DSG2k

Just to bookend this old conversation, here is what I said in 2010: "If one wants a specific estimate, I'd guess a density of 750kg/m³ and an ISD mass of 40,000,000 tonnes.". That's currently the #1 Google result for "star destroyer mass". Here is a recent Star Wars Marvel comic in the new canon: So, it seems both the Lucas canon and the Disney canon are in agreement. And, given wildly destructive low-velocity rammings and kyber crystal superlaser effects, the Disney canon actually seems to further agree with me . . . which is not a gloat at all, just a note of irony since I don't use it.

+1 to NX-01… the "what does God need with a starship?" line redeems several other minutes of wasted celluloid and visible cellulite in Star Trek V. The fact that it is still shown, as Seafort notes, is also potential proof that it is not as bad as the Holiday Special. ST5 might kill a few brain cells per person, and in aggregate may have been seen by almost as many people even 26 years later, but it is a 9mm to the SWHS's 2-gauge.

Uhura can actually sing, so SW wins easily.

4 5 6

Re: Lower limit We can stretch "similar" in regards to Earth to try to bring it down, but that's about it (other than those faked values obtained via discarding evidence). Re: artificial gravity That would bring up the question of how they established the mass via scans in the first place. To establish mass, you would generally either estimate based on volume and density or else you would look at the gravitational relationships. The crew apparently didn't know what the planet was made of until Sulu completed his analysis, so they couldn't have been estimating based on that. Thus, the mass was most likely estimated from the gravity (having an orbiting ship makes this easy). So if it walks like a duck and you don't know it doesn't have feathers, why say it ain't a duck? The only alternative is that there is some subspace mass-registering whatzit. But then having way less gravity showing (e.g. when their orbit was all wrong) would've been a notable discontinuity, and they wouldn't have been wondering if the place was constructed. Grav plating would tend to give that away. ;-)

A correction about diburnium-osmium ... that was from "That Which Survives" and the Catwoman planet (which probably orbits the Riddler sun, and has an average planetary density of 275,000 kg/m^3, it seems). The Kelvans used something similar to diburnium but considerably *more* dense. http://weblog.st-v-sw.net/2015/02/that-which-is-diburnium.html Suffice it to say, based on diburnium it takes significant density to be phaser-proof due only to density.

Not nothing, but there are definitely other considerations. Again, the prior version had an open-air cockpit without even a windshield for branch deflection. So I imagine it is better than clone armor but when you get right down to it, we have no clue how blaster-resistant it is supposed to be. I am not aware of seeing one hit other than by Chewie's shot using AT-ST guns that blew one up. "Decisively" is a topic for another time, but even stipulating to that for the moment, it is funny you bring it up. See, my thought about Tyralak's suggestion that phasers would be expected to fracture rock ... besides that I had already pointed out that it can either fracture or cleanly vaporize ... was that his statement applied best to blasters. Being packets of radioactive particles with limited penetration commonly displayed, blaster hits that damage rock would presumably be doing so (to borrow from Tyr) by adversely affecting water content, air pockets, 'impurities', and such. However, we were all studiously avoiding blasters in favor of focusing on phasers, so I take your change of subject as an indication that the phaser points stand. Indeed. Safe to say that wasn't mere steel, either.

Hyperdense mashed potatoes in that pot, eh? I think not. Off the top of my head the references to density affecting phasers are Kirk on the Catwoman asteroid saying that the fact his phaser wouldn't dig out a tomb for d'Amato is because it looked like rock but was "infinitely denser", as well as Spock speculating that the Kelvan diburnium-osmium alloy jail bars were too dense for even their phasers to cut through. So yes, extreme density is a thing, the key word being "extreme". Is the toranium inlaid on some DS9 doors extremely dense? I wouldn't think so ... like duridium barrels, some things are just inherently resistant to the tech in use. For a very rough modern analogy, some of the latest electronic gizmos are much more fragile than older electronics ... a minor EM pulse or static event can kill them whereas an older object wouldn't notice. A minor bit of overpressure can knock out a hard drive temporarily whereas an older system based purely on integrated circuits wouldn't be affected, et cetera. Or for a better analogy, who would've ever thought that a mirror and heavy clothing would be useful against the latest military gear? Well, when you are being fired upon by dazzlers and those freaky skin-heating beam things, they are. Phasers, however, are seen to be effective against most any common target. Yes, the phasers can be tuned for certain things, e.g. killing carbon-based life versus silicon-based. But even in that same episode, the Horta was a hard target and yet Kirk was pondering using their phasers to dig their own tunnels in the rock to out-maneuver the fast-tunneling creature, so there was more to it than just silicon being troublesome ... 90% of Earth's crust is composed of silicates, after all, and we have no specific indication of that world being off-the-wall in that regard. As for the volume of noranium vaporized, I agree it was not an extreme amount. That was not the point. That they could heat a pile of it so that some of it was at temperatures higher that steel's melting point using a low phaser setting was the point. They were at less than half the maximum. So the point here, still, is that the suggestion that common metal will resist phasers is on untenable ground. I am not saying they could make a feet-thick steel wall blow up like the Insurrection limestone, but that is not required. We're talking about penetrating three inches of steel. There is simply no plausible argument yet presented that would suggest this is going to be more phaser resistant than several feet of rock. Given that the AT-ST probably features steel in its thin-walled cab construction (which still represented a major improvement over the prior generation's *open cab*), I would wager that the Sherman tank's three inch armor should be a fair guide, if not actually generous.

What are you even trying to refer to? I showed the solid rock from Insurrection. Worf's shot was against a "crack" in the igneous rock. Sisko's shot was against "a wall of stone". Do you wish to have me take you seriously? Source, please. But in any case, almost half a meter at 10km versus four meters at unspecified range is a difference of eight times, and we haven't even touched on how many sgells were fired. Comparing a crapload of inches to a handful of meters is hardly an honest-minded response in the context of three inches of steel versus feet of rock. You presume a contradiction where none need exist. Clean vaporization and explosive shots have both been observed. Does it not follow that Worf's shot is the former, whereas the latter would be more ... explosive? Finally, you clearly have no argument against Merik. He was washed out for a split-second of indecision in a psycho-simulator test. His knowledge of the tech of his own era is not in doubt. You are basically a 17th Century naval aficionado making sweeping declarations about modern aircraft carrier small arms in contradiction to an able sea captain who got booted from Annapolis for political-correctness-grade reasons. I know who I trust, and it ain't you.

That is an interesting theory. See, I have seen an 18-wheeler go to 17 at close range while in motion, and have seen dozens of lost treads and the remains of a handful or two of other blowouts. I have never seen a tractor-trailer lose it due to a blowout ... they have another wheel and tire *right there*. Even though this semi-trailer did not have tandem axles, the yield of tge blowout would have had to be remarkable to behave as you suggest. While I appreciate your artful dodge efforts, the simple fact is that in the context of killing a Sherman tank you asked if packing crates and mudflaps were tougher than the tank, which means you were suggesting that phasers were unable to deal with such targets. If you were claiming a particular bullet could penetrate a car engine and someone who actively tries to disagree with you all the time said "is an engine tougher than a ceramic plate? Or a few inches of ballistic gelatin? Yes or no?" ... well, it hardly follows that you are agreeing, and such questions make no sense unless you are suggesting those things can stop the bullet. Now maybe it was 1:30AM for you, and based on a similar thread at DITL from 2008 I would assume you didn't mean to put it that way (though at the time you also claimed Worf's shot took out 3-4 cubic meters so frankly there's no telling), but it is the *meaning* of what you said despite any later backpedaling, so don't go calling me a liar just because of another of your own errors. More later.

1. Please demonstrate that the referenced rock-eating events feature loose piles. 2. Inches of steel are not going to be more resistant than feet of rock. Already addressed. I read it as a clean, non-explosive vaporization of about two cubic meters of granite. They were trying to be stealthy, you know ... making Insurrection-style blasts would not have furthered that goal. His advisor Merik knew more than you or I. Perhaps you hve some evidence showing why we should disregard his statements?

Paris, 20th Century aficionado, tries the "shoot out the tire" sort of trick, and we see him hit the outer bolt holding on the mudflap before sparks and smoke obscure the scene. He is successful. The shot causes the vehicle to lose control briefly ... it had been traveling in a straight line but then is seen run off the road to its left and then engaged in an apparent rightward recovery maneuver with brakes on (intentionally or otherwise). Paris believes he has slowed/disabled the semi-trailer, turning his attention away from it. However, the vehicle is next seen in motion from the front, which is all we see until the tractor truck is destroyed. Even then, all we see is the trailer from the opposite side. The most likely outcome from Paris's shot is that the tire tread was blown out with sidewall remaining somewhat intact, and the rim heated to such a degree that the trailer brakes activated or the rim just locked on the axle at that point. Your claim that the vehicle was undamaged or specifically that the mudflap was undamaged is going to require proof, and after reviewing the scene I can tell you that you don't have it.

Steel would be a trick to show given the rare appearances. They didn't have a phaser when breaking out of the Nazi prison or the Roman cell with "fine carbon steel" bars. Of course we see them gently vaporize the junk metal noranium via thermal means at a mere setting 7 of 16 ... noranium's vaporization temp is less than that of steel, but the temp is far greater than the melting point of steel. And of course phasers eat rock like candy, the blasting of several cubic meters of rock in Insurrection being a nice example. Even a 2260's Type I style phaser was capable of dynamite-like effects. Riker, in "Frame of Mind"[TNG6], suggests that setting his phaser to level 16 on a wide field should be sufficient to destroy half of the building he is occupying. Though we don't know the exact size of the structure, we know based on the multiple wards and corridors that the building is quite substantial. It seemed to be a metallic-walled structure. And let's not forget that the Roman Proconsul believed phaser pistols would be sufficient to defeat the armies of a 20th Century Rome. Rome was hardly the type to eschew large destruction machines. So why would you think an old tank with a mere three inches of inert metal cladding would be sufficient?

Is *that* what he was talking about? I wasn't gonna use shuttle or 29th Century phasers. In any event, duridium barrels were sufficient against Jem'Hadar polaron beams. That material is also known to have been used in high-quality darts (we commonly use common metals like steel today but titanium and tungsten darts are available as high-end items), and is presumably not easily replicated given the shipment of ore the Norkova once carried. We never hear of iron ore being hauled about. Rocks and barrels were also used as cover against stun beams in "Too Short A Season"[TNG1], though we never saw Tasha try anything more than aim to defeat them. Meanwhile, large chunks of solid rock can be blown away or cleanly vaporized. Temperatures of thousand of degrees can be generated in rock and metal with low-level shots. But all of the sudden, Shermans are phaser-proof? I think not. But please, do show me the simple packing crates you have in mind, and be prepared to explain the more numerous examples of this from TCW. Also, to quote myself: 2. The "Packing Crate" TheorySome claim that phasers are weak and useless based on the fact that cargo containers have been used for cover in combat. They argue that since these "packing crates" are not penetrated by phaser fire, then phasers can't penetrate anything. The mental image they want you to have is of someone diving behind a wooden crate which then holds off phaser fire indefinitely, which is of course invalid. While it's true that we've seen people dive for cover behind cargo containers, the logic behind the claim itself is flawed. The claim itself makes no distinction in regards to what is being used for cover, and not just any container will do. "Who Mourns for Morn?"[DS9-6] shows us a perfect example of that. When a latinum exchange goes bad, Quark dives into the container that held the numerous bars of gold-pressed latinum loose inside. Though one might expect this container to be sufficiently tough to survive shifting bars of latinum slamming against the side, it was nevertheless ineffective for Quark's purpose, which he discovered to his chagrin when raybeams zipped back and forth right through it. On the flip side of the coin, we have "Blaze of Glory"[DS9-5]. Sisko and Eddington are surprised at the Maquis version of the Alamo by two Jem'Hadar soldiers. Taking cover behind barrels, Sisko comments that "these barrels are made of duridium. That should hold them off for awhile." By analogy, the difference would be like taking cover in a modern gunfight behind a plywood sheet versus taking cover behind a thick-walled steel drum. The objector would have us believe that the modern gunfighters, because they are taking cover behind something, must be taking cover behind the plywood sheet, and that therefore bullets are useless. That claim is absurd.

Do you not think a phaser can kill a tank? Say, an old Sherman? If you think it could, what evidence do you have that an AT-ST would be more difficult?