Jump to content
News Ticker
  • IPB version 4.2 installed!

the atom

Members
  • Content Count

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About the atom

  • Rank
    Senior Member

core_pfieldgroups_99

  • Location
    The dark side of the moon
  • Interests
    boring ones.
  1. Well for a rough estimate of it's mass I suppose you could take the Galactica's volume and assume it has the same average density as a modern warship.
  2. Hey I've got a minor request about a particular scene from the new Battlestar Galactica. In particular at around 0:30. Probably doesn't warrant a whole case study on it's lonesome, but I was kind of curious as to how powerful those guns on the colony would have to be to shake the Galactica around like that. Does anybody have a general idea?
  3. The issue with that is that if they started penetrating the crust, the material in front of the bolt still has to go somewhere. You'd see a gigantic explosion anyway just from the displacement of material.
  4. My theory is that due to the slower nature of turbolasers, as well as the fact that they're pretty much the single most power capital ship weapon availible, closing to well within a few dozen kilometers or less becomes pretty much necessary even if ships can go incredibly fast. It would just be impractical and nobody would ever accomplish anything. Like Brian said though, it could also be an issue of the way turbolasers interact with shields at range. From what I saw in the warp speed combat scenes posted by Brian, maneuvering to line up a shot took waaay more time, and then the rate of fire consequently suffered. I imagine ships would probably find it more convenient to simply drop to STL speeds and let the other guy have it whilst tanking the return fire as best as possible. I believe Sisko's son also mentioned that excessive maneuvering at warp caused could cause stress on a ship's frame. As to why they close to knife-fighting ranges when at STL, I might attribute that to jamming or something. My preference is to rationalize and reconcile perceived contradictions where possible.
  5. That's kind of what I was thinking. We know an ISD's reactor can put out a lot of power, but then consider how huge it is. Even if the reactor was combustable (and there's quite a few good reasons that directly suggest it isn't as many people here have pointed out), launching something like that on a missile would be......a tad impractical.
  6. My theory as to why they rely on the relatively short range and inaccurate (before you jump, I'm talking about missiles systems that can chase fighters through obstacles and plot an independent intercept path) turbolasers is because they can't make explosives as powerful as they can make turbolasers.
  7. I just think it'd be cool because the whole cloak factor sort of throws a monkey wrench into the standard 'weapons capability+power generation' equation that typically ends with Star Trek on the short end of the stick in the same way that submarines partially negated Britain's battleship supremacy in the first world war.
  8. Hey Brian, I've been mulling over a versus scenario for a little bit and was wondering if you'd ever consider doing a 'this versus that' scenario on a Klingon Bird of Prey versus something like a Star Destroyer at some point.
  9. Similar ease? I don't think there's any official numbers anywhere that designate capital ship weapons as even remotely comparable to anything in that video. I mean, we're talking about the difference between melting a planet's crust over or under an hour vs. a dozen-ish missiles mass scattering a planet in seconds. The Empire's PD isn't exactly shown or said to be particularly exceptional either, which is a really really really bad thing when even one of these could handily ruin the Executor's day, let alone any other Imperial ship.
  10. Maybe Weyoun was merely exaggerating, and by 'useless' he meant 'mostly ineffective'.
  11. I'm not really sure what the limiting factor could even be. As far as we know, they can fly and hover for indefinite periods of time (to my knowledge fuel has never been mentioned as a concern) and they can fly in space, which means that neither fuel nor air is any particular concern. At least not in the same way as a rocket or jet. That sort of depends on the setting. At higher settings like maximum extermination, Dalek gun sticks would be closer to an RPG then anything we would ever consider 'small arms'. Waitaminute how does that follow? Based on that logic, you could deny virtually all high firepower claims for Starwars capital ships despite the considerable amount of indirect evidence that supports the notion. We never see an ISD turn a city into a mushroom cloud with it's bow guns, but there's a lot that suggests that this is well within their capabilities and more.
  12. I don't think it's kill-rate is necessarily connected to it's combat effectiveness in that scene. The guards posed exactly zero danger to the Dalek in question, so there's no reason why it wouldn't be able to take it's time if it so chose. Remember in later episodes like Doomsday or Daleks in Manhattan that they went on rampages and killed tens if not dozens of people in a very short timespan.
  13. Are you sure you did your math right? I converted it and it comes out as 3 exatons per second. The Executor doesn't put out 3 exatons per second.
×