Hoth system.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Stormtroopers see far more active combat than Red shirts, at far higher intensities so it only makes sense that more of them would die on a more regular basis. You are incorrect about your assumptions and assesments. We never see any of the following in Trek ground combat, nor is it ever even mentioned.
Vehicles beyond the "Hopper" troop transports, the Federation's answer to the UH1 Huey, but which requires infantry support rather than providing the opposite.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Unless you are talking about the Drones from Inssurection with the transporter tags, which are very unimpressive. We never see any heavy weapons beyond the "Worfzooka" which carries a less impressive blast than a standard E-11 or DL-44, no sustained fire support weapons, and the "wide beam" of phasers is never used except to stun, even when a light kill setting would prove usefull. This is actually consistent with the theory that wide beam CANNOT kill, since it disperses the beam
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture The only times Wide Beam on kill is suggested to cause any widespread destruction it is used for intimidation with those unfamiliar with a Phaser's capabilities, often by those such as Kirk and Riker, who are well known for their bluffs and misinformation.
IE the Wide-Beam-blow-up-a-building capability is under the same category as the Corbomite Device, the Crimson Shield and the Photonic Cannon.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture The only ground vehicle we have ever seen is, well... Picard wrote a poem, it goes DUNE BUGGIES! WOOHOO!
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Hand phasers have enough force to destroy several hundred cubic meters of solid rock with a single shot, stormtroopers don't stand a chance. The Isoton was made for star trek as a more efficient means than saying 'several hundred gigatons.' For example, a standard torpedo on Voyager delivers a 25 isoton yield. The is equivalent to 690 gigatons of explosive energy. More than your star destoyers can put out. Their high yield warheads deal in the 200 isoton range. (continued)
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture We have never seen Hand Phasers do anything even remotely like that, the only mention of that is in the TNG Tech Manual and is contradicted on screen in TNG: Chain of Command part 1 Where It took worf 3 solid seconds to disentegrate a few dozen cubic inches of granite on Setting 16 (Max Setting for a Type 2 Hand Phaser).
Isoton was made for Star Trek so they wouldn't have to bother making a real yield and just throw out random numbers.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture The 690 gigaton nonsense is based on willfully misreading this line from the TNG Tech Manual "While the maximum payload of antimatter in a standard photon torpedo is only about 1.5 kilograms, The released energy per unit time is actually greater than that calculated for a Galaxy class antimatter pod rupture." pg 129
Note the use of "per unit time" in this quote, All this line is saying is that a Photon torpedo releases it's energy faster than an antimatter storage pod does.
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Those who propose the absurd 690gt figure blithely ignore the "per unit time" part of the sentance, as well as the 1.5 kilogram maximum payload. which precludes anything greater than 64 Megatons. I should also point out that the 690gt pt nonsense only cropped up long AFTER the ICS books published the 200 gigaton figure. No-one in the Star Wars debating comunity had even heard of it until 2009, thanks to myself actually who brought it to their attention and debunked it easily.
Perion 8 months ago
Federation shielding has come a long way since the first disastrous battle with the Borg. Covariant shielding can take everything an Intrepid class ship can dish out and barely even feel it. Regenerative shielding, the kind of shielding on a Federation assault ship such as the Prometheus class, is in essence two shield systems that regenerate VERY fast, in 45 seconds from zero to full, that rotate when one is depleted. Your best weapons destroy planets, our best weapons destroy star systems
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture The Death Star was far from the best weapon in the Imperial Arsenal, there were several others that, ironically one of which COULD destroy entire star systems, and THAT wasn't even it's only feat, but it's Quantum-crystalline Armour, which made Neutronium look like Tin foil.
Also the Federation has never shown the ability to destroy stars systems, There was never any hint that they knew how to make Trilithium weapons, or that what happened in "half a life" applied to other stars
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion So sorry kid. Star Wars technology is best comparable to World War 2. While Star Trek technology is best comparable to modern day American military. Star Wars would epicly fail in a fight against Star Trek.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture I'm not here to insult you, simply to point out your mistakes, you have clearly bought into the stories of the wrong people. A more accurate comparison would be Star Wars as modern day america, with Star Trek as ancient egypt (proportionately speaking).
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Sorry guy. Considering one high yield photon torpedo could disable the death star, you're just fighting a losing battle here.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
Comment removed
Perion 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Name one time where we've seen a photon torpedo make a 90 degree turn in under 1 meter. We've seen the superior guidance system of Star Wars ordnance multiple times (Episode 2 we see Concussion Missiles deftly navigate an asteroid field better than Dax did in "Changes of Heart" . Episode 3 we see missiles come back around after being evaded by two pilots who can see the future, and of course we see in Episode 4 the aformentioned 90 degree turn in under 1 meter)
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Ok, one, you have some required reading in the form of the ds9 manual, which says 25 isoton max yield of a regular torpedo. Keep in mind DS9 tech is a few years older than tng tech, so the technology is still improving. Two, a direct impact on the main gun of the death star by a single torpedo will disable the weapon. Three, a high yield torpedo, with 200 isotons of energy upon detonation, will disable the station by ripping out most of it. A tricobalt torpedo would completely destroy it
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture One, The manuals are non-canon, and again Isotons are a meaningless units of measurement.
DS9 Tech is actually newer than TNG tech since it involves stuff during the Dominion War but honestly it doesn't matter since the Tech Manual is non-canon and the Isoton figure is meaningless.
But even a 800 Teraton blast wouldn't do much damage to the Death Star, it' designed to withstand far more and respond in kind.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Well, since you're disregardnig the unit of measure used in star trek because it's beating down your arguments, I guess that means that I win and you lose, since you can't defeat the arguments I put forward based off specs from the star trek universe. And it's not the blast that would have destroyed the death star, it would be the subsequent tear in subspace that would rip the station apart.
Oh, btw, the stats for torpedo yield are FROM star trek episodes, so those figures ARE cannon.
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture I'm disregarding it because it doesn't mean anything, there is no real life unit of measurement as "Isotons" actually no, that's not true, there IS a unit of measurement that is technically called Iso ton. where one iso ton is equal to one ton of tnt. (The prefix iso means, "same as")
Tricobalt torpedoes are also impossible to quantify, as cochranes are just as meaningless as isotons. The figures on the show are canon, but unless they use real world units, they are meaningless.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion Ah, so you're saying when humanity gets to the future and needs a better way to measure energy, we won't be allowed to use a new term for it? You're even more foolish than I thought. Isotons count, and since 25 isotons beats out your turbolasers. Funny thing is, they aren't the most powerful weapon star trek has. Later on, all federation ships are equipped with transphasic torpedoes. Those would render shields useless. Then there's federation timeships. Need I continue? You're outclassed
RedneckRapture 8 months ago
@RedneckRapture Sorry but you're presuming far too much. How does 25 isotons beat out 200,000 gigatons? you don't even know what an Isoton is, no one does. Because it has no known meaning, there is no way to compare it to real world units of measurement, I doubt even the writers know how much energy is in 1 isoton using SI units.
For that reason the Isoton units are inadmissible since there is no way to compare them without a proper, official Isoton to Megaton conversion and vice versa.
Perion 8 months ago
@Perion sorry 200,000 megatons though Star Destroyers are known to be capable of dishing out 800 Teratons per second.
Perion 8 months ago