StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Login   Register FAQ    Search

View unanswered posts | View active topics


It is currently 2014-11-01 07:39am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Fiction » Science Fiction » Star Wars vs Star Trek


Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)

Fully Built Borg Assimilated Death Star II vs Star Wars

Moderator: Vympel

Post new topic Post a reply  Page 7 of 15
 [ 351 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 15  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

Connor MacLeod
PostPosted: 2011-03-15 03:58pm 

Sith Apprentice


Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Posts: 14059
Just what kind of logistics the Borg will need for the DS2 will depend largely on how they intend to run it. If they avoid using the superlaser and limit their offensive operations, they quite probably cna conserve fuel. (at least 1e38 joules. They could probably fight and operate on a million times less that). I'd safely guess they could count on at least a year or so of operation
depending on how they conserve and pick and choose their battles.

The big advantage of the DS2 is going to be its massive firepower and shielding, which is something the Empire simply cannot address o na short term basis without a similar superweapon (or some sort of relatavistic ramming). That gives them virtual immunity, as long as those defenses last. Given how they usually react (eg treating the DS2 like a giant Borg cube) they're likely to just plow in headfirst, and that will save them in conflicts.

Any response the Empire is likely to amass (building some sort of anti-Deathstar force) will likely take several years to assemble and build.

What the Borg WILL need, are live bodies, replacement ships, and spare parts. Nothing in the OP was said about transporters onboard the DS2 (completely unknown, since synching the tech is going to be hard if not impossible to demonstrate, and no, appealing to future trek tech is not valid unless you can establish comparable benchmarks. "Advanced technology" is not all going to be one lump sum category.) Which goes back to Aaron's point on page one - they need logistical bases. And probably more than one. Which means taking territory.

What's more, to do all that, they're going to need MORE ships (even if they have magictech transporters somehow, or retroactively, or whatever.) The Death star, impressive as it is, is only one ship, and can be in only one place at one time. They need more ships to spread out. And they will need them fast, because even whilst they have a unbeatable super ship in the short term, the Empire still has a massive amount of industrial and logistical might behind it - infinitely more than the Borg have. And them having an intact DS2 is going to be considered a major threat to the galaxy, so there's no reason for them to hold back tremendously against it. And unless the Borg have a heretofore unseen ability to conduct guerilla warfare (and the knowledge and capability to recall and use it) its unlikely that they'll do much in that time to disrupt the economy across a disperse galaxy.

In short, it becomes a matter of how likely the Borg are to figure out they need to build up a massive force as quickly as they can, take territory, and generally defend themselves against an inevitable response by the Empire.

Also, I'm debating whether SW neutronium is RL neutronium,. And if it is its not just used as solid, inert armor material. Not that it needs to be for any particular reason, and its purely an irrelevant side issue.
   Profile |  

Metahive
PostPosted: 2011-03-15 04:17pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Posts: 2433
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany
In other words the Empire should be the Quintus Fabius to the B-DSII's Hannibal Barca.

As far as I know RL neutronium is still a purely theoretical concept, so by definition any neutronium in fiction that isn't likewise theoretical is something different.
   Profile |  

Eternal_Freedom
PostPosted: 2011-03-15 04:19pm 

Castellan


Joined: 2010-03-09 03:16pm
Posts: 5809
Location: Bound in a nutshell
And that argument has sod all to do with your original thread. Like every thread you post in darthy, we've got massively sidetracked on pointless ST shit.

Again, please post your evidence for how the Borg can operate a Death Star with no logistical base.
   Profile |  

Connor MacLeod
PostPosted: 2011-03-15 04:30pm 

Sith Apprentice


Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Posts: 14059
Sigh.

1.) Its not a matter of "can the borg operate the DS without logistics." Its a matter of "how long they can operate the DS without logistics." They can operate it for at least short periods of time before problems crop up, especially if they are conservative and cautious. But sooner or later they're going to run into issues they need a logistics base for.

2.) The Borg are essentialyl running against a clock. The DS2's main benefit is that it gives them short term invulnerability and an asset that allows them to acquire more assets in which to carry out their goals. But sooner or later the Empire will create or mass the force needed to crush the DS2. Hell that is inevitable. The Borg need to expand beyond just having a DS2 to have any chance of winning, and that AGAIN means they need a logistical/industrial base. Hell, at that point they don't even need the death star to win, if they have more ships and territory, they have redundancy to survive.

It becomes a matter of whether the Borg's having a DS2 enables them to expand fast enough to survive the Empire's potential ability to crush them via their greater size and numbers. The DS2 is an asset in that, not a game winner.
   Profile |  

Metahive
PostPosted: 2011-03-15 04:39pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Posts: 2433
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany
Was that in response to me? I mean what you proposed was following the same strategy with which Fabius eventually beat Hannibal, by refusing to confront him directly while harassing his supply lines and following a scorched earth policy. I don't understand where the *sigh* comes from here.
   Profile |  

darthy
PostPosted: 2011-03-15 05:00pm 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2011-03-11 10:23am
Posts: 185
Hey I got a critique of the no-limits fallacy. It's already been mentioned before:

Quote:
No-limits fallacies are in general bad because they extrapolate a hyperbolic statement beyond what is reasonable. But there's an increasing current in some vs. debates I've read of late that anything looking remotely unlimited is obviously and inherently wrong and stupid and anyone who suggests its viability is a complete moron. I've even seen people declare that the original authors are clearly fools for writing in something as silly and inherently impossible as an absolute effect.

The objectionability of the 'no-limits fallacy' is a vs. debating convention designed to reign in hyperbole. It is not inherently false, just frequently so - there are cases where it is perfectly reasonable to believe that a given effect will not be overwhelmed by any finite application of whatever it defends against. Neither does the presence of an unlimited claim have any bearing on the original work, only what can be justifiably extrapolated from it for use in vs. debates*. Most importantly it also isn't immediately and intuitively obvious to the uninitiated. It's perfectly acceptable for FreeSpaceLover22, posting on the exciting new 'spacebattles' forum he found, to believe that the Lucifer's shields are invulnerable to any amount of firepower, and to be a little miffed when people say that this isn't ironclad truth in the context of a vs debate.


It's not enough to say that the borg cannot assimilate sw tech because it's too advanced. It's presupposing that no amount of improvements on the borgs part can make them advanced enough to assimilate the technology in question. In effect you cannot address what you think is a no limits fallacy with one of your own.
   Profile |  

Eternal_Freedom
PostPosted: 2011-03-15 05:31pm 

Castellan


Joined: 2010-03-09 03:16pm
Posts: 5809
Location: Bound in a nutshell
Actually, I believe someone (possibly Darth Tedious) already said that if we gave the Borg enough tech improvements they coudl prevail against the Empire or whatever.

I know that I am not saying "no amount of improvements on the borgs part can make them advanced enough to assimilate the technology," and I don't think anyone else here is saying that.
   Profile |  

Darth Tedious
PostPosted: 2011-03-15 08:30pm 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2011-01-16 09:48pm
Posts: 1070
Strawman, you say?
From page 5:
darthy wrote:
Don't worry about it, I can be picky too. How much longer would scotty have survived in the transporter buffer had the Enterprise D not have come? We know he was in there for 75 years, but how much longer? I don't know myself. Let's just say it was an unspecified about of time or unclear then. That's what indefinitely means.
Eternal_Freedom wrote:
Dude, seriously, read what I said. It cannot be indefinite because we know that one of the patterns degraded irreparably. Therefore, that pattern MUST have degraded in LESS THAN 75 years. That is NOT INDEFINITE.
darthy wrote:
Yes scotty's friend dies but scotty didn't. Indefinite doesn't mean as long as they want in this case. It means it's unknown how long.
If you weren't claiming that the situation in TNG:'Relics' could be preserved indefinitely, you shouldn't have upheld that claim back on page 5.

Stop backpedalling. Either logically defend your idiotic claim or concede the point.

darthy wrote:
It's not enough to say that the borg cannot assimilate sw tech because it's too advanced. It's presupposing that no amount of improvements on the borgs part can make them advanced enough to assimilate the technology in question. In effect you cannot address what you think is a no limits fallacy with one of your own.
The no-limits fallacy was your claim that the Borg can readily adapt to and assimilate anything they come across (which is already contradicted by ST canon). Your defence of your stance consisted entirely of "if we gave the Borg [insert prerequisite], they could do it." By your own admission, the Borg do not, in the 24th century, have the technological prowess necessary to assimilate Imperial technology. They could do it, if they assimilated [insert prerequisite] first.
When you said "the Borg" in your OP, people actually thought you meant the Borg we saw in Star Trek, not your fanon version of them.

Once again, the very fact that you felt the need to do a versus scenario with fanon Borg against fanon Star Wars (and even then, modify the situation and rewrite history as you go to avoid defeat) is an admission in itself that the Borg wouldn't have a snowflake's chance in the GFFA.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:
Actually, I believe someone (possibly Darth Tedious) already said that if we gave the Borg enough tech improvements they coudl prevail against the Empire or whatever.
It was me. And it's true.
If we gave them enough improvements.

By the same token,
If we gave the ancient Romans enough tech improvements, they could beat the modern US.
If we gave the Federation enough tech improvements, they could beat WH40K.
If we gave the Galactic Empire enough tech improvements they could beat The Culture.
And here's the fun one:
If we gave the Ewoks enough tech improvements, they could beat the Borg.


P.S.- Address the other arguments that you've thus far ignored, or your silence will be accepted as concession.
   Profile |  

darthy
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 03:01am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2011-03-11 10:23am
Posts: 185
Quote:
If you weren't claiming that the situation in TNG:'Relics' could be preserved indefinitely, you shouldn't have upheld that claim back on page 5.

Stop backpedalling. Either logically defend your idiotic claim or concede the point.


It's two different claims depending how you look at it too. When you challenge the claim that scotty's pattern would remain in the buffer indefinitly, you're challenging that it could be in there forever. A point you're refusing to concede is that indefinitely really means "unknown limit". Maybe it's time you stop acting retarded about this. We see the word used in that type of context here in deep space nine episode "Life Support":

Quote:
BASHIR: Kira, if I go through with this, the man who wakes up may not be the man you used to know.
KIRA: I realise that, but I know how important this is to him, and I know he wouldn't want to just be put into stasis indefinitely, waiting for some medical solution that may never come. Do the surgery, Julian. Let him finish what he started.


enterprise episode "home"

Quote:
ARCHER: How can you be taking his side?
FORREST: I am not taking anyone's side. You were out of line.
ARCHER: They don't lift a finger to help us and now I have to justify myself to that son of a bitch?
FORREST: The debriefing's on hold, indefinitely. I want you to take some time off to clear your head.
ARCHER: With all due respect, Admiral, I don't need a vacation.
FORREST: That's an order, Captain!


That supposed to mean they never want to debrief him now?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/indefinitely

Quote:
in·def·i·nite (n-df-nt)
adj.
Not definite, especially:
a. Unclear; vague.
b. Lacking precise limits: an indefinite leave of absence.
c. Uncertain; undecided: indefinite about their plans.
   Profile |  

Darth Tedious
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 03:41am 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2011-01-16 09:48pm
Posts: 1070
darthy wrote:
When you challenge the claim that scotty's pattern would remain in the buffer indefinitly, you're challenging that it could be in there forever.
Strawman.
I am not challenging that it could be in there forever.
I am challenging that there is a clearly defined limit to the amount of time that it could be in there.

darthy wrote:
A point you're refusing to concede is that indefinitely really means "unknown limit".
There is a known limit.

It isn't unclear or vague.
It doesn't lack precise limits.
And it isn't uncertain.

The pattern could only continue to be maintained until the power supply ran out.

That is clear.
That is a precise limit.
That is certain.

It is a definite period of time.


Don't forget to address all the other points that you've ignored thus far. Or your silence will be accepted as concession.
   Profile |  

Darth Tedious
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 04:16am 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2011-01-16 09:48pm
Posts: 1070
While you're fishing for dictionary definitions of 'indefinite', you might want to check these out:
From Allwords.com
Allwords.com wrote:
indefinite
adjective
1.without limit; forever, or until further notice; not definite
2.vague or unclear
3.undecided or uncertain
4.(in mathematics) an integral without specified limits
From Yourdictionary.com
Yourdictionary.com wrote:
in·defi·nite (in def′ə nit)

adjective

not definite; specif.,
1.having no exact limits or having no limits at all
2.not precise or clear in meaning; vague
3.not sharp or clear in outline; blurred; indistinct
4.not sure or positive; uncertain
5.Bot. of no fixed number, or too many to count: said of the stamens, etc. of certain flowers
6.Gram. not limiting or specifying; not referring to a specific or previously identified person, thing, etc.: “a” and “an” are indefinite articles; “any” is an indefinite pronoun
From Encarta
Encarta wrote:
adjective

Definition:

1. unlimited: not fixed or limited in length, size, duration, or quantity away for an indefinite period

2. not clear: not clear or not precisely defined or fixed
indefinite plans

3. vague and uncertain: unable or unwilling to give a clear indication of thoughts or plans

4. botany too many to count: consisting of units that are too numerous to be counted precisely
indefinite stamens

5. botany
Same as indeterminate (sense 6)
From dictionary.reference.com
dictionary.reference.com wrote:
in·def·i·nite   /ɪnˈdɛfənɪt/ Show Spelled
[in-def-uh-nit] Show IPA

–adjective
1. not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited: an indefinite number.
2. not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact: an indefinite boundary; an indefinite date in the future.
3. Grammar .
a. indefinite article.
b. indefinite pronoun.
4. Botany .
a. very numerous or not easily counted, as stamens.
b. (of an inflorescence) indeterminate.


The single dictionary reference you quoted neglects to clearly mention that indefinite does mean unlimited.

Just concede this point and get on with debunking Eternal_Freedom's absurd claim that Barack Obama is the U.S. President.
   Profile |  

darthy
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 04:52am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2011-03-11 10:23am
Posts: 185
Darth Tedious wrote:
While you're fishing for dictionary definitions of 'indefinite', you might want to check these out:
From Allwords.com
Allwords.com wrote:
indefinite
adjective
1.without limit; forever, or until further notice; not definite
2.vague or unclear
3.undecided or uncertain
4.(in mathematics) an integral without specified limits
From Yourdictionary.com
Yourdictionary.com wrote:
in·defi·nite (in def′ə nit)

adjective

not definite; specif.,
1.having no exact limits or having no limits at all
2.not precise or clear in meaning; vague
3.not sharp or clear in outline; blurred; indistinct
4.not sure or positive; uncertain
5.Bot. of no fixed number, or too many to count: said of the stamens, etc. of certain flowers
6.Gram. not limiting or specifying; not referring to a specific or previously identified person, thing, etc.: “a” and “an” are indefinite articles; “any” is an indefinite pronoun
From Encarta
Encarta wrote:
adjective

Definition:

1. unlimited: not fixed or limited in length, size, duration, or quantity away for an indefinite period

2. not clear: not clear or not precisely defined or fixed
indefinite plans

3. vague and uncertain: unable or unwilling to give a clear indication of thoughts or plans

4. botany too many to count: consisting of units that are too numerous to be counted precisely
indefinite stamens

5. botany
Same as indeterminate (sense 6)
From dictionary.reference.com
dictionary.reference.com wrote:
in·def·i·nite   /ɪnˈdɛfənɪt/ Show Spelled
[in-def-uh-nit] Show IPA

–adjective
1. not definite; without fixed or specified limit; unlimited: an indefinite number.
2. not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact: an indefinite boundary; an indefinite date in the future.
3. Grammar .
a. indefinite article.
b. indefinite pronoun.
4. Botany .
a. very numerous or not easily counted, as stamens.
b. (of an inflorescence) indeterminate.


The single dictionary reference you quoted neglects to clearly mention that indefinite does mean unlimited.

Just concede this point and get on with debunking Eternal_Freedom's absurd claim that Barack Obama is the U.S. President.



It can mean unlimited you're right. But it can also mean unknown limit.


Now look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Quote:
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position


see? you can't claim that I'm saying something that I'm not, debunk it, then say i'm wrong for that reason. Plus I sad a few posts ago that this is all irrelavent. My statement that included the word "indefinitely" can be taken as an opinion and not a fact for the sake of argument. But you have not proven the statement false in the way it was intended so I can't concede the point.
   Profile |  

darthy
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 04:57am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2011-03-11 10:23am
Posts: 185
Quote:
The pattern could only continue to be maintained until the power supply ran out.


Which is how long? Are there redundant supplies? What if someone comes along and repairs the power supply before that happens? How many days/years and show your undisputed evidence for it.

The amount of time until the power supply runs out is also indefinite. It was running for 75 years and we don't know how much longer it would have continued to run. Plus his pattern could have degraded before the power supply ran out. It's completely unclear. That means scotty was stored in the transporter for an indefinite amount of time by definition.
   Profile |  

Eternal_Freedom
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 06:22am 

Castellan


Joined: 2010-03-09 03:16pm
Posts: 5809
Location: Bound in a nutshell
[quote="darthy]The amount of time until the power supply runs out is also indefinite. It was running for 75 years and we don't know how much longer it would have continued to run. Plus his pattern could have degraded before the power supply ran out. It's completely unclear. That means scotty was stored in the transporter for an indefinite amount of time by definition.[/quote]

The power supply will run until the fuel supply is exhausted. that is not forever. How can you not see this?

As for your "I can debunk anything" claim, as you havent made any response or attempt to debunk my absurd claim of Obama being US President, I shall take that as a concession from you that you cannot debunk anything we say.
   Profile |  

Darth Tedious
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 06:51am 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2011-01-16 09:48pm
Posts: 1070
darthy wrote:
Which is how long? Are there redundant supplies? What if someone comes along and repairs the power supply before that happens?
Redundant supplies? What if someone comes along and repairs the power supply? :wanker: More arsepulled explanations. I can't say I'm even surprised.

Just to clarify, so I don't have to put up with you crying foul (for the nth time):

Are you claiming that a number is indefinite, by virtue of being unknown?


And get onto addressing some of the other points that have been unanswered. Here, I'll remind you of one of them:
RE: Your claim that the Death Star superlaser could destroy a black hole-
I wrote:
darthy wrote:
Since a super laser is way out of the league of proton torpedoes and concussion missles, I don't get any conclusions out of that statement about what a super laser would do. If the situations were reversed and I stated that this mini-black hole can absorb an unlimited amount of energy I wouldn't be taken seriously because of your no limit fallacy.
The DS superlaser does not impart an unlimited amount of energy, so that would be a strawman (were I to say it).
In the event of a laser imparting more energy to a black hole than it can readily absorb, the excess energy is released as Hawking radiation. Read this if you would like some proof of my claim. You will now produce evidence to show that a black hole could be destroyed as you claim, or concede the point.
Remember that you were the one making the contentious claim, and didn't provide any evidence in support of what you were saying. I have already provided counterevidence to disprove your claim. The ball is in your court. Defend your claim or concede.
   Profile |  

Eternal_Freedom
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 07:08am 

Castellan


Joined: 2010-03-09 03:16pm
Posts: 5809
Location: Bound in a nutshell
I should clarify my earlier statemnt, as I missed the edit window. The time until the fuel supply is exhausted is not indefinite. It is a definite amount of time. It is unknown I will readily admit, and we know that it runs for at least 75 years. This is not indefinite.
   Profile |  

darthy
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 07:34am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2011-03-11 10:23am
Posts: 185
Quote:
Redundant supplies? What if someone comes along and repairs the power supply? More arsepulled explanations. I can't say I'm even surprised.


Yes because someone did come along and repair the power supply in the episode. I'll take this as a concession on your part that when scotty put himself in a transporter buffer that he knew he'd be there indefinitely.

Quote:
Are you claiming that a number is indefinite, by virtue of being unknown?


was an opinion not a claim. One that you already conceded too.

Quote:
RE: Your claim that the Death Star superlaser could destroy a black hole-


A micro-black hole. it could, we don't know until we try. To claim that a micro-black hole cannot be stopped with any amount of energy is a no limits fallacy.

Quote:
Remember that you were the one making the contentious claim


it's not a claim because I didn't state it as fact. I said we don't know if it would or not. We know even less about black holes than we do about neutronium which someone already called current scientic data on that flawed and psudo-science.

I concede that star trek is better than star wars.
   Profile |  

aaaaa0
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 08:13am 

Redshirt


Joined: 2010-08-26 12:47am
Posts: 41
The DS2 is the size of a MOON.

It's freaking large enough to carry its OWN industrial base around with it.

Suppose the DS2 -- as is widely agreed -- is 900 km in diameter.
Suppose just 1% of the interior volume of the DS2 is usable for decks.
Suppose each deck has a 10m high ceiling.

That would mean the DS2 has a deck area equal to about 2.6 times the land area of *EARTH*.

The DS2 should be able to support a population of billions, given the interior volume. It should be able to do anything a fully industrialized planet of the Empire should be able to do -- more even, since it has that ridiculously powerful reactor inside it AND it can move itself to wherever it can get easy access to raw materials.

I'm surpised given the logistics, that it doesn't. (Does it?)
   Profile |  

aaaaa0
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 08:25am 

Redshirt


Joined: 2010-08-26 12:47am
Posts: 41
In certain respects, you'd think the DS would look a lot like a Culture GSV. Minus the Mind, fields, and weapons of course.
   Profile |  

Darth Tedious
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 08:27am 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2011-01-16 09:48pm
Posts: 1070
darthy wrote:
Yes because someone did come along and repair the power supply in the episode.
Do you remember what you wrote before?
darthy wrote:
How much longer would scotty have survived in the transporter buffer had the Enterprise D not have come?
Fucktard. Own your argument.
darthy wrote:
Quote:
Are you claiming that a number is indefinite, by virtue of being unknown?
was an opinion not a claim.
Your opinion is worthless. It means nothing to this debate. You have been trying to defend this statement as a fact for several pages now. You have just stated that you are not claiming as a fact. Concession accepted.
darthy wrote:
One that you already conceded too.
When did I do that? Show a quote to prove it.

darthy wrote:
Quote:
RE: Your claim that the Death Star superlaser could destroy a black hole-
A micro-black hole. it could, we don't know until we try. To claim that a micro-black hole cannot be stopped with any amount of energy is a no limits fallacy.
I already clearly stated that the Death Star superlaser does not impart an unlimited amount of energy. This is not a no-limit fallacy.

I have claimed that when a laser (or other energy source) imparts more energy to a black hole than it can absorb, the excess energy is released in the form of Hawking radiation. This is based on Hawking's theory, and supported by the results of this experiment.

You have stated that you will debunk anything I claim. Yet you refuse to even attempt it.

darthy wrote:
it's not a claim because I didn't state it as fact.
Your refuse to own your argument again. What happened to debunking everything I say?
darthy wrote:
I said we don't know if it would or not.
You said:
darthy wrote:
it could
Explain how this would occur.

darthy wrote:
We know even less about black holes than we do about neutronium which someone already called current scientic data on that flawed and psudo-science.
That is an outright lie. The existance of neutronium has not even been proven, let alone has it been produced in a laboratory. Multiple experiments have produced black holes, including the one I have already referred you to.

darthy wrote:
I concede that star trek is better than star wars.
Is that what this thread was about to you? You have been accused of being a butthurt fanboy more than once, and have now proven it. Right now as I type this, I am wearing a TOS Captain Kirk t-shirt. The fact that Star Wars bears more firepower than Star Trek does not make it a better franchise. Dr. Who could pwn the Borg and the Galactic Empire out of history, and be back to Gallifrey in time for lunch. That does not make Dr. Who a better franchise. This isn't even the first thread where you've made a fuckwit out of yourself with your "treck cood win!!!1! treck is betta!!1!!1!" attitude. If you want to debate, debate. If you want to be a hatfucking Trektard fanboy, go to SFJ.
   Profile |  

Metahive
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 08:48am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Posts: 2433
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany
aaaaa0, how often does it have to be said that the DSII is not supposed to be some sort of self sufficient deep space exploration vessel but a purely military asset? It would be like expecting a Nimitz class CV to carry its own oil rig and aircraft factory around with it. There's a good reason why it doesn't. It would be completely unnecessary and a waste of space considering it's supposed to rely on the massive infrastructure that is already existent. All that space that had to be used to house a hypermatter refinery is much better spend to carry additional weapons and protection you know.

I would also like one of the mathematically inclined members to do a check on your numbers and formulas because they look in some way suspect to me, but then again geometry isn't my forte.
   Profile |  

aaaaa0
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 09:52am 

Redshirt


Joined: 2010-08-26 12:47am
Posts: 41
Metahive wrote:
aaaaa0, how often does it have to be said that the DSII is not supposed to be some sort of self sufficient deep space exploration vessel but a purely military asset?


Well it makes no sense for the DSII to be a pure military asset.

Metahive wrote:
It would be like expecting a Nimitz class CV to carry its own oil rig and aircraft factory around with it. There's a good reason why it doesn't. It would be completely unnecessary and a waste of space considering it's supposed to rely on the massive infrastructure that is already existent. All that space that had to be used to house a hypermatter refinery is much better spend to carry additional weapons and protection you know.


A Nimitz class CZ doesn't have the available space equivalent to an entire terrestrial planet.

Metahive wrote:
I would also like one of the mathematically inclined members to do a check on your numbers and formulas because they look in some way suspect to me, but then again geometry isn't my forte.


Uh, it's high school math.

Volume of a sphere is 4/3 * Pi * radius ^3.
Take 1% of that volume.
Assume the height of the volume is 10 m.
Compute the resulting area of the volume.

Remember, a planet only has usable area on the surface. The DS can have decks throughout the volume (just look at the visual effects used in ROTJ).
I gave you the wolfram alpha link, you can validate the calculation there.
   Profile |  

Metahive
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 10:17am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2010-09-02 09:08am
Posts: 2433
Location: Little Korea in Big Germany
aaaa0 wrote:
Well it makes no sense for the DSII to be a pure military asset.

Why, because you say so? It's never treated as anything else in canon.

Quote:
A Nimitz class CZ doesn't have the available space equivalent to an entire terrestrial planet.

Way to miss the point of the analogy. Refer to above.

Besides, a Nimitz class CV also doesn't need to power a planet busting superlaser.

Quote:
Uh, it's high school math

Using that formula I get ~380.000 km^2 surface area for 1% of the DSII's volume with 10m height. Earth has a land surface of ~150 million km^2.

450^3=91125000
91125000 * 4/3 = 121500000
12150000 * 3.141 = 381631500
381631500/100 = 3816315
3816315/10 = 381631.5

But then again I'm not the best at math.
   Profile |  

HMS Sophia
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 10:18am 

Jedi Master


Joined: 2010-08-22 07:47am
Posts: 1211
Location: Watching the levee break
aaaaa0 wrote:
Metahive wrote:
aaaaa0, how often does it have to be said that the DSII is not supposed to be some sort of self sufficient deep space exploration vessel but a purely military asset?


Well it makes no sense for the DSII to be a pure military asset.


Why... it's a warship designed too dominate the galaxy... sounds like a purely military asset too me...

EDIT: metahive got there first...
   Profile |  

aaaaa0
PostPosted: 2011-03-16 10:26am 

Redshirt


Joined: 2010-08-26 12:47am
Posts: 41
Metahive wrote:
aaaa0 wrote:
Well it makes no sense for the DSII to be a pure military asset.

Why, because you say so? It's never treated as anything else in canon.


Yeah, I realize that. I was just thinking how silly the design of the DS was.

Metahive wrote:
Quote:
A Nimitz class CZ doesn't have the available space equivalent to an entire terrestrial planet.

Way to miss the point of the analogy. Refer to above.

Besides, a Nimitz class CV also doesn't need to power a planet busting superlaser.


Unlike something the size of a moon, a rea life CV has much bigger engineering constraints on it. Which explains why we don't do this.

But the DS has prodigous energy resources available. A hyper drive capable of moving around the galaxy in hours. A super weapon capable of destroying an entire planet. Impregnable shields and defenses (well except from those damn Jedi). Magical hyper-fuel that somehow keeps most of its mass in a higher dimension (or some such hand-waving).

Quote:
Quote:
Uh, it's high school math

Using that formula I get ~380.000 km^2 surface area for 1% of the DSII's volume with 10m height. Earth has a land surface of ~150 million km^2.

450^3=91125000
91125000 * 4/3 = 121500000
12150000 * 3.141 = 381631500
381631500/100 = 3816315
3816315/10 = 381631.5

But then again I'm not the best at math.


You screwed up the units. You have to convert the 450 km to m first, before you cube it, or you will be orders of magnitude off. 450 km = 450,000 m.

Wolfram Alpha will do all the unit converting for you so you don't screw it up.
   Profile |  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 7 of 15
 [ 351 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 15  Next

It is currently 2014-11-01 07:39am (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Fiction » Science Fiction » Star Wars vs Star Trek

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group