View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:29 pm



Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Fleet sizes 
Author Message
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2126
Reply with quote
Post 
Quote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
For civilian ships. We're not talking about building armed merchantmen and freighters, which necessarily make up the majority of ships manufactured; we're talking about dedicated warships.

There's a huge difference.

No not only for civilian ships. Those fighters employed by Naboo were not civilian ships. And those Trade Federation "armed merchantmen" seemed to do just fine in ROTS battle.

"Those fighters" were not very large nor very great in number. The "armed merchantmen" of the Trade Federation were seen outmatched substantially by the much smaller Republic assault ships and attack cruisers in ROTS and AOTC - presumably this is why the CIS moved to mostly using other ships.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
I didn't want to go into this in greater detail before since I thought the entire line of reasoning is ridiculous but you leave me no choice.
First I want evidence that the goverment of the Galactic Republic condoned assasination of it's own citizens and that this was a publicly known policy hence your claim that it was assasination that Neimodians feared.

No hard evidence is needed for such a policy; the possibility would be feared even with policies explicitly against assassination.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Secondly I want evidence that Jedi would be willing to perform such actions especially in light of Anakin's and Mace's first thought's were to capture and not kill even such dangerous Sith lords as Dooku and Sidious.

Jedi have left body counts behind in the past. In fact, the Jedi led the army of the Republic.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Furthermore explain how is a goverment, whose only method of control are assasins, supposed to maintain control when Trade Federation can simply use their battleships to turn the senate hall into a molten metal lake in response to assasinations of it's leaders. More than that any private corporation could simply hire their own assasins to try and kill the senators.

I never said it was their only means of control. The Trade Federation's best interests are not served by slagging the capital in any case; they are a commercial entity.

Besides which, the Senate could always deny involvement, leaving the Trade Federation in a poor political situation.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
8 Cyclone class ships wheigh some 3000 tons while 12 aircraft carriers wheigh over million tons. One is not as mass produced as the other.

Except of course you are again assuming that smaller ships were not mass produced thus you call them "small projects". Million ISDs are not a "small project".

A "million ISDs" are not even present in the EU. Besides, the cost per warship doesn't drop very much with the production run; the design phase isn't that pricey.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
What many other examples and materials? And how does the fact that something the size of a Romulan Warbird has weapons mean that Starbase 74 has weapons? Where were those weapons and shields when Kirk and Kim stole ships?

Thee trouble is that you are again assuming that Starbase 74 and Deep Space 9 are similar. They are not. Starbase 74 is 1000 times bigger than DS9 as I already mentioned. Don't try to pretend that such difference in size means nothing. You are using DS9, a starbase the Federation specifically armed later because of it's location and strategic importance, as evidence that 1000 times larger starbases, whose only observed function so far was as drydock, have the same capabilities.

By the way "common sense" is worthless. "Common sense" was used to claim that Earth is flat. "Common sense" told people that when no forces are applied to an object it will stop moving because no one could've guessed that friction is also a force. "Common sense" was the reason no one thought that time itself will change when you approach the speed of lignt. It took extraordinary people to use their own "UNcommon sense" to make scientific breakthroughs. So I'm going to have to ask you to come up with evidence and keep your "common sense" to yourself.

Such as TNG, etc. As far as asking where the weapons and shields were when Kirk and Kim stole ships, you might consider reviewing the details of the scenario, like Scotty hacking Spacedock's computers, or how quickly Starfleet is willing to fire on its own ships.

As I've said before, the proceedings of the Dominion War make no sense with unarmed and unshielded stations.

You speak poorly and inaccurately of common sense. Common sense is the foundation of scientific enterprise, from defining frictional forces to affirming general relativity. Don't bad-mouth it; it represents the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence. In this case, that Federation bases have shields and weapons.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
I'm simply asking you to describe a mechanism through which the "corrupt bureaucracy" can hide the fact that half of their military rescources are dissapearing.

I already have. Several times.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
By all means provide a source for your claim that cruisers patrol Tatooine only occasionally.

I believe Mike DiCenso has already noted one such quote in question:
"It looks like an Imperial cruiser. Our passengers must be hotter than I thought."
Recall that the very presence of an Imperial cruiser around Tatooine set all Han's alarms off.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
What does "general neighborhood of Alderaan" mean? A system is much larger than a planet and it's "neighborhood". In fact Solar system, for example, is some 15 trillion times bigger than volume of space that is defined by Moon's orbit. Not to mentioned that Alderaan was just blown up so obviously no ships would be present there.

Han had already established that they really were in Alderaan's system, just unable to locate Alderaan.

They went down the list. Could it be from the pursuing ships? No, TIEs can't go into hyperspace. Native to the system? No, there are no Imperial bases anywhere near Alderaan. Hm, maybe it was with a convoy and got lost... it was a mystery to them until the Death Star showed up.

Not once did the possibility that this might be a fighter belonging to a ship on a regular patrol of Alderaan arise.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Well I have to admitt you got me there. I completley forgot about the centripetal force there but the reason for that is that I got completley exasperated with this entire line of reasoning.
The thing is I was completley concentrated on the specific DS2 case and in that case the Death Star couldn't have possibly be in free fall. First of all we know that it was protected by a shield projected from a fixed position on the surface. So if it did have a natural orbit with no usage of it's own engines it had to be in geosynchronous orbit. However geosynchronous orbit for an Earth sized planet is about 35,000km or nearly three planetary diameters which was clearly not the distance between the Death Star and Endor therefore the Death Star was not in free fall therefore it's own microgravity would've been nullified by the gravity of Endor.

Either the Death Star was in a geostationary orbit (possible if Endor met the right criterion, or poorly displayed - this is one of the reasons for criticizing the 5,000 km orbit you claimed) or held up by giant repulsors - which would be cancelling the effects of Endor's gravity. The fact that the Death Star's orbit isn't decaying means that all objects in and around the Death Star don't "feel" Endor's gravity, whether through lift effects or being in a geostationary orbit.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
However I want to further discuss your claim that Death Star's "microgravity environment" will somehow make construction easier than freefall.
First of all this supposedly useful microgravity would only "kick in" noticeably after a large portion of the Death Star was completed. In the first stages when the Death Star is still as big as an ISD-10ISDs-100ISDs-SSD-10SSDs etc. there would still be no more gravity than in usual smaller ships.
And finally what exactly is the usefulness of the microgravity? You said something to the effect of equipement not drifting away. Are you envisioning hordes of carless workers dropping their tools every which way with microgravity bringing the tools back? A simple toolbelt will prevent that. Besides I expect the Death Star to be assembled from larger pieces put together by tractor beams and gravitic equipment as described in ANH novelization. Free fall does not exert any acceleration and therefore the equipement won't go anywhere if only the workers show some care which is not exactly an unresonable assumption for a galactic civilization.
And finally free fall means that there won't be any stress on the unfinished structure and that can only be a good thing. Microgravity caused by the Death Star will exert enormous pressure on it's load bearing structure and this can only make construction much harder not easier.
Do you think we could construct those flimsy space station on Earth gravity? Do you think that "gravity helping workers not to loose their equipement" would make things easier?

Actually, we have an easier time building things in gravity. It holds things in place.

At the levels of gravity we're talking about for a reasonable density of Death Star, it's not going to put "enormous pressure" on the load-bearing structure.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
That page from what I can tell actually suggests lower orbit than 5000km which only further proves my point. And as you said the size and density of Endor won't significantly change from an Earth sized planet.
But honestly do we have to go on further into this "microgravity will somehow make Death Star's construction much easier than that of an ISD in free fall" discussion?

No, it's a very far digression.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
I'm sorry but when you state that buliding large structures is easier in gravity than in free fall despite everything we know today it strikes me as if you really are not at all interested in any kind of resoned discussion.

Everything we know today?

What do you know about building? It's actually not that hard on Earth, in gravity, but it's devilishly tricky in free fall.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
I would like some evidence that senate was unaware of the creation of the clone army.

Not even the Jedi Council knew:
Yoda: Blind we are, if creation of this clone army we could not see.
The senators learned soon after the Council did, and promptly wanted to use the clone army.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
I would also like some evidence that clone army ordered from Kamino represented a noticeable fraction of Galactic military production hence your assumption that you can use it as evidence of Emperor hiding something like half of military production for Death Star.

Given it represented the sole legitimate Army of the Republic, it had better.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
You are trying to provide real world analogy for a situation that was never seen in the real world. Namely that Empire can hide the project that takes up something like half (or more) of their military production. It doesn't matter how many systems the Empire has, we are talking about percentages. And 50% of million systems will be just as noticeable as 50% of hundred systems.

Only in very limited circumstances can you track freighters. "Can't nobody track another ship accurately at supralight speeds," says Solo shortly before shaking the Imps off his tail. (p94, Star Wars) In the novelization, Solo explained why the Imperial ships lost them - they can't track a ship during FTL transit.

The only way you can is through tracking devices. So in order to know where a freighter really goes, you need either:
  • Agents at all destinations communicating with one another.
  • Pilots, navigators, and/or captains suborned on the freighters.
  • Tracking devices installed on all Imperial freighters.

This "simply watch where the freighters go" idea just doesn't work.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
I don't know what kind of drooling idiots you think populate the Galactic Empire to think that they would buy the Rebellion stealing fifty percent of Imperial military equipment. "Um...we won't be able to build another aircraft carrier since Mafia stole 20% of our military production...yeah that's it". And such lies won't leave the Rebels frustrated, it will leave them happy since they will know the Empire is up to something.

Not necessarily. It's very easy to attribute to assorted causes - inefficiency, bad product batches, piracy, etc - 50% loss of products. Especially when the original total isn't known.


Fri Sep 01, 2006 6:42 pm
Profile WWW
Jedi Knight

Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
Posts: 433
Reply with quote
Post 
sonofccn wrote:
Ah I may have stumbled apon our problem. I am not using the military unit for a single soldier(which you are correct is just as likely as all the other defination thereof) I am using units as any busness would use to refer to thier products which always is one product one unit. So I'm using something with a definate defination while your trying to use a losely defined word. So you see no double standard.

Wrong. I see I have no other choice but to simply provide a dictionary definition of the word unit (this one is from dictionary.com):

Quote:
u‧nit  /ˈyunɪt/ –noun
1. a single thing or person.
2. any group of things or persons regarded as an entity: They formed a cohesive unit.
3. one of the individuals or groups that together constitute a whole; one of the parts or elements into which a whole may be divided or analyzed.
4. one of a number of things, organizations, etc., identical or equivalent in function or form: a rental unit; a unit of rolling stock.
5. any magnitude regarded as an independent whole; a single, indivisible entity.
6. Also called dimension. any specified amount of a quantity, as of length, volume, force, momentum, or time, by comparison with which any other quantity of the same kind is measured or estimated.
7. the least positive integer; one.
8. Also called unit's place.
a. (in a mixed number) the position of the first digit to the left of the decimal point.
b. (in a whole number) the position of the first digit from the right of the decimal point.
9. a machine, part, or system of machines having a specified purpose; apparatus: a heating unit.
10. Education. a division of instruction centering on a single theme.
11. Military. an organized body of soldiers, varying in size and constituting a subdivision of a larger body.
12. Medicine/Medical.
a. the measured amount of a substance necessary to cause a certain effect; a clinical quantity used when a substance cannot be readily isolated in pure form and its activity determined directly.
b. the amount necessary to cause a specific effect upon a specific animal or upon animal tissues.
13. Mathematics.
a. an identity element.
b. an element in a group, ring, etc., that possesses an inverse.

See the definitions 2 and 3? As you can clearly read in no way does the word unit must mean "single clone". Once again your insistence that it must mean single clone is purely subjective.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
"Those fighters" were not very large nor very great in number. The "armed merchantmen" of the Trade Federation were seen outmatched substantially by the much smaller Republic assault ships and attack cruisers in ROTS and AOTC - presumably this is why the CIS moved to mostly using other ships.

The fighters came from a small peaceful world and are still more numerous than Mars's defense perimeter from Best of both Worlds for example. As for Trade Federation battleships you clearly haven't watched ROTS battle. The Trade Federation battleships were only ships whose shields were still effectively stopping enemy fire and not single one was even seen damaged.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
No hard evidence is needed for such a policy; the possibility would be feared even with policies explicitly against assassination.

Why? If the goverment doesn't condone assasinations why should anyone fear it?

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Jedi have left body counts behind in the past. In fact, the Jedi led the army of the Republic.

And the fact they were willing to kill in self-defense or to complete military objectives means they would be willing to kill unsuspecting Republic citizens in cold blood?

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
I never said it was their only means of control. The Trade Federation's best interests are not served by slagging the capital in any case; they are a commercial entity.

Then what other means of control do they have? Really enlighten me on how a goverment can exert control without police and armed forces you may have stumbled upon a revolutionary mechanism no other country in the world knows about. And if Trade Federation's members get assasinated by senate's orders the Trade Federation would retaliate and with senate gone they would have no one to oppose them. So, yes, their interests would be served quite well.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Besides which, the Senate could always deny involvement, leaving the Trade Federation in a poor political situation.

Why would they be in a "poor political situatuion"? Assasination tends to produce sympathy towards the victims.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
A "million ISDs" are not even present in the EU. Besides, the cost per warship doesn't drop very much with the production run; the design phase isn't that pricey.

Henry Ford disagrees with you.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Such as TNG, etc. As far as asking where the weapons and shields were when Kirk and Kim stole ships, you might consider reviewing the details of the scenario, like Scotty hacking Spacedock's computers, or how quickly Starfleet is willing to fire on its own ships.

I ask you what examples and materials support Starbase 74 like stations being armed and your answer is "TNG etc."? Surely you can do better. Like providing the names of specific episodes and dialouge quotes. And sure you made nice excuses for Kirk and Kim but still that doesn't change the fact no weapons and shields were observed.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
As I've said before, the proceedings of the Dominion War make no sense with unarmed and unshielded stations.

Nice strawman. I didn't say that no starbases have weapons merely that there is no evidence that those largest starbases have them. Not only do you have no evidence for that but you don't even have evidence that the largest starbases were anywhere near the fron lines nor do you have any evidence they have any function other than drydocks and recreational facilities.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
You speak poorly and inaccurately of common sense. Common sense is the foundation of scientific enterprise, from defining frictional forces to affirming general relativity. Don't bad-mouth it; it represents the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence. In this case, that Federation bases have shields and weapons.

No it isn't. Scientific method is the foundation of scientific enterprise. Common sense are beliefs that are held to be true by most of the population. And you again try to distort my argument. I never said that no Federation starbases have shields/weapons only that we never saw those largest starbases demonstrate anything of the sort.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
I already have. Several times.

No you haven't. Or can you quote yourself from previous posts?


Jedi Master Spock wrote:
I believe Mike DiCenso has already noted one such quote in question:
"It looks like an Imperial cruiser. Our passengers must be hotter than I thought."
Recall that the very presence of an Imperial cruiser around Tatooine set all Han's alarms off.

The very presence or the fact that it was following them? I don't recall anyone specifying that it was the "very presence" that got them so surprised rather than the fact it was chasing them.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
They went down the list. Could it be from the pursuing ships? No, TIEs can't go into hyperspace. Native to the system? No, there are no Imperial bases anywhere near Alderaan. Hm, maybe it was with a convoy and got lost... it was a mystery to them until the Death Star showed up.

All they said was that it is a short range fighter who couldn't have gone so deep into space alone. They simply didn't detect any Imperial ships at that particular time being in system so they wondered how it got there. The fact that there is no base in Alderaan doesn't mean that there are no patrol ships there, patrol ships which would naturally evacuate before Death Star used it's superlaser.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Not once did the possibility that this might be a fighter belonging to a ship on a regular patrol of Alderaan arise.

No it didn't since they detected no ships at the time. A "short range" fighter couldn't travel far away from it's mother ship wether that ship patrolled the area usually or not.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Either the Death Star was in a geostationary orbit (possible if Endor met the right criterion, or poorly displayed - this is one of the reasons for criticizing the 5,000 km orbit you claimed) or held up by giant repulsors - which would be cancelling the effects of Endor's gravity. The fact that the Death Star's orbit isn't decaying means that all objects in and around the Death Star don't "feel" Endor's gravity, whether through lift effects or being in a geostationary orbit.

What criterions? Would it kill you to elaborate on your theories? Perform some calculations? And why would repulsorlift cancel out the gravity? The landing pads on Coruscant which are suspended in the air by repulsorlifts don't cancel out the gravity of the planet.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Actually, we have an easier time building things in gravity. It holds things in place.

No we don't. Could we build this on surface:Image
It would crumble in seconds. "Holds things in place" indeed.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
At the levels of gravity we're talking about for a reasonable density of Death Star, it's not going to put "enormous pressure" on the load-bearing structure.

But there will be pressure and it will complicate the process of building rather than making it easier as you claim.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Everything we know today?

What do you know about building? It's actually not that hard on Earth, in gravity, but it's devilishly tricky in free fall.

Devilishly tricky huh? Is that an objective analyisis? What is so tricky about building a structure in space? Are there any limits on size or shape of the building? Do we have to worry about stress limits of materials or their load bearing areas? No because there are no forces acting upon it in free fall. The only "tricky" thing is get the materials into orbit. And guess whose fault is that: gravities.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Not even the Jedi Council knew:
Yoda: Blind we are, if creation of this clone army we could not see.
The senators learned soon after the Council did, and promptly wanted to use the clone army.

Jedi Council is subordinate to the Senate so the fact the Jedi Council wasn't informed does not mean senators didn't know.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Given it represented the sole legitimate Army of the Republic, it had better.

Actually it represented the industrial capacity of a single company of a single planet not even a part of Republic which was so inconsequential no one noticed it was erased from the maps unti Obi-Wan investigated it. Far cry from "most of military production of the Empire" that you claim Death Star took up.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Only in very limited circumstances can you track freighters. "Can't nobody track another ship accurately at supralight speeds," says Solo shortly before shaking the Imps off his tail. (p94, Star Wars) In the novelization, Solo explained why the Imperial ships lost them - they can't track a ship during FTL transit.

The only way you can is through tracking devices. So in order to know where a freighter really goes, you need either:

* Agents at all destinations communicating with one another.
* Pilots, navigators, and/or captains suborned on the freighters.
* Tracking devices installed on all Imperial freighters.

Can you explain how do you get from "cannot trace ships accurately" into "cannot trace shipsat all"?

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
This "simply watch where the freighters go" idea just doesn't work.

Sure it does. All you need to do is sent a ship that is faster than a freighter in order to follow it.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Not necessarily. It's very easy to attribute to assorted causes - inefficiency, bad product batches, piracy, etc - 50% loss of products.

I kept using 50% of military as an example but actually with 50% of military production diverted to Death Star it would still leave 50% of military production left for smaller ships which results in tens of millions of ships. Even at 10% of military production diverted to the fleet we are still talking about over million of ISDs.
But to get back on the issue at hand explain how exactly are they going to explain away more then 50% loss. Piracy? What percentage exactly do you expect them to be able to explain away through piracy? Through inefficiency or bad product bathces? What percentage exactly? How much do you think will be credible. I sure as hell would never buy it and I'm no military expert.
Is this what you call a rational discussion? You trying to concoct far flung explanation on how Death Star could've been kept secret even while consuming a vast proportion of total industry? When the simple explanation is right in front of us, namely the fact that Imperial industrial capacity is simply large enough to cover up for the production of Death Star.


Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Especially when the original total isn't known.

What original total? Military capacity? Why wouldn't citizens/Rebels know the rough military capacity of their own state?


Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:28 pm
Profile
Jedi Knight

Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Posts: 269
Location: Outer Space
Reply with quote
Post 
Are you seriously arguing that the $100 billion and endlessly delayed connection of tubes that we can the ISS, who's equivalent could easily be build for under $10 million on Earth, is actually an argument for cheaper manufacturing in space?

Not really paying attention to the rest of your argument, but that was absurd.


Fri Sep 01, 2006 8:44 pm
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA
Reply with quote
Post 
Kane starkiller wrote:
Wrong. I see I have no other choice but to simply provide a dictionary definition of the word unit (this one is from dictionary.com):
That doesn't change a thing Kane. In the end you still want us to use unit in refrence to military, while I would rather do it in refrence to products. Your way merely makes the quote useless.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
As you can clearly read in no way does the word unit must mean "single clone".
Which I never said. Now the refrence I was using yeah it's one unit one product, but that is no differnt from you using military refrence so no harm no foul.Now it's the only answer that makes sense in the quote, but that's completly differnt from it's defination which is several.

Kane starkiller wrote:
Once again your insistence that it must mean single clone is purely subjective.
Please, feel free to browse the definitions and find one that makes the quote make sense. I doubt you will find another besides a signle thing or person that fits.


Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:30 pm
Profile
Jedi Knight

Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
Posts: 433
Reply with quote
Post 
Nonamer wrote:
Are you seriously arguing that the $100 billion and endlessly delayed connection of tubes that we can the ISS, who's equivalent could easily be build for under $10 million on Earth, is actually an argument for cheaper manufacturing in space?

Not really paying attention to the rest of your argument, but that was absurd.

I can see you're not paying attention otherwise you would know that the prices are such beacuse of the fact you need to get them to orbit. But from a purely physical standpoint building in free fall is easier.

sonofccn wrote:
That doesn't change a thing Kane. In the end you still want us to use unit in refrence to military, while I would rather do it in refrence to products. Your way merely makes the quote useless.

Do you know how to read?
Quote:
any group of things or persons regarded as an entity: They formed a cohesive unit.

There is nothing military about this definition.

sonofccn wrote:
Please, feel free to browse the definitions and find one that makes the quote make sense. I doubt you will find another besides a signle thing or person that fits.

Number 10. Military group which can be brigade, platoon etc. I know you like to pretend that "unit" means "one thing/person" by default and any other definitions need evidence but that is not ture. In order for it to make sense unit had to be defined somewhere off-screen and we don't know which definition they used.


Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:44 pm
Profile
Jedi Knight

Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Posts: 269
Location: Outer Space
Reply with quote
Post 
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Nonamer wrote:
Are you seriously arguing that the $100 billion and endlessly delayed connection of tubes that we can the ISS, who's equivalent could easily be build for under $10 million on Earth, is actually an argument for cheaper manufacturing in space?

Not really paying attention to the rest of your argument, but that was absurd.

I can see you're not paying attention otherwise you would know that the prices are such beacuse of the fact you need to get them to orbit. But from a purely physical standpoint building in free fall is easier.


Do you not realize how difficult it was to assemble the thing in space? It took or will take hundreds of hours of spacewalks to construct the thing not to mention how to design an object that can be constructed in space. That's while Skylab was assembled on Earth and launched in one big piece, and it was much cheaper.


Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:03 pm
Profile
Jedi Knight

Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
Posts: 433
Reply with quote
Post 
Nonamer wrote:
Do you not realize how difficult it was to assemble the thing in space? It took or will take hundreds of hours of spacewalks to construct the thing not to mention how to design an object that can be constructed in space. That's while Skylab was assembled on Earth and launched in one big piece, and it was much cheaper.

Yes it was cheaper beacuse most of the price comes from having to carry modules up into space repeatedly. A single flight into orbit costs several billions $ which will ramp up the price. This of course won't be the case with the Empire which routinely lands 1km ships.
If you actually bothered to read the discussion you would know that we are discussing wether it is easier to build ships in free fall or microgravity enviroment that half-finished Death Star would provide. Either way you'll need to go into space and in free-fall there are no forces being applied to the unfinished structure which makes your job easier. Especially if you are equipped with tractor beams and gravitic construction equpement described in ANH.


Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:37 pm
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA
Reply with quote
Post 
Kane starkiller wrote:
There is nothing military about this definition.
So when you say unit means squad/platoon/etc your not pushing for the military definition of unit? Ie. you want how the military can define a unit and not any and all other definition of that word. Fine whatever, doesn't change my positoin a bit in the end however.

Quote:
Number 10
On your list that education. Did you mean number eleven?

Quote:
Military group which can be brigade, platoon etc.
So again not a specific thing, it's an unkown group which makes the quote useless. So no it doesn't fullfill the quote.

Quote:
I know you like to pretend that "unit" means "one thing/person" by default and any other definitions need evidence but that is not ture.
I don't assume it right by default, but it wins by default since none of the other definiton by themselvs make the quote make sense.

Quote:
In order for it to make sense unit had to be defined somewhere off-screen and we don't know which definition they used.
So after listing the definitions and it being plain as day that no other one except onething/person fits with the quote you now going to say we must have off screen information to make a decision. Doesn't that make ever listing a definiton about something pointless if we can claim "Well they could have said something off-screen to make it mean this one, so we can't make a decsion."
Well to me atleast I believe you can't just go around assuming they said things to help you cause with no evidence.


Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:44 pm
Profile
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
Posts: 380
Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world
Reply with quote
Post 
It's simple, one unit equals one clone, not some other random military grouping. Especially since their is no Republic army to define what a unit is. This also makes the most sence based on the size of the cloning facilities. The quote doesn't even make sense unless "unit" has a single definition. So if "unit" isn't a defined military term like "squad" or "company" or "division" than is must refer to a single clone, and since there is no army, it can't have a single military definition.


Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:25 am
Profile
Security Officer

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5722
Reply with quote
Post 
Quote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
This isn't an equivalent situation, Kane. Being chased down by actual star destroyers as Han has, would be more like the "smuggling guy" in Florida occasionally being chased down by a Iowa class battleship instead of a Coast Guard cutter. Remember this line:

HAN: I've outrun Imperial starships, not the local
bulk-cruisers, mind you. I'm talking about the big Corellian ships
now. She's fast enough for you, old man. What's the cargo?



Quote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:

Really now? Iowa class has a displacement of 40,000 tons which makes it little over two times smaller than the largest ships employed by US navy. In comparison Star Destroyer is 16 million times smaller than largest ship employed by Imperial navy. Or even using Executor as benchmark Stardestroyer is over 100 times smaller. So, yes, ISD is more like a Coast Guard cutter in Imperial navy than Iowa class ship.
Besides even if a smuggler is chased by an Iowa class ship that still doesn't mean the smuggler will know it's full firepower. All he needs to know how fast it can move and how to outrun it.


First off, please stop with the silly semantics. Who cares if at the time of ANH there were super star destroyers or not? Also the light displacement for an Iowa was 45,000 tons:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/bb-61.htm

Heavy displacement could reach nearly 60,000 tons. But that's neither here nor there as you know. The fact is that Han was not just facing the equivalent of the Coast Guard, but also full out large (from the Star Wars sandpoint) Imperial starships from their navy. Another thing, while it is true that speed is important to Han, he has also been fired at, as was clearly demonstrated in ANH while breaking the Tatooine blockade. The shields on the Falcon were clearly able to withstand turbolaser fire, at least indirectly, if not full on. It strikes me as very peculiar that Han would not know by now about the firepower of ISD turbolasers, or at least have some idea of it from having been shot at so many times. That's all there is to it, and nothing you can do will change it.


Quote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Unfortunately for you, he is an experianced smuggler who's gone up against big Imperial starships, that's why his skills are in such demand, and Jabba continued to make an exception for him after Greedo's death.



Quote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Yes, yes he's a good smuggler I never questioned that. You still haven't provided any evidence, however, that he knows the full capabilities of Imperial ships. He wouldn't need to know the full firepower of ISD's heavy turbolasers any more a smuggler would need to know the firepower of Iowa's broadside. All he needs to know is that he's dead if he get's hit.


If the Iowa opens fire on our hypothetical Floridian smuggler, what weapons will the Iowa use? If he gets fired at with the 16 inch guns, not only will he have observed that being fired, but the impact nearby will certainly tell him something about the weapon's firepower. Unlike our Floridian, Han will have sensors (he can play the information back later, if he so chooses), or he can bribe an Imperial officer or whatever to supply him with information so that he can learn what defenses he needs to withstand the ISD's assault long enough to calculate and make the jump to light speed.


Quote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Be careful here; I use DS9 as a lower limits baseline here. The fact that the Cardassians built that particular class of station that way does not necessarily mean that the Federation builds a station like SB 74 like that. Also there's the scaling issue, too. DS9 is only at most 2 km wide, while SB 74 is 8-10 km wide and outmasses DS9 by a considerable margin. It would require a far more massive series of thrusters, or a lot of smaller ones to station-keep for a spacecraft of that magnitude. Also the loading on the SB-74 structure will require at least an order of magnitude greater tolerances over DS9's, and likely several more given the R cubed law.


Quote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:
How can you use the acceleration of a smaller object as a lower limit for acceleration of bigger one? This would be like using X-wing's acceleration as a lower limit for ISD's acceleration. It only works the other way around. And you are right Starbase 74 would need larger thrusters in order to attain the same acceleration as DS9 and those thrusters would exert 1000 times greater force upon the Starbase 74 structure than they did on DS9 structure. Therefore the materials that were used to build Starbase 74 would have to be 1000 times stronger in order for Starbase 74 to be capable of the same acceleration rate. There is of course no evidence for this.


Even if the SB 74's acceleration is smaller than that of the DS9, it will still need greater thrust to overcome inertia and apply enough acceleration to maintain it's orbit (which is far lower in altitude than DS9's). The structure alone, even if it is somehow weaker (doubtful), or just merely the same strength as DS9 still represents a significant increase in materials and industry to build. That the SB-74 by default of the natural consequence of being so much more massive than DS9, will need structral integrity, and more thrusters (or larger ones) to compensate. Just making due with a handful of DS9 size thrusters will not be enough.

Quote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Also we must look at it from a materials and industrial standpoint. The resources were marshalled and the industrial capability was there to build, not one, but a fair number of 6-16 km tall space stations.


Quote:
[b ] Kane Starkiller wrote: [/b]
First as I recall we saw four Starbase 74 type starbases all of which were completed in an unknow timeframe. As for 6-16 km starbases I believe you are talking about Utopia Planitia shipyards. I never saw any scalings done that would suggest such size.



We have Spacedock (6 km), SB-74 (13-16km), SB-84 (13-16 km), SB-133 (13-16 km), Lya Station Alpha (13-16 km). That's five so far, excluding the four visually confirmed large stations at Utopia Planita, which also happens to include a Spacedock/SB-74 type station (as per TNG's "Booby Trap"). So really that six very large space stations, not including the four "dumbell" shaped stations seen at Utopia Planita in VOY's "Relativity".

If the Utopia Planita mushroom station is as big as the SB-74 type, then it represents no less than 55,000 GCS. Spacedock would add nearly 500 more GCS to that count.

As for scaling the dumbell Utopia Planita stations, we went over their scalings numerous times on the former Strek-v-Swars forum. Alyeska did a scaling that indicated 16 km height, and I did scalings based on a GCS ins a dry dock off in the background near to, but in front of one of the stations that suggests no less than 3 km as a height.


Quote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
The fact that we've seen some pretty impressive firepower retrofitted to the Cardassian facility in less than 3 years indicates that it should be fairly easy to do the same for any actual Federation space station.


Quote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:
How do you know it was "fairly easy"? I suppose you could also build up Starbase 74 until it's strong as DS9 in three years but to build it up until it's proportionally stronger than DS9(1000 times)? We have no indications how much time it would take the Federation nor wether it is even possible.


No one is talking strength here, though in principle, the SB-74 would probably be built up to be the stronger of the two. The ease is based on the fact, as I've already made clear, that DS9 was a retrofitted alien platform, which the crew had other difficulties with when the first came on board, yet once the Dominion threat became apparent, the station was outfitted without anyone mentioning a word of it, nor even their Klingon allies getting wind of such modifications. So either the Federation put a lot of effort into it that, or the retrofitting was relatively easy.

Quote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
True, but the main bay is not "empty" as some Warises have tried to portray it, and the core docking structure is still a substantial fraction of the total volume.


Quote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:
No more than a fifth of the tota volume of empty mushroom.


Right, but that still is a rather decent fraction.

Quote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Compare that to the reactor "bulb" in the DS2, which takes up far less space than the Spacedock/SB-74 core does in their respective docking bays:


Quote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:
The size of the bulb is completley irrelevant. That entire reactor chamber is less than 1/1000 of the total DS2 volume.


I think you misunderstand, Kane. The bulb is teeny-tiny fraction of the reactor chamber, which is the point, unlike the SB-74 core structure, which represents a fairly good sized fraction of that empty volume. It's still empty, wasted space. The volume of the reactor housing is added into a total, larger fraction, that makes the Death Stars less substantial than some are trying to portray it as.

Quote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Also, there are no "large" hangerbays on the lower structures, at least nothing anywhere near the magnitude of the main docking bay:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:E ... edock6.jpg

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:E ... edock4.jpg


Quote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:
I never said that they were as big as the main hangar door but they are several hundred meters wide and likely that deep even if we assume that they don't lead to large cavity like the one in the main "mushroom".


From what can be seen, those hangers do not go back into a larger bay, like the main hanger section.

Quote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Well, taken individually, you would be correct, but the superstructure tubes, the hangers, trenches, innumerable chasms, and more make up a very substantial volume when taken together. So theoretically, the DS is mostly hollow space, which fits in with the early construction we seen in RoTS:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/rots~/GW7vq.jpg

The Death Star 2 showing the space devoted to the shafts and the reactor housing open space (also note the non-trival space carved out by the superlaser dish, too):


http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/zs ... holo36.jpg


There appear to be substantial structural members running both laterally and longitudially. Each of these mighty beams appear to be one the order of a kilometer wide, and span many kilometers long.


Quote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:
We have seen the size and spacing of hangars and they cannot comprise a significant amount of volume. They appear to be 20X50X50. They appear to be 5 of their widths apart and there are two rows of them. So we are looking at a total of 1/6,000,000 of the total volume. The trench is about 1.5km wide and about 1.5km deep. That is 1/1000 of the volume. And finally two tubeways we see in ANH are about 10m wide and assuming that they are 60km long that amounts to 1/192,000,000 of volume.
And you figure this makes DS1 mostly hollow. And I just love your picture at the end of ROTS which show DS1 that was still in the primary stages of construction.


You again misunderstand, I think. The massive structural beams do not in any way work in my favor. Think about it. They work against me, since that apparently is not a bunch of hollow tubing. That's good for you, in fact. What works the other way are the thousands apon thousands of hollow shafts, corridors, air shafts, trenches, the reactor housing, the Superlaser dish, and more that all together takes up substantial amounts of the interior volume of the station. Based on the superstructure pictures of the DS2, I'd say that those shafts make up a large proportion of the stations volume. I think you calculate that each one represents one 200 millionth of the total volume? But taken together, the represent a hollow space that is nearly as much as that.

Quote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Except that there was no evidence of defense craft at all, and Jake and Nog's runabout was merely a visiting courier vessel.


Quote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Exactly. There is no evidence for anything. Just one line: defensive perimeter. Which, as I have shown, can mean anything.


Right, but we have seen what constitutes defenses in Star Trek. That means shields, phasers, torpedoes, spacecraft, and more.

Quote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Also, your "logic" is getting funky again. We have no proof that all ISDs, for instance, are outfitted with weapons, only about a dozen or so, tops. The rest, for all we know, are just hulls with some basic propulsion. Silly no? Well that's the path you're going down.


Quote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Please. Don't insult both of our intelligences. DS9 and Starbase 74 like stations are not the part of the same class and you know it. You pretend that asking for evidence that at least one member of a certain class has weapons is the same as asking for evidence that all members of that class have weapons.


Then cut it out! The two stations are not part of the same class as you put it, but DS9 does represent where the Federation took an alien space station, retrofitted it to do maintance work on starships, and carry some impressive firepower and shields. It is an indicator of what is possible, or should be possible.

Quote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
With DS9, a station originally not Federation, not heavily armed as it was merely a refinery, and yet easily outfitted by the Federation with top of the line weapons and shielding. Are you suggesting the Federation cannot outfit it's own stations, specially in a time of war? Is it not logical to assume that Starbase 257 has shields and weapons? Similarly, why would major starbases, like 74, not have at least basic shields and weapons? There is a good sound reason for it, after all.


Quote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:
What stations? Here you go again playing a semantics game and assuming that what goes for one "station" must be true for other "station". The question here is wether Starbase 74 type starbases have integrated weapon systems that are proportionally stronger than starships. This is what we need in order for considering Starbase 74 as benchmark for Federation starship production capacity. I said "considering" because we still nedd sublight propulsion, warp propulsion, shields neither of which were demonstrated. The fact that they could slap on a few weapons systems in moment of need means nothing.


The only one playing semantics, as has been noted, is yourself, Kane. I would hardly call the outfitting of DS9 as a "slapping a few weapons on in time of need", that was an extensive amount of work, which added phaser and torpedoes capable of damaging or outright destroying all but the most powerful of starships, and shields that could withstand the bombardment from dozens or more starships. That's nothing to sneeze at. Yet you would maintain that the Federation would not, or could not do these things to their own space stations in time of great need? Come on!


Quote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Oh the topic of ship fleet counts, I scanned through some sites to find some good screencaps. I found these at the ever-excellent Trekcore, which illustrates how many ships the Dominion their Breen allies could field:

http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/display ... 73&pos=366

http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/display ... 73&pos=367

http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/display ... 73&pos=367

http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/display ... 73&pos=369

Notice in the first and last screencaps that you can see the fleet extending into a tiny dots forming sizable "clouds" off into the distance as compared to planet Cardassia's limb. If the Federation and Allied fleet was sizeable enough to surround and contain this fleet, it would speak of a combined ship count greater than 30,000 to accomplish such a task.

I can't find any good screencaps of the Trade Federation fleet at Naboo, except these so-so quality views from the Galactic Republic cruiser's cockpit POV shots:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/tpm/radiantcp1.jpg

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/dvd/tpm/radiantcp2.jpg

Note the spacing of the battleships compared to that of the Dominion fleet high-density.


Quote:
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Those images don't seem to show more than a few hundred ships for the Dominion fleet.
As for the Trade Federation fleet you should notice that the battleships on the second image appear much closer to the planet than the first which indicates that there are actually multiple "layers" of the blocade.
Besides the fleet at Cardassia was the totality their entire fleet and it was still considered a threat to Romulan/Klingon/Federation fleet. The blockade at Naboo was considered "trivial" by Qui-Gon Jin.


Interesting you should say that, since the Warsie argument has been that the number of Trade Federation ships visible around Naboo somehow represents a massive blockade fleet of thousands of ships, when we see at most on a few dozen or so at most. The Dominion fleet is truely massive, and it is clear that we are not seeing the entirety of it, and the Federation fleet blockaded Cardassia by surrounding it, which given the visible numbers of the Dominion fleet, would represent tens of thousands of starships minimum on the Federation and allies part to accomplish such a thing.
-Mike


Last edited by Mike DiCenso on Sat Sep 02, 2006 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:45 am
Profile
Jedi Knight

Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Posts: 269
Location: Outer Space
Reply with quote
Post 
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Nonamer wrote:
Do you not realize how difficult it was to assemble the thing in space? It took or will take hundreds of hours of spacewalks to construct the thing not to mention how to design an object that can be constructed in space. That's while Skylab was assembled on Earth and launched in one big piece, and it was much cheaper.

Yes it was cheaper beacuse most of the price comes from having to carry modules up into space repeatedly. A single flight into orbit costs several billions $ which will ramp up the price. This of course won't be the case with the Empire which routinely lands 1km ships.
If you actually bothered to read the discussion you would know that we are discussing wether it is easier to build ships in free fall or microgravity enviroment that half-finished Death Star would provide. Either way you'll need to go into space and in free-fall there are no forces being applied to the unfinished structure which makes your job easier. Especially if you are equipped with tractor beams and gravitic construction equpement described in ANH.


Even if you ignore every last one of those things, it'll still be way more expensive. I mean we're looking at the difference between >$100 billion and something like $7 billion.

And your whole statement has no evidence going for it anyways. The above claim did nothing but hurt it. I'm merely pointing out the weaknesses of your claims.


Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:47 am
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2126
Reply with quote
Post 
I'd like to thank you for drawing my attention to that shot. It can be analyzed very usefully with some attention to detail.

Off the top of my head, I can estimate that roughly 1,000 ships were visible in those shots. Of course, we already had a firm figure for the Dominion fleet earlier in the war (30,000), but it's nice to see visuals that actually match with those fleet totals.

The comparison to the TPM shots is particularly dramatic.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
The fighters came from a small peaceful world and are still more numerous than Mars's defense perimeter from Best of both Worlds for example. As for Trade Federation battleships you clearly haven't watched ROTS battle. The Trade Federation battleships were only ships whose shields were still effectively stopping enemy fire and not single one was even seen damaged.

More numerous?

We're talking about somewhere around several dozen small fighters, and you're comparing them to the armada of starships assembled at Wolf 359. The sum total of Naboo starfighters doesn't add up to a single starship.

As far as the TF battleships... I have watched the ROTS battle. I've seen detailed reviews. What we see in the PT:

  • Very few TF battleships in ROTS.
  • A TF battleship being boarded by a Republic Attack Cruiser in ROTS.
  • The Separatist fleet being driven off in ROTS.
  • TF core ships - i.e., battleships minus their huge cargo banks - being completely maimed in AOTC.
And so on. The Trade Federation battleship is an enormous ship; if it could pull its weight in ship-to-ship battles, it would be the equal of an entire fleet of dozens of Republic cruisers.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Why? If the goverment doesn't condone assasinations why should anyone fear it?

Few governments committing assassinations condone them publicly. Assassination is usually a sneaky act, performed in secrecy and never admitted to by any government.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
And the fact they were willing to kill in self-defense or to complete military objectives means they would be willing to kill unsuspecting Republic citizens in cold blood?

Assassination of the Trade Federation leadership would be in order to complete a military objective. Understand now?
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Then what other means of control do they have? Really enlighten me on how a goverment can exert control without police and armed forces you may have stumbled upon a revolutionary mechanism no other country in the world knows about. And if Trade Federation's members get assasinated by senate's orders the Trade Federation would retaliate and with senate gone they would have no one to oppose them. So, yes, their interests would be served quite well.

Aside from political pressure, economic pressure, the force of tradition... governments do not, by and large, require permanent standing militaries in order to enforce laws.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Why would they be in a "poor political situatuion"? Assasination tends to produce sympathy towards the victims.

Slagging a Senate building in response to an untracable assassination, as you suggest? That's politically untenable.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Henry Ford disagrees with you.

Nah. 90+% of the parts of any ship are mass-produced, and ISDs are too big to fit on a nice assembly line for batch production.The advantages of assembly-line production and bulk production are already applied to large warships as much as possible.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
I ask you what examples and materials support Starbase 74 like stations being armed and your answer is "TNG etc."? Surely you can do better. Like providing the names of specific episodes and dialouge quotes. And sure you made nice excuses for Kirk and Kim but still that doesn't change the fact no weapons and shields were observed.

Nice strawman. I didn't say that no starbases have weapons merely that there is no evidence that those largest starbases have them. Not only do you have no evidence for that but you don't even have evidence that the largest starbases were anywhere near the fron lines nor do you have any evidence they have any function other than drydocks and recreational facilities.

No it isn't. Scientific method is the foundation of scientific enterprise. Common sense are beliefs that are held to be true by most of the population. And you again try to distort my argument. I never said that no Federation starbases have shields/weapons only that we never saw those largest starbases demonstrate anything of the sort.

Actually, the largest starbases were right by the action. (E.g., there are stations in Sol system.) They are critical administrative, judicial, medical, supply, and construction facilities.

Their drydock capabilities alone make them priority targets in times of war.

Common sense is coming to the conclusion that would "commonly" be reached by consensus given broad availability of the information. Science, taken as a whole, works the same way. It's really very simple:

If the largest starbases were unprotected, they would be easy targets. All other classes of starbase, ranging from scientific outposts to retrofitted Cardassian mining stations to 357-type Starbases, have demonstrated weaponry and shielding. There are therefore two very good reasons to conclude that the largest starbases will be armed, both by empirical precedent (other starbases) and by direct logical deduction (if the largest starbases were undefended, they would have been attacked and easily destroyed in times of war. They were not attacked in the Dominion War, any of.the Federation-Klingon wars, etc, ergo they are defended.) Combined with the absence of any solid reasons for them not to be armed/shielded, common sense dictates we take the obvious conclusion to be true until a compelling reason otherwise arises.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
No you haven't. Or can you quote yourself from previous posts?

I can, and I have repeated myself the last several times you asked that question. At this point, you just seem to be trolling. Knock it off.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
The very presence or the fact that it was following them? I don't recall anyone specifying that it was the "very presence" that got them so surprised rather than the fact it was chasing them.

No, as soon as they found out there was a cruiser in the neighborhood, the panicking commenced. Then the pursuit.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
They went down the list. Could it be from the pursuing ships? No, TIEs can't go into hyperspace. Native to the system? No, there are no Imperial bases anywhere near Alderaan. Hm, maybe it was with a convoy and got lost... it was a mystery to them until the Death Star showed up.

All they said was that it is a short range fighter who couldn't have gone so deep into space alone. They simply didn't detect any Imperial ships at that particular time being in system so they wondered how it got there. The fact that there is no base in Alderaan doesn't mean that there are no patrol ships there, patrol ships which would naturally evacuate before Death Star used it's superlaser.
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Not once did the possibility that this might be a fighter belonging to a ship on a regular patrol of Alderaan arise.

No it didn't since they detected no ships at the time. A "short range" fighter couldn't travel far away from it's mother ship wether that ship patrolled the area usually or not.

Incorrect. Read the novelization, it spends two pages on their curiousity and speculation. Not once did the possibility that it might be from a patrolling ship arise. Not once, even though there could have been one nearby and simply not yet registering on their scans.

It's very simple, and comes out particularly solidly in the EU: The Empire has a very thin presence.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Either the Death Star was in a geostationary orbit (possible if Endor met the right criterion, or poorly displayed - this is one of the reasons for criticizing the 5,000 km orbit you claimed) or held up by giant repulsors - which would be cancelling the effects of Endor's gravity. The fact that the Death Star's orbit isn't decaying means that all objects in and around the Death Star don't "feel" Endor's gravity, whether through lift effects or being in a geostationary orbit.

What criterions? Would it kill you to elaborate on your theories? Perform some calculations? And why would repulsorlift cancel out the gravity? The landing pads on Coruscant which are suspended in the air by repulsorlifts don't cancel out the gravity of the planet.

Proper combination of size and density, Kane. You should be able to work out the math yourself as far as a few examples.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
No we don't. Could we build this on surface:
It would crumble in seconds. "Holds things in place" indeed.

Actually, we could build that fairly easily on the surface. The question of the structure holding together in gravity is another matter: The ISS isn't designed to.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
But there will be pressure and it will complicate the process of building rather than making it easier as you claim.

Pressure is only a problem if you have too much or not enough to the point of causing destruction.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Devilishly tricky huh? Is that an objective analyisis? What is so tricky about building a structure in space?

Accidentally nudging something and then spending 30 mins carefully drifting it back into place. Explosive decompression. Hard rads. Having to hold things together instead of having them stay put. Micrometorites.

You can compensate for all of these technologically, but it's still a fuss.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Are there any limits on size or shape of the building? Do we have to worry about stress limits of materials or their load bearing areas? No because there are no forces acting upon it in free fall. The only "tricky" thing is get the materials into orbit. And guess whose fault is that: gravities.

Do you have to worry about stress limits or load bearing? Yes, because the structure will undergo stresses when it moves, rotates, turns on artificial gravity, etc.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jedi Council is subordinate to the Senate so the fact the Jedi Council wasn't informed does not mean senators didn't know.

Actually, given the Jedi Council keeps things secret better and many Senators consult with the Council, I'd say the Jedi Council is more likely to know. Especially given the Senate showed no signs of learning until told by the Jedi Council.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Actually it represented the industrial capacity of a single company of a single planet not even a part of Republic which was so inconsequential no one noticed it was erased from the maps unti Obi-Wan investigated it. Far cry from "most of military production of the Empire" that you claim Death Star took up.

For a galaxy at peace and an unarmed republic, a single planet may represent the better part of legitimate military production.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Can you explain how do you get from "cannot trace ships accurately" into "cannot trace shipsat all"?

Simple. If you can't track a ship accurately, you can't track what system it goes to. Inability to track ships accurately is inability to effectively track ships.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Sure it does. All you need to do is sent a ship that is faster than a freighter in order to follow it.

And sneaky enough to not be noticed. And enough to follow most of the freighters. And somehow capable of tracking throuh hyperspace without being tracked. Etc. Another practical impossibility

At that point, it's easier to try and install tracking devices. The incredibly difficult nature of this class of project means you wouldn't attempt to track all Imperial freight unless you already knew something was amiss - which presupposes that you already know there's a Death Star project going on. Let's face it - you don't casually notice that 50% of Imperial military freight winds up at a single destination.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
I kept using 50% of military as an example but actually with 50% of military production diverted to Death Star it would still leave 50% of military production left for smaller ships which results in tens of millions of ships. Even at 10% of military production diverted to the fleet we are still talking about over million of ISDs.

Kane, this has already been explained at great length. A Death Star does not necessarily equal its gross volume in ISDs in terms of cost - a better estimation is thousands or tens of thousands of times the cost.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
But to get back on the issue at hand explain how exactly are they going to explain away more then 50% loss. Piracy? What percentage exactly do you expect them to be able to explain away through piracy? Through inefficiency or bad product bathces? What percentage exactly? How much do you think will be credible. I sure as hell would never buy it and I'm no military expert.

You can easily "slight-of-hand" away as much as 10% through immediately citing any one of the following reasons:

  • Piracy.
  • Bureaucratic error.
  • Corruption.
  • Quality control issues.
  • Unanticipated demand shifts.
  • Obsolescence.
  • Stockpiling reserves for later.
  • Back-ups at the production lines.
  • Denial that anything is wrong.
  • Design errors.
  • Breakdowns in the field and recalls.
  • Early replacement/overhaul cycles elsewhere.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
Is this what you call a rational discussion? You trying to concoct far flung explanation on how Death Star could've been kept secret even while consuming a vast proportion of total industry? When the simple explanation is right in front of us, namely the fact that Imperial industrial capacity is simply large enough to cover up for the production of Death Star.

The simple explanation is that nobody would have noticed in the first place, because they had no means to compare.
Kane Starkiller wrote:
What original total? Military capacity? Why wouldn't citizens/Rebels know the rough military capacity of their own state?

Because their own state was pretty peaceful and then suddenly militarized. The frame of reference has shifted far too much.


Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:39 am
Profile WWW
Jedi Knight
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
Posts: 380
Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world
Reply with quote
Post 
If "a huge army" in Star Wars consists of <200,000 ground troops (clones fly the LAATs, drive the walkers, and maybe operate the Acclamators on top of being the infantry force) then is it logical to assume that there are 100,000s to millions of naval ships at the republic's disposal? That would mean that there are more than a thousand times as many naval personnel as soldiers. Over course I realize that the Empire is much more militaristic that the Old Republic. But the difference between the Clone War Republic and the Empire isn't many orders of magnitude. Also I was wondering were the notion of ~5,000 republic ships in the RotS opening battle comes from.


Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:18 am
Profile
Security Officer

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5722
Reply with quote
Post 
The 5,000 ship count for the Battle of Courscant comes from backstage information, not any spoken dialog, or visually confirmed accounting from the RoTS movie itself. Nor is there any ship count given in the RoTS novelization. So from a strict canon standpoint, there are only about 100 visually confirmable starships (at least the last count I attempted) total present at the Battle of Courscant from both sides (which would be the largest known fleets so far seen in the SW movie trilogies).
-Mike


Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:58 pm
Profile
Security Officer

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5722
Reply with quote
Post 
Quote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:

I'd like to thank you for drawing my attention to that shot. It can be analyzed very usefully with some attention to detail.


Not a problem. The detail available in the Trekcore screen caps makes it clear that this is a large number of ships. More than just a mere couple hundred or so, and since we are not seeing the entirety of Cardassia in this shot, it only sets a lower limit to the number of ships that the Dominion had assembled to blockade the planet from the Federation and allied fleet.


Quote:
Off the top of my head, I can estimate that roughly 1,000 ships were visible in those shots. Of course, we already had a firm figure for the Dominion fleet earlier in the war (30,000), but it's nice to see visuals that actually match with those fleet totals.



The high quality of the screencaps makes it possible to see the fleet stretched out across the planet from limb-to-limb starting as little tiny dots forming a sizable "cloud" of starships, all the way to yet another "cloud off in the far distance on the other side. I don't think we've ever seen anything like that as far as large fleets in all of live action SF.

Quote:
The comparison to the TPM shots is particularly dramatic.


Indeed. Given scalings of the massive Dominion starships, their numbers and sizes are more than a match for the TF battleships seen in the TPM Naboo blockade. That the Federation and allied fleet could surround Cardassia and contain the Dominion fleet is really quite impressive.
-Mike


Mon Sep 04, 2006 8:12 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=22&start=45
www.starfleetjedi.net
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-30
260245
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:3H227EO2AH2UM3YAYVUK3E56R4ZS3DGK
<urn:uuid:631d3284-166e-47ef-914d-87bd9b9ddf6f>
2017-07-24T14:29:12Z
72.167.183.42
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:JZ6BY4J7SUNPF4EZL2T4HBLEJOLJMCK3
<urn:uuid:59eb5793-c410-4cdd-a1f2-dc0b17855aad>
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=22&start=45
length
response
<urn:uuid:183192cf-67f4-469b-9004-2b267ccaa8da>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-65-75-106.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-30
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf