Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15204
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: 'Very' mildly hopeful now DC recognized taking Clark's red trunks away was a bad idea
Contact:

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Batman » 2018-04-11 05:13pm

Oh I know Watchmoron, I just felt like venting. And he IS right about 'can reduce planetary surfaces to molten slag' not really being very precise information
'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
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3645
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Formless » 2018-04-11 05:17pm

WATCH-MAN wrote:
2018-04-11 04:17pm
Rhadamantus wrote:
2018-04-11 09:40am
WATCH-MAN wrote:
2018-04-11 05:59am

Please provide examples of other orbital bombardments that are inconsistent with the orbital bombardment depicted in the episode of Rebels.

Comparing theses examples of other orbital bombardments with the orbital bombardment depicted in the episode of Rebels may result in a more plausible explanation.
The Canon ICS quote that Resurgent class destroyers can turn planetary surfaces to slag.
That's a claim about the abilities of a Resurgent class destroyer but not the depiction of an orbital bombardment let alone orbital bombardments.
In the first five minutes of The Last Jedi we see a First Order dreadnought fire four turbolaser bolts at the Resistance base. Each bolt creates a mushroom cloud the size of Rhode island. Yes, yes, specialist weaponry, but everything suggests they are just scaled up turbolasers. If you scale such a weapon back to represent a more normal turbolaser (and remember, the Empire Strikes Back asteroid scenes still happened, and the calculations from that are still valid extrapolations from canon), you should still expect the things to create explosions similar in size to the Tsar Bomba and other thermonuclear weapons. Quite inconsistent with the Rebels scene unless something strange is going on to take energy out of the bolts. Maybe they were just using their light turbolasers, who knows.

Alternatively, you have Operation: Cinder, which used special weather satellites armed with "lasers" (air quotes are here because they behave as much like lasers as any other "lasers" in Star Wars do) that cause global firestorms within hours. We see the aftermath, and it basically bakes a planet alive much like Simon was talking about earlier. Again, yes this is specialist weaponry, but it appears to be based on existing technology, likely a variation of turbolaser or superlaser technology. And besides that, the comic under discussion here suggests that specialist weapons are preferred for orbital bombardment anyway; but those orbital bombardments should still be devistating and not at all pitiful like in Rebels, because Base Delta Zero is still a canon order. The story group just tweaked the details a bit: whereas in Legends the definition of BDZ goes into specific detail about slagging or glassing planets, the new definition instead focuses on the goal of BDZ. Global extermination of all inhabitants and all life, as well as a propaganda campaign pretending that the order actually means "liberating" planets. The implication is that it still involves orbital bombardment, as that is the most expedient method of achieving the stated goal.
Batman wrote:Oh I know Watchmoron, I just felt like venting. And he IS right about 'can reduce planetary surfaces to molten slag' not really being very precise information
Eh, imprecise or not, if even small parts of the planet are glassed it would still be inconsistent with the pitiful display from Rebels. Hell, The Force Awakens showed X-wings could do better than that!

Really, no matter what you say the bombardment scene from Rebels was just fucking stupid, since even modern day civilization could do better if we were in space. Just dropping some meter long rods of steel or tungsten would have created more impressive cratering. So maybe I'm just being overly generous by assuming the depiction should be taken as authoritative at all: its not like everything seen in animation is as trustworthy as that which is described in text or seen in the films. Its meant for kids, and the writers clearly treat it as such.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15204
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: 'Very' mildly hopeful now DC recognized taking Clark's red trunks away was a bad idea
Contact:

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Batman » 2018-04-11 05:33pm

Oh I'm totally with you on the orbital bombardment in Rebels-we could do worse than that in World War 1
'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.'

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 405
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2018-04-12 04:58am

Formless wrote:
2018-04-11 05:17pm
In the first five minutes of The Last Jedi we see a First Order dreadnought fire four turbolaser bolts at the Resistance base. [...]

Alternatively, you have Operation: Cinder, which used special weather satellites armed with "lasers" [...]
With other words: You could provide only two examples

Example 1:



Not a Star Destroyer - but a Dreadnought - bigger than a normal Star Destroyer - using two huge guns - never seen before - a fortiori not on a normal Star Destroyer - fires four times from orbit on a base on a planet (00:29 - 00:44).

Interestingly, the bolts - after they impacted - didn't cause an explosion similar to the explosion of a nuke - as can be seen when the shuttle is lifting of not even hundred meters away from the area where two of these bolts impacted (00:47 - 00:49).

A mushroom cloud the size of Rhode island - as you describe it - can only be seen, when the shuttle, leaving the planet, can already be seen from orbit in the next scene (00:49 - 00:53).

It's unknown how much time lies between the scene showing - from the surface of the planet - the shuttle lifting of and the scene showing - from an orbital perspective - the shuttle leaving the planet.

It's unknown if the explosion that can be seen in the latter scene - from an orbital perspective, is caused by they bolts or if the bolts merely triggered a secondary explosion, e.g. by destroying a reactor or fuel depot.

Considering how pitiful the explosion was that cold be seen in the first scene - from the surface of the planet - it does not seem very plausible to assume that the bolts caused the mushroom that could be seen from an orbital perspective. Secondary explosions seem to be more plausible.



Example 2:

Operation: Cinder.

I'm not familiar with it and do not know, if it is canon.

But as you describe it, they used "special weather satellites armed with "lasers".

They did not use Star Destroyers or other ships.

That alone is telling.



You have to excuse me. But I do not see, how you could - taking these two examples - claim, that "the orbital bombardment depicted in the episode of Rebels" - executed by normal Star Destroyers - is inconsistent.

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 405
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2018-04-12 04:59am

Batman wrote:
2018-04-11 05:33pm
Oh I'm totally with you on the orbital bombardment in Rebels-we could do worse than that in World War 1
With DET-weapons?

From thousands kilometres away?

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 405
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2018-04-12 05:21am

Formless wrote:
2018-04-11 05:17pm
Really, no matter what you say the bombardment scene from Rebels was just fucking stupid, since even modern day civilization could do better if we were in space. Just dropping some meter long rods of steel or tungsten would have created more impressive cratering. So maybe I'm just being overly generous by assuming the depiction should be taken as authoritative at all: its not like everything seen in animation is as trustworthy as that which is described in text or seen in the films. Its meant for kids, and the writers clearly treat it as such.
Are you sure?

Whatever you drop from orbit has to survive the atmospheric entry and still has to hit the intended target.

Using turbo lasers may be a compromise: Not as powerful, but also not as expensive as missiles that can survive the atmospheric entry and still hit the target, while still having the same precision as such missiles. And it may be that turbo lasers can't be as easily intercepted as missiles.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 358
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Rhadamantus » 2018-04-12 02:53pm

WATCH-MAN wrote:
2018-04-12 05:21am
Formless wrote:
2018-04-11 05:17pm
Really, no matter what you say the bombardment scene from Rebels was just fucking stupid, since even modern day civilization could do better if we were in space. Just dropping some meter long rods of steel or tungsten would have created more impressive cratering. So maybe I'm just being overly generous by assuming the depiction should be taken as authoritative at all: its not like everything seen in animation is as trustworthy as that which is described in text or seen in the films. Its meant for kids, and the writers clearly treat it as such.
Are you sure?

Whatever you drop from orbit has to survive the atmospheric entry and still has to hit the intended target.

Using turbo lasers may be a compromise: Not as powerful, but also not as expensive as missiles that can survive the atmospheric entry and still hit the target, while still having the same precision as such missiles. And it may be that turbo lasers can't be as easily intercepted as missiles.
Yes. This is not in dispute. https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles ... ear-weapon
WATCH-MAN wrote:
2018-04-12 04:59am
Batman wrote:
2018-04-11 05:33pm
Oh I'm totally with you on the orbital bombardment in Rebels-we could do worse than that in World War 1
With DET-weapons?

From thousands kilometres away?

That is very clearly not what he meant.
WATCH-MAN wrote:
2018-04-12 04:58am
Formless wrote:
2018-04-11 05:17pm
In the first five minutes of The Last Jedi we see a First Order dreadnought fire four turbolaser bolts at the Resistance base. [...]

Alternatively, you have Operation: Cinder, which used special weather satellites armed with "lasers" [...]
With other words: You could provide only two examples

Example 1:



Not a Star Destroyer - but a Dreadnought - bigger than a normal Star Destroyer - using two huge guns - never seen before - a fortiori not on a normal Star Destroyer - fires four times from orbit on a base on a planet (00:29 - 00:44).

Interestingly, the bolts - after they impacted - didn't cause an explosion similar to the explosion of a nuke - as can be seen when the shuttle is lifting of not even hundred meters away from the area where two of these bolts impacted (00:47 - 00:49).

A mushroom cloud the size of Rhode island - as you describe it - can only be seen, when the shuttle, leaving the planet, can already be seen from orbit in the next scene (00:49 - 00:53).

It's unknown how much time lies between the scene showing - from the surface of the planet - the shuttle lifting of and the scene showing - from an orbital perspective - the shuttle leaving the planet.

It's unknown if the explosion that can be seen in the latter scene - from an orbital perspective, is caused by they bolts or if the bolts merely triggered a secondary explosion, e.g. by destroying a reactor or fuel depot.

Considering how pitiful the explosion was that cold be seen in the first scene - from the surface of the planet - it does not seem very plausible to assume that the bolts caused the mushroom that could be seen from an orbital perspective. Secondary explosions seem to be more plausible.



Example 2:

Operation: Cinder.

I'm not familiar with it and do not know, if it is canon.

But as you describe it, they used "special weather satellites armed with "lasers".

They did not use Star Destroyers or other ships.

That alone is telling.



You have to excuse me. But I do not see, how you could - taking these two examples - claim, that "the orbital bombardment depicted in the episode of Rebels" - executed by normal Star Destroyers - is inconsistent.
1. He could only provide two examples because very few exist.
2. He included all of the qualifiers you saw fit to nitpick with.
3. Operation Cinder is canon, which you would know if you had the slightest ability to do research.
4. Given the satellites were launched in masse from a single star destroyer, the idea that they massively outarm a star destroyer is prima facie absurd.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3645
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Formless » 2018-04-12 05:08pm

With other words: You could provide only two examples
I only need two examples. Meanwhile, I can see why Simon considers you to be a mere troll. I won't repeat points made by Rhadamantus, but I will say that you are plainly trying to evade my points rather than addressing them. I said that the weapons on the Dreadnought are almost certainly just scaled up turbolasers; you respond with "not a Star Destroyer, new weapon we have never seen before, LOL". It doesn't matter if its a Star Destroyer, because the guns are just existing technology scaled up. Scaled back down again to reflect regular turbolasers suggests weapons with multi-kiloton and higher yields-- just as was calculated back in the day. See, the problem with your argument is that this isn't just about orbital bombardment specifically, but the overall inconsistency between the pitiful display in Rebels and the known firepower of turbolasers in general. For that matter, we see X-Wings, AT-ATs and whatever the First Order's walkers are called all show off greater firepower than the "bombardment" done in Rebels.

Its still amusing, though, to see you flail about trying to dismiss the examples I did give, always dancing around Occam's Razor trying (and failing) to not get cut. Really big explosions (which you provided the video for)? Must be an underground reactor blowing up! Excuse me, what underground reactor? We never saw nor heard the Resistance mention such a thing, and we saw enough of their base to be know for a fact they didn't have either a planetary/theater shield nor surface-to-orbit artillery like the Hoth base had. No, that argument is bullshit and you know it. More bullshit would be the suggestion that the shuttle launch took longer than the scene implies simply on account of the fact the scene cuts between two camera angles-- one on the ground then one in orbit-- even though the first five minutes of the film is a continuous scene all throughout. Meaning that the edit does NOT imply a time skip, it represents a real time shot of the shuttle going into orbit. Spacecraft in Star Wars have absurdly powerful engines; this is not new information. By the way, the video you posted contains actual edits that remove scenes from the screenplay, namely all the dialogue. You can tell not only if you remember the film at all (or just the soundtrack, or even have a good enough musical ear to tell where the music has jumped ahead), but also because the camera pans into the bridge of one First Order ship only for the uploader to cut immediately away before the captain can even turn his head! So don't even tell me that video represents the film's edits accurately.

Oh, and the idea that it matters whether the ship with the big guns is a dreadnought or a Star Destroyer when in the comic posted by the OP shows that Tarkin's fleet had ships similarly equipped with specialized bombardment guns? Hilariously off topic. The point isn't to say they only use one kind of weapon in orbital bombardment, only that the weapons they have are demonstrably better at orbital strikes than what is shown on Rebels, a cartoon indisputably written for kids.

Also amusing? Your attempt to imply that Operation: Cinder isn't canon, when previously you dismissed the canonical statements in the ICS that says a single Resurgent class Star Destroyer can glass or slag a planet with its guns. Don't move the goalpost and say you've scored a touchdown. We know the rules of the game quite well.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.

User avatar
Juubi Karakuchi
Padawan Learner
Posts: 318
Joined: 2007-08-17 02:54pm

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Juubi Karakuchi » 2018-04-12 07:55pm

Formless' claim that the turbolasers were bleeding off energy due to extreme range or the atmosphere seems on the face of it to be the most reasonable explanation. Simon_Jester's point about catastrophic heating of the atmosphere is nevertheless a reasonable counter.

The best I can suggest is that the shots lose so much energy over the course of their flight that by the time they hit the atmosphere, they simply lack the energy needed to create an effect on the scale Simon_Jester refers to. Based on the visuals, Thrawn's fleet appeared to be in mid to high orbit, suggesting a range in the thousands or tens of thousands of kilometres; whereas turbolasers seem to have effective ranges of as little as sixty kilometres in TLJ as has been mentioned.

If this is not adequate, I can suggest only two further courses.

1) Ignore it. The Rebels example is a one-off, compared to large amounts of canon evidence for far greater firepower. Preponderance of the evidence favours the higher figures.

2) Thrawn was deliberately firing low-powered shots. We know from the series finale that star destroyers can alter the firepower of their weapons; Thrawn specifically ordered a full-power bombardment while Ezra was stuck with Palpatine. There is also a logical explanation as to why he would power down his weapons; namely that it lets him torment Ezra into surrendering, while not pushing him so far as to fly off the handle. Thrawn was ever the master psychologist.

So why would he fire low-powered shots at Chopper Base? Well, there are only two pieces of evidence that imply low-powered shots; the shots tormenting Kanan on his bike, and the lack of the catastrophic atmospheric heating spoken of by Simon_Jester. In the case of the Kanan shots, there is another factor to consider; he is some distance from the base, and the shots are too closely-targetted to be mere misses from the base. It seems as if someone spotted Kanan, dialled the weapons down to bare minimum, and decided to have some fun at his expense.

As for the lack of catastrophic heating, that's actually an explanation as to why Thrawn would power down. Tarkin ordered him to take prisoners, so he needs to carry out a land operation. If he were to screw up the local weather conditions (not to mention the planetary ecology) with a full-scale nuclear-comparable bombardment, even if the shield could resist it, then such an operation would be much more difficult, if not impossible. At the very least there would be dust and high winds to contend with, if not radiation and extreme heat.

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 405
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2018-04-13 01:20am

Rhadamantus wrote:
2018-04-12 02:53pm
WATCH-MAN wrote:
2018-04-12 05:21am
Formless wrote:
2018-04-11 05:17pm
Really, no matter what you say the bombardment scene from Rebels was just fucking stupid, since even modern day civilization could do better if we were in space. Just dropping some meter long rods of steel or tungsten would have created more impressive cratering. So maybe I'm just being overly generous by assuming the depiction should be taken as authoritative at all: its not like everything seen in animation is as trustworthy as that which is described in text or seen in the films. Its meant for kids, and the writers clearly treat it as such.
Are you sure?

Whatever you drop from orbit has to survive the atmospheric entry and still has to hit the intended target.

Using turbo lasers may be a compromise: Not as powerful, but also not as expensive as missiles that can survive the atmospheric entry and still hit the target, while still having the same precision as such missiles. And it may be that turbo lasers can't be as easily intercepted as missiles.
Yes. This is not in dispute. https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles ... ear-weapon
Please elaborate your claim.

Formless argues that a modern day civilization could achieve an higher level of destruction by just dropping some meter long rods of steel or tungsten from space.

He didn't say anything about such a ballistic flying rod surviving the atmospheric entry and still hitting the intended target.

He didn't say anything about the advantages and disadvantages in regard to costs and precision compared to turbo lasers.

By the way: The article you linked to, didn't say anything about the rods surviving the entry into the atmosphere and its ability to still hit the intended target.

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 405
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2018-04-13 01:30am

Rhadamantus wrote:
2018-04-12 02:53pm
WATCH-MAN wrote:
2018-04-12 04:59am
Batman wrote:
2018-04-11 05:33pm
Oh I'm totally with you on the orbital bombardment in Rebels-we could do worse than that in World War 1
With DET-weapons?

From thousands kilometres away?

That is very clearly not what he meant.
But that is the point.

Of course we could achieve an higher level of destruction already in World War 1.

Even Guy Fawkes could have achieved an level of destruction if his Gunpowder Plot had succeeded.

But that is like comparing apples with pears.

Even today we are not able to achieve an higher level of destruction with the DET-weapons we actually have - let alone from orbit.

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 405
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2018-04-13 01:57am

Rhadamantus wrote:
2018-04-12 02:53pm
1. He could only provide two examples because very few exist.
2. He included all of the qualifiers you saw fit to nitpick with.
3. Operation Cinder is canon, which you would know if you had the slightest ability to do research.
4. Given the satellites were launched in masse from a single star destroyer, the idea that they massively outarm a star destroyer is prima facie absurd.
Formless wrote that his main goal here was to explain how that (extraordinarily dumb) episode of Rebels could depict an orbital bombardment so seemingly inconsistent with other orbital bombardments depicted in the same universe.

This implies that there is a bunch of events where orbital bombardments happened in situations similar in all relevant aspects to the situation in the episode of Rebels and that, what is shown in the episode of Rebels, is not consistent with all the other events.

I asked him to provide examples of other orbital bombardments that are inconsistent with the orbital bombardment depicted in the episode of Rebels because comparing theses examples of other orbital bombardments with the orbital bombardment depicted in the episode of Rebels may result in a more plausible explanation.

He provided only two examples.

One in which a "Siege Dreadnought" ship with an huge "orbital autocannon" that, while firing four bolts on the Resistance base on D'Qar, could only produce a mushroom cloud the size of Rhode island - as Fomless describes it - whereas it is questionable if the mushroom cloud was really caused by the bolts.

And in the other example, a Star Destroyer, that alone - in your opinion - is supposed to be able to slag the entire surface of a planet, launched special weather satellites armed with "lasers" en mass to cause global firestorms within hours.

Two examples.

Not one is similar to what was shown in the episode of Rebels.

And if these are the only two example that can be provided, than there is simply not base to claim that what was shown in the episode of Rebels is inconsistent with with other orbital bombardments depicted in the same universe.

That's like saying that, because you have seen the explosion of a nuclear bomb, it is inconsistent that bullets fired from rifles do not cause similar explosions when hitting a human body. Both are happening not only in the same universe, but these weapons are used by the same civilisation at the same time. It's comparing apples with pears.

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 405
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2018-04-13 02:04am

Formless wrote:
2018-04-12 05:08pm
With other words: You could provide only two examples
I only need two examples.
Not if you want to prove that what was shown in the what was shown in the episode of Rebels is inconsistent with with other orbital bombardments depicted in the same universe.

Consistency is per definition the quality of achieving a level of performance which does not vary greatly in quality over time. That means that you need a bunch of events which are similar in all relevant aspects with the episode of Rebels. Only than can you assert that what was shown in the episode of rebels is not consistent with what was shown in all other events.

WATCH-MAN
Padawan Learner
Posts: 405
Joined: 2011-04-20 01:03am

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by WATCH-MAN » 2018-04-13 02:08am

Formless wrote:
2018-04-12 05:08pm
I said that the weapons on the Dreadnought are almost certainly just scaled up turbolasers
That's only an assumption.

But even if, it explains why the weapons of the Dreadnought could cause an higher level of destruction than the turbo lasers used in the episode of rebels.

That means that the level of destruction seen in the episode of rebels is consistent with the level of destruction seen in TLJ.

It is only to be expected that smaller canons means a smaller level of destruction.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 358
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Rhadamantus » 2018-04-13 08:09am

WATCH-MAN wrote:
2018-04-13 01:20am
Rhadamantus wrote:
2018-04-12 02:53pm
WATCH-MAN wrote:
2018-04-12 05:21am

Are you sure?

Whatever you drop from orbit has to survive the atmospheric entry and still has to hit the intended target.

Using turbo lasers may be a compromise: Not as powerful, but also not as expensive as missiles that can survive the atmospheric entry and still hit the target, while still having the same precision as such missiles. And it may be that turbo lasers can't be as easily intercepted as missiles.
Yes. This is not in dispute. https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles ... ear-weapon
Please elaborate your claim.

Formless argues that a modern day civilization could achieve an higher level of destruction by just dropping some meter long rods of steel or tungsten from space.

He didn't say anything about such a ballistic flying rod surviving the atmospheric entry and still hitting the intended target.

He didn't say anything about the advantages and disadvantages in regard to costs and precision compared to turbo lasers.

By the way: The article you linked to, didn't say anything about the rods surviving the entry into the atmosphere and its ability to still hit the intended target.
Did you actually read the article?
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 358
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Rhadamantus » 2018-04-13 08:10am

WATCH-MAN wrote:
2018-04-13 02:08am
Formless wrote:
2018-04-12 05:08pm
I said that the weapons on the Dreadnought are almost certainly just scaled up turbolasers
That's only an assumption.

But even if, it explains why the weapons of the Dreadnought could cause an higher level of destruction than the turbo lasers used in the episode of rebels.

That means that the level of destruction seen in the episode of rebels is consistent with the level of destruction seen in TLJ.

It is only to be expected that smaller canons means a smaller level of destruction.
No, it really doesn't. Scaling down from the Dreadnought, we would expect far higher firepower than that shown in Rebels.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 29992
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Simon_Jester » 2018-04-13 08:19am

Formless wrote:
2018-04-12 05:08pm
With other words: You could provide only two examples
I only need two examples. Meanwhile, I can see why Simon considers you to be a mere troll.
He does this exact thing every time. Massive nitpicking, refusal to acknowledge context or blatantly obvious implications of observed facts if the implications were not themselves observed directly, all manner of absurd alternate hypotheses presented.

Basically, he's a walking, talking slab of isolated demands for rigor. Waste of time.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Galvatron
Decepticon Leader
Posts: 5960
Joined: 2002-07-12 12:27am
Location: Kill! Smash! Destroy! Rend! Mangle! Distort!

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Galvatron » 2018-04-13 08:37am

I just recently learned that this sort of thing has a name: sealioning.

http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad

User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3645
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Formless » 2018-04-13 03:06pm

Simon_Jester wrote:
2018-04-13 08:19am
Formless wrote:
2018-04-12 05:08pm
With other words: You could provide only two examples
I only need two examples. Meanwhile, I can see why Simon considers you to be a mere troll.
He does this exact thing every time. Massive nitpicking, refusal to acknowledge context or blatantly obvious implications of observed facts if the implications were not themselves observed directly, all manner of absurd alternate hypotheses presented.

Basically, he's a walking, talking slab of isolated demands for rigor. Waste of time.
Does he also always inflate his post count with massive multiposting? Because I'm pretty certain we used to have a rule here against that. Its definitely a red flag, because at minimum it means he is skimming rather than reading, and worst case he's violating well understood netiquette on purpose.

This is nothing to do with his arguments, of course, since they're just a wall of ignorance, as you point out.
WATCH-MAN wrote:Consistency is per definition the quality of achieving a level of performance which does not vary greatly in quality over time.
Seriously, he's not even trying.
Wordnik wrote:(from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition)
n. Agreement or logical coherence among things or parts: a rambling argument that lacked any consistency.

[...]

n. Freedom from contradiction; the state of a system of axioms such that none of the propositions deduced from them are mutually contradictory
No one on this forum needs this spelled out unless they are blatantly trolling.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15204
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: 'Very' mildly hopeful now DC recognized taking Clark's red trunks away was a bad idea
Contact:

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Batman » 2018-04-13 04:06pm

Yup, the multiposting is typical, too
'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
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10810
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Lord Revan » 2018-04-13 10:11pm

Watch-man's main problem is that more often then not he asks questions in bad faith, he's not looking for answer but rather is seeking to waste our time until he can declare victory.

Now we all have had times when we should had conseded, but those to soldier on anyway, I know I have.

As for orbital bombardment the "rebels" example seems counter to pretty much other example and there's even man portable weapons there do more damage then the turbolasers in that scene even in the series itself.
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

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15204
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: 'Very' mildly hopeful now DC recognized taking Clark's red trunks away was a bad idea
Contact:

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by Batman » 2018-04-13 10:22pm

I think we can agree many if not most of us here have gone on arguing when it was clear we were wrong and we just wouldn't admit it ( I know I have at times) but WATCH-MORON is a textbook example of Sealioning because that's the ONLY thing he ever does
'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.'

You’re Wrong
Redshirt
Posts: 1
Joined: 2018-04-13 03:41pm

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by You’re Wrong » 2018-04-13 10:41pm

WATCH_MAN, there are plenty of examples that contradict the Zero Hour part 2 bombing in rebels. Most notably, from 2 canon novels: Catalyst, and Thrawn.

(I’m new here, sorry if I’m quoting things wrong)
Catalyst said:
On the bridge of the Executrix, Tarkin paced while Salient II burned. With the Star Destroyer parked a hundred thousand kilometers out, the planet turned slowly below, rashed with ruin. Each rotation revealed new areas of fiery devastation, expanding explosions dissipating in the upper atmosphere, the starlit horizon gray and black with cycloning smoke. Tarkin's adjutant updated him from nearby.
"Most of the infrastructure is in ruins: dams destroyed, fusion and fission facilities smoldering, reservoirs poisoned, cities ransacked and on fire."
The explosions caused reached all the way to the atmosphere. That’s high gigatons or maybe even low teratons range firepower level.
Thrawn wrote:

Through the viewport, Eli watched the sky light up as the brilliant green bolts hammered their way toward the planet below.

But not to the island itself. As Admiral Durril and the Judicator had so painfully demonstrated, the insurgents’ defenses were more than adequate to fend off any orbital attack.

But Scrim was an island…and the ocean immediately off its shore was not under the protection of that shield.

“Direct hit on Target One coordinates,” a voice came from one of the 96th’s two frigates, flying high observation over the battle zone. “Water crater—implosion—waves heading outward—”

“Impact!” a voice shouted from the second frigate. “Tsunami-scale wave has slammed into the western shoreline.”
Suffice it to say, mortar round-equivalent bolts wouldn’t cause tsunamis. Even nukes are mostly insufficient.

There’s also some more from the Phasma novel where towns are destroyed in one shot and Tarkin where a sustained bombardment ruined a planet’s ecosystem as a side effect. I’ll get those if needed.

User avatar
griffinflyer
Redshirt
Posts: 5
Joined: 2018-04-13 12:04pm

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by griffinflyer » 2018-04-14 11:19pm

I am friends with You're Wrong, and wanted to point out he meant upper atmosphere when he says
The explosions caused reached all the way to the atmosphere.
The upper atmosphere is 700 KM above ground level, according to google. Therefore, the radius of each explosion must be at least 350 KM, since one wouldn't detonate a bomb so high up it wouldn't harm the ground. The explosive power of a weapon with a radius of 350 KM (although this does depend on whether we're talking shockwave or fireball) is a hundred gigatons. The upper limit? A radius of 10,000 KM, assuming the "explosion" stops at the upper atmosphere and was detonated at ground level, which would be caused by an explosion of about 90 petatons! (Although this is an extreme upper limit and not to be taken seriously, the actual power of the explosion is probably only a few petatons or many teratons), which fits with previous calcs on Star Destroyer power, which generally are low petatons in terms of weapon output.

User avatar
griffinflyer
Redshirt
Posts: 5
Joined: 2018-04-13 12:04pm

Re: Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

Post by griffinflyer » 2018-04-14 11:51pm

Image
This image is box art from the canon 2015 game, Star Wars Armada. Yes, this does only demonstrate gigatons of firepower, but remember that turbolaser firepower suffers from significant dropoff. Also, using Brians DET calcs, this is actually much more.

Post Reply