Star Wars Vessel Densities

[Picard578 0]

 

Is it just me or there is some curvature present?

 

[DSG2k 4]

Just looks like structure in the center to me.

 

Considering how much of our horizon view is blocked, how close we are to said horizon, and so on, I wouldn't go too far with that.

 

Besides which, out-of-universe, it seems unlikely they'd build a flat bit for the distant shot then be all like "dude, where's my curvature?" for the close-in stuff.

[Picard578 0]

Yeah, I see it now. Thanks.

[Vince 520]

I wonder about the canonicity of that story arc, since it was never released? And I'm skeptical about assuming phaser style disintegration from the unfinished cartoon graphic. If such a crystal is used in the Death Star then it doesn't change all that much. My shield analysis on YouTube is still valid, since it was based on debris which we see moving at measurable velocities on screen. The energy needed to accelerate the planets mass to such incredible velocities still has to exist, and if it is created by the crystal, then the Death Star still had to handle such magnitudes of power during the firing sequence of it's superlaser; it still sets an incredibly high benchmark for the power handling capabilities of starships in Star Wars. 

http://www.galacticempirewars.com/death-star-firepower

[Vince 520]

DSG, if and when I get around to fleshing out the acceleration pages I assure you they will contain neither the Falcon take off scene nor the broken TCW video . 

[Vince 520]

. Also, the theory I have regarding Blasters and Turbolasers (which will be the subject of my second video, if I ever have time to make it) really renders the composition of the grate moot. 

From the way they behave they must be "magical space lasers" really, although the effects are usually relatively mundane (explosions, heating). Although I'd be interested to see your ideas. 

[DSG2k 4]

When I had only seen the first three, I was also not keen on the phaser-esque vaporization idea.  A guy disappears off a speeder but that could've been an issue of modeling a fall, or putting sufficient smoke in to cover his fall, et cetera.

 

However, after seeing the fourth one, where a battle droid is standing beside Grievous, is hit by the beam, and then becomes partially transparent with a green embossing effect before disappearing completely, his gun then dropping unaffected to the floor, and Grievous standing there with no ill effect . . . well, put simply, I don't see how it could have been understood any other way.  All those things, even in pre-vis form, required effort.   Had he simply not been there anymore like someone hitting a delete key, then the argument would have no legs.

 

As for the canonicity of the episode, even though it is ostensibly an unfinished episode and so one ought to give more than a little leeway to the visuals . . . e.g. Anakin does not have a hollow neck, shadows still exist in Star Wars, et cetera . . . I think the general idea can be derived from it (which is the whole point of this prototype version anyway), and it is a released story in the new canon per the related introductory video.

[Vince 520]

2K, do you still stand by all of your conclusions and assertions from STvSW? Would you still consider a handheld phaser capable of destroying an AT ST? 

[DSG2k 4]

Off-topic, but yes* and yes.

 

(* There are caveats, mostly related to rather dated material, but the overall view is still sound.)

[Tyralak 12,068]

Off-topic, but yes* and yes.

 

(* There are caveats, mostly related to rather dated material, but the overall view is still sound.)

 

OK. This I have to hear. How do you reckon a hand phaser can destroy an AT ST?

[DSG2k 4]

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?

[Captain Seafort 17]

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?

 

Is a Sherman tougher than a packing crate? Or a mudflap? Yes or no?

[359 11]

Yes.

 

But is it tougher than a meter of granite? No.

 

Incidentally the mud flap did not survive based on the amount of smoke coming from the back of the truck in VOY: "Future's End Part II". Not to mention the setting on the phaser is totally unknown.

[Tyralak 12,068]

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?

 

No, I don't actually think a hand Phaser could kill a tank. At least not in one shot, maybe if you focused on it for a while, or you took out the treads, then fused the joints so it couldn't fire at you. Now a CRM 114 would trash both a Sherman tank and an AT-ST. I'm pretty sure given a few shots, it could take down an AT-AT, but not the Starfleet equivalent of a sidearm.

[DSG2k 4]

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" Theory

Some 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.

[Tyralak 12,068]

OK, a lot of these examples being given are either irrelevant or full of unknowns. We don't know the composition or density of these various crates and containers, so I'll stick to what we do know. You say a hand Phaser could kill a Sherman tank. A Sherman tank has 3 inch thick armor. If you can show me where a hand Phaser has taken out at least 3 inches of armor plating, or even steel, I will agree.

[Captain Seafort 17]

Is *that* what he was talking about?  I wasn't gonna use shuttle or 29th Century phasers.

I was talking about Paris using his Type 2 to penetrate the mudflap on the back of an artic and pop a tire to stop it. The lorry was subsequently seen driving normally, demonstrating that there was no significant damage to the wheel itself.

 

The shuttle's phasers vapourised (or whatever the hell the actually do to stuff) the engine block with a single shot, so there's at least a decent chance of them being able to penetrate the armour of an AT-ST (or a Sherman).

 

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.

Agreed, but the fact that that thick-walled steel drum can stop small arms fire means that an armoured vehicle is also likely to be immune to small arms fire.

[DSG2k 4]

OK, a lot of these examples being given are either irrelevant or full of unknowns. We don't know the composition or density of these various crates and containers, so I'll stick to what we do know. You say a hand Phaser could kill a Sherman tank. A Sherman tank has 3 inch thick armor. If you can show me where a hand Phaser has taken out at least 3 inches of armor plating, or even steel, I will agree.

 

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?

[Captain Seafort 17]

And of course phasers eat rock like candy, the blasting of several cubic meters of rock in Insurrection being a nice example.

So? The fact that we've seen plenty of examples of phasers blasting loose piles of rock out of the way has no relevence to their effectiveness against several inches of armour plate.

 

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.

 

The entire scenario was a figment of his imagination, and when we actually saw a phaser on level 16 being used against rock in Chain of Command, the result was, at best, the removal of about half a cubic metre.

 

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.

 

He wasn't exactly an expert on Starfleet weaponry, and neither was Merik - an Academy dropout who went into the merchant navy.

[DSG2k 4]

I was talking about Paris using his Type 2 to penetrate the mudflap on the back of an artic and pop a tire to stop it. The lorry was subsequently seen driving normally, demonstrating that there was no significant damage to the wheel itself.

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.

[DSG2k 4]

So? The fact that we've seen plenty of examples of phasers blasting loose piles of rock out of the way has no relevence to their effectiveness against several inches of armour plate.

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.

 

The entire scenario was a figment of his imagination

Already addressed.

 

when we actually saw a phaser on level 16 being used against rock in Chain of Command, the result was, at best, the removal of about half a cubic metre.

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.

 

 

He wasn't exactly an expert on Starfleet weaponry, and neither was Merik - an Academy dropout who went into the merchant navy.

His advisor Merik knew more than you or I. Perhaps you hve some evidence showing why we should disregard his statements?

[Captain Seafort 17]

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.

 

Or the driver simply lost control due to the blowout.

 

 

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.

 

I said nothing of the sort liar.  I said that the fact that the vehicle was driving normally shows that there was no significant damage to the wheel - i.e. the phaser did no more than burst the tire.

 

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.

 

1) It's a fucking cave-in.

 

2) Yes it is. The WW2 APC shell of the British 15"/42 Mk1 could penetrate up to 27" of armour at zero range, 16.5" at 10,000 yards.  HMS Ramillies used such shells to penetrate four metres of stone wall during the bombardment of Toulon.

 

 

Already addressed.

 

Refresh my memory of why a delusional Riker's claims of a phaser's effects on a figment of his imagination are relevant to a discussion of what phasers actually do, especially when they're contradicted by non-delusional events.

 

 

I read it as a clean, non-explosive vaporization of about two cubic meters of granite.

 

Watch the scene again then.  The area of the hole was about a square metre, but the tunnel they subsequently climed through was already there, and Worf just removed a thin layer of rock over the entrance.

 

 

His advisor Merik knew more than you or I. Perhaps you hve some evidence showing why we should disregard his statements?

 

For the reasons I stated above - one is a native of a planet with 20th century technology and the other is merchant navy, not Starfleet.

[359 11]

 

I said nothing of the sort liar.  I said that the fact that the vehicle was driving normally shows that there was no significant damage to the wheel - i.e. the phaser did no more than burst the tire.

Excuse me, but you did say that:

 

Is a Sherman tougher than a packing crate? Or a mudflap? Yes or no?

 

You were arguing that a phaser beam could not destroy a sherman as it could neither destroy a packing crate nor a mudflap.The only way this argument makes sense is if a phaser could not damage a mudflap. Because otherwise nothing would be proven.

 

This is what the argument comes across as. So either yes you did say that and the above accusation is uncalled for, or you mistakenly did not communicate your argument well and we can all overlook this simple miscommunication of ideas and proceed.

 

 

 

1) It's a fucking cave-in.

2) Yes it is. The WW2 APC shell of the British 15"/42 Mk1 could penetrate up to 27" of armour at zero range, 16.5" at 10,000 yards.  HMS Ramillies used such shells to penetrate four metres of stone wall during the bombardment of Toulon

1) As I remember it, 27 is greater than 4 times 3. As such this does not prove that the armor is stronger than a meter of granite, only that 6.75" or armor is at least equivalent to a meter of armor.

 

2)These are kinetic properties, not thermal, so they're not relevant anyway.

 

 

 

Watch the scene again then.  The area of the hole was about a square metre, but the tunnel they subsequently climed through was already there, and Worf just removed a thin layer of rock over the entrance.

Watch the next scene too. Then you can see as they climb through they do in fact pass from the cut tunnel to a slightly wider and natural one. The cut one is clearly over a meter in depth.

 

 

For the reasons I stated above - one is a native of a planet with 20th century technology and the other is merchant navy, not Starfleet.

I'm no gun expert, yet I can safely say that with modern weapons, even pre-modern, a small force could handily engage one armed with spears and such. In fact this happened pre-WWI in Africa when a group of British colonial forces wiped out a native fighting force.

 

And further still, Merik was initially in Star Fleet and did attend the academy for a short time before dropping out.

[Captain Seafort 17]

Excuse me, but you did say that:

 

You were arguing that a phaser beam could not destroy a sherman as it could neither destroy a packing crate nor a mudflap.The only way this argument makes sense is if a phaser could not damage a mudflap. Because otherwise nothing would be proven.

 

This is what the argument comes across as. So either yes you did say that and the above accusation is uncalled for, or you mistakenly did not communicate your argument well and we can all overlook this simple miscommunication of ideas and proceed.

 

Go back and read the thread in its entirety.

 

 

1) As I remember it, 27 is greater than 4 times 3. As such this does not prove that the armor is stronger than a meter of granite, only that 6.75" or armor is at least equivalent to a meter of armor.

 

27 is indeed greater than 4 x 3.  It is considerable less than 4 x 3 x 12. Also, please correct whatever it was you meant to say in the last sentence.

 

 

Watch the next scene too. Then you can see as they climb through they do in fact pass from the cut tunnel to a slightly wider and natural one. The cut one is clearly over a meter in depth.

 

There was no "cut tunnel".  There was an existing tunnel with a think sheet of rock over the entrance.  Brian's used the clip of Worf phasering that thin sheet several times.

 

 

I'm no gun expert, yet I can safely say that with modern weapons, even pre-modern, a small force could handily engage one armed with spears and such. In fact this happened pre-WWI in Africa when a group of British colonial forces wiped out a native fighting force.

 

And at Isandlwana a British force armed with modern weapons was wiped out by a native force with spears.

 

 

And further still, Merik was initially in Star Fleet and did attend the academy for a short time before dropping out.

 

Indeed.  Emphasis on "dropping out".

[359 11]

 

Go back and read the thread in its entirety.

I did, and my statement is no less correct. You asserted that a tank could resist a phaser because a mudflap could resist a phaser. This is invalidated by a mudflap failing to resist a phaser. It doesn't matter what happened on the other side of the mudflap for that implication to be false.

 

To put it succinctly:

1) You stated that a mudflap did resist a phaser

2) You concluded that a tank could resist because a mudflap did

3) It was shown that a mudflap could not resist a phaser

     a) Thus a tank may or may not be able to resist a phaser

4) You assert that you never claimed a mudflap could resist a phaser, insisting that it is a lie

5) I show that you did in this statement: "Is a Sherman tougher than a packing crate? Or a mudflap? Yes or no?"

 

The above quote is a clear comparison of a tank to a mudflap with the tank being, obviously, stronger. Thus the only way for this to be a decisive argument is if it can be proven that a phaser can not penetrate a mudflap and by extension a tank. 

 

 

27 is indeed greater than 4 x 3.  It is considerable less than 4 x 3 x 12. Also, please correct whatever it was you meant to say in the last sentence.

Wow, I should probably not be typing at 1:30 am... I'll try that again.

 

2) Yes it is. The WW2 APC shell of the British 15"/42 Mk1 could penetrate up to 27" of armour at zero range, 16.5" at 10,000 yards.  HMS Ramillies used such shells to penetrate four metres of stone wall during the bombardment of Toulon

Shell can penetrate up to 27" of armor.

Shell can penetrate at least 4 meters of rock.

 

So:

27" armor ≥ 4 m rock, and by extension: 1 m rock ≤ 6.75" armor.

 

By that logic a weapon capable of penetrating 1 m of rock may have the ability to penetrate the 3" armor of a Sherman tank; since the Sherman's armor is equivalent to 0.44 m of rock.

 

Incidentally, because that's a stone wall, it is difficult to judge against natural and solid rock formations as stone wall tend to use mortar and are often not entirely rock on the inside. On the other hand, the shots may or may not have been able to penetrate more material, but unless it's twice as much (8 m) it hardly matters.

 

And again, this doesn't matter anyway as we are discussing phasers which don't penetrate via kinetic force.

 

 

There was no "cut tunnel".  There was an existing tunnel with a think sheet of rock over the entrance.  Brian's used the clip of Worf phasering that thin sheet several times.

Worf said nothing to that effect. The conversation went as follows:

 

Picard: "There's a lava tube beyond here that runs for seventy five metres, then it connects with another chamber. We need to get through here. This tube opens up beyond this crack. We could widen the opening, then we should be able to crawl through. Mister Worf."

Worf: "A phaser set to level sixteen should suffice."

 

What was stated is that there is a tiny opening into a lava tube and that they can widen it with a phaser. They proceed to do so. Then the camera moves to the other side of the hole they just cut. There we can see a nice missing section leading into the described lava tube.

 

 

 

And at Isandlwana a British force armed with modern weapons was wiped out by a native force with spears.

And at no point do I claim that they always do, but they can because of the weaponry they wield.

 

 

Indeed.  Emphasis on "dropping out".

So? Dropping out of the academy says very little of your combat knowledge or overall skills. Example: B'Elanna Torres, a successful starship engineer and academy dropout.