StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I read your response Ender, and why must we go to singularity-scale for DS fuel density? Is that necessarily a problem? I think we could manage with strange matter density.

Sarli is obviously a clown. He hasn't taken into account that if Star Destroyers can throw out enough energy to melt the surface of a planet to slag, than their guns cannot impart more energy than the engines without the engines being a propulsion after-thought compare to the guns.

As far as I can tell, his entire argument (it's right now at the very bottom of the page Mange linked) boils down to, "The onscreen visuals indicate that ships can accelerate at thousands of gees. This indicates that they must be able to burn thousands of tons of matter per second. But I find that absurd. Therefore, my solution is better."

So, are we about to get another author who writes his fanon into canon?

Surlethe wrote:As far as I can tell, his entire argument (it's right now at the very bottom of the page Mange linked) boils down to, "The onscreen visuals indicate that ships can accelerate at thousands of gees. This indicates that they must be able to burn thousands of tons of matter per second. But I find that absurd. Therefore, my solution is better."

Pretty much the same reasoning that creationists use. Intuition > Evidence.

Sometimes, logic leads us to places which seem strange or counter-intuitive. This happens in real-life science all the time. But apparently, it's unacceptable in sci-fi world, or at least Sarli's version of it.

So, are we about to get another author who writes his fanon into canon?

We've had plenty of them already. At the end of the day, you're never going to cleanse dumbshit writing from the Star Wars literature, because there are so many dumbshits out there. Worse yet, a lot of them seem to be actively gunning for Saxton because he's the only one who actually knows what he's talking about. America's anti-intellectual streak strikes again.

This is disappointing. After the nice little job Sarli had done with the Executor and the whole "Super Star Destroyer" bit, I had hoped for more from him.

must be able to burn thousands of tons of matter per second.

This is for the most extreme course-changes right? Which means, it's not something that happens all the time while the vessel is moving.

VT-16 wrote:

must be able to burn thousands of tons of matter per second.

This is for the most extreme course-changes right? Which means, it's not something that happens all the time while the vessel is moving.

For something the mass of a Star Destroyer? As long as it's accellerating at the rates depicted in SW you bet it is.

Batman wrote:

VT-16 wrote:

must be able to burn thousands of tons of matter per second.

This is for the most extreme course-changes right? Which means, it's not something that happens all the time while the vessel is moving.

For something the mass of a Star Destroyer? As long as it's accellerating at the rates depicted in SW you bet it is.

Go read about Newtonian physics again. VT is right.

Ender wrote:

Batman wrote:

VT-16 wrote: This is for the most extreme course-changes right? Which means, it's not something that happens all the time while the vessel is moving.

For something the mass of a Star Destroyer? As long as it's accelerating at the rates depicted in SW you bet it is.

Go read about Newtonian physics again. VT is right.

Last time I checked linear acceleration was not an extreme course change.
DO achieve thousands of gs worth of accel with an ISD WITHOUT expending thousands of tons of reaction mass a second. Yes, it's obviously NOT all the time (with the acceleration they appear to be able to maintain they should be perfectly comfortable coasting for most in-system transits) but the accelerations depicted on-screen DO require that kind of reactant mass expenditure (likely a higher one given the acceleration and mass of an ISD).

Yes, but it's not a constant burn at all points in time when the ISD is moving. I think that's part of the reason people think "zomg this is too much". They don't realize most travel by the starships can be done without spending maximum amount of energy all the time. (Even I forgot about that :p)

I wonder how much of Nebulax's anger is still left over from QuintenGeorge coming down on my side back in July when I rewrote the CIS droid page and he kept reverting it back to what he wrote for the credit.

He's going to get his wish at any rate - I'm currently packing to out to sea for a time. BUt I find it odd that he keeps shrieking that I need to leave even ater a mod looked in and felt a warning was sufficient. I guess he doesn't understadn that his proclimations that he is a de facto mod don't mean he actually is one.

Mange wrote:Apparently, Dr. Saxton is the problem...

Well, duh. Sarli apparently follows the Karen Traviss rules of debating:
1. Attack the speaker, not the issue.
2. If the universe disagrees with something I have said, the universe is wrong.
3. If you're smarter than me, too bad. I write canon, you don't. So I'll make things even stupider just to spite you.

Ender wrote:He's going to get his wish at any rate - I'm currently packing to out to sea for a time. BUt I find it odd that he keeps shrieking that I need to leave even ater a mod looked in and felt a warning was sufficient. I guess he doesn't understadn that his proclimations that he is a de facto mod don't mean he actually is one.

Damn. I was hoping you'd be able to stick around. I like having people like you and VT-16 and JimRaynor55 around to see just how badly the minimalists can get pasted.

I love the way Sarli thinks he's "solved" some kind of when his "solution" only raises more questions than it answers.

Darth Wong wrote:I love the way Sarli thinks he's "solved" some kind of when his "solution" only raises more questions than it answers.

Especially since the number in the answers column seems to be a great big zero.

I've noticecd that Sarli's work is not only inconsistent with other sources (see below) but its also rather self-inconsistent in terms of power generation in a number of ways.

one jump to lightspeed

Assume for a second the ISD masses about 1 million tons (which is probably conservative by at least 10-50x, I believe Mike has estimated a higher mass around 20 million tons.) An ISD makes a jump to lightspeed in seconds. From various novels (Bloodlines, Destiny's Way, Ambush at Corellia, and Hutt Gambit, the rogue squadron novels) we know that hyperspace entries and exits involve a relatavistic acceleration before and after. Assuming a velocity of .9c prior to transitin (conservative) and the 1 million ton figure, a jump to lightspeed would consume at LEAST 1.17e26 joules in a matter of seconds. Even factoring in his "mass lightening" nonsense, ,we're still left with energy outputs in the e19-e20 range MINIMUM, and that is simply for a single hyperspace jump. And this is GROSSLY conservative! The velocities (and masses) are quite likely considerably higher, ,and even allowing the mass lightening, they're still inconsistnet with below. In fact, the higher end figures imply either energy densities greater than 100% annihliation, or greater fuel supplies than the "fuel cells" purportedly carry.

This is consistent with the fact we know that both starships and fighters in numerous sources can reach relatavistic speeds (Star by Star, destiny's way, the Dark Nest trilogy, Black Fleet crisis, etc.) with sublight drives as well. We also know from REbel dawn (which Mike covers on his Sw pages) that the falcon's repulsors against a neutron star can generate massive amounts of energy (gigatons of energy for a Falcon sized target.. 200 TJ per kg estimated.) which is immense in terms of energy draw.

one hour of combat, sublight travel (ramming speed), or atmospheric flight

combat isn' t quantifiable, but evidently here he is claiming that top sublight speed in open space is going to be comparable to what it expends in atmospheric flight. which, to me, doesn't
really seem comparable int he least (We know from various sources like Star by Star that Sw ships can travel at relatavistic speeds. Is he telling me that ships in atmosphere routinely travel at relatavistic speeds, or that it requires relatavistic speeds to achieve it.

Another way to look at it is this: Disregarding the fact that a reaction drive requires more energy than what is imparted to forward velocity for sustained acceeleration, to reach "near-c" velocities (.7-.9c) requires between e16-e17 joules of KE per kilogram. The energy required to reach escape velocity is merely 6e7 joules per kg. Millions, if not billions of times difference in energy, yet Sarli evidently thinks that the two are comparable (which, of course, makes no sense.)

To throw matters even more into disarray, we know that at a bare end minimum TLs can throw out hundreds or thousands of TJ per shot (ignoring even the HTL) On a "per second" basis this easily yields energy that is far in excess of atmospheric speeds, and can even differ trom the "sublight travel" estimate, further showing how problematic the equation is (by his claims.) What's more, the mass lightening doesn't even enter into this.

six hours of hyperspace travel or sublight travel (attack speed)

Except why would hyperspace travel neccesarily be energy intensive? Its FTL, so we dont know how much energy it consumes. The closest we ever got to an approximation was:

X-wing, Rogue Squadron wrote: "Fortunately X-wings have enough power to get us through." Corran glanced at his reactor fuel level readings. The hyperdrives barely sipped fuel, while the sublight engines gulped it. Running up to a light­speed jump burned a lot of fuel, though not as much as maneuvering through a dogfight, but nothing they had done on their journey so
far had been that taxing on the engines or fuel supply.

That woudl seem to directly Contradict what Sarli is claiming above. Suiblight travel AND hyperspace travel (even the jump to lightspeed) consume less fuel. Morover, it says that a jump up to lightspeed (for a fighter) consumes LESS energy than what a fighter spends in dogfighting, yet Sarli's statement would claim that they equate (or are the opposite!) in fact.

Again, it hardly seems self-consistent.

one month (35 days) while stationary or in orbit

A ship does not neccesarily spend huge amounts of energy while "stationary in orbit" a repulsor does not need constant power to maintain position above a planet, life support and other systems, and as Mike has noted in the past, its not possible for a ship to be expending massive amounts of energy while sitting around doing nothing.

This doesn't even count the explicity statements of power generation in the aOTC:ICs or the ROTS ICS. It doesn't count that the explicit statement is that they consume X amount of fuel each second (which corresponds to a definite energy figure.) It doesn't ocunt the "multi gigaton" recoil of the slave ship quote, or that transport fleets can cart off entire planetary oceans (calculate the energy requirement for a jump to lightspeed with THAT!) It doesn't factor in the "continent-destrroying" energy weapons that Imperial warships carry (Lando Calrissian in the Starcave of Thonboka). It doesn't consider the fact that in sTar by Star fighters and light freighters are employed to deliver massive, multi-ton at near-light speeds (which would be impossible with Sarli's "mass lightening" field.) It doesn't factor in BDZ, or the ability to melt the crusts of planets (numerous and varied sources.) It doesnt mesh with REbel Dawn as described above. It doesn't mesh with the Death Star, or the Eclipse superlaser, or other examples. I could go on and on and on, but the point is, there's FAR more evidence for the sort of conclusions SAxton draws in the SW universe than there is for Sarli's stuff.

Indeed, various examples of "ramming" or "kinetic impactor" attacks (robot ramships from showdown at Centerpoint, the near-c multi ton projectile trick from Star by Star) as well as the inconsistency with the known/stated power figures. For example, if they could arbitrariyl make ships a million times less massive, then there is no need to get up to near-c for ramming attacks (the KE momentum would be a million times less, and they could spend less time accelerating to the requisite KE/momentum) But they don't, so it makes no sense. (And if they could reach near-c without the mass lightening field, then the "mass lightening" is superfluous, because it would imply accelerations far greater than the thousands of gees we know. Insane accelerations in fact.

Darth Wong wrote:I love the way Sarli thinks he's "solved" some kind of when his "solution" only raises more questions than it answers.

What it amounts to is favoring RPG statistics over other evidence (published or otherwise, Sarli's claims aren't exactly consistent with other sources or his own stuff.)

If Sarli were truly concerned about consistency, logic, and physics, why is he inventing this "mass lightening" nonsense? Why not assume something like, say, an external power tap (like the Culture Grid or Weberverse core tap)? That would be as plausible if not more than his "mass lightening" nonsense. Or if he insists on the mass-lightening, why not use it to "lighten" the fuel supply (given the prior arguments about hypermatter adn "complex mass" IIRC, that would be more plausible as well.).
Even assuming his "rules" don't apply across the board to ALL forms of powerplants (In other words, acknowledging the simple fact that many star wars ships operate multiple kinds of powerplants, most that differ in design or operation.)

Moreover, how does Sarli think supposed approval of his "mass lightning" nonsense fixes things? We're still left with evidence of relatavistic motion without such damping (Star by Star, most notably the multiple incidents of relavatistic impactor attacks.) and the ICSes. Indeed, it does not change anything: we're still left with numerous, explicit statements about things like power generation and firepower, so its unlikely the accelerations would change. What it does is basically vastly (and problematically) inflate the acceleration figures. If such mass-lightening existed, and we KNOW from multiple independent pieces of evidence as to what SW power gneeration is capable of, why have (or cannot) they combine the two to provide vastly GREATER acceleration rates (An acclamator's acceleration would go up by many orders of magnitude with the power its capable of generating, for example.)

What Sarli is doing is what Hidalgo and Traviss and their supporters have done; make a thinly veiled attack towards Curtis Saxton and others like him (a revision to the whole "Star Wars isn't fantasy and doesnt have to be logical.") and a deliberate attempt at creating contradictions.

As it is, nothing stated changes the fact its still game mechanics, and that as demonstrated, it creates alot more problems with consistency than it solves.

Surlethe wrote:As far as I can tell, his entire argument (it's right now at the very bottom of the page Mange linked) boils down to, "The onscreen visuals indicate that ships can accelerate at thousands of gees. This indicates that they must be able to burn thousands of tons of matter per second. But I find that absurd. Therefore, my solution is better."

So, are we about to get another author who writes his fanon into canon?

Sounds like he's going to try that. But what really got me is how he insists that its "insane" for Star Wars ships to be able to render planets uninhabitable (even though we know they have laser cannons with multi-GT recoil, even though we know 3 ISDS can blow the surface fof of a plent, melt its crust into molten slag, or wipe out all life on the planet; even though we know that Imperial warships carry "conitnent destroying" energy weaponry, despite knowing what the Death Star can do, and that its firepower is less than the entire Imperial starfleet - knowing tha tthat is NOT hyperbole, and knowing what it is the Eclipse can do.)

The other absurdity in that response was tied to the fact he seemed to claim that Star Wars ships would somehow be REQUIRED to blast away from a planet at top acceleration, or always have their engines facicng towards the planet, or even be required to USE sublight engines alone. We know that they can accelerate at lower rates, we know that multiple EU sources have stated that use of sublight engines in or around a habitable planet is considered dangerous and usually illegal, we know repuslors can provide acceleration under certain circumstances (IE pushing a ship up into orbit) from both calculated acceleration rates and EU statements (Did Sarli forget about the Lusankya in Krytos trap?)

If Sarli wants to talk about logic, he can explain how "mass lightening" reconciles with incidents such as relatavistic ramming attacks in Star by Star, the Hyperdrive/sublight engine inconsistency in Rogue Squadron, or why the ISD struck by those huge asteroids (or colliding with each other) in TESB did not get "knocked about" by collision with the asteroids (to say nothing of Daniel Wallace's statements about asteroids with multi-MT KE hitting the ships without sending them flying!). Or explain why anyone in Star Wars bothers with robotic ramships (Showdown at Centerpoint), or ramming actions at all for that matter (ROTJ, especially the novelization.)
If I thought about it I'm sure there's plenty of other incidents in canon and other sources that would contradict his analysis, too.

ConnorMacLeod wrote:What Sarli is doing is what Hidalgo and Traviss and their supporters have done; make a thinly veiled attack towards Curtis Saxton and others like him (a revision to the whole "Star Wars isn't fantasy and doesnt have to be logical.") and a deliberate attempt at creating contradictions.

I'd hardly call the latest attack on Curtis Saxton "thinly veiled". Sarli said outright that "The source of this problem is ultimately Dr. Saxton". Traviss mocked Curtis Saxton's methodology (with or without knowing it). However, I think it would be better if people were a bit more cool headed when discussing this elsewhere. I hate to say it, but IMHO it's counterproductive to use a language which is perceived as being "antagonistic", it alienates admins at e.g. Wookieepedia and only gives a reason to say that "fans are rude" and such nonsense. Heck, Wookieepedia has such a playground mentality anyway.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

six hours of hyperspace travel or sublight travel (attack speed)

Except why would hyperspace travel neccesarily be energy intensive? Its FTL, so we dont know how much energy it consumes.

Well, since Dr. Saxton gave us a physical model - albeit limited and not technobabbled-out like ST - in AOTC ICS, we can conclude that FTL travel itself costs insignificant energy (a tachyon will never deaccelerate without gaining energy). Only the jump is significant.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:

six hours of hyperspace travel or sublight travel (attack speed)

Except why would hyperspace travel neccesarily be energy intensive? Its FTL, so we dont know how much energy it consumes.

Well, since Dr. Saxton gave us a physical model - albeit limited and not technobabbled-out like ST - in AOTC ICS, we can conclude that FTL travel itself costs insignificant energy (a tachyon will never deaccelerate without gaining energy). Only the jump is significant.

The First X-Wing novel: Rogue Squadron states something similar. That hyperdrives 'sip' fuel comapred to sublights guzzling it.

Crazedwraith wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote: Except why would hyperspace travel neccesarily be energy intensive? Its FTL, so we dont know how much energy it consumes.

Well, since Dr. Saxton gave us a physical model - albeit limited and not technobabbled-out like ST - in AOTC ICS, we can conclude that FTL travel itself costs insignificant energy (a tachyon will never deaccelerate without gaining energy). Only the jump is significant.

The First X-Wing novel: Rogue Squadron states something similar. That hyperdrives 'sip' fuel comapred to sublights guzzling it.

Already posted by Conner (with quote, but no page) above.

Sarli discusses this issue over at the WOTC forums:
+http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=767827

Amazingly, he gives the same bullshit argument against BDZ used by all sorts of dishonest morons, and has the nerve to describe himself as a "fellow scientist", as if he's got a smidgen of the education that Dr. Saxton has. Pompous ass.

Vympel wrote:Amazingly, he gives the same bullshit argument against BDZ used by all sorts of dishonest morons, and has the nerve to describe himself as a "fellow scientist", as if he's got a smidgen of the education that Dr. Saxton has. Pompous ass.

I missed that post when I glanced through that thread, but man, he IS pompous. A few gems:

Second, I'm far more scientifically-minded than most, and I have far more understanding of physics than you apparently believe. Many get caught up in individual numbers without considering the problem holistically -- this is the sort of thing that leads to people misunderstanding my arguments, because I only think holistically. (That's why I'm a game designer.)

Third, I'm beginning to get more than a little annoyed at the appeal to authority people do all the time, invoking Dr. Saxton'sname as if he outranks Lucas and God. He makes mistakes (sometimes big ones), and I doubt that he takes himself anywhere near as seriously as some of the fanboys out there.

Emphasis mine.

Now, if you want to know why Saxton's numbers don't work, do the math. If you use his numbers and actually calculate the delta-v of a starship, it is completely incapable of performing the sort of maneuvers we see them perform on screen for any length of time. Go ahead, calculate it -- I have, and I'm pretty good at this stuff. (I find Saxton's lack of delta-v calculations to be a curious omission considering the other details he calculated on his website and in ICW; one might conclude either that he doesn't know how to do said calculations [very unlikely] or that he knew the numbers were a little hard to swallow

This is the reasoning I presented to Leeland Chee and his continuity minions over at LucasFilm when I submitted Jedi Counseling 94, and they approved it. I can only come to the conclusion that they agreed with my analysis of Saxton's assumptions and that my retroactive continuity provided sufficient means of reconciling the older sources on fuel with Saxton's numbers.

Emphasis NOT mine.

EDIT: +http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php ... stcount=39

I love the part where he claims 100 megatons is enough to wreck the planet and cause nuclear winter, citing Carl Sagan.

I have learnt over the last few mths, that indulging in such mind numbing crap helps shorten one's life span....

This however, takes the cake...

100 Megatons? THe SS-18 carried a 18 or so Megatonne warhead and that was meant to blow up a city only. Something 5 times that destroy the planet? Is he nuts?!! *head explodes*