Spacedocks take on the versus debate

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
DarthPooky
Padawan Learner
Posts: 193
Joined: 2014-04-26 10:55pm

Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby DarthPooky » 2017-05-08 04:36pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WqlegCcZOk&t=1449s

The main part that I'm talking about is at 19:13. I must say I'm kind of disappointed in space dock i like his videos and he seemed not to buy in to these kind of fanboyish Trekkie ideas. So what do you guys think I know we've all herd these arguments before. I'm just trying to get a conversation going.

We're do you think he gets that idea that Federation ships have superior weapons range when we've seen Trek ships engage at the same distances as Wars ships.

User avatar
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9764
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England
Contact:

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby Crazedwraith » 2017-05-08 05:00pm

The Wounded probably where the action takes place at thousands of kilometers on the sensor screen.
To the brave passengers and crew of the Kobayashi Maru... sucks to be you - Peter David

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10430
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby Lord Revan » 2017-05-08 06:07pm

"the Wounded" and possibly TOS (where we almost never see the target and firing ship in the same frame) would be examples of higher ranges (to signifigant degree that is) however most of Trek shows much shorters ranges suggesting that while long ranges are theoretically possible there's something that prevents them from being used normally (at least that's the honest way to deal with that inconsistency).
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n

Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby Adam Reynolds » 2017-05-08 09:09pm

I haven't watched this video, but I believe it is generally dialogue that indicates those sort of ranges in certain cases. The reasonable answer for both is that accuracy suffers too much at range. The same is likely true in Star Wars as well. Given the high accelerations possible in both settings it is not too much of a stretch.

To casual fans Trek just appears more advanced, and intelligence doesn't make you right about something you have never studied, it just makes you better at justifying your belief. Ideally rationality would tell you to not comment on an issue that you are not actually an expert on, but no one actually thinks that way. Both Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bill Nye have made similar comments, with a similar lack of serious analysis from either.

User avatar
DarthPooky
Padawan Learner
Posts: 193
Joined: 2014-04-26 10:55pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby DarthPooky » 2017-05-15 03:03pm

Oh ya I forgot about the Wounded oh well as has been pointed out most times weave seen ranges at visual ranges to which Adam Reynolds provides a good explanation for that.

Id like to take this opportunity to talk about fighters since in the video he brings up the fallacy of Fed ships having near if not complete accuracy. Now iv seen some people on this forum say fighters would not be as effective against Fed ships. I'm however going to say that they are just as effective against Starfleet ships as they are in Star Wars because they are specifically designed to avoid enemy fire and weave seen them go up against enemy's with a relative technological parity as the Feds with there for similar targeting capability's such as the Cardassians. Weave also seen Starfleet ships miss at point blank ranges when fighting large ships like the Borg. So anyways that's my opinion id like to hear your thoughts.

texanmarauder
Youngling
Posts: 51
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby texanmarauder » 2017-05-28 11:10pm

in st tng "conundrum" we see a squadron of sentry drones attack the enterprise and were destroyed in a couple of seconds with multiple phaser banks used and no misses. I suspect something similar would happen with sw fighters. we have never seen extraordinary speeds faster than 100kps max from the fighters so that will go against them too. plus, we have also seen photon torpedoes and the like detonated in the middle of ships much larger than fighters (vidiians from ST voy) and those ships were disabled. if we were to do the same to sw fighters, they would probably be totaled, shields or no. plus, the range of fighter weapons is around 100 meters give or take a few. I wouldn't say that st weapons have perfect accuracy, but they do seem way more accurate than the spray and pray MO of sw ships. ships like Klingon birds of prey or the defiant class from ds9 seem more like ww2 fighters in the way their weapons work also.

User avatar
DarthPooky
Padawan Learner
Posts: 193
Joined: 2014-04-26 10:55pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby DarthPooky » 2017-05-31 01:19am

in st tng "conundrum" we see a squadron of sentry drones attack the enterprise and were destroyed in a couple of seconds with multiple phaser banks used and no misses. I suspect something similar would happen with sw fighters. we have never seen extraordinary speeds faster than 100kps max from the fighters so that will go against them too. plus, we have also seen photon torpedoes and the like detonated in the middle of ships much larger than fighters (vidiians from ST voy) and those ships were disabled. if we were to do the same to sw fighters, they would probably be totaled, shields or no. plus, the range of fighter weapons is around 100 meters give or take a few. I wouldn't say that st weapons have perfect accuracy, but they do seem way more accurate than the spray and pray MO of sw ships. ships like Klingon birds of prey or the defiant class from ds9 seem more like ww2 fighters in the way their weapons work also.


As you said they are attack drones which were unmanned barely maneuvering and flying in a highly tight formation from a civilisation that is a century behind in technology from the Federation. So it doesn't surprise me that the Enterprise destroyed them easily. Also what are you talking about regarding fighters speed watch the X wings cross the Yavin gas giant in less then five minutes in ANH. Wong also refuted this myth hear take a look http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/My ... hs_SW.html.

texanmarauder
Youngling
Posts: 51
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby texanmarauder » 2017-06-14 11:20am

DarthPooky wrote:
As you said they are attack drones which were unmanned barely maneuvering and flying in a highly tight formation from a civilisation that is a century behind in technology from the Federation. So it doesn't surprise me that the Enterprise destroyed them easily. Also what are you talking about regarding fighters speed watch the X wings cross the Yavin gas giant in less then five minutes in ANH. Wong also refuted this myth hear take a look http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/My ... hs_SW.html.
I trust wong about as far as I can throw the internet. most of his work is based on non canon elements that weren't canon even when the site was new, or unsubstantiated opinion. or, if we really wanna get serious about his reliability and credibility, flat out lies, such as the ones on his turbolaser power page. http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html in that page, he uses several screenshots of the falcons "attack run" on the Avenger after they leave the asteroid field. in each one he claims a different asteroid is vaporized. this is not the case. its simply the "flack burst effect" from the turbolasers interacting with the falcons shields. and again, this was AFTER they left the asteroid field. most of his info is from the ICS books, which were never canon anyway.
as for the fighters traveling 300,000km in 5 minutes, we know that cinematic time is very compressed for SW. we see the fighters taking off, then it cuts to a scene that shows the nav table with the DS on it. how long ago did they take off when that scene occurred? ? 5 mins my ass. by that logic, the falcon made it to the bespin system from the anoate system in minutes without a hyperdrive. which is impossible. he then compares the speed of a fighter to the sublight speed of the DS. that makes no sense in any way. that's like comparing a cesna to a C-130. plus he claims that fighter blasters have 3+km ranges? how ridiculous can you get? we have never seen fighter engagements at more than a a couple hundred meters tops. reread that page and you also get that most of his sources come from the EU, including the ICS. even if they did travel 300,000km in 5 minutes, that's 1,000kps. that means that they would be in torpedo and phaser range for at least 30 seconds before they even got into blaster range if the enterprise didn't move. considering that the enterprise impulse drive is capable of AT LEAST .25c or 74,000kps they could keep them out of range indefinitely. plus wong hasn't even bothered to update that site since 2004 after the ICS books came out. the sources he used have changed or have been deemed non canon. so no, SD.NET is not a reliable source. it has been deemed too inflammatory and inaccurate by both wiki and wookieepedia to even cite from. the only reason wiki even mentions them at all is because they aren't as particular about sources as wookiepedia is.

User avatar
DarthPooky
Padawan Learner
Posts: 193
Joined: 2014-04-26 10:55pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby DarthPooky » 2017-06-16 03:03am

I trust wong about as far as I can throw the internet. most of his work is based on non canon elements that weren't canon even when the site was new, or unsubstantiated opinion. or, if we really wanna get serious about his reliability and credibility, flat out lies, such as the ones on his turbolaser power page. http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html in that page, he uses several screenshots of the falcons "attack run" on the Avenger after they leave the asteroid field. in each one he claims a different asteroid is vaporized. this is not the case. its simply the "flack burst effect" from the turbolasers interacting with the falcons shields. and again, this was AFTER they left the asteroid field. most of his info is from the ICS books, which were never canon anyway.


Wong used both legends and canon sources from the films and it is the sources from the films that still support are arguments. As for the Turbo Laser Technical Commentaries those were written by Brian Yong with a few quotes from Wong with his own thoughts. With the second half of the page I agree there doesn't appear to be asteroids where the Falcon is being chased. What I refer to with the asteroid vaporization scene is were the first half of the page is concerned that is this scene right hear at the beginning if this video.


as for the fighters traveling 300,000km in 5 minutes, we know that cinematic time is very compressed for SW. we see the fighters taking off, then it cuts to a scene that shows the nav table with the DS on it. how long ago did they take off when that scene occurred? ? 5 mins my ass. by that logic, the falcon made it to the bespin system from the anoate system in minutes without a hyperdrive. which is impossible. he then compares the speed of a fighter to the sublight speed of the DS. that makes no sense in any way. that's like comparing a cesna to a C-130. plus he claims that fighter blasters have 3+km ranges? how ridiculous can you get? we have never seen fighter engagements at more than a a couple hundred meters tops. reread that page and you also get that most of his sources come from the EU, including the ICS. even if they did travel 300,000km in 5 minutes, that's 1,000kps. that means that they would be in torpedo and phaser range for at least 30 seconds before they even got into blaster range if the enterprise didn't move. considering that the enterprise impulse drive is capable of AT LEAST .25c or 74,000kps they could keep them out of range indefinitely. plus wong hasn't even bothered to update that site since 2004 after the ICS books came out. the sources he used have changed or have been deemed non canon. so no, SD.NET is not a reliable source. it has been deemed too inflammatory and inaccurate by both wiki and wookieepedia to even cite from. the only reason wiki even mentions them at all is because they aren't as particular about sources as wookiepedia is.


Ok hears the evidence watch these videos and read the descriptions below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_KUF_5Rkfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgngnzNEXzM
As you can see ships in Star Wars can go millions of kilometers per hour. As for the first with the X-wings that scene is not cut and is continuous. As for the ICS figures the author got them from what we see in the movies so I'm inclined to believe them but not use them as a prime example because of there legends status. Also were do you get the 74,000kps evidence please.

User avatar
seanrobertson
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2138
Joined: 2002-07-12 05:57pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby seanrobertson » 2017-06-16 05:40pm

Texan,

Just a few things:

*You wouldn't dispute that the Death Star circumnavigated a tremendous distance in thirty minutes, would you? It had to be accelerating alike crazy to go around a gas giant that quickly.

*Further, I don't agree that the Cesna/747 analogy is applicable. The latter is several hundred tons (max, about 440); the Cesna, ~.7 tons. That's about a difference of 630x. The fastest Cesna comes close to breaking Mach 1...and the 747's best is only TEN mph faster (604 v. 614).

In brief, similar performance.

The Death Star is 160 km wide and must mass something akin to a small moon. Starfighters, OTOH, shouldn't greatly outmass modern jet fighters, so an X-Wing might mass ... what? 5-10 tons? Maybe 20, if that seems high?

Here again, we have to be looking at comparable accelerations (if not vastly, supremely greater for the fighters***: see footnote), but we're not dealing with a paltry mass differential of 630 anymore, are we?

***Simple thought question. If the Death Star could effortlessly out-accelerate the Rebel fighters, how did the latter ever close to range? Did Tarkin just pick his nose and order a Trek-like "full stop!" while Rebel fighters took HOURS to reach him?

Nooooo, my friends. Star Wars fighter craft routinely land and successfully break orbit of Earth-like planets, apparently with energy to spare (Luke from Hoth to Dagobah, then to Bespin). I understand some of the reticence to accept some of these ideas, but I encourage you to regard the big picture.
Pain, or damage, don't end the world, or despair, or fuckin' beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, ya got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man ... and give some back.
-Al Swearengen

Cry woe, destruction, ruin and decay: The worst is death, and death will have his day.
-Ole' Shakey's "Richard II," Act III, scene ii.
Image

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14961
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby Batman » 2017-06-16 09:13pm

While I generally agree with you there's a few points I want to pick nits about.
1. I think you underestimate the weight of modern day fighters. A completely empty F-16C weighs in at not quite 8 tons. Tomcat 18. F-4E 13.
Max TOW could be easily double that. Of course those are usually also quite a bit bigger than Wars fighters.
2. Real world fighters have to rely on aerodynamic lift almost exclusively so their mass figures have to take that into account. Wars fighters not only don't need to, but can't (both because they operate outside the atmosphere a lot and because there's no way you're getting any worthwhile amount of lift out of those airframes).
3. Not only didn't I see the Cessna comparison in this thread before 'you' brought it up, but when people say 'Cessna' with no qualifier, they generally mean the small one or two engine prop planes, not the all-up business jets (which absolutely ARE up there with the big boys).
Of course the analogy is flawed anyway as there's speed limits in aircraft that don't apply to spacecraft-you generally don't have to worry about losing lift or control or any other of those pesky 'approaching/breaking the sound barrier' things or your aircraft melting if you go any faster.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14961
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby Batman » 2017-06-16 09:19pm

Yes, those were all pretty old fighters, but those were numbers I had ready at hand, and I doubt you'll find those numbers have gone down since then.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

Q99
Jedi Master
Posts: 1359
Joined: 2015-05-16 01:33pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby Q99 » 2017-06-16 10:44pm

Other than rapid fire phasers, it strikes me a proximity burst from a photon would do a bad number on fighters too. We've seen photons used in that manner several times.

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 354
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2017-06-18 04:57am

DarthPooky wrote:Ok hears the evidence watch these videos and read the descriptions below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_KUF_5Rkfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgngnzNEXzM
As you can see ships in Star Wars can go millions of kilometers per hour. As for the first with the X-wings that scene is not cut and is continuous.

You have to forgive me. But - as it seems - I am not intelligent enough to be able to derive any figures from the first scene.

          What is the canonical size of Yavin?

          Wookipedia gives as a source for the size of Yavin the on May 4, 2017 released paperback young readers novelization: "Star Wars: A New Hope". I do not have this novelization and can not check if it really states a size for Yavin. Can anyone confirm that according to the novelization Yavin has a size of 200.000 km? (As evidence I accept a scan or photo of the relevant side out of this novelization) (Jupiter, the largest planet in our Solar System, has only a diameter of 142.984 km)

          How high was the orbit of the fighters around Yavin?

          What evidence is there regarding the identity of the other two bodies seen in this scene in the background? According to Wookipedia, Yavin was orbited by twenty-six moons. Is there any evidence that we saw in this scene in the background at the beginning Yavin 4 and at the end the Death Star?

          How big was the moon (Yavin IV or another moon) in the background at the beginning of this scene?

          How far away were the fighters from it?

          How big was the body (another moon or the Death Star) in the background at the end of this scene?

          How far away were the fighters from it?

          How big was the distance between both bodies and their distance to Yavin?

          And what was the path of the camera and how fast did the camera fly around the fighters?

          Maybe all these figures aren't important?

Maybe you can explain, how you can derive a velocity by analysing that scene.



seanrobertson wrote:You wouldn't dispute that the Death Star circumnavigated a tremendous distance in thirty minutes, would you? It had to be accelerating alike crazy to go around a gas giant that quickly.

Why did the Death Star had to accelerate? What is the evidence for a changing velocity?

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 354
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby WATCH-MAN » 2017-06-18 05:22am

At the beginning of the scene, we can see for a few moments the fighters flying away from a body (Yavin IV or another moon) in the background.

How fast were they flying away from this body?

At the end of the scene, we can see for a few moments the fighters flying to a body (another moon or the Death Star) in the background.

How fast were they flying to this body?

Compare how fast Earth gets smaller in the background when the Enterprise is flying away from it with impulse power or how fast it is approaching and passing Jupiter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA-jWOnqAZ0 - 2:49 - 2:55 and 3:08 - 3:20

or how fast the Starbase Yorktown gets smaller in the background when the Enterprise is leaving it - probably only using impulse power

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beWyG8U4Lew

I'm not able to derive any velocities only from watching these scenes.

But I have the feeling that this is quite a little bit faster than what we see, when in Star Wars the fighters are flying in orbit of Yavin.

User avatar
ray245
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5857
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Postby ray245 » 2017-06-24 01:15pm

There seems to be another upcoming video channel wanting to do this debate:




I find it hilarious that people are reviving old arguments, but this time with a profit seeking goal in mind. Making money/career out of ST vs SW? Who knew!
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.


Return to “Star Wars vs Star Trek”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests