Which would win...

[Tabitha]

Ok, Galactica or Emperial Star Destroyer?
Viper or Tie Fighter?
Colonial Warrior or Mobile Infantry?
Cylon or Stormtrooper?
Basestar or Deathstar?
Starbuck or Luke?
Apollo or Han Solo?
Sheba or Lea?
Viper or Starfury?
Garibaldi or Boomer?
Athena or Carmen?

tabbi

[LadyImmortal]

Galactica or Star Destroyer - Star Destroyer - it has better armaments from what I remember (and someone once postulated that a Star Destroyer was bigger than the Galactica - which I find bloody hard to believe)

Viper or Tie Fighter - I'd go Viper on this one - more maneuverable

Colonial Warrior or Mobile Infantry - definitely the first...

Cylon or Stormtrooper - Stormtrooper... I think... (Hmmmmmm)

Basestar or Deathstar - I'll have to go Deathstar - we all remember the weak point on a Death Star right? Basestar has more!

Starbuck or Luke??? (not Han? LOL). Hmm... well, just cause Luke could cheat and use the force, I guess Luke...

Apollo or Han - Han is a trickier cuss than Apollo - sorry sweety.

Sheba or Lea - Sheba... she's definitely more warrior than Leia is (not that Leia isn't feisty though)

Viper or Starfury - no idea

Garibaldi or Boomer - Garibaldi - Boomer would be trying to talk him out of it and Garibaldi would shoot...

Athena or Carmen - no idea...

[WarMachine]

I'm presuming that "Good Guys Always Win"© is not in play? :D


Ok, Galactica or Emperial Star Destroyer?
Ouch....I'd have to give this one to the ISD: a lot faster, overall, main guns' cyclic rate is far higher(though apparently less damage, overall), better fire arcs for the defensive batteries, etc.... :(

Viper or Tie Fighter?
Hmmmm....Basically equal in weaponry, neither has any shields; the Viper seems faster in the straight-away, and has a monster reverse-thrust, but the TIE in all versions exceot the Bomber(the twin-hulled frame from TESB) is infinately more maneuverable in close quarters....a lot comes down to pilot ability :eek:

Colonial Warrior or Mobile Infantry?
M.I. 'book', or M.I. 'movie? Book-version wins hands down, with or without powered armor: far more focused, tactically capable and aggressive. 'Movie' will fold at the first sign of real, capable resistance. :salute:

Cylon or Stormtrooper?
:rotf: Bash the "Boyz in White" all you like, but they've got serious guts, and if you watch carefully, they win more often than not -- especially the 1.0/Clone Troopers; the later versions are a bit degraded in comparison, but they still romp all over the tin-heads.

Basestar or Deathstar?
:rotf: :rotf: :rotf: "...What the...!!! That blast came from the DEATH STAR?!?!?!"...as Something Smelly© fills the cockpit of the Millenium Falcon over Endor... :devil:

Starbuck or Luke?
Luke 1, 2, or 3? 1 or 2, Starbuck uses like a Triad ball; 3 is a more even match, but will fall back on his "Jedi Mind Tricks" -- because Starbuck will still use him like a Triad ball if he gets too close......."Lensmen Eat Jedi For Breakfast"

Apollo or Han Solo?
Apollo. Slow and steady wins the race, Grasshopper; Solo will go for the quick-fix, and if that doesn't work, he falls back on fancy blaster work...But Apollo is not Greedo..... :devil:

Sheba or Lea?
Sheba, hands down. Leia has attitude and a mouth -- a blowhard.

Viper or Starfury?
Hmmmm....Also even, but weighted more in favor of the Viper, overall

Garibaldi or Boomer?
Oooooo......I'd have to go with Boomer on this one; Garibaldi has too much to prove to himself, and it makes him slip up and make mistakes. Boomer is cold and calculating when it comes to a fight, but he's also deceptive: he has a very long fuse, but when it burns down, you'd better not be standing in front of him.... :eek:

Athena or Carmen?
I'm okay on the Athena part -- who's Carmen?

tabbi[/QUOTE]

[_No_Name_]

Ok, Galactica or Emperial Star Destroyer?

Tough to say. The Imperial Star Destoyer does not appear to have any heavy weaponry like the Galactica has (as demonstrated by the Pegasus). Plus the Galactica has a smaller cross-section than the ISD. I think the victory might depend on "Viper or TIE fighter"

Viper or Tie Fighter?

Pilot skill would be the determining factor here. IMHO the Colonial Warriors appear to be better in the art of the dog fight than the Imperial pilots, so I would have to say the Viper

Colonial Warrior or Mobile Infantry?

Ignoring the Starship Troopers movie (which is by far more of a hatchet job of the source material than nuBSG can ever be), I would have to say the M.I. would kick Colonial Warrior *** up and down the galaxy. The marines on nuBSG may have a chance.

Cylon or Stormtrooper?

Stormtrooper appear to use better tactics than the Cylons, so the victory goes to the Stormtroopers.

Basestar or Deathstar?

Deathstar most likely

Starbuck or Luke?

Luke. Unless you are taking pre-Jedi, in which case Starbuck


Apollo or Han Solo?

Han Solo

Sheba or Lea?

In a fight, Sheba. Leia is not a fighter like Sheba. In a debate, Leia.

Viper or Starfury?

Starfury appears more manueverable, so in the hands of good pilot would win.

Garibaldi or Boomer?

Garibaldi

Athena or Carmen?

Which Carmen?
-- Carmen Electra vs Athena: Carmen
-- Carmen Sandiego vs Athena: Carmen
-- Carmen "The Gypsy girl from Bizet's opera" vs Athena: Carmen

I guess the "which Carmen" doesn't matter. I think any Carmen would win.

[WarMachine]

Ignoring the Starship Troopers movie (which is by far more of a hatchet job of the source material than nuBSG can ever be), I would have to say the M.I. would kick Colonial Warrior *** up and down the galaxy. The marines on nuBSG may have a chance.



While I wouldn't go so far on the hatchet-job part( :wtf: :eek: I don't believe I just wrote that!), speaking as a former Active-Duty USMC-type 'gator, the GINO-jars aren't even worth the workout.

Hmmmmm.....Colonial Warriors vs Imperial Stormtroopers...hmmmm -- where's my 501st T? ;)

[Pegasus4]

I remember this argument 10 years ago with friends. :)

The Basestar carries 300 fighters. According to my sourcebook (and official), a Star Destroyer only has 72 Ties, 12 interceptors and 12 bombers. Weaponry and shielding I don't remember. I always loved the Tie Advanced and Tie Defenders in the Star Wars Tie Fighter PC game.

The star destroyer is 1.6 kms long. The Galactica is said to be 2000 meters or 2000 feet (I say meters). I know the super Star Destroyer is 8 kms long.

[martok2112]

I remember this argument 10 years ago with friends. :)

The Basestar carries 300 fighters. According to my sourcebook (and official), a Star Destroyer only has 72 Ties, 12 interceptors and 12 bombers. Weaponry and shielding I don't remember. I always loved the Tie Advanced and Tie Defenders in the Star Wars Tie Fighter PC game.

The star destroyer is 1.6 kms long. The Galactica is said to be 2000 meters or 2000 feet (I say meters). I know the super Star Destroyer is 8 kms long.


We know for sure that an Imperial Class Star Destroyer has deflector shields.
Basestars are speculated to have shields (At least Cain says something like "Their sheilds won't help 'em.")

Star Destroyer is armed with 60 Turbolaser cannons, and an array of missile and tractor beam tubes.

Basestar is armed with 100 defensive laser turrets and 2 mega pulsars.

Personally, I think with the known armaments and defenses of an Imperial Star Destroyer, it would win the bout.

A Super Star Destroyer would outgun any Battlestar, Basestar, or lesser capital ship. It is armed with over 1000 weapons emplacements, and is able to ward off a fleet of lesser ships. Battlestars and basestars might have it all over an SSD when it comes to maneuverability....but then again, there's not many places you can position yourself around a Super Star Destroyer without having at least 200 weapons brought to bear on you at any one time.

MHO,
Respectfully,
Martok2112 :salute:

[BRG]

Galactica - Star Destroyer
Star Destroyer. It is more powerful, better defended, and better armed. The turbo-lasers, ion cannons and missiles on the Star Destroyer would make light work of a Battlestar, which can be crippled by a Cylon Raider assault. Could you picture a Star Destroyer falling to a Rebel starfighter attack? I don't think so! ;)

Basestar - Death Star
:wtf: :D :LOL: :rotf: Tabbi, are you serious? A Basestar v the Death Star. I would have more chance of knocking out Muhammad Ali in his prime than a Basestar has against the Death Star. Remember, thats no moon, it's a space-station! And a planet destroying space-station to boot! :D

Viper - TIE Fighter
Viper, easy. The TIE has no sheilding, and is designed overwelm opponents by there sheer numbers in combat. One-on-one, a good Viper or X-Wing pilots should always win.

Viper - Starfury
Draw. It all comes down to the skill of the pilot IMHO. :)

Colonial Warrior - Mobile Infantry
Colonial Warrior. Simply because I do not know who the Mobile Infantry are! :blush:

Cylon - Stormtrooper
Cylon. In a shoot out, a Cylon should be quicker on the draw, and have better aim than a Stormtrooper.

Starbuck - Luke
Luke, without breaking sweat! Come on Tabbi, the guy is a Jedi! Give Starbuck a chance. :D

Apollo - Han
Han. Apollo is just too nice for him to have any chance against Han Solo! :rotf: Now, Satrbuck v Han, that would be interesting. ;)

Sheba - Leia
Sheba. Sheba is a Warrior, trained by her father- a Colonial Commander. Leia, although fiesty, is still a Princess raised in the Royal court and brough up as a politician.

Boomer - Garibaldi
Draw. Both cut from the same cloth, I really could not choose a winner. :salute:

Athena - Carmen
Athena. I have no idea who Carmen is, but she does not beat the lovely Athena. No one beats Athena! :drool:

BRG

[WarMachine]

Galactica - Star Destroyer
Could you picture a Star Destroyer falling to a Rebel starfighter attack? I don't think so! ;)
Gotta call ya' on this one...RotJ has several ISDs severely damaged by Rebel fighters, and the Super Star Destroyer was destroyed when its bridge was destroyed by an A-Wing's kamikaze run.....That said, I still vote ISD over the Gal :eek:


Colonial Warrior - Mobile Infantry
Colonial Warrior. Simply because I do not know who the Mobile Infantry are! :blush:
BRG

Pick up a copy of Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" -- the original, not the 90's trash-movie with Casper van Dien.....Anybody twisted enough to come up with psych-war hand grenades ("I'M A THRITY-SECOND BOMB! I'M A THRITY-SECOND BOMB! TWENTY-NINE, TWENTY-EIGHT, TWENTY-SEVEN....." :devil: ) has got all that and a 5-gallon bucket of chips over everybody else....and just so we're clear, here:

M.I. wins over both Clone Troopers and Stormtroopers every day --- there's a lot to be said for nuclear hand-grenades and powered armor
:devil: :maitai: :popcorn: :corona: :beer:

[WarMachine]

I remember this argument 10 years ago with friends. :)

The Basestar carries 300 fighters. According to my sourcebook (and official), a Star Destroyer only has 72 Ties, 12 interceptors and 12 bombers. Weaponry and shielding I don't remember. I always loved the Tie Advanced and Tie Defenders in the Star Wars Tie Fighter PC game.

Also, remember that a single ISD has space to carry an 8000-man infantry brigade, complete with AT-ATs, AT-STs and other support vehicles and equipment; I think that if you stripped it down to the Gal's specs(where you have maybe 12 shuttles, and maybe 100-200 security troops), you could at least triple your TIE compliment....And TIEs will trounce Raiders all day long...

[Centurion Draco]

Gotta call ya' on this one...RotJ has several ISDs severely damaged by Rebel fighters, and the Super Star Destroyer was destroyed when its bridge was destroyed by an A-Wing's kamikaze run.....That said, I still vote ISD over the Gal :eek:




Pick up a copy of Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" -- the original, not the 90's trash-movie with Casper van Dien.....Anybody twisted enough to come up with psych-war hand grenades ("I'M A THRITY-SECOND BOMB! I'M A THRITY-SECOND BOMB! TWENTY-NINE, TWENTY-EIGHT, TWENTY-SEVEN....." :devil: ) has got all that and a 5-gallon bucket of chips over everybody else....and just so we're clear, here:

M.I. wins over both Clone Troopers and Stormtroopers every day --- there's a lot to be said for nuclear hand-grenades and powered armor
:devil: :maitai: :popcorn: :corona: :beer:



Lol, absolutely.
I was gutted when I saw they weren't going to film Starship Troopers as Heinlein wrote it.
THe powered armour WAS the MI. The whole quarter of a mile 'jumps' that get them into and out of battle so effectively. What about the shoulder mounted thermal lances?
Heinlein is one of the greats. Twisted beyond belief, but still decades ahead of his time. Wasn't he a Colonel in the US army in WW2? If I remember rightly, he was in charge of psychological warfare or something equally scary.
I also really objected to the spiders being made so stupid! No weapons, no allies (the skinnies) they were just big dumb bugs. Nuclear Grenades!!! Perfect for killing a building full of cowering civilian skinnies!
I still enjoyed the film a lot, but it wasn't Starship Troopers.
How do you take an 8 foot spider prisoner?
Use your lance to burn all its legs off down one side, and it just scuttles around in circles! Then burn the rest of its legs off, and pick is up by a stump! Course it doesn't live too long after that. (RH is one sick mother!)

[WarMachine]

Actually, RAH was a LtCmdr in the Navy when he was medically retired in the 30's due to tuberculosis, IIRC. He met his second wife(who survived him) in WW2 working at ONI(I think) as an Italian Navy specialist(read a real history of the Italians in WW2 sometime...very iluminating).

He actually modeled the M.I. off of the Marines; the book version were basically what the USMC would have become if they were they only ground force.

I had great problems with the film. The director, Voorhaven[sp?], had/has serious "issues" with anything that smacks of "fascism", and goes out of his way to portray such groups in the worst light possible: he is also the director of RoboCop 1 and Total Recall. He also looks down his nose at fans of the books -- sound familiar? :mad:

When Virginia Heinlein saw some of the dailies/previews when the studio tried to get her endorsement of the film, she turned them down flat...That's why it says "Based on..." rather than "Robert Heinlein's..."

For those who have never read the book, the Bugs did have a hive mind, but the Warriors were fully-articulated, rather like a praying mantis -- 6-feet tall :eek: ...who used conventional small arms :eek: :eek: ...there were no bugs squirting nuclear poop into orbit :mad: They built starships and fought naval actions against the Humans.

And the Terrans in the movie were idiots.....still :mad: about it...

[Centurion Draco]

OK.
An ISD seems pretty much a match for a Base Star IMHO (were the ISD simply packed for space combat and not carrying lots of ATs/ground troops). They both have large amounts of fixed guns, the both have heavy 'ship killer' weapons, both have energy shields, and a large compliment of fighters capable of various roles, and of varying 'spec'.
Std TIE's Vs Std Raiders: Raiders win by a mile.
Advanced TIE's Vs Advanced (leader) Raiders: Draw.
Overall I think things would even themselves out really between the two ships at full strength. The ISD without fighters possibly has the edge, but with fighters the Base Star would easily counter that advantage, so I go for a draw.

Battlestar Vs ISD.
Well, a Battlestar is more than a match for one Base Star, and even two are not 'assured victory', so I think a 'fresh' Battlestar with a full compliment of Vipers would pulverise an ISD.

Viper Vs X-Wing. This would be an interesting battle. Both are super fast, shielded and heavily armed.

Landram Vs AT-AT ;) Ooops Landram gets trodden on.
Landram Vs AT-ST: Draw

Troopers Vs Cylons: Both use the same tactics, both would take vast casualties. Cylons would have a tiny edge I think.
Troopers Vs Colonials: Warriors obliterate Troopers.
Jedi Vs anyone: one for one the Jedi would obviously batter anyone they came up against.

Apollo Vs Solo: Both are quick on the draw, but Apollo's Laser packs about twice the punch of Solo's DL-44 as its designed to blow holes in laser repelling reflective armour. So whereas Apollo might survive a 'body' hit from Solo's gun, Solo would be unlikely to survive a 'body' hit from Apollo's. And were they unarmed Apollo would obviously slap Solo around like a red headed step child! Outcome: Apollo Wins.

Starbuck Vs Solo: You just know Starbuck's 'Solo' only more so. So Starbuck would win.

You can't really do the Luke versus thing, cos pre jedi training, he's a pussy, post training he's a fraking jedi!!

Colonel Tigh Vs Governor Tarkin: Colonel Tigh takes his power walker off of him and beats him to death with it.


Boomer Vs JaJa Binks: Mesarr in some biiiggggg trouble now. Boomer wins

Jolly Vs Chewbacca: in the first grapple Chewbacca rips Jollly's shirt off and is so intimidated by Jolly's abnormally hairy back that he drops his guard and Jolly flattens him with a clothsline then finishes him with a mighty 'colonial elbow'.

Muffit Vs Wicket: Muffit gets an Ewok skin rug for his daggit bed.


DeathStar Vs Ravershall Pulsar: Pulsar has longer range (and recharges quicker)

[Centurion Draco]

Actually, RAH was a LtCmdr in the Navy when he was medically retired in the 30's due to tuberculosis, IIRC. He met his second wife(who survived him) in WW2 working at ONI(I think) as an Italian Navy specialist(read a real history of the Italians in WW2 sometime...very iluminating).

He actually modeled the M.I. off of the Marines; the book version were basically what the USMC would have become if they were they only ground force.

I had great problems with the film. The director, Voorhaven[sp?], had/has serious "issues" with anything that smacks of "fascism", and goes out of his way to portray such groups in the worst light possible: he is also the director of RoboCop 1 and Total Recall. He also looks down his nose at fans of the books -- sound familiar? :mad:

When Virginia Heinlein saw some of the dailies/previews when the studio tried to get her endorsement of the film, she turned them down flat...That's why it says "Based on..." rather than "Robert Heinlein's..."

For those who have never read the book, the Bugs did have a hive mind, but the Warriors were fully-articulated, rather like a praying mantis -- 6-feet tall :eek: ...who used conventional small arms :eek: :eek: ...there were no bugs squirting nuclear poop into orbit :mad: They built starships and fought naval actions against the Humans.

And the Terrans in the movie were idiots.....still :mad: about it...

I may be confusing his military career with someone elses, I read all this stuff years and years ago.

I think the 'bugs' in the film lost a lot of their menace. The spiders in the book are a real enemy. And the fact that they are a real culture or 'empire' with technology and subjegated or allied races makes them more threatening then the ones in the film that are little more than dumb machines.
The 'crux' of the Trooper concept in the book is the powered body armour. Without it, even the book as written would have lost a lot of its shine.
The humans in the book are cetainly in a very 'grey' area morally. One of the few things I liked about the film was that it at least tried to address this, with the pseudo Nazi uniforms, the ruthless war of extermination, lack of individual rights etc,etc. Problem is, I think that de-evolving the Spiders to the level of mindless 'bugs', and removing their humanoid allies and technology means that there is virtually no way fo the audience to empathise with them at all, even when the film makes the point that the humans are the invaders, and not the arachnids.
A good movie, just not Starship Troopers. IMHO
I'd love to see it filmed exactly as Heinlein wrote it.
Nice to meet other people who actually read it!

Ever read any Fred Saberhagen?
I loved the Berserker books!
And the whole 'Sword' series.

[WarMachine]

OK.

Std TIE's Vs Std Raiders: Raiders win by a mile.
...Only via sheer weight of numbers -- TIEs are an even match against most Rebel fighters, even given the limitations of the TIE(no shields, no hyperdrive). They're faster, more maneuverable, and equally- or better-armed compared to a Raider.


Battlestar Vs ISD.
Well, a Battlestar is more than a match for one Base Star, and even two are not 'assured victory', so I think a 'fresh' Battlestar with a full compliment of Vipers would pulverise an ISD.
I don't know on this one.....But it would certainly make for a good wargame battle, if we could hammer out the rules set....

Viper Vs X-Wing. This would be an interesting battle. Both are super fast, shielded and heavily armed.
??????.....When did Vipers aquire sheilds? Or Raiders, for that matter?

DeathStar Vs Ravershall Pulsar: Pulsar has longer range (and recharges quicker)
...But has far less destructive power - I never got the impression that it could turn a planet into asteroids....

[gmd3d]

OK.
An ISD seems pretty much a match for a Base Star IMHO (were the ISD simply packed for space combat and not carrying lots of ATs/ground troops). They both have large amounts of fixed guns, the both have heavy 'ship killer' weapons, both have energy shields, and a large compliment of fighters capable of various roles, and of varying 'spec'.
Std TIE's Vs Std Raiders: Raiders win by a mile.
Advanced TIE's Vs Advanced (leader) Raiders: Draw.
Overall I think things would even themselves out really between the two ships at full strength. The ISD without fighters possibly has the edge, but with fighters the Base Star would easily counter that advantage, so I go for a draw.

Battlestar Vs ISD.
Well, a Battlestar is more than a match for one Base Star, and even two are not 'assured victory', so I think a 'fresh' Battlestar with a full compliment of Vipers would pulverise an ISD.

Viper Vs X-Wing. This would be an interesting battle. Both are super fast, shielded and heavily armed.

Landram Vs AT-AT ;) Ooops Landram gets trodden on.
Landram Vs AT-ST: Draw

Troopers Vs Cylons: Both use the same tactics, both would take vast casualties. Cylons would have a tiny edge I think.
Troopers Vs Colonials: Warriors obliterate Troopers.
Jedi Vs anyone: one for one the Jedi would obviously batter anyone they came up against.

Apollo Vs Solo: Both are quick on the draw, but Apollo's Laser packs about twice the punch of Solo's DL-44 as its designed to blow holes in laser repelling reflective armour. So whereas Apollo might survive a 'body' hit from Solo's gun, Solo would be unlikely to survive a 'body' hit from Apollo's. And were they unarmed Apollo would obviously slap Solo around like a red headed step child! Outcome: Apollo Wins.

Starbuck Vs Solo: You just know Starbuck's 'Solo' only more so. So Starbuck would win.

You can't really do the Luke versus thing, cos pre jedi training, he's a pussy, post training he's a fraking jedi!!

Colonel Tigh Vs Governor Tarkin: Colonel Tigh takes his power walker off of him and beats him to death with it.


Boomer Vs JaJa Binks: Mesarr in some biiiggggg trouble now. Boomer wins

Jolly Vs Chewbacca: in the first grapple Chewbacca rips Jollly's shirt off and is so intimidated by Jolly's abnormally hairy back that he drops his guard and Jolly flattens him with a clothsline then finishes him with a mighty 'colonial elbow'.

Muffit Vs Wicket: Muffit gets an Ewok skin rug for his daggit bed.


DeathStar Vs Ravershall Pulsar: Pulsar has longer range (and recharges quicker)


:rotf: :rotf: Thanks Centurian Draco , Super post, man I need this laugh..

[gmd3d]

Ok, Galactica or Emperial Star Destroyer

The Galactica or ISD, while I disagree about the size of the Galactica been 2000 feet Larson indicated it was a mile or longer .. so in length the same or a bit longer than a ISD not as tall though.
The film versions showing the fire power of an ISD would on the surface appear to out match the BSG.. but put that down to Lucas having a better understanding of effects .. :) I beleive that the Galactica is far better armed than we have seen.

But to answer the question:

1a: The Galactica would seem to have better manuvering abilty and faster at
sublight speed turns but has weaker hull plating. IMHO
1b: The ISD heavy hull plates but slow at manuvering in sublight.

2a: Fire power: Galactica is unknown apart from a TV guide stating its has 75
Turbo Lasers also 75 Vipers .. (I think it should be 75 per landing bay it has
the room.
2b:or not 2b.
Fire power . Star Destroyer is armed with 60 Turbolaser cannons, and an array
of missile and tractor beam tubes. (thanks Martok) Ion cannons.
3a: support fighters as other have stated the fact's in other posts . but I think
that the verity of fighter are in the Stardestroyer's corner..

So therefor after much delibration I think as much as it pains me to say ..

The StarDestroyer would win.. Un less!!! the BIG G put planty of fier power in to the Bridge or Landing bay..



Viper or Tie Fighter?
What WarMachine said.

Colonial Warrior or Mobile Infantry?
MI
Cylon or Stormtrooper?
STormT
Basestar or Deathstar?
Death STar
Starbuck or Luke?
Starbuck
Apollo or Han Solo?
Han Solo
Sheba or Lea?
Leia .... Hmmmm
Viper or Starfury?
Not sure??
Garibaldi or Boomer?
Boomer
Athena or Carmen?
Athena

what do I win.. :salute:

[Centurion Draco]

...Only via sheer weight of numbers -- TIEs are an even match against most Rebel fighters, even given the limitations of the TIE(no shields, no hyperdrive). They're faster, more maneuverable, and equally- or better-armed compared to a Raider.



I don't know on this one.....But it would certainly make for a good wargame battle, if we could hammer out the rules set....


??????.....When did Vipers aquire sheilds? Or Raiders, for that matter?


...But has far less destructive power - I never got the impression that it could turn a planet into asteroids....


TIE Vs Raider: 'BANG' Cylon1: 'Sensors report we just colided with something small and insignificant', Cylon commander: 'Oh well'. :cylon:

Its my understanding that standard Raiders have minimal or no shielding, and that advanced Raiders 'leader' raiders have shielding to match Vipers (like X-wings). Base Stars and Battlestars have shields also. But like the ships is star wars, they all seem to have shields that are more like a second skin (or even an augmented structural integrity field) rather than the 'proper' shields that Trek ships have.

As for the Death Star, it's only the size of a small moon, and it would have to get real close to destroy a planet the size of Arcta. The pulsar would have deep fried it by then.

[Centurion Draco]

Of course the real question is:
IBLIS Vs Yoda

[WarMachine]

Of course the real question is:
IBLIS Vs Yoda

Yoda, definately. Iblis may be evil-incarnate, but he's theatrical and slow-moving; drive him from this plane, Yoda would. :D

.....And before it's asked, Palpatine would use Iblis for a chew toy.....

[Centurion Draco]

Yoda, definately. Iblis may be evil-incarnate, but he's theatrical and slow-moving; drive him from this plane, Yoda would. :D

.....And before it's asked, Palpatine would use Iblis for a chew toy.....

Oh Behave!

[Centurion Draco]

:rotf: :rotf: Thanks Centurian Draco , Super post, man I need this laugh..


Thanks Taranis.
Oh, and I agree about the size thing. 2000ft is way too small for the Galactica.

[WarMachine]

Oh Behave!
:D

[Tabitha]

BTW Carmen is the dark headed gf from the Starship Troopers movie, since Dizzy got killed, but theres an idea, Dizzy vs. Athena?

tabbi

[Centurion Draco]

BTW Carmen is the dark headed gf from the Starship Troopers movie, since Dizzy got killed, but theres an idea, Dizzy vs. Athena?

tabbi
Dizzy would murder Athena. Dizzy's a well hard 'grunt' and Athena's an administrator.

Dizzy Vs Sheba.......

BTW, just realised I've got a promotion to 'Warrior' (guess the 100 post mark?).
Why are you 'Empty and Fading'?

[gmd3d]

I agree with Centurian in that , Dizzy would murder her..

[Tabitha]

Why am I empty and fadeing...
I just typed out a long answer, then deleted it. Its a lot of personal stuff, and some stuff from another board. Lets just say, dont trust anyone, cus you never know who your friends are, and how fast someone can turn on you. And the sick part is, you dont even have to do anything wrong.
But thats my problem, and my personal life, and has nothing to do with BSG or this thread or anything of interest to anyone but myself, and the people who I thought were my friends.
I might be on a bit less from now on, maybe not on at all anymore, Im not sure. Some of the people involved also go to more than one board, and Im not sure that I want to deal with them again. Besides, its not like I really had anything of value to say here anyhow.

I hope that you all are able to do and become everything you desire, and all your dreams come true, what dreams may come...

God bless

tabbi

[_No_Name_]

...you are but young in the ways of the Internet.

Why am I empty and fadeing...
<snip>
But thats my problem, and my personal life, and has nothing to do with BSG or this thread or anything of interest to anyone but myself, and the people who I thought were my friends.


Encounter with a troll must you had. Hmm. (Sorry for the bad Yoda). Seriously, one has to take a virtual/online friendship for what it is: An ethereal encounter. If the person(s) involved are people you know in the real world and they made you this upset, then you might have to chalk it up to a lesson learned and drive on.


I might be on a bit less from now on, maybe not on at all anymore, Im not sure. Some of the people involved also go to more than one board, and Im not sure that I want to deal with them again.

One most teach you the value of a kill file (http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/K/kill-file.html). Nothing is more satisfying then the sound of a troll going plonk (http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/P/plonk.html).

Besides, its not like I really had anything of value to say here anyhow.

You are being much to critical of yourself. You've contributed more than most.

[WarMachine]

You are being much to critical of yourself. You've contributed more than most.

Gotta chime in, here.....I'm with _No_Name_: in the short time I've been on this board, I can tell you that you are having an extremely positive effect on the folks here.

I mean, come on! How many girls are there out there who have even heard of T2K? Damned few, is your answer. I'm serious.

Keepin' on keepin' on.......WM

[gmd3d]

I might be on a bit less from now on, maybe not on at all anymore, Im not sure. Some of the people involved also go to more than one board, and Im not sure that I want to deal with them again. Besides, its not like I really had anything of value to say here anyhow.

tabbi , you have had a great impact on this site, look at this thread its been a lot of fun.... you don't have to deal with anyone on the net if you don't want to . It would be sad if you left and took you stories and sence of Humour ..

In you control panal you have an Ignore list and Bubby list .. I have never use the Ignore option so Im not sure how it works ..

I hope that you all are able to do and become everything you desire, and all your dreams come true, what dreams may come...

Thanks :) I also hope and the same for you..

God bless

tabbi

God Bless you to :)

[Centurion Draco]

Why am I empty and fadeing...
I just typed out a long answer, then deleted it. Its a lot of personal stuff, and some stuff from another board. Lets just say, dont trust anyone, cus you never know who your friends are, and how fast someone can turn on you. And the sick part is, you dont even have to do anything wrong.
But thats my problem, and my personal life, and has nothing to do with BSG or this thread or anything of interest to anyone but myself, and the people who I thought were my friends.
I might be on a bit less from now on, maybe not on at all anymore, Im not sure. Some of the people involved also go to more than one board, and Im not sure that I want to deal with them again. Besides, its not like I really had anything of value to say here anyhow.

I hope that you all are able to do and become everything you desire, and all your dreams come true, what dreams may come...

God bless

tabbi

Hey Tabbi

Don't desert us :(
Look at your post count! For such a short time, it seems to me that you've got a lot to contribute, and thats certainly true of the posts that I've read.
I think a lot of people value your opinions and contribution to the cause!
Perhaps you could change your 'title' from 'Empty and Fading' to 'blossoming femme fatal' :salute:
Stick around Tabbi, this Centurian certainly appreciates your input. :cylon:

[zankoku]

Tabbi, please don't leave. I am still waiting for more of your story and you have a pretty good head on your shoulders.

Anyone bugging you, well you have friends here.

And Don't let the Bast***s get you down.

Jim

[julix]

I know we are straying off topic a bit............
Tabbi,
I had a situation happen to me on the net that was difficult and painful. It happens and especially to those of us that are very trusting. Luckily I have met a bunch of very nice folks whom I consider friends. hang in there...........I took it as learning an important lesson.

[Tabitha]

Thanks for the support, and like I said, Im not sure what Im gonna do. Im just faced with an absured situation, it makes no sense what so ever, so I guess I just need time or something to figure out what to do


tabbi

[gmd3d]

If you want to PM some one for a chat can some time help ..... there are good people here who have gone through problem on the web before and would be glad to help..

[LadyImmortal]

Tabbi, I learned a long time ago you gotta let the trolls go. Ignore 'em, they aren't worth the grief (and can be ignored). I reached the point awhile back where I just don't care if EVERYONE likes me. There are people who do and that's who I love talking with and being with. That's the important thing to remember.

So stick around and don't let the loser and posers wreck your world!

[julix]

Thanks for the support, and like I said, Im not sure what Im gonna do. Im just faced with an absured situation, it makes no sense what so ever, so I guess I just need time or something to figure out what to do


tabbiIt took me quite a while...........sometimes it is still hard for me...........hang in there, take the time.

[BRG]

Thanks for the support, and like I said, Im not sure what Im gonna do. Im just faced with an absured situation, it makes no sense what so ever, so I guess I just need time or something to figure out what to do


tabbi

Hi Tabitha.

All of us at the Fleets are here for you if you need us. I'm pretty sure most of us would gladly lend an ear if you want to talk about it. We have guys & girls of all ages here, so do't be afraid to PM us if you wish. :)

You have made a wonderful impact in you're short time at the Fleets, and I always enjoy reading your posts. And I was delighted when you joined the SoL.

I hope you work out your problems, and are able to remain a part of our community. You would certainly be missed.

Wishing you the best.
BRG

[BRG]

Viper - TIE Fighter

In the argument about the skill of the pilot making the differance in the Viper v TIE question, do you not think the Viper is a much easier fighter to fly.

The Viper, like the X-Wing, has a canopy much like a modern jet fighter. It gives the pilot a good view in front, to either side, and a reasonable rear view. Also as the Viper & X-Wing have a built in life-support system, the pilot just wears a flight suit and helmet, so has plenty of freedom to move in the cockpit.

The TIE Fighter only has the forward window. So the pilot only has a view of what is directly infront of his ship. also as the TIE has no life-support system, the pilot has to wear a bulky spacesuit, with a fixed helmet and narrow visor.

I'm no pilot, but surely this must be a extreem handicap for the TIE in a dogfight. :wtf:

Viper - Starfury

When you look at the Earth Alliance from Babylon 5, it appears that they are a few tech levels behind the human race on other sci-fi shows. Including the Colonial Fleet(BSG) Starfleet(ST) and the Rebel Alliance & Galactic Empire(SW).

In B5, the humans have not discovered artificial gravity, they use rotating hulls on larger ships, on smaller ships they strap the crew down. The Minbari & Centauri have artuficial gravity, so it does exsists in the B5 universe.
And FTL travel. It is mentioned in an episode that humans only discovered FTL travel after the Centauri sold them Jump Gate technoligy, and until the scientists & engineers could master the technoligy, they leased out time on Centauri gates.

While the Starfury looks like a match for the Viper, given that the Earth alliance look 50-100 years behind the Colonial Fleet in technoligy, it may be like compairing a WWII Spitfire to a modern F-16. Both brilliant fighters in they're own arena, but head-to-head, there is only one winner. :salute:


Just some of my thoughts. As I said before, I'm no pilot or military expert. So feel free to correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree! :duck: :D
BRG

[Tabitha]

Ok, how can I leave my family here. Ive taken time to chill, thought it out and you know, after all the time I spent standing for what I felt was right, and backing CF in its decisions, for me to bail on them now, thats just silly. Let people say what they will about me, if I let them win then thats just saying the were right. If I stay and ignore them, then everyone will see them for what they are, trolls and trouble makers, and I will stay true to myself and my beliefs, which are just screwy enough to be interesting.

tabbi

[Tabitha]

Oh and sweety, the Starfury has that slick little roll over manouver while the Viper tends to fly like an airplane. I think thats likely to kick some Viper tail. Then again Ivonova in that Fury as well as the pilots of B5 were seasoned combat veterans of the Battle of The Line. Id say they have what it takes to win, not that I dont love my Apollo and Starbuck, but even Blue squadron had never been in a sustained battle like the pilots of B5. I admire that about the B5 series, they did show that the pilots there didnt give up, even when Earth was on her knees. They stuck to their guns, hmmm maybe theres a message here I need to reconsider. Yea, I think so hahahah...

tabbi

[WarMachine]

BRG:

In "Viper vs TIE", the TIE is only at a disadvantage if the Viper gets behind them -- which isn't saying much, as that's true for most one-man, er...one-being, fighters. It really does come down to the pilot.

In "Viper vs Starfury", where the Starfury's weapons are weak in comparison to the Viper, and it isn't as fast in the straightaway, it has the ability - and its pilots use it a lot - to spin 180° on its axis and bring its full battery to bear in all quarters.....Something no other space fighter in sci-fi can do, IIRC. Also, in tight, the 'Fury's ability to snap-roll is unequalled.

Finally, artificial grav is not necessarily a good thing in a space fighter, as was demonstrated in "Lost Warrior"(I think), when Starbuck blacked out from the G-forces of a turn that only C.O.R.A. could execute. G-force is still a factor for Starfury pilots, but lack of gravity is actually to their advantage.

Tabbi: Gig 'em, Grrrl!!!!! : :D :

[BRG]

Thanks for the reply Tabbi & WarMachine. :thumbsup: :salute:

The Starfury does seem to be one of the few starfighters to act like a space combat fighter. In Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, and even the new BSG, the starfighters act like normal jet fighters but with WWII style dogfights.

That is what is odd about compairing B5 to other sci-fi shows. While the Earth Alliance Omega Class desroyer would be easy meat for a Star Destroyer, Battlestar or Basestar(even Kirk's Enterprise would give it a kicking) the Starfury looks like it could take any starfighter those shows could throw at it. :wtf: :D

One thing I've always found strange about the Starfury is that the Pilot appears to fly the thing standing up! :eek: That must be wierd for the pilot. :)
BRG

[WarMachine]

Thanks for the reply Tabbi & WarMachine. :thumbsup: :salute:

That is what is odd about compairing B5 to other sci-fi shows. While the Earth Alliance Omega Class desroyer would be easy meat for a Star Destroyer, Battlestar or Basestar(even Kirk's Enterprise would give it a kicking) the Starfury looks like it could take any starfighter those shows could throw at it. :wtf: :D

One thing I've always found strange about the Starfury is that the Pilot appears to fly the thing standing up! :eek: That must be wierd for the pilot. :)
BRG

Even out the weapons suite, and it would take most other sci-fi fighters easily; add Star Wars/Star Trek-style shields, and it will take any of them, hands down. There's a lot to be said for flying forward, while facing the enemy behind you :devil:

The standing up thing was changed about Season 3, IIRC, when they intro'd the newest Starfury's, following the EA attack on B5. Thinking about it, while it might have made things a little easier for pilot orientation, it may have caused some issues in space combat, as the seated position gives blood the chance to pool.

Blood pool = blackout :( I think they did it with the new models, as they are intended for atmospheric fighting, where the older Starfury's re not.

[Damocles]

Why am I empty and fadeing...
I just typed out a long answer, then deleted it. Its a lot of personal stuff, and some stuff from another board. Lets just say, dont trust anyone, cus you never know who your friends are, and how fast someone can turn on you. And the sick part is, you dont even have to do anything wrong.
But thats my problem, and my personal life, and has nothing to do with BSG or this thread or anything of interest to anyone but myself, and the people who I thought were my friends.
I might be on a bit less from now on, maybe not on at all anymore, Im not sure. Some of the people involved also go to more than one board, and Im not sure that I want to deal with them again. Besides, its not like I really had anything of value to say here anyhow.

I hope that you all are able to do and become everything you desire, and all your dreams come true, what dreams may come...

God bless

tabbi

Tabbi

If you read this; pay attention, please?.
1. You are a person who is special to Colonioal Fleets. I support your decision to outlast the trolls
2. Treachery is as human as kindness. It comes with the animal that is within man.
3. The evil that is in man is 1%. That is something of an absolute measurement based on psychological profile polling and the prison population to be sure, but as Spock said; "Wanting is often not the same as having. It is illogical, none the less it is true." The good news is that man is 99% good.
4. You have the right to be who you are and nobody has the right to constrain you. NOBODY.
5. You have far more friends than you know. :thumbsup:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

That said.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Which would win...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, Galactica or Emperial Star Destroyer?
Viper or Tie Fighter?
Colonial Warrior or Mobile Infantry?
Cylon or Stormtrooper?
Basestar or Deathstar?
Starbuck or Luke?
Apollo or Han Solo?
Sheba or Lea?
Viper or Starfury?
Garibaldi or Boomer?
Athena or Carmen?

tabbi

I won't bore you with the physics. Nothing short of "The Culture" has a chance of meeting George Lucas' Galactic Empire headon on equal terms technologically in terms of mass and numbers based on screen evidence.

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue193/excess.html

The ISD can eat the "Alligator" for lunch in a gunfight.

The Viper is technologically superior to a TIE as to armament and maneuverability. The Tie seems to be comparable in delta vee. Both are inferior to a Fury in firepower. Screen evidence. Six Furies utterly destroyed a Centauri Vorchan-a ship that was fifty times the size of the Millenium Falcon which was able to swat four TIE fighters away as insignificant pests. TIE fighter gunfire did negligible damage to the Falcon as the fighters sought to harass. The Raider and the Viper both show the ability to damage severely armored gun emplacements on enemy capital ships. An Earth Alliance Starfury in strafing run after strafing run has shown it destroys-not damages, but destroys enemy hardpoints on Narn, Centauri, Streib, even Drakh and Third Space aliens' ships. The lowly Thunderbolt Starfury even splashed Vorlon fighters at Corianna Six. The aliens of B-5 weren't frightened of Human fire control systems and stardrives, but they were terrified of Human energy weapons power. To quote Ambassador Molari, "Nice Shark. Pretty Shark." The humans had sharp teeth!

So in this equation Fury>Viper>Raider>TIE.

Mobile Infantry(book version) will clean everybody's clocks. Next comes Colonial Warriors, then GROPOS, then the Cylon Centurions, with the poor stormtroopers bringing up the rear just in front of the movie MI. Palpatines' grunts have some of the sorriest land attack and air support technology I've ever seen on film for such a formidable space empire. Given that Lucas knows nothing about science or technology and that he has spoo for brains when it comes to depicting ground assaults of which his terror empire is truly capable; if the Imperial army lived up to the on screen capabilities of the Imperial navy then idiocies like walking tanks wouldn't be seen.

Still, given the feeble Imperial hand weapons and clumsy vehicles, the stormies do all right en masse. Anything below a battalion, though, and Cuba would beat those bozos mano a mano. Cylons would point at stormies and laugh.

Deathstar puts out 1*10^48joules per shot. That is what you need to blow up the Earth. Put into real terms that is the equivalent of throwing a 250 kilometer iron ball at earth at 97% c. That is the one datum point that puts the Galactic Empire into its own league. Nobody else on screen outside of LEXX comes close.

Starbuck or Luke?

Starbuck. It takes brains to be a Colonial Warrior. And it takes brains to defeat a Jedi. Luke has demonstrated on film that he isn't too bright. Give this one to Starbuck.

Apollo or Han Solo?
Apollo outdrew and outshot a Cylon. Might not seem like much, but as earlier noted- a Colonial blaster pierced Cylon armor while the damage done by Han's weapon shot took off the top of Greedo's body. The energy in the one case is about 10,000 joules. The energy in the other case is about equal to a shot gun blast or about 6000 joules. Apollo has a better fast draw and a better eye as seen on screen. Give this one to the Colonial.

Sheba or Leia? Sheba-no contest. Leia is a force sensitive-i.e. braindead. Sheba has brains, training, and brawn on the "princess".

Viper or Fury? Fury. Colonials are good, but Earth Alliance pilot training is better as is the fighter weaponry.(See above.)

Garibaldi or Boomer? Garibaldi trusts too much. I might give this one to Boomer, though Garibaldi is the better soldier.

Athena or Carmen? It depends. Athena is the better staff officer and hence is the smarter of the two. She also seems tougher in the rationale department. As long as it isn't a fight/fight but a comparison of ability? Athena.

:salute:

[Tabitha]

Ok, this has really been fun, lets see what else we can do...

Who would win...

Deep Space Nine or Babylon 5?
Jedi or PsyCorp? (B5)
Lexx or Deathstar?
Darth Vader or Adama (remember, Adama had telekinetic ability)
R2D2 or Muffit?
Aliens or Bugs? (From Starship Troopers movie)
Colonial Marines (Aliens) or Colonial Warriors?
Wookie or Borellian Nomen?
Firefly or Millinium Falcon?
Boxie or Annakin? (First movie)
Baltar or Palpadine?
Starfleet Security guys or Council of 12 security guys? (The blue suits)
Terminators or Aliens?
and finally...
RDM or Jarjar Binks?

tabbi

[gmd3d]

Deep Space Nine or Babylon 5?..... (DS9 Over Babylon)
Jedi or PsyCorp? (B5) .... Jedi
Lexx or Deathstar? .... Don't know never seen Lexx
Darth Vader or Adama (remember, Adama had telekinetic ability) ....Darth Vader
R2D2 or Muffit? .... R2D2
Aliens or Bugs? (From Starship Troopers movie) ... bugs
Colonial Marines (Aliens) or Colonial Warriors? .... Colonials
Wookie or Borellian Nomen? no contest Wookies
Firefly or Millinium Falcon? don't know but I like the FALCON more
Boxie or Annakin? (First movie).... Boxey
Baltar or Palpadine?.....palps
Starfleet Security guys or Council of 12 security guys? (The blue suits) ...Star fleet
Terminators or Aliens? .... Terminator..
and finally...
RDM or Jarjar Binks? ......Jarjar binks

[WarMachine]

That said.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Which would win...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Viper is technologically superior to a TIE as to armament and maneuverability. The Tie seems to be comparable in delta vee. Both are inferior to a Fury in firepower. Screen evidence. Six Furies utterly destroyed a Centauri Vorchan-a ship that was fifty times the size of the Millenium Falcon which was able to swat four TIE fighters away as insignificant pests. TIE fighter gunfire did negligible damage to the Falcon as the fighters sought to harass. The Raider and the Viper both show the ability to damage severely armored gun emplacements on enemy capital ships. An Earth Alliance Starfury in strafing run after strafing run has shown it destroys-not damages, but destroys enemy hardpoints on Narn, Centauri, Streib, even Drakh and Third Space aliens' ships. The lowly Thunderbolt Starfury even splashed Vorlon fighters at Corianna Six. The aliens of B-5 weren't frightened of Human fire control systems and stardrives, but they were terrified of Human energy weapons power. To quote Ambassador Molari, "Nice Shark. Pretty Shark." The humans had sharp teeth!

So in this equation Fury>Viper>Raider>TIE.

Seeing as I only have B5 Season 1(on VHS :( ), I won't dispute your ref's, but it's important to remember that the TIEs weren't trying to destroy the Falcon in ANH, and in TESB, the pilots had other things to worry about in the asteroid belt.

Interesting point on the weapons, tho'.....The demonstrated difference between the Empire ship's firepower and the Republics would be an interesting comparison...


Mobile Infantry(book version) will clean everybody's clocks. Next comes Colonial Warriors, then GROPOS, then the Cylon Centurions, with the poor stormtroopers bringing up the rear just in front of the movie MI. Palpatines' grunts have some of the sorriest land attack and air support technology I've ever seen on film for such a formidable space empire. Given that Lucas knows nothing about science or technology and that he has spoo for brains when it comes to depicting ground assaults of which his terror empire is truly capable; if the Imperial army lived up to the on screen capabilities of the Imperial navy then idiocies like walking tanks wouldn't be seen.
:salute:

Okay, I'll grant you the walking tanks idiocy :D

My breakdown:

Book-MI>Colonial Warriors/Clone Troopers>GROPOS>Cylon Centurion/Stormtrooper>>Movie-MI/Sandmen>Federation Security

[WarMachine]

Who would win...

Deep Space Nine or Babylon 5?
B5, all the way -- the Fed-Rats are still the Fed-rats

Jedi or PsyCorp? (B5)
Jedi -- They've been at it a lot longer

Lexx or Deathstar?
I haven't seen LEXX, So I have no reference

Darth Vader or Adama (remember, Adama had telekinetic ability)
Vader, all the way -- Adama was able to move a chess piece - Vader was casually tossing large peices of equipment around

R2D2 or Muffit?
R2D2, hands down ;)

Aliens or Bugs? (From Starship Troopers movie)
Aliens -- waaaaaay scarier, and far more lethal :eek:

Colonial Marines (Aliens) or Colonial Warriors?
In ground combat? I'd give this one to the USCM, only because they are a lot more psycho when the shooting starts...

Wookie or Borellian Nomen?
Wookie -- Nomen have laser bola's....Wookies rip your limbs off if they miss with the bow

Firefly or Millinium Falcon?
In a fight - the Falcon...It's the only one with weapons
In coolness - Firefly

Boxie or Annakin? (First movie)
Boxey

Baltar or Palpadine?
"LONG LIVE THE EMPEROR!"

Starfleet Security guys or Council of 12 security guys? (The blue suits)
Black-suits -- they sidearms are better designed, and they have a more aggressive attitude

Terminators or Aliens?
Ouch -- Draw

RDM or Jarjar Binks?
*nuke*

[LadyImmortal]

Deep Space Nine or Babylon 5? Hmm... Bab 5 I think... though it might be a close fight - it depends - does Sisko still have access to the Prophets? If he does, then DS9 will win...

Jedi or PsyCorp? (B5) Jedi, dudette... totally. The Jedi could make mixed monkey meat of the Psicorp!

Lexx or Deathstar? Not sure what Lexx can do but I'd still have to go Deathstar...

Darth Vader or Adama (remember, Adama had telekinetic ability) - Much as I love Adama? Darth... (unless Adama has a blaster and a sneak attack handy and Vader is seriously distracted...)

R2D2 or Muffit? Gotta go droid. The droid has all kinds of little zappy tools - the mutt doesn't...

Aliens or Bugs? (From Starship Troopers movie) ::shivers:: Aliens!

Colonial Marines (Aliens) or Colonial Warriors? - Marines - just cause of fighting style...

Wookie or Borellian Nomen? Me say Wookie rend Nomen limb-from-limb... who needs fancy boom boom or owie sticks?

Firefly or Millinium Falcon? In a fight the Falcon - especially with Han at the wheel (though I think he and Mal might get along, lol). I think the Firefly is a cooler ship though - very awesome! And Han would be drooling over all that cargo space!

Boxie or Annakin? (First movie) Boxey! Anakin = blech!

Baltar or Palpadine? Me say Palpatine with the powers is gonna make insta-gravy outta Baltar...

Starfleet Security guys or Council of 12 security guys? (The blue suits) No clue - but probably the Star Trek guys... (The Council of 12 security guys are dumber than bricks)

Terminators or Aliens? Uhm... whichever one wins this one I wanna be on the other side of the galaxy, please!

and finally...

RDM or Jarjar Binks?
NO NO NO... bad... both bad... evil... horrible, to awful to contemplate.
I vote for the incinerator - for both!

[Damocles]

Ok, this has really been fun, lets see what else we can do...

Who would win...

Deep Space Nine or Babylon 5?
Jedi or PsyCorp? (B5)
Lexx or Deathstar?
Darth Vader or Adama (remember, Adama had telekinetic ability)
R2D2 or Muffit?
Aliens or Bugs? (From Starship Troopers movie)
Colonial Marines (Aliens) or Colonial Warriors?
Wookie or Borellian Nomen?
Firefly or Millinium Falcon?
Boxie or Annakin? (First movie)
Baltar or Palpadine?
Starfleet Security guys or Council of 12 security guys? (The blue suits)
Terminators or Aliens?
and finally...
RDM or Jarjar Binks?

tabbi

Feds DS(ZERO) versus Earth Alliance B5? Goodbye Captain Psycho.

Jedi versus Psycorps? Bester took on Shadows and won. Darth despite his formidable reputation had his hands full with a partially trained boy. Still Jedi.

Lexx or Deathstar?

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

LEXX most certainly! Smaller ship than the Death Star. Eats planets every other episode. Has equivalent energy discharge when it blows apart planets(1*10^48 joules) and it eats everything in sight.

Darth Vader or Adama? Adama! Jedi/Sith are stupid. Adama would talk Vader into a swan dive into the Death Star reactor after Baltar talks Vader into tossing Palpie over the rail!

R2D2 or Muffit? R2D2.

Aliens or Bugs? (From Starship Troopers movie) Aliens.

Colonial Marines (Aliens) or Colonial Warriors? Colonial warriors are tough and they have good side arms. Colonial Marine leadership was terrible. Those fools once they got their buts kicked should have sabotaged the terraforming machinery to poison the planet and run for it . Colonial warriors(GOIPZ) have much more sense and are mission oriented. Give this one to Apollo and crowd..

Wookie or Borellian Nomen? Wookie. It took this to stop Chewie;

http://media.nasaexplores.com/01-074/earth_impact.gif

Firefly or Millinium Falcon? Firefly if choosing ships, Han Solo if choosing smugglers.

Boxie or Annakin?(movie whiner version) Boxie.

Baltar or Palpatine? Baltar of course! Baltar would talk Vader into tossing Palpie into the Death Star reactor. Remember the rule, Jedi/Sith once they become force dependent stop thinking and act stupidly.

Starfleet Security guys or Council of 12 security guys? (The blue suits) Red shirts die. The blue shirts may be dumber than Jedi, but they tend to survive their mistakes.

Terminators or Aliens? Aliens. Those monsters were tough enough to scare RIPLEY! Terminators are pussycats.

RDM or Jar Jar Binks? I dislike that frog, but I really hate Jar Jar too. Does one of them have to survive?

Cheers; :salute:

[Tabitha]

You guys crack me up!

tabbi

[LadyImmortal]

BTW - RDM or JarJar Binks?

RDM would 'reimagine' JarJar as a female whatever he is... She would thereby stupidly get involved with Senator Palpatine and, when he got bored with her, tossed over the side of some tower on Coruscant...

After that, George Lucas would sue RDM for everything he was worth - thereby collecting about 20 cents and RDM would go into hiding in disgrace.

Occasionally a fan boy would leak a message that tells us that RDM is living as a hermit and is heard to occasionally cry out "But I'm a genious!"

[Sept17th]

Ok, Galactica or Emperial Star Destroyer?
Viper or Tie Fighter?

Wanna really know? http://savefile.com/files.php?fid=5457394 click download on the right.

[3DMaster]

Ok, Galactica or Emperial Star Destroyer?
Viper or Tie Fighter?
Colonial Warrior or Mobile Infantry?
Cylon or Stormtrooper?
Basestar or Deathstar?
Starbuck or Luke?
Apollo or Han Solo?
Sheba or Lea?
Viper or Starfury?
Garibaldi or Boomer?
Athena or Carmen?

tabbi

1. Star Destroyer - sorry for the old bird Galactica, but I've got to go with the SD. It's just a bit meaner, not to mention has energy shielding.

2. Tie Fighter - again the shielding

3. Colonial Warrior, definitely, come on.

4. Cylon - they're just a bit more durable, and their targeting is better.

5. Deathstar (come on!)

6. Starbuck!! (But isn't the comparison's flipped wrong: SB/Hs, and A/LS?)

7. Apollo

8. Sheba - she's just tougher. Sheba wouldn't be lounging around in a prision, she'd be figuring a way out.

9. Viper, easily.

10. Garibaldi - he's one mean drunk SOB.

11. Athena

[3DMaster]

1. Deep Space Nine or Babylon 5? Deep Space Nine, easily. B5 will never know what hit them.

2. Jedi or PsyCorp? (B5) - See yah, psy, the Jedi for the slice and dice

3. Lexx or Deathstar? Lexx - heh, heh.

4. Darth Vader or Adama (remember, Adama had telekinetic ability) - Ah, Adama is great, but no. Darth can stop blasters and has that nifty sword.

4. R2D2 or Muffit? - R2D2

5. Aliens or Bugs? (From Starship Troopers movie) - Aliens, they'd just breed in the bugs.

6. Colonial Marines (Aliens) or Colonial Warriors? Colonial Warriors.

7. Wookie or Borellian Nomen? Wookie.

8. Firefly or Millinium Falcon? The falcon, easily.

9. Boxie or Annakin? (First movie) - Boxie!

10. Baltar or Palpadine? - Goodby Baltar, you've finally met your match.

11. Starfleet Security guys or Council of 12 security guys? (The blue suits) - Starfleet.

12. Terminators or Aliens? - Terminators, Aliens can't breed in terminators, and even if they could, still wouldn't slow a terminator down.
and finally...

13. RDM or Jarjar Binks? Mutual annihilation!

[warhammerdriver]

idiocies like walking tanks wouldn't be seen.

Athena is the better staff officer and hence is the smarter of the two.


But I LIKE my walking tank! (look left)

Just because Athena may be the better staff officer does not necessarily make her smarter. After all, she's on her father's staff. Good staff officers live to make their superiors happy. Smart staff officers get promoted and have staffs of thier own. If Athena can't maker her father happy, there's a real problem.

[BRG]

Just wondering, how do you think Captain Sheridan's Whitestar would do in battle against a Battlestar or Star Destroyer?

It looks quite a bit smaller than a Battlestar or Star Destroyer, but it fared well against the Shadows big ships, and it has the manouverability of a fighter.

Would it stand a chance, or is it out of its league against the Big 2? :D
BRG

[Damocles]

Originally posted by warhammerdriver

But I LIKE my walking tank! (look left)

Just because Athena may be the better staff officer does not necessarily make her smarter. After all, she's on her father's staff. Good staff officers live to make their superiors happy. Smart staff officers get promoted and have staffs of thier own. If Athena can't maker her father happy, there's a real problem.

If you are in an AFV you have three things you are trying to do three things

1. Be as armored as possible.
2. Be as fast as possible.
3. Carry the biggest gun you can.

A minimum surface area for the armor package is derigeur.
You can float on air faster or roll faster than you can walk.
A low squat platform is more stable than the walking monstrosity that the Stormies use on Yavin.

Think of it this way;

http://senior.billings.k12.mt.us/files/sw-dos/ATAT.GIF

http://198.144.2.125/3DGraphics/Full/mechs.jpg

http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyReco/europe/Angleterre/vehicules_lourds/Challenger2/Challenger_2_Main_Battle_Tank_Iraq_War_UK_British_09.jpg

Now what do you want to use?

As to Athena? She's very young isn't she? She would be a captain or a company grade officer by my reckoning. To be so young and staffed; says she must have something on the ball if her fellow Colonial warriors don't resent her presence(nepotism) on Adama's staff.

Cheers; :thumbsup:

[3DMaster]

If you are in an AFV you have three things you are trying to do three things

1. Be as armored as possible.
2. Be as fast as possible.
3. Carry the biggest gun you can.

A minimum surface area for the armor package is derigeur.
You can float on air faster or roll faster than you can walk.
A low squat platform is more stable than the walking monstrosity that the Stormies use on Yavin.

Think of it this way;

Now what do you want to use?


The second one. Booster rockets to alow for flight and very, very high jumps. high maneuverablitity and multiple angle attacks, the ability to crouch and maneuver almost as well as a human, if not better once you get into jumps and areal rolls/somersaults?

Number 3 isn't going to fair well, and if the firepower is powerful enough, number 1 wouldn't even know what hit them.

[WarMachine]

The second one. Booster rockets to alow for flight and very, very high jumps. high maneuverablitity and multiple angle attacks, the ability to crouch and maneuver almost as well as a human, if not better once you get into jumps and areal rolls/somersaults?

Number 3 isn't going to fair well, and if the firepower is powerful enough, number 1 wouldn't even know what hit them.

Sorry, gotta speak up here, as a long-time B-Tech gamer and fmr active-duty Marine. Damocles has hit it on the head: #3 wins every time over #2(#1 is a complete toss-up, due to wild differences in tecnology). Here's why:

In any "match-up" like this, you have to establish a baseline to work from. The ebst thing I've seen online in this regard is here: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Ground/index.html

Apply these principles to "B-Tech/Mechwarrior vs The Real World", and every player in the B-Tech 'verse - including the Star League and the Clans - is in a LOT of trouble if placed against any "real" army with a technology and experience base of c.1945-2005.

Even given jump jets, mechs don't generally move faster than 100kph/62mph, and that only over extremely flat terrain, flat-out running, most mil-spec vehicles at least equal and usually exceed the best a mech can do.

Mech's are also a whole lot taller, and crouching doesn't lower their sillouette much. Also, to the best of my knowledge, there are no projectile weapons in B-Tech more sophisticated than Gauss cannon, and those aren't that much of an advantage.

Even though a late-20th/early-21st Century army doesn't posses destructive energy weapons at the level of B-Tech, all of their projectile weapons can be easily compared:

Infantry small arms: Although usual engagement ranges are c.-100m, B-Tech infantry generally does not engage outside that range.

Artillery: In B-Tech, it's non-existant; Long-Toms and LRM racks don't count; if you read it carefully, just about every single weapon in B-Tech has a range of under 1000m.

In comparison, current armies deploy thousands of artillery pieces that B-Tech would classify as AC-20+, and the vast majority of them fire at targets between 8000 and 15000m distant. Even if B-Tech RoF's are faster, they have no way of aiming farther than Line of Sight.

The problem is even worse with rocket artillery. Even a currently-40-yrd-old system like the Russian BM21 can unload 40 122mm rockets to a range of c.21000m in under 30 seconds...and a battalion of BM21s is a LOT cheaper than a mech battalion....

...And yes, Mechs are cooler, but that isn't the point :D

[Damocles]

Just wondering, how do you think Captain Sheridan's Whitestar would do in battle against a Battlestar or Star Destroyer?

It looks quite a bit smaller than a Battlestar or Star Destroyer, but it fared well against the Shadows big ships, and it has the manouverability of a fighter.

Would it stand a chance, or is it out of its league against the Big 2? :D
BRG

The Whitestar is incredibly fast. It dove from Ganymede into Jupiter's atmosphere with a Shadow Battlecrab in hot pursuit in thirty eight seconds flat and this was seen in one sequence in real time on film!

That is 27,000kps or 0.9% of c. from a practical standing start to a practical standing stop averaged velocity!

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=6107

"Matters of Honor", the Whitestar pulled a Bonehead and destroys a Shadow Battlecrab.

The Whitestar was able to clear the blast and survive, but she was knocked around a bit. The Shadow vessel, next to the jump gate, was probably killed in the blast. At the very least, it was too damaged to function, or else it wouldn't kept going after the Whitestar.

Whitestar acceleration can be gauged by the scene from "Messages from Earth", where she flew from Ganymede to Jupiter in 38 seconds.

d = (a * t^2 ) / 2

d = 1.07 million km, or 1,070,000,000 *meters*.
t = 38 seconds.

1,070,000,000 = a * 722
a = 1481994.45983 meters/sec/sec

That's also 1481.9944 kilometers/sec/sec

Now, in the scene from "Matters of Honor", the Whitestar drops the jump vortex and then tries to accelerate clear. The time from when the Whitestar exited the jump point to the time when the leading edge of the blast wave hit her, is 15 seconds.

Again, using the above equation, we get:

d = (1481.9944 * 15^2) / 2
d = 166724.376731 kilometers

Now, we know that Babylon 5 survived a 500 GT bomb going off 1000 kilometers away. The flux intensity from that was 166.555 MJ/meter^2. The Whitestar's armor, at a minimum, would be equal to Babylon 5's WINDOWS, I should think. If anything, it would be stronger.

We know the Whitestar survived, but was tossed around pretty violently, so at a minimum she absorbed a similar flux intensity of 166.555 MJ/meter^2.

<EDIT>
This is really just an assumption. However, I feel it's a pretty reasonable and logical assumption. The Whitestar has Vorlon bio-armor and defense systems, and Babylon 5 is not only an EA station, it is a civilian station and wasn't designed to fight anything stronger than a group of fighters. Even after her defense grid was upgraded in "GROPOS" prior to "A Day in the Strife", her hull didn't receive any treatment to strengthen the hull or add armor.

However, like I said below, we have no idea how much a Whitestar masses, and they may in fact not mass very much, considering how fighter weapons were able to shove them off-axis slightly. (Although these were Thunderbolts from the Shadow Omegas, with unknown modifications made. We do know that the Thunderbolts were almost able to keep up with the Whitestars, implying acceleration beyond what normal EA fighters were capable of at that time.)
</EDIT>

============================================================

Area of a Sphere = 4 * pi * r^2

Whitestar's distance from blast = 166724.376731 km, so this is the radius from the blast.

Area of the blast sphere when it hit the Whitestar:

A = 4 * pi * 166724.376731^2
A = 349307627603 km^2

Since 1000 meters = 1 km, the above is also:
3.493E17 meters^2.

Now we take the flux intensity of 166.555 MJ/meters^2 and multiply by the above figure that gives the total area of the sphere. This gives us the total energy of the blast wave's outter edge.

Total Area = 3.493E17 meters^2
Flux Intensity = MJ/meter^2 = 166.555

Total Energy = (Total Area) * (Flux Intensity)
Total Energy = 5.81789319154E19 MJ

-or-
5.81789319154E16 GJ

-or-
5.81789319154E13 TJ

Now, since: 4186 TJ = 1 MT

We divide the above by 4186 and we get....
13898454829.3 MT

-or-
13898454.8293 GT

-or-
13898.4548293 TT

At a distance of 166,724.376731 kilometers, to achieve a flux intensity high enough to threaten the Whitestar at all, the blast would've had to have been 13898.454 TT.

The Shadow vessel was pretty damn close to this blast, and would've absorbed a considerable amount of damage... so it's understandable that it died. =)

Keeping in mind that jump gate technology is within what the Younger Races can do, this is damned impressive for the amount of power stored in a jump gate. At the very least, this should demonstrate just how much power can be harnessed from hyperspace, and supports the notion that the First Ones can generate GT-level firepower and channel it into their weapons systems.

And a White Star was designed to fight Shadow Batltecrabs.

Given that above; though, the ISD would tear a Whitestar apart assuming the ISD turbolasers could track fast enough.

A battlestar on the other hand would be in a lot of trouble.

Interesting thing about the Thunderbolt Starfury, isn't it? Powerful enough to be a threat to a White Star? :D

[martok2112]

I would have to say that the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator fired from the forward cannon of the Martian Maggot would effectively deal with any threat. :D

[3DMaster]

Sorry, gotta speak up here, as a long-time B-Tech gamer and fmr active-duty Marine. Damocles has hit it on the head: #3 wins every time over #2(#1 is a complete toss-up, due to wild differences in tecnology). Here's why:

In any "match-up" like this, you have to establish a baseline to work from. The ebst thing I've seen online in this regard is here:

Uh, sorry, but when I see a mech like that, I don't think MechWarrior/Battletech, I think the best our present technology and a bit more could make such things; the ability to avoid attacks by jumping is a major advantage if you can maneuver in the air while firing back while having the same range and firing speed as the best of our tracked tanks. And if I don't think that: I think Gundam Wing. They're as much aerial combat than pure tanks - they're basically all terrain including space combat vehicles.

[gmd3d]

I was just thinking of that myself martok.. good catch

[3DMaster]

Uh...

That Babylon 5 figure handling a 500 GT blast; exactly where do they get that? Because I don't believe that for a moment. Is Babylon 5, built by humans, tougher or less tough than the best Minbari Sharlin, like say the Black Star?

[WarMachine]

Uh, sorry, but when I see a mech like that, I don't think MechWarrior/Battletech, I think the best our present technology and a bit more could make such things; the ability to avoid attacks by jumping is a major advantage if you can maneuver in the air while firing back while having the same range and firing speed as the best of our tracked tanks. And if I don't think that: I think Gundam Wing. They're as much aerial combat than pure tanks - they're basically all terrain including space combat vehicles.

????"...mech like that.."? I don't know enough about Gundam to consider it; I was talking strictly about the Warhammer/MadCat pic above the tank, and about the cannon MechWarrior/Battletech universe....

[3DMaster]

????"...mech like that.."? I don't know enough about Gundam to consider it; I was talking strictly about the Warhammer/MadCat pic above the tank, and about the cannon MechWarrior/Battletech universe....

The exploding firing mechs universe? :D

I don't know anything about that universe. When I see a mech, I think about mechs I'm familiar with, and it's obvious from your description of those the mechs I'm familiar with would turn MechWarrior/Battletech mechs to shrap metal without any effort.

[WarMachine]

The exploding firing mechs universe? :D

I don't know anything about that universe. When I see a mech, I think about mechs I'm familiar with, and it's obvious from your description of those the mechs I'm familiar with would turn MechWarrior/Battletech mechs to shrap metal without any effort.

...Ahhhh, my mistake :rolleyes: If Gundam is anything like Robotech(either version :D ) then that definately goes into the realm of "all bets are off"... ;)

[Damocles]

Uh, sorry, but when I see a mech like that, I don't think MechWarrior/Battletech, I think the best our present technology and a bit more could make such things; the ability to avoid attacks by jumping is a major advantage if you can maneuver in the air while firing back while having the same range and firing speed as the best of our tracked tanks. And if I don't think that: I think Gundam Wing. They're as much aerial combat than pure tanks - they're basically all terrain including space combat vehicles.

Baseline

http://www.military.cz/usa/armour/tanks/m1_abrams/m1a2_size.gif

M1 tank
Length hull -8 meters
Height -2.5 meters
Width -3.7 meters
L*H*W=74 cubic meters*80%(space of the gross calculated cube actually occupied by the structure=60. 0 meters cubed.)

Mass 72,000 kg/60 cubic meters= 1200kg per meter cubed.



Roughly speaking you get a relative mass density of 1200 kg per cubic meter of vehicle!

Now take your track footprint(estimated)

Length -3.5 meters
Width -0.5 meters
Track footprint= 1.75 sq. meters per track or 3,5 sq. meters for both tracks.
72,000kg/3.5 sq. meter
Ground pressure= 19,200 kg per sq. meter or 1.92 kg per sq. centimeter!

1. Take your battle mech(2) and calculate ground pressure if you carried a similar mass package.

http://198.144.2.125/3DGraphics/Full/mechs.jpg

Dimensions estimated
Height -25 meters
Width -15 meters
depth -15 meters
L*W*H=5625 gross cubic meters*50%=2812.5 (actual cubic meters occupied by the machine)

Using M-1 cubic density of 1200 kg per cubic meter of machine volume?
2812.5 cubic meters of mech* 1200 Kg per cubic meter M-1 standard density equivalent=3,375,000 kilograms for the mech!

Now for the ground pressure.(Estimated)

Each foot is calculated to be 10 meters by 10 meters to the corners of the splay toes.

That is 100 sq. meters *50% actual coverage of the square by the observed splayed foot. =50 sq. meters per foot or 100 sq. meters for both feet.
3,375,000 kg/ 100 sq meter= 33,750 kg per sq. meter.
That is 3.375 kg per sq. centimeter.
Now before you say that isn't so much;

Average man= 70kg
Average footprint of man =300 sq centimeter
Two feet on ground = 600 sq. centimeters
Human ground pressure= 0.23 kg per sq. centimeter

Now the actual book-stated ground pressure of the Abrams is 2.03 kg per sq centimeter; so you can se how close my estimates are. It presses into the ground eight and half times times harder than a man, Now understand that this means the Abrams cannot go over ground that won't hold a man. It bogs down big time.

Your mech presses into the ground fouteen and a half times harder than a man or one and a half times harder than the tank.

Frontal area target to hit?

M 1 Tank
2.5 meters tall* 3.7 meters wide= 9.25 sq meters to hit.

Mech
25 meters tall* 15 neters wide(Add a correction of 60% spacing to accounrt for the surface area not covered by the Mech's frontal aspect in its presented surface as regards the total square frontage of width*height)= 225 sq.meters to hit.

25 meters tall means that the Mech is 75 feet+ TALL!

In my tank I will kill your mech before you ever see me from hull defilade.

As for using rocket boost? Where do you have the room on the Mech to put engines rated at 3.5 million newtons of thrust? You are trying to launch a 3,375 TON machine into the air!

Cheers; :thumbsup:

[Damocles]

Uh...

That Babylon 5 figure handling a 500 GT blast; exactly where do they get that? Because I don't believe that for a moment. Is Babylon 5, built by humans, tougher or less tough than the best Minbari Sharlin, like say the Black Star?

The 500 gigaton figure was calculated using this;

http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/guide/047.html

Quoting JMS

Would the explosion have taken out a planet?
No, it probably couldn't take out a planet, though it'd sure disrupt all communications in and out for a long time, maybe throw up a dust curtain to bring down the temperature quite a bit. Certainly it'd debilitate the planet long enough for additional probes to be sent in. If one can do the job, one does the job; if more are required, more are sent.

To do what JMS descibes to a planet, you need to do this;

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/

Inputs:
Distance from Impact: 1.00 km = 0.62 miles
Projectile Diameter: 50000.00 m = 164000.00 ft = 31.05 miles
Projectile Density: 8000 kg/m3 (iron)
Impact Velocity: 900.00 km/s = 558.90 miles/s (Your chosen velocity is higher than the maximum for an object orbiting the sun)
Impact Angle: 1 degrees
Target Density: 2500 kg/m3
Target Type: Sedimentary Rock
Energy:
Energy before atmospheric entry: 2.12 x 1029 Joules = 5.07 x 10^13 MegaTons TNT(507 gigatons.)
The average interval between impacts of this size is longer than the Earth's age.
Such impacts could only occur during the accumulation of the Earth, between 4.5 and 4 billion years ago.
Major Global Changes:
The Earth is not strongly disturbed by the impact and loses negligible mass.
The impact does not make a noticeable change in the Earth's rotation period or the tilt of its axis.
The impact does not shift the Earth's orbit noticeably.
Crater Dimensions:
Transient Crater Diameter: 518 km = 321 miles
Transient Crater Depth: 183 km = 114 miles
Final Crater Diameter: 1170 km = 728 miles
Final Crater Depth: 2.48 km = 1.54 miles
The final crater is replaced by a large, circular melt province.
The volume of the target melted or vaporized is 3.28e+07 km3 = 7.87e+06 miles3
Melt volume = 1.81 times the crater volume
At this size, the crater forms in its own melt pool.
Ejecta:
What does this mean?
You are DEAD.
Your position was inside the transient crater and ejected upon impact

The 500 gigaton figure was stated offhand by Susan Ivanova when Sheridan and she discussed the possibility that the probe was a berserker in the episode just a few seconds before it blew.

Cheers; :salute:

[_No_Name_]

Uh...

That Babylon 5 figure handling a 500 GT blast; exactly where do they get that? Because I don't believe that for a moment. Is Babylon 5, built by humans, tougher or less tough than the best Minbari Sharlin, like say the Black Star?

In space, a nuclear explosion is going to be partitioned as


70% X Rays
0.2% Gamma Rays
1% Neutrons
3.8% Residual beta radiation
3.4% Residual gamma radiation
5.7% Neutrinos
16% Particulate kinetic energy


A nuclear bomb with a yield of 500 GT = 500000 KT * 4.19*10^12 J/KT = 2.10*10^18 J

Lets only consider the X-ray yield since 70% of the energy is there. As the X-ray ball expands it will remain a blackbody until thermodynamic equilibrium is broken. Lets assume that this happens in about 10 shakes (10^-7 seconds), which yields a radius of 30 m. The energy density of the "photon gas" is 1.8*10^13 J/m^3. From the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, we find that the blackbody temperature of the "photon gas" is 1.0 KeV (or 10^7 K--comparable to a stellar core). The average photon energy would then be 2.9 KeV. Thus, the X-ray spectrum will not be energetic enough to completely ionize high-Z material (Z = number of protons). We can conclude that conventional materials (iron, titanium, cobalt, etc) would work.

Since energy is conserved, we can apply the inverse square law to the bomb yield and determine the flux at 1000 km (=10^6 m):

F = 2.10*10^18 J / (4*pi*(10^6 m)^2 = 167 KJ/m^2

In X-Rays alone the ship will experience 117 KJ/m^2 with an average photon energy of 2.9 KeV.

The ships hull will have to absorb or reflect the 117 KJ/m^2 of energy. Lets assume it reflects light with 100% efficiency for all wavelengths. The momentum transferred to the target would be p = 2 U/c = 7.8*10^-4 kg m/(s m^2). That may not seem like a lot--until you consider that everything is happening on the order of shakes (10^-8 seconds). Using 10 shakes, the reflected pulse will generate a pressure of 7800 N/m^2 (1.1 psi). This is a manageable amount of pressure.

Lets consider the case where the hull absorbs 100% of all the energy. The specific heat of iron is approximately 448 J/(kg*K), thus a 1 kg piece of iron with a surface area of 1 m^2 will experience a temperature increase of 260 K. Thus, the hull is unlikely to melt.

Since radiative cooling is much less effective than conduction and convection, the heat will be dumped into the interior of the ship. Depending on the surface area and the mass of the ship, heat may be the biggest problem.

Bottom line, a 500 GT nuclear explosion at 1000 km is not very dangerous to most science fiction spacecraft. The occupants, on the other hand, might get cooked--either from the penetrating X-rays or from the heat generated by hull heating. At around 500 km, the 500 GT becomes significantly more deadly since it can heat the hull up to 1000 K per square meter. Around 40 - 80 kilometers the ship is in danger of being crushed flat from the X-rays.

[3DMaster]

Well, that 1,000 kilomter figure might help some. Fact is though, the Sharlin Black Star was severely damaged by a 2 MT explosion and destroyed completely by the second one, that was possibly a little nearer to it. These were mounted on an asteroid and remotely detonated without ever being directly on the ship. B5 ships are pretty weak.

[Damocles]

http://p072.ezboard.com/ftigerclawsscifidebateforumfrm14.showMessage?topicID=88.topic

(Credit the work to the gentleman; Tigerclaw.D.)

Summary;
He argues that the two megaton warhead transmitted an electro-magnetic pulse into an active Sharlin particle beam cannon that was about to fire. This shrted out the weapon and causd it's capacitor to burst, setting off a cascade effect through the power grid, that eventually destroyed the Minbari ship's micro-hypermass powerplant containment field. That was what destroyed the Blackstar in a "blackhole" evaporation event. Sheridan was supposed to have made an astute guess about the way Minbari powered their ships and exploited what he saw as a design weakness.

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/minbari/2megbombs.ram

I do not agree with this conclusion.

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/minbari/warcruiser.html

From what I know about atomic weapons in a vacuum, the major effects you can expect from a bomb are heat flash within the radius of the fireball and a feeble electrical charge impingement transmitted by the photons and the flung out charged particles of the bomb. Direct kinetic shock you need a working fluid/mass-either the bomb case or an atmosphere. Heat loading not immediately subject to the inverse square law requires direct contact between the fireball and the object being heatloaded. My guess is that Sheridan had his ordnance personel aboard the Lexington sap some asteroids with his nuclear weapons as bursting charges. He used those asteroids as giant fragmentation grenades to destroy the Blackstar and her escorts.

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/quicktime/bstar.mov

From the video you can se the asteroid fragmentation and the signs of fragment strike damage to the Blackstars' starboard side. You will notice that in this short sequence the Blackstar apparently shifts aspect in POV from port to starboard? You will notice fires and holes on the Balckstar between burst one and burst two. Presumably a particle beam weapon exploded and blew off the fin. While weapon feedback damage probably explains the alnost sawed effect seen nn that Sharlin, I am at a loss to explain how a two megaton bomb's electromagnetic pulse is supposed to short out the capacitor to an 85,000 terawatt weapon. Impacts, though, could do that by simply shattering the weapon as it is ready to emit.

Some people call John Sheridan a one-trick pony.

For Sheridan uses much the same gimmick to hammer Shadow battlecrabs at Corianna Six.

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/shadows/warship.html

You can run the video backwards and forwards for yourself and see the asteroid fragments shred Shadow spitfire fighters and battlecrabs.

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/quicktime/bomb1.mov

Apart from the nickname he earned from these tactics of "Johnny Nuke'em", you can see that Sheridan used something he learned in battle that worked repeatedly to defeat enemies who outgunned him in the particle beam department.

Thus; my own pet theory is that Sheridan used nuclear weapon-seeded asteroids as grenades; to pepper his opponents with high speed asteroid fragments, to damage/destroy them before he closed and killed them with conventional ship weapons.

ADDENDUM; Did you notice the Lexington hiding behind the asteroid?

Cheers; :thumbsup:

[3DMaster]

Lots and lots of talk which comes down to nothing.

2 2MT nuclear weapons took out a Minbari Sharlin, it's that simple.

It fits perfectly with the way the whole B5 ships look, work, and what they lack. They're horrendously slow in comparison to for example ST ships. They're simply not very advanced, even the most advanced of the Younter Races seem rather pathetic.

[Damocles]

Lots and lots of talk which comes down to nothing.
2 2MT nuclear weapons took out a Minbari Sharlin, it's that simple.

It fits perfectly with the way the whole B5 ships look, work, and what they lack. They're horrendously slow in comparison to for example ST ships. They're simply not very advanced, even the most advanced of the Younter Races seem rather pathetic.

You better have some physics behind you; if you come out with fighting words. :rotf:

I also warn you that Berman Trek is a very touchy subject with me. :rolleyes:

I intend to demonstrate the error of your statement in a friendly way. :D

Do you know how to explain this?

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/calculators/firepowercalculator.htm

Those calculations are valid with the onscreen evidence assuming RHA steel. Those are low estimates.

Now you have brought up(yet again) the central question in B-5. Why do nuclear warheads kill spacecraft when there isn't sufficient direct x/uv/ir heating to accomplish the goal shown on screen.(especially based on what you expect in the real world).

I demonstrated by visual(video) evidence that the two occasions cited have a kinetic impactor explanation for ships destroyed(nuclear warhead sapped asteroids used as fragmentation grenades) Both times the ships were in the middle of an asteroid field; the frragments outflung showed velocities consistent with the necessary kinetic energies that you would require to destroy robustly armored and armed spacecraft such as Battlecrabs and Sharlins.

I warn you flatly that I can show you this again in another way, the Enterprise E ramming the Scimitar at low speed;

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/movies/clips/1807859445/1808450099/?http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/mf/frame?theme=minfo&lid=wmv-300-p.1146264-99262,rnv-100-p.1146260-99262,rnv-56-p.1146259-99262,rnv-300-p.1146261-99262,wmv-56-p.1146262-99262,wmv-100-p.1146263-99262&id=1807859445&f=1807859445&mspid=1808450099&type=c&a=0,15

showes a pathetically weak spacecraft.

Whereas from this site;

http://b5tech.com/science/misc/armor/index.html

using this video;

http://www.b5tech.com//movies/astrmove.asf

http://b5tech.com/movies/plasmaweaponeffectonminbariarmor.asf

I can show the shot up Lexington shrug off a low speed asteroid impact equivalent to the above Enterprise/Sciimitar collision in energies involved without a scratch!

Cheers; :salute:

[Tabitha]

So I guess Im still wondering why they dont shoot big drums of Einsteinium or some other equally rare and volitile and dense material at each other. After all, the mass of a fifty five gallon drum of some isotope that dense hitting a starship, while it can be made to not over penetrate, would have to release the energy of the mass in the only direction available, to the sides. That would create heat, light, and certainly compression. Maybe Im wrong, if so please correct me. But that being the case, the kinetic energy of a mass density isotope releasing a hypersonic level of energy in all directions, should be able to pop open a starship, built to keep its pressure in, but designed more to keep outside objects from penetrating, would not have the structural integrity to withstand the enormous amount of energy given off by a single kinetic missle. In fact, I dont believe anything man made could ever do so.
Thats just a guess.

tabbi

[3DMaster]

I don't care about most physics calculations done by people who are dead set on making some other show less.

I don't care much about Bermagga Trek either. I watch TNG/DS9 with a TOS filter, as well as a physics filter. Photon torpedoes carry matter and anti-matter and have several MT exposions? The SFX dudes messed up and we should be seeing massive fireballs every time.

Nemesis you can completely toss out the window; anything you get from that, I won't acknowledge. That was such a piece of horrendous tripe, continuity problems galore, not to mention plot holes the size of a star - it never happened. Must be Riker's holodeck Scenario or something, written by an incompetent writer. Notice at that impact the Scimitar is pretty much 100% operational, while the Enterprise is crippled like a beached whale. Shinzon as the Enteprise comes limping along orders 'maneuvering thrusters' (while it could fly circles around the Enterprise using everything it's got), there's the ridiculous collision (that defies pretty much all laws of physics) and only then, AFTER the collision he orders "FULL REVERSE!" :rolleyes: This tripe, never happened.

Those 2MT warheads produced a mighty big fireball, it's obvious the Sharlin was inside that fireball; got hit by it, and there it went: boom.

[Damocles]

So I guess Im still wondering why they dont shoot big drums of Einsteinium or some other equally rare and volitile and dense material at each other. After all, the mass of a fifty five gallon drum of some isotope that dense hitting a starship, while it can be made to not over penetrate, would have to release the energy of the mass in the only direction available, to the sides. That would create heat, light, and certainly compression. Maybe Im wrong, if so please correct me. But that being the case, the kinetic energy of a mass density isotope releasing a hypersonic level of energy in all directions, should be able to pop open a starship, built to keep its pressure in, but designed more to keep outside objects from penetrating, would not have the structural integrity to withstand the enormous amount of energy given off by a single kinetic missle. In fact, I dont believe anything man made could ever do so.
Thats just a guess.

tabbi

Tabbi;

Using mass drivers(cannons) to smash holes in things is so sensible; that it is the primary means we use in the real world to damage spacecraft(satellites).

So you are quite correct! :thumbsup:

You would probably use a hardened drum(shell) to punch into the hull before a time delay fuse detonates the warhead to rupture the spacecraft and use all the available energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor-piercing_shot_and_shell

Armor-piercing shot and shell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
An armour piercing shell is a type of ammunition designed to penetrate armour. In naval warfare and older anti-tank shells, the shell had to withstand the shock of punching through armour plate. Shells designed for this purpose had a greatly strengthened case with a specially hardened and shaped nose, and a much smaller bursting charge. Some smaller calibre AP shells had no bursting charge at all. Plain AP shell is now very rarely seen except in naval usage, and is not commonly used there.
(Rest of the article...D.)



Now to punch holes in armored hulls we would probably use high velocity rockets carrying these in bundles;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_round (http://)

Kinetic energy penetrator
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Kinetic energy round)
Jump to: navigation, search
A kinetic energy penetrator, long-rod penetrator, or armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) is a type of ammunition which, like a bullet, does not contain explosives, but uses kinetic energy to penetrate the target. The term is used for more powerful projectiles than ordinary bullets which have increased armour penetration capabilities due to:

being fired with a very high muzzle velocity
concentrating the force on a small impact area without having too small a mass
To produce very high speeds the ammunition is normally composed of a narrow penetrator surrounded by a sabot which expands the diameter to the full barrel width of the firing gun. This allows the pressure of the propellant gases to act on the full-size base and produce rapid acceleration of the round, which is lighter than a full metal round of the same diameter would be. Once the round leaves the barrel the sabot falls off, leaving the penetrator travelling at high speed and with a smaller cross-sectional area, which reduces aerodynamic drag during the flight to the target (see external ballistics and terminal ballistics). This technique was first used in anti-tank guns during World War 2; Germany developed sabots under the name "Treibspiegel".

KE-penetrators for modern tanks are commonly just 2-3 centimeters in diameter, and 50-60 centimeters long; as more modern penetrators are developed, their length tends to increase and the diameter to decrease. To maximize the amount of kinetic energy released on the target, the penetrator must be made of a dense material, such as tungsten or depleted uranium (DU). The hardness of the penetrator is of lesser importance. In fact, DU is not particularly hard. An advantage of DU is that it is pyrophoric: the fragments of the penetrator ignite on contact with air. Uranium rod is also self-sharpening on impact due to its adiabatic properties: so it doesn't "mushroom" like unjacketed tungsten does.
(Rest of the article....D.)


http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/ammunition/apfsds01.jpg

That is a modern antiarmor kinetic energy penetrator.

A modern anti-tank HVAPDS shot(sabot/bolt) can easily pierce up to a half meter of RHA steel. That is done with about 8-10 megajoules of kinetic energy.

The problem with kinetic energy penetrators whether shell or shot/bolt is that once you get to delta vees in the realm of 4000+ mps, the projectile smashes into fragments against a reasonably elastic RHA steel or ceramic plate that is as thick as the projectile is long. You get minor cratering/cracking in the plate and some scorch marks.

Beyond those delta vees you need to melt your way through armor using heatloading and guess what you use to do that?
(End of part 1)

[Damocles]

You can do this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_anti-tank

High explosive anti-tank
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
High explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds are made of an explosive shaped charge that uses the Neumann effect (a development of the Munroe effect) to create a very high-velocity jet of metal in a state of superplasticity that can punch through solid armor.

The jet moves at hypersonic speeds (up to 25 times the speed of sound) in solid material and therefore erodes exclusively in the contact area of jet and armor material. Spacing is critical, as the jet disintegrates and disperses after a relatively short distance, usually well under 2 metres. The jet material is formed by a cone of metal foil lining, usually copper, though tin foil was common during the Second World War.

The key to the effectiveness of a HEAT round is the diameter of the warhead. As the penetration continues through the armor, the width of the hole decreases leading to a characteristic "fist to finger" penetration, where the size of the eventual "finger" is based on the size of the original "fist". In general HEAT rounds can expect to penetrate armor of 150% to 250% of their width, although modern versions claim numbers as high as 700%.

HEAT rounds are less effective if they are spinning, the normal method for giving a shell accuracy. The centrifugal force disperses the jet, so the warhead design needs to be modified for use with rifled guns, or fired from smoothbore weapons. A further problem is that if the warhead is contained inside the barrel, then its diameter is restricted to the caliber of the gun. Increasing the caliber to allow a greater diameter makes the gun heavier. Recoilless rifles using lighter barrels and mounts firing HEAT rounds (e.g. the British WOMBAT (120 mm) or Swedish Carl Gustav (84mm)) have proven to be effective.

Where HEAT is used as the warhead for guided missiles, rifle grenades and spigot mortars, warhead size is not a limiting factor, as these are not contained within the firing weapon's barrel.

The problem with HEAT is that it's molten jet is easily defeated by explosive reactive panelling or void plate spacing or certain classified types of electric armors(electrics which also defeat the kinetic penetrators by snapping the bolt and causing it to tumble and shatter on impact.).

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

Particle beam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
A particle beam is an accelerated stream of atoms or subatomic particles (often moving at very near the speed of light) directed by magnets and focused by lenses.

Subatomic particles as electrons, positrons, and protons can be accelerated to high velocities and energies, usually expressed in terms of center-of-mass energy, by machines that impart energy to the particles in small stages or nudges, ultimately achieving in this way very high energy particle beams, measured in terms of billions and even trillions of electron volts. Thus, in terms of their scale, particles can be made to perform as powerful missiles for bombarding other particles in a target substance or for colliding with each other as they assume intersecting orbits.

A charged particle is drawn forward by a magnetic field with a charge the opposite of the particle (like charges repel one another, opposites attract); as the particle passes through a series of magnetic fields in sequence, each accelerates it until the charged particle is moving at a high rate of speed. A natural analogy to particle beams is lightning, where electrons flow from negatively charged clouds to positively charged clouds or the earth.

Particle Beams as Weapons
Though particle beams are perhaps most famously employed as weapon systems in Science Fiction (e.g. "phasers" in Star Trek), the U.S. Advanced Research Projects Agency (now called DARPA) started work on particle beam weapons as early as 1958 [1], two years before the first scientific demonstration of Lasers. The general idea of particle-beam weaponry is to hit a target object with a stream of accelerated particles moving at near the speed of light and therefore carrying tremendous kinetic energy; the particles transfer their kinetic energy to the atoms in the molecules of the target upon striking, much as a cue ball transfers its energy to the racked balls in billiards, thus exciting the target's atoms and superheating the target object in such a short time that it explodes. Currently, the materials for such weapons are "high-risk" and may not be developed for some time. [2]. Particle cannons are not likely to be used in a near future conflict as the power needed to projest such a highly powered beam surpasses the production capabilities of any standard battlefield powerplant. This beam weapon is undoubtedly also very hard not to notice; particles travelling near the speed of light are not usually seen on a battlefield. It may be possible to use particle beams as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (dubbed "Star Wars"), but the problem of a viable power source still stands, even more so in space. It may be possible in the future with possible fusion generators, but this technology is not expected to be perfected and be in mass use for several decades. If perfected this could be a new horizon in conventional weaponry, being easily as dangerous as any kinetic weapon, and effectively making any substance it comes into contact with an explosive. Particle weaons are often overlooked when compared to lasers, even though they have some advantages over their more well known counterpart. Because the particle beam is in fact millions of tiny projectiles, it transmits its kinetic energy to the atomic structure of the target making it difficult to protect a target from it. This obviously makes the weapon very destructive, and highly lethal to anyone it hits. However, it is easier to deflect a particle beam if one posseses powerful magnetic or electromagnetic fields, but at the sppeds the beam would travel, one cannot be sure how effective these countermeasures would be. Also, the atmosphere would reduce the beam strength very quickly, because the air molecules would slow down and scatter the particles. Only actual testing will prove how effective particle beams would really be for military applications.


I supply this to suggest that Glen Larsen knew exactly what he was doing when he had special effects people photo-matte particle beam weapon effects as being the primary heatloaders in CBG. I also note that he insisted that when Pegasus used missiles with nuclear(Solonite?) warheads to destroy the basestars, those missiles were impactors whose warheads went off when the missiles hit the basestars.

Sorry about the extended armor lesson. :/:

Cheers; :thumbsup:

[Damocles]

I don't care about most physics calculations done by people who are dead set on making some other show less.

I don't care much about Bermagga Trek either. I watch TNG/DS9 with a TOS filter, as well as a physics filter. Photon torpedoes carry matter and anti-matter and have several MT exposions? The SFX dudes messed up and we should be seeing massive fireballs every time.

Nemesis you can completely toss out the window; anything you get from that, I won't acknowledge. That was such a piece of horrendous tripe, continuity problems galore, not to mention plot holes the size of a star - it never happened. Must be Riker's holodeck Scenario or something, written by an incompetent writer. Notice at that impact the Scimitar is pretty much 100% operational, while the Enterprise is crippled like a beached whale. Shinzon as the Enteprise comes limping along orders 'maneuvering thrusters' (while it could fly circles around the Enterprise using everything it's got), there's the ridiculous collision (that defies pretty much all laws of physics) and only then, AFTER the collision he orders "FULL REVERSE!" :rolleyes: This tripe, never happened.

Those 2MT warheads produced a mighty big fireball, it's obvious the Sharlin was inside that fireball; got hit by it, and there it went: boom.

?????????????????????????????????????
The fireball didn't engulf the Sharlin or we would have seen the light wall obscure the Blackstar. Are you confusing the blast corona with the fireball?

1. We agree on Berman Trek.
2. I don't run any series down; I just try to keep things in true perspective when someone suggests that for example the "alligator" can survive in combat with an ISD.
3. Just as a Shadow Battlecrab would be scragged by an ISD despite my wishes to the contrary.
4. "Nemesis" is by Paramount's definition(The holders of the Trek franchise trademark) CANON

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

Star Trek
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Star Trek collectively refers to six science-fiction television series spanning 726 episodes, ten motion pictures, and hundreds of novels, video games, and other works of fiction, all set within the same fictional universe created by Gene Roddenberry in the early and mid 1960s. It depicts an optimistic future in which humanity has overcome sickness, racism, poverty, intolerance, and warfare on Earth, and has united with other intelligent species in the galaxy; the central characters explore the galaxy, finding new worlds and meeting new civilizations, while helping to promote peace and understanding. "Star Trek" is one of the most popular names in the history of science fiction entertainment, and one of the most popular franchises in television history.
(Read the rest of the article....D.)


Further;

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

Star Trek canon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek. (Discuss)

The Star Trek canon consists of the television series Star Trek, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Enterprise, and the ten motion pictures based upon the franchise.

The non-canonical status of the various novels, comic books and Star Trek: The Animated Series was decided by Gene Roddenberry, who also said he considered elements of the Trek films Star Trek V: The Final Frontier and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country to be apocryphal, although these films remain full canon.

According to current editors at Pocket Books, current rights holders for publishing Star Trek fiction, no novels or other printed stories are considered canon by Paramount Pictures, owners of Star Trek. This includes the Voyager novels Pathways and Mosaic (both by the series producer Jeri Taylor) which were, for a time, considered canon but stopped being so after Taylor left her position with the series. This viewpoint is considered controversial by many fans of Star Trek fiction, some of whom consider the literary works to be superior to many examples of the televised and filmed Star Trek.

In addition, no reference works based upon the series are considered canon, either, even though they may contain canonical elements. This includes works such as the popular Star Trek Chronology.
(Rest of the article...D.)


Notice that the Enterprise is still crumpled, and that damaged or not it still rends like tissue under the impact.

Now if you don't like "Nemesis" then how about this?

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/TimothyJones/Odyssey.avi

The Odyssey blew up after a hit that the Lexington would shake off.

Cheers. :salute:

[3DMaster]

?????????????????????????????????????
The fireball didn't engulf the Sharlin or we would have seen the light wall obscure the Blackstar. Are you confusing the blast corona with the fireball?

Fireball, thing got blown up, that's all I need to know.

1. We agree on Berman Trek.
2. I don't run any series down; I just try to keep things in true perspective when someone suggests that for example the "alligator" can survive in combat with an ISD.
3. Just as a Shadow Battlecrab would be scragged by an ISD despite my wishes to the contrary.

I wouldn't be surrpised if the Battlecrab made mince meat out of an ISD. You take the ISD's from the movies they aren't all that strong, they're mostly pathetic, really. It's only in the EU that the Star Wars vessels suddenly get huge, ridiculous boosts that the movies just never shows. There are so many descrepencies between the EU and the movies it isn't funny. Since Lucas has said on a few occasions he doesn't consider the EU and the movies the same universe (and even if he did I don't care), I take everything from the EU as bullshit.

4. "Nemesis" is by Paramount's definition(The holders of the Trek franchise trademark) CANON

Read this: I. Don't. Care.


]The [B]Odyssey blew up after a hit that the Lexington would shake off.

No, it wouldn't. Even if it could handle the actual impact, the ramming vessels's power core - most likely anti-matter - going 'boom' would completely vaporize the ship. Just as much as it did the Odyssey.

[Damocles]

Fireball, thing got blown up, that's all I need to know.

No, it wouldn't. Even if it could handle the actual impact, the ramming vessels's power core - most likely anti-matter - going 'boom' would completely vaporize the ship. Just as much as it did the Odyssey.

Ahem, the Odyssey was still intact after the collision, but heavily damaged when the JemHadar fighter blew. It, Odyssey burst asunder when its, the Odyssey's engines exploded-not before.

The Lexington was hit and pushed-no hull damage seen.

I looked at Mike Wong's work on the SW films. I also looked at Mister Poe and a few others and I am convinced that the battlecrab is toast if it fights an ISD.

Just by the same token I suggest that the "alligator" and the "Omega" would be a fair comparison, as the Colonial battlestar's missiles are quite capable of severely damaging a 1600 meter EF capital ship if not destroy it outright. The basestars that tried to shoot down the Pegasus' missiles failed.
Those missile warheads were powerful enough to destroy base ships larger than the "Omega".

Cheers! :thumbsup:

[3DMaster]

Ahem, the Odyssey was still intact after the collision, but heavily damaged when the JemHadar fighter blew. It, Odyssey burst asunder when its, the Odyssey's engines exploded-not before.

The Lexington was hit and pushed-no hull damage seen.


No, the explosion that destroyed the Odyssey starts at the saucer section, if you notice. The JemHadar fighter angled upward and toward the sauser in the last moment before collision. There's nothing inherintly explosive in the saucer section. Further the Jem'Hadar fighter will be going MUCH faster than an asteroid. The ships in B5 will do what? .1 c? The Minbari have .2c's as maximum speed. That Jem'Hadar fighter will be going .5cs at least, and possibly as high as full impulse at .97c. Yes, it doesn't seem like it's moving that fast, but if they artists did, it'd move too fast for our eyes to follow. You'd see nothing but a big boom, so I'm not taking the visual as the way it actually went.


I looked at Mike Wong's work on the SW films. I also looked at Mister Poe and a few others and I am convinced that the battlecrab is toast if it fights an ISD.

Mike Wong :rolleyes: That guy doesn't do SW films, he does EU. That guy and the rest of the Wars fans there are, quite frankly, nuts when it comes to calculations on SW.

Just by the same token I suggest that the "alligator" and the "Omega" would be a fair comparison, as the Colonial battlestar's missiles are quite capable of severely damaging a 1600 meter EF capital ship if not destroy it outright. The basestars that tried to shoot down the Pegasus' missiles failed.
Those missile warheads were powerful enough to destroy base ships larger than the "Omega".

Cheers! :thumbsup:

Alligator?

[Damocles]

No, the explosion that destroyed the Odyssey starts at the saucer section, if you notice. The JemHadar fighter angled upward and toward the sauser in the last moment before collision. There's nothing inherintly explosive in the saucer section. Further the Jem'Hadar fighter will be going MUCH faster than an asteroid. The ships in B5 will do what? .1 c? The Minbari have .2c's as maximum speed. That Jem'Hadar fighter will be going .5cs at least, and possibly as high as full impulse at .97c. Yes, it doesn't seem like it's moving that fast, but if they artists did, it'd move too fast for our eyes to follow. You'd see nothing but a big boom, so I'm not taking the visual as the way it actually went.


1. Impulse engines are in the saucer and they explode.
2. Starboard pylon gas intermixer(warp nacelle) explodes.
3. Film is treated as documentary when you analyze.

Mike Wong :rolleyes: That guy doesn't do SW films, he does EU. That guy and the rest of the Wars fans there are, quite frankly, nuts when it comes to calculations on SW.

His visuals are from the films and that is the source of his screen calculations.

Alligator?

http://www.synapse.ne.jp/save/readers/yongari/galactica.jpg

http://www.neatherd.org/astronomy/NASA%20Gallery/Alligator%202.jpg

Alligator.

Cheers! :thumbsup:

[3DMaster]

1. Impulse engines are in the saucer and they explode.

Not in the front of the saucer they aren't. And in fact they're not in the saucer, they're in the swan neck.

2. Starboard pylon gas intermixer(warp nacelle) explodes.

Well, duh.

3. Film is treated as documentary when you analyze.

And that's the problem: you can't. There are so many people part of an effects shot: the writer, the director, the artist - a lot of them make decision on dramatic impact. Like I said: if they let the Dominion bug move at the speed it most likely would be going, you wouldn't see it. A thing moving as slow as you say it should be a. wouldn't get past the shields, and b. if the shields were down or something, would be moving too slow, an ST ship would avoid it easily. Hence, you have to take visuals with a grain of sault, and look at the bigger picture.


His visuals are from the films and that is the source of his screen calculations.

Yeah, like the lovely SDs go into an asteroid field, 'vaporize' an asteroid showing the ISDs super firing strenght. And oh, yeah, EU shield strength claims are valid despite the fact that the asteriods shouldn't get hurt by a few asteroids but a SD was destroyed by one (conveniently it's a different ship).

Now notice what I mean with bigger picture:

If the SD could easily vaporize any size asteroid, AND had shields that could easily handle the asteroids, that asteroid field would never be a threat to Imperial troops. They could just flyin in with imputy and blow every asteroid one by one till they either had proof they had the falcon or blew them ALL away. So why would Han Solo and co. go into it? It wouldn't give them much if any advantage. Further Han Solo wouldn't say they'd be crazy to follow them in. Nor would an bridge officer be nervous about entering it and reminding Vader of the danger. The visuals and some dumb line in a book about another weaker ship might say it's so and so powerful, but the meaning of the scene is clear: ISDs will most likely end up being destroyed going into that field, and some of them do. Hence the whole 'proof' of super power weapons' strength is bullshit, and the writers of the books should have taken things with a grain of salt and not take one visual do a high end calculation and use that.

Hell, if they'd bother with some closer inspection, they'd notice SW is more magic than science, and would never have bothered with any calculations and supsequent ridiculous strenght claims at all. They'd just write the stuff as the movie, and have the weapons behave like in the movies - the bigger picture that is, not one dramatic shot of destroying some piece of rock.

[Damocles]

Not in the front of the saucer they aren't. And in fact they're not in the saucer, they're in the swan neck.

I've viewed that footage at least a hundred times. Odyssey in the near shot is seen in starboard low front quarter aspect; takes the ramming just above the deflector dish under the saucer. It is the JemHadar fighter that explodes in the near shot under the saucer, spinning its port wing and nacelle off to impact into the Odyssey's starboard warp nacelle.

Review it again for yourself.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/TimothyJones/Odyssey.avi

You can see of what I write?

Then we shift to a far shot; Odyssey aft rear slight starboard aspect. There you see the impulse engines blow in the aft of the saucer(in the gooseneck if you prefer), and then the whole ship bursts asunder.

Well, duh.

The point is that the nacelle burst didn't explode the Odyssey until her impulse engines blew.

And that's the problem: you can't. There are so many people part of an effects shot: the writer, the director, the artist - a lot of them make decision on dramatic impact. Like I said: if they let the Dominion bug move at the speed it most likely would be going, you wouldn't see it. A thing moving as slow as you say it should be a. wouldn't get past the shields, and b. if the shields were down or something, would be moving too slow, an ST ship would avoid it easily. Hence, you have to take visuals with a grain of sault, and look at the bigger picture.

Can't be helped. I could use that argument to argue the uber characteristics of EF ships which you pointed out correctly on film are CGIed as primitive and slow. Can't argue both ways. All or nothing. I prefer the "film as real school" because it gives a common usable result across all video presentations. The asteroid that the Excalibur bursts asunder in ACTA is smaller than the one the ISD vaporizes in the ESB movie. So likewise the asteroid that the Enterprise torpedoes in ST/TMP so I have a common iron asteroid as reference for the three
different presentations that gives me a baseline equivalence measurement. Same for timebeat velocity calculations(See fighter thread) so I can estimate delta vees.


Yeah, like the lovely SDs go into an asteroid field, 'vaporize' an asteroid showing the ISDs super firing strenght. And oh, yeah, EU shield strength claims are valid despite the fact that the asteriods shouldn't get hurt by a few asteroids but a SD was destroyed by one (conveniently it's a different ship).
Now notice what I mean with bigger picture:

Maybe we should discuss the PHOTON TORPEDO inconsistency? Or just accept that Imperial ships have design flaws that can show up on screen like Minbari warcruisers? I don't use EU shield strength claims. I use the unscathed video images of ISDs after taking Mon Calamari cruiser fire to check Mr. Wongs shield claims.

If the ISD could easily vaporize any size asteroid, AND had shields that could easily handle the asteroids, that asteroid field would never be a threat to Imperial troops. They could just flyin in with imputy and blow every asteroid one by one till they either had proof they had the falcon or blew them ALL away. So why would Han Solo and co. go into it? It wouldn't give them much if any advantage. Further Han Solo wouldn't say they'd be crazy to follow them in. Nor would an bridge officer be nervous about entering it and reminding Vader of the danger. The visuals and some dumb line in a book about another weaker ship might say it's so and so powerful, but the meaning of the scene is clear: ISDs will most likely end up being destroyed going into that field, and some of them do. Hence the whole 'proof' of super power weapons' strength is bullfelgercarb, and the writers of the books should have taken things with a grain of salt and not take one visual do a high end calculation and use that.

Or the Imperial shield systems might, reasonably, like any system under load degrade with sustained strain and fail. If you noticed the ISDs plowed through much of the asteroid field and shrugged off impacts as well as shot some of the larger rocks despite the misgivings.

I always wondered why the Imperials didn't send in fighters and just hang outside the asteroid field to shoot the Falcon when the TIEs flushed it out from among the rocks


Hell, if they'd bother with some closer inspection, they'd notice SW is more magic than science, and would never have bothered with any calculations and supsequent ridiculous strenght claims at all. They'd just write the stuff as the movie, and have the weapons behave like in the movies - the bigger picture that is, not one dramatic shot of destroying some piece of rock.

Now we get into Lucas' SCIENCE. You have read me complain that he knows nothing about science? See earlier my comments on his pathetic treatment of ground combat.

Frankly the only nitwits dumber than George, who have less understanding of what is likely possible for empires that build two kilometer long spaceships or in the case of the Feds 700 meter spaceships is Berman, Bragga, Taylor, and of course the infamous RDM.

At least I can point to GROPOS and show that JMS has a clue!

Cheers. :salute:

[3DMaster]

I've viewed that footage at least a hundred times. Odyssey in the near shot is seen in starboard low front quarter aspect; takes the ramming just above the deflector dish under the saucer. It is the JemHadar fighter that explodes in the near shot under the saucer, spinning its port wing and nacelle off to impact into the Odyssey's starboard warp nacelle.

Review it again for yourself.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/HateMail/TimothyJones/Odyssey.avi

You can see of what I write?

Then we shift to a far shot; Odyssey aft rear slight starboard aspect. There you see the impulse engines blow in the aft of the saucer(in the gooseneck if you prefer, and then the whole ship bursts asunder.

The point is that the nacelle burst didn't explode the Odyssey until her impulse engines blew.

The explosion of the saucer started in the saucer, in the middle of the saucer, nowerhere near the impulse engines. That explosion isn't the Galaxy-class, it's the Dominion's ship energy plant explosion.

Can't be helped. I could use that argument to argue the uber characteristics of EF ships which you pointed out correctly on film are CGIed as primitive and slow. Can't argue both ways. All or nothing. I prefer the "film as real school" because it gives a common usable result across all video presentations. The asteroid that the Excalibur bursts asunder in ACTA is smaller than the one the ISD vaporizes in the ESB movie. So likewise the asteroid that the Enterprise torpedoes in ST/TMP so I have a common iron asteroid as reference for the three
different presentations that gives me a baseline equivalence measurement. Same for timebeat velocity calculations(See fighter thread) so I can estimate delta vees.

No, you couldn't argue super strength from the B5's tech and statements; not if you want to look foolish and be ignored. This is where "bigger picture" comes in. B5 ships aren't just SHOWN as slow, they are also REFERRED to as slow.

A perfect example of the lack of bigger picture, as well as showing you can't make those claims with B5, is one of the tech links you gave in an earlier post. In it, the writer uses a picture of a screen showing the info of a Minbari Warcruiser to point out such ships weaponry. A little later on there's a picture of one Minbari cruiser firing on another on, vertically slicing through a good section of the ship, and the claim is that it just sliced through hundreds of meters in a single second. Hundreds with me is at the very least 300, and more like 500 to more.

Of course now we go back to the computer screen used to show the ship's armament, and lo and behold: length 300 meters, speed .2cs. So seeing as a Minbari ship's max height is about the same as the max length, at most that could be only 75 meters. Also, the .2cs show that not only did they make the CGI look like they were slow, they actually WERE slow.

Maybe we should discuss the PHIOTON TORPEDO inconsistency? Or just accept that Imperial ships have design flaws that can show up on screen like Minbari warcruisers? I don't use EU shield strngth claims. I use the unscathed video images of ISDs after taking Mon Calamari cruiser fire to check Mr. Wongs shield claims.

The shooting strength of the Mon, of course being ridiculously enhanced in power via the EU.

Me, I take visuals as an artist interpretation of what happened, not 'real', or 'documentary', while looking at the bigger picture. If photon torpedoes are consistently refered to as multi MT explosive power, and Quantum torpedoes as 200+MT explosive power than every time we see one used at full load, there's a big giant fireball as we've seen on occasion; even if the SFX guys didn't show them on screen.

Similarly, Star Wars never showed, let hear, or anything else about weapons with a gunner on ISDs and other ships that would level an entire continent with single shot (or miss of a ship), therefor, they do not exist; no matter that an asteroid visual and load of books may say they do.

Or the Imperial shield systems might, reasonably, like any system under load degrade with sustained strain and fail. If you noticed the ISDs plowed through much of the asteroid field and shrugged off impacts as well as shot some of the larger rocks despite the misgivings.

Except that according to the EU and Mike Wong and company they don't; it doesn't matter how much you fire into it, there's a bottomless pit sink that can absorb any size of power instantly and then bleed the energy out. Only if it can't bleed it out fast enough does one get damage. :rolleyes: Brilliant logic, truly.

I always wondered why the Imperials didn't send in fighters and just hang outside the asteroid field to shoot the Falcon when the TIEs flushed it out from among the rocks

Now we get into Lucas' SCIENCE. You have read me complain that he knows nothing about science? See earlier my comments on his pathetic treatment of ground combat.

Frankly the only nitwits dumber than George, who have less understanding of what is likely possible for empires that build two kilometer long spaceships or in the case of the Feds 700 meter spaceships is Berman, Bragga, Taylor, and of course the infamous RDM.

At least I can point to GROPOS and show that JMS has a clue!

Cheers. :salute:

:shrugs: Again; I look at Berma Trek with a TOS filter.

[Damocles]

The explosion of the saucer started in the saucer, in the middle of the saucer, nowerhere near the impulse engines. That explosion isn't the Galaxy-class, it's the Dominion's ship energy plant explosion.

Sorry, but that is baloney.

I've viewed that footage at least a hundred times. Odyssey in the near shot is seen in starboard low front quarter aspect; takes the ramming just above the deflector dish under the saucer. It is the JemHadar fighter that explodes in the near shot under the saucer, spinning its port wing and nacelle off to impact into the Odyssey's starboard warp nacelle.

No, you couldn't argue super strength from the B5's tech and statements; not if you want to look foolish and be ignored. This is where "bigger picture" comes in. B5 ships aren't just SHOWN as slow, they are also REFERRED to as slow.

Don't try to argue dialog. not with the Berman Trek mismatch between words and pictures.

A perfect example of the lack of bigger picture, as well as showing you can't make those claims with B5, is one of the tech links you gave in an earlier post. In it, the writer uses a picture of a screen showing the info of a Minbari Warcruiser to point out such ships weaponry. A little later on there's a picture of one Minbari cruiser firing on another on, vertically slicing through a good section of the ship, and the claim is that it just sliced through hundreds of meters in a single second. Hundreds with me is at the very least 300, and more like 500 to more.

Easy to explain. Ever hear of stealth? It is actually more properly called low observable. Which means that when you fly alongside a B-2 bomber you see with your eyes an object the size of a 737, while your radar illuminates it and returns an echo that your computer analyzes and informs you is the size of a Cessna turbo-prop. However, the point is noted. It in the real world is called a continuity error.

Most everybody has them at some time(phaser ourtput). You go with the best evidence in the aggregate to form an explanation and not what one dot out of mean datum point shows.

Of course now we go back to the computer screen used to show the ship's armament, and lo and behold: length 300 meters, speed .2cs. So seeing as a Minbari ship's max height is about the same as the max length, at most that could be only 75 meters. Also, the .2cs show that not only did they make the CGI look like they were slow, they actually WERE slow.

Ahem. Ganymede to Jupiter, Battlecrab in hot pursuit, Whitestar dives into the Jovian atmosphere, elapsed time thirty eight seconds, one continuous sequence no cuts, approximate computed average velocity 0.9 c, Agamemnon start point Ganymede after arriving to investigate destroyed base; moves to Jupiter in pursuit of Whitestar and Battlecrab, elapsed time 7 minutes-Agammemnon's average speed computed 2381 kilometers per second. Those are MINIMUMS.


The shooting strength of the Mon, of course being ridiculously enhanced in power via the EU.

Shooting power of the Mon being extrapolated from their own performance as seen in ROTJ.

Me, I take visuals as an artist interpretation of what happened, not 'real', or 'documentary', while looking at the bigger picture. If photon torpedoes are consistently refered to as multi MT explosive power, and Quantum torpedoes as 200+MT explosive power than every time we see one used at full load, there's a big giant fireball as we've seen on occasion; even if the SFX guys didn't show them on screen.

Engineer viewpoint. If I see a two hundred diameter meter sphere at maximum scaled strobe flash that expands to dull red in less than half a second, that is a 2-5 kiloton nuclear event-not a 200 megaton event no matter how much I wish it to be.

Similarly, Star Wars never showed, let hear, or anything else about weapons with a gunner on ISDs and other ships that would level an entire continent with single shot (or miss of a ship), therefor, they do not exist; no matter that an asteroid visual and load of books may say they do.

BDZ is unproven. Asteroid shot is proven. Capabiliy is capability.

Except that according to the EU and Mike Wong and company they don't; it doesn't matter how much you fire into it, there's a bottomless pit sink that can absorb any size of power instantly and then bleed the energy out. Only if it can't bleed it out fast enough does one get damage. :rolleyes: Brilliant logic, truly.

The visual evidence screams shield failure after substained bombardment(strain load) Mike Wong notwithstanding. He and I part company there. Poe also disagrees with him on that point.

:shrugs: Again; I look at Berma Trek with a TOS filter.

I look at Berman Trek with a TOS filter as well. It does not exist. It is a Kirk nightmare he dreams of what the Feds could become if he and people like him don't stop the bureaucrats--like Enterprise(TM) is a holodeck illusion within the nightmare.

Cheers. :salute:

[3DMaster]

A perfect example of the lack of bigger picture, as well as showing you can't make those claims with B5, is one of the tech links you gave in an earlier post. In it, the writer uses a picture of a screen showing the info of a Minbari Warcruiser to point out such ships weaponry. A little later on there's a picture of one Minbari cruiser firing on another on, vertically slicing through a good section of the ship, and the claim is that it just sliced through hundreds of meters in a single second. Hundreds with me is at the very least 300, and more like 500 to more.

Easy to explain. Ever hear of stealth? It is actually more properly called low observable. Which means that when you fly alongside a B-2 bomber you see with your eyes an object the size of a 737, while your radar illuminates it and returns an echo that your computer analyzes and informs you is the size of a Cessna turbo-prop. However, the point is noted. It in the real world is called a continuity error.

Except that the screen isn't a computer read out of a sensor show; it's the readout of a database, and Minbari ships head their stealth OFF on many an occasion.

Ahem. Ganymede to Jupiter, Battlecrab in hot pursuit, Whitestar dives into the Jovian atmosphere, elapsed time thirty eight seconds, one continuous sequence no cuts, approximate computed average velocity 0.9 c, Agamemnon start point Ganymede after arriving to investigate destroyed base; moves to Jupiter in pursuit of Whitestar and Battlecrab, elapsed time 7 minutes-Agammemnon's average speed computed 2381 kilometers per second. Those are MINIMUMS.

A white star is not a minbari war cruiser, the white star is quite a bit faster and more maneuverable. 2381 kilometers per second isn't even a hundrethst of a percent of c, let alone in the tenth range.

Shooting power of the Mon being extrapolated from their own performance as seen in ROTJ.

Against a pathetic vessel it becomes pathetic firepower.

Engineer viewpoint. If I see a two hundred diameter meter sphere at maximum scaled strobe flash that expands to dull red in less than half a second, that is a 2-5 kiloton nuclear event-not a 200 megaton event no matter how much I wish it to be.

And to me, I don't care. The picture is just the SFX guy's artist's impression; not what actually happened.

BDZ is unproven. Asteroid shot is proven. Capabiliy is capability.

Again, I don't care about a single asteroid shot in 6 films. If the firepower range is destroys entire asteroids, and wipes out continents, the battle of Curoscent in RotS would have leveled the planetary city with the ground. Every miss - and there are a lot - would have been giant fire balls vaporizing pieces of the planet with 1000 kilomter radius. They just don't have that kind of power, they don't.

[3DMaster]

Hey, Damocles, you read/are reading A Thin Veneer http://www.fanfiction.net/s/1944628/1/ yet? Star Trek/B5 crossover: Kirk & Co, versus the Minbari. :D

[Damocles]

Except that the screen isn't a computer read out of a sensor show; it's the readout of a database, and Minbari ships head their stealth OFF on many an occasion.

Database? Then as I said-continuity error. In the original B-5 series bible JMS wrote, the station was supposed to be a kilometer long. OOPS. The CGI was in and the episode filmed before the 5x size amplification was made to scale humans properly to the CGI station goof. Everything else miscaled stems from that one mistake. Fortunately the White Star goofs and the Minbari warcruiser miscales are counted on the fingers of one hand. The data screen cap I will now explain away as bum data generated as a positive target database match from old bum Prometheus IFF generated data from the first contact; sort of like the computer reading the radar returrn from thr B-2, searching its data base and giving you a Cessna turboprop performance readout to go with your signal authentication.

A white star is not a minbari war cruiser, the white star is quite a bit faster and more maneuverable. 2381 kilometers per second isn't even a hundrethst of a percent of c, let alone in the tenth range.

That was to show you the relative speeds of two B-5 ships. If you think 2381 kilometers per second is SLOW, let me remind you that Earth's escape velocity is around 115 kps and that the Agamemnon showed an onscreen hustle that was twenty times greater.

Against a pathetic vessel it becomes pathetic firepower.

That filmed series of asteroid shots and impacts on the ISD in ESB? Those shots of the Mons actually hulling a couple of ISDs in RotJ? Extrapolate.

And to me, I don't care. The picture is just the SFX guy's artist's impression; not what actually happened.

Fundamental disagreement that we will not bridge.


Again, I don't care about a single asteroid shot in 6 films. If the firepower range is destroys entire asteroids, and wipes out continents, the battle of Curoscent in RotS would have leveled the planetary city with the ground. Every miss - and there are a lot - would have been giant fire balls vaporizing pieces of the planet with 1000 kilomter radius. They just don't have that kind of power, they don't.

I know a LOT about particle beams and problems called divergence and blooming. Atmospheres are tough media for a particle beam to pierce without massive scattering and blooming effects. Lucas got it wrong(again). You should have seen massive gas boiling, formation of coriolis effects,(instant hurricanes) and ripple splash in the atmosphere where beams hit Coruscant. 1000 kilometer wide explosions aren't in the cards when you discuss energies even high enough to vaporize 300 meter rocks. At most you might get a 5-10 km crater at beam strike explosion if the beam hit the planet's surface.

Best wishes; :salute:

[Damocles]

Quick skim. 3D, of the story.

I DON'T LIKE crossovers.

First of all; it violates the original artists' intents when they created their standalone universes.

Second; it serves as a haven for the wishfulfillment of certain "my universe is better than your universe" proponents who use what should be a standalone story to justify their own vision of "force ratios". That is not writing. That is fanboyism amok.

Third; it is extremely difficult to get an unbiased story treatment when you try to integrate two entirely different science schemes into one story.

Aside from the different "space Mcguffins" involved you have tyros trying to apply mismatched physics and gonzo science concepts to each other. It doesn't work.

Read this;

http://p211.ezboard.com/fbabylon5techmanualfrm32.showMessage?topicID=96.topic

Its what I would look for in a story. Mind you, it isn't very good, but the author takes a subject and limits himself to it when he writes the fanfic.

I liked it.

Best wishes. :salute:

[warhammerdriver]

Track footprint= 1.75 sq. meters per track or 3,5 sq. meters for both tracks.
72,000kg/3.5 sq. meter
Ground pressure= 19,200 kg per sq. meter or 1.92 kg per sq. centimeter!

1. Take your battle mech(2) and calculate ground pressure if you carried a similar mass package.

http://198.144.2.125/3DGraphics/Full/mechs.jpg


Now for the ground pressure.(Estimated)

Each foot is calculated to be 10 meters by 10 meters to the corners of the splay toes.

That is 100 sq. meters *50% actual coverage of the square by the observed splayed foot. =50 sq. meters per foot or 100 sq. meters for both feet.
3,375,000 kg/ 100 sq meter= 33,750 kg per sq. meter.
That is 3.375 kg per sq. centimeter.
Now before you say that isn't so much;

Average man= 70kg
Average footprint of man =300 sq centimeter
Two feet on ground = 600 sq. centimeters
Human ground pressure= 0.23 kg per sq. centimeter

Now the actual book-stated ground pressure of the Abrams is 2.03 kg per sq centimeter; so you can se how close my estimates are. It presses into the ground eight and half times times harder than a man, Now understand that this means the Abrams cannot go over ground that won't hold a man. It bogs down big time.

Your mech presses into the ground fouteen and a half times harder than a man or one and a half times harder than the tank.


Published specs* for the mechs illustrated put them at 70 tons (Warhammer) and 75 tons (MadCat). Not sure if that's in metric tons or not. If in metric tons the ground pressure for the MadCat would be (using your foot area estimate):

75,000 kg/100 sq meter = 750 kg/sq meter.

For the Warhammer, it would be approx. 50 kg/sq meter less.

That makes the ground pressure approx. half as much as an M-1 Abrams. In RL, that's probably an impossiblity. Ahh, the joys of ficton.

* Battletech Technical Readout: 3050, FASA Corp., 1990.



BTW, where DID you get that beautiful image, Damocles?

[Damocles]

Published specs* for the mechs illustrated put them at 70 tons (Warhammer) and 75 tons (MadCat). Not sure if that's in metric tons or not. If in metric tons the ground pressure for the MadCat would be (using your foot area estimate):

75,000 kg/100 sq meter = 750 kg/sq meter.

For the Warhammer, it would be approx. 50 kg/sq meter less.

That makes the ground pressure approx. half as much as an M-1 Abrams. In RL, that's probably an impossiblity. Ahh, the joys of ficton.

* Battletech Technical Readout: 3050, FASA Corp., 1990.



BTW, where DID you get that beautiful image, Damocles?

All I can say is that those mechs will be wrecked by HMG fire since they will be built to less than HELICOPTER armor standards! :rotf:

Ground pressure per cubic centimeter at 75,000kg assuming a 100 sq meter footprint for the Madcat. That is 750 kg per sq. meter and 0.075 kg per sq. centimeter. The M-1 presses into the ground 27 times harder than your very light battle mech.

Image sourcing was here, originally;

http://198.144.2.125/3DGraphics/3DGraphics.htm

Cheers! :thumbsup:

[warhammerdriver]

Like I said, the joys of fiction.

[WarMachine]

Here's a couple of new ones:

Viper or Hammerhead(from Space: Above and Beyond)?

Andromeda or Galactica?

Dylan Hunt or Apollo?

Rommie or Cain?

Rev-Bem or Boomer?

Becka or Starbuck?

Tyr Anasazi vs Anyone-on-the-Gator?

[Damocles]

Here's a couple of new ones:

More than a couple.

Viper or Hammerhead(from Space: Above and Beyond)?

Viper.

Andromeda or Galactica?

Andromeda in a close fight.

Dylan Hunt or Apollo?

With regards to what? Flying? Fisticuffs? Planning? Romance? Morality?

Rommie or Cain?

Rommie.

Rev-Bem or Boomer?

Always go with Boomer. Never understimate that one.

Becka or Starbuck?

Becka lacks common sense. Plus Starbuck; well he's Starbuck and Becka is a woman. No contest.

Tyr Anasazi vs Anyone-on-the-Gator?

Like Worf; Tyr looks good in the stats, but end-user testing indicates Colonial Warriors would prefer something of better quality with which to mop the floor.

As always;

[WarMachine]

More than a couple.

Well, yeah.... ;)

To answer my own:

Viper or Hammerhead(from Space: Above and Beyond)?

Hammerhead: they have rear-facing turrets, and the Space-Jars know how to use them.... :D

Andromeda or Galactica?

Andromeda -- engages at high speed at all ranges, faster, more maneuverable -- and it repairs itself

Dylan Hunt or Apollo?

With regards to what? Flying? Fisticuffs? Planning? Romance? Morality?

Flying: Apollo; Fisticuffs: Hunt; Planning: Draw; Romance: Hunt(he certainly gets enough); Morality: Hmmmmm.....Have to go with Apollo on this one - Hunt is not above dirty tricks....

Rommie or Cain?

Rommie, definately: Cain may be good, but he's got image-issues; Rommie just wants to kill stuff - and has the database to do it...all in the name of a good cause, of course :D Very disconcerting, btw, to watch cute, little Lexa Doig say with a straight face "...but I'm a WARSHIP! Fighting is what I DO!"

Rev-Bem or Boomer?

Close in: Rev-Bem...nothing like getting a face full of Magog eggs :devil:

Becka or Starbuck?

Starbuck....Yeah, he's an image hound, but he has far fewer "personal issues"

Tyr Anasazi vs Anyone-on-the-Gator?

Close In, against anyone but Iblis or "John": Tyr -- little thing about bony spikes being driven into your eyes as he breaks your neck.....He's also pretty good at sabotage and assasination; at Long Range: everyone else -- no discipline.

[Senmut]

BSG vs. ISD.
I'm going for the BSG on this one. The Battlestar is more maneuverable than the ISD. As we saw in TESB, the ISDs were about as maneuverable in close-quarter fighting as a pregnant elephant. Two colided, while the third barely got out of the way. Besides, while the Battlestar has two outrigger bays, which are vulnerable to some extent, the ISD has one, built dead center into the lower hull. One good explosion in there...

[Damocles]

BSG vs. ISD.
I'm going for the BSG on this one. The Battlestar is more maneuverable than the ISD. As we saw in TESB, the ISDs were about as maneuverable in close-quarter fighting as a pregnant elephant. Two colided, while the third barely got out of the way. Besides, while the Battlestar has two outrigger bays, which are vulnerable to some extent, the ISD has one, built dead center into the lower hull. One good explosion in there...


Stardestroyer.net.

After you read Mister Wong, we'll discuss the difference between vaporizing a three hundred meter in diameter rock and a fifty meter Cylon Raider?

As always;

[Bacho]

First, let us consider a few basic design differences before we actually discuss the combat.

1) The battlestar is essentially a carrier, its prime weapon is its strike aircraft. I had the firm belief, just by implication that the Viper was not the only fighter/strike craft on the battlestars. Not the absence of long range heavy weapons on the battlestar, every weapon you see is close range triple A style weapons.

2) The Imperial Star Destroyer is essentially a capital ship much like the World War 2 battleship. Designed as a gun platform and to slug it out gun for gun.


Combat:

There would be no close quarter combat, because at range, the battlestar would 'fire' its main battery, its strike ships. The Imperial Star Destroyer is not a carrier and what few fighters it does carry would be quickly overwhelmed.

The two ships would never come within visual of each other.


Strangely enough, carrier style ships in the star wars universe did not show up until chapters 1-3. It would seem that the empire took a giant step backwards.

[martok2112]

First, let us consider a few basic design differences before we actually discuss the combat.

1) The battlestar is essentially a carrier, its prime weapon is its strike aircraft. I had the firm belief, just by implication that the Viper was not the only fighter/strike craft on the battlestars. Not the absence of long range heavy weapons on the battlestar, every weapon you see is close range triple A style weapons.

2) The Imperial Star Destroyer is essentially a capital ship much like the World War 2 battleship. Designed as a gun platform and to slug it out gun for gun.


Combat:

There would be no close quarter combat, because at range, the battlestar would 'fire' its main battery, its strike ships. The Imperial Star Destroyer is not a carrier and what few fighters it does carry would be quickly overwhelmed.

The two ships would never come within visual of each other.


Strangely enough, carrier style ships in the star wars universe did not show up until chapters 1-3. It would seem that the empire took a giant step backwards.


Respectfully, I would have to say that I don't think 72 fighters constitutes few in terms of what a Star Destroyer can carry. :) And that is just its standard TIE Figher compliment. In addition to that, the ship carries bombers, interceptors, and assault shuttles...just to name a few other types that it carries for space combat. :)

Now, if a Star Destroyer were to go up against, say, a Cylon basestar, then it's fighter compliment would be outnumbered at about 4:1. (Cylon basestars carry about 300 fighters.)

As for a battlestar, I don't think it's ever been canonically disclosed as to just how many such a ship could carry. :)

Respectfully,
Martok2112 :salute:

[Bacho]

Good point on the fighter compliment.

However, I forgot to mention the most glaring design flaw in the Star Destroyer.

If you follow those sweeping lines of that graceful arrowhead design to the aft section of the Star Destroyer, you notice her upperworks. Some brilliant engineer put her C in C section right over her power section and stuck up there like a billboard with a bullseye!

Now, lets assume that the Galactica has at least 2 squadrens of strike ships. Each ship armed with two missle style torpedos. I suspect that the Colonies used total conversion warheads, so we are looking at each warhead having a few megatons.

So, if I were staging the strike, I would have the ships launch at range, with the attack/bombers given priority targeting to the command and control section. The destruction of the upperworks of the Star Destroyer would leave the ship crippled.

Now, the only draw back is that from what I have seen of Imperial tactics, Star Destroyers operate in pairs.


I should never have read this! I now have to find someway to simulate a combat exchange between the Galactica and a pair of Star Destroyers.

[martok2112]

Good point on the fighter compliment.

However, I forgot to mention the most glaring design flaw in the Star Destroyer.

If you follow those sweeping lines of that graceful arrowhead design to the aft section of the Star Destroyer, you notice her upperworks. Some brilliant engineer put her C in C section right over her power section and stuck up there like a billboard with a bullseye!

Now, lets assume that the Galactica has at least 2 squadrens of strike ships. Each ship armed with two missle style torpedos. I suspect that the Colonies used total conversion warheads, so we are looking at each warhead having a few megatons.

So, if I were staging the strike, I would have the ships launch at range, with the attack/bombers given priority targeting to the command and control section. The destruction of the upperworks of the Star Destroyer would leave the ship crippled.

Now, the only draw back is that from what I have seen of Imperial tactics, Star Destroyers operate in pairs.


I should never have read this! I now have to find someway to simulate a combat exchange between the Galactica and a pair of Star Destroyers.


:)

[Damocles]

You have to be careful when you do comparisons.

First of all forget about comparisons between wet navy ships.

The Alligator and the ISD are ROCKETS.

As such, both have DEFECTS. (asymmetry and nose on vulnerability for the ISD, exposed outriggers filled with explosives for the Alligator.)

I restrict my opening comments to film evidence. For this purpose I will not invoke the EU or the CBSG novels.

But in light of that what we do know about these rockets?

The Imperials don't use capital ship missiles. The Colonials do.

The Imperials have short-ranged anti-capital ship weapons measured in the hundreds of kilometers range that can heavily damage an Alligator with kinetic and charge damage.

One capital ship missile from the Alligator can damage (probably destroy an ISD) once the ^shields^ fail. But the key point is that the ^shields^ must fail.

But the fighters in each respective universe can mortally damage each capital ship of its reespective fictional universe.

The Executor kinetically survived, unscathed, a collision with one ISD. Now while that may not seem particularly impressive; it actually is from the baseline figures for an event of that magnitude.

Example collision object....ISD;

Mass 1e12 kg
Velocity 1e3 ms
Newtonian rest mass 1e12kg
Newtonian KE kg*ms 1 e15joule
Relative KE kg*ms 1 e15joule

That collision energy is roughly equivalent to 270 kilotons of TNT.

Further data.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Size.html

I do not agree with Mister Wong's analysis as to the shield interaction in the TESB. To conclude that an ISD was bombarded by rocks for two days is pure supposition.

What I do know is that the ISD on film shows the Minbari defect. If you hit that piece of junk with a piece of junk, in the correct place it will explode.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/cards/wide/rotj128.jpg

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/cards/wide/rotj128.jpg

http://b5tech.com/science/misc/armor/index.html

http://b5tech.com/science/misc/armor/starfury03b.jpg

http://battlestarfanclub.com/battlestar/photos/bgpic62.jpg

You will note that all three ships are totally fouled up in EQUIVALENT events?

It should be said in passing that Imperial point defense is a joke.

Strange now isn't it?

All three ships killed by fighters.

Yet the stepdown physically runs like this;

Imperial spackling trowel. Toughest; despite the faulty bridge tower design.

Alligator next. It took at least five Raiders to take her down.

Sharlin last. Pulse her in the fins. Watch her explode.

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/quicktime/bstar.mov

Now I'll sit back and wait for the discussions.

As always;

[Bacho]

Actually, I was using the purpose of the ship, i.e a vessel designed to support strike craft as compared to a vessel that is primarily designed as a gun platform.

The comparison ends when you put them into 3 deminsions.


The ISD seems to be an old wet navy ship of the line, IMO, as in the days of sail. Designed to get in close and pound it out with guns, without any consideration given to manuverability.

The battlestar is still primarily a carrier in function.

In my opinion, by using any type of long range strike ships that keep the baseship out of range of the enemy main guns is a better way of fighting.

Personally, I feel that the engineering and design of such ships for movies and tv series are done more to give the 'good guy' side a better chance of survival.

Now, in Battlestar Galactica, the series begins with an overwhelming sneak attack, which in and of itself brings up some questions.

[martok2112]

Actually, I was using the purpose of the ship, i.e a vessel designed to support strike craft as compared to a vessel that is primarily designed as a gun platform.

The comparison ends when you put them into 3 deminsions.


The ISD seems to be an old wet navy ship of the line, IMO, as in the days of sail. Designed to get in close and pound it out with guns, without any consideration given to manuverability.

The battlestar is still primarily a carrier in function.

In my opinion, by using any type of long range strike ships that keep the baseship out of range of the enemy main guns is a better way of fighting.

Personally, I feel that the engineering and design of such ships for movies and tv series are done more to give the 'good guy' side a better chance of survival.

Now, in Battlestar Galactica, the series begins with an overwhelming sneak attack, which in and of itself brings up some questions.



Also, another point of consideration, even though we've never seen Star Destroyers use missiles, they are armed with Concussion Missiles according to everything I've read about them from Lucasfilm Archives

The Star Destroyer is actually a multi-purpose vessel....it is carrier, destroyer, battleship, orbital gun platform, base, troop transport, etc. :)

Respectfully,
Martok2112

[Damocles]

Actually, I was using the purpose of the ship, i.e a vessel designed to support strike craft as compared to a vessel that is primarily designed as a gun platform.

The comparison ends when you put them into 3 deminsions.


The ISD seems to be an old wet navy ship of the line, IMO, as in the days of sail. Designed to get in close and pound it out with guns, without any consideration given to manuverability.

The battlestar is still primarily a carrier in function.

In my opinion, by using any type of long range strike ships that keep the baseship out of range of the enemy main guns is a better way of fighting.

Personally, I feel that the engineering and design of such ships for movies and tv series are done more to give the 'good guy' side a better chance of survival.

Now, in Battlestar Galactica, the series begins with an overwhelming sneak attack, which in and of itself brings up some questions.

Hence your premis thread.

But as to what a heavily armed and armored rocket should look like?

http://www.jiawen.net/peregrine2.html

http://www.jiawen.net/Peregrine_psp_2bj.jpg

That is CORRECT. She, the artist, knows what she is doing.

Missiles and particle beams are fired from behind that shield you see on the nose.

Fighters it carries are robot drones.

That is the REALITY as I expect it.

No aircraft carriers or battleships as the model for our battlestar, but the smallest most heavily armed, best-armored and most maneuverable rocket we can build to do the job as a jump capable launch platform. Nearest wet navy equivalent?

http://www.f5.dion.ne.jp/~mirage/message00/seawolf.003.jpg

That little bird should make mincemeat out of any the previous examples.

As always;

[3DMaster]

Hence your premis thread.

http://www.jiawen.net/Peregrine_psp_2bj.jpg

That is CORRECT. She, the artist, knows what she is doing.

Missiles and particle beams are fired from behind that shield you see on the nose.

Fighters it carries are robot drones.

That is the REALITY as I expect it.

Of course, the best space battle ships aren't rockets. The best battle ships won't have one main gun either, the best battle ships will have a 360 degrees fire coverage: the best battle ships would be spheres, and just below that cubes; sphere as the added advantage that a curved surface is tougher to crack than a straight surface.

So the ones who build the best battle ships, not to surprisingly, would be the Borg.

[Bacho]

Democles,
The model may have been the submarine, the function is that of a carrier.



However, IMO, I would say a vessel with turreted mounts for the weapons would be fully capable to deal with just about anything. Hardpoints on the upper and lower sides allows for massive forward firing capability as well as broadside ability.

I still say the Battlestar is the most efficient design of the two. In playing around with varuious 3d designs, and looking at the Anime based vessels, I am at a loss as to the predominate and very obvious CIC structure. While the look is appealing to the eye, the glaring weakness is the fact that the ship would be crippled with the loss of the CIC.

As for design, A sphere? When you consider a drive section, the sphere is out. This is where the wet navy has it over the space craft.

As for the borg, maybe.

However, we are talking humans, and as such, we have the tendency to build something that is functional and aesthitically pleasing to look at. I would venture to say that when humans go to the stars, the most likely designs would be along the battlestar or even klingon ships.

Perhaps a discussion of probable earth based designs would be good to start somewhere?

Anyway, from all the different series and movies, I prefer the battlestar, nice to look at, protected CIC, and functional.

[martok2112]

Of course, the best space battle ships aren't rockets. The best battle ships won't have one main gun either, the best battle ships will have a 360 degrees fire coverage: the best battle ships would be spheres, and just below that cubes; sphere as the added advantage that a curved surface is tougher to crack than a straight surface.

So the ones who build the best battle ships, not to surprisingly, would be the Borg.


Ahem...let's not forget....Empire? Death Star? (er.....wait....pesky exhaust ports!) AGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! :D

[Damocles]

[QUOTE=Bacho]Democles,
The model may have been the submarine, the function is that of a carrier.

Here beginneth the lesson;

1. The manned vehicle is the platform. The weapons systems are the heat-loading/charge-loading(kinetic, electromagnetic)) mechanisms that operate from the platform.

2. It was and is the nature of the average TV writer to see space warfare as a form of WW II naval combat. The smallness of the screen also forces some constraints as to how such combat is displayed.

3. It will be a reality that the point defense against long range weapons(missiles with contact/impact discharged EMP effects or contact/impact discharged explosive effects) will be AESA scan arrays( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AESA ) that are powerful MASERs instead of just being a form of radar. At delta vees of 1/10th c and up mechanical track in azimuth and bearing(turrrets) is impossible. Turrets can't track fast enough. In fact turrets can't track fast enough, now, against maneuvering cruise missiles. Why do you think that the USN is going for the RAM missile in place of the Phalanx as the close in weapon system defense for its ships?

As for the use of robot drone fighters in place of manned systems? In the next carrier we plan to field; we want to deploy somerthing like this;

http://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/X-47/gallery/X47B/low_res/UCAV-N%20Op%20Concept%20-%20Near%20F-A%2018s.jpg

Its a robot aircraft.

a. Acceleration forces that will pulp a human, the robot will shrug off.
b. The smaller plane carries a bigger payload, than its human-crewed equivalent.
c. For its size, it will have more range. Remember that the relatively simple computers of the UCAV and the F-18 mass about the same, and are volumetrically the same. The mass and volume of the human(and his support system) aboard the F-18 is the current limiter to that fighter(giving it notoriously short endurance in the air.)

Translate that into a battlestar. You build 100 robot fighters and one shipload of 100 expendable missiles. You silo the fighters in launch/recovery hangers/silos and tube those missiles in distributed magazines across mky rocket. You install an AESA MASER behind a nice thick electric armor nose-plate. You make the rocket as small as you can; and you automate it as much as you can, to minimize its heat print against background space. What humans you park aboard, as crew, are there for the maintenance of the launch platform, and its weapon systems. You can build five of those for the one or so COLUMBIA class Alligators as I see them on screen; and you can build ten of those for the Cylon double-decker sand-dollars as I see it.

You obtain a smaller ship.

Advantages.
1. Less logistics. The robot drones may have Cylon attrition rates but the replacements, you can fly out from a forward depot. Centurions that get shot up need on-hand machine shops. Colonials need air, food and water, and their Alligators need large logistic fleets to sustain them and their Vipers. Your fleet with its lower manning requiremwents will have a leaner, cheaper and simpler tail to tooth ratio.

2. More homogeneity in the fleet. Your rocket launch platform will be standardized as to form and function, and is interchangeable in roles and means. Small enough and cheap enough to be a standalone patrol unit, and yet when massed in numbers it is able to take down the largest enemy fleets. Remember you designed it to carry an armor package to survive a basestar's particle beam fire and a payload to swarm that basestar's defense on a fifth of the Alligator's mass?

3. Deployability. With homogeneity, numbers, common unit tactics and a lean logistics tail you can distribute your units across space in a patrol circuit, quickly concentrate to meet a local threat, and risk offense as opposed to defense. You have far more numbers to risk.

Quantity has a quality all of its own, when you have near technical parity.


However, IMO, I would say a vessel with turreted mounts for the weapons would be fully capable to deal with just about anything. Hardpoints on the upper and lower sides allows for massive forward firing capability as well as broadside ability.

You would need super-imposition of firing arcs? You've got to stack those turrets to keep them from fouling each other;

http://www.northcarolinatravels.com/museums/battleship-northcarolina/battleship-northcarolina2.jpg

I still say the Battlestar is the most efficient design of the two. In playing around with varuious 3d designs, and looking at the Anime based vessels, I am at a loss as to the predominate and very obvious CIC structure. While the look is appealing to the eye, the glaring weakness is the fact that the ship would be crippled with the loss of the CIC.

Agreed as to the ISD. You bury your CIC inside the ship and rely on your radars and passive detection gear. You also distribute the CIC threoughout the ship so that one penetrating hit to your rocket doesn't throw you out of control. Auxillary steering was understood as far back as Constantine.

As for design, A sphere? When you consider a drive section, the sphere is out. This is where the wet navy has it over the space craft.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4209/ch3-4.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/soyuz.htm

The spacecraft shape that is most efficient for mass distribution, MASS BALANCING, and volume distribution is the sphere.

Why is the sphere out?

Primitive version;

http://www.b5tech.net/art/b5/asimov_w_escort.jpg

http://www.b5tech.net/art/b5/asimov_escape.jpg

Advanced version;

http://www.eon3d.com/temp/Kirishiac01.JPG

Notice the waist weapon emplacements? There is 180= degree coverage fore and aft. You can't get that on a cube or a cheese wedge.

As for the borg, maybe.

http://www.startrek.com/imageuploads/200508/tng-142-j25-borg-cube/320x240.jpg

Can you bring your side and top and bottom beam weapons to bear? No.

With a SPHERE you could.

Shoot the corner weapon emplacements of that cube off, and you create massive exploitable blind spots. The cube is also a horrible sensor platform or a mass distribution for a rocket. You would prefer a sphere, cone, or cylinder to simplify mass distribution, inertia loading, and the placement of any propulsive mechanism you want to use to rotate on your vector.


However, we are talking humans, and as such, we have the tendency to build something that is functional and aesthitically pleasing to look at. I would venture to say that when humans go to the stars, the most likely designs would be along the battlestar or even klingon ships.

It will look more like this.

http://www.spacetoday.org/images/Rockets/FutureSpaceVehicles/Antimatter.jpg

or like this;

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/bussard_ramjet.jpg

Perhaps a discussion of probable earth based designs would be good to start somewhere?

In the art section perhaps?


Anyway, from all the different series and movies, I prefer the battlestar, nice to look at, protected CIC, and functional.

http://www.jdbgrphx.com/project2/gal1pics/gal3.jpg

1. The Alligator is asymmetric and off mass-balanced.(That means the the thrust vector does not coinicide with the center of mass of that rocket Your battlestar pitches off axis on its vector and loops around its center of mass like a crazy ferris wheel.)

2. The out-riggers add to the Alligator's mass inbalance, create massive blind arcs for the port/starboard point defenses and are invitations for missile and particle beam fire by the enemy for all the volatiles that are so exposed inthe outrigger. Any hanger you have, should be either stuck inside the ship behind a wall of armor; or distributed over the exterior waist of the ship in compartmented segments, so that if one section is blown out, you don't have a loss of ship event.

Main gun.

A spinal weapon from the problems involved with heat loading and use(If its a long-ranged particle beam you don't so much as aim that beam as you SLASH with it-like you would with a giant sword to cut across the targets'[more than one target slashed with each rake] predicted intended motion. For that, rolling, pitching, and yawing your ship on its thrust vector conic(remember the sword analogy) is probably what you should expect. The missiles and drones from your ship you can launch from any orientation; but if you are using a beam weapon to engage at a tenth of a light second range; you are going to be pivoting your rocket on it's baseline vector to aim your MASSIVE kilometer long particle beam projector at the enemy fleet.

Your rocket would be built around that spinal weapon.

As always