Scifi TV Discussion Thread

[Wisconsin9]

lulwat

Dude, one Star Wars capital ship can glass a planet in a day. I love both franchises, but SW tech is ludicrously OP.

And a ship in ST about the size of the NX-01 irradiated a planet the size of Earth...

I can't come up with a response to this until I'm reminded what episode it was.

[New haven america]

And a ship in ST about the size of the NX-01 irradiated a planet the size of Earth...

I can't come up with a response to this until I'm reminded what episode it was.

DS9-Season 5 episode 13

[Tarsonis Survivors]

And a ship in ST about the size of the NX-01 irradiated a planet the size of Earth...

I can't come up with a response to this until I'm reminded what episode it was.

I

I've forgotten the episode. What was the name?

DS9 5x13 "For the Uniform"

[Wisconsin9]

I can't come up with a response to this until I'm reminded what episode it was.

DS9-Season 5 episode 13

Ah. And it looks like what he used to irradiate the planet was effective specifically against planets, but fairly useless against ships. Turbolasers make no distinction.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

DS9-Season 5 episode 13

Ah. And it looks like what he used to irradiate the planet was effective specifically against planets, but fairly useless against ships. Turbolasers make no distinction.

Except lasers would be useless against federation shields, no matter how Turbo they are. Phasers are much more powerful than simple lasers.

[Wisconsin9]

Ah. And it looks like what he used to irradiate the planet was effective specifically against planets, but fairly useless against ships. Turbolasers make no distinction.

Except lasers would be useless against federation shields, no matter how Turbo they are. Phasers are much more powerful than simple lasers.

Did you miss the bit where I mentioned that small ship guns in SW have the equivalent yield of thermonuclear weapons?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Except lasers would be useless against federation shields, no matter how Turbo they are. Phasers are much more powerful than simple lasers.

Did you miss the bit where I mentioned that small ship guns in SW have the equivalent yield of thermonuclear weapons?

Except they don't. BDZ takes multiple SD ships which are larger, about twice as large as the Enterprise E.

The Defiant would cut through a standard SD, with its much more advanced particle based weaponry.

[Wisconsin9]

Did you miss the bit where I mentioned that small ship guns in SW have the equivalent yield of thermonuclear weapons?

Except they don't. BDZ takes multiple SD ships which are larger, about twice as large as the Enterprise E.

The Defiant would cut through a standard SD, with its much more advanced particle based weaponry.

The fact that they can do it at all is a testament to how much power they have.

Just take a quick look through that, 'kay?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Except they don't. BDZ takes multiple SD ships which are larger, about twice as large as the Enterprise E.

The Defiant would cut through a standard SD, with its much more advanced particle based weaponry.

The fact that they can do it at all is a testament to how much power they have.

Just take a quick look through that, 'kay?

I'd have to seriously challenge the physics involved there with SW claims.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Except they don't. BDZ takes multiple SD ships which are larger, about twice as large as the Enterprise E.

The Defiant would cut through a standard SD, with its much more advanced particle based weaponry.

The fact that they can do it at all is a testament to how much power they have.

Just take a quick look through that, 'kay?

Also I was just doing some calculations, those conversions he uses are horribly off.

[New haven america]

DS9-Season 5 episode 13

Ah. And it looks like what he used to irradiate the planet was effective specifically against planets, but fairly useless against ships. Turbolasers make no distinction.

Turbolasers=/=Phasers
Turbolasers can't break through ST's shields, phasers however can. Trying to use a Turbolaser to destroy a Galaxy, Sovereign, or even something like a Defiant class ships is basically like using a laser pointer. Unless SW ships had phasers they'd never be able to break though the shields.

[Wisconsin9]

Ah. And it looks like what he used to irradiate the planet was effective specifically against planets, but fairly useless against ships. Turbolasers make no distinction.

Turbolasers=/=Phasers
Turbolasers can't break through ST's shields, phasers however can. Trying to use a Turbolaser to destroy a Galaxy, Sovereign, or even something like a Defiant class ships is basically like using a laser pointer. Unless SW ships had phasers they'd never be able to break though the shields.

ST shields can withstand detonations in the range of hundreds of megatons?

Alright, fine, whatever. I'm going to bed.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Turbolasers=/=Phasers
Turbolasers can't break through ST's shields, phasers however can. Trying to use a Turbolaser to destroy a Galaxy, Sovereign, or even something like a Defiant class ships is basically like using a laser pointer. Unless SW ships had phasers they'd never be able to break though the shields.

ST shields can withstand detonations in the range of hundreds of megatons?

Alright, fine, whatever. I'm going to bed.

Not hundreds. like 6
The math is wrong on the page, second to second. It's not 300 Million GW against 3.5 GW its more like 25 million gw to 3.5 GW. That's still huge but that brings up more problems. In order to produce this a ship of equal size would need to produce 1,000,000 times more GWh in order to power their weapons. That's an enormous power differential that I don't see the SW ships pulling off. So I accuse SW of wankery.

[Wisconsin9]

ST shields can withstand detonations in the range of hundreds of megatons?

Alright, fine, whatever. I'm going to bed.

Not hundreds. like 6
The math is wrong on the page, second to second. It's not 300 Million GW against 3.5 GW its more like 25 million gw to 3.5 GW. That's still huge but that brings up more problems. In order to produce this a ship of equal size would need to produce 1,000,000 times more GWh in order to power their weapons. That's an enormous power differential that I don't see the SW ships pulling off. So I accuse SW of wankery.

Of course it's wankery. Star Wars runs on wankery. The whole universe is built on wankery. But the wankery is canonical.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Not hundreds. like 6
The math is wrong on the page, second to second. It's not 300 Million GW against 3.5 GW its more like 25 million gw to 3.5 GW. That's still huge but that brings up more problems. In order to produce this a ship of equal size would need to produce 1,000,000 times more GWh in order to power their weapons. That's an enormous power differential that I don't see the SW ships pulling off. So I accuse SW of wankery.

Of course it's wankery. Star Wars runs on wankery. The whole universe is built on wankery. But the wankery is canonical.

Well then ST can fire its prototype Quantum Ignore cannon at them and go on with their day.

[Wisconsin9]

Of course it's wankery. Star Wars runs on wankery. The whole universe is built on wankery. But the wankery is canonical.

Well then ST can fire its prototype Quantum Ignore cannon at them and go on with their day.

If you didn't want to compare the tech of the two franchises then you shouldn't have made this into a debate.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well then ST can fire its prototype Quantum Ignore cannon at them and go on with their day.

If you didn't want to compare the tech of the two franchises then you shouldn't have made this into a debate.

Well I wanted to, but realizing how inappropriately skewed and Wankified the SW tech is, I realized such a debate is stupid. ST at least has taken a lot of consideration into the science of the Universe, while SW does not.

I think the earlier description of ST being science fiction while SW is Science Fantasy, is quite spot on here.

[New haven america]

Found the complete series of TNG at Goodwill today.

Unfortunately this Goodwill is smart/cheapskate-ish and priced each set at 15$. >_>

[Wisconsin9]

If you didn't want to compare the tech of the two franchises then you shouldn't have made this into a debate.

Well I wanted to, but realizing how inappropriately skewed and Wankified the SW tech is, I realized such a debate is stupid. ST at least has taken a lot of consideration into the science of the Universe, while SW does not.

I think the earlier description of ST being science fiction while SW is Science Fantasy, is quite spot on here.

Star Trek has just as little actual science in it as Star Wars. The only difference between the two is that in Star Trek only the alien of the week can blow up planets. Honestly, if I had to choose which one has better science I'd give it to Star Wars. It may not go into the details of the tech, how it works and all that shit, but at least it doesn't throw out nonsense in an attempt to impress everyone with how much jargon it can meaninglessly string together.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well I wanted to, but realizing how inappropriately skewed and Wankified the SW tech is, I realized such a debate is stupid. ST at least has taken a lot of consideration into the science of the Universe, while SW does not.

I think the earlier description of ST being science fiction while SW is Science Fantasy, is quite spot on here.

Star Trek has just as little actual science in it as Star Wars. The only difference between the two is that in Star Trek only the alien of the week can blow up planets. Honestly, if I had to choose which one has better science I'd give it to Star Wars. It may not go into the details of the tech, how it works and all that shit, but at least it doesn't throw out nonsense in an attempt to impress everyone with how much jargon it can meaninglessly string together.

ST does gloss over some stuff true, like the Heissenburg Compensator, how does that work exactly?

But side by side ST has the better science IMHO

[Charellia]

Well I wanted to, but realizing how inappropriately skewed and Wankified the SW tech is, I realized such a debate is stupid. ST at least has taken a lot of consideration into the science of the Universe, while SW does not.

I think the earlier description of ST being science fiction while SW is Science Fantasy, is quite spot on here.

Star Trek has just as little actual science in it as Star Wars. The only difference between the two is that in Star Trek only the alien of the week can blow up planets. Honestly, if I had to choose which one has better science I'd give it to Star Wars. It may not go into the details of the tech, how it works and all that shit, but at least it doesn't throw out nonsense in an attempt to impress everyone with how much jargon it can meaninglessly string together.

That jargon usually does have some kind of scientific basis. Obviously it isn't perfectly grounded in reality (that would require every writer to have a degree in particle physics) but the jargon they are using usually bears some relevance to the actual scientific problem they are discussing.

[Wallenburg]

Well I wanted to, but realizing how inappropriately skewed and Wankified the SW tech is, I realized such a debate is stupid. ST at least has taken a lot of consideration into the science of the Universe, while SW does not.

I think the earlier description of ST being science fiction while SW is Science Fantasy, is quite spot on here.

Star Trek has just as little actual science in it as Star Wars. The only difference between the two is that in Star Trek only the alien of the week can blow up planets. Honestly, if I had to choose which one has better science I'd give it to Star Wars. It may not go into the details of the tech, how it works and all that shit, but at least it doesn't throw out nonsense in an attempt to impress everyone with how much jargon it can meaninglessly string together.

That's a good one, Wisconsin! You make me laugh.
Saying that the jargon makes ST look ridiculous is the equivalent of rejecting chemistry because the compound names are strange, and the chemical processes are hard to understand.
ST jargon does not retract from the show's quality; on the contrary, it helps it enormously. The show holds itself accountable to its rules (most of the time ), and any unexplainable plot devices are AT LEAST questioned by the community.
Meanwhile, Star Wars almost never explains its tech, using analogies and "The Force" to support everything. And why has technology stagnated for the last 10,000 years? That's just bad history, brudda.
There's nothing to celebrate in not explaining shit. While some ST concepts are unlikely, they are grounded in real physics. Theoretically, Star Trek could be our future. That's what makes it so enticing. It isn't a fantasy "long time ago in a galaxy far away". It feels real. It is an inspiring story, not a mindless shootout.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Star Trek has just as little actual science in it as Star Wars. The only difference between the two is that in Star Trek only the alien of the week can blow up planets. Honestly, if I had to choose which one has better science I'd give it to Star Wars. It may not go into the details of the tech, how it works and all that shit, but at least it doesn't throw out nonsense in an attempt to impress everyone with how much jargon it can meaninglessly string together.

That's a good one, Wisconsin! You make me laugh.
Saying that the jargon makes ST look ridiculous is the equivalent of rejecting chemistry because the compound names are strange, and the chemical processes are hard to understand.
ST jargon does not retract from the show's quality; on the contrary, it helps it enormously. The show holds itself accountable to its rules (most of the time ), and any unexplainable plot devices are AT LEAST questioned by the community.
Meanwhile, Star Wars almost never explains its tech, using analogies and "The Force" to support everything. And why has technology stagnated for the last 10,000 years? That's just bad history, brudda.
There's nothing to celebrate in not explaining shit. While some ST concepts are unlikely, they are grounded in real physics. Theoretically, Star Trek could be our future. That's what makes it so enticing. It isn't a fantasy "long time ago in a galaxy far away". It feels real. It is an inspiring story, not a mindless shootout.

Still waiting on an explanation for the Heisenberg compensator

[New haven america]

Well I wanted to, but realizing how inappropriately skewed and Wankified the SW tech is, I realized such a debate is stupid. ST at least has taken a lot of consideration into the science of the Universe, while SW does not.

I think the earlier description of ST being science fiction while SW is Science Fantasy, is quite spot on here.

Star Trek has just as little actual science in it as Star Wars. The only difference between the two is that in Star Trek only the alien of the week can blow up planets. Honestly, if I had to choose which one has better science I'd give it to Star Wars. It may not go into the details of the tech, how it works and all that shit, but at least it doesn't throw out nonsense in an attempt to impress everyone with how much jargon it can meaninglessly string together.

Fun fact(I know it's pretty late): ST actually hired A lot of scientists in separate fields( Chemist's, physicist's, astronomers/astrologers, mechanical engineer's, etc...) to do research and model the technology in ST.

So theoretically, most the technology in ST could be real(Or course, it's not all grounded in reality, but still).

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Given that costume means suit in French, I'm willing to believe that when he called military uniforms "costumes", he had just forgotten the English word and called them suits in French.