2007-04-15

Tactical Tipping Point: Now It's a Strategic War

With the latest update, a comparison page on weapons ranges, it finally dawned on me that I'm pretty much near the end of the tactical side of the debate (defined for our purposes as pondering ship-to-ship combat), 'cause I've got pages on almost everything I need to have pages on. Sure, there's lots to do yet, but the following facts have been fairly well established:

1. ST weapon range and targeting just embarrasses SW weapon range and targeting.

2. ST firepower readily trumps SW firepower . . . compare "Rise"[VOY] to the small-town-killing shots of Star Wars (the biggest and best they've ever mustered).

3. ST vessels embarrass SW vessels in regards to maneuverability, though expect some changes in this regard . . . ST ships are grand, but SW ships have been underestimated here due to a deceleration example I recently found. But still, ST ships have a 10-to-1 advantage on acceleration at least, and overall maneuverability is incredibly superior.

4. I still need to run numbers and do some analysis on shields (been meaning to do that for, oh, what, six years now?), but assuming anything near parity between effective firepower and shield strength would bring things strongly in Trek's favor. Even assuming vastly greater comparative shielding for SW (i.e. that their shields would last for days in a firefight within their own universe), it still doesn't work well for them.

And this, of course, is the case even using my biased-toward-SW methods.

In effect, then, an ISD can't hope to match even a smallish Federation starship in individual sublight combat. The Federation ship would run circles around the ISD, pummelling it endlessly without any threat of return fire.

What this means for me is that, while I still hope to complete the tactical pages, the simple fact is that as far as ST-v-SW.Net is concerned, the tactical side of the debate is largely over.

I've generally avoided drawing conclusions of that type on the site, instead leaving the reader to draw his or her own . . . and besides which, I prefer to leave plenty of room for new data.

But I can't help but acknowledge that tactically speaking, the tipping point has been reached.

The main question of the debate is now strategic.

But this, too, must be clarified. After all, we know the Empire has around 25,000 vessels of ISD equivalence, going by the guns of the Death Star and some math. In other words, they could have a million ships, but by firepower they only add up to about 25,000 ISDs.

The Federation has something like 10,000 ships. Even if we assume that only 2,500 of these are war-worthy, that's 'only' 10-to-1 odds. In direct fleet-to-fleet action, that wouldn't be impossible at all given the tactical shortcomings of the Empire's best.

The Empire would have two basic choices.

The first comes in two flavors.

The first flavor would be to be brutal, prosecuting a war of terror against the Federation in an effort to win quickly by breaking their will to fight. In other words, trying to race to the nearest large planet or two and destroy all life before the Federation has a chance to gather significant forces, hoping the Federation will surrender in the midst of the surprise. For this, the Empire need only come through the usual plot-device wormhole all at once in overwhelming numbers, and preferably with a Death Star.

The second flavor involves a somewhat slower campaign if the Federation fails to immediately capitulate. This flavor relies on large-scale maneuver and large-scale tactics . . . force concentration and so on. It requires that the Empire destroy all life on several worlds without spreading itself too thin. For this, hyperspace travel would preferably need to be many times faster than warp drive, as opposed to near-equal as it now appears (though this should be qualified, since high warp would be required for long durations for the Federation ships). This option requires many more vessels total.

The only other choice is for the Emperor to truly changing the face of the Empire so that shipbuilding becomes the sole focus, making it a war of economic attrition. This is a long-term, protracted campaign, wherein the Empire is subject to extraordinarily losses but tries to overwhelm the Federation with sheer numbers over time, burying the Federation in broken Imperial hulls. This choice involves total war from the Empire, and probably total war from the Federation in order to win. Heaven help the Empire if the Federation's allies assist, but heaven help the Federation if its enemies attacked.

In short, the first choice (in either flavor) comes down to something akin to Graham Kennedy's "Portal". The last choice would put the Federation in the sort of long-duration war it's never seen.

But in any case, at least ST-v-SW.Net has some vague conclusions now.

81 comments:

  1. Actually, didn't a ship get from the Core all the way out to the Outer Rim in a few hours (ROTS). Your arguments about the Slow Ship might ring true, but another argument could be that Padme's ship made a very short FTL trip, but had a very looooong STL trip (either because of stealth concerns or engine weakness, take your pick)

    Please note, I do not recall AotC fully in detail, I'm going off some old memories...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I generally take the EU in consideration when it comes to Hyperspace travel. It appears more reliable and entirely more likely...we don't know the time expended in travel in the movies and making assumptions on planetary rotational periods is not what I'd call precise to liken them as near or at 24 hour periods.

    The Falcon and X wings traditionaly can take up to a week or more traveling across the galaxy and pilots normally use hibernation to make their air supply last and Jedi use trances. Typical non Jedi only use captial ships to travel less the location is nearby.

    Ultimately I see Star War's explored yet unexplored galaxy as both proof that Transportation in Star Wars is both faster than Trek but still limmited.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Range comparisson page:

    So, there would have been some overlap of the circle and the stick over the ISD. It still would be visible that it's an ISD under there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In effect, then, an ISD can't hope to match even a smallish Federation starship in individual sublight combat. The Federation ship would run circles around the ISD, pummelling it endlessly without any threat of return fire.
    You mean like they did that against Borg cubes in BBOW and First Contact? Or against the completely immobile orbital defense stations in Chin'toka? Or Klingons when engaging DS9? Or the Dominion when angaging DS9?
    Even when engaging extremely powerful ships with huge target profile or immobile targets where long range combat would make most sense they don't instead approaching to several hundred meters to several kilometers.
    This is completely understandable when remembering numerous incidents where starships missed other starships even at range of several hundred meters like Defiant vs Lakota. What hope is there then that they can have reliable accuracy at ranges of several thousand kilometers against a target even as large as ISD?
    This is further confirmed by dozens of instances of combat ALL of which occur at close range: Wrath of Khan , Search for Spock, The undiscovered country, Genesis, Nemesis, What you leave behind, Caretaker, The Wounded (actual seen battle at the beginning), The Die is cast, The Jem'Hadar etc. etc. ad naseum.

    In your page you only mention a single observed incident which you dismiss as VFX error by "crappy" David Stipes. Of course anyone could just as easily dismiss stated ranges as "crappy" writers so that's not much of an argument especially since that is hardly the only incident as I have shown above.

    Furthermore in your article you classify incidents in "The Changeling", "Journey to Babel", "The deadly years", "Patterns of Force", "The Wounded", "Return to Grace", "Non sequitur" and "Basics pt.1" as observed ranges when they are not. They are stated ranges. Which are trumped by more numerous observed ranges.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh I forgot: The battle against the doomsday machine.
    A huge and ponderous vessel, a perfect candidate for the supposed extreme long ranges of Federation ships. Once again Enterprise engages the ship while almost skimming it's surface. No sign of supposed thousands of hundreds of thousands km range.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The Doomsday Machine" is an extremely *bad* example, since Commodore Decker specifically stated that he wanted close the Enterprise to "point-blank range" with the planet killer. Later
    Decker orders Sulu to "Get us in closer".

    We see in both the original as well as the remastered version, the Constellation firing it's distracting shot from what appears to a vastly greater distance.

    So if you're going to use an episode as a counter example, at least try to get the context right, if nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I get the context allright. They were blown away by that ponderous ship which had a single weapon emplacement from a certain distance Decker thought was "too far away". If they can't even outmaneuver the doomsday machine then how will they do it against an ISD which actually has many weapon emplacements across it's hull?
    Not to mention that this is not the only example as I have shown above so even if you do disprove this particular example there are still dozens more (Borg cube fights, Chin'toka battle and numerous close range misses being prime examples).

    Finally you said "at least try to get the context right, if nothing else". What "else" you think I have got wrong? Please elaborate.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If all else were to fail, coming up from behind would work.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Assuming, of course, they will fight against a lone ISD instead of a squadron which can easily point in different directions covering 360 degrees of space.
    Not to mention that ISD weapon emplacement could hit even the small and maneuverable Falcon which means that Defiant and especially Miranda or Excelsior, which comprise most of Starfleet, won't have any chance of dodging it's weapons.
    Finally you are making an assumption that ISD has no rear weapon emplacements.

    Besides

    ReplyDelete
  10. But there is nowhere in Star Wars movies a statement or visual reference about weapon ranges in excess of 5000 KM.
    Star Trek states or visually referes it at ~200,000 KM therefore it's canon.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It seems that you miss a lot of the context for "The Doomsday Machine", anon Warsie. How were"they" "blown away" by the planet killer? The Enterprise was at several points able to pull away from and evade the thing once Commodore Decker was persuaded to break off his pointless head-on attack. Decker's "suicide" attack with the Enterprise, he was under some kind of impression that getting in point-blank close to the thing with full phasers was going to make a difference over what he'd made previously with the Constellation.

    In reality, subconsciously, Decker was just trying to get himself killed (out of extreme guilt for killing his crew), and in the process was taking the Enterprise and her crew down with him.

    But the fact is, the Enterprise did not close up with the thing for no reason. They could have attacked it from much further away as the Constellation is later shown doing.

    It's this important context that sets the episode apart from the examples you often try to cite where the combatants close up for no apparent reason.

    ReplyDelete
  12. But there is nowhere in Star Wars movies a statement or visual reference about weapon ranges in excess of 5000 KM.
    Yes there is. Ion canon blasts the ISD which is about one planetary diameter away from Hoth. This, unlike those Trek incidents, is actually SHOWN range.

    Star Trek states or visually referes it at ~200,000 KM therefore it's canon.
    Wrong. EVERY SINGLE shown battle from TOS to ENT covering 40 years of Star Trek occurs at close range (hundreds of meters or kilometers) while there are handful of occasions where a character simply states longer ranges. Obviously observation trumps statements.

    It seems that you miss a lot of the context for "The Doomsday Machine", anon Warsie. How were"they" "blown away" by the planet killer?The Enterprise was at several points able to pull away from and evade the thing once Commodore Decker was persuaded to break off his pointless head-on attack. Decker's "suicide" attack with the Enterprise, he was under some kind of impression that getting in point-blank close to the thing with full phasers was going to make a difference over what he'd made previously with the Constellation.
    I wasn't talking about Enterprise but Constellation. Decker engaged the doomsday machine before the episode starts and Constellation was obviously hit since it was heavily damaged. Thus obviously the planet killer managed to outmaneuver it and hit it with it's single weapon.
    So much for Federation ships outmaneuvering ISDs.

    It's this important context that sets the episode apart from the examples you often try to cite where the combatants close up for no apparent reason.
    Again why was it important to engage the doomsday machine from close range? Obviously since their weapons loose their effectiveness at long range. So much so that they feel they need to skim the surface to try and make more damage.
    Of course you make no attempt to explain other close range incidents like engaging immobile and inactive Chin'toka defense platforms where making long range attack would make most sense or why Federation ships were practically scratching the surface of the Borg cube in FC. Nor did you attempt to explain how ships which miss 400-600m long targets from several km (Defiant vs Lakota, Genesis battle, Jem'Hadar bugs vs Defiant in TDiC etc. etc.) can be expected to score hits from hundreds or thousands of km.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To the anonymous objector:

    You answer your own query regarding Chin'Toka . . . there was no reason to hold off at long range instead of moving past the seemingly-dead platforms in order to continue on toward the planet the platforms were protecting.

    As for the Borg battle, you ignore the fact that it was unlikely the Federation ships had a range advantage against the Borg. Where there is no range advantage between two sides, other tactics would logically take precedence.

    I also note a number of other ill-considered claims on your part, such as the notion that the Constellation taking hits means that a Federation ship cannot outmaneuver an ISD. That's an unsupportable mental leap, requiring not only that you know the particulars of the battle in question (which you don't) but also requiring that you assume an ISD is both as maneuverable and as accurate as the Doomsday Machine. As maneuverable, perhaps, but certainly not as accurate. Unlike an ISD, the planet killer was never seen to miss.

    Further, the occasional missed shot does not negate the obvious and devastating effective range advantages noted.

    Finally, it is evidence of ignorance at best, dishonesty at worst, to suggest that every battle of Trek occurs at short ranges.
    The only time you can claim that a "shown battle" features short-range combat is when the two vessels are both observable on screen at the same time. When this is not the case . . . such as the frequent occurrence of stock footage of a vessel firing and then another scene of the other vessel being struck . . . then your thesis is invalid.

    The above having been said, you were actually correct regarding the Hoth ion cannon. Of course this is a large fixed planetary defense item and not a ship-mounted weapon, but that unit does have a range extending at least many hundreds of kilometers, if not thousands. I'll do further analysis presently.

    However, I fail to see how that improves the situation for Star Wars. That a large and powerful planetary gun can fire thousands of kilometers does nothing to prove greater ship-to-ship ranges than we've seen.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You answer your own query regarding Chin'Toka . . . there was no reason to hold off at long range instead of moving past the seemingly-dead platforms in order to continue on toward the planet the platforms were protecting.
    Wrong. Allied fleet was racing against time to destroy the platforms before the Dominion can activate them, this is stated several times in the episode. Haven't you watched it? Worf even comments on how Jem'Hadar fighters are buying time to get their weapons platforms operational.
    They started picking off the platforms long before they reactivated.
    There is absolutely no intelligible reason why they wouldn't engage them from hundred of thousand km if they had sufficient accuracy.
    Furthermore why didn't the allied fleet, which was tightly packed, simply concentrate it's firepower on the few Jem'Hadar fighters from thousands of km to destroy them before they had the chance to ram the Klingon ships? They obviously lack the sufficient range and accuracy.

    As for the Borg battle, you ignore the fact that it was unlikely the Federation ships had a range advantage against the Borg. Where there is no range advantage between two sides, other tactics would logically take precedence.
    A Borg cube has 400 times greater target profile than Sovereign class ship facing forward or almost 1000 times greater than Miranda class. Not to mention vastly greater maneuverability than the Borg cube. They clearly have range advantage unless you have some evidence that Borg weapons are thousand times more accurate.
    Finally I must say your claim that Federation won't use their advantages if the other side has them strange. Do you think that Alpha quadrant forces have some sort of unwritten understanding that if their ranges are comparable they will not use them closing instead to several km? Can you imagine US missile cruiser engaging British one with similar range and then both closing to spitting distance because they are equal anyway? Of course not. You ALWAYS press your advantage whether the other side is equal or not. ESPECIALLY if it's equal.

    I also note a number of other ill-considered claims on your part, such as the notion that the Constellation taking hits means that a Federation ship cannot outmaneuver an ISD. That's an unsupportable mental leap, requiring not only that you know the particulars of the battle in question (which you don't) but also requiring that you assume an ISD is both as maneuverable and as accurate as the Doomsday Machine. As maneuverable, perhaps, but certainly not as accurate. Unlike an ISD, the planet killer was never seen to miss.
    Excuse me? Didn't it miss Enterprise several times during the battle? Besides ISDs missed against X-wings and Millenium falcon which have hundred and thousand times smaller target profile not to mention being more maneuverable than Constitution class.
    Additionally you haven't addressed the fact that ISD has weapon emplacement all across it's hull while doomsday weapon has only one.
    ISD doesn't need to be as maneuverable as Akira or Sovereign or Galaxy in order for it's turrets to be able to track them.

    Further, the occasional missed shot does not negate the obvious and devastating effective range advantages noted.
    They are not occasional. They are consistent and often. I merely noted a few of the most notable like Defiant missing the huge Lakota while it was no more than few ship lengths away from it. And the "devastating" range was never demonstrated merely talked about.

    Finally, it is evidence of ignorance at best, dishonesty at worst, to suggest that every battle of Trek occurs at short ranges.
    The only time you can claim that a "shown battle" features short-range combat is when the two vessels are both observable on screen at the same time. When this is not the case . . . such as the frequent occurrence of stock footage of a vessel firing and then another scene of the other vessel being struck . . . then your thesis is invalid.

    Well I can't remember a single shown battle that occurs or at least leaves the possibility that it occurs at long range so if you can think of one by all means let me know.
    Of course even if there are such battles they are useless either way and in no way disprove the battles which DO show close range without any doubt dozen of which I already mentioned.

    However, I fail to see how that improves the situation for Star Wars. That a large and powerful planetary gun can fire thousands of kilometers does nothing to prove greater ship-to-ship ranges than we've seen.
    Why not? Massive and powerful weapon will always be more imprecise than smaller ones even if we assume the ion canon is more powerful than that red HTL that blew an ISD up in ROTJ.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oh and since you mentioned "Equinox" here is an excerpt:

    [Equinox Bridge]

    GILMORE: Weapons are down!
    JANEWAY [OC]: Janeway to Ransom. Surrender your vessel.
    RANSOM: We still have thrusters, don't we?
    GILMORE: Aye, sir.
    RANSOM: Lay in a course through the planet's atmosphere. Sixty degree vector.

    [Bridge]

    JANEWAY: What the hell is he doing. Follow him!
    PARIS: Crossing the upper thermosphere.
    JANEWAY: Phasers.
    TUVOK: Shields are weakening. Thirty one percent, twenty nine.
    KIM: Inertial dampers are offline.
    CHAKOTAY: Captain, if we loose our shields well be attacked by the aliens. Captain!
    JANEWAY: Break off pursuit.

    Why did Voyager need to follow Equinox into the atmosphere of an Earth like planet? Why didn't it use the supposed 100,000 km range accuracy to pick off Equinox which undoubtedly had it's maneuverability reduced inside the atmosphere?
    Yet another clear evidence against stated ranges regardless of their earlier report of 30,000 km.

    In fact I'd say it is easily possible that they colloquially use word "kilometers" as "meters" sometime. This would explain why they can engage Equinox at "30,000 kilometers" but then have to follow it inside atmosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Assuming, of course, they will fight against a lone ISD instead of a squadron which can easily point in different directions covering 360 degrees of space.
    Not to mention that ISD weapon emplacement could hit even the small and maneuverable Falcon which means that Defiant and especially Miranda or Excelsior, which comprise most of Starfleet, won't have any chance of dodging it's weapons.
    Finally you are making an assumption that ISD has no rear weapon emplacements.

    Besides


    Assume? There are none. Remember the close up of the rear of an ISD in the opening scene in ep 4? There are no visuals or canon statements that there are weapon ports of any kind in the rear, tucked underneath a movable hull section or otherwise.

    Plus, ISDs don't move up in that formation anyway, even against other Wars capital ships or smaller vessels. And if there really were weapons in the back, there's no need to get into a sphere formation.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Assume? There are none. Remember the close up of the rear of an ISD in the opening scene in ep 4? There are no visuals or canon statements that there are weapon ports of any kind in the rear, tucked underneath a movable hull section or otherwise.
    None that we can see in that shot. But in such a large vessel smaller weapon emplacements could easily be out of sight due to low resolution.
    Again you showed no evidence that ISD doesn't have turret emplacements on the rear. I could just as easily claim that Akira, Steamrunner or Norway class have no rear weapon coverage.

    Plus, ISDs don't move up in that formation anyway, even against other Wars capital ships or smaller vessels.
    Really? In ROTS we've seen that capital ships are facing every which way during battle. There would be no "rear spots" for Federation vessels to exploit.

    And if there really were weapons in the back, there's no need to get into a sphere formation.
    Obviously. And I never said they would go into a "sphere" formation merely rotate so that all directions are covered.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Allied fleet was racing against time to destroy the platforms before the Dominion can activate them, [...] There is absolutely no intelligible reason why they wouldn't engage them from hundred of thousand km if they had sufficient accuracy.

    You keep insisting that they should've stopped and engaged the dead platforms from long range instead of continuing toward the planet, but you're giving no logical reason why. Monday morning quarterbacking is one thing, but you can't claim they should've done such-and-such if there was no reason to do so that could've been known at the time. In short, I find your mental leap incomprehensible.

    Furthermore why didn't the allied fleet, which was tightly packed, simply concentrate it's firepower on the few Jem'Hadar fighters from thousands of km to destroy them before they had the chance to ram the Klingon ships?

    Now you're not even making much sense. First you claim that they had to attack the platforms, but now you want them to stop and attack a small force of Jem'Hadar fighters with their entire fleet, instead of sending a suitable force to combat them that (oops!) discovered the Jem'Hadar were interested in ramming attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As for the Borg battle, you ignore the fact that it was unlikely the Federation ships had a range advantage against the Borg. Where there is no range advantage between two sides, other tactics would logically take precedence.
    A Borg cube has 400 times greater target profile than Sovereign class ship facing forward or almost 1000 times greater than Miranda class. Not to mention vastly greater maneuverability than the Borg cube. They clearly have range advantage unless you have some evidence that Borg weapons are thousand times more accurate.


    You can calculate and theorize all you like, but you're obviously wrong because it doesn't happen that way. Whether the cause is greater Borg accuracy, maximum range limitations equal to both, greater-than-granted Borg maneuverability, or what-have-you, clearly both sides seem to think closing to close range is the best option. This implies by default that there is no range advantage on either side.


    Finally I must say your claim that Federation won't use their advantages if the other side has them strange. Do you think that Alpha quadrant forces have some sort of unwritten understanding that if their ranges are comparable they will not use them closing instead to several km?

    If you have a range advantage, you press it. If you don't, you can't.

    And if you don't, but you have other advantages, it makes sense to use them instead. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

    Can you imagine US missile cruiser engaging British one with similar range and then both closing to spitting distance because they are equal anyway?

    If closing conferred an advantage to one or the other, then yes, obviously.

    You ALWAYS press your advantage whether the other side is equal or not. ESPECIALLY if it's equal.

    Preposterous . . . if it's equal, then by definition there's no advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Let's cut this down to the basics.

    1. I have shown you numerous examples of long-range fire.
    2. There are also acknowledged examples of short-range fire.

    Only in one case has this short range fire been suggested as due to being out of range at a short distance, and that is addressed on my page.

    But by your logic, the second group trumps the first because . . . er . . . uh . . . because it does.

    I don't find your logic very logical.

    In order to succeed, you must explain what special occasions were present in the long-range shots that enabled them to occur as exceptions to a short-range rule.

    Pointing out that Janeway was a moron for following Ransom is an easy point, for instance, but doesn't negate the earlier 30,000km range in the very same episode. If you want to prove that Janeway had to follow Ransom, then you must explain the 30,000km example as a special case.

    However, there is no evidence of it being a special case.


    Also, while you can claim that a big fixed firing platform like the one on Hoth would be less accurate against a largely-stationary ISD than a ship-mounted gun at closer range, I find that claim peculiar and definitely in need of further defense.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You keep insisting that they should've stopped and engaged the dead platforms from long range instead of continuing toward the planet, but you're giving no logical reason why. Monday morning quarterbacking is one thing, but you can't claim they should've done such-and-such if there was no reason to do so that could've been known at the time. In short, I find your mental leap incomprehensible.
    No logical reason why? Do you realize that, when combating an immobile target, you want to put as much distance between it and yourself because your maneuverability will give you the edge? The more distance the greater the weapon travel time which gives your ships more time to evade. Platforms on the other hand don't have any engines thus have no hope of evading the enemy fire.

    Now you're not even making much sense. First you claim that they had to attack the platforms, but now you want them to stop and attack a small force of Jem'Hadar fighters with their entire fleet, instead of sending a suitable force to combat them that (oops!) discovered the Jem'Hadar were interested in ramming attacks.
    Why would they have to stop to attack the Jem'Hadar fighters? The Jem'Hadar were trying to intercept them remember? It was the only way to delay the allied fleet. The fleet should have remained together approaching the weapon platforms and then simply concentrate it's firepower when Jem'Hadar came into range and blow them away before they had the opportunity to ram any ships. They failed to do that, of course, only opening fire when Jem'Hadar fighters were well within visual range thus demonstrating, yet again, that their effective range is limited to few kilometers.

    You can calculate and theorize all you like, but you're obviously wrong because it doesn't happen that way. Whether the cause is greater Borg accuracy, maximum range limitations equal to both, greater-than-granted Borg maneuverability, or what-have-you, clearly both sides seem to think closing to close range is the best option. This implies by default that there is no range advantage on either side.
    Of course it doesn't happen that way that's the point. If they had the range they would take advantage of Borg huge target profile and poor maneuverability.
    You claim that for some reason both Borg and Federation "choose" to fight at close range but gave no evidence.

    If you have a range advantage, you press it. If you don't, you can't.
    And if you don't, but you have other advantages, it makes sense to use them instead. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

    No you use your abilities REGARDLESS of whether the other has them. Why would the Federation choose to squander it's advantage conferred to them by it's ships vastly smaller size and greater maneuverability? What "other advantages" would they have by closing to Borg cube thus playing straight into Borg cube strengths: firepower concentration.

    If closing conferred an advantage to one or the other, then yes, obviously.
    But there are no advantages are there? Not for missile cruisers and not for Federation ships.

    Preposterous . . . if it's equal, then by definition there's no advantage.
    But if you choose not to utilize one of your strengths then it becomes an advantage for the other side doesn't it? You suggest that Federation chose to loose it's maneuverability and smaller target profile for what exactly?

    1. I have shown you numerous examples of long-range fire.
    You have shown 14 cases of stated long ranges which are contradicted by 13 (that I have mentioned) cases of observed short range. There are many others I could list throughout the Star Trek.

    2. There are also acknowledged examples of short-range fire.
    You mentioned exactly one: Call to arms which you dismiss as VFX error.

    Only in one case has this short range fire been suggested as due to being out of range at a short distance, and that is addressed on my page.
    But by your logic, the second group trumps the first because . . . er . . . uh . . . because it does.
    I don't find your logic very logical.

    It wasn't addressed. You CLAIM it was VFX error without providing any evidence. There are more like Janeway being forced into atmosphere.
    And your examples are overridden not "because . . . er . . . uh . . . because" but because observation has greater value than character statements. That is the scientific method.

    In order to succeed, you must explain what special occasions were present in the long-range shots that enabled them to occur as exceptions to a short-range rule.
    Or simply point out that OBSERVED incidents trump character statements. Besides I already gave one possible explanation: that sometimes "kilometer" is used instead of "meter".

    Pointing out that Janeway was a moron for following Ransom is an easy point, for instance, but doesn't negate the earlier 30,000km range in the very same episode. If you want to prove that Janeway had to follow Ransom, then you must explain the 30,000km example as a special case.
    Your defense is that Janeway is a moron? I could just say that whoever reported 30,000km was a moron and leave it at that.

    Also, while you can claim that a big fixed firing platform like the one on Hoth would be less accurate against a largely-stationary ISD than a ship-mounted gun at closer range, I find that claim peculiar and definitely in need of further defense.
    First of all I didn't say that ion canon will have poorer accuracy than ship mounted gun AT CLOSER RANGE. I said that more massive and powerful weapon will have lesser accuracy period. As in lesser accuracy at any given range.
    You find peculiar that more massive machinery will have more inertia and thus be more difficult to precisely rotate and control? That more power will result in greater recoil which will have detrimental effects to accuracy?


    It is very simple. There are far more close range examples than long range all of which rely on character statements. Yet you claim that short ranges are somehow a special case while few stated long ranges are the norm even though there is a clear pattern. Every single Federation fleet battle involved close formations with breaking enemy formations being critical. Yet when we introduce Imperial Navy all of a sudden they'll start engaging at 100,000km? Even when their demonstrated accuracy at 1km is questionable?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Your illogic is dizzying. On every conceivable topic you seem intent on making certain you stand on the side of absurdity, just so long as it supports Star Wars.

    1. If two forces have parity in a given area, neither has an advantage in that area. This is the case by the very definition of the ideas. Yet you insist that one or the other should press their non-existent "advantage" "REGARDLESS".

    Such a notion is absurd in the extreme.

    You also claim that if this non-existent advantage is not used, then it becomes the other side's advantage . . . as if parity somehow magically begets inequality.

    This, too, makes absolutely no sense.

    2. You also believe that any example of short-range fire means that long-range firing examples are invalid. This, too, is illogical. No one is contesting that Star Trek battles have occurred at short ranges. Often we are not privy to the exact reasons.

    However, that does not mean that the reason is somehow actually a range limitation. Nevertheless, that is what you keep baselessly insisting.

    And to do so, you proffer further absurdities, such as 'they say kilometer but mean meter', or 'the characters cannot read'. Basically you attempt to dismiss character statements altogether. Where there is a contradiction between character statements and observation this notion might have traction, but you're simply dismissing them because you don't like them.

    Such claims only compound your initial illogic of trying to dismiss longer range examples.

    Again, in only one instance I'm aware of do we hear even the suggestion that a battle began at short range because they were previously 'out of range'. And contrary to your false claim that I dismiss it as a VFX error, this contradiction is addressed on my page and incorporated into the overall argument.

    3. Despite fixed-location large firing platforms being some of the most precise weapons ever conceived, you claim that they are, in fact, less precise than smaller, mobile weapons at the same range. This is certainly not the case in regards to projectiles, and I can think of no reason why it would be so in regards to particle beams.

    Basically, as an example, you're suggesting that it would be easier for us to shoot the reflectors we left behind on the moon with one of those laser-armed 747s, instead of a ground-based unit like we currently use.

    That's just silly.

    4. There is no reason to sit at maximum effective range against immobile, non-firing, dead-ass targets, especially when you're trying to get past them with a quickness. Yet you insist that the reverse is true.

    5. There is no reason to dispatch the entirety of your forces against enemy harrying when you're in the aforementioned hurry.

    6. Yes, Janeway was a moron for following the Equinox. We know good and well that an orbiting ship can fire on the surface, thus an orbiting ship ought to have been able to fire on one flying in the atmosphere. I'm not aware of any particular damage to her impulse engines, thus Janeway presumably could've simply gone around the planet above the Equinox instead of following Ransom through the atmosphere. But she didn't. Nobody's perfect.

    However, for you to take that notion of a "soft" error in tactics and suppose instead that all characters are making "hard" errors of reading inability is dishonest in the extreme.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 1.) The battle the Constellation went through prior to the Enterprise's arrival on the scene would be an issue, however we see in the remastered verion that the planet killer is suprisingly maneuverable for it's size:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzuVwpA013Y

    Compare the tiny Enterprise being sucked in by the planet killer's tractor beam at 3:22. The maw is now around 900 meters wide. From 1:20 to 1:26 the planet killer rotates around to face the Enterprise. It also chases the Enterprise with suprising speed at 2:43 to 2:45. The thing can obviously sit and rotate on axis fairly quick, if it needs to. Given the literally "miles long" size of this thing, I'd like to see an ISD turn on axis like that, or fire an energy beam some 900 meters wide (2:47) that can literally "slice chunks" out of a planet.

    2.) You keep using this "we" over and over when refering to Decker's choice of closing the Enterprise with the planet killer. The context is that Decker is doing a stupid thing, and Spock constantly urges "immediate withdrawal". No one but Decker thinks getting in close to point-blank will do any good.

    3.) The real point here is that staying at hundreds or thousands of kilometers, or flying up point-blank will not make any difference. But the point is, and was shown, that they can and do fight from much longer ranges than Decker had the Enterprise fight at.

    a.) The Constellation's original battle with the planet killer did not take place at "point-blank" range.

    b.) It is established that no one but Decker (who is suicidal at this point) thinks closing with the thing is a good idea.

    c.) The Constellation piloted by Kirk and the Enterprise damage control party fires on the planet killer from a much greater range (shown at 3:20 to 3:22).

    So where again does this prove any of your points about this particular episode being a good example for you to use? It doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Your illogic is dizzying. On every conceivable topic you seem intent on making certain you stand on the side of absurdity, just so long as it supports Star Wars.
    Actually I think it is the other way around: you ignore the fact that Federation ship miss even at close ranges thus dropping their accuracy at long range to practically zero, you refuse to acknowledge then when attacking an immobile target you need to put as much distance between you and it to expand your reaction time, you dismiss "Call to arms" and it's demonstrated upper range of few dozen km, you insist that Janeway and entire bridge crew didn't find strange to follow the Equinox into the atmosphere even though they supposedly have 100,000km weapon range, you claim that numerous fleet battles which occur at short ranges are somehow a special case which in no way disprove a handful of stated long ranges you provided etc. etc.

    1. If two forces have parity in a given area, neither has an advantage in that area. This is the case by the very definition of the ideas. Yet you insist that one or the other should press their non-existent "advantage" "REGARDLESS".
    No I said "use your ABILITIES" regardless and press advantages if you have them. Just how do you think those battles occur? Borg and Federation politely don't shoot until they close to few km? Again I ask: why would they choose not engage at maximum effective range? What advantage is there?

    You also claim that if this non-existent advantage is not used, then it becomes the other side's advantage . . . as if parity somehow magically begets inequality.
    Not advantage. ABILITY. Federation has smaller more maneuverable ships and there is no reason to approach the Borg cube more than necessary.

    2. You also believe that any example of short-range fire means that long-range firing examples are invalid. This, too, is illogical. No one is contesting that Star Trek battles have occurred at short ranges. Often we are not privy to the exact reasons.
    Not just examples but outright inability to fire such as in "Call to arms", loosing ships to Jem'Hadar bugs ramming attacks which are only made possible because of close ranges. Federation didn't used supposed long range even when it was a matter of life and death.

    However, that does not mean that the reason is somehow actually a range limitation. Nevertheless, that is what you keep baselessly insisting.
    It is not baseless: "Call to Arms", "Way of the warrior", "Equinox". Why engage an immobile base from close range? Why engage immobile platforms from close range? You have no answer and instead suggest we should assume some unknowable off screen reason. This is nothing more than appeal to ignorance.

    And to do so, you proffer further absurdities, such as 'they say kilometer but mean meter', or 'the characters cannot read'. Basically you attempt to dismiss character statements altogether. Where there is a contradiction between character statements and observation this notion might have traction, but you're simply dismissing them because you don't like them.
    Why is this worse explanation than your insistence that Janeway is a moron? Is Tuvok also a moron for not pointing out to Janeway that their weapons have tens of thousand s of km range? I'm not dismissing the examples because I don't like them but because they are contradicted by observed events.
    You still haven't answered my question. If Federation ships miss at less than km range how can you expect them to have any kind of reliable accuracy at 100,000km where apparent target profile would be 10 billion times smaller.

    Again, in only one instance I'm aware of do we hear even the suggestion that a battle began at short range because they were previously 'out of range'. And contrary to your false claim that I dismiss it as a VFX error, this contradiction is addressed on my page and incorporated into the overall argument.
    How do you incorporate it? It clearly suggests 10km ranges and you conclude 100,000km range and more.

    3. Despite fixed-location large firing platforms being some of the most precise weapons ever conceived, you claim that they are, in fact, less precise than smaller, mobile weapons at the same range. This is certainly not the case in regards to projectiles, and I can think of no reason why it would be so in regards to particle beams.
    Projectiles are different since heavier ones will be more resistant to atmospheric effects such as wind shear. Secondly their ranges are nowhere near ten thousand kilometers where you need extremely precise aiming mechanism. That does not translate to particle beams traveling through space hitting targets 10,000km away.

    Basically, as an example, you're suggesting that it would be easier for us to shoot the reflectors we left behind on the moon with one of those laser-armed 747s, instead of a ground-based unit like we currently use.
    Again 747 will be exposed to atmospheric effects not found in space which makes your example invalid. Not to mention that the kind of lasers we use today produce no measurable recoil unlike turbolasers and ion canons nor they are massive enough for aiming mechanism difficulties to come into play.

    4. There is no reason to sit at maximum effective range against immobile, non-firing, dead-ass targets, especially when you're trying to get past them with a quickness. Yet you insist that the reverse is true.
    They were not trying to pass them in quickness. They were trying to destroy them as soon as possible. You completely ignored my explanation as to why this is preferable.

    5. There is no reason to dispatch the entirety of your forces against enemy harrying when you're in the aforementioned hurry.
    That is not what I said. Jem'Hadar forces are the ones which needed to intercept the allied fleet. The allies don't need to be dispatched anywhere only approach the platforms and attack them and then when fighters reach them shoot at them and destroy them.

    6. Yes, Janeway was a moron for following the Equinox. We know good and well that an orbiting ship can fire on the surface, thus an orbiting ship ought to have been able to fire on one flying in the atmosphere. I'm not aware of any particular damage to her impulse engines, thus Janeway presumably could've simply gone around the planet above the Equinox instead of following Ransom through the atmosphere. But she didn't. Nobody's perfect.
    Firing on a planet and firing on a moving ship are two completely different matters. Not only are you claiming that Janeway is an idiot but entire bridge crew for at least not pointing out that there is absolutely no need to follow them into the atmosphere.

    However, for you to take that notion of a "soft" error in tactics and suppose instead that all characters are making "hard" errors of reading inability is dishonest in the extreme.
    The distinction between "soft" and "hard" errors is nothing but your own subjective opinion.
    There are more close range battle incidents and two that outright disprove stated ranges ("Call to arms" and "Equinox"). Not to mention that other battles around DS9, Chin'toka and Borg cube require us to assume that for some unknowable reason entire fleets choose to close to few km where distance is critical due to Borg and DS9 heavy firepower and relative or complete lack of maneuverability.
    Again I ask: How can ships which repeatedly miss at 1km ranges be expected to score hits at 100,000km range when apparent target profile would be 10 billion times smaller?

    So where again does this prove any of your points about this particular episode being a good example for you to use? It doesn't.
    As I explained many times it proves that even the ponderous large ship with a SINGLE weapon emplacement can outmaneuver and hit a Constitution class starship therefore an ISD which has many weapon emplacements will have no problem.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sooooo... let me get this straight... You think that the planet killer was so ponderous, even after having viewed the YouTube video, which shows the miles long thing rotating on axis far faster than any star destroyer ever has been observed doing?

    Also, as G2K has pointed out, that an ISD which is shown missing many times with dozens of turbolasers is the same as the planet killer with one big "gun"? A big gun that hits _all_ of the time...

    Also, you seen intent on trying to grasp onto one or two examples of a close-range miss, while ignoring examples of ships manuevering around at distances in excess of tens of thousands of km are suddenly nullified? In "The Changeling", we see the Enterprise hit the meter tall Nomad from a range of around 90,000 km?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anon is a comedian. That's the only explanation.

    1. You claim I'm engaged in an appeal to ignorance because, unlike you, I don't dismiss the evidence because it doesn't support my pet theory of short ranges.

    Obviously, you're wrong. I simply don't choose to either overwork myself for you or engage in conjecture to explain situations I don't have to explain. Sometimes, folks shoot at short range. It's not required of me to go through each example and explain the whys and wherefores, any more than I would need to explain why various pistol battles occur at less than the effective range of a pistol.

    However, in order to succeed, you must explain what special occasions were present in the long-range shots that enabled them to occur as exceptions to a short-range rule.

    2. You claim target practice against dead targets should involve maximum range so as to increase your response time. Response time? The hell? What are you responding to?

    3. Why extend Janeway's decision to the bridge crew? Do you think they thought she didn't know her ship's range?

    4. You persist in the illogical claim that any miss at closer range instantly means that long range shots are impossible, despite our having witnessed them. The claim itself makes no sense.

    Hell, the Trade Federation missed the Royal Yacht at a range measurable in meters in Ep1. By your logic, I'm being excessively generous by granting any Star Wars vessel a greater range than "at the end of the frickin' barrel".

    5. "Atmospheric effects", you say regarding two separate things. Fair enough. So explain why it's harder to maintain aim when a weapon has a whole planet to brace itself and its recoil against, compared to a ship.

    6. "Soft" and "hard" errors hardly constitutes a subjective opinion. It adequately (IMHO) describes the difference between errors of reason and errors of basic perception . . . i.e. being a dumbass versus suffering from constant hallucinations and/or pathological lying, which is what you claim for Trek crews.

    (Besides, if that's not proof of your own subjectivism I don't know what is. Only a leftist could think that the wrong information could supply the right answers time and again.)

    7. A large vessel's single forward weapon with a large firing arc . . . a vessel capable of very good maneuverability given its bulk . . . hardly constitutes proof that an ISD can fight an Enterprise. Besides which, the ships had no antimatter, and hence none of the usual warp maneuvering power.

    In any case, as accurately noted, Decker was nucking futs. Nonetheless, you hold him up as a prime example of Trek strategery. Quite telling, I should think.

    Now, shape up or shut the hell up. I have no desire to assist you in spreading your dumbass thinking patterns.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This guy (anonymous) obviously has no idea what he's talking about. He's forgetting the OBSERVED FACT that the Nebula class USS Phoenix (which was in the scientific Nebula configuration as opposed to the tactical one I might add) destroyed a Cardassian warship (probably Galor class) at a range somewhere in the region of 170 - 190 thousand kilometers. Then it went and did the same thing to a freighter.

    If a Nebula class science ship can destroy a <400 meter long target at a greater range than 170,000 kilometers, why couldn't a Sovereign class, an Akira class, a Defiant class, or another Federation 'warship' do a similar thing to an ISD at that range?

    Just for fun, here's what I think might happen if a Federation ship were to encounter an ISD...

    1: True to Starfleet form, the Federation ship (which, at this stage, considers the ISD to be a stranger) opens hailing frequencies and closes in to, say, 250 kilometers. Within the ISD's range.

    2: The ISD responds, simply stating that their (the Federation ship's) presence is undesirable and they will now be destroyed.

    3: The ISD arms it's turbo lasers and raises shields. The Fed ship goes to red alert, arms weapons and raises shields shortly after, still trying to reason with the ISD.

    4: The ISD opens fire. The shots are fairly inaccurate. Those that hit rock the Fed ship but don't damage it severely.

    5: The Fed ship's captain and his bridge officers naturally speculate that, if the ISD's shots are inaccurate at this range, they should be even worse further out. The captain gives the order to back off, to about, say, 15 to 25 thousand kilometers.

    6: The ISD is no longer able to fire on the Fed ship. The ISD's TIE fighters, bombers and whatever else they have are ordered to give chase, which they do... Slowly...

    7: The captain of the Fed ship could, at this point, chose to lower his shields and beam the pilots out of the unshielded TIEs and into his brig. Alternatively he could just shoot them down ala the Enterprise-D against those Lysian(?) fighters.

    8: With the TIEs out of the way, one way or another, assuming the ISD hasn't already backed down at this point, the Fed ship opens fire. The power of the ship's phasers and photon torpedoes knocks the bridge crew of the ISD for a loop, completely stunning them.

    9: At this point the ISD is likely to try and retreat. The Fed captain could let the ship go or grab it in a tractor beam. I mean, the Enterprise D was able to move a neutron star core with it's tractor beam with the proper modifications, so an ISD, even though it's significantly larger than the Fed ship, probably wouldn't be a problem. Even if it was, the Fed ship would almost certainly at least be able to hold the ISD in place until other Fed ships arrived to help with towing it.

    You could insert any Federation ship that came after the Constitution class (including the Constitution class) into that scene. This includes the Oberth and Nova class science vessels. Hell, a daedalus class could probably do it. Even an NX class could probably do it...

    Still, I don't want to push it. An Oberth or Nova class could definitely do it though...

    What do you think G2K?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sooooo... let me get this straight... You think that the planet killer was so ponderous, even after having viewed the YouTube video, which shows the miles long thing rotating on axis far faster than any star destroyer ever has been observed doing?
    I never claimed that ISDs are not ponderous vessels merely that doomsday machine is no more maneuverable and since ISDs have far more weapon emplacements they'll hit Federation vessels even easier than Doomsday machine.

    Also, as G2K has pointed out, that an ISD which is shown missing many times with dozens of turbolasers is the same as the planet killer with one big "gun"? A big gun that hits _all_ of the time...
    How does it hit all of the time when even in that clip you linked to we can see it firing several times without hitting the Enterprise? As I ALREADY pointed out ISD missed against Millennium falcon and X-wings which have hundred and thousand times lesser target profile at least. Not to mention that most of bolts fired at falcon were either hits or very close misses.

    Also, you seen intent on trying to grasp onto one or two examples of a close-range miss, while ignoring examples of ships manuevering around at distances in excess of tens of thousands of km are suddenly nullified? In "The Changeling", we see the Enterprise hit the meter tall Nomad from a range of around 90,000 km?
    We don't see it. The range is stated.

    1. You claim I'm engaged in an appeal to ignorance because, unlike you, I don't dismiss the evidence because it doesn't support my pet theory of short ranges.

    Obviously, you're wrong. I simply don't choose to either overwork myself for you or engage in conjecture to explain situations I don't have to explain. Sometimes, folks shoot at short range. It's not required of me to go through each example and explain the whys and wherefores, any more than I would need to explain why various pistol battles occur at less than the effective range of a pistol.

    Observed events ("Call to arms" and "Equinox") outright disprove stated long ranges as well as numerous misses at short ranges even when relative velocity was insignificant.

    However, in order to succeed, you must explain what special occasions were present in the long-range shots that enabled them to occur as exceptions to a short-range rule.
    No I don't. I simply have to point out that their accuracy even at few hundred meters is much less than 100% which means that at 100,000km their accuracy will be insignificant. That is simple mathematics. Mathematics versus 14 character statements.

    2. You claim target practice against dead targets should involve maximum range so as to increase your response time. Response time? The hell? What are you responding to?
    Read my posts carefully. I already explained that more range expands your reaction time to evade incoming weapons fire. Platforms are stationary either way so will get hit regardless of the distance.

    3. Why extend Janeway's decision to the bridge crew? Do you think they thought she didn't know her ship's range?
    Because someone should have pointed out to her that there is absolutely no reason to follow him as I already pointed out. Are you reading my posts?

    4. You persist in the illogical claim that any miss at closer range instantly means that long range shots are impossible, despite our having witnessed them. The claim itself makes no sense.
    We haven't witnessed them. We heard characters claiming them. This is a huge difference. Are you disputing that accuracy is proportional to target profile? Are you disputing that target profile will decrease quadratically as distance increases?

    Hell, the Trade Federation missed the Royal Yacht at a range measurable in meters in Ep1. By your logic, I'm being excessively generous by granting any Star Wars vessel a greater range than "at the end of the frickin' barrel".
    The relative velocity between the Royal yacht and the turrets was very large as it flew past the Trade Federation battleship at very close range. At that point the problem was not accuracy but tracking speed. In other words the turrets couldn't rotate fast enough to hit the ship.
    As the ship was approaching the battleship head on all of the shots were placed very close to the yacht. If the yacht was 50% wider and box shaped every single bolt would hit it. That is smaller than a nacelle of an Akira class starship.

    5. "Atmospheric effects", you say regarding two separate things. Fair enough. So explain why it's harder to maintain aim when a weapon has a whole planet to brace itself and its recoil against, compared to a ship.
    It is quite impossible to brace against an entire planet. With a sufficiently strong recoil the ground around the foundations would simply deform. Besides we clearly saw the barrel of the Ion canon recoiling. The two impact points on an ISD were no more than a 200m apart. This means that after the recoil the barrel was still pointing no more than 0.0012 degrees apart from the initial position.

    6. "Soft" and "hard" errors hardly constitutes a subjective opinion. It adequately (IMHO) describes the difference between errors of reason and errors of basic perception . . . i.e. being a dumbass versus suffering from constant hallucinations and/or pathological lying, which is what you claim for Trek crews.
    You deny that it is subjective and then go on to state that "in your honest opinion" it is adequate. It is your opinion nothing more.
    To constantly engage at close range even at a risk of your own ship if you have the ability to score hits at long range is no less idiotic than accidentally misreading the chart. Furthermore that is not even what I suggested, I said that it is possible that they colloquially use "kilometer" as "meter" sometimes. That is not calling them idiots. Language is an organic thing, constantly changing. It is not so inconceivable that in a century some other meanings might be in use.

    (Besides, if that's not proof of your own subjectivism I don't know what is. Only a leftist could think that the wrong information could supply the right answers time and again.)
    I provided a possible explanation as to why statements contradict observations. Observations win regardless of whether an explanation is found. Your own distinction between "hard" and "soft" errors, on the other hand, is purely subjective and unfounded. Finally whether I'm "leftist" really has nothing to do with the subject at hand and is nothing more than your attempt at insult.

    7. A large vessel's single forward weapon with a large firing arc . . . a vessel capable of very good maneuverability given its bulk . . . hardly constitutes proof that an ISD can fight an Enterprise. Besides which, the ships had no antimatter, and hence none of the usual warp maneuvering power.
    Whether doomsday machine had good relative maneuverability is irrelevant. It was no more maneuverable than an ISD and with a single weapon emplacement. It managed to hit the Constellation in the initial battle and so could the ISD. Impulse engines are powered by fusion reactors not the antimatter so they were not affected.

    In any case, as accurately noted, Decker was nucking futs. Nonetheless, you hold him up as a prime example of Trek strategery. Quite telling, I should think.
    I agree that during the second battle Decker was emotionally distraught however since the close range is the norm for Federation ships I don't see how you can claim that his close range fight was somehow special.

    This guy (anonymous) obviously has no idea what he's talking about. He's forgetting the OBSERVED FACT that the Nebula class USS Phoenix (which was in the scientific Nebula configuration as opposed to the tactical one I might add) destroyed a Cardassian warship (probably Galor class) at a range somewhere in the region of 170 - 190 thousand kilometers. Then it went and did the same thing to a freighter.
    It wasn't observed but claimed by Data. How many times must I point out the difference? Not to mention that you are assuming that Nebula didn't drastically reduce the distance between itself and Cardassian ship in the "third dimension" which would not be visible in the 2d display. How do you know that USS Phoenix had a "scientific" as opposed to "tactical" configuration? Based on the shape of the pod?

    If a Nebula class science ship can destroy a <400 meter long target at a greater range than 170,000 kilometers, why couldn't a Sovereign class, an Akira class, a Defiant class, or another Federation 'warship' do a similar thing to an ISD at that range?
    Because they can't. That range was never demonstrated and relies on character stataments AND assumptions about ship movements perpendicular to the 2d display. They are directly contradicted by demonstrated accuracy of Defiant vs Lakota or Defiant vs BoP in Way of the Warrior.

    1: True to Starfleet form, the Federation ship (which, at this stage, considers the ISD to be a stranger) opens hailing frequencies and closes in to, say, 250 kilometers. Within the ISD's range.
    Seeing as how Federation ships always approach other ships at a few hundred meters I don't see why you suddenly claim 250 kilometers. But I guess that's possible.

    4: The ISD opens fire. The shots are fairly inaccurate. Those that hit rock the Fed ship but don't damage it severely.
    Trade Federation battleship placed all of it's shots close around a 20-30m wide Naboo yacht at a range of 50km at least. Even Miranda class would have 10 times greater apparent profile at 250km so the shots would not be inaccurate but would likely all hit the target.
    Seeing as how BoPs, Jem'Hadar bugs, Borg ship type superior to a Galaxy class and entire shipyards can be destroyed by being hit with photosphere matter which contains maybe 33kJ/m3 so at 10km/s speed of photosphere a 500m wide box would receive 83TW assuming that entire energy content is transferred to the ship meaning the plasma would cool down to 0K. This is obviously not what happens, the photosphere remains yellow-hot so the plasma was cooled down by no more than about 1000K from 6000K thus the 500m box would actually receive no more than 15TW. Imperial ships have many turbolasers whose power is 1TJ assuming the asteroids in TESB are about 1m in diameter. In fact we see 10-20m asteroids being vaporized against the ISDs shields. ROTS novel also suggests 1000TJ at least even disregarding various EU sources.

    5: The Fed ship's captain and his bridge officers naturally speculate that, if the ISD's shots are inaccurate at this range, they should be even worse further out. The captain gives the order to back off, to about, say, 15 to 25 thousand kilometers.
    Except Federation ships can't even accurately hit at 1km range which makes thousands of km range accuracy out of the question.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Coincidentally I just watched Equinox part 2 rerun on TV. The battle doesn't go exactly as you claim. Tom Paris reports that they are "at 30,000km and closing", Janeway orders to target engines and then there is a scene cut to exterior and Voyager begins shooting. There is absolutely no indication as to what time elapsed between Tom's report and actual firing of the phaser thus no way to know at what exact range Voyager started firing. Furthermore several seconds later we see that Voyager is few hundred meters away from Equinox. This is before Ransom orders Equinox into the atmosphere. Finally as Voyager follows Equinox into the atmosphere there is an external shot showing Voyager firing on Equinox with a phaser and missing even though it is no more than few hundred meters behind it.
    Not only is there no way to determine the actual range (except that it is less than 30,000km) but we have yet another example of low accuracy at extremely short range when target is directly in front of the Federation ship and with insignificant relative velocity.

    ReplyDelete
  30. 1.) The demonstrated manuverbility of the planet killer appears to be several times better than the best manuverbility observed by a large SW capital ship. So again, this does not help your position. It also still does not alter the fact that Federation starships can and have fought at significantly greater ranges, and quite successfully at that.

    2.) We have witnessed a number of shots in the Battle of Endor of capital ships firing on each other, and from point-blank range. The ISD and the Mon Calamari cruiser exchanging heavy fire comes to mind, with only the one bolt from the rebel cruiser hitting it's ISD opponent. You can see a good couple of screen shots of that here on one of G2k's pages:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWvapetown.html

    This is downright pathetic that each of these two best-of-the-best ships of the line cannot hit each other (ships of 1600 x 800 meters) from a range of a couple of kilometers or so. Now you expect them to hit a ship of several times smaller cross-section from potentially _thousands_ of km out?

    3.) By the way, here's the dialog from "Equinox":

    PARIS: Thirty thousand kilometres and closing.
    JANEWAY: Target their power core.

    [Equinox Bridge]

    GILMORE: Direct hit. Minor damage.
    RANSOM: Return fire.

    They missed, huh? Here's more:


    CHAKOTAY: Stand by.
    TUVOK: They've damaged our deflector, Captain. If it goes offline we'll be vulnerable to the alien attacks.
    JANEWAY: Noted. Target his weapons array.

    [Equinox Bridge]

    GILMORE: We lost all phaser banks.
    RANSOM: Torpedoes, full spread.
    BURKE: It's B'Elanna. She's trying to bypass our security protocols.
    RANSOM: Stop her.


    More hits. So you pick _one_ instance of a miss while the ships are plowing through a planet's atmosphere (by the way, Voyager does score a glancing blow off of Equinox's shields, causing them to glow: http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=180&pos=169), but ignore a significant number of direct hits beforehand in the whole fight at a range of potentially thousands of km? Interesting.

    4.)Another couple of counterpoints from TOS' "The Deadly Years"; the Enterprise falls under attack by several Romulan warbirds at stated distances of 50,000 to 100,000 km. No misses on the part of the Romulans, and there is no contradiction by the special effects depicting the battle.

    In "The Alternative Factor", the Enterprise fires down on and vaporizes Lazarus' tiny 3 meter wide ship from a substantially high orbit as seen here:

    http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=53&pos=376

    Lazarus' ship as seen with people standing next to it for scale:

    http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=53&pos=193

    ReplyDelete
  31. 1.) The demonstrated manuverbility of the planet killer appears to be several times better than the best manuverbility observed by a large SW capital ship. So again, this does not help your position. It also still does not alter the fact that Federation starships can and have fought at significantly greater ranges, and quite successfully at that.
    It's turning time is no greater than that of Executor whose starboard engine misfired when bridge was destroyed. Clearly a fully operational Executor would be capable of the same maneuver.
    And you continue to ignore the main point: Doomsday machine had only one weapon emplacement. ISD has weapon emplacements all across it's hull. Therefore ISD will need only a fraction of the maneuverability to score a hit against the starship. I repeated this many times and you continue to ignore it.

    2.) We have witnessed a number of shots in the Battle of Endor of capital ships firing on each other, and from point-blank range. The ISD and the Mon Calamari cruiser exchanging heavy fire comes to mind, with only the one bolt from the rebel cruiser hitting it's ISD opponent. You can see a good couple of screen shots of that here on one of G2k's pages:
    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWvapetown.html
    This is downright pathetic that each of these two best-of-the-best ships of the line cannot hit each other (ships of 1600 x 800 meters) from a range of a couple of kilometers or so. Now you expect them to hit a ship of several times smaller cross-section from potentially _thousands_ of km out?

    Those bolts were merely seen flying off screen. What evidence do you have that there weren't other ISDs beyond the cameras field of view that were also involved in the exchange and being targeted by the rebel warship? All my examples involve either two ship versus or weapon fire being shown from turret perspective clearly shown to fly past the ship and into empty space behind it. This is where we can say with absolute certainty that weapons missed.

    3.) By the way, here's the dialog from "Equinox":

    PARIS: Thirty thousand kilometres and closing.
    JANEWAY: Target their power core.
    [Equinox Bridge]
    GILMORE: Direct hit. Minor damage.
    RANSOM: Return fire.

    They missed, huh? Here's more:


    CHAKOTAY: Stand by.
    TUVOK: They've damaged our deflector, Captain. If it goes offline we'll be vulnerable to the alien attacks.
    JANEWAY: Noted. Target his weapons array.
    [Equinox Bridge]
    GILMORE: We lost all phaser banks.
    RANSOM: Torpedoes, full spread.
    BURKE: It's B'Elanna. She's trying to bypass our security protocols.
    RANSOM: Stop her.

    I certainly never claimed that Federation ships miss all of the time merely that, even at ~1km ranges ships are known to frequently miss which means that at longer ranges the accuracy rate will drop off with the decrease of the target profile and become insignificant at thousands of km. You can't contradict that by showing that they can actually score hits. Of course they can. They would be totally useless otherwise.

    More hits. So you pick _one_ instance of a miss while the ships are plowing through a planet's atmosphere (by the way, Voyager does score a glancing blow off of Equinox's shields, causing them to glow: http://voy.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=180&pos=169), but ignore a significant number of direct hits beforehand in the whole fight at a range of potentially thousands of km? Interesting.
    First of all the shields were glowing because they entered atmosphere. Voyager shields begin glowing also a few frames later. Secondly Ion canon scored two clean hits on an ISD through the atmosphere and 10,000km of space so that's not much of an excuse. Furthermore you have absolutely no evidence at what range the previous hits were fired. They report "30,000km and closing" and some unknown time later Voyager begins shooting. For all you know they could've already be at 1km from Equinox.
    Finally, as I stated above, the fact that they can actually score hits does not negate the fact that their accuracy rate (as in ratio of hits to total shots fired) is much less than 100% and will become insignificant when you increase the range to 100,000km.

    4.)Another couple of counterpoints from TOS' "The Deadly Years"; the Enterprise falls under attack by several Romulan warbirds at stated distances of 50,000 to 100,000 km. No misses on the part of the Romulans, and there is no contradiction by the special effects depicting the battle.
    Another statement not to mention that Sulu states their distance is "fifty to hundred thousand km" which can actually mean the closest warbird is fifty kilometers away as opposed to fifty thousand.

    In "The Alternative Factor", the Enterprise fires down on and vaporizes Lazarus' tiny 3 meter wide ship from a substantially high orbit as seen here:
    http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=53&pos=376
    Lazarus' ship as seen with people standing next to it for scale:
    http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=53&pos=193

    They managed to hit a completely stationary target on the surface which didn't fight back and had all the time they needed to target the ship. This has nothing to do with accuracy in actual combat when enemy is evading and returning fire and there is no time to carefully target.

    ReplyDelete
  32. [b]"We don't see it. The range is stated."[/b]

    As this makes a difference, how? You're still forgetting the close to 200,000 kilometer range from TNG: Wounded...

    [b]"Observed events ("Call to arms" and "Equinox") outright disprove stated long ranges as well as numerous misses at short ranges even when relative velocity was insignificant."[/b]

    I fail to see how that makes any sense...

    Think of it this way, a modern day pistol has a much greater maximum range than effective range (people regularly miss at ranges of a few meters using them).

    However, again, the Phoenix destroyed a Cardassian warship at a range of nearly 200,000 kilometers, so why are you still arguing for shorter maximum ranges?

    [b]"I simply have to point out that their accuracy even at few hundred meters is much less than 100% which means that at 100,000km their accuracy will be insignificant."[/b]

    Try telling that to Nomad or the crew of the two Cardassian ships the Phoenix destroyed...

    [b]"Platforms are stationary either way so will get hit regardless of the distance."[/b]

    Oh for the love off... the flipping platforms weren't the fleet's primary target. They shot down the dead platforms as they flew by, yes, but their actual objective was beyond the platforms.

    Let's say you're in a tank and have been orderd to destroy a bunker up ahead. There are anti-tank weapons nearby with their crews in the process of running to them.

    It would only be logical to drive towards the bunker (and hence, the guns), trying to shoot down the gun crews with your machines guns as you go. At least that way you have a chance of completing your objective. If the crews reach their guns you're toast either way, so better to do as much damage as you can while you're around...

    [b]"We haven't witnessed them. We heard characters claiming them. This is a huge difference."[/b]

    Umm... no there isn't. While would Sulu (was it Sulu? I haven't seen that episode in years) say that Nomad was 90,000 kilometers away if he wasn't?

    [b]"It wasn't observed but claimed by Data. How many times must I point out the difference?"[/b]

    There is no difference. Data said the Phoenix was that far from the Cardassian ship. Therefore it was.

    [b]"Not to mention that you are assuming that Nebula didn't drastically reduce the distance between itself and Cardassian ship in the "third dimension" which would not be visible in the 2d display.[/b]

    Actually, going up or down relative to the cardassian ship would INCREASE the distance (diagonals and longer than straight lines). No matter how far apart the two ships were in the third dimension, the dot would have had to have closed on the display for the Phoenix to be closer to the cardassian ship.

    [b]"How do you know that USS Phoenix had a "scientific" as opposed to "tactical" configuration? Based on the shape of the pod?"[/b]

    Well I don't, but everyone says the pod on top of the Phoenix (which looked different from the pods on top of the Farragut and other Neubula class ships) was a sensor pod, hense a science ship. It doesn't really matter anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dang, I stuffed that up...

    Oh well, I'll do it agian...

    "We don't see it. The range is stated."

    And this makes a difference, how? You're still forgetting the close to 200,000 kilometer range from TNG: Wounded...

    "Observed events ("Call to arms" and "Equinox") outright disprove stated long ranges as well as numerous misses at short ranges even when relative velocity was insignificant."

    I fail to see how that makes any sense...

    Think of it this way, a modern day pistol has a much greater maximum range than effective range (people regularly miss at ranges of a few meters using them).

    However, again, the Phoenix destroyed a Cardassian warship at a range of nearly 200,000 kilometers, so why are you still arguing for shorter maximum ranges?

    "I simply have to point out that their accuracy even at few hundred meters is much less than 100% which means that at 100,000km their accuracy will be insignificant."

    Try telling that to Nomad or the crew of the two Cardassian ships the Phoenix destroyed...

    "Platforms are stationary either way so will get hit regardless of the distance."

    Oh for the love off... the flipping platforms weren't the fleet's primary target. They shot down the dead platforms as they flew by, yes, but their actual objective was beyond the platforms.

    Let's say you're in a tank and have been orderd to destroy a bunker up ahead. There are anti-tank weapons nearby with their crews in the process of running to them.

    It would only be logical to drive towards the bunker (and hence, the guns), trying to shoot down the gun crews with your machines guns as you go. At least that way you have a chance of completing your objective. If the crews reach their guns you're toast either way, so better to do as much damage as you can while you're around...

    "We haven't witnessed them. We heard characters claiming them. This is a huge difference."

    Umm... no there isn't. While would Sulu (was it Sulu? I haven't seen that episode in years) say that Nomad was 90,000 kilometers away if he wasn't?

    "It wasn't observed but claimed by Data. How many times must I point out the difference?"

    There is no difference. Data said the Phoenix was that far from the Cardassian ship. Therefore it was.

    "Not to mention that you are assuming that Nebula didn't drastically reduce the distance between itself and Cardassian ship in the "third dimension" which would not be visible in the 2d display.

    Actually, going up or down relative to the cardassian ship would INCREASE the distance (diagonals and longer than straight lines). No matter how far apart the two ships were in the third dimension, the dot would have had to have closed on the display for the Phoenix to be closer to the cardassian ship.

    "How do you know that USS Phoenix had a "scientific" as opposed to "tactical" configuration? Based on the shape of the pod?"

    Well I don't, but everyone says the pod on top of the Phoenix (which looked different from the pods on top of the Farragut and other Neubula class ships) was a sensor pod, hense a science ship. It doesn't really matter anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  34. "No matter how far apart the two ships were in the third dimension, the dot would have had to have closed on the display for the Phoenix to be closer to the cardassian ship."

    Let me just ammend that...

    Alright, it is true that the Phoenix could probably get A LITTLE closer by moving up or down, it wouldn't make sense that the Cardassian ship and the Phoenix would in wildly different places on the Y axis...

    ReplyDelete
  35. "it wouldn't make sense that the Cardassian ship and the Phoenix would in wildly different places on the Y axis..."

    I meant to say "BUT it wouldn't really make sense that the Cardassian ship and the Phoenix were in wildly different places on the Y axis.."

    You'll have to forgive me G2K. I'm a little tired right now...

    ReplyDelete
  36. As this makes a difference, how? You're still forgetting the close to 200,000 kilometer range from TNG: Wounded...
    It makes a difference because if statements contradict observations we go with observations. This is how scientific method works.

    I fail to see how that makes any sense...
    Think of it this way, a modern day pistol has a much greater maximum range than effective range (people regularly miss at ranges of a few meters using them).

    Exactly and just how accurate do you think the pistol would be at maximum range? What accuracy do you think a pistol has a 100 meters?
    There is no breaking mechanism in space so naturally once you fire a turbolaser, phaser or a disruptor it can go on for millions of kilometers. But how accurate is it against ships? That is the question.

    However, again, the Phoenix destroyed a Cardassian warship at a range of nearly 200,000 kilometers, so why are you still arguing for shorter maximum ranges?
    You haven't provided any evidence that distance was 200,000 kilometers.

    Try telling that to Nomad or the crew of the two Cardassian ships the Phoenix destroyed...
    A stationary target that was hit by a torpedo which has homing capability and incident for which you still provided no evidence as to the range.

    Oh for the love off... the flipping platforms weren't the fleet's primary target. They shot down the dead platforms as they flew by, yes, but their actual objective was beyond the platforms.
    Let's say you're in a tank and have been orderd to destroy a bunker up ahead. There are anti-tank weapons nearby with their crews in the process of running to them.
    It would only be logical to drive towards the bunker (and hence, the guns), trying to shoot down the gun crews with your machines guns as you go. At least that way you have a chance of completing your objective. If the crews reach their guns you're toast either way, so better to do as much damage as you can while you're around...

    Wrong. The platforms were the primary target. The Dominion was ready to activate them at any time and allied fleet knew this. They outright say so. Haven't you watched the episode?

    Umm... no there isn't. While would Sulu (was it Sulu? I haven't seen that episode in years) say that Nomad was 90,000 kilometers away if he wasn't?
    Really? There is no difference between statements and observations? That is very unscientific mindset. Haven't you ever heard of people misreading the chart? Or certain words changing meanings through centuries?

    There is no difference. Data said the Phoenix was that far from the Cardassian ship. Therefore it was.
    Again you insist that there is no difference between observation and character statements. Neimodian captain in TPM stated that "nothing can get thorough our shields". Does that means Trade Federation ship is invulnerable?

    Alright, it is true that the Phoenix could probably get A LITTLE closer by moving up or down,BUT it wouldn't really make sense that the Cardassian ship and the Phoenix were in wildly different places on the Y axis..
    Why wouldn't it make sense? Space is three dimensional right? As I said by the time Data finishes the sentence Phoenix could have easily approached the Cardassian ship in the direction "towards" the plane of display cutting down the initial 200,000km to a much smaller distance. We don't know therefore it is not intellectually honest to use the incident as "proof" of long range battles.

    ReplyDelete
  37. By the nameless one:
    It wasn't observed but claimed by Data. How many times must I point out the difference? Not to mention that you are assuming that Nebula didn't drastically reduce the distance between itself and Cardassian ship in the "third dimension" which would not be visible in the 2d display. How do you know that USS Phoenix had a "scientific" as opposed to "tactical" configuration? Based on the shape of the pod?


    this is not logical.
    "claim" by data. This accusation you levy against Data you find it founded in what?

    The tactical station is valid confirmation of canon distances. The litteral distances are view here as well on another Nebula Data commanded "Sutherland"

    This ship fired on cloaked Romulan ships with no percieved proximity

    Numerous times Enterprise has struck pin poin targets from high orbit, All of which trumps an ISD's observed range...

    ReplyDelete
  38. this is not logical.
    "claim" by data. This accusation you levy against Data you find it founded in what?
    The tactical station is valid confirmation of canon distances. The litteral distances are view here as well on another Nebula Data commanded "Sutherland"
    This ship fired on cloaked Romulan ships with no percieved proximity

    First I have no problems with character claims unless they are contradicted by observation. If someone claimed he shot a duck from 10km range and can reliably do so but you observed him to miss even at 10m range numerous times you would have good reason to doubt him no?
    Secondly as I already explained, and you ignored, there is no way to know how much closer the Phoenix got after Data called out the distance because we can't see the third dimension on the screen. This makes the example useless.
    Finally your "Sutherland" example is useless. We can't see how distant the ships are therefore it doesn't help my case or yours.

    Numerous times Enterprise has struck pin poin targets from high orbit, All of which trumps an ISD's observed range...
    It struck completely immobile targets with plenty of time to carefully aim. Ion canon, on the other hand, hit a moving ISD also in high orbit and since it had to cover the escaping rebel fleet had very little time to aim.

    ReplyDelete
  39. None that we can see in that shot. But in such a large vessel smaller weapon emplacements could easily be out of sight due to low resolution.

    And the close up shots in ESB when the Falcon is attached to the back of the bridge tower?

    If there were any weapons there, there'd be some kind of sensors. They should have been able to pick up a frieghter next to the hull. They didn't.


    Really? In ROTS we've seen that capital ships are facing every which way during battle. There would be no "rear spots" for Federation vessels to exploit.

    They don't move into a sphere formation. Facing every which way, but spread out is not the same.

    Obviously. And I never said they would go into a "sphere" formation merely rotate so that all directions are covered.

    If there are weapons there, there's no need to rotate that way to get that side covered.

    ReplyDelete
  40. And the close up shots in ESB when the Falcon is attached to the back of the bridge tower?
    If there were any weapons there, there'd be some kind of sensors. They should have been able to pick up a frieghter next to the hull. They didn't.

    They weren't targeting the immediate area behind the ISD and Falcon was powered down and blended with the trash. This doesn't mean there are no weapons on the rear. Didn't Galaxy fail to detect a huge slug attached to it's rear hull in one of the episodes?

    They don't move into a sphere formation. Facing every which way, but spread out is not the same.
    When did I ever claim they move in spherical formations? They covered ALL directions with weapons. That is the only point.

    If there are weapons there, there's no need to rotate that way to get that side covered.
    Exactly. If they don't have weapons they can rotate and if they do there is no need to. Either way there is no weakness.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The nameless one said:
    First I have no problems with character claims unless they are contradicted by observation. If someone claimed he shot a duck from 10km range and can reliably do so but you observed him to miss even at 10m range numerous times you would have good reason to doubt him no?
    Secondly as I already explained, and you ignored, there is no way to know how much closer the Phoenix got after Data called out the distance because we can't see the third dimension on the screen. This makes the example useless.
    Finally your "Sutherland" example is useless. We can't see how distant the ships are therefore it doesn't help my case or yours.

    It struck completely immobile targets with plenty of time to carefully aim. Ion canon, on the other hand, hit a moving ISD also in high orbit and since it had to cover the escaping rebel fleet had very little time to aim,


    First of all Federation phasers rarely miss as direct fire weapons. But it's you're talking about torpedos..then you should consider the manuverablity of your target. A Galor Class vessel isn't very manuverable.

    Secondly we do see that Pheonix immediately withdraws well outside of the Galors weapon range. Then conservatively it matches the Galor course and as soon as it's within weapon range Pheonix fired. How much further Pheonix got to the vessel is irrelevant. That first folley whether it be one torpedo or a spread destroyed the target.

    Thirdly the ISD was in a geosyncrhonous orbit...It's bow pointed squarely at the Rebel base in a blockade formation with the rest of the fleet. That vessel immediately fel out of orbit...likely crashed once struck by the Ion canon.

    Which by the way reveals a major vunerablity for ISD's and Star War's ships in general.

    No nothing is being ignored here all the pieces are implace. Your notes of failure can be accounted as additions not contradictions. The contradiction you're looking for is that someone display a situation exactly the same as "The Wounded" displayed and was unable to produce the same effects.

    What you observered was an additional consideration of many variables not a contradiction.

    ReplyDelete
  42. First of all Federation phasers rarely miss as direct fire weapons. But it's you're talking about torpedos..then you should consider the manuverablity of your target. A Galor Class vessel isn't very manuverable.
    Rarely is a vague term however I never really contended that at close ranges at which Federation ships engage (1km-10km) phaser accuracy is going to be an issue especially against ISDs. All that I am saying is that shown accuracy inevitably leads at practically zero accuracy at claimed ranges (10,000km or 100,000km).

    Secondly we do see that Pheonix immediately withdraws well outside of the Galors weapon range. Then conservatively it matches the Galor course and as soon as it's within weapon range Pheonix fired. How much further Pheonix got to the vessel is irrelevant. That first folley whether it be one torpedo or a spread destroyed the target.
    What exactly does this prove since we don't know the distance between the two ships?

    Thirdly the ISD was in a geosyncrhonous orbit...It's bow pointed squarely at the Rebel base in a blockade formation with the rest of the fleet. That vessel immediately fel out of orbit...likely crashed once struck by the Ion canon.
    How do you know ISD was in geosynchronous orbit? And what evidence you have that it "fel out of orbit"? All we have seen is that ISDs engines misfired and were shut down while the ship changed it's heading and position slightly, as in few hundred meters. There is absolutely no evidence or indication that it is going to crash into Hoth.
    Finally geosynchronous orbit for an Earth like planet is 42,000km. So that would further increase the range of the Ion canon.

    Which by the way reveals a major vunerablity for ISD's and Star War's ships in general.
    What vulnerability?

    No nothing is being ignored here all the pieces are implace. Your notes of failure can be accounted as additions not contradictions. The contradiction you're looking for is that someone display a situation exactly the same as "The Wounded" displayed and was unable to produce the same effects.
    You completely ignored my point about third dimension being invisible. How do you know what was the change in the distance between Phoenix and Cardassian ship after Data called out the distance the first time?

    ReplyDelete
  43. 1.) The E-D at no point does the E-D fail to detect the space-borne creature that attaches itself to the back of the stardrive dorsal in "Galaxy's Child".

    2.) On the distance between the the Phoenix and the Cardassian ships in "The Wounded", the range distances are displayed as circular graphics as see here:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSW-WeaponRange-Trek.html

    Please note the timestamps given and how they relate to the changes in the circle graphics overlapping each other. We can therefore follow the battle, and get an appoximate idea of the ranges involved. The issue of of how each ship is relative to each other in three dimensions does not come into play here as a factor.

    The earlier fight with the Cardassian patrol ship is only of note since the E-D was supposed to meet up with it, and the Cardassians took advantage of that to get close and get a free hit in on the Federation vessel.

    3.) You cited the ion cannon on Hoth hitting a supposedly moving ISD as opposed to the TOS Enterprise hitting a 3 meter wide, stationary craft sitting on a planet's surface from high orbit. The ISD in TESB is, as noted, not moving much at all relative to Hoth as it was part of the Imperial blockade to prevent the Rebels from escaping. Furthermore, there is little proof that the ion cannon hits were specifically aimed at anything of a relatively vunerable, and small size (like aiming for the ISD bridge observation windows, for instance). The difference is one of hitting the proverbial barn from a modest of a few dozen kilometers distance and hitting a few random spots on the overall structure, while the other is like precision shooting from Los Angles at a penny in San Francisco, and hitting it dead on. To put it another way, the ion cannon only has to score hits on a target that offers roughly 1,280,000 square meters to shoot at, while the Enterprise has to hit a target of only about 7 square meters.

    4.) On Sulu's statement:

    "We're surrounded by Romulan vessels. Maximum of ten. Range fifty to a hundred thousand kilometres."

    If you wish to play word games, we can also presume since there are clearly more than one warbird attacking the Enterprise, we can say that one is at 50 km out, while another is at 100,000 and maybe another one or two at 150,000, and that all of them are hitting regardless of the range. Therefore the example still stands.

    ReplyDelete
  44. They weren't targeting the immediate area behind the ISD and Falcon was powered down and blended with the trash.

    Why the hell not? They know the direction the Falcon's heading to. If there were weapons there, they'd have trained the sensors to scan the area behind them. The falcon wasn't attached under something. They were on their side, covering a large section back there. There is nothing to sugest that there were weapons. They would have been exposed and extended, if they were covered.

    This doesn't mean there are no weapons on the rear. Didn't Galaxy fail to detect a huge slug attached to it's rear hull in one of the episodes?

    If you mean the one where they killed the mother and did a space C-section, they detected it, but Fed ships have hull contact sensors. ESB shows ISDs don't.

    When did I ever claim they move in spherical formations? They covered ALL directions with weapons. That is the only point.

    That is not a spherical formation. That's facing every which way. Spherical formations involve everyone having their back to each other. No one in a sphereical formation should see the backs of anyone.

    Exactly. If they don't have weapons they can rotate and if they do there is no need to. Either way there is no weakness.

    What the fuck are you arguing here?

    1. There is no evidence there are rear sensors on the bridge tower. No direct or indirect evidence.
    2. There is no evidence there are weapons on the rear of the bridge tower. No direct or indirect evidence.
    3. Because of the above, they would need to turn around to cover their rear side because they have no weapons or sensors there.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Why the hell not? They know the direction the Falcon's heading to. If there were weapons there, they'd have trained the sensors to scan the area behind them. The falcon wasn't attached under something. They were on their side, covering a large section back there. There is nothing to sugest that there were weapons. They would have been exposed and extended, if they were covered.
    Have you watched the film? The Falcon attaches itself to the hull, the crew scans for the ship and then reports that it vanished from the scope. After that they assume Falcon jumped into hyperspace and prepare to chase after it. Therefore there is absolutely no reason for them to specifically scan ISDs immediate rear or it's garbage.

    If you mean the one where they killed the mother and did a space C-section, they detected it, but Fed ships have hull contact sensors. ESB shows ISDs don't.
    It all depends on the size. Voyager didn't detect that Species 8472 member was strolling along it's hull.

    That is not a spherical formation. That's facing every which way. Spherical formations involve everyone having their back to each other. No one in a sphereical formation should see the backs of anyone.
    Why are you clinging to this spherical formation? I NEVER CLAIMED OR MENTIONED ANY KIND OF SPHERICAL FORMATION.
    They don't need any kind of spherical formation. Even assuming there is no rear weapon coverage all they need is two stardestroyers one rotating to say 90 degrees port or starboard relative to the other. Now each one can cover the rear of the other with it's port or starboard broadside. No "spherical formation" is required.

    1. There is no evidence there are rear sensors on the bridge tower. No direct or indirect evidence.
    2. There is no evidence there are weapons on the rear of the bridge tower. No direct or indirect evidence.

    So? We know they have sensors and weapon emplacements. It us up to you to prove they don't have them on the rear.

    3. Because of the above, they would need to turn around to cover their rear side because they have no weapons or sensors there.
    You showed no evidence that they don't have rear sensor coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Aw, c'mon guys . . . don't show him the pictures of the bridge viewscreen from "The Wounded". Data might've suggested this was the computer's tactical display with ranges overlaid, but he simply misread his station's indicators . . . that was actually a game of Pong v. 142.0 being played on Deck 12.

    Or better yet, Data was drawing it frame by frame in Windows Paint v. 142.0 (he's quick, you know, and he paints) and thus it was only his representation of his earlier misreading of the sensor telemetry, and therefore is not a separate source of information from Data.

    Thus, as anon said, you evil Trekkies have no proof of ~200,000km ranges from that example.

    Suckas! HAH HAH HAH HAH (aneurysm explodes)

    ReplyDelete
  47. 2.) On the distance between the the Phoenix and the Cardassian ships in "The Wounded", the range distances are displayed as circular graphics as see here:

    http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSW-WeaponRange-Trek.html

    Please note the timestamps given and how they relate to the changes in the circle graphics overlapping each other. We can therefore follow the battle, and get an appoximate idea of the ranges involved. The issue of of how each ship is relative to each other in three dimensions does not come into play here as a factor.
    The earlier fight with the Cardassian patrol ship is only of note since the E-D was supposed to meet up with it, and the Cardassians took advantage of that to get close and get a free hit in on the Federation vessel.

    Why do you keep ignoring the fact that we don't see the third dimension? I already pointed it out many times and don't feel like repeating myself any longer. Please understand that without seeing the third dimension we can't know how much closer the Phoenix got.

    3.) You cited the ion cannon on Hoth hitting a supposedly moving ISD as opposed to the TOS Enterprise hitting a 3 meter wide, stationary craft sitting on a planet's surface from high orbit. The ISD in TESB is, as noted, not moving much at all relative to Hoth as it was part of the Imperial blockade to prevent the Rebels from escaping. Furthermore, there is little proof that the ion cannon hits were specifically aimed at anything of a relatively vunerable, and small size (like aiming for the ISD bridge observation windows, for instance). The difference is one of hitting the proverbial barn from a modest of a few dozen kilometers distance and hitting a few random spots on the overall structure, while the other is like precision shooting from Los Angles at a penny in San Francisco, and hitting it dead on. To put it another way, the ion cannon only has to score hits on a target that offers roughly 1,280,000 square meters to shoot at, while the Enterprise has to hit a target of only about 7 square meters.
    Except, as I already pointed out, Enterprise had all the time in the world to carefully aim at the ship , the Ion canon had to act quickly to disable the ISD and enable the escape of the rebel fleet. So that was an actual combat performance.

    4.) On Sulu's statement:
    "We're surrounded by Romulan vessels. Maximum of ten. Range fifty to a hundred thousand kilometres."
    If you wish to play word games, we can also presume since there are clearly more than one warbird attacking the Enterprise, we can say that one is at 50 km out, while another is at 100,000 and maybe another one or two at 150,000, and that all of them are hitting regardless of the range. Therefore the example still stands.

    I'm not playing word games merely stating that the example is vague. That is the whole point of this discussion: few vague examples versus observed close range accuracy and close range battles.
    You don't know which Romulan warbirds fired, which ones scored a hit etc. etc. The example is useless.

    Aw, c'mon guys . . . don't show him the pictures of the bridge viewscreen from "The Wounded". Data might've suggested this was the computer's tactical display with ranges overlaid, but he simply misread his station's indicators . . . that was actually a game of Pong v. 142.0 being played on Deck 12.
    Or better yet, Data was drawing it frame by frame in Windows Paint v. 142.0 (he's quick, you know, and he paints) and thus it was only his representation of his earlier misreading of the sensor telemetry, and therefore is not a separate source of information from Data.

    Instead of mockery maybe you should try to answer how can we know the actual change of distance without observing the third dimension.

    Thus, as anon said, you evil Trekkies have no proof of ~200,000km ranges from that example.
    You are being dishonest. I never called anyone a "Trekkie" or "evil". But yes you have no proof of 200,000km ranges.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Nameless One:
    Rarely is a vague term however I never really contended that at close ranges at which Federation ships engage (1km-10km) phaser accuracy is going to be an issue especially against ISDs. All that I am saying is that shown accuracy inevitably leads at practically zero accuracy at claimed ranges (10,000km or 100,000km).


    What exactly does this prove since we don't know the distance between the two ships?


    It proves what you're incapable of percieving without being told. The Pheonix fired at a range outside the Galors range will keeping it's target inrange. If you were so motiveated you could find out the mean range of the Pheonix from the Galor. Pheonix never moved back into the weapons range of the Galor. OBVIOUSLY...since the Galor could fire through Pheonix's shields.

    You've chosen the easy flawed method...assume the information is worthess.


    Allow me to correct you. Rarely is not vague. It's quite clear. It means infrequent. Vague is unclear ambigous, unknowable.

    I assure you only by your figuring, (excluding given canon) that you've come to such a conclusion.


    How do you know ISD was in geosynchronous orbit? And what evidence you have that it "fel out of orbit"?

    hmm...let's see...DUH. The planet was rotating. Sure sign of a stationary orbit.

    The fact that the ISD"s engines were still engaged during the attack means that the ISD requires the engines to be engage at all times while in orbit to negate inertial dampening and to avoid falling out of orbit.

    Finally the Ion shots...took out all power. Now whether or not the ISD crashed is unknown. But it certianly did fall out of orbit...In NASA when one loses engine power and the space craft looses altitude, one does not call this...(a course change)


    You completely ignored my point about third dimension being invisible. How do you know what was the change in the distance between Phoenix and Cardassian ship after Data called out the distance the first time?


    Not at all..Like I said above we know Pheonix only approached closs enough to fire..and progressed no futher to avoid enemy fire.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Regarding "The Wounded", weapon ranges were overlaid on the display. Claims that 3-D info is required are thus invalid, because the ship could not be further than an edge-of-2D-range shot, nor could it be closer than it would be if it were on the 2-D plane. Range in 3-D would be a sphere, not a cylinder.

    In short, by definition we know the range both visually via the computer and by character statements. It's a 2-for-1 special.

    Your desperation is invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  50. It proves what you're incapable of percieving without being told. The Pheonix fired at a range outside the Galors range will keeping it's target inrange. If you were so motiveated you could find out the mean range of the Pheonix from the Galor. Pheonix never moved back into the weapons range of the Galor. OBVIOUSLY...since the Galor could fire through Pheonix's shields.

    You've chosen the easy flawed method...assume the information is worthess.

    You don't understand. It is true that blip representing the Phoenix didn't seem to move much IN THE TWO DIMENSIONAL PLANE of the display. But you have no way of knowing how much it approached TOWARDS the plane of the display. When Data starts to say "Phoenix is now at 200,000km" the Phoenix could still be at warp approaching TOWARDS the plane of the display. From our perspective, since we can only see the plane, it would look like the blip representing the Phoenix is standing still. Do you understand now?

    Allow me to correct you. Rarely is not vague. It's quite clear. It means infrequent. Vague is unclear ambigous, unknowable.
    You merely replaced one vague word with another. How much is infrequent? One out of five? One out of eight? One out of fifty two?

    hmm...let's see...DUH. The planet was rotating. Sure sign of a stationary orbit.
    You are not making any sense. Why would the fact that a planet is rotating mean that any object rotating around it is in geosynchronous orbit? Moon is not in Earth's geosynchronous orbit is it?

    The fact that the ISD"s engines were still engaged during the attack means that the ISD requires the engines to be engage at all times while in orbit to negate inertial dampening and to avoid falling out of orbit.
    That doesn't make any sense. Why would an ISD require for it's engines to be engaged at all times? Satellites don't need any engines do they? Moon doesn't need engines does it?

    Not at all..Like I said above we know Pheonix only approached closs enough to fire..and progressed no futher to avoid enemy fire.
    Like I said you don't know how much Phoenix approached TOWARDS the plane after Data called out the distance.

    Regarding "The Wounded", weapon ranges were overlaid on the display. Claims that 3-D info is required are thus invalid, because the ship could not be further than an edge-of-2D-range shot, nor could it be closer than it would be if it were on the 2-D plane.
    You still haven't answered how do you know how distant Phoenix was from the plane when Data called out the distance for the FIRST AND ONLY TIME. Obviously after the battle was joined we can assume that distances in 2d display were roughly correct. That is not the case for initial Data's statement when Phoenix was still approaching the Cardassian ship.

    Range in 3-D would be a sphere, not a cylinder.
    No range in 3-d will be a 3-d line. When you project that line onto a plane it will loose some of it's length depending on the angle between the line and the plane you are projecting it onto. If the angle is near 90 degrees angle (as in Phoenix is still far away from the plane) the projected line will look much shorter. Therefore even though 200,000km is many times greater than weapons range it will look similar when projected onto the display.

    Your desperation is invalid.
    I am not desperate but have shown mathematically why the example is unreliable.

    In short, by definition we know the range both visually via the computer and by character statements. It's a 2-for-1 special.
    No we don't as I demonstrated above.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Have you watched the film? The Falcon attaches itself to the hull, the crew scans for the ship and then reports that it vanished from the scope.

    And if there were sensors there, they could have been used to check the area. If they were able to scan the whole exterior of their ship, they would have detected the freighter.

    It all depends on the size. Voyager didn't detect that Species 8472 member was strolling along it's hull.

    There really is no point in bringing Trek ships in on this anyway. We're talking of Wars cap ships.

    So? We know they have sensors and weapon emplacements. It us up to you to prove they don't have them on the rear.

    As if. You have yet to show they're there. Just saying 'they might be' doesn't cut it. In this instance, absence of evidence does not equal evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  52. By the way, canon dialog from "The Prey", that states that S8472 is impervious to scanners, and can even get through shields that otherwise would stop objects from getting through:

    TUVOK [OC]: I'm analysing what could be a sample of its blood. The readings are consistent with species 8472.
    JANEWAY: Intruder alert. Bridge to Security, seal off decks ten through twelve.
    CHAKOTAY: Internal sensors aren't detecting any intruders.
    JANEWAY: The last time we ran into this species it was impervious to our scanners. We'll have to track it visually.
    PARIS: How did it get past our shields?
    JANEWAY: We'll worry about that later. You have the bridge, Commander. I'll be on deck eleven.

    ReplyDelete
  53. And if there were sensors there, they could have been used to check the area. If they were able to scan the whole exterior of their ship, they would have detected the freighter.
    They didn't detect the ship while it was attached to it's hull. How does that mean there are no sensors on the rear? AWACS won't be able to detect things attached to it's hull either.

    There really is no point in bringing Trek ships in on this anyway. We're talking of Wars cap ships.
    This is commentary about a page that compares Federation and Imperial weapons ranges and accuracy right? As such I think that it is important to point out that Federation ships also experienced problems with detecting objects on it's hull so that is not am advantage for Federation ships.

    As if. You have yet to show they're there. Just saying 'they might be' doesn't cut it. In this instance, absence of evidence does not equal evidence.
    Exactly. Absence of evidence that there are rear sensors does not equal evidence of absence of rear sensors. We know they do have sensors and therefore it is up to you to prove that they specifically don't have rear sensors.

    By the way, canon dialog from "The Prey", that states that S8472 is impervious to scanners, and can even get through shields that otherwise would stop objects from getting through:

    TUVOK [OC]: I'm analysing what could be a sample of its blood. The readings are consistent with species 8472.
    JANEWAY: Intruder alert. Bridge to Security, seal off decks ten through twelve.
    CHAKOTAY: Internal sensors aren't detecting any intruders.
    JANEWAY: The last time we ran into this species it was impervious to our scanners. We'll have to track it visually.
    PARIS: How did it get past our shields?
    JANEWAY: We'll worry about that later. You have the bridge, Commander. I'll be on deck eleven.

    They are impervious to Federation sensors, there is no evidence that they are impervious to Dominion or Imperial sensors. Which is the point. Voyager can fail to detect objects on it's hull just like an ISD.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Range in 3-D will be a sphere, anon, just as it is a circle on the 2-D display. Do not argue merely to argue . . . it just makes you look even more foolish when doing so.

    Your planar claim is invalid. You are assuming all sorts of things that are not represented by, and do not make sense within, the episode.

    Picard, Macet, and company are on the bridge as the Phoenix pursues a Cardassian supply ship. The image is zoomed out to show other nearby vessels. Picard relays the prefix codes to the Cardassians, and one of the nearby warships moves on the Phoenix. Picard orders weapons ranges overlaid on the image. Moments later, Data begins the statement that "the warship is 300,000 kilometers from the Phoenix". Less than two seconds later, while Data is still speaking, we get the first image with the ranges overlaid.

    This means that your claim of the Phoenix warping onto the map from off the plane is invalid. The three vessels were already represented.

    Further, had the vessels been approaching one another at FTL velocities, there would be no way for the warship to have been 300,000 kilometers (one light-second) away when Data began his report, and he mentions no such velocity change as you require.

    Further, even at the maximum shown map size when the warship was at its maximum distance from the Phoenix prior to moving on it, the relative distance of the warship was only a square-and-a-half, which at the apparent grid scale of 300,000km by 300,000km blocks means the warship was 450,000km away when Picard transmitted the prefix codes and gave the warship a fighting chance.

    There's more, but let's see what absurdities you claim from that.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Range in 3-D will be a sphere, anon, just as it is a circle on the 2-D display. Do not argue merely to argue . . . it just makes you look even more foolish when doing so.
    There was a misunderstanding. I meant "range" as in distance between two ships rather than weapons range.
    So to clear up: yes weapons range of a ship will be roughly spherical and circular when put on a 2-d plane. However distance between two ships will be a 3-d line which will loose some of it's length when projected on a 2-d plane. How much depends on the angle between the line and the display plane.

    Picard, Macet, and company are on the bridge as the Phoenix pursues a Cardassian supply ship. The image is zoomed out to show other nearby vessels. Picard relays the prefix codes to the Cardassians, and one of the nearby warships moves on the Phoenix. Picard orders weapons ranges overlaid on the image. Moments later, Data begins the statement that "the warship is 300,000 kilometers from the Phoenix". Less than two seconds later, while Data is still speaking, we get the first image with the ranges overlaid.

    This means that your claim of the Phoenix warping onto the map from off the plane is invalid. The three vessels were already represented.

    How does this disprove that ships were warping in? Again I must repeat that there is no knowing how distant were those ships initially. Phoenix could have been 200,000km "above the plane", Cardassian warship "on the plane" and the transport, for example, 10,000km "beneath the plane" yet they would all look close on a 2-d map.
    We simply don't know.

    Further, had the vessels been approaching one another at FTL velocities, there would be no way for the warship to have been 300,000 kilometers (one light-second) away when Data began his report, and he mentions no such velocity change as you require.
    Why not? Again I will point out that Phoenix could have been approaching the 2-d plane at warp 1 closing from 300,000km to a few km and we couldn't see it. This way we could assume that weapons ranges are comparable with Data's numbers even though they could easily be vastly smaller.

    Further, even at the maximum shown map size when the warship was at its maximum distance from the Phoenix prior to moving on it, the relative distance of the warship was only a square-and-a-half, which at the apparent grid scale of 300,000km by 300,000km blocks means the warship was 450,000km away when Picard transmitted the prefix codes and gave the warship a fighting chance.
    Again you have no evidence what is the size of the grid. All informations are based on the assumption that Phoenix was not rapidly closing towards the 2-d plane as the Data was calling out the distance. That is not a reliable piece of information.

    There's more, but let's see what absurdities you claim from that.
    How is it absurd to say that if all of your conclusions stem from an assumption on the relative velocity between Phoenix and display plane then those conclusions are unreliable?

    ReplyDelete
  56. You don't understand. It is true that blip representing the Phoenix didn't seem to move much IN THE TWO DIMENSIONAL PLANE of the display. But you have no way of knowing how much it approached TOWARDS the plane of the display. When Data starts to say "Phoenix is now at 200,000km" the Phoenix could still be at warp approaching TOWARDS the plane of the display. From our perspective, since we can only see the plane, it would look like the blip representing the Phoenix is standing still. Do you understand now?

    almost there but it doesn't throw out the ranges we observed, it make them variable...and what's this about being at warp?

    You merely replaced one vague word with another. How much is infrequent? One out of five? One out of eight? One out of fifty two?


    Not merely...but appropriately to disern degree...averages of quantiy where as vague describes nothing discernable.

    You are not making any sense. Why would the fact that a planet is rotating mean that any object rotating around it is in geosynchronous orbit? Moon is not in Earth's geosynchronous orbit is it?

    That is a bad analogy. Both the Earth and the Moon are rotating. When both are in view one is clearly rotating. Not to mention you've inaccurately placed your POV on the Earth in stead of in orbit or freefall. You just have think about this bit.

    Both the Planet and the ISD were placed in the same scene. One is rotating the other is not...If an object in orbit does not percieve a rotation the it is in stationary orbit over a particlar location on the planets surface. I don not see the arguing point here or why you asert differently on the basis that he moon doesn't appear to rotate from an Earthly perspective...this is purely incredulous. While I was begining to agree with you before you have lost credibility no.

    That doesn't make any sense. Why would an ISD require for it's engines to be engaged at all times? Satellites don't need any engines do they? Moon doesn't need engines does it?

    Of course it does. We know that ISD's have interial dampners. These devices terminate or lessen a ships tendancy to remain in motion. Like somesort of friction generator for lack of better descriptions. As a result the engine must remain engage while in Orbit to conteract the Interial Dampners.

    Star Wars books show that the IDF like Trek constantly remain activated an reduce G force and speed of ships and fighters.

    Therefore the ISD fell out of orbit. Your...miss firing theory not withstanding doesn't follow the physics of the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  57. almost there but it doesn't throw out the ranges we observed, it make them variable...and what's this about being at warp?
    How can you possibly know that the ship is "almost there"? Do you realize that the ship could easily be 300,000km above the plane and we could not see it.

    That is a bad analogy. Both the Earth and the Moon are rotating. When both are in view one is clearly rotating. Not to mention you've inaccurately placed your POV on the Earth in stead of in orbit or freefall. You just have think about this bit.

    Both the Planet and the ISD were placed in the same scene. One is rotating the other is not...If an object in orbit does not percieve a rotation the it is in stationary orbit over a particlar location on the planets surface. I don not see the arguing point here or why you asert differently on the basis that he moon doesn't appear to rotate from an Earthly perspective...this is purely incredulous. While I was begining to agree with you before you have lost credibility no.

    So you are arguing that since ISD didn't appear to move relative to the planet it is therefore standing still? Do you realize that at such distances (10,000km) the ISD could be moving at several kilometers per second relative to the surface and it would still appear as it is standing still in few seconds the scene lasts. For example when you are driving on a highway the trees next to the road are swooshing fast but the mountain in the distance seems to be standing still. Simple perspective.

    Of course it does. We know that ISD's have interial dampners. These devices terminate or lessen a ships tendancy to remain in motion. Like somesort of friction generator for lack of better descriptions. As a result the engine must remain engage while in Orbit to conteract the Interial Dampners.
    I certainly never heard that inertial dampers work in that manner. All we know is that they somehow negate the accelerative forces within the ship. Please elaborate and provide evidence for your statement that they "cause friction". Friction with what? The surrounding space?

    Star Wars books show that the IDF like Trek constantly remain activated an reduce G force and speed of ships and fighters.
    Is the EU allowed here?

    Therefore the ISD fell out of orbit. Your...miss firing theory not withstanding doesn't follow the physics of the situation.
    So you feel that "friction generators" which I never heard mentioned in any literature concerning Star Wars is better explanation than engines misfiring?

    ReplyDelete
  58. They didn't detect the ship while it was attached to it's hull. How does that mean there are no sensors on the rear?

    If there were weapons there, but were under hull pieces that moved aside to expose them, they'd have opened up. At no point in any of the 6 movies did we ever see an emission from a weapons port or see hull plating move aside to expose a weapon installment on the back of an ISD tower.

    If there were just sensors there, they should have showed up. They knew full well the ship was important and yet, they aren't gonna think to use all sensors around the ship? The guy said the ship no longer appeared on their scopes. The only thing logically that makes sense is that the main emitter for the sensors is somewhere on the front of the ship. Which means the tower blocked them. If there were sensors on the rear of the ship to scan for vessels, the Falcon would have been detected.

    This is commentary about a page that compares Federation and Imperial weapons ranges and accuracy right?

    But, we've been speaking of sensors being on the back of the tower or not.

    As such I think that it is important to point out that Federation ships also experienced problems with detecting objects on it's hull so that is not am advantage for Federation ships.

    In regards to Species 8472, they are a biological entity from another fucking universe. Even the Enterprise from ENT picked up the cloaked mine of the romulans touching the hull. This mine, like the Falcon, are metallic objects.

    Exactly. Absence of evidence that there are rear sensors does not equal evidence of absence of rear sensors.

    Wrong. I could easily say that Han owned a pink cowboy hat and just because we never saw it means he's probably got one, so you need to prove he doesn't own one.

    Your logic is flawed.

    We know they do have sensors and therefore it is up to you to prove that they specifically don't have rear sensors.

    Like hell I do. I accept they have sensors, but I'm not the one asserting that there must be ones on the rear of the tower. Because you are, you need to show evidence they are there, which you have yet to do other than 'eh, maybe'. That won't cut it.

    They are impervious to Federation sensors, there is no evidence that they are impervious to Dominion or Imperial sensors.

    Dominion or Imperial sensors has not been the issue in regards to Species 8472. Species 8472 is organic, the Falcon isn't. The imperials couldn't even detect 3PO and R2 were in the escape pod and it was moving right in front of it.

    Which is the point. Voyager can fail to detect objects on it's hull just like an ISD.

    Impervious is what sense? Energy dampening? Energy asborption? Archer's Enterprise still detected a visually cloaked mine attached to its hull. That ISD couldn't detect the Falcon attached to the back of its tower. Whether Voyager could detect biological agents means nothing because organic things are not an issue. Inorganic ones are.

    ReplyDelete
  59. If there were weapons there, but were under hull pieces that moved aside to expose them, they'd have opened up. At no point in any of the 6 movies did we ever see an emission from a weapons port or see hull plating move aside to expose a weapon installment on the back of an ISD tower.

    If there were just sensors there, they should have showed up. They knew full well the ship was important and yet, they aren't gonna think to use all sensors around the ship? The guy said the ship no longer appeared on their scopes. The only thing logically that makes sense is that the main emitter for the sensors is somewhere on the front of the ship. Which means the tower blocked them. If there were sensors on the rear of the ship to scan for vessels, the Falcon would have been detected.

    You are continuing to misinterpret what happened in the films. Falcon flew past the bridge and then attached itself to the hull. This is when it disappared from the scopes.

    In regards to Species 8472, they are a biological entity from another fucking universe. Even the Enterprise from ENT picked up the cloaked mine of the romulans touching the hull. This mine, like the Falcon, are metallic objects.
    Enterprise's crew never suspected there were any mines until one blew a chunk of the ship. What are your evidences that a biological organism or a cloaked mine are harder to detect than Millenium Falcon?

    Wrong. I could easily say that Han owned a pink cowboy hat and just because we never saw it means he's probably got one, so you need to prove he doesn't own one.
    Your logic is flawed.

    Not exactly. Let me give you a proper analogy: If we saw Han Solo from the front and he wore a pink cowboy hat and you claimed that he only has a front half of the cowboy hat with back of his head being exposed then yes you would have to prove that.

    Like hell I do. I accept they have sensors, but I'm not the one asserting that there must be ones on the rear of the tower. Because you are, you need to show evidence they are there, which you have yet to do other than 'eh, maybe'. That won't cut it.
    So you accept there are sensors but don't accept there are any on the rear? Will I have to specifically prove that each side of an ISD has sensors? In any case it is up to you to provide evidence that for some reason there are no sensors on the rear, see the previous analogy.

    Dominion or Imperial sensors has not been the issue in regards to Species 8472. Species 8472 is organic, the Falcon isn't. The imperials couldn't even detect 3PO and R2 were in the escape pod and it was moving right in front of it.
    So what if 8472 is organic? How does that make it more difficult to detect? The gunner on the ISD simply stated there are no life forms on board the ISD.

    Impervious is what sense? Energy dampening? Energy asborption? Archer's Enterprise still detected a visually cloaked mine attached to its hull. That ISD couldn't detect the Falcon attached to the back of its tower. Whether Voyager could detect biological agents means nothing because organic things are not an issue. Inorganic ones are.
    As I said Archer only detected the mines after one detonated and caused them to investigate more closely. Vader and Piett were convinced that Falcon jumped away and ordered their crews to jump after them. There was no reason for the crew to scan the immediate rear of the ship.
    Again you showed no proof as to why detection of organic objects should be more difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  60. By the Nameless One.
    How can you possibly know that the ship is "almost there"? Do you realize that the ship could easily be 300,000km above the plane and we could not see it.


    You do realize that the point of the peripheral display was to highlight the ships respective effective weapon ranges? Which means this argument is academic. A distance has been stated. Statements are canon.

    So you are arguing that since ISD didn't appear to move relative to the planet it is therefore standing still? Do you realize that at such distances (10,000km) the ISD could be moving at several kilometers per second relative to the surface and it would still appear as it is standing still in few seconds the scene lasts. For example when you are driving on a highway the trees next to the road are swooshing fast but the mountain in the distance seems to be standing still. Simple perspective.


    STOP changing your position. You are either going to argue forward momentum or you will argue rotation...eitherway you're are in error. The planet was not rotating in the screen the ISD was moving forward. Thus the camera was moving away from the ISD and the planet...this is simple physics...

    A stationary orbit is marked by a object remaining directly over head as a result the object will observe no rotation from it's persepective...and there wasn't...not while on the bridge not while outside the ship...Infact they were in a blockade formation over Echo base. What are you arguing? This is very dogmatic.

    I certainly never heard that inertial dampers work in that manner. All we know is that they somehow negate the accelerative forces within the ship. Please elaborate and provide evidence for your statement that they "cause friction". Friction with what? The surrounding space?

    What exactly do you think the countering of inertia is exactly. Only friction or gravity and EM field counter inertial. Gravity is not inplay and EM has no effect on certain types of matter. so..what do you think inertia is and what counters inertia?

    So you feel that "friction generators" which I never heard mentioned in any literature concerning Star Wars is better explanation than engines misfiring?

    Inertia dampeners have been mentioned many times by Han Solo, Jaina Solo and mostly a large collection of fighter pilots. Read the X wing saga or the Yuuzahn Vong Saga... the New Jedi Order.

    Once those IDF generators where off line do to the EMP the ships last course would have caused the ship orbit to continue to decay shallowly since the bow was not pointed in the opposite direction of the planets rotation which we assume is not retrograde.

    ReplyDelete
  61. You do realize that the point of the peripheral display was to highlight the ships respective effective weapon ranges? Which means this argument is academic. A distance has been stated. Statements are canon.
    Yes I know. How does this change the fact that we can't see the third dimension? Do you even realize the problem? In the time Data stated "they are now at 300,000km" Phoenix cloud have approached rapidly "towards" the plane without us noticing. Thus we might conclude that it only slightly changed position and that ranges are comparable to the 300,000km when they are not.
    As for incident being canon I never argued that. However "Call to Arms" where we outright see how distant the fleet is from DS9 (about 10km) and Damar states that they won't be in range for another minute is also canon. "Equinox" is canon. Multiple short range misses are canon. Do you realize that when you have evidence derived from DIRECT OBSERVATION you cannot counter them with evidence based on a character statement and assumptions?

    STOP changing your position. You are either going to argue forward momentum or you will argue rotation...eitherway you're are in error. The planet was not rotating in the screen the ISD was moving forward. Thus the camera was moving away from the ISD and the planet...this is simple physics...
    I'm not even sure what you are claiming here. I thought you claimed that ISD is in a stationary orbit and showed you that because the planet appears not to be rotating from ISDs perspective that doesn't mean the orbit is stationary. See my mountains analogy from previous post.
    Secondly why do you think that it is impossible for an ISD to move towards and to a side whan approaching a planet? There are no limits to movement in space.

    A stationary orbit is marked by a object remaining directly over head as a result the object will observe no rotation from it's persepective...and there wasn't...not while on the bridge not while outside the ship...Infact they were in a blockade formation over Echo base. What are you arguing? This is very dogmatic.
    I'm afraid I really don't understand what are you talking about. I explained that due to distances involved even if the ISD was moving at several km/s in relation to the planet IN ANY DIRECTION we cannot see it. You have absolutely no evidence as to where ISD is moving.

    What exactly do you think the countering of inertia is exactly. Only friction or gravity and EM field counter inertial. Gravity is not inplay and EM has no effect on certain types of matter. so..what do you think inertia is and what counters inertia?
    What do you mean "gravity is not inplay"? Inertial dampers are obviously some kind of antigravity devices which create area effect force throughout the ship on order to cancel out the inertial forces. What else could it be? You still haven't explained your "friction" theory. What causes the friction?


    Inertia dampeners have been mentioned many times by Han Solo, Jaina Solo and mostly a large collection of fighter pilots. Read the X wing saga or the Yuuzahn Vong Saga... the New Jedi Order.
    ICS also mentions 200 gigaton turbolasers and 10 light minute ranges for Venator class ships which is 180 million kilometers.
    So if you are using EU I guess the debate is pretty much over.

    ReplyDelete
  62. You are continuing to misinterpret what happened in the films. Falcon flew past the bridge and then attached itself to the hull. This is when it disappared from the scopes.

    Oh, please. It goes past the bridge tower and it disappears from the scopes. We know they didn't really vanish into thin air, we know they didn't go into another dimension or go to hyperspace. It just moved down and used the landing claw to attach to the back of the tower. They didn't phase or anything, so there are limits to where they have sensors on their ship and they are obviously being blocked by the tower itself because they know the Falcon was on the scopes when it was in front of the ship.

    What are your evidences that a biological organism or a cloaked mine are harder to detect than Millenium Falcon?

    You know perfectly well I've never said they were harder to detect. That hasn't been the issue.

    Not exactly. Let me give you a proper analogy: If we saw Han Solo from the front and he wore a pink cowboy hat and you claimed that he only has a front half of the cowboy hat with back of his head being exposed then yes you would have to prove that.

    The analogy is off.

    So you accept there are sensors but don't accept there are any on the rear?

    There is no evidence there are any on the rear. There is evidence that says there are none on the rear - The Falcon holding onto the rear of the bridge tower.

    Will I have to specifically prove that each side of an ISD has sensors?

    The important part is if there are sensors on the rear of the bridge tower.

    In any case it is up to you to provide evidence that for some reason there are no sensors on the rear, see the previous analogy.

    Done. The Falcon held onto the back of the bridge tower, making it disappear from the scopes of the ISD.

    So what if 8472 is organic? How does that make it more difficult to detect?

    Difficulty of organic detection is not the issue. The issue is inorganic/metallic detection.

    The gunner on the ISD simply stated there are no life forms on board the ISD.

    And couldn't detect 2 metallic objects inside, the droids.

    There was no reason for the crew to scan the immediate rear of the ship.

    The reason would be because the Falcon flew over the bridge tower, heading for the rear of the ship. That's why.

    This isn't heading in your favor.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Oh, please. It goes past the bridge tower and it disappears from the scopes. We know they didn't really vanish into thin air, we know they didn't go into another dimension or go to hyperspace. It just moved down and used the landing claw to attach to the back of the tower. They didn't phase or anything, so there are limits to where they have sensors on their ship and they are obviously being blocked by the tower itself because they know the Falcon was on the scopes when it was in front of the ship.
    Did I ever argue that they could detect Falcon as it was attached to the hull? How does the fact that they can't detect objects on it's hull mean that they don't have rear sensors?

    The analogy is off.
    How is the analogy off? You say that even though we have seen that ISD has sensors/Han Solo wears pink hat that I must prove ISD has rear sensors too/Han Solo's hat extends to the back of his had.

    There is no evidence there are any on the rear. There is evidence that says there are none on the rear - The Falcon holding onto the rear of the bridge tower.
    Yes:ATTACHED TO THE TOWER. How does this mean it has no rear sensors? Must I again point out the AWACS analogy? AWACS wouldn't detect things attached to it's hull. Does that means a plane can easily sneak up upon it?

    The important part is if there are sensors on the rear of the bridge tower.
    Something for which you showed no evidence.

    Done. The Falcon held onto the back of the bridge tower, making it disappear from the scopes of the ISD.
    That is evidence that ISD can't detect objects of certain size attached to it's hull, just like AWACS. You still haven't provided any evidence that it can't detect ships from the rear.

    And couldn't detect 2 metallic objects inside, the droids.
    So because sensors couldn't differentiate between various electronic equipment and metallic machinery that was the escape pod and various electronic and metallic machinery that were the droids you feel that that points to a weakness when targeting Federation ships? I don't see how that follows.

    There was no reason for the crew to scan the immediate rear of the ship.
    The reason would be because the Falcon flew over the bridge tower, heading for the rear of the ship. That's why.
    Are you intentionally misinterpreting my points? I am getting a feeling that you are. I clearly state that there was no reason to scan the rear of the ship AFTER VADER ORDERS THE FLEET TO JUMP AFTER FALCON. The crew received no orders to continue scanning the area behind the ship or the garbage.
    Let's recap: Falcon flies towards the ISD, flies behind the bridge and attaches itself on the hull, it vanishes from ISD scopes and Piett makes a report to Vader. Both Piett and Vader assume that Falcon has jumped away and Vader orders them to calculate Falcon's possible escape routes and jump out. Piett passes the orders to the crew. At that point the crew no longer has orders to scan around, especially it's garbage and they jump away.

    This isn't heading in your favor.
    I don't see how since you never shown why the inability to detect objects clamped to it's hull means that ISD has no rear sensor coverage.

    ReplyDelete
  64. It's useless trying to get this guy to change his position. He'll continue to try and wank the Phoenix into having an extremely short weapons range despite the fact that the 1701 Enterprise destroyed a 3 meter long object from 90,000 km, and that a Romulan ship was firing on the same Enterprise at 100,000 km...

    As for the Falcon thing, I'd like to think that ISD has rear sensors (because not having them would be silly seemingly even by Imperial standards), but they're just so poor that they couldn't distinguish The Falcon from the ship's hull. As far as the sensors were concerned, the Falcon became 'part' of the the ship...

    ReplyDelete
  65. The problem with the Falcon hiding behind the ISD's bridge tower is not the part where the Falcon is attached to the hull, it's the part before she attaches to the ISD's hull. I can't remember off hand the rough timeframe G2K had pegged for that (it's in the MF acceleration page), but it was a second or two, at least. In that time, the ISD lost tracking on the Falcon, and had a big enough blindspot that they assumed she jumped to hyperspace because she wasn't showing up on their scopes. The most logical conclusion is that there is a sensor blindspot behind the ISD's bridge tower, big enough for a ship the size of the Falcon to get lost in. That there would be such a blindspot directly behind an ISD's bridge tower would strongly suggest that there are no weapons emplacements in that area. I've got a couple high-quality pics of the ISD model, and can pick out what appear to be smaller laser turrets dotted across the hull (I'll mark them and post a link tomorrow after I get some sleep). I don't have any shots of the stern, but there are a couple emplacements on the far aft that could cover the aft firing arc, to an extent (somewhat better coverage than the aft two heavy turbolaser batteries).

    As for "The Wounded", Data's usually a pretty astute fellow when it comes to displaying technical information, and would have presented the best display to relate that information. If the third dimension played a noteworthy factor in the display, Data certainly would have known that, and is the kind of character to have displayed it if it was. Because he didn't choose such a display suggests that the ships' positions along the Z-axis was not different enough to make a noteable difference on the scale involved. And then there's also the fact that most observable Trek battles take place along roughly the same plane. Since, according to Mister Anonymous, observable trumps everything else, that means that since most Trek battles have been visually observed to take place along roughly the same plane, a typical ship engagement in Trek takes place along roughly the same plane.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Geh, I'm lacking a little coherence because I should be in bed. On the aft turbolaser coverage, I forgot to note that the apparent turbolaser emplacements are along the mid to outer edges of the ISD's hull, right along the aft edge, and they would have a blindspot around the area behind the ISD's bridge tower, and would not be well suited to firing on targets in that area, even within the edge of their firing arcs.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Cool. Theoretically, then, one of those fighters (or a Runabout) from Deep Space Nine could sneak into that blind spot and do some knife work with its phasers.

    Also, interestingly, the Falcon thing might also suggest that the shields of the ISD were incapable of stopping the Falcon from flying straight through them. That could be problematic if the Defiant desides to fly in behind and give the ISD a pulse phaser enema...

    Indeed, it could even be problematic in terms of stopping photon torpedoes, which are a solid object with an explosive inside rather than a contained energy burst like a phaser or turbo laser...

    ReplyDelete
  68. It's useless trying to get this guy to change his position. He'll continue to try and wank the Phoenix into having an extremely short weapons range despite the fact that the 1701 Enterprise destroyed a 3 meter long object from 90,000 km, and that a Romulan ship was firing on the same Enterprise at 100,000 km...
    Are you reading my posts? I already explained that Lazarus' ship was completely immobile and Enterprise had all the time in the world to target it carefully. You still haven't addressed how do we know how distant were the warbirds that fired and scored hits: fifty or fifty thousand km.

    The problem with the Falcon hiding behind the ISD's bridge tower is not the part where the Falcon is attached to the hull, it's the part before she attaches to the ISD's hull. I can't remember off hand the rough timeframe G2K had pegged for that (it's in the MF acceleration page), but it was a second or two, at least. In that time, the ISD lost tracking on the Falcon, and had a big enough blindspot that they assumed she jumped to hyperspace because she wasn't showing up on their scopes. The most logical conclusion is that there is a sensor blindspot behind the ISD's bridge tower, big enough for a ship the size of the Falcon to get lost in. That there would be such a blindspot directly behind an ISD's bridge tower would strongly suggest that there are no weapons emplacements in that area. I've got a couple high-quality pics of the ISD model, and can pick out what appear to be smaller laser turrets dotted across the hull (I'll mark them and post a link tomorrow after I get some sleep). I don't have any shots of the stern, but there are a couple emplacements on the far aft that could cover the aft firing arc, to an extent (somewhat better coverage than the aft two heavy turbolaser batteries).
    So because ISD has a blind spot at a few meters behind the bridge that means it doesn't have rear sensors or weapons? I don't see how that follows. I also note you continue to ignore my AWACS analogy.

    As for "The Wounded", Data's usually a pretty astute fellow when it comes to displaying technical information, and would have presented the best display to relate that information. If the third dimension played a noteworthy factor in the display, Data certainly would have known that, and is the kind of character to have displayed it if it was. Because he didn't choose such a display suggests that the ships' positions along the Z-axis was not different enough to make a noteable difference on the scale involved. And then there's also the fact that most observable Trek battles take place along roughly the same plane. Since, according to Mister Anonymous, observable trumps everything else, that means that since most Trek battles have been visually observed to take place along roughly the same plane, a typical ship engagement in Trek takes place along roughly the same plane.
    This contains nothing but your assumptions on what Data would do. I am asking for evidence. I showed OBSERVED evidence from "Call to Arms", "Equinox", "Paradise Lost", "Way of the warrior" and expect nothing less from the opposing side.
    Again: show me the evidence for the initial relative speed between Phoenix and the display plane.

    Geh, I'm lacking a little coherence because I should be in bed. On the aft turbolaser coverage, I forgot to note that the apparent turbolaser emplacements are along the mid to outer edges of the ISD's hull, right along the aft edge, and they would have a blindspot around the area behind the ISD's bridge tower, and would not be well suited to firing on targets in that area, even within the edge of their firing arcs.
    Obviously if you approached an ISD to a few meters it can't hit you with it's weapons. The same goes for Federation ships of course.

    Cool. Theoretically, then, one of those fighters (or a Runabout) from Deep Space Nine could sneak into that blind spot and do some knife work with its phasers.
    Runabout has nowhere near the firepower required to punch through the ISDs shields. Secondly how would such situation ever come about? ISD will float aimlessly through space and wait for runabouts to try and close to within few meters of it's hull?

    Also, interestingly, the Falcon thing might also suggest that the shields of the ISD were incapable of stopping the Falcon from flying straight through them. That could be problematic if the Defiant desides to fly in behind and give the ISD a pulse phaser enema...
    ISD has hull hugging shields so Falcon didn't need to fly through the shields to attach to the hull with magnetic grappler or something similar to a tractor beam.

    Indeed, it could even be problematic in terms of stopping photon torpedoes, which are a solid object with an explosive inside rather than a contained energy burst like a phaser or turbo laser...
    We have seen two 10m-20m asteroids strike an ISD in ESB. Both asteroids were vaporized upon hitting the shields. Photon torpedo will not be able to penetrate the shields.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Did I ever argue that they could detect Falcon as it was attached to the hull? How does the fact that they can't detect objects on it's hull mean that they don't have rear sensors?

    If there were sensors on the rear of the tower, they would have been used because it would be utterly stupid to think that they wouldn't use all their external sensors.

    How is the analogy off? You say that even though we have seen that ISD has sensors/Han Solo wears pink hat that I must prove ISD has rear sensors too/Han Solo's hat extends to the back of his had.

    Because you don't need sensors on the back of the tower for the ship to have sensors. You need to have a hat from both the front and back view of Han's head or you won't have a hat. You'll have part of a hat.

    Yes:ATTACHED TO THE TOWER. How does this mean it has no rear sensors?

    It means there are no sensors on the rear of the tower, which is what I've been saying.

    Must I again point out the AWACS analogy? AWACS wouldn't detect things attached to it's hull.

    Some Fed ships have detachable pods, but often don't use sensors on them unless it's specifically for sensors. There are sensors already to scan the entire exterior of the ship that are a part of the ship already.

    Does that means a plane can easily sneak up upon it?

    I don't know.

    Something for which you showed no evidence. You still haven't provided any evidence that it can't detect ships from the rear.

    The Falcon hid there. That's evidence.

    you feel that that points to a weakness when targeting Federation ships? I don't see how that follows.

    It was a point of limitations of Imperial sensors.

    Are you intentionally misinterpreting my points? I am getting a feeling that you are. I clearly state that there was no reason to scan the rear of the ship AFTER VADER ORDERS THE FLEET TO JUMP AFTER FALCON. The crew received no orders to continue scanning the area behind the ship or the garbage.

    I'm not misrepresenting anything. Why wouldn't they scan the back of the ship and beyond, if there were sensors there? If there were sensors there, they'd have picked up on the Falcon appearing at the rear of the ship from flying over the top of the bridge tower. If there were any sensors there, why wouldn't they scan up, down and at the varying degrees of forward when situated at the rear of the bridge tower?

    If there were sensors there, they'd have kept scanning before they heard anything from Vader. The reason why they stopped was because it had vanished from their sensor. But, if there were sensors capable of picking up anything from the Falcon they would have been brought in because they were currently trying to track them to see if they were coming around for another pass.

    Are we to think that the scopes of an ISD can't work with distances tens of meters away from the hull?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anon, you hereby concede regarding "The Wounded".

    Your counterargument is based entirely on contradicting the episode via a violation of Occam's Razor mixed with an argumentum ad ignorantum. There is also the added problem of your inability to recognize that you need to prove your BS fantasies, not ask us to disprove them.

    Specifically, I refer to you claiming that in the 2-D tactical plot, all the relative motion actually happens in a third dimension that we are not privy to, despite the fact that this would utterly negate the utility of the display.

    Further, you argue that since your claim cannot be disproved, then therefore we cannot know anything specific from this example.

    Making matters even worse, you mix that with the additional Razor violation of assuming a vast change in velocity right in the middle of Data's sentence (and moments after Picard orders a range overlay) which again violates the utility of the tactical plot.

    You employ the same lack of reasoning with other long-range examples, such as the aforementioned Equinox case.

    In short, Anon, here's the lay of the land. I am not required to disprove your fanciful claims regarding velocity changes or all the action happening in additional unseen dimensions.

    I recognize that all your absurdities are based on trying to defend your assumption that the "Wounded" plot's weapon range overlays can only represent a few kilometers, and some would applaud you for your veracity. However, veracity is meaningless and wrong when it is used in defense of a bad idea that requires dishonesty and illogic to support.

    You may continue to debate other matters, but on the topic of "The Wounded" the matter is closed.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Well said G2K. We shouldn't have to disprove silliness...

    By the way, what did you think of my theorectical battle between an ISD and a Fed ship I posted earlier?

    1: True to Starfleet form, the Federation ship (which, at this stage, considers the ISD to be a stranger) opens hailing frequencies and closes in to, say, 250 kilometers. Within the ISD's range.

    2: The ISD responds, simply stating that their (the Federation ship's) presence is undesirable and they will now be destroyed.

    3: The ISD arms it's turbo lasers and raises shields. The Fed ship goes to red alert, arms weapons and raises shields shortly after, still trying to reason with the ISD.

    4: The ISD opens fire. The shots are fairly inaccurate. Those that hit rock the Fed ship but don't damage it severely.

    5: The Fed ship's captain and his bridge officers naturally speculate that, if the ISD's shots are inaccurate at this range, they should be even worse further out. The captain gives the order to back off, to about, say, 15 to 25 thousand kilometers.

    6: The ISD is no longer able to fire on the Fed ship. The ISD's TIE fighters, bombers and whatever else they have are ordered to give chase, which they do... Slowly...

    7: The captain of the Fed ship could, at this point, chose to lower his shields and beam the pilots out of the unshielded TIEs and into his brig. Alternatively he could just shoot them down ala the Enterprise-D against those Lysian(?) fighters.

    8: With the TIEs out of the way, one way or another, assuming the ISD hasn't already backed down at this point, the Fed ship opens fire. The power of the ship's phasers and photon torpedoes knocks the bridge crew of the ISD for a loop, completely stunning them.

    9: At this point the ISD is likely to try and retreat. The Fed captain could let the ship go or grab it in a tractor beam. I mean, the Enterprise D was able to move a neutron star core with it's tractor beam with the proper modifications, so an ISD, even though it's significantly larger than the Fed ship, probably wouldn't be a problem. Even if it was, the Fed ship would almost certainly at least be able to hold the ISD in place until other Fed ships arrived to help with towing it.


    Oh and is that true about the ISD having hull conformal shields? I didn't know that...

    ReplyDelete
  72. If there were sensors on the rear of the tower, they would have been used because it would be utterly stupid to think that they wouldn't use all their external sensors.
    I didn't claim that ISD has sensors on the bridge tower specifically merely that they have rear sensor coverage. That has nothing to do with having blind spots when a ship attaches to your hull or approaches to a few meters.

    Because you don't need sensors on the back of the tower for the ship to have sensors. You need to have a hat from both the front and back view of Han's head or you won't have a hat. You'll have part of a hat.
    And this way you'll have part of sensors which can't scan to the rear. You have to prove that. Furthermore we know that even converted Trade Federation battleships can both target and fire on targets on the rear. Are you saying that dedicated warships of later era don't have this capability anymore?

    Some Fed ships have detachable pods, but often don't use sensors on them unless it's specifically for sensors. There are sensors already to scan the entire exterior of the ship that are a part of the ship already.
    When I mentioned AWACS I was talking about REAL WORLD AWACS planes not Federation ships. AWACS plane couldn't detect objects attached on it's tail. Does that mean it has no rear sensors?

    The Falcon hid there. That's evidence.
    Evidence that ISD can't detect 30m ship attached to it's hull. I never contested that. How does this translate into inability to detect Federation starships as they approach from distance?

    I'm not misrepresenting anything. Why wouldn't they scan the back of the ship and beyond, if there were sensors there? If there were sensors there, they'd have picked up on the Falcon appearing at the rear of the ship from flying over the top of the bridge tower. If there were any sensors there, why wouldn't they scan up, down and at the varying degrees of forward when situated at the rear of the bridge tower?
    If there were sensors there, they'd have kept scanning before they heard anything from Vader. The reason why they stopped was because it had vanished from their sensor. But, if there were sensors capable of picking up anything from the Falcon they would have been brought in because they were currently trying to track them to see if they were coming around for another pass.

    Because they were not under any such orders. Vader ordered the fleet to jump to hyperspace not to conduct any scans in the vicinity of the ship.
    Secondly Falcon specifically waited for garbage to be dumped so it can blend in with the debris with it's power systems disengaged.

    Are we to think that the scopes of an ISD can't work with distances tens of meters away from the hull?
    You find this strange? ISDs hull is very irregular and thus it is easy for it to have blind spots when you approach to a few meters to some tens of meters. How does this mean ISD doesn't have rear sensors? And what does it have to do with combat targeting when combat occurs at 1km or greater ranges.

    Anon, you hereby concede regarding "The Wounded".
    Your counterargument is based entirely on contradicting the episode via a violation of Occam's Razor mixed with an argumentum ad ignorantum. There is also the added problem of your inability to recognize that you need to prove your BS fantasies, not ask us to disprove them.
    Specifically, I refer to you claiming that in the 2-D tactical plot, all the relative motion actually happens in a third dimension that we are not privy to, despite the fact that this would utterly negate the utility of the display.

    So you admit we are "not privy" to motion in the third dimension and yet insist that it wasn't great? Secondly how do you know 2-d screen would be useless in that case? There could've been additional information that we didn't see on the consoles and such. This is not argumentum ad ignorantium since 300,000km weapons range obtained using certain ASSUMPTIONS is directly contradicted by "Call to Arms", "Equinox" etc. etc. Thus your assumptions are called into question. If this was the only example you'd have a point however as it is we require more proof before we accept the conclusions which outright contradict numerous other OBSERVED incidents.

    Further, you argue that since your claim cannot be disproved, then therefore we cannot know anything specific from this example.
    Exactly. There is no evidence either way. You are making it sound as if I'm asking for some kind of absolute proof when that is not a case. I am merely asking for some evidence for the third dimension component. This is hardly unreasonable.

    Making matters even worse, you mix that with the additional Razor violation of assuming a vast change in velocity right in the middle of Data's sentence (and moments after Picard orders a range overlay) which again violates the utility of the tactical plot.
    I am not assuming anything. I am stating that we have no evidence either way. Incidents which rely on assumptions, such as that Phoenix wasn't approaching the plane, always take a back seat to the incidents which are backed up by direct observation.

    You employ the same lack of reasoning with other long-range examples, such as the aforementioned Equinox case.
    Again you have no evidence as to when exactly Voyager starts shooting but you insist we should assume it starts immediately. Why?

    In short, Anon, here's the lay of the land. I am not required to disprove your fanciful claims regarding velocity changes or all the action happening in additional unseen dimensions.
    So in other words you believe you are entitled to make assumptions and draw conclusions from those assumptions but if I wish to point out that you have no evidence for those assumptions I need to actually disprove them? Do you realize that claiming that there is no evidence either way is not the same as claiming that my theory is right? All I am saying that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE EITHER WAY.

    I recognize that all your absurdities are based on trying to defend your assumption that the "Wounded" plot's weapon range overlays can only represent a few kilometers, and some would applaud you for your veracity. However, veracity is meaningless and wrong when it is used in defense of a bad idea that requires dishonesty and illogic to support.
    You have not provided any evidence that my statements regarding Wounded are absurd. Where have I been dishonest? Please point it out. Where have I been illogical?

    ReplyDelete
  73. So because ISD has a blind spot at a few meters behind the bridge that means it doesn't have rear sensors or weapons? I don't see how that follows. I also note you continue to ignore my AWACS analogy.

    Actually, no, I didn't. An AWACS wouldn't be able to detect something attached to its hull, but it would be able to detect an object in the air, directly behind it. When the Falcon passed over the ISD's bridge tower, she was traveling at some 145 m/s. There was a time gap of a second or two, at least, before the Falcon attached to the hull, when she disappeared from the scanners. The Falcon must have entered the blindspot very near that speed (otherwise the Imperials would have seen that she was rapidly decelerating, not accelerating into hyperspace). Now, that is not a definite indication of the blindspot's size in and of itself, but it must have been a large enough blindspot for the Imperials to believe the Falcon had enough time to accelerate from 145 m/s to past lightspeed before leaving the blindspot. That suggests a sizeable gap in the sensor pattern in that area. Do I think that means that ISDs don't have rear sensors? No. It's just a blindspot behind the bridge tower, which can be exploited, as Han did.

    Obviously if you approached an ISD to a few meters it can't hit you with it's weapons. The same goes for Federation ships of course.

    Actually, that depends on which point of the ship you were approaching, both with and ISD and a Trek ship. There is an apparent blindspot in both sensor and weapons coverage behind the ISD's bridge tower, because she simply doesn't have many weapons placed to cover that area, and the weapons that can can't do it very well.


    Now, as for the pic I promised. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/FleetAdmiral1SFTS/ISD_smallguns1.jpg

    I marked all the apparent small turrets in red (though I didn't bother marking the visible 'turrets' on the mirror side in most cases, since the ship and its weapons emplacements are mostly symmetrical), and the apparent aft turrets I was referring to along the aft edge. They are not well positioned to cover the area behind the ISD's bridge tower, and are actually blocked by the main superstructure. Note also the top of the central superstructure, and the lack of aft turrets of any kind marked in blue. I also marked the apparent missile launcher in green, of which there appears to be only one (which is supposedly mirrored on the far side).

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anonymous said...
    Yes I know. How does this change the fact that we can't see the third dimension?


    It's a tactical display of relative locations. We don't need a complete 3D enviroment to acertain distance. A linear measurement is all that's required.

    Do you even realize the problem? In the time Data stated "they are now at 300,000km" Phoenix cloud have approached rapidly "towards" the plane without us noticing.

    AH...you mean...speculation. You may have your speculation. I will stick with the canon. Discussions degrade rapidly after pursuing hypotheticals.

    However "Call to Arms" where we outright see how distant the fleet is from DS9 (about 10km)
    Uncanon...Unstated.

    and Damar states that they won't be in range for another minute is also canon. "Equinox" is canon.

    But if only you had excluded your estimation from this conclusion then it would meet the requirements for canon.

    Multiple short range misses > are canon. Often by disruptures and torpedos. Yess misses even with phasers do occur. (add your plot device anywhere you wish the writers certainly do.)

    Do you realize that when you have evidence derived from DIRECT OBSERVATION you cannot counter them with evidence based on a character statement and assumptions?

    Direct observation would mean that you used "zero" assumptions in your process you did not. As a result you finding become erronous to canon.


    I'm not even sure what you are claiming here. I thought you claimed that ISD is in a stationary orbit and showed you that because the planet appears not to be rotating from ISDs perspective that doesn't mean the orbit is stationary. You misunderstood. Perhaps that is my fault for not being clear. However, at no point in the discussion did I say "from the ISD's perspective" that the planet was not rotating. At least I don't believe so.

    If neither object is in rotation from their respective position then the obvious conclusion is that the Planet is indeed rotating and the orbiting object is situated in a relative position over the planets surface...what is called a stationary orbit or a geosynchronous orbit.

    Your relation of the moon and the Earth was flawed because both objects are indeed rotating and it can be observed from the moon that the Earth is infact rotating as the Earth does not present the same side to the moon at all times.


    Secondly why do you think that it is impossible for an ISD to move towards and to a side whan approaching a planet?

    I can't say I understand your question? Or it's relation.

    There are no limits to movement in space.

    This would be a foregone conclusion.

    I'm afraid I really don't understand what are you talking about.

    Then I would suggest disengaging on the topic to study the orbiting patterns on a NASA website or source material such as a book or an authority on such orbits.

    I explained that due to distances involved even if the ISD was moving at several km/s in relation to the planet IN ANY DIRECTION we cannot see it. You have absolutely no evidence as to where ISD is moving.

    I didn't say the ISD was moving..."moving" is a relative term when dealing with cestial bodies.

    No orbit is perfect. All orbits decay. There is more than enough information to conclude that the ISD was situated in a stationary orbit above Hoth.

    When it lost power, completely it well out of that orbit. The movent of which was captured on film.

    The ultimate end of that Star Destroyer was not visited on screen. I believe that it burned upin the atmosphere or crash landed.


    What do you mean "gravity is not inplay"? Inertial dampers are obviously some kind of antigravity devices which create area effect force throughout the ship on order to cancel out the inertial forces.

    I find that incorrect. Antigravity devices don't restrict motion it defies gravity.

    Interial Dampners dull reactions. Every cause has an effect in motions. There are some more terristrial ways to counter inertia. In some Japanese building and one in San Fransico large pendulums atop the build with a significant weighted mass relative to the size of the building wory to dampen the gust of wind by offering a counter force. The slab of concrete used at the top of the building it situation on water or other medium so as to have a delayed response and hense a counter response to the swaying motion of the building. In other words a 20 century Inertia Dampener that eventually and quite quicly stabelizes the rocking motion.

    What else could it be? You still haven't explained your "friction" theory. What causes the friction?

    I've had several ideas...but all have led me to the conclusion that IDF is technology that is throughly outside my insights

    What I've gathered about space tells me that even when we're not moving we are moving in answer to the reciprocal equation of T times velocity= the rate of speed. Opposite thus is true.

    If that is the case...Then an IDF would have to opperate with one of the known variabels that retard or distort the fabric of space. That would be mass and acceleration or gravity and acceleration

    IDF's litterally lenghten the distance of space there by slowing down the progress from one point to another....Litteraly dampening motion.

    Or the other Idea which I formulated on theoretical massive particale or energy...(take your pick) But this would make ships heavier not lighter and massless which is what is need to travel at faster than light velocites. This not withstanding the obvious parameters of the spatial "universe" or bubble that a starship places around it's self. How much of a variable such an IDF system would make on this bubble is unknown...or at least I haven't extropolated a idea that makes sense.

    Not to mention as well that if these systems create additonal dense mass to throw into counter balance to the ships mass it would stop sudden motion. IDF is as close to an instant action as we can get...it retards forward momentum like friction with no object directly in contact. Therefore the "object" used for this resistance must be the space/time continuum.



    ICS also mentions 200 gigaton turbolasers and 10 light minute ranges for Venator class ships which is 180 million kilometers.
    So if you are using EU I guess the debate is pretty much over.

    I have found the ICS books highly flawed in comparison to all books and films and animations...It's an black sheep.

    According to canon statements throwing out contradiction is more than acceptable. I ...accept almost everything of the novels because they were produced in perspective of the films. The ICS seem to have something to prove. Very intentional some of it's contradictions.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I didn't claim that ISD has sensors on the bridge tower specifically merely that they have rear sensor coverage. That has nothing to do with having blind spots when a ship attaches to your hull or approaches to a few meters.

    I have been specifically saying no sensors on the rear of the tower, but you kept coming back with 'How do you know? There could be.'

    And this way you'll have part of sensors which can't scan to the rear. You have to prove that. Furthermore we know that even converted Trade Federation battleships can both target and fire on targets on the rear. Are you saying that dedicated warships of later era don't have this capability anymore?

    1. You can't have a part of an individual sensor and call it a sensor. It's only a part of a sensor. The same goes for a hat. The analogy would be more appropriate if it was how many hats Han had, not if he had half a hat or not.
    2. Trade Fed ships are not ISDs.
    3. You still need to show that either an ISD or even a Venator has sensors on the rear of the tower.

    At most, you'd have some sensors for the engines, for the doors that let out the garbage and maybe some kind for detecting hull breaches, but you have shown no evidence there are external sensors, which would fall under the category of 'scopes', which was referenced in the film, on the rear of the ship.

    All you've said is 'eh, maybe' and 'they had no need to check behind them', both of which are irrational.

    When I mentioned AWACS I was talking about REAL WORLD AWACS planes not Federation ships. AWACS plane couldn't detect objects attached on it's tail. Does that mean it has no rear sensors?

    AWACs are not battleships, nor are they ships in space. An ISD is. You have simultaneously said in your arguments that there could be sensors, but they just don't have a reason to use them (which is patently false) and suggested that they are incapbale of detecting things behind the bridge tower, as an argument against it being a good idea that a Fed ship could come up behind it to fire upon it.

    Evidence that ISD can't detect 30m ship attached to it's hull. I never contested that. How does this translate into inability to detect Federation starships as they approach from distance?

    Grossly limited sensor capabilities, if they can't detect something behind the damn bridge. That is a ship security hazard.

    Because they were not under any such orders.

    It's got nothing to do with orders. It would be grossly incompetent if the sensor control person didn't use the sensors on the rear of the ship to search for the Falcon because it could have turned over and fired a missle into one of huge engines on the back, as it flew down.

    In relation to an AWAC, it's very hard for planes to fly that close around the hull of an AWAC or any other plane without crashing. The Falcon could have easily done it, as was seen in ep 6 when it came around the bridge tower, turning left at the battle of endor.

    Vader ordered the fleet to jump to hyperspace not to conduct any scans in the vicinity of the ship.

    Dude, I'm not talking about when they were all huddled together. I'm talking about when the Stardestroyer Avenger was chasing after the Falcon after it left the asteroid field. During the time the Falcon went over the top of the bridge tower. If there were any external sensors there, that moment when it past over the bridge would have been the time to use them.

    I'm not talking about when the ISDs grouped back together and the Avenger's captain went to apologize to Vader for loosing the Falcon.

    How does this mean ISD doesn't have rear sensors?

    It means their sensors capabilities are groosly limited. There could have been sensors at the base of the neck, right above the door that lets out the garbage to scan the area on the back of the neck and the tower.

    ReplyDelete
  76. It's a tactical display of relative locations. We don't need a complete 3D enviroment to acertain distance. A linear measurement is all that's required.
    How then can you ascertain distance? Explain. And I don't understand that last part about "linear measurement". Every distance is measured linearly, line being used to represent distance.

    AH...you mean...speculation. You may have your speculation. I will stick with the canon. Discussions degrade rapidly after pursuing hypotheticals.
    How is your speculation that Phoenix was standing still relatively to the 2-d plane superior than mine that it wasn't? We don't have evidence either way.

    Uncanon...Unstated.
    So what? It was shown and observation is even better than statement.

    But if only you had excluded your estimation from this conclusion then it would meet the requirements for canon.
    What estimation?

    Often by disruptures and torpedos. Yess misses even with phasers do occur. (add your plot device anywhere you wish the writers certainly do.)
    We are operating under suspension of disbelief. As such out-of-universe like plot device are unacceptable.

    Direct observation would mean that you used "zero" assumptions in your process you did not. As a result you finding become erronous to canon.
    What assumptions have I made regarding these incidents?

    You misunderstood. Perhaps that is my fault for not being clear. However, at no point in the discussion did I say "from the ISD's perspective" that the planet was not rotating. At least I don't believe so.
    If neither object is in rotation from their respective position then the obvious conclusion is that the Planet is indeed rotating and the orbiting object is situated in a relative position over the planets surface...what is called a stationary orbit or a geosynchronous orbit.
    Your relation of the moon and the Earth was flawed because both objects are indeed rotating and it can be observed from the moon that the Earth is infact rotating as the Earth does not present the same side to the moon at all times.

    Again how do you know that the ISD is in geostationary orbit? I ALREADY explained that at those distances perspective will make it look like ISD is standing still above the surface even though it might be moving. Do you understand what I'm talking about? Check my trees and mountains analogy.

    I didn't say the ISD was moving..."moving" is a relative term when dealing with cestial bodies.
    No orbit is perfect. All orbits decay. There is more than enough information to conclude that the ISD was situated in a stationary orbit above Hoth.
    When it lost power, completely it well out of that orbit. The movent of which was captured on film.
    The ultimate end of that Star Destroyer was not visited on screen. I believe that it burned upin the atmosphere or crash landed.

    You have shown no evidence that ISD was in geostationary orbit and your "belief" is ultimately irrelevant is it no?

    I find that incorrect. Antigravity devices don't restrict motion it defies gravity.
    Yes it defies gravity and inertial forces by creating antigrav effect. Thus inertial forces and antigrav forces cancel out and the crew feels nothing.

    Interial Dampners dull reactions. Every cause has an effect in motions. There are some more terristrial ways to counter inertia. In some Japanese building and one in San Fransico large pendulums atop the build with a significant weighted mass relative to the size of the building wory to dampen the gust of wind by offering a counter force. The slab of concrete used at the top of the building it situation on water or other medium so as to have a delayed response and hense a counter response to the swaying motion of the building. In other words a 20 century Inertia Dampener that eventually and quite quicly stabelizes the rocking motion.
    You have completely misunderstood the function of inertial dampers. These mechanisms you described merely slow down and dampen the movement of the entire building but every movement the building makes are felt by the people inside. Inertial damper on the other hand must operate inside the ship which rapidly accelerating and somehow make the crew feel nothing. There is no way to do it but creating an area effect force within the ship. I strongly suggest reading up on inertia and gravity.

    I've had several ideas...but all have led me to the conclusion that IDF is technology that is throughly outside my insights
    What I've gathered about space tells me that even when we're not moving we are moving in answer to the reciprocal equation of T times velocity= the rate of speed. Opposite thus is true.

    You are not making much sense I'm afraid. What is T in your equation? Time? If so time times velocity is simply traveled distance and not "the rate of speed".
    I'm not going into the rest of your IDF until we clear this up.

    I have found the ICS books highly flawed in comparison to all books and films and animations...It's an black sheep.
    According to canon statements throwing out contradiction is more than acceptable. I ...accept almost everything of the novels because they were produced in perspective of the films. The ICS seem to have something to prove. Very intentional some of it's contradictions.

    Actually ICS books are made as supplement to the movies and thus much more reliable than EU books which sometimes contradict themselves and the movies. What the you mean the book is "intentional in some of it's contradictions"? And more to the point where does it contradict the films?

    1. You can't have a part of an individual sensor and call it a sensor. It's only a part of a sensor. The same goes for a hat. The analogy would be more appropriate if it was how many hats Han had, not if he had half a hat or not.
    Not having rear sensor coverage is a major flaw (just as having half of hat). Since we know that ISD has sensors you'll have to provide some evidence that Imperial Navy constructed ships with such a flaw.

    2. Trade Fed ships are not ISDs.
    So? They show that there is no technical limitation and that it can be done even for converted freighters. Thus there is no reason dedicated warships won't have them. Thus it is up to you to prove they don't.

    3. You still need to show that either an ISD or even a Venator has sensors on the rear of the tower.
    All I'm interested in is whether ISDs can scan ships behind themselves at ranges of 100m or more. I have shown that even earlier converted freighters can.


    At most, you'd have some sensors for the engines, for the doors that let out the garbage and maybe some kind for detecting hull breaches, but you have shown no evidence there are external sensors, which would fall under the category of 'scopes', which was referenced in the film, on the rear of the ship.
    All you've said is 'eh, maybe' and 'they had no need to check behind them', both of which are irrational.

    I don't need to show any evidence that they ISDs specifically have rear sensors specifically. Maybe I should ask you to provide evidence that Akira, Steamrunner, Saber, Excelsior, D'Deridex etc. etc. have rear sensors.
    I said that crew didn't have any reason to check behind when they jumped into hyperspace. You continue to omit the "jumped into hyperspace" part to make it sound as if I'm claiming that they didn't have any reason to scan for Falcon when it flew past the bridge.

    AWACs are not battleships, nor are they ships in space. An ISD is. You have simultaneously said in your arguments that there could be sensors, but they just don't have a reason to use them (which is patently false) and suggested that they are incapbale of detecting things behind the bridge tower, as an argument against it being a good idea that a Fed ship could come up behind it to fire upon it.
    And how does the fact that AWACS's are not battleships and not in space invalidate the analogy?
    Again you try to make it sound as if I said that crew had no reason to scan behind AT ALL instead had no reason to scan behind as the ship was preparing to jump into hyperspace. Why are you being so dishonest? I fully admit that there is a blind spot near the hull of the bridge and Falcon vanished from the scopes when it attached to the hull. How can the Federation ship approach to that blind spot without being detected?

    Grossly limited sensor capabilities, if they can't detect something behind the damn bridge. That is a ship security hazard.
    Falcon couldn't approach the ship undetected and the only reason Han succeeded is because no one on the ship thought of the possibility that it simply flew into their blind spot.

    It's got nothing to do with orders. It would be grossly incompetent if the sensor control person didn't use the sensors on the rear of the ship to search for the Falcon because it could have turned over and fired a missle into one of huge engines on the back, as it flew down.
    They were just about to enter hyperspace. Besides don't you remember that Falcon powered down it's systems and then detached as ISD released the garbage. The Falcon could've easily blend in with it. Solo specifically waited for garbage to try and give them the slip. Obviously he knew that otherwise rear sensor might detect them.

    In relation to an AWAC, it's very hard for planes to fly that close around the hull of an AWAC or any other plane without crashing. The Falcon could have easily done it, as was seen in ep 6 when it came around the bridge tower, turning left at the battle of endor.
    Exactly. Falcon has excellent maneuverability. Much greater than Defiant and certainly than Miranda, Excelsior, Akira etc. which are all much bigger.

    Dude, I'm not talking about when they were all huddled together. I'm talking about when the Stardestroyer Avenger was chasing after the Falcon after it left the asteroid field. During the time the Falcon went over the top of the bridge tower. If there were any external sensors there, that moment when it past over the bridge would have been the time to use them.

    I'm not talking about when the ISDs grouped back together and the Avenger's captain went to apologize to Vader for loosing the Falcon.

    The Falcon passed a few meters from the bridge window thus was already very close to the bridge. Then it likely made a sharp turn behind the bridge and vanished from the sensors. That doesn't mean ISD has no rear sensors.

    It means their sensors capabilities are groosly limited. There could have been sensors at the base of the neck, right above the door that lets out the garbage to scan the area on the back of the neck and the tower.
    They are limited in detecting objects very close to the hull. Combat with Federation ships will occur at a range of kilometers so that is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I think I'll make a few brief points;

    1. I do believe that ISD's have rear sensors, it'd be pretty stupid for them not to. But what was said right after the Falcon passed the bridge? The captain called out "track them" which suggests to me they have the ability to track vessels that shoot past them, after the sensor guy tells him the ship no longer appeared on any of their scopes the captain makes the famous statement that that was impossible as no ship that small has a cloaking device and then lord Vader called wanting a status report. The fleet gathers togeather while this guy traveled to see Vader and die for it and after an unknown amount of time, the fleet breaks up and leaves. What the incident shows is that they dont have very good sensors and their personel are no better as they never thought to search their supposed blind spots(by the way, Han Solo in his early career was apparently an imperial officer, he may have known of the blind spot on an ISD before hand).

    2. I would have to agree that all visual shots of range are all close-hand affairs even when some other character calls out a longer range. That of course is how they decided to film the scenes, I havent seen the episode with the Phoenix in a long time and I cant quite understand this claim to use a 3-D component, if the on-sreen circles represents the weapons range in a 2-d form, I dont see how viewing them in a big bubble in 3-d would change anything. The only visual long range weapons hit that I can think of at this moment is from the Voyager episode with Sulu and the Excelcior, there is a scene of the ship at warp and a couple of torpedos come from out of nowhere behind them (outside of visual range) and hit the ship. Trek may not have 100% accuracy (dont know anyone arguing that they do)but their accuracy does seem to be much higher than wars. There is nothing in wars that shows ships engadging in combat at longer ranges than those seen in star trek after all either, all battles have taken place at brick throwing range with non-maneuvering targets, pointing to a very large weapon (planetary ion cannon)which was designed to shoot at orbiting ships tells us nothing about the weapons on said ship. Also the earlier claim that the cannon had to quickly fire without aiming is unlikely, the ISD's couldnt penetrate the shield that was up allowing the alliance plenty of time to target and blast the orbiting ships as they launched their own ships.

    3. The incident with the Romulan ships attacking the Enterprise involved ten ships spread out to a few hundred km, they were firing their plasma weapon at the Enterprise at a fairly regular rate and the Enterprise was hit with exactly 12 shots. It takes a while to fire those weapons for those ships (although maybe they have ramped up rate of fire who knows), it seems likely that each ship got off at least one shot before two got repeat shots, regardless there were still 12 shots.

    4. Lastly the AWACS do not use sensors with nearly the power or range of what we've seen Federation ships doing, I think it looks bad comparing the ISD sensors to a modern warplane.

    These are my two cents, lets all have some fun.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I don't need to show any evidence that they ISDs specifically have rear sensors specifically.

    Of course you do. You made the assertion they are specifically on the rear by saying 'how do you know they aren't back there'.

    Maybe I should ask you to provide evidence that Akira, Steamrunner, Saber, Excelsior, D'Deridex etc. etc. have rear sensors.

    Given that we've seen on just Fed ships that they can detect things approaching from the rear of them:

    1. like when Ro, as a double agent with the Maquis, tried to get through the rear of the E-D's shields;
    2. when Q, traveling as a ball of energy, was chasing the E-D and they showed it up on the screen and fired torps at it;
    3. when the borg first chasesd after the E-D and they threw an image of it up on the screen;
    4. etc.

    Fed ships have sensors on the rear of their ships.

    I said that crew didn't have any reason to check behind when they jumped into hyperspace. You continue to omit the "jumped into hyperspace" part to make it sound as if I'm claiming that they didn't have any reason to scan for Falcon when it flew past the bridge.

    Except I have always spoken of the best time to use any rear sensors that would have been back there would have been right after the Falcon flew overhead and before they went to regroup with Vader and the other ISDs. I have not been dishonest about that.

    And how does the fact that AWACS's are not battleships and not in space invalidate the analogy?

    The analogy only works to the point before you bring in the nimbleness difference between planes and Wars space vehicles.

    Falcon couldn't approach the ship undetected and the only reason Han succeeded is because no one on the ship thought of the possibility that it simply flew into their blind spot.

    And the blindspot wouldn't exist, if there were external sensors on the rear of the neck.

    Exactly. Falcon has excellent maneuverability. Much greater than Defiant and certainly than Miranda, Excelsior, Akira etc. which are all much bigger.

    But, in the DS9 pilot, we see the Wolf 359 battle and 2 Fed capital ship went really fast at sublight before making a sharp 90 degree turn.

    They are limited in detecting objects very close to the hull. Combat with Federation ships will occur at a range of kilometers so that is irrelevant.

    Kilometers to hundreds of thousands of kilometers.

    ReplyDelete

  79. How then can you ascertain distance? Explain. And I don't understand that last part about "linear measurement". Every distance is measured linearly, line being used to represent distance.


    lines involve the measuring of two points that create a 2D representation.

    How is your speculation that Phoenix was standing still relatively to the 2-d plane superior than mine that it wasn't? We don't have evidence either way.

    Because I don't speculate either way I accept the last statement anything else is uncanon and unverifiable.


    So what? It was shown and observation is even better than statement.


    No it's not. Statement verifies the onscreen. example: Voyager: Captain Janeway waits to give the order to fire after 10,000 kilometers in Basics Part I...The observered distant is considerably less encompasing the Kazon mother ship and Voyager. Sequence of event imply the image is much after the point of statement.



    We are operating under suspension of disbelief. As such out-of-universe like plot device are unacceptable.

    tangent...I don't contest it. The explanation is still sound.


    What assumptions have I made regarding these incidents?


    Everything thus far has been an assumption. Rather than reling on canon you're over complicating the simple statements and the visual persectives.



    Again how do you know that the ISD is in geostationary orbit? I ALREADY explained that at those distances perspective will make it look like ISD is standing still above the surface even though it might be moving. Do you understand what I'm talking about? Check my trees and mountains analogy.

    I already explained that it doesn't really matter the distance from which we view the ISD. It's forward momentum is irrelevant to a geosyncrhonous orbit. It's all perspective anyway...the only thing we no for sure is that the planet wasn't rotating and the ISD had no perceivable rotation it's self. When one object isn't rotating an it's a planet it's a match of surface velocities.

    You have shown no evidence that ISD was in geostationary orbit and your "belief" is ultimately irrelevant is it no?


    I find that incorrect. Antigravity devices don't restrict motion it defies gravity.


    That would be wrong. Gravity has little to do with inertia.



    You have completely misunderstood the function of inertial dampers. These mechanisms you described merely slow down and dampen the movement of the entire building but every movement the building makes are felt by the people inside.


    That's exactly what an IDF system does...dampen movement. Nothing to do with gravity in the provisional sense.

    Inertial damper on the other hand must operate inside the ship which rapidly accelerating and somehow make the crew feel nothing.

    And if it was an antigravity field the people would be floating...which is why you're wrong and in definace of physics.


    You are not making much sense I'm afraid. What is T in your equation? Time? If so time times velocity is simply traveled distance and not "the rate of speed".

    I may have fouled that up...D*T=rate of speed. Using traditional symbols.




    Actually ICS books are made as supplement to the movies and thus much more reliable than EU books which sometimes contradict themselves and the movies. What the you mean the book is "intentional in some of it's contradictions"? And more to the point where does it contradicts the films?

    Yeah I know what there purpose is. That doesn't outline why it's failed in that purpose.

    Star Wars' ships and weapons have consistently failed the test of comparision to the firepowers stated in the book. Star War's rarely if ever displace megaton firepower...Trek is pretty consistent in it...but it's still not frequent.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I think the klingons and Romulans are going to help the federation even if the Empire strikes first because they know they will be defeated just as quick. United I think they can crush the Empire.

    ReplyDelete
  81. If the Empire tries to attack/destroy any Federation planet they would probably try to attack Earth because of its importance to starfleet. Like the borg they would probably be detected halfway there and met by a fleet of battle ready starships. Starfleet command would more than likely be evacuated. With superior sensors they would probably scan the Death Star pointing out its weaknesses. If the Empire attacks first with a win-quick strategy, They will show their strengths and weaknesses

    ReplyDelete