Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
SpaceMarine93
Jedi Knight
Posts: 585
Joined: 2011-05-03 05:15am
Location: Continent of Mu

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby SpaceMarine93 » 2012-06-14 08:31pm

Lord Revan wrote:
SpaceMarine93 wrote:Just how powerful is an anti-matter warhead in Star Trek anyhow?

for what?

photontorps are in the KT-low MT range depending on various factors (the tech manual gives 64 MT but that's an "optimal" yield IIRC)

but again anti-matter gives us the type of explosive not the yield (and since there's no minium yield of anti-matter bombs)


What's the maximum yield mentioned in Star Trek canon?
Life sucks and is probably meaningless, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to be good.

--- The Anti-Nihilist view in short.

User avatar
Ted C
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4483
Joined: 2002-07-07 11:00am
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Ted C » 2012-06-14 11:09pm

SpaceMarine93 wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:
SpaceMarine93 wrote:Just how powerful is an anti-matter warhead in Star Trek anyhow?

for what?

photontorps are in the KT-low MT range depending on various factors (the tech manual gives 64 MT but that's an "optimal" yield IIRC)

but again anti-matter gives us the type of explosive not the yield (and since there's no minium yield of anti-matter bombs)


What's the maximum yield mentioned in Star Trek canon?


Nothing concrete. They started describing explosions in "isotons", which doesn't tell us much.
"This is supposed to be a happy occasion... Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
-- The King of Swamp Castle, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

"Nothing of consequence happened today. " -- Diary of King George III, July 4, 1776

"This is not bad; this is a conspiracy to remove happiness from existence. It seeks to wrap its hedgehog hand around the still beating heart of the personification of good and squeeze until it is stilled."
-- Chuck Sonnenburg on Voyager's "Elogium"

User avatar
Napoleon the Clown
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1788
Joined: 2007-05-05 02:54pm
Location: Uta­h, bastion of Mormons, Minivans, and Jello
Contact:

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Napoleon the Clown » 2012-06-15 02:00am

Well, technically there is a minimum yield. It's the sum of the rest energy of a positron and an electron. But I imagine that's fairly little energy, so it'd be effectively too small to do much of anything.
Image
Created by Instant Sunrise.

User avatar
Stofsk
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12924
Joined: 2003-11-10 12:36am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Stofsk » 2012-06-15 02:07am

One further factor that complicates this is that yield can be variably adjusted. 'Level 6' photorps were fired against cloaked romulan Warbirds in 'Redemption part 2' and all it did was disrupt the cloak and reveal the Warbirds; none of them were destroyed or seem to have suffered any damage.

Then there was 'Cost of Living' which had the Enterprise destroy a planet threatening asteroid with photorps and the navigational deflector. (Sean Robertson analysed this scene, I can't remember where though - somewhere on this site)
Image

User avatar
Irbis
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2262
Joined: 2011-07-15 05:31pm

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Irbis » 2012-06-15 06:52am

Stofsk wrote:As for how this could be used tactically? Well they can transport whilst at warp so a variant of the warp strafe appears! (muahahaa - actually it would be more like the Picard Manoeuvre, a ship would have to slow to subwarp speeds, transport, and in the middle of the transport process accelerate back to warp speed; to transport an away team would be risky, because precise targeting information is required, but to transport a bomb?)

Question here - assuming the range of transporter is 40.000 km, this means you can transport on 80.000 km distance during 'strafe'. Let's assume ship moves at 1 C, lowest possible warp speed, which gives us less than 1/3 of second to transport. Can they even do it so fast? In ST episodes, it always looked like transport takes 5-15 seconds...

User avatar
EnterpriseSovereign
Jedi Master
Posts: 1230
Joined: 2006-05-12 12:19pm
Location: High orbit

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby EnterpriseSovereign » 2012-06-19 11:44am

Irbis wrote:
Stofsk wrote:As for how this could be used tactically? Well they can transport whilst at warp so a variant of the warp strafe appears! (muahahaa - actually it would be more like the Picard Manoeuvre, a ship would have to slow to subwarp speeds, transport, and in the middle of the transport process accelerate back to warp speed; to transport an away team would be risky, because precise targeting information is required, but to transport a bomb?)

Question here - assuming the range of transporter is 40.000 km, this means you can transport on 80.000 km distance during 'strafe'. Let's assume ship moves at 1 C, lowest possible warp speed, which gives us less than 1/3 of second to transport. Can they even do it so fast? In ST episodes, it always looked like transport takes 5-15 seconds...

Dark Frontier
About 4-5 for a photon torpedo, which was beamed in 15 seconds after they disabled the shields on the Borg Probe. And the small matter of the ships being less than a ship-length apart at their closest :lol:
It's no use debating a moron; they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Your claim of using a scientific equation is laughable when all you have done is butcher science to the point it makes 'The Core' look like a fucking documentary. Just because you have the attention span of a fruit fly doesn't mean the rest of us are so encumbered.

"As you know science is not fact"- HuskerJay
"The Delta Fyler [sic] isn't even a shuttle craft" -HuskerJay69
"The Dominion War wasn't really all that bad"- Admiral Mercury

User avatar
Jedi Commisar
Youngling
Posts: 59
Joined: 2011-12-20 03:11pm

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Jedi Commisar » 2012-06-19 04:34pm

Lord Revan wrote:With a bomb detonation the key question would where and how big, if you detonated bomb with yield of about an equilevant of modern hand grenate in the storage closet containing the captain's holos of twi'lek porn the damage would fairly minimal but a large device in a critical location might take out the whole ship.


Except the guy's ego
"We are the Borg. You will be annihilated. Your biological and technological distinctiveness have become irrelevant. Resistance is futile...but welcome."

From the novel Greater than the Sum

User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9132
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Lord Revan » 2012-06-19 04:59pm

Jedi Commisar wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:With a bomb detonation the key question would where and how big, if you detonated bomb with yield of about an equilevant of modern hand grenate in the storage closet containing the captain's holos of twi'lek porn the damage would fairly minimal but a large device in a critical location might take out the whole ship.


Except the guy's ego

and the commander is gonna a tad cranky due to blue balls but that's hardly anything mission critical, which was my point.
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

Korgeta
Padawan Learner
Posts: 371
Joined: 2009-10-24 05:38pm

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Korgeta » 2012-12-07 08:38pm

I must confess this is one of the issues that's left me wondering, looking at the movies I never saw anything outstanding about the SW shields, however it is fair to assume they have more shielding and may have more jaming defences to make up for their huge size, so even though SW has to date not have transporters to the extent of the federation (I think the movies only shown a sample qui-gon requested beamed before him) has I don't think the federation could pull it off effectively.

One is that trick is only going to work so many times before the enemy catch on, and the other being that despite their resources cloaking is still a limited feature for the federation. You only need to look at the Dominion war to see the federation were calling in warships that were dated and not the cutting edge designs of soverign class or heavy escort (those elite red idoits would mess it up anyway) against an enemy who could build theirs (and more modern) faster. The federation needed the klingons for cover as they make upgrades and not just support.

It sounds like a good idea but it wouldn't be a long term tactic, the empire would catch on.

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14637
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Batman » 2012-12-07 09:04pm

When in Valen's name has movie Qui-Gon (or anybody else) ever asked for anything to be beamed anywhere at any point?
That SW doesn't have transporter technology, at least to the everyday 'people beam to and from work' extent the TNG Feds have was never under contention.
And what's outstanding about Wars shields at least in this context is that they, even in the movies, have resisted damage far in excess of what AQ in general and Starfleet ships in particular have.
'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 kids 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
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8787
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England
Contact:

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Crazedwraith » 2012-12-11 10:04am

I think Korgeta's referring to the scene where Qui-Gon sends Obi-Wan, Anakin's blood sample to test, apparently through a comlimk. The scene was ambigious to what the hell was going on, I seem to recall.
Image
Banner By JME2
EBC - The Limey Bastards

User avatar
biostem
Jedi Master
Posts: 1292
Joined: 2012-11-15 01:48pm

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby biostem » 2012-12-11 10:57pm

It seems that many responders take the not-so-stellar effectiveness of SW shields *against SW weapons* as a measure of their effectiveness vs ST weapons. Given the figures in the ICS, and the fact that Anakin was able to safely crash land something like the front 3rd of a capship, (that had taken significant battle damage), indicate the robustness of SW tech.

I'd also like to point out that the Millennium Falcon, while a smuggler's ship, *was* able to mask lifeform readings from the Deathstar's scanners, (thus why they had to send in a scanning crew to check it in-person), means that scrambler technology is available and utilized. This is further backed up by the fact that the second Deathstar was scrambling sensors in the area to such a degree that Lando couldn't tell if the theater shield was up OR down.

Unless the feds were able to exploit known blindspots, like Han did in TESB, it is highly unlikely that a fed ship would even be able to approach a SW ship w/o them knowing...

User avatar
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8787
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England
Contact:

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Crazedwraith » 2012-12-12 11:07am

That's rather non sequitor. 'we know SW sensors can be jammed therefore they will be able to detect ST ships'?
Image
Banner By JME2
EBC - The Limey Bastards

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14637
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Batman » 2012-12-13 12:00am

While it does rather look like he's saying that I think that's a side effect of biostem lumping several points into one post and not him arguing a, therefore b.
'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 kids 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
biostem
Jedi Master
Posts: 1292
Joined: 2012-11-15 01:48pm

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby biostem » 2012-12-13 05:01pm

Batman wrote:While it does rather look like he's saying that I think that's a side effect of biostem lumping several points into one post and not him arguing a, therefore b.


Yes, that's it.

My points were:

A) SW shields don't seem impressive because we only see them vs SW weapons. Since ST weapons are much less powerful than SW ones, these shields would be *that much more* effective. The same goes for SW armor.

B) The safe crash landing of the Invisible Hand in RotS, given just how damaged it was, vs how injured passengers get when a ST shuttle goes down, (and those are under much better vehicle conditions), demonstrates just how robust SW tech is. The internal damage on the Ent-D at the end of Generations, given the saucer section being, well, whole, is another comparison.

C) The fact that a smuggling vessel can mask lifesigns, even at point-blank range of the DS1, means that jamming/interference tech in SW is extremely powerful and frequently used. The susceptibility of ST transporters to such jamming and interference would make them unlikely to be usable vs SW ships.

D) The instance we saw of Han exploiting a blind spot on an Imperial vessel, (or other such weakpoints in SW tech), means that ST ships/crew are unlikely to be able to pull off the same thing, since ST personnel are not privy to the same knowledge and experience...

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14637
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Batman » 2012-12-14 03:28pm

biostem wrote:C) The fact that a smuggling vessel can mask lifesigns, even at point-blank range of the DS1, means that jamming/interference tech in SW is extremely powerful and frequently used. The susceptibility of ST transporters to such jamming and interference would make them unlikely to be usable vs SW ships.

Wait one. Since when is a smuggler stealthing his smuggling compartment evidence for jamming technology, leave alone it being frequently used? We're talking completely passive shielding here. Heck jamming would be completely counterproductive in that situation, because it sort of gives away there definitely is something somebody doesn't want you to see too clearly.
Remember how Lando immediately knew there was sensor jamming going on at Endor, while on the Death Star, there was merely apparently nobody aboard (including the droids), which made Vader suspicious.
'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 kids 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
biostem
Jedi Master
Posts: 1292
Joined: 2012-11-15 01:48pm

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby biostem » 2012-12-14 07:01pm

Batman wrote:
biostem wrote:C) The fact that a smuggling vessel can mask lifesigns, even at point-blank range of the DS1, means that jamming/interference tech in SW is extremely powerful and frequently used. The susceptibility of ST transporters to such jamming and interference would make them unlikely to be usable vs SW ships.

Wait one. Since when is a smuggler stealthing his smuggling compartment evidence for jamming technology, leave alone it being frequently used? We're talking completely passive shielding here. Heck jamming would be completely counterproductive in that situation, because it sort of gives away there definitely is something somebody doesn't want you to see too clearly.
Remember how Lando immediately knew there was sensor jamming going on at Endor, while on the Death Star, there was merely apparently nobody aboard (including the droids), which made Vader suspicious.



Ok... so some relatively thin material, (remember the compartments they hid in were under the existing floorboards), was able to completely conceal them from point-blank scans from, (at that time), the most advanced battle station in the galaxy. Still supports my stance that jamming/interference tech in SW is pretty impressive and in use.

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14637
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Batman » 2012-12-14 07:28pm

No it's not. It's evidence for there being completely passive shielding available that could block standard imperial technology scanners, nothing more (unless you have evidence they were using anything other than off-the-shelf gear?) Doesn't make it jamming, doesn't make it widespread. Yes, jamming is pretty common in the Wars universe. This is not an example of it.
'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 kids 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
the atom
Padawan Learner
Posts: 313
Joined: 2011-07-13 11:39am

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby the atom » 2012-12-16 06:16pm

biostem wrote:A) SW shields don't seem impressive because we only see them vs SW weapons. Since ST weapons are much less powerful than SW ones, these shields would be *that much more* effective. The same goes for SW armor.


That's sort of an overgeneralization. While it's true SW has more powerful weapons, it'd be inaccurate to say that SW weapons are all more powerful by default. This applies to armouring as well, because as I've pointed out in the past we've never actually seen ship armour actually stand up to heavy anti-capship weapons in the movies to any degree at all.

B) The safe crash landing of the Invisible Hand in RotS, given just how damaged it was, vs how injured passengers get when a ST shuttle goes down, (and those are under much better vehicle conditions), demonstrates just how robust SW tech is. The internal damage on the Ent-D at the end of Generations, given the saucer section being, well, whole, is another comparison.


How does comparing a kilometer-long warship to a tiny shuttle make any sense at all?

C) The fact that a smuggling vessel can mask lifesigns, even at point-blank range of the DS1, means that jamming/interference tech in SW is extremely powerful and frequently used. The susceptibility of ST transporters to such jamming and interference would make them unlikely to be usable vs SW ships.


We're talking about entirely different types of sensors that are trying to scan for entirely different things. It's not so much as the comparison is bad as much as there's no comparison period.
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14637
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Batman » 2012-12-16 06:54pm

the atom wrote:
biostem wrote:A) SW shields don't seem impressive because we only see them vs SW weapons. Since ST weapons are much less powerful than SW ones, these shields would be *that much more* effective. The same goes for SW armor.

That's sort of an overgeneralization. While it's true SW has more powerful weapons, it'd be inaccurate to say that SW weapons are all more powerful by default.

It would however be completely accurate that most of not all Wars weapons of the same class are.Wars hand weapons are, wars fighter weapons are, Wars capital ship weapons are.
This applies to armouring as well, because as I've pointed out in the past we've never actually seen ship armour actually stand up to heavy anti-capship weapons in the movies to any degree at all.

Of course we didn't, as those ships were shielded. We do, however, see such in the EU (well read technically).
'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 kids 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
the atom
Padawan Learner
Posts: 313
Joined: 2011-07-13 11:39am

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby the atom » 2012-12-17 01:20am

Batman wrote:It would however be completely accurate that most of not all Wars weapons of the same class are.Wars hand weapons are, wars fighter weapons are, Wars capital ship weapons are.

I'd argue that SW fighter weapons and the lighter capship weapons are generally a bit weaker then most standard Trek equivalents. It's the bigger stuff like MTLs and HTLs that sort of seal the deal.
Of course we didn't, as those ships were shielded. We do, however, see such in the EU (well read technically).

Actually as we can see in the beginning of ROTS and the end of ROTJ, the few unshielded interactions between armour and heavy-anti capship weapons in the movies tend to result in the unfortunate capital ship being lit up like the 4th of July. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZDa09gR ... age#t=361s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8Daw4Ng ... age#t=759s
"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."

User avatar
StarSword
Jedi Knight
Posts: 985
Joined: 2011-07-22 10:46pm
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Contact:

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby StarSword » 2012-12-17 01:27am

Crazedwraith wrote:I think Korgeta's referring to the scene where Qui-Gon sends Obi-Wan, Anakin's blood sample to test, apparently through a comlimk. The scene was ambigious to what the hell was going on, I seem to recall.

I think the NEGWT clarified that Qui-gon's comlink was transmitting a scan of the sample, not the sample itself. AFAIK the only example of an actual teleporter in Star Wars is a one-off device a magician used in his act.
Image
Star Carrier by Ian Douglas: Analysis and Talkback

The Vortex Empire: I think the real question is obviously how a supervolcano eruption wiping out vast swathes of the country would affect the 2016 election.
Borgholio: The GOP would blame Obama and use the subsequent nuclear winter to debunk global warming.

Jedipilot24
Youngling
Posts: 79
Joined: 2012-02-13 03:51pm
Location: Boston

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Jedipilot24 » 2013-05-08 05:45pm

StarSword wrote:
Crazedwraith wrote:I think Korgeta's referring to the scene where Qui-Gon sends Obi-Wan, Anakin's blood sample to test, apparently through a comlimk. The scene was ambigious to what the hell was going on, I seem to recall.

I think the NEGWT clarified that Qui-gon's comlink was transmitting a scan of the sample, not the sample itself. AFAIK the only example of an actual teleporter in Star Wars is a one-off device a magician used in his act.


The magician was a her (one of Han's old girlfriends) but it wouldn't require a teleporter to explain what she did; real world magicians pull off the same kinds of tricks. The only time real teleportation has appeared in Star Wars has been when Force-users are involved, most notably the Aing-Tii but there are also examples of Jedi, Sith, and Nightsisters all displaying some kind of teleportation ability. The Rakata had some kind technology, probably powered by the Force like all their other technology, that could teleport but it's still extremely rare.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Teleport
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Teleporter
Michael Westen wrote: Killers, by and large, are whining losers.

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14637
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: In Denial
Contact:

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Batman » 2013-05-08 06:17pm

Since when was Magwit female or one of Han's old girlfriends?
'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 kids 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.'

Jedipilot24
Youngling
Posts: 79
Joined: 2012-02-13 03:51pm
Location: Boston

Re: Using Transporters against Star Destroyers

Postby Jedipilot24 » 2013-05-08 08:39pm

Batman wrote:Since when was Magwit female or one of Han's old girlfriends?

I was thinking of Xaverri.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Xaverri

Just checked out Magwit on the Wook; wow, that has to be one of the most obscure SW characters ever.
Michael Westen wrote: Killers, by and large, are whining losers.


Return to “Star Wars vs Star Trek”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests