Jump to content
News Ticker
  • IPB version 4.2 installed!
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.

Recommended Posts

At 42:26, you're pointing out that Andromeda is a "Heavy Cruiser" and an Imperial Star Destroyer is a "Destroyer", assuming that both settings are using the terms the same way a 20th-21st century navy would. This doesn't seem to be the case in Star Wars, where the "Destroyers" seem to be functioning in the role of a cruiser: a multi-role warship designed to engage other heavy ships in combat, ferry troops, and deploy small craft.

 

The Executor has been described as a "command ship" and a "Super Star Destroyer", so the term "destroyer" doesn't seem to have the same usage it does in the modern navy.

 

Star Destroyers appear to be the mainstay, work-horse capital ships of the Imperial fleet, not just escorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Planning: If I recall correctly, its revealed later that the Nietzscheans isolated and ambushed key High Guard forces and initiated a coordinated uprising from within High Guard ranks including Hunt's former 2nd in command. Which does not speak to their skill at planning, rather the opposite that they never sniffed out the arming of the Nietzcheans and the growth of a conspiracy within their midst. Its an extra detail that I think is important.

 

Tractor beams vs tow cables: why is this relevant? As far as I can recall, we see no creative applications of tractor beams other than dragging in ships that don't want to be dragged in. So functionally, as far as we know they are no different than tow cables. We don't even have any implication that either one has significantly greater range or combat utility. They're just two different routes to the same objective.

 

Mass lightning: I don't think Gene Roddenberry came up with the idea behind warp drive or the Commonwealth's gravity drive. My impression was that he was more of a concepts man, characters, setting, themes etc. not so much techno jargon. Just saying.

 

Cybernetics: in either universe, the majority of the population and military personnel appear to not be cybernetically enhanced. The only way I see this being a strategic benefit to Star Wars is the ability to rapidly return critically injured people such as Luke and Vader back to fighting condition. As a general rule, most of the fighting men, women and aliens of Star Wars do no seem to be enhanced by default. The individuals you name in the video are really the only ones we see and they are perhaps 1% of the total characters we see in the saga. Although, as seamless as Luke's replacement hand was, we wouldn't know it in many cases.

 

Robotics: The Systems Commonwealth human form robots probably could be used to dangerous effect as infiltrators in espionage and sabotage.

 

Kinetic resilience of Star Wars shields: What basis is there for assuming the resilience of the typical capital ship's shields against energy attack is proportionate to their defense against kinetic attack? The Hoth asteroid field scene and a TIE crashing into the side of an ISD that was tanking fire from a Rebel frigate without trouble would argue there is a significant disparity between kinetic resilience and EM resilience. The infrastructure needed to successfully resist thermal damage can be very different from resisting kinetic damage.

 

Weapon range: Even if a turbolaser has a range in the light minutes to light hours, their effective range is at best light seconds against a target that is not moving along a predictable path. Missiles are guided and can react and counter evasive actions taken by a maneuvering target as long as their power supply / fuel supply holds out.

 

Buzz droids vs Andromeda: what?! That robot or whatever that was trying to bash its way through the Eureka Maru was way bigger than a buzz droid and we can expect Andromeda's hide to be much tougher than a starfighter. Also note the lack of penetration of the Commonwealth battledroid guns against the Andromeda's hull. Are we really prepared to say that a buzz saw is the equal to a probable armor piercing round that may also be enhanced by gravity field or EM assisted launch?

 

Nomenclature: Not everyone uses the same nomenclature for labeling their ships, so I think its an unnecessary scene to speculate on non-existing Commonwealth battleships based on Andromeda being a cruiser. Its not really relevant to the debate, one way or another, I'm just on the outs lately with trying to fit everything in every universe into the WW2 British Empire / American ship naming conventions as is the habit of some fans, not saying that's your intent here, just that its a brain bug and a bit of a pet peeve.

 

Planetary bombardment: technically Andromeda's primary offensive missiles are kinetic kill so they don't release their energy in all directions. Not that kinetic impacts can't be devastating to surroundings. A quick google of 20 megaton asteroid hit tells me that the infamous Tunguska event was estimated at around 20 megatons.

 

Force lances: holy crap and I thought phasers were versatile.

 

Hyperspace vs Slipstream: There does seem to be one small disadvantage to hyperspace. Perhaps this only applies to very massive ships like the Death Star, but there seems to be a limit to how rapidly a ship can jump again after arriving in a system. This limit is apparently the time it would take the Death Star to clear the gas giant and bring the rebel base into its line of fire or the Rebel fighters to fly in real space to the Death Star instead of jumping. Whereas we see Andromeda arrive and then jump almost immediately, which would be of advantage in detecting less than ideal conditions for an attack or whatever the mission is and decide to high tail it. Although if Star Wars ships can detect a non-FTL object with FTL sensors and thus not be subject to light lag like Andromeda is (not sure if that was established or not) then they can potentially plot a jump and ambush the High Guard ship before it even knows a hostile is in system, assuming the Imperial ship can plot its jump before its position is given away by its light cone / EM emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At 42:26, you're pointing out that Andromeda is a "Heavy Cruiser" and an Imperial Star Destroyer is a "Destroyer", assuming that both settings are using the terms the same way a 20th-21st century navy would. This doesn't seem to be the case in Star Wars, where the "Destroyers" seem to be functioning in the role of a cruiser: a multi-role warship designed to engage other heavy ships in combat, ferry troops, and deploy small craft.

 

The Executor has been described as a "command ship" and a "Super Star Destroyer", so the term "destroyer" doesn't seem to have the same usage it does in the modern navy.

 

Star Destroyers appear to be the mainstay, work-horse capital ships of the Imperial fleet, not just escorts.

 

I was thinking about this last night. Star Destroyer seems to describe a broad family of ships that probably perform similar duties rather than a specific weight class of ship considering Executor is referred to as a Star Destroyer by Vader and a Super Star Destroyer by Ackbar. Probably not unlike Omegas and Victories are called Destroyers in B5 yet Hyperions are referred to as cruisers (not sure if this was on screen or not.)

 

Japan has no cruisers for political reasons but does have destroyers that are bigger than US cruisers. They're even building an aviation destroyer that is twice the tonnage or more of an Arleigh Burke DD. "Battleship" can mean anything from the 20 KT dreadnought era ships to the 80 kiloton monster Yamato.

 

Civilizations call their ships what they do because they want to, not because they're following the naval descriptions of a planet that may not have even existed in their universe. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star destroyers are destroyers, because that is the role they play, not just because of the name. Executor is the command ship, and is always escorted by star destroyers.

Destroyers are usually the workhorse of a fleet. Ask anyone with naval experience, and they will tell you the destroyers are the ones "out doing everything." This is indeed the role star destroyers occupy.

We do see a Commonwealth battleship in the series, which was the only class larger and more powerful than Andromeda.

Since a star destroyer is larger than Andromeda, but nowhere near the largest ship they have, and Andromeda IS, I think the comparison is sound, no matter the nomenclature.

 

Andromeda fires missiles that detonate on impact. There is no evidence they impart much kinetic energy. There is no evidence they penetrate before they explode. Just plain old missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an episode where 20 megaton impact it's were used, but not by Andromeda. It was a different group, with a different technology base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, the point is that ships in Star Wars are larger and more powerful than those in Andromeda. If this isn't clear from the video, should I create a scaled image with Executor beside Andromeda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All nitpicking aside, the most important question remains: do y'all agree or disagree with Brian's take on the end result of this match-up?

 

I mean, yeah ... ISDs do seem to function more like cruisers for the most part, but the EU firmly establishes that ISDs and ilk are, at best, light cruisers (and I'm still ignoring the SSDs which, as Brian said, best fit the battleship or dreadnaught analogue). And based on either DS's size and construction rate, there's no doubt the Empire has the capability to build tens of thousands of them with ease, and very rapidly at that.

 

We can always argue over individual points, like if Brian pegs something at 6 when you or I think it should be a 8 or 9. But when you add everything up, his numbers not only favor what he suggests, he has a knack for hitting nails square atop their heads -- and he has for as long as I've known him, and that goes back to something like 1998 (!!!!!!! Damn, I'm getting old! :D). Put in more crude terms, Brian has a penchant for cutting through a swath of bullshit.

 

That's not to suggest anyone here's bullshitting or anything of the sort; I'm just saying, as Brian likes to say, he's not looking at the trees, he's looking at the whole forest. It's easy to become quagmired in minutiae, but so often that takes us away from the big picture. And that big picture is quite simple: does anyone disagree with Brian's overall conclusions about the Commonwealth vs. the Empire?

 

P.S. -- I grant that seemingly "lesser" concerns remain important, like the fact that the Andromeda crew was impressed by an alien craft with a multi-gigawatt particle beam. Same said for Andromeda's mechs, which I, with all due respect to Brian, think he might've underrated slightly opposite AT-STs. But then, just how are those mechs going to fare against AT-ATs, an AT-whatsit from the Clone Wars or a Juggernaut?

 

Again, all picayune stuff: even assuming Andromeda's mechs managed to shred AT-STs by the baker's dozen, which I think is almost laughably unlikely, pit them against ONE AT-AT, Juggernaut or AT-TE, and I don't even see them penetrating the latter trio's shields or armor even with vastly superior numbers.

 

I honestly think the Andromeda and ships of her type would be better suited toward fighting the Borg rather than the Empire. 20 megaton missiles fired at such a high rate per 40 fwd. tubes could quickly overcome a cube's defenses, depending on just how tough you think Trek ships (and by extension, Borg) are.

 

Of course, there are *supposed* indications that the Andromeda galaxy is the same as Trek's, only set far, far in the future :roll: Forgive me that I don't have the relevant producers' quotes on-hand, but at least some of them envisioned Andromeda as Star Trek thousands of years in the future IIRC.

 

Then again, the Mustafarans "must" have implemented Klingon technology because, when Anakin or Obi-Wan disabled some of the shields, we saw plainly Klingon script, an alert sound, then saw shields drop around the areas that the pair later dueled upon.

 

Perhaps the GFFA is our own, and the likes of the Klingons, Romulans and sort left for another galaxy long ago? :)

 

Eh, apologies. I shouldn't even mention that in the context of this thread!

 

-Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tractor beams vs bucking cables is relevant, because that was the "Overall Technology" section, and tractor beams are a technology the Commonwealth lacks. The Empire, OTOH, has strong cables, as seen at Hoth used by snow speeders.

I agree it doesn't affect ship to ship combat, as it is simply a different means to the same end. That's why I didn't cover it in the "Ship to Ship Combat" section.

Neither would cybernetics, robotics, or medical technology affect ship to ship combat, but it is important to note in regarding "Overall Technology."

 

Sean, thanks for the kind words. I was referring to the mechs efficiency vs infantry being probably superior to AT-STs. Should i clarify this?

 

Of course, AT-STs lack heavy weapons to take out armored or heavy targets, so if these fought each other, that is something to consider. Of course, AT-TEs and AT-ATs have them, which id guess could trash the mechs with the first shot. Far more easily than they could in return.

 

I realize the video is long. I cut out nearly 15 minutes of clarification (babbling) to improve the pacing and decrease the length. A lot of people never watched the ICS series because it runs 2 hours. I regularly receive questions about topics covered ad nauseum in that series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately yes, I agree with the final conclusion. If it comes to a war to the hilt, two civilizations enter, one exits the Commonwealth can win the apocalypse. There's basically no reason to think an ISD can run down a Highguard ship at speed before, during or after it nova bombs the system primary.

 

Heavy armor doesn’t seem to be in common use in Andromeda so I'm iffy on a conquest victory going in their favor though I am much less certain of the outcome in space as I don't think we can equate beam resistance to kinetic resistance but I can't say that I know where kinetic resistance should be pegged for Star Wars. Thermal resistance for the two seems broadly comparable given the sun skimming on both sides so I agree that Andromeda probably couldn't take too many broadsides if she had to close to an ISD's effective range or a Imperial ship were able to jump ambush the Highguard ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow up: even in the overall technology context, if they do the same thing and neither is clearly superior, the only thing off the top of my head that makes the comparison between tractors and cables relevant is flavor: the Empire tends to prefer energy/field based solutions to problems while the Commonwealth puts it's trust in physical objects. Which means nothing but come to think of it, is interesting in and of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Executor: scaling graphics are always cool but you're missing the point. Given the label star destroyer, it probably has the same mission profile as an ISD or Venator so it can probably bring about the apocalypse in half the time it takes me to drive to work. That's not the point.

 

The point is whether all joules are created equal as far as shields go. If so, then the space combat is very one sided. If kinetic impacts are more dangerous, then the Commonwealth might have more of a fighting chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if people are still asking questions that are covered in the ICS videos, maybe you should add a list of topics covered in each segment. You have to admit, that's a lot to take in. If there was something I couldn't remember, I'd probably shoot an e-mail before watching the whole thing again too :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinetic impacts are in fact more dangerous per joule than beam weapons, as we've covered before, such as asteroid collisions, possibly due to the momentum involved. But there is no reason to think Highguard missiles carry significant kinetic energy, other than their high speed at long range. But at such long range, they allow a couple minutes to be shot down, and at high speed like that, it cannot be argued they can fly through or circumvent the shields.

But even if they could simply slam through the shields by virtue of having kinetic energy (begging the question why missiles are not used more frequently in Star Wars), the ship is still covered in armor, probably similar in resilience to Andromeda's. But Imperial ships have many orders of magnitude greater firepower with which to blast through said armor. Andromeda, one of their most powerful ships, has no shields to fuss with. Advantage Imperials, greater resilience, greater firepower.

At close range, the missiles are not particularly fast, and are often avoided. They don't seem able to reaquire a target either.

And we've seen that blasters, and therefore turbolasers, impart a lot of momentum. Whether due to extreme firepower or if the pulses carry mass, the shields and armor do indeed hold up to that. OTOH, asteroid impacts we've discussed involved less than 1km/second relative velocities, which plays right into the "slow object penetrates" hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do intend to create index files for each video, at some point in the future when I'm finished creating them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm relatively certain there is a scene where Hunt calls down an orbital strike on his own position from Andromeda and describes it as a projectile about the size of a fist accelerated to 90 percent of light speed. If I'm thinking of something else, the yield is at least consistent with Andromeda's missiles being 20 megatons "give or take" the give or take could be attributed to variances in relative velocity and the .9c speed would be consistent with light minute ranges and the attack method of the missiles which is to ram the ship.

 

Your implicit assumption is that the shields protect equally against kinetic attacks as they do beams, what is the basis for this assumption?

 

Also with Andromeda, there is significant variance between dialog and visuals, so which do you go with? The visuals with missiles closing at improbably slow velocities given the ranges stated or the dialog which is generally internally consistent with itself but is defied by the visuals in a way that only the writers of Stargate can truly sympathize with in terms of sheer contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to list topics covered by the video links sooner rather than waiting to do a proper index. The index idea is impressive in its ambition but in the here and now the volume of content is such that it is overwhelming to contemplate looking for answers to a simple question among it all. I think I know the ICS argument forward and backwards at this point but if I were looking for a second opinion or a better way of framing the argument, I wouldn't know which of four videos to look for my answers. Something akin to Video X "do turbo lasers have momentum? , how big of a hole would a Venator make in other scifi ships assuming similar materials? Is acceleration a valid method for determining firepower?" stuff like that. No need for a synopsis of the whole thing, just a list of topics covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Destroyers are usually the workhorse of a fleet. Ask anyone with naval experience, and they will tell you the destroyers are the ones "out doing everything." This is indeed the role star destroyers occupy.

 

Destroyers are the workhorses today, but this was not always the case. In WW1-WW2, destroyers were relatively small (there's a WW2 destroyer next to the Alabama at battleship park, compare it to a modern destroyer), and their purpose was to intercept and destroy torpedo boats before they could threaten larger warships. Larger cruisers were the workhorses of that time, and even larger battleships were the "ships of the line".

 

The supremacy of carriers in WW2 changed the roles of warships. Attacking other warships became the job of carrier-based aircraft, and battleships were reduced to the roles of anti-aircraft fire and shore bombardment. With battleships shifting into those roles, cruisers fell into disuse.

 

The development of guided missiles changed the naval mix again. Battleships were no longer effective at preventing air attack and not as accurate for shore bombardment as missiles, so they fell out of favor. Destroyers were effective missile platforms, so they kept getting larger; a modern destroyer is the size of a WW1-WW2 cruiser.

 

What all this means is that naval terminology evolves over time. There's no reason to assume that a futuristic space navy is using terms the way we are using them today or have used them in the past. B5 is a good example, the term "destroyer" in B5 is used much like "battleship" would have been used in the 20th century: a "full destroyer" is the largest and most powerful type of warship, not an escort.

 

Likewise, "Star Destroyer" seems to describe a "ship of the line" in the Imperial Navy - a cruiser or battleship, not an escort. Of course, the Empire seems to call every class of capital warship it builds a "Star Destroyer", so it's really hard to make any conclusions about role from their terminology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There do seem to be some variables that might affect the outcome of an Empire-Commonwealth war.

 

As you noted, the Empire's propulsion method doesn't require finding a "slipstream entry point". Finding those points will slow down a Commonwealth advance. If this war starts at "first contact", before either side has mapped the other's galaxy, the Empire will be able to launch probe droids and use its superior communications technology to rapidly map the Commonwealth's territory, allowing them to go on the offensive. The Commonwealth can easily destroy a star system, but they have to find their way to it first. If they're having to commit their forces to defending against Imperial attacks on their own territory, that may not be very practical.

 

If war only breaks out after the two sides have "mapped" the territory of the enemy, then the Commonwealth has a distinct advantage. If they have to do reconnaisance to locate the enemy's assets before launching an attack, it seems that the Empire would be able to find and attack Commonwealth assets first.

 

One thing that I don't recall coming up is ECM. The Empire uses a lot of sensor jamming, which could be a problem for Commonwealth forces on multiple scales. A device worn on the arm was an effective defense against the "smart bullets" used in Andromeda, so I have to speculate that Imperial jamming technology would also be effective against the Commonwealth's guided missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the Commonwealth use ship scale ecm as well or was that not confirmed on screen and just a product of the All Systems library site?

 

However, a case could be made that the Empire's jamming is significantly more effective as it MAY, emphasis on MAY be one reason why battles are frequently fought at visual range, the implication being that at bvr they can blind passive sensing devices and distort active sensor returns. Even at visual ranges, accuracy is not perfect for capital ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding battleships, the battleship equivalent in the High Guard is not explicitly called that any more than Executor is ever called a battleship. Also, although on screen scaling might contradict this, the semi official website All Systems Library that was set up to promote the show and functioned as a unofficial series bible put it as actually being smaller than Andromeda by virtue of having been stripped of all noncombat functions and focusing exclusively on carrying the heaviest possible weapons load for its size. It's similar in concept to the Defiant. I have not seen Andromeda in years and last time I checked, it's not on Netflix, so I cannot verify if any of this was confirmed on screen.

 

As far as Ex being a battleship, that may be the role it appears to play and given how little she does on screen, I could challenge you to prove that's really what role she plays given she stays out of the line of fire at Hoth when she probably should be able to tank the rebel ion cannon fire and thus enforce the blockade. However this really boils down to a semantics argument that is only slightly less meaningless to the discussion as a whole than asking someone what their definition of is is, so I won't bog down the thread with it further.

 

However, I will make the comment that size confers greater power and resilience usually but not always in the way we expect. The queen of the seas in WW1 where gunfire was the main arbiter of victory was the battleship. The queen of the sea in the age of the guided missile is the aircraft carrier yet except for contrarion designs like the Russian carrier, the only offensive missiles most carriers have aboard have to be attached to a fighter and flown to the enemy. No one except the Russians have built anything resembling a missile battleship and even it's a baby at 25 kilotons give or take compared to a 70 kt Iowa or a brute like Yamato. So the carrier is the dominant warship for now but it's not just a scaled up destroyer but rather goes about its work in a very different way. This is why I start grinding my teeth when we start making assumptions based on names or sizes. Not every combat model involves big ships using the same kind of weapons except more and bigger weapons delivered the same way as the smaller ships. By that reasoning if we have thousands of tanks with <5" guns we should have a few super tanks with 18" guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh, I explained the argument is not based on names or semantics, and I get in return...a page and a half of names and semantics. :)

Okay, so apparently the idea is not sufficiently explained in the video. I therefore added the scale image of Executor vs Andromeda and described it as "An Imperial fleet command ship compared to a Highguard fleet command ship." These are indeed the ships used as command ships, among the larger, more powerful ones on each side, call it whatever you will.

 

No, the example where Hunt called down missiles is the very example I referred to earlier. I have the clip if you want it. It was not from Andromeda, nor a Highguard facility, but an enemy one using different technology.

 

I thought I covered the missile thing in my previous post, so just read that. I guess this wasn't covered sufficiently in the video, so I added the spider commander clip "your torpedoes are NO match for my thermal shields."

 

Thanks for the feedback everybody. Are there any more areas that need clarification?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted, I thought long and hard about that as well. But the idea I came up with was the Empire, while they can map faster, has to map more stuff to use hyperdrive. They need pretty detailed maps to avoid objects, while the Commonwealth just needs a rough idea. I one of the clips I included, note they jumped 66 million light-years, far outside known space, and returned.

 

S, theCommonwealth battleship was larger and more powerful than Andromeda, perhaps by 50%. There was a different ship that was perhaps Defiant-like, but it wasn't a battleship. But I don't feel my argument is based on semantics. It is based on scale. Imperial ships are far larger, and based on included quotes, far more powerful, than anything the Highguard had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got to be kidding me here Brian, what part of "don't agree with interpreting cruiser or destroyer as having any other meaning than liking to call ships cruisers and destroyers in that universe" means "the Executor isn't significantly more massive and probably not more powerful than anything else in its own universe and most others?" How was that not clear enough in my last two posts?! Did I not say that the Ex could probably cause on apocalypse in less time than it takes me to drive to work? You want to call it a battleship, fine be that way, my point was that designations like cruiser or destroyer are JUST NAMES.

 

I'm tackling individual topics piece meal as part of the time I've been afk so rather than sit down and generate one grand post of nit picks, and that's really what they are, disagreements about specifics not necessarily final outcomes, I've been addressing specific topics. I have read all of your posts, have you actually read mine? I'm starting to wonder because you're still treating this like ANYONE questioned that Executor is a large and powerful ship rather than criticizing using the designations of the ship to extrapolate other parts of the order of battle or acting as if what different universes choose to call their ships actually matters, when its all fiat, both in science fantasy and reality - once more I give you the fact that Japan has plans for destroyers that are not really destroyers but function as carriers, are as big as World War 1 battleships and dwarf US cruisers, naming ships is completely arbitrary and should not be used to read into the relative power of different universes.

 

Also you REALLY seem to have a knee jerk reaction to Executor being brought up and it seems to cause you to misread everything everyone ever says about it as an attack on its power and size. It can't even hardly be mentioned without you feeling the need to remind everyone how big it is relative to everything else. We know. Most of us can wrap our brains around almost 18 kilometers of ship vs 1.6 or 1.2 and what that means in terms of overall volume. Stop assuming everyone else on the planet is trying to lynch Executor. I'm not convinced of the Empire being equally capable of defeating kinetic attacks as it is beams but I don't consider for even a minute that there is a ship under consideration in any of these universes that could conceivably handle coming within weapons range of Executor for longer than a few seconds.

 

The missile thing is extremely problematic because there is a clear conflict between dialog and visuals. Both of which are extremely consistent internally but disagree violently with each other. Dialog paints a picture of light minute engagement ranges at significant percentages of light speed, necessitating relativistic missile speeds for combat to be at all practical. Which also explains why the main source of damage might be kinetic rather than a traditional warhead because at those speeds, the chassis of the missile will do more damage than any conceivable warhead except for a science fictional energy source that puts out more energy per kilo than a M/AM without adding additional weight. Hence the reason why it seems much more likely that if you go by dialog, kinetic kill missiles are the standard payload of the universe.

 

The visuals on the other hand, show missiles at low closing speeds of less than kilometers per second where they would probably not even show up in a frame by frame if they had a closing velocity of .9c. The dialog again and again states these sorts of ranges and speeds which leads me to believe that the visuals are essentially slow motion in the launch and final attack of the missiles and sped up / or selectively edited to reduce the amount of time the audience spends waiting. Another possibility, which I consider to be far fetched in the extreme, is that missiles only accelerate to relativistic speeds after they've traveled off camera from the ship and then slow down on final approach to the target to mere kilometers per second relative speed. Why they would do this when their impact at a closing velocity of percentages of light speed (as frequently stated in dialog) would make for cheaper destructive power than a nuclear warhead, I have no good idea.

 

The alternative to this fix is to the go with visuals exclusively and throw out 5 seasons of dialog that kept using the same jargon: light minutes, light seconds, percentage light speed. All the characters are wrong, the ships don't travel at percentages of light speed allowing them to throw off missiles that would also be moving at percentages of light speed plus whatever extra acceleration the missiles receive from the ship and their own onboard propulsion, instead they must travel at a few KPS, perhaps less, otherwise how could they have missiles that are slower than the ships themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus the things you fuckers argue about, thanks for being here each and every one of you are great for morale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×