Questor

So I was reading the Star Wars Encyclopedia (book, not Wookieepedia), and I came across one race, the Ganathans, whose starships are STEAM-powered. You read that right. I know I'm probably giving Jason ammo, but this doesn't look too good for SW power generation levels.

Cite please? Where else in the EU does it occur?

Also, you know that steam is one of the better ways of converting anything to power right? It drives turbines.

I'm talking about the fact that we see the Death Star under construction at the end of Revenge of the Sith. It was clearly to far under construction to have been just been made in a few days, which was how long the Empire had existed at that point.

As I recall, we see something that looks like the Death Star. And what does that have to do with anything? I'm pretty sure there's significant funding behind the sith in the prequels. Do you really think the Kaminoans took a PO for their clones? Do you really think that Drth Maul just stole that ship?

And you still have not answered my question about everything else.

Which still shows that they were indeed spending a shit load of money on military.

 

Perhaps the 5 million additional Clones would have bankrupped the Republic, because of all the ships it was building , and the new "super-duper-don't-tell-anyone-or-we'll-kill-you" project of building a planet-killing weapon was already taxing the Republic's economy, especially in times of war where relief efforts would also incur high spendings for the Republic...

Please calculate the per capita additional tax burden on a million world poliical entity of a 10 million soldier army (5 million combat troops, plus 5 million support)

Use current global GDP and population for averages, and use US military cost per soldier/sailer/airman/marine.

Then tell me that that is going to bankrupt anyone.

What I'm saying is that a two-millionfold increase in millitary membership in only 20 years is just a tad ridiculous.

Not when there wasn't a military at all before.

 

And the Death Star was being built when it was still the Republic.

 

Plans existed for a weapon similar to the Death Star. The need for the plans in ANH imply that it is not the same weapon - unless you are claiming that construction of that platform was kept secret for 20 years? Are you really that crazy?

And I suppose the second one appeared as if by magic?

The Executor and her sisters?

But Khas, this came from a cartoon, and even thought the cartoon is higher canon, it's invalid because it is a kiddie show, unlike the ICS or any other SW books which are kiddie books, but rank higher in validity but lower in canon...

It's invalid because it's idiotic. If trekkies can demand that I ignore it when Data/Janeway/Geordi/Riker/Wesley/Torres/Kim/Picard/Dax/Troi/The Doctor/Crusher/Pulaski/Tuvok/Anyone Else butchers science, engineering, economics, general sanity and common sense - I get to ignore the stupid parts of the movies and that show (which I still have not watched - and don't plan to).

Heck, Data doesn't even know what a decayed body looks like, and... well... Torres can't identify shit even with a tricorder.

Says you!

 

 

 

Seriously, though, the reason why I think the uniform is more than just a "thicker uniform" to keep warm is because of all the times we saw Starfleet officers go in hotter or colder environments while wearing only the standard uniform.

 

So I surmised that the thicker lining was useful to add many pockets and pouches a soldier would need on a mission...

Except we don't see any pockets or pouches, or web gear, or load bearing equipment. Also, we have seen Starfleet uniforms that have a lot of pockets and were warmer...

Back when Starfleet wasn't space-hippies obsessed with being "non-violent."

KIRK WORE THEM!!!!!!! They even had holsters!

And those efforts must be REALLY taxing to the Republic's economy, considering that 5 million clones is only one fifteenth of the total number of deaths in WW2.

A cite for 35 million combat casualties, please? (It's got to be combat casualties, it's too low to be general casualties)

Overridden by the fact that the Republic was nearly bankrupted by the purchase of 5 million clones.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

I'll bet the Republic had a very different taxation and revenue structure than the Empire did. Not to mention revolution is a decent way to change entitlement programs.

Ya guys do realize that staying put is relative when above ground and in space right?

It's relative on the ground too.

And I made that same point earlier in the thread and I was ignored. I think they've gone so far off the deep end that they aren't interacting with anyone but the other combatant.

Two immortals, locked in eternal combat.

<Cue Pirates of the Carribean Movie Theme>

Or even the Sovereign, which has less "wasted" space than the GCS, and is clearly more combat oriented.

 

Although, as some people over at DITL have pointed out, why put so many windows on a warship?

While the general design philosophy probably carried through, Sovereigns (and any other ship we've seen) have individual quarters and large areas that the Defiants don't. Undoubtedly more teeth than a Galaxy, but I don't know how they compare to the previous generation.

Unlike "modern" world, in Star Trek ship's hull is not useless against weapons, and is integral part of defence, which means that there is some use of making it tougher, beacouse it will provide better protection - while today's naval ships would need insane amounts of armor to provide any protection at all against anti-ship missiles.

It actually wasn't missiles (or torpedoes) that killed the battleship, if they had someone would have built one between 1945 and the late '70s when the first real ASM became available. In fact, if you only look at the context of conventional sea based weapons, the "balanced" battleship should have reached its most powerful sometime in '70s, with new classes becoming less and less "balanced" as time goes on. Eventually, the development of shaped charge warheads (and especaily the idea to put the fuel in front of the warhead) would have doomed the "balanced" battleship, but except for one thing, the concept of a massive 120,000+ ton (assuming size goes up in a similar rate with carriers and other classes - and remember the most modern western cruisers were designed as destroyers) weapons carrier would be extremely attractive.

On the other hand, the long range bomber armed with nuclear devices does make any armor worthless in exactly the right time frame.

BTW, what's your point? I simply took issue with the characterization of "tougher" since its such a worthless value for a warship (or anything), you need to look at how well they meet the requirements. I do think that TNG ships would be weaker ton-for-ton than a TOS ship, but that has more to do with the fact that they wast so much tonnage on "multi-role" and families.

The Defiant on the other hand...

And that thicker jacket will most likely have more pockets, or bigger ones, and the padding used to protect you from cold will also offer more protection from physical impacts, like a punch, than your suit jacket will.

 

But as I wrote, I also don't think the Starfleet "combat uniform" seen in DS9 is armor...

I'm not really arguing with you.

You're sane.

Yes, they are almost always used while stationary

Stationary is a relative concept. Literally.

As much as I think this is a moronic topic, my gripes with it have nothing to do with using tractor beams in an atmosphere. Jason just wants the Galaxy-X to exist for some reason.

What does that prove? Are you seriously trying to use the texture of the fabric to prove something?

It was definitely thicker than standard Strafleet uniforms, but I'm not sure it could be called armor either, certainly not like Klingons, Cardassians or Jem' Hadar...

 

Maybe some sort of "body control" uniform, or maybe even combat fatigues filled with pouches of rations, extra power packs, etc...

I have a jacket that's thicker than a suit jacket too, I wear it when it's cold out.

You know, like it might be when you are in a cave.

BTW, I noticed that someone said that Goldshirts have no body armor. That is wrong - we saw it in Siege of AR-558 (I hope I got number right) andone more episode.

You did, but when did we see body armor? It would be far better to reference the armor used in TWOK-era, as that is inarguable.

Unless you are repeating Jason's claim that the uniform jacket they were wearing was body armor.

You forgot that philosophy changed since WW2. WW2 ships are built to withstand hits. Modern ships are built not to get hit in first place, beacouse modern anti-ship missiles are strong enough to make any reasonable amount of armor worthless, and protection they do have in case they get hit is not so much focused on avoiding damage, as it is focused on limiting it on one specific area of ship. But in Star Trek, metallurgy is advanced enough to make hull (coupled with Structural Integrity Field) still a viable defence against shipboard weapons, althought still not terribly effective.

You said tougher, you didn't say more combat effective. Of course, it certainly could be argued that a modern ship's "armor" include her self defense systems, and I would make that argument. The problem with your reasoning is that you assume newer = better without looking at the inherent design decisions involved in that assumption. If you continue a philosophy, newer will almost certainly be better, but philosphies DO change. In Star Trek, at least until after Voyager launched, the Federation ALSO changed philosophies - leading to a change in ship design priorities, not to mention training priorities. Think about it, during TNG, in order to supply plot issues, a number of things that were done with button presses in TOS were said to take tremendous effort. I seem to recall that both reversing tractor beams and remodulating phasers were done in TOS, and I know that Crusher felt the need to remind her staff how to deal with burns and do triage in one episode.

You made an absolute statement that was demonstrably false and that plays into the "tech level" fallacy. If you want to argue using better phrasing, I might even agree with you.

WORDS MATTER.

Depending on the dictates of the story, it's not inconceivable for them to use a structural integrity enhancement field on the saucer.

This is Star Trek, they throw continuity, science and logic out the window without any provocation at all. Why blame the story?

 

Brings up hypermatter/solar ionization reactor debate.

 

*Eyes bleed*

Paul, this is why I lock threads...

Newer ships were made to withstand new weapons, so they are certainly toughter.

The Iowa would like a word with you.

The fact Admiral Riker command the USS Enterprise D in Star Terk TNG all good things. It just theory how Riker commander starship half destroy other half left planet in Star Terk Generations.

This thread is pointless. Riker could have been commanding the Enterprise-B in that reality without it mattering to the plot of Generations.

In practice saucer section left more or less in-tactic on surface of Veridian III. It possible Admiral Riker savager USS Enterprise D latter technology.

What is this in relation to?

In practice, squadron of Attack Fighters destroys Death Star as soon as they get to the vent.

Interesting choice of words...

"in practice"

He is, but we aren't talking about how tough he is in RL, only his debating style...

That was a response to the assertion that he was a Mid-westerner.

It have been mix with normal matter or to explode. Other wise how else would it make power.