Naw, the important question is:
Who would win in a fight, Paul Atraides or Captain Kirk?
Don’t confuse “Spice” with “spice”. “spice” (with a lower-case S) is the stuff we put in spaghetti sauce here on earth. “Spice” (with an upper-case S) is a slang term for a drug that happens to be mined. Just like how aspirin and heroin are both “drugs”.
How the hell is that wrong? There’re windows on the space shuttle, aren’t there? There’ve been windows on spacefaring vessels since the Russians put the first cosmonaut in orbit. (Of course, I would like to point out that in both sci-fi series, “windows” aren’t made of glass or plastic, but transparent metals).
That’s correct, if both ships were one-dimensional. However, not only is a Star Destroyer about 2.5X longer, it’s also wider and taller. In addition, the Enterprise’s shape is very odd… it doesn’t “fill up” as much as the Star Destroyer does. In short, a Star Destroyer, while only 2.5X (roughly) the length of the Enterprise, has far more than 2.5X the volume.
Actually, we do know the interior of an ISD. It was presented to us in the Incredible Cross-Sections book (which also has an incredibly stunning cross-section display of the friggin’ Death Star… it’s HUGE, man, HUGE!)
Nope. Anakin’s dad was the shit pulled out of George Lucas’s ass (a “virgence” in the Force? “midichlorians”?!?!? What was he thinking?!?!?)
Star Wars:
Spice is a something you mine.
Don’t confuse “Spice” with “spice”. “spice” (with a lower-case S) is the stuff we put in spaghetti sauce here on earth. “Spice” (with an upper-case S) is a slang term for a drug that happens to be mined. Just like how aspirin and heroin are both “drugs”.
I don’t get this. We mine aspirin and heroin?
What’s next, the minerals we take for our health are actual minerals? :)
But seriously folks – Spice (with an upper-case S) is actually a drug slang term? By who? Where did this come from, the same no-prizer that came up with the Kessel run/parsec explanation?
quote:
Both: you have windows on spaceships!
How the hell is that wrong? There’re windows on the space shuttle, aren’t there? There’ve been windows on spacefaring vessels since the Russians put the first cosmonaut in orbit. (Of course, I would like to point out that in both sci-fi series, “windows” aren’t made of glass or plastic, but transparent metals).
Oh boy. Sigh.
First, you don’t put something as valuable as the bridge near the vulnerable outer deck of a space ship
Second, what can a bridge crew possibly see with the naked eye that they could not perceive better with instruments?
Third, we have windows on the shuttle because a) tradition and emotion, b) it is also an atmospheric craft, not only a space craft. Space craft don’t need windows, and, as a matter of fact, should not have them.
Transparent metal does not enter into it.
quote:
So, using a simple algebra technique:
to get even half the same living/working/playing space the Federation people have, the Imperials have to be short. About 30 cm tall.
That’s correct, if both ships were one-dimensional. However, not only is a Star Destroyer about 2.5X longer, it’s also wider and taller. In addition, the Enterprise’s shape is very odd… it doesn’t “fill up” as much as the Star Destroyer does. In short, a Star Destroyer, while only 2.5X (roughly) the length of the Enterprise, has far more than 2.5X the volume.
OK
Double the size, eight times the volume, right?
So the ISP can handle 10,000 people, easy. Not 45,000. Unless they’re short.
quote:
We know the interior or the Enterprise, which is quite lush, but not the ISD’s.
Actually, we do know the interior of an ISD. It was presented to us in the Incredible Cross-Sections book (which also has an incredibly stunning cross-section display of the friggin’ Death Star… it’s HUGE, man, HUGE!)
Sorry, a reference I don’t have access to, I’ll take your word on it. But, do they happen to mention a scale on the legend? One that we can relate to?
We know that ST people are normal size because historical figures have come through with no discernable size difference.
quote:
But the big question is who is Anikan (Darth Vader) Skywalker’s dad. Easy. Paul Atraides.
Nope. Anakin’s dad was the shit pulled out of George Lucas’s ass (a “virgence” in the Force? “midichlorians”?!?!? What >was he thinking?!?!?)
___________________________________________________________________
You aint’t kidding. Pissed me off. Force should not be measurable by an instrument. You just feel it.
More later,
Vahktang
HI: What would a pantheist yell during sex?
“Hey Everybody- Look at me!!”
Re: Quantifiables
quote:
Originally posted by Vahktang
But the big question is who is Anikan (Darth Vader) Skywalker’s dad. Easy. Paul Atraides.
Naw, the important question is:
Who would win in a fight, Paul Atraides or Captain Kirk?
Easy. Paul.
More psychic type powers.
Has that shield thingy that stops everything except slow blows - and when Kirk is slow it’s not in battle.
Tougher - the new Freman regimene and diet
but, the number one reason why Paul would win:
Better written.
I am certain Ellison would agree.
More later,
Vahktang
Man, you people sure know how to keep a post going long. I read about half of it, then just gave up. Anyway, I find that Star Trek is slightly more advanced as compared to Star Wars, but the real difference between the two is that Star Wars is more magical and fantasy-oriented, whereas Star Trek has been more tacnologically oriented since the get-go. I sincerely doubt by any means that these 2 universes would clash any time soon (unless Q somehow warps them into the same place for some reason). Well, I’ll post more later.
You miss the point. Just because it’s called “spice” doesn’t mean that it’s really “the spice that we’re familiar with in our day to day lives here on Earth”. If you were to smoke a roach, you wouldn’t expect it to have six legs and a crunchy shell, would you?
Who came up with the idea to call marijuana “pot”? The earliest I can think of its consistent use right now was in Kevin J. Anderson’s Jedi Academy Trilogy, but I have no doubt that other writers’ have used it before him. In addition, the equivalent to us “hacking into a computer” is, in Star Wars, called “slicing”. And the word “stang” is a swearword (originating from Alderaan, actually). As are “Sithspawn”, “Sithspit”, or any number of other colorful phrases incorporating the word “Sith”.
No-prizer? I find it “no-prizer” to point to the so-called Parsec flaw. The Kessel Run flies by a black hole cluster. If you get too close, you get sucked in. The faster you’re going, the closer you can get. The closer you get, the shorter the Run is. Why is a corollary between speed and distance so hard to understand?
Why not? The ships’ sensors are situated on the outermost part of the ship (to avoid getting interference from the ship itself). If the Bridge were placed a significant distance away from these sensors, the likelihood of the connection between Bridge and sensors being disrupted increases. If the Bridge and sensors were right next to each other, there’s a shorter distance of connection cables/plasma conduits/whatevers, thus making a lower likelihood of disconnection. If they lose sensors during a battle, Star Wars or Star Trek, they’re screwed.
[quoote]Second, what can a bridge crew possibly see with the naked eye that they could not perceive better with instruments?
[/quote]
In the cases of both Star Wars and Star Trek, the main view panels also act as large television screens (this was demonstrated, for SW at least, in Timothy Zahn’s Thrawn trilogy). In short, it provides the sensors an output for which to transmit data readily to the Bridge crew’s eyes.
Forgive my skepticism, but I highly doubt that you’re an authority figure on spacecraft. Moreover, I highly doubt that you’ve had any consultation with authority figures of that sort. As such, I’m very hesitant to give this claim any sort of credence.
Take a look at the Enterprise. If it were place in a box, the vast majority of that box would be empty space. If a Star Destroyer were placed in a box, there’d be significantly less empty space.
In addition, the ISD is a more efficient design, volume-wise. The only really bulky section of the Enterprise is the saucer section. Everything side from that is very small… the neck can’t be more than a few dozen meters wide.
In short, you have to look at ALL the dimensions of a vessel to determine the volume. An ISD is much longer, much wider, and much taller, and takes up more space per dimension than the Enterprise does.
Also, keep in mind that the Enterprise is a diplomatic vessel, while the ISD is an instrument of war. As a diplomatic vessel, more of the space on the Enterprise will go over towards comfort and luxuries, while the quarters in an ISD will be significantly more spartan.
You answered your own question. I believe you’d be surprised to find out how many people can be squeezed into a kilometer. 
It’s shinier, most definitely, but just about all the technologies in Star Trek (replicators, teleporters, etc. etc.) have been duplicated to some degree in Star Wars, the main difference between the two being that SW has a much grungier take on such things than ST. (For example, the only mention I’ve found of teleporters being used in SW was as an act in a traveling theatre group. Apparently, the commonality of SW peoples have decided that teleportation is too dangerous… and given the amount of transporter mishaps that happen in Star Trek, I’m inclined to agree with them).
In addition, SW greatly exceeds ST technology in several areas: Hyperspace, a much faster form of travel than warp; the common proliferation of Data-level artificial intelligences; shield technology, which has shown to be more reliable than those in ST (where a ship very often gets damaged before the shields are even halfway depleted); communication, such as the Holo-net, which provides instantaneous communication anywhere in the galaxy. In fact, about the only category that ST seems to beat SW out appears to be multitasking… each ship seems capable of emitting hundreds of different energy fields, and apparently, the ships’ main sensor dish can be used for an endless number of purposes
Well, yes and no. It really depends on which episode/aspect of the series you’re talking about. Surely, in Star Wars, there’s a huge emphasis on The Force (life energy, blah blah blah), but the difference between fantastic and technological aspects in Star Wars are generally very clear-cut… never the twain shall meet, that sort of thing. In Star Trek, the technology and fantasy are continually intertwined, and the blend together (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse). So it’s not a matter of one series having more of something than the other, it’s how each aspect is handled.
(As I press the Reply button, I take note that this post is pretty damn long…)
My comment:
Space craft don’t need windows, and, as a matter of fact, should not have them.
His comment:
Forgive my skepticism, but I highly doubt that you’re an authority figure on spacecraft. Moreover, I highly doubt that you’ve had any consultation with authority figures of that sort. As such, I’m very hesitant to give this claim any sort of credence.
My reply:
My apologies. I did not realize that one had to be an authority figure to use logic.
And I did not realize that experts or those that consult with experts are the only ones who can post here.
I’ll leave quietly.
No more later,
Vahktang
My comment:
Space craft don’t need windows, and, as a matter of fact, should not have them.
His comment:
Forgive my skepticism, but I highly doubt that you’re an authority figure on spacecraft. Moreover, I highly doubt that you’ve had any consultation with authority figures of that sort. As such, I’m very hesitant to give this claim any sort of credence.
My reply:
My apologies. I did not realize that one had to be an authority figure to use logic.
And I did not realize that experts or those that consult with experts are the only ones who can post here.
I’ll leave quietly.
No more later,
Vahktang
My comment:
Space craft don’t need windows, and, as a matter of fact, should not have them.
His comment:
Forgive my skepticism, but I highly doubt that you’re an authority figure on spacecraft. Moreover, I highly doubt that you’ve had any consultation with authority figures of that sort. As such, I’m very hesitant to give this claim any sort of credence.
My reply:
My apologies. I did not realize that one had to be an authority figure to use logic.
And I did not realize that experts or those that consult with experts are the only ones who can post here.
I’ll leave quietly.
No more later,
Vahktang
Oh, stop whining. You claim that spacecraft don’t need windows, when reality shows that, yes, they do. Don’t make claims that you have no way of backing up, even in a thread that deals with fiction.
Damn straight.
quote:
My apologies. I did not realize that one had to be an authority figure to use logic.
And I did not realize that experts or those that consult with experts are the only ones who can post here.
Oh, stop whining. You claim that spacecraft don’t need windows, when reality shows that, yes, they do. Don’t make claims that you have no way of backing up, even in a thread that deals with fiction.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>Good. Cool. Thanks.
> And I back up my arguments with logic, math, reason, resources, observation, deduction, etc.
Just like experts would.
> Now, there don’t seem to be any experts on this planet on kilometer and a half, hyperdrive driven, tie fighter holding star craft.
> So my opinion is as good as any and better than most.
> Star craft don’t need windows and should not have them except in a decorative capacity, which don’t belong on a bridge.
> To comment upon your points (as comments upon my points)
quote:
First, you don’t put something as valuable as the bridge near the vulnerable outer deck of a space ship
Why not?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> If the bridge gets taken out, you’re in deep kimshi.
> If it is on the hull, it is much easier to take out.
> If it has hulls, decks, bulkheads between it and what is shooting at them, it is much harder to take out.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The ships’ sensors are situated on the outermost part of the ship (to avoid getting interference from the ship itself). If the Bridge were placed a significant distance away from these sensors, the likelihood of the connection between Bridge and sensors being disrupted increases.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> The ship is a kilometer and a half long. The bridge is already ‘a significant distance away from these sensors’. If the bridge was more centrally located, disruption likelihood would decrease.
> Why? A shot takes out part of the hull and some connections 10 meters from the bridge. The sensors linked to that connection are lost.
> Central bridge. Hull shot as above, no loss because the connections are behind decks and bulkheads away from the hull.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If the Bridge and sensors were right next to each other, there’s a shorter distance of connection cables/plasma conduits/whatevers, thus making a lower likelihood of disconnection.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> The signals between the sensors and the viewscreens, whatevers travel at lightspeed or faster. Distance at this size is not a factor.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If they lose sensors during a battle, Star Wars or Star Trek, they’re screwed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>If they lose sensors during a battle you are screwed, window or not. What are you going to tell the gunnery officer:
“Shoot over there. More to the right.”
“Uh, your right or my right, sir?”
“My right, or course.”
“Missed.”
>Continue until you are destroyed or sensors are fixed.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[quoote]Second, what can a bridge crew possibly see with the naked eye that they could not perceive better with instruments?
>You didn’t answer this point.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the cases of both Star Wars and Star Trek, the main view panels also act as large television screens (this was demonstrated, for SW at least, in Timothy Zahn’s Thrawn trilogy). In short, it provides the sensors an output for which to transmit data readily to the Bridge crew’s eyes.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> So it is a sensor screen. Good. Why is it a window? Why is the bridge on the hull when it would be safer, make more sense to put it on the interior of the ship.
> So, I put it to you:
> Why put the bridge on the hull on a starship?
> Why put a window on the bridge?
> Remember, this is science, logic, etc.
>On to other things:
quote:
I don’t get this. We mine aspirin and heroin?
What’s next, the minerals we take for our health are actual minerals?
You miss the point. Just because it’s called “spice” doesn’t mean that it’s really “the spice that we’re familiar with in our day to day lives here on Earth”. If you were to smoke a roach, you wouldn’t expect it to have six legs and a crunchy shell, would you?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Yes, I did. I had a little smiley face after my comment. And my next comment was:
quote:
But seriously folks – Spice (with an upper-case S) is actually a drug slang term? By who?
Who came up with the idea to call marijuana “pot”? The earliest I can think of its consistent use right now was in Kevin J. Anderson’s Jedi Academy Trilogy, but I have no doubt that other writers’ have used it before him. In addition, the equivalent to us “hacking into a computer” is, in Star Wars, called “slicing”. And the word “stang” is a swearword (originating from Alderaan, actually). As are “Sithspawn”, “Sithspit”, or any number of other colorful phrases incorporating the word “Sith”.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> You’re right. I bow to your superior knowledge and resources on this.
quote:
Where did this come from, the same no-prizer that came up with the Kessel run/parsec explanation?
No-prizer? I find it “no-prizer” to point to the so-called Parsec flaw. The Kessel Run flies by a black hole cluster. If you get too close, you get sucked in. The faster you’re going, the closer you can get. The closer you get, the shorter the Run is. Why is a corollary between speed and distance so hard to understand?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Because the usage is not normal, and the example is exceptional.
> Would one say that one could get from Point A to Point B by using all these secret shortcuts that only I know in X miles or under Y time?
> I can get from Hartford to Boston in 132 miles or under two hours?
> A no-prize was invented by Stan Lee of Marvel comics. It is a compliment to fans who come up with logical explanations for mistakes made by the writers, artists, etc of the comic books.
> We all know that Lucas gaffed when he wrote about the Kessel Run. But the explanation finally given is acceptable and we now do so.
quote:
Double the size, eight times the volume, right?
So the ISP can handle 10,000 people, easy. Not 45,000. Unless they’re short.
Take a look at the Enterprise. If it were place in a box, the vast majority of that box would be empty space. If a Star Destroyer were placed in a box, there’d be significantly less empty space.
In addition, the ISD is a more efficient design, volume-wise. The only really bulky section of the Enterprise is the saucer section. Everything side from that is very small… the neck can’t be more than a few dozen meters wide.
In short, you have to look at ALL the dimensions of a vessel to determine the volume. An ISD is much longer, much wider, and much taller, and takes up more space per dimension than the Enterprise does.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>I got this from http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire.html
>If you know a better source with better numbers, just plug those in:
However, a lone ISD is still an impressive sight for primitive cultures, who are generally incapable of constructing a vessel on that scale … Its length is approximately 1600 metres, and its volume is approximately 9E7 m³.
> According to my handy dandy HP calculator, if we divide the volume by the number of crew and passengers (45,000) then give them a 3 m ceiling (not unreasonable, as we have seen) we get a personal space of 26 m X 26 m.
> Pace it off sometime.
> Then put in that space where you sleep, where you eat, where you work, where you entertain or are entertained. Then put where your food is prepared, where the raw materials are stored (for six years), the parts of the engine that move you, keep your air circulating, your wastes recycling. Then add the corridors that lead to all that and more that I did not comment on.
> Not much space to live in, is it?
quote:
But, do they happen to mention a scale on the legend? One that we can relate to?
We know that ST people are normal size because historical figures have come through with no discernable size difference.
You answered your own question. I believe you’d be surprised to find out how many people can be squeezed into a kilometer.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> I did? So there is a relatable scale on the legend of the SW diagram.
And I am aware just how many people one can comfortably squeeze into a kilometer cubed. Asimov did a rather good story on that once.
More later,
Vahktang
PS - And I will no longer post things three times. Sorry.
PPS - Can we get entered into some ‘net award category as ‘nerdiest thing on the ‘net’?
I think in a boarding action the Federation would kick ass. Compare the hand weapons - those stormtroopers have guns the size of a small carbine or a large SMG that shoot bolts that punch holes in things. Princess Leia was hit by one and survived. The Federation has tiny pistols that make you glow and then disappear. No contest.
I read through the first 4 pages and then jumped to the last page.
I want to bring up something that I don’t think’s been discussed (unless it was in the last 4 pages).
Accuracy.
Of the respective weapons, not this thread.
In the SW movies, the blasters / turbo lasers miss a lot. In STTNG, I can’t remember the Enterprise ever missing it’s target. I may be wrong about that, though.
OT: That explanation of the Kessel run / parsec goof is pretty good. Nice way to cover for some writer (coughLucascough) who can’t be bothered to research the meaning of a word. I’m surprised that he didn’t use light-year as a measure of time.
Sorry, but Jar-Jar Binks and the Ewoks left me hating Lucas.