ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

enterprise-e vs empiral star destroyer

legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 19 2011, 12:53 pm

Glad to be aboard. Perhaps someone can explain to me why there are those in the Wars side of the debate that consistently thow out numbers without any official backing from a truly official source, and yes I'm considering Curtis Saxton's ICS books.  Again, how is this debate over whether those numbers stated there are official.  It's over because Warsies say it's over?  Non-sense, and I'll tell you why it's BS.  look at my first post and carefully read it.  I just love it how Warsies bring up the ICS ad nauseum, yet fail to even think of mentioning the Star Wars The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, Revised Edition.  It's astounding.  I haven't seen a single versus debate that has even brought up this book.  You know why it's not brought up?  Because, if it was this wouldn't be a debate it would be a curb stomp, mud-hole stomp that's why.  Read the damn book! 

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jul. 19 2011, 5:32 pm

Quote: legacymillenium @ Jun. 30 2011, 5:34 pm

>

>I’m so tired of hearing that a turbolaser has gigatons of firepower. Does anyone even know what canon is? Pick up the most recent edition of Star Wars The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, Revised Edition, released from Lucas Books, which is an official book authorized by George Lucas.   And the ATOC ICS is the same thing what is your point?

First off, the book states that a Turbolaser fires laser energy. This is pretty clear that laser energy means electromagnetic based energy, and not some ultra powerful particle based weapon as suggested by a 200 gigaton yield per shot. That means that a single shot from a Turbolaser has the equivalent yield of 4000 times the Tsar bomba. The amount of damage done to a planet’s surface from a single shot would destroy a small state if not more.   Actually they can't be firing laser energy given that we can see the shots as bolts which lasers can't do,  hell the fact we can see it means it can't be a laser.  Also what is your point about the damage?

Second, the maximum range of a Turbolaser is 100 Km. Star Trek phasers have a maximum effective range of roughly 300,000 Km.  Given that the Revenge of the Sith ICS gives the venterator destoryer a max range of 10 light minutes I need you to give your source?  Second please give a source for your 300,000 km range for phasers seeing as every space battle takes place at less than 10 miles apart?

Third, the amount of fuel utilized by the fusion process to yield 200 gigatons is ridiculously huge. None of this sounds realistic at all. Just watching the battle sequence over the capital didn’t show yield of this level. How do you know we don't, we see ships shooting others ships made out of materials with unknown properties.

Finally, there is no mention of it having a yield of 200 Gigatons. The manual doesn’t state the power output of a Turbolaser just the range and the typr of energy. This information is canon, again coming from the Star Wars The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, Revised Edition. Anything contradicting this SHOUlD NOT BE CONSIDERED CANON.  The ATOC ICS is also canon based on the movies making it a higher level of canon than the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology. 

A type 10 phaser on a Galaxy Class ship is rated at a maximum output power of 50,000 Terrawatts. To be clear it’s a particle beam weapon made of particles called nadions. A turbolaser as stated earlier utilizes, and I quote “laser energy”. The tech manual for SW also states there is a difference between laser enrgy and blaster energy which is consistent to what’s seen on the screen. I am going to have to pull up my copy of essential guide to weapons and tech to make sure but all other information I have on Turbolasers makes them particle weapons too.

This whole 200 Gigaton business is coming from one description by the author of one of the Star Wars books, which by the way is not T-canon at all, and that description does not have any numbers associated with it. It’s just the author’s way of describing the scene. To be completely fair and unbiased we can’t compare a creative decription
from a novel to actual technical numbers stated in the official Star Trek technical manual. It’s comparing apples to oranges. Both have to be on par with the same format. If you are going to compare descriptions of books then compare descriptions of 2 books. If you are going to compare numbers then compare numbers, but don’t start mixing and matching cause all it does is lead to conjecture. It’s like going to court with one side having hearsay and the other having DNA and other measured evidence, the former would get trounced in the court room.  Seeing as the numbers in Star Trek tech manuals are not canon at all the numbers in the ICS have a lot more weight than numbers from trek tech manuals.

>Oh and by the way I mentioned fusion power. I put that in here because such sites and wookiepedia and others have stated that Imperial ships use powerful fusion reactors to power there ships up. I’m not sure what Lucas and any CANON and I repeat, CANON material suggests about the power source or sources used in SW, but fusion power does not make any sense. To do what is suggested by the weapons, shields, and hyperdrives in the SW universe, fusion power WOULD NOT CUT IT. ST primarily uses Antimatter power to power up ships, which is has atleast 1000 times more output per unit of matter compared to the fusion process. In other words, as an example, slamming two deuterium atoms together is for fusion is 1/1000 the power of slamming a deuterium and anti-deuterium together. You ignore the fact that the most common fuel being hypermatter. 

>


Beccs_

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 41931

Report this Jul. 19 2011, 6:13 pm

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jul. 19 2011, 6:49 pm

Second please give a source for your 300,000 km range for phasers seeing as every space battle takes place at less than 10 miles apart?


That would be the photon torpedoes, actually. That information comes from the TNG episode "The Wounded."


DATA: Sir, the Cardassian warship is moving on the Phoenix.
PICARD: Mister Data, overlay weapon ranges of the two ships.
DATA: The warship is three hundred thousand kilometres from the Phoenix. It is opening fire. The Phoenix has taken a direct hit. The Phoenix is beginning evasive manoeuvres. It has positioned itself outside the weapons range of the opposing ship. The Phoenix has powered up both phasers and photon torpedoes. The Phoenix is firing photon torpedoes.
(and one of the lights on the screen goes out)
MACET: He has destroyed our warship.


Actually, this indicates that Federation torpedoes have effective ranges in excess of 300,000 km.



How do you know we don't, we see ships shooting others ships made out of materials with unknown properties.


By that logic, you do you know they do? If the materials have unknown properties, then you can't say for sure one way or another.


The ATOC ICS is also canon based on the movies making it a higher level of canon than the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology. 


The AOTC ICS was released before the movie, and Saxon wrote it before the movie's visuals were even completed, so anything it says must be taken with a grain of salt.


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jul. 19 2011, 7:52 pm

Quote: Invader_Wishfire @ Jul. 19 2011, 6:49 pm

>

>Second please give a source for your 300,000 km range for phasers seeing as every space battle takes place at less than 10 miles apart?

>That would be the photon torpedoes, actually. That information comes from the TNG episode "The Wounded."

>DATA: Sir, the Cardassian warship is moving on the Phoenix.
PICARD: Mister Data, overlay weapon ranges of the two ships.
DATA: The warship is three hundred thousand kilometres from the Phoenix. It is opening fire. The Phoenix has taken a direct hit. The Phoenix is beginning evasive manoeuvres. It has positioned itself outside the weapons range of the opposing ship. The Phoenix has powered up both phasers and photon torpedoes. The Phoenix is firing photon torpedoes.
(and one of the lights on the screen goes out)
MACET: He has destroyed our warship.

>Actually, this indicates that Federation torpedoes have effective ranges in excess of 300,000 km.  And yet we never see them fire at another ship at that range.

>
How do you know we don't, we see ships shooting others ships made out of materials with unknown properties.

>By that logic, you do you know they do? If the materials have unknown properties, then you can't say for sure one way or another.  I don't know that we due since we can't make any assumptions which is why I uses the various asteroid destoying scenes to make weapon out put estimations.  Also by scaling down the power of the death star super laser we get an output that far exceeds 200 gigatons.

>The ATOC ICS is also canon based on the movies making it a higher level of canon than the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology. 

>The AOTC ICS was released before the movie, and Saxon wrote it before the movie's visuals were even completed, so anything it says must be taken with a grain of salt.  It is still based on the movie where as the Essential guide is based mostly on c-canon material.

>


chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jul. 19 2011, 7:53 pm


Beccs we all know that even if you did participate in this debate you would still have sex


legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 9:08 am


chr33355, you're still quoting material from sources that are still not true canon.  I mean how is the essential guide c-canon?  It's released by Lucas Books.  How is Saxton's material take precedence over material released and approved by Lucas?  If Saxton's states the range of a weapon is hundreds of thousands of Km and the Essential Guide officially released by Lucas Books states 100 Km, we're supposed to take Saxton's word over Lucas Books?  Let's be real about this cause, this whole discussion, as usually witnessed from other discussions on this topic, is going to degenerate into a bunch of conjecture.  I'm actually taking the conjecture out of it by using officially released material.


As far as Trek Tech manual not being canon, you're flat wrong on this.  All Trek manuals are officially approved products by Paramount.  They have the Paramount logo on the back.  I had a chance to talk to Michael Okuda, who was the head of the technical end of all the Trek shows, at a convention several years back, and he stated that the Tech manuals are officially approved material.  So yes they are canon, by that very definition.


Trek weapons do have ranges in the thousands of Km as officially stated in the tech manuals.  Watch the Voyager episode "Manuevers" in season 2.  The Kazon attack Voyager to steal a transporter module.  When they first fire on Voyager you see the beam from the energy weapon but you don't see the ship, because the ship is clearly out of visual range.


Trek firepower can clearly be seen in the DS9 episode "The Die is Cast".  The small fleet of 25 ships opens fire on the planet's surface and you can clearly see the effect the weapons as they show the weapons fire strike the planet's surface.  The Romulan bridge officer clearly states "30% of the planetary crust destroyed in the opening volley."


If we are to be fair which from the looks of this discussion seems so much out of the realm of possibility as this point, again if we are to be fair and scientifically methodical, let's compare apples to apples.  A description from a write in one novel which doesn't state numbers, and which is not considered true 100% canon, does not take precedence from official numbers released by Lucas, or official numbers released from Paramount.  Descriptions are subjective, while numbers are pretty much set in stone.  I'm not going to choose one over the other simply because it makes my argument seem better.  I'm going to do what most people DON’T DO here, and I'm going to be real about it.  If you want to compare descriptions from books, to the descriptions from other books, then that's fine.  If you want to compare numbers from books, with numbers from other books that's also fine.  But, to compare a description from a book, to official numbers, then that's apples and oranges, and not a fair comparison at all.  The description can be taken highly subjectively while the numbers can't.  Let's also be fair and compare 100% canon with 100% canon, and not true canon versus C, D, F and X, Y, Z and whatever other canon rating with true canon. 


We've seen countless discussions where the ICS is stated.  Can we for once use material based from Lucas Books which is for the millionth time official material authorized by George Lucas.  Can we do that, or is that too much to ask?

legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 9:08 am


chr33355, you're still quoting material from sources that are still not true canon.  I mean how is the essential guide c-canon?  It's released by Lucas Books.  How is Saxton's material take precedence over material released and approved by Lucas?  If Saxton's states the range of a weapon is hundreds of thousands of Km and the Essential Guide officially released by Lucas Books states 100 Km, we're supposed to take Saxton's word over Lucas Books?  Let's be real about this cause, this whole discussion, as usually witnessed from other discussions on this topic, is going to degenerate into a bunch of conjecture.  I'm actually taking the conjecture out of it by using officially released material.


As far as Trek Tech manual not being canon, you're flat wrong on this.  All Trek manuals are officially approved products by Paramount.  They have the Paramount logo on the back.  I had a chance to talk to Michael Okuda, who was the head of the technical end of all the Trek shows, at a convention several years back, and he stated that the Tech manuals are officially approved material.  So yes they are canon, by that very definition.


Trek weapons do have ranges in the thousands of Km as officially stated in the tech manuals.  Watch the Voyager episode "Manuevers" in season 2.  The Kazon attack Voyager to steal a transporter module.  When they first fire on Voyager you see the beam from the energy weapon but you don't see the ship, because the ship is clearly out of visual range.


Trek firepower can clearly be seen in the DS9 episode "The Die is Cast".  The small fleet of 25 ships opens fire on the planet's surface and you can clearly see the effect the weapons as they show the weapons fire strike the planet's surface.  The Romulan bridge officer clearly states "30% of the planetary crust destroyed in the opening volley."


If we are to be fair which from the looks of this discussion seems so much out of the realm of possibility as this point, again if we are to be fair and scientifically methodical, let's compare apples to apples.  A description from a write in one novel which doesn't state numbers, and which is not considered true 100% canon, does not take precedence from official numbers released by Lucas, or official numbers released from Paramount.  Descriptions are subjective, while numbers are pretty much set in stone.  I'm not going to choose one over the other simply because it makes my argument seem better.  I'm going to do what most people DON’T DO here, and I'm going to be real about it.  If you want to compare descriptions from books, to the descriptions from other books, then that's fine.  If you want to compare numbers from books, with numbers from other books that's also fine.  But, to compare a description from a book, to official numbers, then that's apples and oranges, and not a fair comparison at all.  The description can be taken highly subjectively while the numbers can't.  Let's also be fair and compare 100% canon with 100% canon, and not true canon versus C, D, F and X, Y, Z and whatever other canon rating with true canon. 


We've seen countless discussions where the ICS is stated.  Can we for once use material based from Lucas Books which is for the millionth time official material authorized by George Lucas.  Can we do that, or is that too much to ask?

legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 9:18 am

Also, let's get back to the "Laser Energy" bit.  I didn't make this up, again I got this from the Essential Guide whcih again is official released material.  If what is stated here is inconsistent to what is seen on screen, that's not my problem to deal with.  Lucas and company should do a better job at making things consistent.  From the official books, this is what's stated.  The book also makes a distinction between Laser Energy and "Blaster Energy".  Blaster Energy as from what's described in the Essential Guide is particle energy.


The whole asteriod destroying scene from ESB is an argument used before ad nauseum.  It's not original, so don't make it seem like you just thought of it or it comes from you.  It doesn't.  it comes from SD.net.  I mean can you try to bring  some original material to the table?  I used the "Manuevers" episode.  I haven't seen anyone in any blog I've read over the years use this as an example.


Again, material released from some other source DOESN'T take precedence over the Essential Guide cause again for the billionth time it's official material released from Lucas Books.

Invader_Wishfire

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27518

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 11:32 am

 And yet we never see them fire at another ship at that range.


And yet that doesn't invalidate the inofrmation.


I don't know that we due since we can't make any assumptions which is why I uses the various asteroid destoying scenes to make weapon out put estimations.  Also by scaling down the power of the death star super laser we get an output that far exceeds 200 gigatons.


If you went by asteroid scenes, then any estimates would be in the kiloton range, as that's the best we see.


Scaling down the superlaser power... I've done that to prove that turbolasers were weaker than claimed, only to be told that "it doesn't work that way, it's a different type of weapon." But when doing the same thing suits the Warsies' purposes, suddenly it's okay.


It is still based on the movie where as the Essential guide is based mostly on c-canon material.


It can be based on the movie all it likes, but when it's information is derived from visual information not yet produced, then it's not an acceptable source.


 photo spok_zps253ab564.gif

legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 2:00 pm

Are you saying that the Essential guide is also C-canon?

legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 2:10 pm

How about the Clone Wars animation?  Is any of that considered canon?  I don't want speculation.  I want to know it's official standing?

legacymillenium

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 18

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 2:19 pm

What's hard for me to accept personally is how officially released material approved by Lucas such as the Essential Guide is considered C-canon, when in fact it's official material based strictly on the movies.  Is any written work considered G-canon?

chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 2:21 pm

Quote: legacymillenium @ Jul. 20 2011, 9:08 am

>

>chr33355, you're still quoting material from sources that are still not true canon.  I mean how is the essential guide c-canon?  It's released by Lucas Books.  How is Saxton's material take precedence over material released and approved by Lucas?  If Saxton's states the range of a weapon is hundreds of thousands of Km and the Essential Guide officially released by Lucas Books states 100 Km, we're supposed to take Saxton's word over Lucas Books?  Let's be real about this cause, this whole discussion, as usually witnessed from other discussions on this topic, is going to degenerate into a bunch of conjecture.  I'm actually taking the conjecture out of it by using officially released material.  There are different levels of canon in star wars G- canon being movies and movie based material, T-canon which is based on the clone wars tv show, C-canon which is the expanded universe (novels, game stories, most comics) and then their is non canon stuff like the Infinity stories.  The Essential Guide information is based mostly on stuff from C- canon materal where as the ICS information is based directly from the movies.

>As far as Trek Tech manual not being canon, you're flat wrong on this.  All Trek manuals are officially approved products by Paramount.  They have the Paramount logo on the back.  I had a chance to talk to Michael Okuda, who was the head of the technical end of all the Trek shows, at a convention several years back, and he stated that the Tech manuals are officially approved material.  So yes they are canon, by that very definition.  Wrong the tech manuals have never been officially been reconized as canon.  You are correct that Okuda does say the manuals are "pretty official" but has never said they are canon, and since all other writen trek material isn't canon (with the exception of possibly two voyager books) the tech manuals can't be considered canon until they are offically labeled canon.

>Trek weapons do have ranges in the thousands of Km as officially stated in the tech manuals.  Watch the Voyager episode "Manuevers" in season 2.  The Kazon attack Voyager to steal a transporter module.  When they first fire on Voyager you see the beam from the energy weapon but you don't see the ship, because the ship is clearly out of visual range.  I though they couldn't see the ship because it was hiding in a nebula but then it has been a while since i have seen the episode.

>Trek firepower can clearly be seen in the DS9 episode "The Die is Cast".  The small fleet of 25 ships opens fire on the planet's surface and you can clearly see the effect the weapons as they show the weapons fire strike the planet's surface.  The Romulan bridge officer clearly states "30% of the planetary crust destroyed in the opening volley."  And yet we didn't see anything close to that level of damage on the visuals of the attack.  Given that the whole thing was a trap I imagine that the Founders just sent fake sensor data too fool the Romulans.

>If we are to be fair which from the looks of this discussion seems so much out of the realm of possibility as this point, again if we are to be fair and scientifically methodical, let's compare apples to apples.  A description from a write in one novel which doesn't state numbers, and which is not considered true 100% canon, does not take precedence from official numbers released by Lucas, or official numbers released from Paramount.  Descriptions are subjective, while numbers are pretty much set in stone.  I'm not going to choose one over the other simply because it makes my argument seem better.  I'm going to do what most people DON’T DO here, and I'm going to be real about it.  If you want to compare descriptions from books, to the descriptions from other books, then that's fine.  If you want to compare numbers from books, with numbers from other books that's also fine.  But, to compare a description from a book, to official numbers, then that's apples and oranges, and not a fair comparison at all.  The description can be taken highly subjectively while the numbers can't.  Let's also be fair and compare 100% canon with 100% canon, and not true canon versus C, D, F and X, Y, Z and whatever other canon rating with true canon. 

>We've seen countless discussions where the ICS is stated.  Can we for once use material based from Lucas Books which is for the millionth time official material authorized by George Lucas.  Can we do that, or is that too much to ask?  THE ICS IS AUTHORIZED BY GEORGE LUCAS so I fail to see your point.

>


chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Jul. 20 2011, 2:22 pm

Quote: legacymillenium @ Jul. 20 2011, 2:19 pm

>

>What's hard for me to accept personally is how officially released material approved by Lucas such as the Essential Guide is considered C-canon, when in fact it's official material based strictly on the movies.  Is any written work considered G-canon?

>
  Only the novel versions of the movies


Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: King B IX

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum