Moderator: Vympel
Amazing how far-seeing some folks are. And how generous they are if they leave notes behind.Connor MacLeod wrote:Incidentally, it just occured to me that since the novel specifies that Hypermatter reactors occur in both ISDs and the Death Star, there is greater justification for scaling down the reactors of the DS and an ISD from the ICS diagrams to derive power generation
Connor MacLeod wrote:Incidentally, it just occured to me that since the novel specifies that Hypermatter reactors occur in both ISDs and the Death Star, there is greater justification for scaling down the reactors of the DS and an ISD from the ICS diagrams to derive power generation
If hypermatter reactors could be scaled down like this, wouldn't it make sense to use one as the ultimate power source for your typical SW artifical sun?
"
Not necessarily. Even if they can be scaled down to very small sizes, hypermatter reactors could be very expensive to build and/or refuel. They may be worth it for military applications where power density is critical to combat performance, but not for civillian applications.Wyrm wrote:
I suspect the MF's refit was pretty extensive. The thing goes four times faster than a standard YT-1300. Imagine trying to refit a contemporary truck, or cargo plane, or container ship to travel at four times its normal speed - it generally wouldn't be possible no matter how much money and technology you threw at the problem. Furthermore the Millenium Falcon doesn't seem to have a noticeably shorter range, or lower cargo capacity than a stock YT-1300.Illuminatus Primus wrote:Look at the MF; unless you suggest that he also installed a HM reactor, fuel confinement with orders-of-magnitude better power density, I think its as ubiquitous as our gasoline.
Terrestrial vehicles have certain limitations based on things like roads and atmospheric drag; space, and particularly hyperspace travel, would not have these same issues.Starglider wrote:I suspect the MF's refit was pretty extensive. The thing goes four times faster than a standard YT-1300. Imagine trying to refit a contemporary truck, or cargo plane, or container ship to travel at four times its normal speed - it generally wouldn't be possible no matter how much money and technology you threw at the problem. Furthermore the Millenium Falcon doesn't seem to have a noticeably shorter range, or lower cargo capacity than a stock YT-1300.Illuminatus Primus wrote:Look at the MF; unless you suggest that he also installed a HM reactor, fuel confinement with orders-of-magnitude better power density, I think its as ubiquitous as our gasoline.
Ok, tell me, what does limit hyperspace speeds? Why can't all vessels go arbitrarily fast? What's the relationship between engine power, hull strength and FTL velocity?Uraniun235 wrote:Terrestrial vehicles have certain limitations based on things like roads and atmospheric drag; space, and particularly hyperspace travel, would not have these same issues.
I confess I just looked on Wookiepedia. They usually pull their stats from the technical source books if available, the roleplaying games if not.Also, where has the range and cargo capacity of the MF been compared against stock YT-1300 freighters?
According to Lucas in the commentary track on the 2004 ANH DVD (IIRC) it's the navigation systems that determines how fast you can go from point A to point B. Supposedly, ships with inferior navicomputers would have to travel along certain well-known safe routes, while better ones can calculate a much faster way.Starglider wrote:Ok, tell me, what does limit hyperspace speeds? Why can't all vessels go arbitrarily fast? What's the relationship between engine power, hull strength and FTL velocity?Uraniun235 wrote:Terrestrial vehicles have certain limitations based on things like roads and atmospheric drag; space, and particularly hyperspace travel, would not have these same issues.
I find that highly unlikely. If that were true, large expensive capships would always have big, 'high quality' navicomputers and travel at high speeds. Little fighters and scouts would have small, cheap navicomputers and travel at low speeds. But this isn't the case; there isn't any particular correlation between size and speed (in fact fighters tend to have very low hyperspace multipliers).Dooey Jo wrote:According to Lucas in the commentary track on the 2004 ANH DVD (IIRC) it's the navigation systems that determines how fast you can go from point A to point B. Supposedly, ships with inferior navicomputers would have to travel along certain well-known safe routes, while better ones can calculate a much faster way.
Well, what can I say, I at least have the decency to bring up whatever gripes I have with people and their arguments face to face (or, the closest thing you can get on the internet) instead of running around on various other boards bitching behind the other guys back.Connor MacLeod wrote:Ironically, the SFJ site also seems to be a refuge for alot of the weider Stargate folk (Oraghn and L33telboi both post over there frequently, and do extensive stargate "analysis" over there.. for whatever the hell tht is worth. I'm sure you'd be more aware of stargate analysis than I am)
On page 14, it's claimed that shielding had to be "downgraded to a rudimentary level". It doesn't seem likely that the Alliance would have gotten incorrect information about the shielding as they had access to the complete plans.A New Hope wrote:DODONNA: The battle station is heavily shielded [...]
Now, now, thats a good one. Afterall, if a rudimentary shield can withstand all that debris from Alderaan moving at 5% c, what would a standard one be capable of, never mind top-of-the-line.Mange wrote:* Although the authors quotes ANH verbatim, they seem to have ignored other relevant quotes, most notably this one:On page 14, it's claimed that shielding had to be "downgraded to a rudimentary level". It doesn't seem likely that the Alliance would have gotten incorrect information about the shielding as they had access to the complete plans.A New Hope wrote:DODONNA: The battle station is heavily shielded [...]
Hmm.. seems to lend further credence to the idea that a lot of the Separatists war material ended up in the hands of the Alliance.Mange wrote: * It's not steeped with the same kind of minimalism which has plagued so many EU novels. The Alliance lost 500 X-wings (and the Death Star lost fewer a hundred of its TIE-fighters) in a futile attack on the Death Star.
* In said attack, the Death Star fires a low-powered superlaser blast which completely vaporizes the Alliance carrier, a Lucrehulk-freighter. So much for the inability of the original Death Star's superlaser to target smaller targets...
No, he did not, it's quite clear that he was referring to the shielding properties and armament of the Death Star as a whole. The part about the shaft being shielded was mentioned later in the briefing.VT-16 wrote:Dodonna was talking about the exhaust port, not the whole station,Mange wrote:On page 14, it's claimed that shielding had to be "downgraded to a rudimentary level".A New Hope wrote:DODONNA: The battle station is heavily shielded [...]
I considered that as well but I find it unlikely as he was explaining the properties of the station. However, it's still a possibility.VT-16 wrote:and only in relation to the fighter's laser cannons.
I disagree; simply because better navicomputers may be more reliable at plotting safe trajectories through dense obstacles as opposed to shitty ones leaving you basically to play it safe and very clear of potential problems, does not mean it is all that matters. For example, I'm sure particle shielding integrity matters if you travel extensively at high-impact through areas of denser medium than others. Also, ships with more responsive or more powerful drives will be more effective at applying course corrections due to hyperspatial drag.Starglider wrote:I find that highly unlikely. If that were true, large expensive capships would always have big, 'high quality' navicomputers and travel at high speeds. Little fighters and scouts would have small, cheap navicomputers and travel at low speeds. But this isn't the case; there isn't any particular correlation between size and speed (in fact fighters tend to have very low hyperspace multipliers).Dooey Jo wrote:According to Lucas in the commentary track on the 2004 ANH DVD (IIRC) it's the navigation systems that determines how fast you can go from point A to point B. Supposedly, ships with inferior navicomputers would have to travel along certain well-known safe routes, while better ones can calculate a much faster way.
L33tleboi, we do not need your permission to talk about you. We are not going to ask for your permission before making fun of you. And we certainly aren't running around behind your back. This is an open board, anyone can read anything posted on this part of the forum. So I hope you'll take it in the best of ways when I say FRAK OFF.l33telboi wrote:Well, what can I say, I at least have the decency to bring up whatever gripes I have with people and their arguments face to face (or, the closest thing you can get on the internet) instead of running around on various other boards bitching behind the other guys back.Connor MacLeod wrote:Ironically, the SFJ site also seems to be a refuge for alot of the weider Stargate folk (Oraghn and L33telboi both post over there frequently, and do extensive stargate "analysis" over there.. for whatever the hell tht is worth. I'm sure you'd be more aware of stargate analysis than I am
For the record though, I rarely do any Stargate 'analysis' on SFJ, I do it almost exclusively on SB. I do however give input here and there, mainly because there are no people there that know much about SG.
Now if you’re quite done poisoning the well, might I suggest that you in the future PM me if you have any gripes. Because frankly, I find this kind of shit quite cowardly.
Commander of the MFS Darwinian Selection Method (sexual)
Fuel capacity may also be another factor... Ships with large fuel stores can possibly afford to expend more fuel on acceleration and decceleration, as opposed to starfighters and smaller vessels, who can't scarifice the fuel neccesary to revert back to realspace.Illuminatus Primus wrote: I disagree; simply because better navicomputers may be more reliable at plotting safe trajectories through dense obstacles as opposed to shitty ones leaving you basically to play it safe and very clear of potential problems, does not mean it is all that matters. For example, I'm sure particle shielding integrity matters if you travel extensively at high-impact through areas of denser medium than others. Also, ships with more responsive or more powerful drives will be more effective at applying course corrections due to hyperspatial drag.
I don't know. There may be other issues which come into play, but at the same time make "install bigger engine = 4x faster than stock" much more feasible in space/hyperspace than on the ground or in atmospheric flight. The point is that "well you can't just make a car go 4x faster by putting a bigger engine in it so you can't do it to a spaceship either" is really a pretty horrible analogy.Starglider wrote:Ok, tell me, what does limit hyperspace speeds? Why can't all vessels go arbitrarily fast? What's the relationship between engine power, hull strength and FTL velocity?Uraniun235 wrote:Terrestrial vehicles have certain limitations based on things like roads and atmospheric drag; space, and particularly hyperspace travel, would not have these same issues.
It works fine for sublight; acceleration is exactly proportional to thrust, which for any given technology is fairly proportional to the size and energy usage of the engine (subject to dimminishing returns as the engine mass becomes a major fraction of the vessel mass). For hyperspace, either it takes energy to keep ships in hyperspace and/or drive them forward vs drag or it doesn't. If it doesn't, something about the initial jump determines the speed - either the computer (which doesn't make sense) or the drive power. If it does, it's either FTL drive size or STL drive power - the later is possible but not likely as we don't see a good correlation between hyperspace speeds and sublight speeds.Uraniun235 wrote:I don't know. There may be other issues which come into play, but at the same time make "install bigger engine = 4x faster than stock" much more feasible in space/hyperspace than on the ground or in atmospheric flight.
This would be mass fraction, not absolute fuel storage capability (for any given fuel/reactor energy density). It doesn't seem to be the case, given the fact that fighters have a short operational range yet tend to have high hyperspace speeds - it's possible that their high hyperspace speeds come from high hyperspace fuel usage, but that contradicts the X-Wing quote and suggests that figthers should be able to sacrifice speed for range - which they seemingly can't (though admittedly that may be a life support consumables limitation).PainRack wrote:Fuel capacity may also be another factor... Ships with large fuel stores can possibly afford to expend more fuel on acceleration and decceleration, as opposed to starfighters and smaller vessels, who can't scarifice the fuel neccesary to revert back to realspace.
Liar liar pants on fire! The quote states that "no naval ship of any size would be even a remote threat" meaning that no INDIVIDUAL ship would be a threat. After that line there is full stop and then it states that "A fleet of Imperial-class Star Destroyers—even a fleet of Super-class Star Destroyers" would offer no threat. NOT "any fleet" or "entire Imperial starfleet" but "a" fleet.Mr. Oragahn wrote:The surface to vacuum defenses (huh? what's that, a range of 10 centimeters?) were enough to deal with a fleet of ISD or SSDs.However, given the surface-to-vacuum defenses, the number of fighters, turbolaser batteries, charged-particle blasters, magnetic railguns, proton torpedo banks, ion cannons, and a host of other protective devices, no naval ship of any size would be even a remote threat. A fleet of Imperial-class Star Destroyers—even a fleet of Super-class Star Destroyers, should such a thing ever exist — would offer no real danger to the battle station once it was fully operational. Given all that, a shield system that was less than perfect at times wasn't such a high price to pay for the ability to vaporize a planet.
This puts at new twist on Dodonna's words, for any self respected EU fan.
The Death Star had such firepower, aside from the superlaser, that it would be able to deal with any fleet of any ISD or SSD anyone could think of.
You heard it guys. If you use EU you must use Mr. Oragahns false interpretation of Death Star novel!Mr. Oragahn wrote:We know that SDN people always took the most convenient interpretation of Dodonna's words, and never agreed that Dodonna, when talking to the pilots, could have been including the surface defenses, or even solely talked about them.
But here, we see that it was the case. If you use the EU, you'll be forced to accept the fact that Dodonna was talking about the surface weapons.
Well whoop-de-fucking-do. It seems that EU explicitly states that it's the superlaser itself that is more powerful than half of starfleet not the surface defense weapons.No other weapon produced during the Galactic Civil War proved as devastating as the awesome Imperial superlaser. The superlaser was created by several turbolaser pulses, produced by amplifications crystals around the cannon's circular well. These pulses were fused over the central focus lens, resulting in a devastating energy beam with more firepower than half the Imperial starfleet.
