Wong has posted (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Shields/) an analysis of collision events in Trek and Wars.

However, his figures are replete with error.

First, he suggests that the bridge tower asteroid was 70 meters and spherical. It is not spherical... it is shaped like a potato. Judging by the 31.5 meter bridge tower globes, the asteroid could not have been more than 60 meters in length, with an approximate width and depth of 42 meters.

Then, he uses a density for the asteroid almost twice that of any
known asteroid. A better average figure would be about 3,000 kg/m^3.

Finally, he estimates the speed to be 1000 meters per second, when photographic analysis shows the speed was approximately half of this. Using the vidcap he makes available, one can see that it takes 15 frames for the asteroid (after becoming fully visible at frame 35) to collide (at frame 50). With the size known (and using the same axis to offset the effect of the asteroid's spin), it is easy to see that the asteroid was moving no faster than about 550 meters per second.

In other words, he made it bigger, heavier, and faster, thereby
bumping up the kinetic energy to a whopping 625 terajoules, or almost 20
times my calculated figure of 36 terajoules (3.57e13J).

Then, he talks about the ramming of the Odyssey (which he misidentifies as a hit to the primary hull). After foolishly assuming that a Stardock Alpha clip of the special effects of that episode was representing the total time of the battle (hence that silly "30 seconds" comment), he gives the Jem'Hadar fighter an estimated size and estimated mass. What he doesn't mention is that the density he uses for the Jem'Hadar fighter is 50 kg/m^3, or 5% of water's density!

He does make up for this a bit by "generously" quadrupling the actual
speed of the Jem'Hadar fighter. However, having neutered the Jem'Hadar
ship's mass by a factor of at least 8 (using iron for the hull/equipment density and estimating that 10-15% of the ship is composed of materials with such density, in keeping with Jem'Hadar shipbuilding ethos), he still managed to end up within an order of magnitude of my conservative calculated figure of 4 terajoules.

By monkeying with the numbers to the extent he does, it's easy to end
up with the ISD taking a hit with 125 times more kinetic energy than the
Odyssey ramming. However, such figures are unsupportable. The facts point toward a hit with 9 times more KE.

He also doesn't mention other interesting facts ... for instance, a fat potato hitting a ship is going to impart less energy per unit area than a fighter with a small cross-section, suggesting much higher resistance for the Odyssey. Further, the novelisation suggests that the ISD was destroyed, just like Odyssey.

Also, the actual collision itself only wiped out a volume of about 430,000m^3 of the Odyssey, whereas a collision with nine times the KE destroyed a volume of approximately 1,839,000 m^3 of the ISD. If we were to assume similar structural and internal design (rather silly if you think about it, given the thick armor claims and "robust design" philosophy of the Empire), that would mean (judging by the volume of the ships eliminated) that the ISD hull strength was only twice the hull strength of the Odyssey (something closer to parity or even a stronger Odyssey would result if you account for the thick armor claims and robust design philosophy).

Last, but not least, the Odyssey's main structure held together fairly well under the impact, insofar as the secondary hull wasn't sheared away, either at the interconnecting dorsal or the clamps holding the saucer and stardrive section together. Meanwhile, a hit over 100 meters from the neck of the ISD wiped the neck and everything connected to it out of existence.

Sure, both ships were destroyed when it was all said and done, but the Odyssey held together much better than Wong would give her credit for, and the ISD fared much worse. One might go so far as to say that the Trek figures were deflated and the Wars figures inflated...

Well, it would be typical.

Would you please shut the hell up already? This is nothing more than another sanctimonious flood of nitpicks dripping with your pathetic ego and holier-than-thou attitude, and given your past lies, it can be safely construed another one of those as well. I've read those pages, I've seen the footage, and frankly, I don't see flaws in Mike's figures.

And if you absolutely want your nitpicks to be addressed, let's start with the density of asteroids: Have you ever tried lifting a cube of common granite that is ten centimeters on a side? It's bloody heavy, with a density of around 2500 kg/m^3 if my memory works correctly. Mike uses 3000 kg/m^3 for the asteroids, which happens to be somewhat higher than the density of granite, which is way below the density of objects composed mainly of nickel-iron (which would be in the neighborhood of 15000 kg/m^3). You lose, no matter what way you try to twist it, you mindless twit.

Edi

I belive it was stated in DS9 Technical Manual that a Dominion fighter weights 2,500 tons, while it is almost equal in size to Defiant which weights around 400,000 tons, belive i saw those figures somewhere, strange is it not?

Did't your mother ever tell you people

Don't feed the trolls!

Hey, cool. You guys have developed a simple "response form" to anything I say. "Blah, blah, blah, nitpick, blah, blah, blah, ego, blah, blah, blah, liar."



No, I use 3,000kg/m^3 for the asteroids. Wong uses 7,000. 15,000 is wrong... you simply added densities, which is incorrect.

Undina 92 has a density of 9900kg/m^3 and Lorley 162 has a density of ~11000kg/m^3. Perhaps you should do a little homework before you post your idiotic delusions as fact, you ignorant fuckwit.

The DS9 Technical Manual is not canon. Further, it is wrong... the lengths it gives do not match with what we see on screen. It gives a length of only 68 meters for the 100 meter long JH ship, and gives 170 meters for the 120 meter long Defiant. The mass is also questionable by itself, since the similarly-sized Galaxy and "Jem'Hadar Battle Cruiser" classes in that work are of similar mass, suggesting similar materials are used in ship construction.

Where does that come from? Undina is 126 kilometers across, and Laurentia is 105 kilometers across. You're claiming that these two asteroids by themselves make up a huge amount of the mass of the asteroid belts, a "fact" shared by no other sources I have looked at.



Asteroid 162 is Laurentia! Where does your crap information come from? Are you just making it up?

Your inadequacy in matters of real-life science fact aside, do you have any screencaps to justify your dubious scaling figures, and your implicit claim that the bridge tower was destroyed by the impact? Why did you choose to recalculate the KE ratio, rather than the momentum ratio, which is far more relevant to collision performance? Why have you ignored the probability that the ISD's shields were down, and that we are therefore actually comparing the performance of an ISD's bare hull to that of a GCS's shields + hull?

Or was this all just an exemplary lesson in 'replete with errors'?

Which would, of course, be typical.

Darkstar, all i have to say is...

Blah, blah, blah, nitpick, blah, blah, blah, ego, blah, blah, blah, liar

For once that wasn't a bad idea of yours, are all the thoughts that tricxkle into your brain self-insulting?

---

Superior Moderator - BotM - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

Your answers to the matters of fact regarding asteroid density would be appropriate now.



I assumed the ISD's shields were down. The Odyssey's shields had been dropped by the captain when he realized that Dominion weapons went through them easily. Therefore, I was comparing two unshielded starships.

Typo. Lorley is 165.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/ ... endix1.htm

The only two non-porous M-class asteroids on the entire list have densities well in excess of 7000kg/m^3. Tough luck, junior.

I wonder if Dark Star realizes his mistakes, or if he just blindly continues on?

'Twice the density of any asteroid known..'

Board Member Shows asteroids with far denser composition.

Dark Star attacks it as irrelevent, not realizing the point.

Attack the shape of the asteroid, when it will not drastically change the figures.

And of course, he doesn't realize the density figure is average for iron-nickel asteroids, since he's done no homework...

---

Logic Enforcer of Fantasy

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

Remember: The Media will always promote and attempt to ensure governing liberally has a price. Otherwise, the elected might get crazy ass ideas like regulating banks and other stuff!

You fucking dumbass!!! You read off the orbit inclination of Undina! As for Lorley 165, the page scan does appear to show "~11" under density, but I'd bet hard cash the scan is off, and there is either a decimal point or something else involved. That density would be (as simply judging by the other densities on the page) over three times the density of any other asteroid of the same type, or any other one on your list, period.

I notice that he evaded the questions regarding justification of his scaling and assumption of total bridge destruction, and obsession with KE rather than momentum (the answer is obvious - because the ISD was struck with a far more massive object and the momentum ratio is therefore greater than the KE ratio). Ignorant and cowardly... impressive.

Recipe: A sprinkling of Edam's complsuive nitpicking and delusions of intellectual superiority, a pinch of TOWNMNBS's persecution complex, a dash of O'Farrell's and Gothmog's semantic buffoonery, and 500 pounds of iron cranium. The result: a fresh batch of keyboard-mashing DarkStar!

You have a peculiar sense of history, to say the least.



No, I asked for proof. When he finally provided it, his proof was wrong.



Size and shape will affect the figures, your mathematical ignorance notwithstanding.



Wrong. The density figure is not average for iron-nickel asteroids.

You made an erroneous statement. He corrected you. I fail to see how he's at fault, Dark Star.

As for the fact it's slightly oblong, unless you do some scaling and prove there's a large difference in mass from the result, I can't see it as anything but nitpicking. It wasn't like the thing was shaped like a portion of the male anatomy, so the difference will not be as severe as you think.

Finally, if you have such a better figure for iron-nickel asteroids, post it.

---

Logic Enforcer of Fantasy

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter

Remember: The Media will always promote and attempt to ensure governing liberally has a price. Otherwise, the elected might get crazy ass ideas like regulating banks and other stuff!

His "correction" was itself erroneous, you idiot.



Hello, can anybody read this? What the hell do you think I did?



Since you are incapable of your own research to try to disprove my figures:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/hilton/asteroid_masses.htm

Also, check out the page he posted a link to. Just make sure you don't screw up and start reading the things with a degree symbol after them as densities.

Oops. I missed that the column had shifted.



A) You fucking dumbass! The number is clearly ~11; the ones digit is perfectly inline with those of nearby values, and there is no space for a decimal, nor is there even a single pixel of black indicating one was lost in the scan. Concession accepted.

B)Jesus h Christ! Are you completely impervious to both simple math and simple logic?!? The asteroids with listed densities (other than 165) are all C and S class. They are NOT the same type!

M-class asteroids are made of fucking iron and nickel, and the minor consitutents are often higher-Z (and higher density) metals like Pt, Pd and Au! The specific density of iron? 7.9 The specific density of nickel? 8.9. By all means, show me a composition of iron and nickel (much less the heavier metals) that weighs in at less than 7000kg/m^3. I challenge you to name a single m-class asteroid with a density of 3000kg/m^3 or less. Only a complete moron could suggest that a solid mixture of two materials of densities greater than 7000 kg/m^3 would produce an object with a density less than 7000kg/m^3.

To reiterate: you should do a little homework before you post your idiotic delusions as fact, you ignorant fuckwit.

This is the perfect demonstration of your level of argument, namely equating 'contains an error ' to 'erroneous'. You clearly do not understand that this is a fallacy, or why. M-class asteroids can, will and do have densities of 7000kg/m^3 or more; this remains true no matter how many typos or reading errors I commit.



2 points here:

1) none of those are fucking m-class asteroids. How many times do you need to be corrected in this?

2) The density of Vesta (V-class, mixed composition) is 4300kg/m^3 accordsing to your reference. I will do the math, since it seems to eluded you:

4300 > 3000.

You lose.

As for the bridge go here
http://supreme_sheridan.tripod.com/aotc ... ml#Shields and
http://supreme_sheridan.tripod.com/aotc ... tml#damage

Provide screenshots to justify this claimed scaling (note: you are claiming that the globes are smaller than the Millenium Falcon).

Not for nickel-iron asteroids, which these asteroids are. Not only are they described that way in the literature, but the Hoth asteroid field is supposedly formed by the collision of two planets, which will produce far denser asteroids than the mere agglomeration of material during a star system's formation.

Actually, I just used Curtis' scaling. By the way, you are assuming a distance from the camera to the bridge tower in order to produce this figure. Justify this implied distance.

My page discusses momentum, not KE. Get your facts straight.

Really! Please let us know how you figured out this volume figure for a Jem'Hadar cockroach fighter. Since my mass figure was 10,000 tons and you claim this is just 50 kg/m^3, you are claiming that the volume of a Jem'Hadar cockroach is 200,000 cubic metres, which is equivalent to a 72m wide sphere! Anyone who looks at a spindly Jem'hadar cockroach knows that this is absolutely ridiculous. But by all means, enlighten us on your method of determining that a 100 metre long skinny, flat Jem'Hadar cockroach has the same volume as a 72m wide sphere.

Very generously, since 10,000 tons is already 4 times the DS9 TM's stated mass, and you are basing your figures on a ridiculous volume estimate of 200,000 cubic metres.

Go Darkstar! Thanks for proving (yet again) that you're a scientific ignoramus! Actually, the "fat potato" will be a much more dangerous impactor because it's solid, which makes it 10 times denser, Mr. Village Idiot. Not only does this increase the focus of the impact, but it also means that the impactor's physical resistance to deformation will be much higher (read: harder impactor; I hope I don't need to painstakingly explain to you why a harder impactor is bad; we are testing the depths of your scientific ignorance now). And if the ISD was destroyed, you would have to explain why the captain was still standing there, alive, in the holo-transmission after the impact. Oops- that would require observational skills on your part rather than your customary bullshit and made-up imaginary figures (eg- 200,000 cubic metre volume for a JH cockroach, sensor globes smaller than the MF).

More bullshit. The Odyssey was struck in its primary hull, which is its strongest structure. The ISD was struck in its bridge tower, which is its weakest structure. The same asteroid against its primary hull would most likely have done nothing. And your comparison of volumes is irrelevant; you have no way of determining how much of the ISD was actually destroyed, or how much damage was caused by internal explosions in either case. The point is merely that structural failure occurred; you are introducing red herrings.

Nobody is buying your bullshit, Darkstar. Didn't you notice that you can't even get backup on this nitpicky bullshit from other Trek people like SCVN812 or TheDarkling? Everybody is wise to your lies disguised as nitpicks disguised as genuine issues. I didn't even really have to bother answering this latest bullshit post on your part because everybody else said it already, except for the part about your idiotic 200,000 cubic metre volume for a JH cockroach, which I simply had to point out.

DarkStar, I cannot believe that you continue to attack us on all of these points. Nothing you have brought up is the least bit valid. The asteroid that we saw was CLEARLY larger than you claim, and I have re-read the book (after you erroneously claimed in our last debate that it "stated that the star destroyer was destroyed.") I checked it out and guess what, IT NEVER DOES. In this debate, you said that it implied that the ship was destroyed, which is still crap. It says nothing like that. You made me read that entire book for no reason! It never says anything of the kind.

Your "total mass" is complete bullshit for the Jem'Hadar ship. There is no way that that 100 meter thing has the kind of volume that you are talking about, and BTW when I told you to stop arguing about Spock's infallibility I had no IDEA that you would come here and try something like this. Go back and argue with Lord Poe about his mullet/lack of mullet and Spock's credibility.

---

"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul

Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner

"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000

"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."

Darkstar,

The argument that the asteroid is 60 meters instead of 70 I find has little merit. However you claim that the speed of the rock is half that of what Mike has on his website. Ok, put your numbers up here so that they can be analyzed for validity. Otherwise your argument has no merit.

As to the density issue, iron-nickel asteroids (S-type and M-type) have densities closer to 8000kg/cu.m. Your numbers are purely for stony asteroids and porous ones at that. Stony asteroids (C-type) make up about 75% of OUR asteroid belt. If you want to claim that the Hoth asteroid belt has a similar composition to ours then show us your justification. However, you might want to be careful in that regard because an asteroid belt as dense as Hoth’s would quickly pulverize the lower density asteroids to dust with the frequent collisions that occur as shown in the movie.

Also, is there any canon evidence that the asteroids in the Hoth system were S-type/M-type, iron-nickel?

So, if I were to use your number for the 60-meter rock, my number for the density and split the difference for the velocity between your number and Mikes the calcs would come out something like this….

V = volume = 4/3*pi*R^3 = 4/3*3.1416*30^3 = 113,100 m^3
M = mass = d*V = 904,800,000 kg

KE = Kenetic Energy = ½*(I*w^2 + M*v^2) where,

I = the bodies moment of inertia,
w = angular velocity
M = mass
v = velocity

For this demonstration I will assume w = 0, though it my not be and me actually be quite large.

KE = 1/2 * 904,800,000*775^2 = 2.72E14J or 272 terra joules. If one ton of TNT is equal to 7E9J (approximately), then this asteroid hit the ISD with about 40 kT. This is, again assuming that the rotational KE is zero, which it is not.

---

"You couldn't possibly have passed high school physics!"

"If life hands you poop, make poop juice"

The asteroid belt was made by 2 planets smashing and IIRC the novel calls the nickle iron.