Funny, all I can see is Mike saying it would take the E-D's entire photorp payload to destroy the Pegasus asteroid. Not a single mention of Ancient drones. Why don't you show the asteroid destroyed by a single drone to be the same size as the Pegasus one. Which, incidentally, STILL wouldn't make it as strong as the seismic charges. Requirement for fracturing a solid 5km asteroid: 125MT. Seismic charges: Several GT. Yep, a single drone is the equivalent of a seismic charge. How about...no.

I.e., double-figure MT, just as the LTLs in ESB. In other words, pretty small fry when proton torpedoes in the same size range appear to be potentially GT and up what with them being able to threaten capital ships in sufficient numbers on occasion. And that's assuming the asteroids destroyed by drones where a) the same size and b) VAPOURIZED. Size and manner of destruction would be?

Um yes it does. MT level weapon vs TT/PT level shields=ineffective. Assuming 100MT drones you'd need to hit Amidaala's yacht with 5 of them a second to wear the shields down. I'm not even bothering to work out how many drones you'd need to take on an Acclamator leave alone a real warship.

I'm inclined to lock this thread because of your idiocy, Punk.

If you continue claiming that a puddlejumper can happily equal the feat of blasting a five kilometer-wide asteroid apart (such a thing would be bigger than ) provide a full set of evidence to justify this extraordinary claim - that means pictures, annotation, math and so forth. Otherwise, it's just stupidly unbelievable.

I'm not locking the thread, because It's frowned upon if the mod in question is a participant. But yeah. One more piece of no-numbers crap out of Punk, and it's splitting.

---

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

Alright, a quick trip to youtube for this 'seismic charge' drone shit lead me to this:

DRONES

I presume this is the scene your refering but by all means, correct me if I am wrong because I sure hope for your sake I am.
It took a single drone to destroy asteroids the same size as the puddle jumpers, by your insanity a single drone should have cleared out that entire field.

AOTC Scene - Starts from 3:20

A single drone can mimic that, I think not. Hence, you will happily conceed the statment that a single drone is equal to a charge or provide a scene where a drone mimics that level of destruction.

I could spend ages typing more to refute this idiocy but until you even attempt to justify it with something more credible than incorrect distortions. I will not bother.

Instead, we can default back to the original point. Drones do not have equal destructive capabilities to Star Wars weapons hence they would be useless as a generic weapon.

Now, bring forth evidence the method drones use to penetrate shields will work on SW shields.

Now let's be fair. PunkMaister has NEVER argued he has any idea what method Ancient drones use to penetrate SG shields leave alone claimed they'd work on Wars shields. He's offered a few ideas on which methods they MIGHT be using, the problems with which were shown up, and I mostly agree with your reasoning WHY they likely wouldn't work on Wars shields, but that only leaves us at IF drones work that way THEN they're likely fucked against Wars shields. His basic assumption that we have no clue one way or the other is essentially correct

His firepower equivalency bullshit I think I've adressed satisfactorily.

Actually he is saying that it would take all their payload to equal yes equal the firepower of a single Seismic charge now those are his words equal. And no he is not mentioning drones as it is obviously about Trek not Stargate but the point is that it shows that by definition a drone can equal the amount of damage it can deliver to a solid kilometers wide asteroid.


In the episode kilometers wide asteroids were reduced to clouds of space dust each by a single drone and I mean the small ones fired from Puddle Jumpers not the big ones fired from capital ships or city ships etc...



Except you are forgetting we are just talking about the small drones fired from a Puddle Jumper and not the ones fired from either Capital ships or a city ship which probably have a substantially bigger bang that their puddle jumper counterparts being bigger and all so the numbers for the big ones owe to be larger. Would it be large enough to reach the petaton level shields and armor that SW boasts? Most likely not...

Now I do not have the exact size of the Asteroids in question that the Jumpers and their drones were swatting left and right like flies with their drones and turning all of them into space dust other than they were indeed kilometers wide and thus posed a serious threat to Atlantis, not much to go on but it did happen and it is canon.


I'm not saying that this factoid proves in any way that it can defeat SW shields and armor. But since a lot of time asteroids are used as a solid gold method of proving firepower as opposed to firing on a ship so I posted about it.

---

Visit my site:
------------------------------------------
http://scifiverse.tk/

Just how stupid are you? I mean, besides 'very'? 'Equal' as in it takes E-D 's entire photorp load to even BEGIN to equal what Slave 1 did with a single seismic charge. Which you would know if you had actually read and COMPREHENDED the main site.

No it doesn't and that'd still be a measly 125 MT, assuming you can show a drone shattering a 5 km asteroid.

Yeah, that's really quantifiable AND substantiated.

You will now provide those numbers. And the 100MT was a baseless assumption on my part to make the math easy on me. You have yet to show ANY calculations on what Ancient drones do.

IOW, you're blithely assuming. Scaling or dialogue on the size of the asteroids.

WITHOUT posting anything actually USEFUL.

Ok, I think it is established he is talking about the episode I just linked a clip of.

Punk, please read my post and watch the links. I'm going to assume you havent seen this episode in a long time and are incorrectly remembering from memory. In which case fair enough however, there is no way a single drone is equal to a charge from on screen evidence. Atlantian or Puddle Jumper.
Drones are simply not a viable weapon system in the SW universe because they lack the raw power to compete in it. All of the methods put forward so far have been countered from what I have seen and the difference in power makes the proposition of drones 'brute forcing' their way through a shield in any effective manner unlikely.

Special method or not, it would be more viable to steal that method from the drones and place it in SW munitons which makes standard Ancient drones useless unless this method is completely tied to the nature of how the drones work and at best, drones will end up becoming a weapon used against unshielded targets like TIEs or as point defence interceptors.

That is the episode but if you think it validates your claim of the asteroids being about the size of a jumper think again, and it is that video that provides the evidence to the contrary and here it is:

First is a comparison between the overall size of the main tower and the jumpers here:

We can see clearly how big and large the circumference of the building is in relation to the ship's overall size...

Second we have an asteroid about to impact said tower here:

And here it is you see to validate your claim it has to be that either the puddle jumpers somehow grew in size or the tower in question shrank which we know it cannot be. The asteroid envelopes the whole width of the building as is about to hit!

And finally we have another size reference as the puddle jumper maneuvers up and away from the tower after it destroys the offending asteroid:


So while the asteroids were probably not kilometers wide they were certainly in orders to 8 and even 20 times bigger than the jumpers in question that one was easily 20 times the size of the jumper...

---

Visit my site:
------------------------------------------
http://scifiverse.tk/

I need to correct the overall scales I posted earlier as is actually 2,3 or more times larger than the jumpers and not 20. This darn connection just keeps breaking off darn it! Anyhow here are some calcs about the whole deal by Mr.Oraghan.

---

Visit my site:
------------------------------------------
http://scifiverse.tk/

That isnt the same tower your comparing to the one the drones left. They are leaving the main / central tower which has a visible shield over it, the one that asteroid is about to hit does not have said shield hence not the main tower. Whats the point in comparing the top down size of the central tower to a jumper and then showing the jumper next to another tower ?
Not that it does fuck all anyway since your comparing the puddle jumper to the circumference of a shield rather than the actual tower. Even if you compare it to the tower, you have stated no measurments for anything hence, whats the game here ?

You are claiming these asteroids were kilometers wide in order to claim they have power equal to a SW charge and equal to the feat of the E-D being able to take out a 5km asteroid. Now your turning around and saying 'probably not' kilometers wide but 8 - 20 then 2 - 3 times larger than a puddle jumper.
What the fuck is this meant to prove unless you state a size of the puddle jumper ?

You could have saved yourself a lot of time by simple saying you were bullshitting on the size of the asteroids rather than attempt to backpedal it into, 'oh they 'probably' arent kilometers wide but they are x amount bigger than unstated measurment of a jumper'
If you dont have a measurment of the jumper, your pulling the scales of the asteroids from your ass not to mention your pulling a scale 8 - 20 times bigger. Christ, woe is me for saying they were the same size as Jumpers compared to your claim they were kilometers in length and then 8 - 20 times larger than a jumper.

All in the name of proving that a single drone has equal firepower as the E-D destroying a 5km hollow asteroid which is equal to the siesmic charge destruction of a 5 to 10km area encompassing many asteroids or a turbolaser bolt on an ISD.

Who is 'Mr Oraghan' ?

In all this calculation, all I am seeing as a size is 24.75m.
24.75m... quite a big difference from 5km, no ?

So we have went from kilometer wide asteroids to a single 24.75m asteroid which you claim takes equal energy to destroy as a siesmic charge does over 5-10km, a turbolaser does against an asteroid and the E-D's entire payload takes to destroy a 5km hollow asteroid ?

My last post was only to prove that the asteroids in question were considerably bigger than the jumpers while is true that they did not turned out to be kilometers wide...
So here is the limey and what we do know of this things called drones.

1. They can bore thru 150~200 meters of thick antarctic ice shelf which can be stronger than steel.

2. They can smash with ease a 24.75 meters wide asteroid leaving the window panes of that tower undamaged. which means the explosion must have been on the surface of the asteroid's other side in a shaped charge style preventing either the explosion or the resulting debris from damaging the building that means at least a 100 GJ per drone per Mr Oraghan's calculations are concerned.

3. They can work their way into nearly 99.5 of all shields and armor in Stargate the remaining 5% being the Uber Hiveship capability to repel them...

4. They can defeat with ease seemingly invincible armor such as the ones the Kull Warriors use...

Now does this means that the drones can defeat SW thickest armor and shielding, no absolutely not, but could it exploit weak areas of armor or window panes? We do not know, now do we? That's why I have not yielded to "They would never work under any circumstances" either.

And Mr.Oraghan is just the name he goes by at SB.com I know he is very likely also a member here but I do not know if he goes by the same name though...

---

Visit my site:
------------------------------------------
http://scifiverse.tk/

Understatement of the year.No they can't. The tel'tak's modified rings bored through "Half a mile of ice" the drones just flew up that hole.I've not taken a critical look at those calcs, but that's not saying much by SW space combat standards... Err. The only races we've actually seen them used on with success were the wraith and goa'uld. Oh, and the Asurans, but we know the Ancients/Asurans have shields capable of deflecting them, on their city ships at least.This is relevant how?Stop straw-manning. No one has said that.

---

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

Nowhere in this supposed proof is the destruction of a 5km asteroid mentioned unless you have another example, your comparisons to the Star Trek remain irrelevant.
Your 'biggest' asteroid turns out to be 24.75m wide which is so far off being even a km wide it isnt funny, hence your claim that drones are equal to an ISD laser or Jango's charge based on the size of the asteroids is false.



Are you referring to the scene Necron has already addressed or something like the scene with the helicopter avoiding the rogue drone ?
The former is just silly and you have provided a number of 150 ~ 200 metres compared to Necron's 'half a mile'.
Given your wild stab at a scaling of asteroids compared to the actual scene, I am going to ask you verfiy the scene that has a drone 'bore' through 150 ~ 200 metres of ice.
I wont bother pointing out you have stated a scale and yet again provided no actual calculations or quantifiable numbers on 'thick antarctic ice shelf which can be stronger than steel'




It took 2 drones to achieve this result.

Who was it that claimed a single drone could equal a ISD shot or a Seismic Charge based on this scene ?
Dont even dare backpedal that you meant 'City sized drones' because you specifically claimed JUMPER drones were equal to the above and that 'city sized drones' would be even more powerful.

I will quote just to make sure you get the message:



Kilometres wide - Disproven
By a single drone - Disproven

Example of a city sized drone being used against an asteroid so we can compare the difference in firepower ?
Evidence that the area of effect A drone has is large enough to damage the tower in this scene ?
Evidence that the 'resulting debris' would have damaged the 'windows' when it did not do the same to the Puddle Jumper flying right through it ?

You have said 100 GigaJoules as a figure for each drone.

According to the Turbolaser firepower commentary:



Further down on the same page the commentary states:



From the clip linked on youtube found here
The 24.75m asteroid is shown at 1:14 with two drones already in flight.
At the picture you posted of this asteroid in comparison to the tower is taken during 1:15 and the drones hit at the very tip of 1:16 then we have a delay before an explosion shown until 1:18 through two perspectives.
1:16) Drones explode at 1:16
1:17) Camera shifts to inside the cockpit at Mckay flinching with visible fire effects and debris outside the viewport
1:18) Mckay plays with the controls
1:19) Pull up sequence


If we assume all the energy of the drone was released in one second that results in 100 GW, two drones = 200 GW, the Turbolaser commentary classifies an X-wing's cannon as being 600 GW which they have 4 equaling 2400 GW.
Hence, a single cannon from a X-wing is 6 times more powerful than a drone.
If we lower this to half a second this results in 200 GW, two drones = 400 GW, which still has an X-wing's cannon 3 times more powerful than a single drone.

Right ?

The weapons of the Slave I are stated HERE at:



Unless I have fucked up my math or analysis, a drone is not going to compete in fighter combat let alone take on anything bigger.

I do not think one could possibly compare the window panes of a building to that of a spaceship as a spaceship is designed to at the very least resist impacts from micrometeorites and space dust while the first is not.

And yes the drone borrowing into and out of the ice shelf is from the rogue drone/helicopter scene here are some vidcaps:





Keep in mind that this is supposed to be Antarctica and the climate there is that of a cold desert with very little if any snowfall and that little snowfall just becomes part of the solidified ice shelf. So it cannot be claimed that is just loosely packed snow as Antarctica does not meet the conditions for that to occur.

And here's the drone borrowing it's way out of the ice shelf after the chopper had landed a few seconds earlier.

Anyway this is evidence that Drones do and can borrow thru ice virtually unphased by it...





That is really interesting, but what if in the SW galaxy they can boost the power of those drones just as they could potentially do with shields as well, if we follow what we have seen that just pumping more power into something in Stargate makes it faster, better etc...

---

Visit my site:
------------------------------------------
http://scifiverse.tk/

You DO know that without knowing how far and how fast the drone tunneled through the ice, this doesn't tell us DICK about its penetrative abilities, right?
Not that tunneling through a couple hundred metres of ice is particularly impressive (by Star Wars standards) to begin with, and IIRC the drone took a noticeable amount of time to do it.Now, let's fire an X-wing's lasers at that same amount of ice...
And why in Valen's name would more available onboard power do anything to the effectiveness of a drone? A Nimitz class aircraft carrier has considerably more power available than a Spruance-class destroyer yet its Sea Sparrows performed identical. Apart from the power required by the launch mechanism, drones are NOT dependent (and thus affected by variations in) the available power of the launch vehicle (at least as far as I know).

Umm I was talking about what is powering up the drones whatever it is and not what powers it's launch platform...

---

Visit my site:
------------------------------------------
http://scifiverse.tk/

And you assume that drone firepower depends on and can be arbitrarily increased by an external power source because...?

Drones have shown an independant power supply otherwise Rodney wouldnt have been able to manually launch one of the things.
Regardless, there is no point to 'pumping' power into drones when the same power can be used in the naturally powerful laser cannons of an X-Wing. Nevermind the obvious issue it brings up when you run out of drones in a fight.

Doesn't mean they CAN'T be remotely oomphed beyond that. Mind you, there's no evidence for that ever actually happening that I know of, but technically the drones being self-powered doesn't exlude them being BOOSTED by external power feeds.

I'm not referring to an external source but whatever powers the things internally and if whatever that thing is somehow boosted using SW energy sources instead. Although size would probably be a problem in that area.


Umm... Rodney manually launched a drone so they have to be self powered at least partially otherwise he would not have been able to pull that off anymore than launching a cannon round without a cannon.

---

Visit my site:
------------------------------------------
http://scifiverse.tk/

If you assume it is using a SW power source it is no longer an Ancient drone. That's like saying 'if we assume WW2 artillery shells had atomic warheads'

Thanks for completely missing the point. Yes, the drones can OBVIOUSLY be launched on internal power. This means they CAN'T be augmented by external power why?
As I said earlier, there's no evidence that they ARE but them being able to get going on internal power has absolutely no bearing on wether or not they accept external power feeds.

So we have a possible issue of drones having configurable yields determined by what ?
The launching mechanism ?
I can buy that but since Ancient tech has a mental component that makes quantifying drone power even harder since no Ancient has been seen using them at 'maximum' unless you count O'Neil.
After that, you have to start speculating if Shepard would be able to use drones as effectively as an Ancient if he didnt know they had power levels etc.
Gets worse if you bring in the possibility of an automated system being installed in launcher platforms which automatically adjusts drone yield based on it's understanding of the user's intention.

At the absolute minimum, we have seen Atlantis in varying levels of power from 0 ZPMs to 3 and no mention of drones being more powerful with increased power or evidence of such as far as I recall.
Which either means the ability to enhance them must be done via a method they dont know about / havent mentioned / used or the drones were already at maximum yield before ZPMs were brought in.

The former just fucks up any idea of their maximum potential and the latter would indicate the 'bang' isnt affected but the penetration / speed / swarming might.

I didn't waste my time reading the whole of this thread. But I will address the absolutely atrocious analysis work done here.

For Reference, all this is work done by one Mr.Oraghan at SB. PM glossed over that fact except for a throw away line and is basicially trying to create the impression that it is his. We do not have an explicit rule against plagiarism, but as someone who does a lot of analysis, I think stuff like this is a good example of why we should. Of course, there is a wide gulf between what I've done and what this guy does. Mr.Oraghan is one of the many sockpuppets of some twit from that RSA cesspit. He believes, among other things, that power is irrelevant to the effects of a process, that conservation of energy is not in fact true, and can't do basic math. This will come into play here shortly.


Failure to correct for perspective when measuring the Puddle Jumper. Which makes the rest Error Carried Forward, but lets run through it anyways since it ends up being irrelevant.

Again, failure to correct for perspective. We do not know the relative positions of the asteroid, tower, and camera. The more conservative approach (and as we shall see, the correct one) would be to assume that it is close to the ship that has been heading towards it at high acceleration the entire time, but that would drive down the size of the asteroid and thus the power of the event. And SB analysis is all about getting the value you want, not about figuring out a consistent and accurate value.


If you want to lie, yes, one could certainly draw that conclusion. However if you seek to determine accurate values, you will notice that if you assume that the puddle jumper does not magically change size, it is more consistent for a much smaller asteroid being closer to the puddlejumper in image 2. It is an incredibly simple exercise to subtend the angle in a manner similar to how one covers the moon with your thumb, even without numbers. Given that we have the puddlejumper for reference we can do this relative to it. Eyeballing it, the PJ covers about 3x as much of the screen as the asteroid. For that asteroid to be 20x the diameter of the PJ, there would need to be a separation of multiple kilometers between them. If that were the case, then there would be no need for the evasive action we see in image 3.

So we have intentional misrepresentation of the scene in question to inflate the numbers. Which is of course the point, PunkMaister and the others at SB are looking for high values, not an accurate assessment. This turns out to be a trend.


In typical SB fashion they work back from pretty much any starting point they want to get whatever figures they want. Apparently that makes more sense to them than doing research. This is a good example of that, but another one that I won't be surprised if PM trots out was the time they took a magazine line about zero point energy having enough energy in the volume of a coffee cup to boil the oceans and worked from that, leading to a long argument about what was the valid size for a coffee cup.

Anyway, we have effectively an arbitrary density for a given asteroid rather than making assumptions about it. For carbonaceous types graphite would have been a better base assumption.

Also, apparently he has no idea what "rounding" is, needing to go to 28 decimal places. I suspect this is an attempt to make the work look really precise and adopt an artificial air of validity. Of course, looking accurate and being accurate are totally different things.


[/quote]Yes ladies and gentlemen, that is correct. Here Mr Oraghan apparently thinks a sphere and a cube are one and the same. A sphere with a diameter of 1 meter will have a volume of ~0.52 meters^3, while a cube 1 meter on a side will have a volume of 1 m^3.

The alternative is that Mr Oraghan is a lying sack of shit who is trying to artificially inflate his numbers. It's like a choose your own adventure.
We know the scaling is off, so this is highly suspect.

All of this is highly suspect given the above flaws. By the way, note that there is zero attempt to justify an asteroid diameter of 24.75 meters.

Granite is formed from volcanic activity, when molten rock is subjected to extreme pressure. Something tells me there is very little in the way of molten rock of intense pressure in an asteroid field. Further granite has a density of ~2750 kg/m^3 which doesn't match his little derivation above.



Have at him boys.

---

Nuclear Navy Warwolf
*
in omnibus requiem quaesivi, et nusquam inveni nisi in angulo cum libro
*
ipsa scientia potestas est

I am putting you on notice PunkMaister. This is an official warning. You are perilously close to violating Debating Rule #6. Your blatant plagiarism does not bode well in your favor. That you have a history of such things is another strike again you.

PunkMaister's warning has been upgraded to a permanent ban. Plagiarism, which Ender pointed out, is absolutely unacceptable.

Does anyone know just how powerful the drones (StarGate) are

and

Can anyone here explain Continuum's low end Firepower?

are just two of the threads he has managed to get HoSed and in the first one of those, he baselessly accuses a moderator (SirNitram) of abuse of power. He only managed to slither out of a permanent ban because the thread got sidetracked and everyone was distracted by the exchange between Darth Wong and themightytom.

Those are not the only threads he has gotten HoSed either, there is a long list of those and of his general stupidity, as well as a warning not to backseat mod in this thread. All of that and then the plagiarism as the icing on the cake, goodbye and good riddance.

---

Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die