StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Ender wrote:

Vympel wrote:I'm not too concerned. "Explosive solids" in ANH novelizaiton. ROTS ICS will deal with it.

Yep. That statement puls the casings means they could be rail guns, but with a chemical explosive onboard with a timer to create flak clouds.

Why would railguns have casings?

Ender wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Ender wrote:Yep. That statement puls the casings means they could be rail guns, but with a chemical explosive onboard with a timer to create flak clouds.

Why would railguns have casings?

So long as we don't see it eject the casing, how do you know it isn't just carrying some of the explosives, a timer, and more flak? Just because it looks like an old style bullet doesn't mean it is one. Hell, even if it is packing hte explosives there, so long as the shell itself is hollow and the explosives continue up there it would still be flak producing.

Ender wrote:So long as we don't see it eject the casing, how do you know it isn't just carrying some of the explosives, a timer, and more flak? Just because it looks like an old style bullet doesn't mean it is one. Hell, even if it is packing hte explosives there, so long as the shell itself is hollow and the explosives continue up there it would still be flak producing.

Clone Sergeant wrote:

Ender wrote:So long as we don't see it eject the casing, how do you know it isn't just carrying some of the explosives, a timer, and more flak? Just because it looks like an old style bullet doesn't mean it is one. Hell, even if it is packing hte explosives there, so long as the shell itself is hollow and the explosives continue up there it would still be flak producing.

Actually, in the Postnotes, the main issue was that Lucas and the FX folks were trying to decide how the cases would eject from the guns.

Mange the Swede wrote:I posted this earlier, but I forgot one fact so I repost it:

Perhaps the shell casings themselves contains the energy for the shots for the guns (regardless if they're turbolasers or whatever), thus making it unnecessary for the ships' powerplants and engines to provide the energy for the guns. If the guns for example are heavy turbolasers, that would make sense, albeit the shell casings seems to be quite ungainly (especially if they only contain energy for a single shot). Nothing is said in the Post Notes that the guns fires projectiles. Besides, we've seen flak before in TESB, ROTJ and AOTC. Perhaps we will learn more soon as to what sorts of guns the shell casings are for (hopefully during the trailer, although the chances is pretty slim).

Besides, we've seen flak before in TESB, ROTJ and AOTC

Ender wrote:

Mange the Swede wrote:I posted this earlier, but I forgot one fact so I repost it:

Perhaps the shell casings themselves contains the energy for the shots for the guns (regardless if they're turbolasers or whatever), thus making it unnecessary for the ships' powerplants and engines to provide the energy for the guns. If the guns for example are heavy turbolasers, that would make sense, albeit the shell casings seems to be quite ungainly (especially if they only contain energy for a single shot). Nothing is said in the Post Notes that the guns fires projectiles. Besides, we've seen flak before in TESB, ROTJ and AOTC. Perhaps we will learn more soon as to what sorts of guns the shell casings are for (hopefully during the trailer, although the chances is pretty slim).

Yes mange, these small shells contain several gigatons worth of energy. That makes far mroe fucking sense then drawing from the main reactor, even though the main reactor produces thousands of more joules each second then all the guns firing at once would. Jesus.

VT-16, can't say for sure, but in AOTC the flak seems to occur on quite a distance from any shielded ships such as the gunships.

Vympel wrote:

VT-16, can't say for sure, but in AOTC the flak seems to occur on quite a distance from any shielded ships such as the gunships.

I don't want to get into any turbolaser discussion here, but they are definitely shield interactions. I don't buy 'flak bursting' TLs, lasers or anything for a second. We known gunships are shielded, and irrespective of how far it looks to be away, there's a reason why Obi-Wan's and Anakin's gunship was destroyed by the very same fighters that were allegedly 'flak bursting' at it. Flaks bursting TLs make no sense, not from a technical and not from a tactical point of view. Ever.

AOTC: ICS wrote:Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible "bolt" is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed...The light given off by visible bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting its range. Turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, which reduces waste glow.

Furry Conflict wrote:As the plasma bolt travels through space, it is accompanied by a beam of invisible electrons that propagate along the bolt's desired trajectory at the speed of light. These electrons are generated at the mouth of the turret and "spin" around the path of the plasma bolt, creating an electromagnetic tube which helps to focus the packet and keep it from dispersing over long distances. Without this "electron jacket," the turbolaser bolt quickly dissipates into harmless gas, and it is this jacket which ray shielding works to counteract. Often, when a turbolaser impacts a vessel, it is this electromagnetic field which exerts a sizeable force on a target, resulting in a distinct impact sensation compared to a physical collision. Turbolasers can also be used for "flak" bursts, by purposely closing and then terminating the confinement beam before the bolt hits a target.

Mange the Swede wrote:

Vympel wrote:

VT-16, can't say for sure, but in AOTC the flak seems to occur on quite a distance from any shielded ships such as the gunships.

I don't want to get into any turbolaser discussion here, but they are definitely shield interactions. I don't buy 'flak bursting' TLs, lasers or anything for a second. We known gunships are shielded, and irrespective of how far it looks to be away, there's a reason why Obi-Wan's and Anakin's gunship was destroyed by the very same fighters that were allegedly 'flak bursting' at it. Flaks bursting TLs make no sense, not from a technical and not from a tactical point of view. Ever.

I think at least that the idea that FurryConflict offered was interesting (and I also think that it was compatible with Dr. Saxton's explanation about turbolasers):

I don't know what to think really, but I really don't think it's impossible that turbolasers can produce flak. Remember, that it's GL's physics that makes it into the movies, and for the good guys like Dr. Saxton and Mike to figure out (and the rest of the Star Wars community of course), but I always bet my money on Dr. Saxton and Mike.

Ender wrote:

Mange the Swede wrote:

Vympel wrote: I don't want to get into any turbolaser discussion here, but they are definitely shield interactions. I don't buy 'flak bursting' TLs, lasers or anything for a second. We known gunships are shielded, and irrespective of how far it looks to be away, there's a reason why Obi-Wan's and Anakin's gunship was destroyed by the very same fighters that were allegedly 'flak bursting' at it. Flaks bursting TLs make no sense, not from a technical and not from a tactical point of view. Ever.

I think at least that the idea that FurryConflict offered was interesting (and I also think that it was compatible with Dr. Saxton's explanation about turbolasers):

So you know absolutely fuck all about physics and love ignoring the movies then like him then.

I don't know what to think really, but I really don't think it's impossible that turbolasers can produce flak. Remember, that it's GL's physics that makes it into the movies, and for the good guys like Dr. Saxton and Mike to figure out (and the rest of the Star Wars community of course), but I always bet my money on Dr. Saxton and Mike.

Mark Xavier's theory appeared here, and he got anally raped over it. Seriously, like Vymp said, I don't want to get into a discussion about it, but it violates a shit ton of scientific prinicples. Do a search in the archives over it.

And I still can't get my Hyperspace account to work to look into more about these damn casings.

Mange the Swede wrote:About your Hyperspace issue, was your access code entered sucessfully here?:
+http://www.starwars.com/webapps/registr ... management

I had some issues with it when I renewed my Hyperspace account, and it seems as if some others had it as well.

Connor MacLeod wrote:We've already seen "casings" flying from blasters in the original trilogy (like when Han shoots at Vader in TESB.) This isn't anything new - projectile-type blasters have been speculated to exist for some time.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Where are the casings firing from blasters in the film?

Me wrote: We've already seen "casings" flying from blasters in the original trilogy (like when Han shoots at Vader in TESB.) This isn't anything new - projectile-type blasters have been speculated to exist for some time.

Casings don't mean merely projectiles - they mean explosively-propelled slugs.

Vympel wrote:Even so, how the slugs are propelled says nothing as to the yield of the slugs, so I'm still not too worried. At this point, they seem to be some sort of flak weapon.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Anyone with the DVDs and the ability to do a frame by frame progression can notice it going on (and I know I've mentioned it here before.)

Connor MacLeod wrote:Thank you for that pointless nitpick. I am well aware of the fact that an "explosively propelled slug" is a kind of projectile.

Connor MacLeod wrote:We've already seen "casings" flying from blasters in the original trilogy (like when Han shoots at Vader in TESB.) This isn't anything new - projectile-type blasters have been speculated to exist for some time.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Where are the casings firing from blasters in the film?